Court Rules ‘Shocking Evidence of Ballot Fraud—Throws Out Election Results
By Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.
Since November 2020, issues related to election security have been put forth, along with evidence, demonstrating the electoral process in our nation has been severely compromised. We no longer have elections but selections, especially in key races across our country that could very well push back the flow of One-World Marxist government and the New-World Order. Courts have accepted election cases finding there was more than sufficient Probable Cause to accept such, but then dismissed cases for reasons other than a lack of evidence of fraud or security violations; rather political or administrative causes that leaves even the untrained in law scratching their head. Now comes a Judge, a Democrat Judge, who found “shocking Evidence of Democrat Ballot Fraud.”
This case is a huge break through! It might even provide other judges the backbone to stand against the diabolical political shenanigans so wrapped up within ballot and voting security issues. God Bless those who have fought the good fight over the past 2 ½ years attempting to return our electoral process to a secure model given to us by our founders to make our Republic a unique country. Arizona should be particularly excited, hopeful and grateful for this court decision. Arizona began the exposing of election fraud on November 30, 2020, and has not stopped addressing the terrible breach of trust we have experienced since.
Connecticut Judge Throws Out Election Results and Orders New Primary After “Shocking” Evidence of Democrat Ballot Fraud
In Bridgeport, Connecticut, State Judge William Clark has thrown out the results of the September Democrat primary election and ordered a new primary to be scheduled and conducted [Court Order Here]. The issue was ballot harvesting and ballot fraud – both violations of state law.
The Judge reviewed CCTV footage showing Wanda Geter-Pataky, vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee and operations specialist for the city, and Eneida Martinez, a former City Council member, working to support the party approved candidate. Both Ms Geter-Pataky and Ms Martinez participated in absentee ballot fraud, ballot harvesting and ballot stuffing at drop boxes. Both women invoked the Fifth Amendment when confronted as witnesses by the judge.
BRIDGEPORT – A judge ruled on Wednesday to overturn the city’s Democratic primary election, initially won by incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim, following claims of absentee ballot fraud by his opponent, John Gomes.
After two weeks of evidentiary hearings for Gomes’s absentee ballot fraud lawsuit, Judge William Clark ordered a new Democratic primary based on 180 pieces of evidence presented by Gomes’s legal counsel.
In the 37-page ruling, Clark said the video footage presented by Bill Bloss – Gomes’s attorney – was particularly alarming.
“Mr. Ganim was also correct to be ‘shocked’ at what he saw on the video clips in evidence that were shown to him while he was on the witness stand,” Clark wrote. “The videos are shocking to the court and should be shocking to all the parties.
Ganin was one the many city officials called to the Fairfield Judicial District Superior Courthouse for questioning, along with Wanda Geter-Pataky, vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee and operations specialist for the city, and Eneida Martinez, a former City Council member accused by Gomes of stuffing ballot dropboxes.
At the witness stand, Ganim told the court he was “shocked” by an 18-minute video – subpoenaed by Gomes from Bridgeport police – that appeared to show 12 instances of Geter-Pataky either depositing stacks of ballots herself or handing ballots to others from behind her reception desk, and four instances of Martinez dropping off ballots.
Asked about the footage during the hearings, both Geter-Pataky and Martinez asserted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination . Ganim, who appeared to win the primary by 250 votes after a count of absentee ballots, denied any involvement in the alleged fraud. (read more)
You don’t need to guess the ideology of the ballot harvesting participants. You know.
©2023. Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. All rights reserved.
RELATED ARTICLE: The Ballot Access Wars
This article is courtesy of DrRichSwier.com, an online community of citizen journalists, academics, subject matter experts, and activists to express the principles of limited government and personal liberty to the public, to policy makers, and to political activists. Please visit DrRichSwier.com for more great content.
