Case Dismissal

Judicial Tenure Commission refusal to take disciplinary actions (MI)

Case Dismissal, Established Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, Michigan, United States /

Established Fact In a June 30, 2025 response to complaint filed with the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission against sitting MI Supreme Court Justice Kyra H Bolden, the commission asserted that it had completed an investigation of the judicial misconduct complaint and determined that no disciplinary action was required against Bolden for accepting and $82,500 contribution […]

Judicial Tenure Commission refusal to take disciplinary actions (MI) Read More »

Michigan Supreme Court refusal to call for investigation into bribery charges of MI SoS and one of the MI Supreme Court Justices (MI)

Case Dismissal, Established Fact, Featured, Judicial Malfeasance, Michigan, United States /

Established Fact An appeal of the AGC ruling in favor of MI SoS Benson was filed with the MI Supreme Court. On May 22, 2025, the MI Supreme Court responded “On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should

Michigan Supreme Court refusal to call for investigation into bribery charges of MI SoS and one of the MI Supreme Court Justices (MI) Read More »

Attorney Grievance Commission refusal to investigate bribery charge (MI)

Case Dismissal, Established Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, Michigan, United States /

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)

Case Dismissal, Disputed Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

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 An additional 14 (22%) were voluntarily withdrawn, many under sanctions threats.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)

Case Dismissal, Judicial Malfeasance, Reasonable Inference, United States, Wisconsin /

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)

Case Dismissal, Established Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, Pennsylvania, United States /

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)

Case Dismissal, Established Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, Pennsylvania, United States /

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)

Case Dismissal, Disputed Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

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)

Case Dismissal, Established Fact, Featured, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

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)

Case Dismissal, Established Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, United States, Wisconsin /

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 »