Why Isn't the Media Covering "Military & Overseas Voter Ballots" that will be (Rejected) Destroyed during the 2020 November Presidential General Election? Military Lives Matter!

Updated 9/26/2020, Saturday - Palmdale, California

For Immediate Release 

 

Military Mail-in Ballots "BREAKING" -  "FBI Finds Multiple Military Ballots Cast for Trump Discarded."  9/24/2020

Sources:  https://theconservativeopinion.com/breaking-fbi-finds-multiple-pa-military-ballots-cast-for-trump-discarded/

Revised Statement Of U.S. Attorney Freed On Inquiry Into Reports Of Potential Issues With Mail-In Ballots -9/24/20

According to US DOJ, "...At this point we can confirm that a small number of military ballots were discarded.   Investigators have recovered nine ballots at this time.  Some of those ballots can be attributed to specific voters and some cannot.  Of the nine ballots that were discarded and then recovered, 7 were cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump. 

 

Two of the discarded ballots had been resealed inside their appropriate envelopes by Luzerne elections staff prior to recovery by the FBI and the contents of those 2 ballots are unknown."...

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/pr/revised-statement-us-attorney-freed-inquiry-reports-potential-issues-mail-ballots

 

(2014)

Year 2014 did you know California Rejected 12% Military & Overseas Ballots and 84% of Military & Overseas Ballots were listed as unreturned.

 

Source:  https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2014/elections-performance-index#state-CA

(2016)

Military Mail-In Ballots: Did you know that in the 2016 Presidential Primary Election, County of Los Angeles, Rejected - "Destroyed" 417 Military & Overseas Mail-In Ballots? 

Below email evidence speaks for itself.   

To enlarge email, move the hand cursor over photo below and click one time:  

 

"SEX IN COURTHOUSES"

With the growing public outcry from women, other genders who have been sexually harassed, groped, forcefully kissed, perhaps it is time to turn the spotlight on sex in the courthouses.  

Many are aware the courthouses are home to judges who are also lawyers with tremendous power over ordinary American Citizen's, with power to send a person to jail, take real and personal property away, sanction or fine a person, award custody of one's child[ren], to remove parental rights; which is tremendous power sometimes in the wrong hands can be used for the wrong purpose and abused power.


How many persons are in fear of mental or physical retaliation for speaking up against a Judge or Lawyer, who has abused his or her power?  

RULES (POLICY GUIDELINES) THAT DO NOT MAKE ANY COMMON SENSE

• Cause and Effect 

A long-standing ethics rule of the State Bar of Arizona allows attorneys to have sexual relations with their client[s] as long as a “consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced” pursuant to the State Bar’s Ethical Rule 1.8(j), also known as ER 1.8(j), has many asking questions as to whether this ethical rule is actually encouraging improper attorney-client relationships to occur of (Sexual Harassment's)... 

Sadly this Ethical Rule 1.8(j) does not exclude minor children from being sexually harassed or sexually assaulted by lawyers who represent them, as minors.  Visit: https://www.azbar.org/for-lawyers/ethics/rules-of-professional-conduct/ 

However, the question is how many adults and minor children are out there within Arizona, are afraid to speak up about being subjected to sexual harassment (assault) or sexual trafficking, because the State Bar of Arizona Ethical Rule 1.8(j), allows sexual harassment camouflaged as consensual sex, as long as a “consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced?”


When being faced by someone or some persons attempting to violate your human rights, immediately seek help from someone you trust and can confide, for help to prevent becoming a victim of Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment or Rape. 

The State Bar of Arizona, you're a disgrace for allowing your Ethical Rule 1.8(j) to remain on your books as a policy-rule,  which promotes Sexual Harassment and beyond!

Star Moffatt, CEO of Moffatt Media (M&M), Investigative Journalist/Former "Top Two" California State Senate Candidate (2012). 

www.moffattmedia.com

Star@moffattmedia.com 

Part2

 

"MILITARY & OVERSEAS VOTER BALLOTS" HOW MANY WILL BE (REJECTED) TRASHED, DURING 2020 CALIFORNIA PRIMARY ELECTION?

 

JUST ANOTHER CLERK PUTTING ON A JUDGES ROBE

Did you know that Peter L. Shaw, Commissioner with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is nothing more than a Clerk putting on a Judges Robe. 

California Senator Scott Wilk faces Senate Disqualification

CA Senator Wilk faces Senate Disqualification

By Moffatt Media-Palmdale California

www.moffattmedia.com

Gail Fry, Columnist 

Prior to the 2016 Primary and General Elections, on May 31, 2016, Star Moffatt, a concerned taxpayer, filed a civil lawsuit against Scott Wilk Assemblyman, to disqualify Wilk as a (2016) California Senate Candidate. 

On August 9, 2019, was the most recent court document filed by Moffatt, entitled: "Request Court Correct Docket, Case Type and URL Link due to Court’s Open Border Website.” 

The law suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - Case#LAM16K06818.

Reflecting back to when Moffatt filed her case against Wilk, Wilk was a California Assemblyman representing the 38thAssembly District when he pulled and submitted his nomination papers to run for the 21st Senate District seat. 

Moffatt alleges California Assemblyman Wilk was ineligible to run for another political seat based on his ownership interest in and position as a vice president of Anchor Consulting, LLC., a Delaware limited liability company, a company registered as a lobbyist. 

California law prohibits registered lobbyists from running for political office until they serve a one-year cooling off period, in order to prevent a lobbyist’s ability to influence legislative actions.

Moffatt alleges Wilk’s conduct constitutes a violation of California Government Code Section 87406 one-year cooling off period law, California Constitution Article IV, Section 4(a) and in violating these laws by concealing the fact that he is a federal lobbyist, Wilk disenfranchised (2016) Voters and close to 1 million public members in Senate District 21 (SD 21). 

“Since I filed the civil law suit complaint in 2016, I discovered lobbying activity conducted by Wilk at the federal level to benefit favored state community members and non-profit corporations in the 21st Senate District.” Moffatt reported explaining, “As a result Wilk circumvented the laws and has been able to use his lobbying activity to influence voters in his district ensuring a voter block for his (2020) re-election.” 

“It’s as if I am watching a movie where a corrupt politician conceals facts making him ineligible to run for office from voters, public members and legal authorities.”Moffatt observed puzzling, “Yet this really happened, Wilk was able to get on the ballot, win the 2016 election and is now secretly wielding his illegal power for personal gain to the detriment of 2020 voters, SD 21 public community members and our golden state."

“Wilk concealed the truth from the voters and intentionally caused an irregular Certification of California Senate District 21 Seat for both the (2016) Primary and General Elections.”Moffatt concluded, “Now sunshine and transparency of the facts is allowing Wilk to be held accountable to the Court, GOD and We the Taxpayers.” 

Moffatt Media requested comment from California Senator Scott Wilk’s counsel team receiving no response. 

Look for upcoming articles in this case at www.moffattmedia.com


https://moffattmedia.com/?blogcategory=California+Senate

 

                                          ###

ABSOLUTE POWER TRAILER - ARIZONA PUBLIC CORRUPTION

 1 Minute+ Video explains in part  how "Arizona Attorneys" are under fire.

https://youtu.be/Bj5EXFNp0g0





Tags:
#Arizona
#Attorneys

ARIZONA JAYWALKERS HAVE MORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THEN "ARIZONA LAWYERS"

 Someone jaywalking has more constitutional protections, then "Arizona Lawyers,” QUOTE BY:  Jeffrey D. Moffatt