Claim: MI Court: Michigan Secretary of State’s Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump Claim

BigFatAtheist

New Member
So this was found in Breitbart, so my expectation is that they probably missed a lot of context. I'm ready to be shown that I'm wrong on that.

Breitbart article said:
A Michigan judge ruled last week Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law when she unilaterally issued rules related to absentee balloting, legitimizing a key claim made by the Trump campaign in its legal challenges to the 2020 election.

Benson issued several unilateral orders during the 2020 election including sending absentee ballot applications to all registered voters. She also issued “guidance” on how to evaluate absentee ballots, a move Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray held violated the state’s Administrative Procedures Act.

In the guidance, Benson said “slight similarities” in signatures on absentee ballots should lead a counter to decide “in favor of finding that the voter’s signature was valid.”

Murray ruled Benson violated the law “because the guidance issued by the Secretary of State on October 6, 2020, with respect to signature matching standards was issued in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).”

“I’m glad the court sees Secretary of State Benson’s attempts at lawmaking for what they are — clear violations of her authority,” Michigan state Rep. Matt Hall (R) said in a statement.

“If she wants to make changes like these, she needs to work with the Legislature or properly promulgate them through the laws we have on the books — in this case the Administrative Procedures Act,” he continued.

[…]

Signature validation rules created without the approval of a legislature was one of the issues the Trump campaign and Republicans claimed was done illegally in the 2020 election.
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elec...llot-order-broke-law-vindicating-trump-claim/
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
"Vindicating Trump claim" is a misleading headline, since Trump's general claim is that the election was "stolen" through widespread fraud, and this case decided in the Michigan Court of Claims does nothing to support that claim.
The decision is subject to appeal; I don't know if the state is going to appeal the decision; they might decide not to do it even if they would win the appeal.

I doubt that Benson really said "slight similarities" should prove a signature valid, that looks like an exaggeration:
Article:
Murray of the Court of Claims said Benson’s directive was illegal because it didn’t go through a formal rule-making process that involves the Legislature.

Benson told clerks last fall that they must presume a signature on an absentee ballot envelope or a ballot application is valid.

Signatures “should be considered questionable” only if they differ “in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signature on file,” Benson said at the time.

Article:
Benson’s guidance, issued on October 6, 2020, directed local clerks to treat signatures as valid if there are “any redeeming qualities in the application or return envelope signature as compared to the signature on file.” “Redeeming qualities” are described as including, but not being limited to, “similar distinctive flourishes” and “more matching features than non-matching features.” Allegan County Clerk Robert Genetski and the Republican Party of Michigan filed suit against Benson, alleging that her guidance violated the state’s election laws and the Administrative Procedures Act. The plaintiffs asked that the court strike down the guidance as unlawful and enjoin its enforcement in future elections.

Murray sided with the plaintiffs, finding that Benson’s guidance was in fact a rule “that should have been promulgated in accordance with the APA. And absent compliance with the APA, the ‘rule’ is invalid.” Under the Administrative Procedures Act, a state agency is required to follow formal rulemaking procedures (e.g., when establishing policies that “do not merely interpret or explain the statute of rules from which the agency derives its authority,” but rather “establish the substantive standards implementing the program.”)

From this reporting, it seems clear to me that the judge didn't say the rule itself was bad or unconstitutional or fraudulent. The judge merely decided that the way this rule came into being did not follow proper procedure, which means that it can't be used in future elections; but since the Michigan legislature is still Republican, I expect that these standards will have been explicitly set by the next election anyway, so that even if this decision gets overturned on appeal, that wouldn't have any effect.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
"Vindicating Trump claim" is a misleading headline, since Trump's general claim is that the election was "stolen" through widespread fraud, and this case decided in the Michigan Court of Claims does nothing to support that claim.
The decision is subject to appeal; I don't know if the state is going to appeal the decision; they might decide not to do it even if they would win the appeal.

I doubt that Benson really said "slight similarities" should prove a signature valid, that looks like an exaggeration:
Article:
Murray of the Court of Claims said Benson’s directive was illegal because it didn’t go through a formal rule-making process that involves the Legislature.

Benson told clerks last fall that they must presume a signature on an absentee ballot envelope or a ballot application is valid.

Signatures “should be considered questionable” only if they differ “in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signature on file,” Benson said at the time.

Article:
Benson’s guidance, issued on October 6, 2020, directed local clerks to treat signatures as valid if there are “any redeeming qualities in the application or return envelope signature as compared to the signature on file.” “Redeeming qualities” are described as including, but not being limited to, “similar distinctive flourishes” and “more matching features than non-matching features.” Allegan County Clerk Robert Genetski and the Republican Party of Michigan filed suit against Benson, alleging that her guidance violated the state’s election laws and the Administrative Procedures Act. The plaintiffs asked that the court strike down the guidance as unlawful and enjoin its enforcement in future elections.

Murray sided with the plaintiffs, finding that Benson’s guidance was in fact a rule “that should have been promulgated in accordance with the APA. And absent compliance with the APA, the ‘rule’ is invalid.” Under the Administrative Procedures Act, a state agency is required to follow formal rulemaking procedures (e.g., when establishing policies that “do not merely interpret or explain the statute of rules from which the agency derives its authority,” but rather “establish the substantive standards implementing the program.”)

From this reporting, it seems clear to me that the judge didn't say the rule itself was bad or unconstitutional or fraudulent. The judge merely decided that the way this rule came into being did not follow proper procedure, which means that it can't be used in future elections; but since the Michigan legislature is still Republican, I expect that these standards will have been explicitly set by the next election anyway, so that even if this decision gets overturned on appeal, that wouldn't have any effect.
Yes, if the exact same information was conveyed by a source more objective (and credible)
than Breitbart, the "Vindicating Trump claim" shouldn't appear.

To be fair though, if you're on the Breitbart site, you should know what you're getting...just like if
you read the story on Rawstory.com, you'd expect it to be spun hard in the opposite direction.

And while I agree with you that the actual content in no way validates Trump's outlandish and
dishonest claims, I do think that any judge's ruling that criticizes adjustment to any voting rules,
is a small point for the Trump side, since that was part of his side's complaint.

I'm curious as to whether the 2020 election will lead to any future rule clauses about how much
can and can't be modified if voters are in a pandemic lockdown.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
And while I agree with you that the actual content in no way validates Trump's outlandish and dishonest claims, I do think that any judge's ruling that criticizes adjustment to any voting rules, is a small point for the Trump side, since that was part of his side's complaint.

I'm curious as to whether the 2020 election will lead to any future rule clauses about how much can and can't be modified if voters are in a pandemic lockdown.
Well.
You imply a good point there.
The news reporting I quoted is consistent with a legal opinion of "this was ok because this was an emergency, but you've got to do it properly going forward", which would be NO point for the "Trump side" at all. It is consistent with that because the reporting makes it clear that the ruling does not affect the 2020 election. If there had been a preliminary injunction overturning thus rule before the election result was certified, then that would have been a point.

Let's back this up with details. I am attaching the opinion for case No. 20-000216-MM, State of Michigan Court of Claims.

The complaint is
  1. what the Secretary of State did was illegal
  2. the rule is invalid today
  3. the rule allows invalid votes and "dilutes" the election
  4. the signatures on absentee ballots should be "properly" audited
How were these complaints adjudicated?
The 2020 election is not the subject of this trial.
The court doesn't decide on whether what Benson did or not was illegal, because it serves no purpose once it is established that the rule is invalid today.

This seems to say that the rule itself didn't contradict existing laws.
But the proper process wasn't followed, therefore the rule is invalid now.
They don't get to audit the signatures.

So, in conclusion:
  1. what the Secretary of State did was illegal - not decided, dismissed
  2. the rule is invalid today - upheld because APA procedure was not followed
  3. the rule allows invalid votes and "dilutes" the election - moot, dismissed
  4. the signatures on absentee ballots should be "properly" audited - denied
This ruling does not concern the 2020 election, and can therefore not award any "points" to claims about that election to anyone.

What does the opinion say about the 2020 election?
Basically, what this says is that the legislature made laws that require signatures to "agree sufficiently", but did not say what that means.

Since the secretary of state has to implement that law, she had to define what it means. This is necessary because otherwise the different clerks tasked with verifying the signatures can't treat all ballots the same, and that would probably violate equal protection laws. Not making a rule like that would probably have been illegal.

The "Administrative procedures act" is a collection of red tape involving the "office of regulatory reinvention", the "joint committee on administrative rules", public hearings, and the like. Whether it applies to that signature guidance depends on whether that guidance is deemed to be a "rule", and Benson didn't think it was one. I don't know if the APA process could even have been completed between October 6th and election day.

So, this decison did not say this:
  • it did not say that the rule itself was bad
  • it did not say that Benson broke the law
  • it did not say that signatures were compared the wrong way
There was no "right way" to compare signatures because the legislature did not provide one; the Secretary of State need to provide that; but it turns out she did not follow the proper procedure for that.

But the reason for that happening was that the GOP-led legislature did not actually put the requirements for these comparisons in their own law. They screwed up, Benson fixed it, they didn't like it, and now they're blaming Benson for it.

Benson basically said in her defense that the legislature could just make a new law and fix it themselves, and the trial wasn't needed ("Defendants argue that no actual controversy exists because the Legislature could change the applicable law"), but the judge said that since the law hadn't been made yet, he still had to decide on the issue.

So that's what the decision does. It makes a rule invalid that the GOP didn't like. The secretary of State can now put the same rule through the APA process if the GOP doesn't manage to write it into law until the next election. (I looked at PA 302 of 2020 mentioned in a footnote in the decision, it doesn't define "agree sufficiently" either.)

This does not make the GOP look good in any way.
 

Attachments

  • Michigan-Court-Of-Claims-Republican-Party-vs-Secretary-of-State-Jocelyn-Benson-Signature-Verif...pdf
    73.9 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
Well.
You imply a good point there.
The news reporting I quoted is consistent with a legal opinion of "this was ok because this was an emergency, but you've got to do it properly going forward", which would be NO point for the "Trump side" at all. It is consistent with that because the reporting makes it clear that the ruling does not affect the 2020 election. If there had been a preliminary injunction overturning thus rule before the election result was certified, then that would have been a point.

Let's back this up with details. I am attaching the opinion for case No. 20-000216-MM, State of Michigan Court of Claims.

The complaint is
  1. what the Secretary of State did was illegal
  2. the rule is invalid today
  3. the rule allows invalid votes and "dilutes" the election
  4. the signatures on absentee ballots should be "properly" audited
How were these complaints adjudicated?
The 2020 election is not the subject of this trial.
The court doesn't decide on whether what Benson did or not was illegal, because it serves no purpose once it is established that the rule is invalid today.

This seems to say that the rule itself didn't contradict existing laws.
But the proper process wasn't followed, therefore the rule is invalid now.
They don't get to audit the signatures.

So, in conclusion:
  1. what the Secretary of State did was illegal - not decided, dismissed
  2. the rule is invalid today - upheld because APA procedure was not followed
  3. the rule allows invalid votes and "dilutes" the election - moot, dismissed
  4. the signatures on absentee ballots should be "properly" audited - denied
This ruling does not concern the 2020 election, and can therefore not award any "points" to claims about that election to anyone.

What does the opinion say about the 2020 election?
Basically, what this says is that the legislature made laws that require signatures to "agree sufficiently", but did not say what that means.

Since the secretary of state has to implement that law, she had to define what it means. This is necessary because otherwise the different clerks tasked with verifying the signatures can't treat all ballots the same, and that would probably violate equal protection laws. Not making a rule like that would probably have been illegal.

The "Administrative procedures act" is a collection of red tape involving the "office of regulatory reinvention", the "joint committee on administrative rules", public hearings, and the like. Whether it applies to that signature guidance depends on whether that guidance is deemed to be a "rule", and Benson didn't think it was one. I don't know if the APA process could even have been completed between October 6th and election day.

So, this decison did not say this:
  • it did not say that the rule itself was bad
  • it did not say that Benson broke the law
  • it did not say that signatures were compared the wrong way
There was no "right way" to compare signatures because the legislature did not provide one; the Secretary of State need to provide that; but it turns out she did not follow the proper procedure for that.

But the reason for that happening was that the GOP-led legislature did not actually put the requirements for these comparisons in their own law. They screwed up, Benson fixed it, they didn't like it, and now they're blaming Benson for it.

Benson basically said in her defense that the legislature could just make a new law and fix it themselves, and the trial wasn't needed ("Defendants argue that no actual controversy exists because the Legislature could change the applicable law"), but the judge said that since the law hadn't been made yet, he still had to decide on the issue.

So that's what the decision does. It makes a rule invalid that the GOP didn't like. The secretary of State can now put the same rule through the APA process if the GOP doesn't manage to write it into law until the next election. (I looked at PA 302 of 2020 mentioned in a footnote in the decision, it doesn't define "agree sufficiently" either.)

This does not make the GOP look good in any way.
I get the gist of your point, but I don't fully understand it.

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) basically told (10/6/20) clerks to generally assume signatures were valid,
as the 2020 election was just a month away.

Republicans filed suit, saying Benson's directive was not compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act.

On 3/9/21 Judge Murray basically sided with the Republicans and invalidated Benson's new "guidance."


How does that not help (a little) the Republican argument that rule changes were being made improperly?



https://news.ballotpedia.org/2021/0...ail-in-ballot-rule-as-improperly-established/
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) basically told (10/6/20) clerks to generally assume signatures were valid, as the 2020 election was just a month away.
That's an oversimplification. I haven't found the guidance itself, but this is what the judge said about it (and he also said that this guidance wasn't established on 10/6, it was mostly a copy of existing guidance):
This is not a blanket permission to accept all signatures as valid.
The judge also did not rule on whether this was good guidance or not.
All he did was rule that this guidance needed to go through the APA red tape, and that it hadn't, because Benson didn't think it qualified for that.

Also, this "general assumption" wasn't made "because the election was just a month away"; it was a copy of existing guidelines.

When you verify a signature, you can make two types of mistakes:

  1. You can accept a false signature
  2. You can reject a genuine signature
Any signature verification policy is a trade-off between these two errors:
  1. you could simply reject all signatures and never make a type 1 error (but lots of type 2), or
  2. you could simply accept all signatures and never make a type 2 error (but maybe some of type 1).
A good policy should lie somewhere in the middle, and it should take into account which types of errors are more likely to happen and have the worse consequences. If you believe that disenfranchising voters is bad, and that it is important not to reject valid ballots; and if you also believe that fraud is not really that widespread because access to a ballot that's not yours is difficult and is often detected, then you craft your verification policy closer to the permissive version.

"More matching features than non-matching features" doesn't say "assume it is valid"; it doesn't permit all signatures. But it doesn't allow clerks to reject a signature just because it doesn't match exactly.

Obviously, the GOP would love a very restrictive version (throw all absentee ballots out) because it favors them; laws enacted all over the country since the election show that they'd rather make it difficult to vote than lose the election, up to the "no water in Georgia" law. But that does not mean that it's better, or the only way. Both types of errors are bad, and every policy is a trade-off.

This has nothing to do with how close the date of the election is.

Republicans filed suit, saying Benson's directive was not compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act.

On 3/9/21 Judge Murray basically sided with the Republicans and invalidated Benson's new "guidance."

How does that not help (a little) the Republican argument that rule changes were being made improperly?
Because it would have been up to the GOP to set these rules, and they did not do it. Benson needed to set some rule in order to conduct the election fairly (so that each county used the same policies to accept or reject signatures = equal protection).

The disagreement is over whether this "guidance" needed to undergo the APA process or not; whether it was a rule (in the legal sense) or not. Since the election is now over and the next election is a while away, there is no harm in invalidating the rule now and requiring the Secretary of State to go through the APA process. But this is explicitly not a ruling on whether this rule was improperly set or not. (If this rule had been clearly and egregiously improper, there would have been a temporary injunction against it at election time, but there wasn't.)

The GOP wanted the judge to rule that what Benson did was illegal; he dismissed that. The GOP wanted the judge to rule that the guidance allowed fraudulent votes; he dismissed that. The GOP wanted the judge to rule that all signatures had to be audited; the judge dismissed that. The judge did not say that there was anything wrong with the election. He just said, paraphrased, "this rule needs the APA process, you can't use it any longer until you do that".

Dismissing three counts of the complaint and upholding only one is hardly "siding with the Republicans".

Before this ruling, nobody knew whether this guidance needed to undergo the APA process. This has only now been established. It would be improper to use it any longer now that we know that. That's all the decision says.

P.S.: When you quote a large post unedited, could you please at least put the quote in a spoiler?
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
That's an oversimplification. I haven't found the guidance itself, but this is what the judge said about it (and he also said that this guidance wasn't established on 10/6, it was mostly a copy of existing guidance):
This is not a blanket permission to accept all signatures as valid.
The judge also did not rule on whether this was good guidance or not.
All he did was rule that this guidance needed to go through the APA red tape, and that it hadn't, because Benson didn't think it qualified for that.

Also, this "general assumption" wasn't made "because the election was just a month away"; it was a copy of existing guidelines.

When you verify a signature, you can make two types of mistakes:

  1. You can accept a false signature
  2. You can reject a genuine signature
Any signature verification policy is a trade-off between these two errors:
  1. you could simply reject all signatures and never make a type 1 error (but lots of type 2), or
  2. you could simply accept all signatures and never make a type 2 error (but maybe some of type 1).
A good policy should lie somewhere in the middle, and it should take into account which types of errors are more likely to happen and have the worse consequences. If you believe that disenfranchising voters is bad, and that it is important not to reject valid ballots; and if you also believe that fraud is not really that widespread because access to a ballot that's not yours is difficult and is often detected, then you craft your verification policy closer to the permissive version.

"More matching features than non-matching features" doesn't say "assume it is valid"; it doesn't permit all signatures. But it doesn't allow clerks to reject a signature just because it doesn't match exactly.

Obviously, the GOP would love a very restrictive version (throw all absentee ballots out) because it favors them; laws enacted all over the country since the election show that they'd rather make it difficult to vote than lose the election, up to the "no water in Georgia" law. But that does not mean that it's better, or the only way. Both types of errors are bad, and every policy is a trade-off.

This has nothing to do with how close the date of the election is.


Because it would have been up to the GOP to set these rules, and they did not do it. Benson needed to set some rule in order to conduct the election fairly (so that each county used the same policies to accept or reject signatures = equal protection).

The disagreement is over whether this "guidance" needed to undergo the APA process or not; whether it was a rule (in the legal sense) or not. Since the election is now over and the next election is a while away, there is no harm in invalidating the rule now and requiring the Secretary of State to go through the APA process. But this is explicitly not a ruling on whether this rule was improperly set or not. (If this rule had been clearly and egregiously improper, there would have been a temporary injunction against it at election time, but there wasn't.)

The GOP wanted the judge to rule that what Benson did was illegal; he dismissed that. The GOP wanted the judge to rule that the guidance allowed fraudulent votes; he dismissed that. The GOP wanted the judge to rule that all signatures had to be audited; the judge dismissed that. The judge did not say that there was anything wrong with the election. He just said, paraphrased, "this rule needs the APA process, you can't use it any longer until you do that".

Dismissing three counts of the complaint and upholding only one is hardly "siding with the Republicans".

Before this ruling, nobody knew whether this guidance needed to undergo the APA process. This has only now been established. It would be improper to use it any longer now that we know that. That's all the decision says.

P.S.: When you quote a large post unedited, could you please at least put the quote in a spoiler?
I'll be honest: I simply don't understand your argument.

You threw out a ton of straw men (positions I never took) to knock down,
and appear to be saying that all these news sources got these headlines wrong:
"Michigan Court of Claims invalidates absentee/mail-in ballot rule as improperly established" (Ballotopedia)
"Judge strikes down directive on absentee ballot signatures" (AP)

Obviously a March '21 ruling can't be applied retroactively to the '20 election...
but I just can't see how you could argue that Judge Murray didn't say Benson acted in violation
of the Administrative Procedures Act...which would bolster the Republican position, if only a bit.

I'm not invested in this enough to keep going back and forth. Your position does not make sense
to me, and just typing more and more isn't working...
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
T Claim: Jim Hoffman's "9/11 progressive collapse challenge" can't be met 9/11 347
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
S Claim: "Most U.S. terror deaths have come from 'extreme right wing groups' in recent years" General Discussion 13
G Claim: China refused to hand "key data" to WHO delegation during the recent investigation in Wuhan Coronavirus COVID-19 29
P Claim: NASA tried to stop Spielberg's 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' Quotes Debunked 21
Mick West Mike Lindell's 2-Hour Election Fraud Claim Video "Absolute Proof": Hacking Claims Election 2020 7
P Claim: NASA cuts ISS livestream after "Millennium Falcon UFO" enters the frame UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 16
P Claim: Admiral Byrd's "secret diary" proves hollow earth Flat Earth 6
P Claim: UFOs appeared at the Stadio Artemio Franchi in Florence UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
P Claim: 1990 Calvine UFO UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
P Claim: Men in black "Threatened a hotel manager" in 2009 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 14
P "Deleted Votes" Claim, 2020 Election, Erie County, New York Election 2020 16
T Claim: Thousands of fraudulent votes in Georgia cast by felons, dead, underage voters Election 2020 6
Rory Claim: Li Hongzhi (founder of Falun Gong) was made an honorary citizen of Houston, Atlanta and Georgia People Debunked 1
P Claim: "Dogman" spotted on a Facebook livestream UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 35
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
P Claim: Biden campaign short code '30330' is veiled message Election 2020 29
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 8
P Claim: UFO Black Knight Satellite spotted over Philippines UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 3
Mick West Explained: Trump's Claim of Suspicious Early Morning Michigan Bump [It's Detroit] Election 2020 1
Mick West Claim: R-Squared Coefficient of Determination as a Election Fraud Signal Election 2020 5
Akton Claim: Ballots in Wayne County were run through the tabulator and counted as many as 4-5 times Election 2020 16
Mick West Trump's Claim that "THE OBSERVERS WERE NOT ALLOWED INTO THE COUNTING ROOMS." Election 2020 6
P Claim: Authorities supressed alleged UFO findings of a reporter of the 1965 Kecksburg crash UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 7
M Claim: Hints of life on Venus: Scientists detect phosphine molecules in high cloud decks UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 21
Shade sitter Claim: Covid vaccine gives you "Serpent" DNA/marks you 666 Coronavirus COVID-19 9
P Claim: Ronald Reagan warned the world of aliens/alien invasion UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
P Claim: Man took photo of an alien spacecraft in 2016 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 21
Arugula Claim: Only 6% of COVID deaths are "real" - the rest died due to comorbidities Coronavirus COVID-19 12
P Claim: Finding of potentially chemiluminescent compound in soil proves aliens landed UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 11
M Claim: UFO performs sharp maneuver after laser pointer directly hits craft UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 20
Critical Thinker Claim: Correlations Between Media Preference and Coronavirus Infection Rates Coronavirus COVID-19 11
L Claim: NASA is doctoring an image [Scanner Dirt] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 7
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Martin Gugino Was Using a "Police Tracker." Conspiracy Theories 44
Rory Claim: A dog in Manchester could sense its owner's return by unknown means UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 21
jarlrmai Claim: UFO following jet into landing at JFK on 11/11/19 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
Dingo Claim: U.S. Covid-19 Deaths are being Artificially Inflated Coronavirus COVID-19 38
W Claim: The Heart Is Not A Pump Health and Quackery 6
J Another sun path claim Flat Earth 4
J Claim sun paths prove flat earth Flat Earth 41
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
Rory Claim: Spanish flu caused by radio waves Coronavirus COVID-19 3
J [False] Claim that Scale Model of 2017 Eclipse Disproves the Heliocentric Model Flat Earth 29
Rory Claim: UK Coronavirus Bill (HC Bill 122) means "bad things" Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: China Mobile loses 8.116 Million subscribers because of Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Agent K Claim: Harvey Weinstein has coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: Julian Assange offered pardon to "Lie" for Trump Current Events 20
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Wiggles Claim: Distant Objects Being Obscured Is Due To the "Mirror Blocking" Effect of Inferior Mirages Flat Earth 7
Mick West Claim: Section 13.1 on Vaccine Inserts Removed to Hide that Vaccines not Tested to Cause Cancer Conspiracy Theories 7
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top