1. Is the spoliation of election materials and evi
dence, required to be maintained by federal and state
law, by election officials to perfect massive election
fraud, evidence of said fraud by itself, and/or suffi
cient to infer adverse verdict?

2. Do duly appointed, certified poll watchers,
who have taken an oath to fulfill their lawful duties
as intervenors for both the candidates they represent,
and the citizenry, have standing to petition the
Courts on their own behalf to remedy grievous viola
tions of election law, election fraud, and associated
civil law?

3. Does the Court of first remedy in considering
alleged grievous election and civil violations (in this
case, the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County,
Pennsylvania), have a duty to have an evidentiary
hearing, and be presented evidence of allegations of
massive election fraud that could change the outcome
of an election, before ruling there isn't a "scintilla of
evidence " and otherwise ruling on facts not in evidence?

4. Does immediate notification of spoliation and
destruction of election materials required to be
maintained by federal and state law for 22 months
(or as long as litigative controversy is pending), that
proves massive election fraud that could change the
outcome of an election, require the Court of first
remedy to intervene to secure said evidence, as the
lawful arbiter to preserve the integrity of the election
system?

5. Are lawyers and "esquires " a special class that
can unilaterally decide the outcome of litigative contro
versy without transparency, input, acknowledgement,
or permission of petitioners, plaintiffs, and defendants
and the citizenry, without public hearing, transcript
or accountability?

6. Should both candidates for election represented
by counsel, and Pro Se citizen litigants, be afforded
the latitude and grace of the Supreme Court of the
United States, as final arbiters of the Republic, to
curate technically deficient but meritorious cases
regarding the most sacred right of voting by the
citizenry of the United States in their selection of
their elected representatives, given the Court has
repeatedly done so for other cases?

7. Is it lawful for public officials to intimidate,
harass, and demand civil and criminal sanctions, and
against lawful intervenors, candidates, citizens, and
their attorneys for having the temerity to challenge
grievous election law violations that would change
the outcome of elections?

8. Should petitioners lawsuit(s), who hold hard
physical evidence, sworn affidavits, whistleblower
videos and audio admissions of election officials com
mitting criminal election fraud, documentation,
unreconciled returns, and a literal mountain of evidence
that approximately 327,000 votes were fraudulently
certified in Delaware County, PA, in a presidential
election that Joseph Biden allegedly "won" by
approximately 80,000 votes, and undercard statewide
elections of lesser margins, be considered for public
remediation by the United States Supreme Court, or
returned to the Court of first remedy (Common Pleas
Court of Delaware County, PA)?

9. Is it lawful for the beneficiary(ies) of alleged
election fraud to unilaterally investigate and adjudicate
said fraud (i.eThe Pennsylvania Attorney General,
Josh

Is the spoliation of election materials and evidence evidence of election fraud?