Who is Matthew Brann? Judge rejects Trump bid to throw out Pennsylvania ballots, dubs lawsuit 'Frankenstein’s Monster'
'Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race,' the judge wrote
US District Court Judge Matthew Brann, on Saturday, November 21, dismissed a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump's campaign in Pennsylvania. He turned down an injunction request, delivering another blow to Trump's attempt of invalidating the election's results.
As reported by NBC News, in his 37-page ruling, Brann opined that the Trump campaign asked him to “disenfranchise almost seven million voters” and said he could not find any case in which a plaintiff “has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election”. In such a case, the judge stated, one might expect compelling legal argument “and factual proof of rampant corruption”. Instead, he added, “This court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.”
“In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state," Brann wrote in his opinion. The NBC News report states the lawsuit alleged that some counties allowed mail-in voters to solve problems with the ballots by casting a provisional ballots, but some counties did not, which violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. “Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race," the judge wrote. "This is simply not how the Constitution works.”
A Politico report also states he wrote: “This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent.”
Ever since November 7, when most news outlets, including AP announced Joe Biden as the president-elect, Trump and his campaign have been alleging "voter fraud", with the POTUS even tweeting that he has won the election – which was flagged by Twitter.
Who is Judge Matthew Brann?
He was born in Elmira, New York. Brann got his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Notre Dame. He received his Juris Doctor from the Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University. Brann served as a law clerk with the Court of Common Pleas in Bradford County, Pennsylvania. He became an associate at Brann, Williams, Caldwell & Sheetz in 1991, becoming a partner at that firm in 1995. In 2012, then president Barack Obama nominated Brann to be a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Senate confirmed his nomination by unanimous consent in December 2012. He received his commission the same month that year.
The Politico report also states that Sen Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) had selected Brann, and the latter served as a regional Republican Party chairman in Pennsylvania for about a decade before being nominated to the federal bench. Toomey, after the ruling tweeted, "Read my statement on today’s Pennsylvania federal court decision, and congratulating President-Elect Biden." In the statement, he said, "With today’s decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania." He also said, "I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory. They are both dedicated public servants and I will be praying for them and for our country."
Twitter users were also talking about the judge’s opinion. A user said, “Judge Brann is an American. So glad our judicial system seems strong.” Another said, “Just read Judge Brann's opinion. This is what we call #judicialsmacking. The plaintiffs' lawyers should be ashamed! What a disgrace.” A user commented, “How this monster still thinks he has a shot at overturning millions of votes is beyond reason. Judge Brann referenced Frankenstein in his ruling. BAHAHAHAHA!” Another opined, “hank ya Judge Brann, thank you for seeing thru the "bs"!!!”
Judge Brann is an American. So glad our judicial system seems strong.— cuneyt erdogan (@cuneyterdogan17) November 22, 2020
Just read Judge Brann's opinion. This is what we call #judicialsmacking. The plaintiffs' lawyers should be ashamed! What a disgrace n— Hackers (@salonepekin) November 22, 2020
How this monster still thinks he has a shot at overturning millions of votes is beyond reason. Judge Brann referenced Frankenstein in his ruling. BAHAHAHAHA!— Mary Vega (@missmaryvega) November 22, 2020
Thank ya Judge Brann ,thank you for seeing thru the "bs"!!!— MaryJane Salas (@MaryJaneSalas5) November 22, 2020
In a statement, released on their official website, Rudy Giuliani, about the ruling, said, “Today’s decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the US Supreme Court. Although we fully disagree with this opinion, we’re thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out the clock.” He alleged, “We will be seeking an expedited appeal to the Third Circuit. There is so much evidence that in Pennsylvania, Democrats eliminated our opportunity to present 50 witnesses and other evidence that election officials blatantly ignored Pennsylvania’s law denying independent review. This resulted in 682,777 ballots being cast illegally, wittingly or unwittingly. This is just an extension of the Big Tech, Big Media, Corrupt Democrat censorship of damning facts the American public needs to know.” Giuliani concluded, “We are disappointed we did not at least get the opportunity to present our evidence at a hearing. Unfortunately the censorship continues. We hope that the Third Circuit will be as gracious as Judge Brann in deciding our appeal one way or the other as expeditiously as possible. This is another case that appears to be moving quickly to the United States Supreme Court.”
These remarks were made by the Internet and individual organizations, MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and nor does it support these claims being made on the Internet.