That would be my guess too. My comments on the court cases all boiled down to this: Even if the fraud was committed as shown by the ballots and the electronic numbers, there are two questions a court has to answer: 1) Was the effect large enough to affect an outcome? 2) Who is responsible for that effect? If both of these questions have satisfactory answers, then the court can impart a remedy to the affected party. But none of the "offered" evidence seems to have satisfied the courts. The example I gave was that of a looting of walmart - using california as an example. Suppose hundreds of niggers run through a walmart and clean out the shelves completely. However, each individual nigger steals under the retarded $950 limit needed to file criminal charges. There is clearly evidence that something happened, because the store is completely empty. But since no single person crossed the legal threshold for charges, there were no looters. Since a single person could not be charged with looting, the court couldn't take the case. Yes, the store is empty, suffering millions in losses, but no single person meets the courts definition of theft, which leaves the court unable to effect a remedy to walmart. There is tons of evidence that election fraud occurred, but no single instance presented as fraud would have caused the outcome of the election to change. Additionally, no person/people were shown to engage in fraud to the scale needed to materially affect the outcomes. The court was forced to throw out the cases because there was no remedy needed.