"If the forensic audit shows that a control was introduced into the presidential race, then why would you leave anything on the table?"

The point of a "quo warranto" adds to more information offered by Frank on the Supreme Court decisions to reject a CAUSE on the basis of "Standing Doctrine," which is a very curious flow of data. I'll work on it as briefly as I can right now.

Frank says the Supreme Court does not accept Political Causes, those are refused on grounds that Frank explained as an accusation of a specific crime by an accuser can be heard by the Court, but a general accusation of general fraud (this election was fraudulent) is a “Political Cause.”

Now, if you were in charge of protecting and serving the people, YOU would hear “fraud” and you would do what?

An individual has to accuse.

The accusation goes to an independent grand jury.

The grand jury can summon any size government force (The Army, Navy, etc.) with posse comitatus during their investigation to validate the accusation on behalf of the public in a criminal case, to serve a subpoena (refusal to give the grand jury the routers for example), and then if the evidence warrants (by probable cause) a trial for CAUSE, then the grand jurors (if they are independent and do their duty) pass the CAUSE to Trial Jury for adjudication. The government is only there to execute the will of the people, they are not there (by law) to lord over the people, only by statute can the government turn into organized crime, not by law.

If, as is the case, the Federal Court is turned instead into a National Court, then no longer is that Gang limited to helping States solve problems between States (Texas case accusing election fraud for example), they are in the business of robbing the pockets of individuals, an arm of the criminal State.

Frank points out that The People can go to a Court and a Court is then duty bound to try a case (if the Bill of Rights mean anything then the judge does not try the case, nor does the judge validate a case ), and until a member of The People brings a case to a Court, the Court won’t hear the case on political grounds.

Court: “Do you accuse anyone of a specific crime?”
Accuser/Prosecutor “Those guys are suspicious.”

No.

Now, a Quo Warranto, from my study, is someone of The People (meaning any individual in America, since The Revolutionary War took away “executive privilege” ) can bring forward evidence in the form of a quo warranto (a writ once commanded only by a “King” - despot ) which challenges the legitimacy of the office holder holding office, or even the office itself. If the case warrants a trial, and again if the Bill of Rights means anything, then the trial either goes to Summary Justice (Admiralty) or a Court of Law (common law) and in the case of the common law the accused (office holder in legitimate office, or illegitimate office) faces a jury. If the prosecutor (private or otherwise) proves the case beyond reasonable doubt, the office holder is no longer an office holder: quo warranto. If the quo warranto is aimed at the false federal government, then the FUND goes back to the people.

That would inspire (one might think) a few more cases involving who is responsible and accountable for the fraudulent National Debt.

Before "update" log files exist, after "update" log files are gone, and it appears as if the image was wiped and a new image created during the "update" on information that is supposed to be (by statute, not law) preserved under penalty of Summary Justice.