Judge Orders New Election After Finding Majority of Absentee Ballots in Ward Race Not Valid


A Mississippi judge has called for a new Democratic runoff election to be held for the alderman seat in Aberdeen’s Ward 1.

Judge Jeff Weill cites “evidence of fraud and criminal activity in how absentee ballots were handled, how votes were counted, and the actions by some at the polling place” in a 64-page order, according to WCBI News.

In the June 2020 runoff election, Nicholas Holliday defeated his opponent Robert Devaull by 37 votes. Devaull “challenged the results in court.”

The judge states that “66 of the 84 absentee ballots cast were not valid and should never have been counted.” That represents 78.5 percent of the absentee ballots.

The ruling indicated that after discovering numerous irregularities, the judge “issued a bench warrant for notary Dallas Jones, who notarized the absentee ballots.” In addition, WCBI reported that during the hearing, “Jones admitted violating notary duties.”

Devaull’s attorney, Lydia Quarles explained, “When you have an absentee ballot, there’s an envelope, you vote, fold the ballot, put it in an envelope, lick the flap, sign across the flap, then notary signs your election certificate, she testified that she didn’t sign in front of anybody, didn’t see anybody sign it, she just notarized it, just stamped them.”

Jones told the court that she was called to then-Alderwoman Lady Garth’s home in June “to correct her father’s absentee ballot paperwork. While there, Jones testified she notarized ‘about 30 something ballots.'”

Weill found that “83 regular ballots were counted without being initialed by election workers.”

Judge Weill’s “ruling also said there was clear evidence of voter intimidation and harassment at the polling place on election day. State law says candidates and supporters must stay at least 150 feet away from the polling place. In his ruling, the judge said Holliday, along with Police Chief Henry Randle, and former Mayor Maurice Howard acted as if they were above the law, repeatedly violating criminal statutes.”

After Weill’s ruling, DeVaull replied, “It was always a lot of distraction in Ward 1, that’s what I said earlier, I would like to see, going forward, that be cleaned up, people being able to come and go, vote for who they want to.” DeVaull is looking forward to a fair contest for the seat.

Holliday’s attorney, Walter Zinn, Jr., who is also the Aberdeen City attorney, issued the following statement on Monday:

“Upon review of the orders by the Special Judge, my client and I are left offended in part and befuddled by the ruling of the court. While we respect this legal process and the days of deliberation of each party, the findings of fact are grossly inconsistent with testimony of the witnesses and reflect more of the “copied and pasted” sentiments of the Defendant than what the record from the proceedings would affirm.”

“While left disappointed with these findings, we will explore all the legal remedies afforded to Mr. Holliday under the law including but not limited to a request for the Court to reconsider its findings; a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial; or the appellate process.”

“We are very concerned with the mass disenfranchising of voters, who never testified or subpoenaed to Court; poll workers conduct was attacked, but never listed in name, nor called to testify. There are serious legal and ethical implications from the ruling that we are compelled to explore. We know that this verdict does not reflect the sentiments of the majority of voters of Aberdeen and will seek relief where the law and circumstances allow. Mr. Holliday personally would like to thank all of his supporters for their prayers and support through this process. ”

Dallas has been released on bail.

I know, who cares who ultimately wins the alderman seat in Aberdeen, Mississippi’s first ward? Aside from the candidates themselves and some residents of the ward, probably no one.

Still, it will be interesting to see how this particular case plays out for two reasons.

First, Judge Weill discovered wrongdoing and took action unlike countless other judges who refused to even look at the cases brought forward by former President Donald Trump’s legal team.

Democrats have been quick to say that Team Trump has not been able to provide evidence of fraud. I don’t know if fraud occurred or not, but there sure were alot of anomalies – statistical and otherwise – that don’t add up. That no one was willing to give oxygen to any of them after 1,000 Americans had come forward under the penalty of perjury to expose fraud was wrong. Not even Supreme Court Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh nor Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom owe the greatest honors of their lives to Trump, were willing to look.

The other reason this case is important is because of the enormous portion of the ward’s absentee ballots the judge determined to be invalid – 78.5 percent to be exact.

In a year that saw an explosion in the number of absentee ballots cast nationwide, one has to wonder how many of those ballots were lawfully cast.

Might there be other local elections in the U.S. besides the alderman seat in the first ward of Aberdeen, Mississippi that should be rerun?

In Nevada perhaps? Georgia? Michigan? How many absentee ballots were actually invalid and should never have been counted?

I think the Trump campaign should keep digging and digging for the truth because, even though it won’t change the fact that President Joe Biden now resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it would provide satisfaction to many of us to know he got there fraudulently.

Prominent Conservative Notices How BADLY the Left Wants Him to Say the Election Was Fair


Former Trump Administration national security official and conservative scholar Michael Anton has a question for Biden supporters. Why do they require his agreement that the November presidential election was free and fair?

In a recent op-ed published on American Greatness, he wrote:

Recently, I appeared as a guest on Andrew Sullivan’s podcast. Sullivan is vociferously anti-Trump, so I expected us to disagree—which, naturally, we did. But I was surprised by the extent to which he insisted I assent to his assertion that the 2020 election was totally on the level. That is to say, I wasn’t surprised that Sullivan thinks it was; I was surprised by his evident yearning to hear me say so, too.

Which I could not do.

Sullivan badgered me on this at length before finally accusing me of being fixated on the topic, to which I responded, truthfully, that I was only talking about it because he asked.

After Anton was pressed on this by two other pundits, New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait and The National Review’s “conservative” (but not really) writer, Ramesh Ponnuru, he gave the issue some thought.

He wrote:

At any rate, why [Andrew] Sullivan or anyone else should care what I think of the 2020 election I find difficult to understand. Surely no one can seriously (as distinguished from crocodile fears) fret that my disbelief is a threat to the regime? If my opinion carried any weight at all, then my 406-page book and dozens of articles last year would have had some impact. They manifestly did not.

Or are they concerned for my soul, that I not be plagued (as Plato put it) by a “lie in the soul”? If that’s the case, let me worry about my own soul…

Machiavelli says in chapter six of The Prince that for a founder-prophet to be secure, “things must be ordered in such a mode that when [men] no longer believe, one can make them believe by force.” Does this regime currently possess that power? Is it seeking it? Chait would no doubt like to think so; would Sullivan agree? Is forced “belief” really belief?…

Sullivan repeatedly demanded that I explain how Our Democracy can survive as a democracy if something like half the country doesn’t believe in it anymore. The question was rhetorical. Sullivan knows the answer: it can’t. His purpose in asking was to shift blame from those who rig everything, refuse to explain anything but instead gaslight, gaslight, gaslight, onto those who, in response, decline to believe.

What I’ve noticed from liberals and anti-Trumpers is they frequently present the high number of state judges who declined to review Trump’s lawsuits as evidence that no fraud occurred.

For example, a headline in The Washington Post on this topic read: “From a presidential commission to Trump-nominated judges, here’s who has rebuked Trump’s voter fraud claims.”

Well, one can’t find something if they refuse to even look.

Rather than being proof that no improprieties occurred in the election, it could very well be they chose not to review the cases because what if, God forbid, they actually did find evidence of fraud?

If Sullivan, Chait and Ponnuru are so sure the vote was counted fairly, why are they so concerned that Anton doesn’t think so?

Anton’s position is that he really does not know if the election was stolen or not. None of us do. Below, he produces a list of “oddities” that make him skeptical.

The 2020 election came down to a narrower margin than the 2016 contest: fewer than 43,000 rather than 77,000 votes in just three states. In 2016, nothing fishy in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin—the states on which 2016 turned—was detected. Certainly nothing like:

  • Counting shutdowns in five states, in which one candidate was ahead, only to lose after the counting resumed;
  • “Found” tranches of ballots going overwhelmingly—sometimes exclusively—to one candidate, the eventual “winner”;
  • Sworn affidavits alleging the backdating of ballots;
  • Historically low rejection rates—as in, orders of magnitude lower—of mail-in ballots, suggesting that many obviously invalid ballots were accepted as genuine;
  • Mail-in and absentee ballots appearing without creases, raising the question of how they got into the envelopes required for their being mailed in;
  • Thousands upon thousands of ballots all marked for one presidential candidate without a single choice marked for any down-ballot candidate.
  • The absolute refusal to conduct signature audits—indeed, the discarding of many envelopes which alone make such audits possible—i.e., of the kind of recounts which are performed not merely to get the math right but to evaluate the validity of ballots;
  • Other statistical and historical anomalies too numerous to mention here.

All of which, and much more, did occur in 2020. Any one of these things would have caused Hillary Clinton to march into court in 2016 with an army of lawyers larger than the force Hannibal brought to Cannae.

On Thursday, I posted the results of a survey of Democratic voters. They were asked to rank their greatest political concerns. The top spot went to “Donald Trump’s supporters.”

Why do Trump supporters pose a threat to Democrats? Why is it so important to them that we all move on?

Maybe they know something we don’t know – yet.