During a regular election, the number of mail-in votes is so small compared to in-person votes, that even if there were some irregularities, the overwhelmingly larger number of in-person votes easily make up for any potential issues. However, when so many more people vote by mail as in this election, there is a much higher level of concern about the validity of these votes.
The nature of this previously untested widespread use of mail-in voting itself brings about questions. Further questions were raised by testimony about potential voter fraud. This testimony was provided via legally valid, signed affidavits. These types of documents are normally accepted by courts as valid evidence in a range of legal cases. One would think the courts would at least consider the possibility of ordering a mail-in ballot audit.
This audit could once and for all put questions to rest by validating the identities of mail-in ballots in swing states to ensure they are living legal voters. A hand recount can ensure all legal votes were counted. The President would have no choice but to accept these results and concede the election if the results remained consistent – especially if only votes cast or received by election day (not afterwards) were counted.
Instead, lower courts have decided to consistently dismiss these cases, even though the President’s legal team has provided legally valid, standard evidence that courts normally accept and consider in other cases. One cannot help but wonder – are these courts being inconsistent with their evaluation of evidence or is the bias against the President so strong that even seasoned judges are not willing (or are unable) to move past their bias and judge objectively?
The courts do not have to rule the election was a fraud because of signed affidavits. However, for the reasons outlined above, it would seem plausible that the courts should at least be willing to hear the cases and consider an audit and hand recount in swing states. While the audit and recount processes would take time and increase expenses, they would help resolve any lingering questions and help unite the country behind the elected President.
Given the historic opposition of the lower courts to President Trump’s past Executive Orders, it seems that bias is playing a larger role than inconsistency in these election cases. Rather than questions about election fraud, the bigger question one should ask is whether courtroom fraud is happening.
As President Trump has been consistently dismissed by biased judges, so too META 1 Coin Trust has experienced unfair treatment by the legal system as well. That’s why META 1 has worked tirelessly to utilize legal instruments and superior jurisdictions – because of the biased (and arguably fraudulent) judges in state and federal courts who refuse to uphold an objective approach to rulings on cases.
So too, the media narrative during the ongoing election-related litigation has been incongruent with the legal reality. The mainstream media continues to refer to Joe Biden as the President-elect while the legal process has not yet been completed. No one should be called the President-elect until the Electoral College votes and certifies their votes. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that media companies have the authority to declare winners of elections, especially ones as significant as the Presidential election.
This demonstrates how the mainstream media and the courts are so intertwined that one must always question what one hears versus accepting everything as factual. Despite these challenges, META 1 Coin Trust continues to defend its legal rights to advance the freedom and abundance of Humanity with META 1 Coin, as well as for the rights of the cryptocurrency community.