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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is the spoliation of election materials and evidence, 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 sufficient 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? ii 5. Are lawyers and “esquires” a special class that can unilaterally decide the outcome of litigative controversy 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 committing 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 7 said fraud (i.e., The Pennsylvania Attorney General, Josh Shapiro and District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer). | | | | | | | Be , ; iv