Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd T.NDM

RE:RE:stargazer123 on investorshub

[NocturnalAnimal]

He is back with a note THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED!
PLEASE AND THANK YOU.

:-)


This will be important for NAK. Our permit was denied while Trump is still President, but it was denied when it appeared certain the Biden would win. Trump is for Pebble, his son is an environmentalist and is against it, but Trump sees the importance of our rare earth metals and other strategic metals, and when it is pointed out to his son how Pebble is vital to the greening of America, and how it will NOT harm the Bristol Bay area, or the salmon, then he may be for the mine and can loudly say why and convince other environmentalists.

Biden has come out and said that he will shut down the mine.

If Trump wins, we win.

Here is a strong case for why Trump may win. THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED!
PLEASE AND THANK YOU.

Included are sections from the lawsuit.

According to the U.S. Constitution, election laws of states can only be changed by state legislatures. But in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the Governors, by edict, because of the pandemic, said that residents could vote by mail-in-ballot instead of in person. Their laws, prior to that, had allowed only special cases to use mail-in ballots, such as persons confined for medical reasons.

In addition to that, the governors did not include the safeguards that have been mandated with mail-in voting, such as requiring signature verification and address verification.

A lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seeks to invalidate the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because, as Paxton alleges, those states exploited “the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election.” Paxton wants all the mail-in votes invalidated. 

Texas senator, Ted Cruz, a constitutional scholar, and a lawyer who has successfully adjudicated cases before the Supreme Court, will present the case for Texas. 18 other states have now filed Friends of the Court Briefs with Texas, as did President Trump Wednesday.

It was these mail-in ballots, that arrived during the night after the election, and which were supposedly 90% for Biden, that gave him the win. Prior to that, Trump was ahead by 700,000 votes in Pennsylvania.

According to the constitution, when one state sues another state, or states, the lawsuit goes straight to the Supreme Court without delay.

What is interesting in this instance is that the Supreme Court, instead of just setting a date to hear the case, has notified the four states that they have until 3 PM today to explain to the court "why they took it upon themselves to supersede the Consitution."  

According to legal experts, that is a strong indication that the court is leaning towards siding with Texas in ruling against the four states!

If they don't give a satisfactory answer, the Supreme Court can rule against them without even bringing the lawsuit to court.

The court could rule the mail-in ballots void, or it could have the House of Representatives decide, for the four separate states, if their electoral votes should go to Biden or Trump. Because of districting, which was drawn up during the last census, Republicans will be in charge of deciding the electoral votes in all of the four states! In either case, Trump would end up with over 270 electoral votes.

Or the Supreme court could come up with some other ruling, or even decide to let the counts stand. But that last one is not likely because it would be against the Constitution.

This looks like there is actually a chance that Trump will win the election.

The media may say that that is moot because the electoral votes have to be tallied and decreed by December 14th. But oops, as has been previously pointed out in the media, the December 14th date is just a law made by Congress. This can be overruled. The only specific date in the Constitution is January 20, when a new president must be inaugurated.

Ted Cruz, who has previously won cases before the Supreme Court, knows the law, and the law won. In this case, the constitution will win. And it sounds like that is what the Justices are thinking.

Texas filed a 150-page brief, including: 

Texas reveals in its detailed summary of the facts, each of the defendant states, through non-legislative actors, nullified legislatively established election laws in violation of the Electors Clause. For example, several large Wisconsin counties used drop boxes in direct violation of the Wisconsin Election Code that provides detailed procedures by which municipalities may designate sites for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Wisconsin election officials also ignored the statutory certification requirements for absentee ballots, counting votes that the state legislature defined as illegal because they did not include a witness signature and address.

Michigan election officials likewise violated the statutory mandates established by the state legislature, with the secretary of state mass mailing absentee ballots in contravention of state law. And in Wayne County, the home of Detroit’s Democratic stronghold, election officials ignored the state’s signature verification requirement. 

Georgia also violated the legislature’s requirement for signature verifications, according to Texas’s complaint.

The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law.

In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president.

Texas argues in Count 2 that “equal protection violations in one State can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process.

Texas Is Not Seeking to Overturn the Election—Or Install Trump

These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.

No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”

The Texas attorney general’s legal team excelled in its briefing. With clear and striking facts and detailed and persuasive argument, Texas has made a solid case for Supreme Court involvement, and along the way, the legal team included some stellar quotes—some from years past and some new classics, such as this opener:

Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.
If the Supreme Court does intervene, it will indeed be “in the spirit of Marbury v. Madison,” as Texas put it.

In that case, NAK ALSO WINS! IF SO, HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS!

 

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=160084764

 

NocturnalAnimal wrote: CENSORSHIP WORKS!
Message 160078544 is deleted

There are comments (after 1 PM) related to this message at 

https://investorshub.advfn.com/Northern-Dynasty-Minerals-Ltd-NAK-9923/

NocturnalAnimal wrote: According to the U.S. Constitution, election laws of states can only be changed by state legislatures. But in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the Governors, by edict, because of the pandemic, said that residents could vote by mail-in-ballot instead of in person. Their laws, prior to that, had allowed only special cases to use mail-in ballots, such as persons confined for medical reasons.

In addition to that, the governors did not include the safeguards that have been mandated with mail-in voting, such as requiring signature verification and address verification.

A lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seeks to invalidate the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because, as Paxton alleges, those states exploited “the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election.” Paxton wants all the mail-in votes invalidated. 

Texas senator, Ted Cruz, a constitutional scholar, and a lawyer who has successfully adjudicated cases before the Supreme Court, will present the case for Texas. 18 other states have now filed Friends of the Court Briefs with Texas, as did President Trump Wednesday.

It was these mail-in ballots, that arrived during the night after the election, and which were supposedly 90% for Biden, that gave him the win. Prior to that, Trump was ahead by 700,000 votes in Pennsylvania.

According to the constitution, when one state sues another state, or states, the lawsuit goes straight to the Supreme Court without delay.

What is interesting in this instance is that the Supreme Court, instead of just setting a date to hear the case, has notified the four states that they have until 3 PM today to explain to the court "why they took it upon themselves to supersede the Consitution."  

According to legal experts, that is a strong indication that the court is leaning towards siding with Texas in ruling against the four states!

If they don't give a satisfactory answer, the Supreme Court can rule against them without even bringing the lawsuit to court.

The court could rule the mail-in ballots void, or it could have the House of Representatives decide, for the four separate states, if their electoral votes should go to Biden or Trump. Because of districting, which was drawn up during the last census, Republicans will be in charge of deciding the electoral votes in all of the four states! In either case, Trump would end up with over 270 electoral votes.

Or the Supreme court could come up with some other ruling, or even decide to let the counts stand. But that last one is not likely because it would be against the Constitution.

This looks like there is actually a chance that Trump will win the election.

The media may say that that is moot because the electoral votes have to be tallied and decreed by December 14th. But oops, as has been previously pointed out in the media, the December 14th date is just a law made by Congress. This can be overruled. The only specific date in the Constitution is January 20, when a new president must be inaugurated.

Ted Cruz, who has previously won cases before the Supreme Court, knows the law, and the law won. In this case, the constitution will win. And it sounds like that is what the Justices are thinking.

In that case, NAK ALSO WINS! IF SO, HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS!

 

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=160078544