Update on Patrick Byrne’s Case Against the USPS in Maryland

Talk about a cliffhanger! On the run in Dubai from the Venezuelan gangster government, that he claims has put a $25 million bounty on his head, Patrick Byrne has this follow-up to the video of almost 2 weeks ago, in which he broke down how the United States Postal Service (USPS) and the Service Empoyees International Union (SEIU), got 12-13 million fraudulent mail-in ballots into the 2020 Election and how they were finally able to get a federal judge in Maryland to grant an Emergency Injunction against the USPS, with the intent of removing this agency from the US Election process.

He doubted that they would achieve this, at this late stage in the game but he’d hoped to get the judge to agree to a “lesser remedy”, that would require radical transparency into everything the Postal Service is involved with, in moving ballots.

But as with so many 2020 Election Fraud cases, the judge refused to view the evidence and dismissed it, due to the Defendant’s “lack of standing” to file the case.

However, Patrick believes that this was an intentional lay-up – or what he calls a “T-Ball” – to now, take their case to the Appellate and Supreme Courts, because her decision contradicts the very strong Supreme Court precedent set by Baker v Carr, the 1962 voting rights case that established that appellants do have standing, if they can present sufficient evidence that their voting rights will suffer harm, if things aren’t changed.

Patrick has no shortage of extremely strong evidence of blatant election fraud and worse.

Her decision will come out on Monday, October 28th. Patrick says:

“We now have a clear Reversible Error, to take this to the Appellate and to the Supreme court – and it needs to do that, really, on an emergency basis, in the next 10 days…

“Judge Boardman may have done, not the bravest thing, but what she did was give us a very easy way – and clear way – to SCOTUS, to the Supreme Court…We really think that she did that on purpose, OK?

“So I’ll, I’ll publish the decision when it comes out on Monday and keep you informed, but we’ll be appealing it on Tuesday to the Appellate court and then to the Supreme Court.”

###

TRANSCRIPT

A trucker said something funny to me once at a craps table, at some grimy casino in northern Nevada. He, I just, I’d been rolling the dice long enough for me and him and all the other folks at the table to get a lot of bets out on the table, rolling around my point. And then I sevened-out. I sevened-out and this guy turned to me, he said, “Hey Buddy, if you can’t be good, be quick.”

That’s what my girlfriend always tells me, “If you can’t be good, be quick.” So I’ve always remembered that as a good principle at a craps table in the bedroom.

And I realized there’s a third place it applies and that is in a Federal court in Maryland, because the federal judge, Deborah Boardman, came in [to the hearing] on Friday and she gave a quick…dismissal of the case.

But in this case, it was so quick, it’s actually good and we’re not sure – she may have done us a favor – and I’m going to tell you what I mean:

So our reply had pointed-out – and because, it was done entirely on “standing”;…she came into the courtroom, she barely engaged with the lawyers and then she said, “I’ve made my decision” and she read her decision for 20 minutes and her decision was to dismiss our case asking for an injunction against the Postal Service, but she dismissed it purely on the grounds of “standing”.

Now, I want to read you from our reply to their response to us. The Defendant, basically are the Good Guys, that had argued that the Defendant, essentially redirects the Court’s attention away from the gravity of our complaint.

We’ve identified fundamental violations of fundamental rights and our complaint shows that the voting by mail-in ballots is an error-laden, hit-or-miss proposition and that hit-or-miss does not satisfy the required Constitutional standard.

She came back and said, “I’m not addressing –” and called out in court – “I’m not going to any of the evidence you’ve presented. I’m just simply saying you don’t have standing.”

Why that’s so odd and interesting is, it’s an absolutely reversible Judicial Error! There’s no question that there’s standing! I’m, I’m going to read you the case…

It was Baker v. Carr, ’62, a seminal voting rights case. The Supreme Court held that appellants do have standing, if they can present evidence that they are likely to suffer; that there’s sufficient evidence that they’re going to suffer harm if things aren’t changed in their voting rights.

If this is the right to vote and for your vote to be counted fairly, is a fundamental Constitutional Right, to have a system with integrity. It gives you standing to sue…

But she specifically said, “I’m not addressing the evidence that you’ve brought.”

What the Supreme Court has ruled in this seminal case, that if you can show a real possibility of an injury to your vote being counted fairly, you get standing.

She has said that…Brian Della Rocca, the lawyer who lives in Maryland who filed the case doesn’t have “standing”, but “she’s not addressing any of the evidence”…and she actually invited us to appeal.

We actually think she may have – kind of timidly – done us a favor, because, she made a Clear Error against a seminal Decision of the Supreme Court, in this famous case from 60 years ago.

So it’s kind of odd, that she did not engage with our lawyers – either side.

She just read her decision and then, basically invited; said, “I know you’re going to appeal this.”

And we’re reading this, as she planted in there, a real flaw in her decision…

All you have to show is the possibility of a substantial possibility or plausibility of suffering; an injury in voting, before the election…to have standing to sue.

You can’t expect people to do it after the election, when everything becomes moot and so on and so forth.

And we, very plausibly did that. I mean, just look at the other day, some Postal Worker got arrested for throwing away ballots!

But in addition, we have all this evidence from what happened in 2020 and accumulated and documented and very, very thorough and she basically is saying, “Notwithstanding that, you don’t have the standing to sue.”

Well, I would say that…we see it as a tee-ball. She has set up a tee-ball, to punch this straight to the Supreme Court, because she made a clear, Reversible Error.

We were kind of perplexed from the tone of the conversation – of the tone. We think that she may have planted that landmine there, but we now have a clear Reversible Error, to take this to the Appellate and to the Supreme court – and it needs to do that, really, on an emergency basis, in the next 10 days.

So the written decision is going to be delivered on Monday – but as I say, the worst thing that would have been for her to take a bunch of time and say, “I’m going to consider this,” or take a long hearing and say she was going to consider it.

She showed up at the hearing and had made a decision against us, but at the center of her decision is a theory that is completely at loggerheads with a very strong SCOTUS decision from 60 years ago, a seminal case in voting rights.

So what that does, is it gives us a fast-track to the Appellate and then the Supreme. She kind of did us a favor, in that regard.

She wasn’t brave enough to make the obvious decision, which is to, at least demand radical transparency from the Post Office, now – or the best thing would have been to say, “They [the USPS] can’t be involved.”

The second best thing would have been to say, “No, but a quick no, and here’s my reason for saying ‘no,'” – and that reason is right smack in the face of standing Supreme Court Precedence.

So I have to say, Judge Broadman may have done, not the bravest thing, but what she did was give us a very easy way – and clear way – to SCOTUS, to the Supreme Court…We really think that she did that on purpose, OK?

So I’ll, I’ll publish the decision when it comes out on Monday and keep you informed, but we’ll be appealing it on Tuesday to the Appellate court and then to the Supreme court.