Patrick Colbeck

Attorney Grievance Commission refusal to investigate bribery charge (MI)

Established Fact A complaint was filed with the MI Attorney Grievance Commission against attorney and sitting MI SoS Jocelyn Benson related to assertions of bribery. In its January 28, 2025 response to the complaint, the AGC asserted that Plaintiff’s allegations—specifically, that a political action committee (PAC) donation from Benson to Justice Kyra Harris Bolden’s campaign

Attorney Grievance Commission refusal to investigate bribery charge (MI) Read More »

50% of All Election Lawsuits Did Not Receive A Fair Hearing (US)

Reasonable Inference Of 64 election lawsuits examined in source documents, 20 cases (31%) were dismissed on procedural grounds-principally lack of standing-without merits adjudication. An additional 14 (22%) were voluntarily withdrawn, many under sanctions threats. Only 30 (47%) proceeded to any merits-characterized decision, and in those cases, plaintiffs operated without meaningful discovery access. The Supreme Court’s

50% of All Election Lawsuits Did Not Receive A Fair Hearing (US) Read More »

Weaponization of Laches Doctrine to Avoid Merits in Trump v. Biden (WI)

Reasonable Inference The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, declined to rule on the substantive merits of three of four claims regarding absentee ballot administration, applying the procedural doctrine of laches on the basis that the delay in bringing suit was “unreasonable in the extreme.” This application permanently insulated serious allegations regarding unpromulgated election

Weaponization of Laches Doctrine to Avoid Merits in Trump v. Biden (WI) Read More »

Pattern of Procedural Dismissals Without Merits Adjudication (PA)

Established Fact Multiple post-election cases in Pennsylvania courts-including challenges to envelope defects, observer access, and signature verification-were dismissed on standing, laches, mootness, and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds without any merits review. A November 16, 2020, internal DOJ memorandum prepared by OASG attorneys Freeman and Murray confirmed that the Trump campaign’s Pennsylvania legal actions were “primarily procedural and

Pattern of Procedural Dismissals Without Merits Adjudication (PA) Read More »

Denial of Leave to Amend and Premature Dismissal in Trump v. Boockvar (PA)

Established Fact The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed the Trump campaign’s lawsuit on the pleadings-criticizing the campaign for “speculative accusations unsupported by evidence”-while simultaneously denying the campaign the opportunity to conduct any discovery to obtain such evidence and explicitly blocking a second amendment of the complaint. The Third Circuit affirmed,

Denial of Leave to Amend and Premature Dismissal in Trump v. Boockvar (PA) Read More »

22 of 30 Cases Decided Upon Merit Favored Plaintiff Arguments (US)

Disputed Fact [Disputed Fact – 22/30 favorable to plaintiffs figure requires independent verification] Of 64 major post-2020 election cases analyzed, 20 (31%) were dismissed on procedural grounds – predominantly standing. An additional 14 (22%) were voluntarily withdrawn, many under threat of Rule 11 sanctions. Only 30 (47%) proceeded to what was characterized as a merits

22 of 30 Cases Decided Upon Merit Favored Plaintiff Arguments (US) Read More »

31% of 64 Election Cases Dismissed on Standing – Not on Merits; “No Evidence” Public Narrative Is Materially Inaccurate (US)

Established Fact [Established Fact – Procedural dismissal percentages from case analysis] Of 64 major post-2020 election cases analyzed, 20 (31%) were dismissed on procedural grounds – predominantly standing. An additional 14 (22%) were voluntarily withdrawn, many under threat of Rule 11 sanctions. Only 30 (47%) proceeded to what was characterized as a merits decision. Source

31% of 64 Election Cases Dismissed on Standing – Not on Merits; “No Evidence” Public Narrative Is Materially Inaccurate (US) Read More »

Justice Rebecca Bradley’s Teigen Concurrence – Judicial Acknowledgment That “Equity” Override of Statute Immunized Unlawful Election Administration (WI)

Established Fact In Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley wrote separately to note that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2020 Trump v. Biden decision had allowed “equity” concerns – specifically, the disruption that post-election relief would cause – to override mandatory statutory requirements. This is a finding by a sitting

Justice Rebecca Bradley’s Teigen Concurrence – Judicial Acknowledgment That “Equity” Override of Statute Immunized Unlawful Election Administration (WI) Read More »

Trump v. Biden, No. 2020AP2038 (Wis. S. Ct.) – 4-3 Decision Dismissing Three of Four Claims on Laches; Drop Boxes Subsequently Ruled Illegal (WI)

Established Fact The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, dismissed three of four claims in the Trump post-recount challenge under the doctrine of laches, ruling the campaign’s delay in bringing the challenges was “unreasonable in the extreme.” The challenged conduct included the WEC’s drop-box authorization, altered certification envelopes, and “Democracy in the Park” pre-canvassing

Trump v. Biden, No. 2020AP2038 (Wis. S. Ct.) – 4-3 Decision Dismissing Three of Four Claims on Laches; Drop Boxes Subsequently Ruled Illegal (WI) Read More »

Kelly v. Commonwealth, No. 620 MD 2020 (Pa. S. Ct.) – Act 77 Challenge Dismissed on Laches Despite Meritorious Constitutional Question (PA)

Established Fact The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed with prejudice a challenge to the constitutionality of Act 77 (which authorized universal no-excuse mail-in voting) on the doctrine of laches, ruling that petitioners had waited over a year after the law’s enactment, and until after the election, to file their facial constitutional challenge. However, Pennsylvania courts had

Kelly v. Commonwealth, No. 620 MD 2020 (Pa. S. Ct.) – Act 77 Challenge Dismissed on Laches Despite Meritorious Constitutional Question (PA) Read More »