Trump lawsuit dismissed 4 to 3 by corrupt Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, Dissenters Roggensack Ziegler & Bradley provide honest jurisprudence 

Trump lawsuit dismissed 4 to 3 by corrupt Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, Dissenters Roggensack Ziegler & Bradley provide honest jurisprudence

“Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”...Eric Coomer, executive with Dominion Voting Systems

Trump, et al v Biden, et al was dismissed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on December 14, 2020.

Justices Brian Hagedorn, Ann Bradley, Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky concurred in the majority opinion of 4 to 3.

They must know the law but for whatever reason chose to ignore it.

The following dissenting opinions highlight that.

Patience Drake Roggensack (dissenting)

Ҧ61 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J. (dissenting).
Elections have consequences. One candidate wins and the other
loses, but in every case, it is critical that the public perceive
that the election was fairly conducted.

¶62 In the case now before us, a significant portion of the
public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential
election was fairly conducted. Once again, four justices on this
court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require
to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast. I respectfully
dissent from that decision. I write separately to address the
merits of the claims presented.1

¶63 The Milwaukee County Board of Canvassers and the Dane
County Board of Canvassers based their decisions on erroneous
advice when they concluded that changes clerks made to defective
witness addresses were permissible. And, the Dane County Board of
Canvassers erred again when it approved the 200 locations for
ballot collection that comprised Democracy in the Park. The
majority does not bother addressing what the boards of canvassers
did or should have done, and instead, four members of this court
throw the cloak of laches over numerous problems that will be
repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to
correct them. The electorate expects more of us, and we are capable of providing it.2 Because we do not, I respectfully dissent. ”

“III. CONCLUSION
¶105 The Milwaukee County Board of Canvassers and the Dane
County Board of Canvassers based their decisions on erroneous
advice when they concluded that changes clerks made to defective
witness addresses were permissible. And, the Dane County Board of Canvassers erred again when it approved the 200 locations for
ballot collection that comprised Democracy in the Park. The
majority does not bother addressing what the boards of canvassers
did or should have done, and instead, four members of this court
throw the cloak of laches over numerous problems that will be
repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to
correct them. The electorate expects more of us, and we are
capable of providing it. Because we do not, I respectfully
dissent.”

Annette Kingsland Ziegler (dissenting)

“We are
called upon to declare what the law is. See Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (“It is emphatically the province
and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”).
Once again, in an all too familiar pattern, four members of this
court abdicate their responsibility to do so. They refuse to even
consider the uniquely Wisconsin, serious legal issues presented.
The issues presented in this case, unlike those in other cases
around the United States, are based on Wisconsin statutory election
law. Make no mistake, the majority opinion fails to even mention,
let alone analyze, the pertinent Wisconsin statutes. Passing
reference to other states’ decisionmaking is of little relevance
given the Wisconsin legal issues at stake. See Roggensack, C.J.,
dissent, supra; Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., dissent, infra. The
people of Wisconsin deserve an answer——if not for this election,
then at least to protect the integrity of elections in the future.
Instead of providing clarity, the majority opinion is, once again,
dismissive of the pressing legal issues presented.”

Ҧ136 Despite the fact that the majority relies on laches to
not declare the law in nearly all respects of the challenges
raised, it nonetheless segregates out the indefinitely confined
voter claim to analyze. Notably absent is any explanation why
this claim is not treated like the other challenges.

¶137 Therefore, the majority’s application of laches here is
unfortunate and doomed to create chaos, uncertainty, undermine
confidence and spawn needless litigation. Instead of declaring what the law is, the majority is legislating its preferred policy.
It disenfranchises those that followed the law in favor of those
who acted in contravention to it. This is not the rule of law; it
is the rule of judicial activism through inaction.

III. CONCLUSION
¶138 As I would not apply laches in the case at issue and
instead would analyze the statutes and available remedies as well
as the actions of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, I
respectfully dissent.”

Rebecca Grassl Bradley (dissenting)

“Once again,
the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court wields the
discretionary doctrine of laches as a mechanism to avoid answering
questions of law the people of Wisconsin elected us to decide.
Although nothing in the law compels its application, this majority
routinely hides behind laches in election law cases no matter when
a party asserts its claims. Whether election officials complied
with Wisconsin law in administering the November 3, 2020 election
is of fundamental importance to the voters, who should be able to
rely on the advice they are given when casting their ballots.
Rather than fulfilling its duty to say what the law is, a majority
of this court unconstitutionally converts the Wisconsin Elections
Commission’s mere advice into governing “law,” thereby supplanting
the actual election laws enacted by the people’s elected
representatives in the legislature and defying the will of
Wisconsin’s citizens. When the state’s highest court refuses to
uphold the law, and stands by while an unelected body of six
commissioners rewrites it, our system of representative government
is subverted.”

You are strongly urged to completely read the dissenting opinions.

They are powerful and should be spread throughout the land.

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395

Attorney Jordan Sekulow explains further.

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/