Contact Us Today! 408-368-7997


Considering that the mainstream media, by and large, are incompetent to accurately describe complex situations, I thought it a beneficial public service to provide a substantive analysis of the more interesting cases concerning the 2020 election, such as the District Court case in Pennsylvania. The opinion is here.  With respect to Judge Brann's order out of Pennsylvania, it makes clear that different voters throughout the state of Pennsylvania were afforded different procedures for voting.  The district Court relied upon a very new opinion from the Third Circuit Court of Appeal rendered just over two weeks ago that addresses a new law that went into effect to address the current election.  If find that interesting.  A new law, that allows different voters to be treated differently throughout the state of Pennsylvania as a function of the County of residence.  HMMMMM!  I digress.

In short, the decision does not make sense, because the case upon which Judge Brann rests to support his findings, Bognet v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was decided on November 13, 2020.  It is not very strong law, because it is likely that review by the United States Supreme Court will be undertaken of that ruling.  Moreover, as set forth below, it basically would allow a state to stop certain classes from voting and there would exist no private action to remedy such an issue. 

Reading Bognet and Judge Brann's decision together one gets the rule that a voter who has been disenfranchised can never challenge the election laws of Pennsylvania for depriving one of that right.   As set forth in Bognet "private plaintiffs lack standing to sue for alleged injuries attributable to a state government's violations of the Elections Clause. For example, in Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) (per curiam), four private citizens challenged in federal district court a Colorado Supreme Court decision invalidating a redistricting plan passed by the state legislature and requiring use of a redistricting plan created by Colorado state courts. Id. at 438."

Now picking-up on this language in Bognet, Jude Brann makes clear that "Plaintiffs acknowledge that under the Third Circuit's decision in Bognet, this Court cannot find that Plaintiffs have standing for their Elections and Electors Clauses claim in the FAC. Plaintiffs represent that they have included this claim in the FAC to preserve the argument for appellate review. Because Plaintiffs have made this concession, and because the Third Circuit's decision in Bognet is clear, this Court dismisses Count II for lack of standing without further discussion."

So what you have here is the Plaintiff's arguing that they do not agree with Bognet and will address it at Appeal.   The troubling aspect, however, is that based upon the reasoning of Judge Brann and Bognet, it would appear that should the Election Code banned blacks from voting, there would be no private right of action under the Equal Protection clause to address that situation.  This is clearly an unreasonable position by Judge Brann and the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. 

The Case Before the Third Circuit Court of Appeal

The MSM is really having a difficult time accurately reporting the situation with respect to the challenge to the Pennsylvania election process.  As pointed out above, it is more likely than not a result of their incompetence in dealing with complex situations.  I mean look, most of the talking heads would have a hard time qualifying to flip burgers a McDonalds, not to impugn the integrity of my local McDonald works who, by the way, make a great 1/4 Pounder and Cheese.   I digress.

Examining the appearances, the attorneys who want to be associated with this case, we see that there is merely four attorneys appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs.  On the other side, we observe no less than 40 attorneys on the other side.  You can see the list here. There are eight Defendants and 12 Amicus.  Contrary to what the MSM states, if this was a no-win case why would the Defense have so many attorneys.  It appears that they are clearly worried about something.  Even though this case is less than 48 hours old, there are 71 docket entries.  You can see the entries here. To put it succinctly, this is an epic struggle between David and Goliath, with the Deep State Being Goliath and the Patriots being David with their 4 attorneys.


The Law Offices of Kenneth C. Brooks is committed to answering your questions about business litigation, employment law, patents and trademarks, premises liability, personal injury, collection defense, federal litigation, government tort practice law issues in Rocklin.

I’ll gladly discuss your case with you at your convenience. Contact me today to schedule an appointment.