Shoshoni
December 12th 2020
There is so much evidence that the Covid Scamdemic was and is specifically being used to steal the 2020 election from the most popular President in U.S history! Furthermore, that interference in our U.S. elections was implemented by the CCP in concert with the Obama cabal, that refused the transition of power in 2016. Moreover, that cabal within the U.S government staged the pandemic in order to create a platform by which massive and unprecedented election fraud by the Democrat party could be implemented.
The major reason that the Scamdemic was created was to give the criminals who have gained their high office through massive and ongoing “Election Fraud” to gain or retain power. This is reflected in the totalitarian policies of Governors like Gavin Newsom, Andrew Cuomo and Gretchen Whitmer who seem to want to take revenge on their constituents as punishment for not voting for them.
The Scamdemic has had many other purposes which we have had to live with since March of 2020. However, the most important one was to give the crooks the ability to change the rules in the middle of the 2020 election cycle that would make it easier to commit election fraud and to manipulate election results.
It is important to lay the groundwork for understanding why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to deny hearing the State of Texas vs Pennsylvania on Friday December 11th 2020 based upon lack of standing and mootness!
Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution there are two types of limitations to bringing a case to a “Federal Court” including the SCOTUS that must be overcome. The first is what is called Justiciability. A Federal Court may only hear cases and controversies that present direct or imminent personal injury actually caused by some “Government” action for which the court can effectively redress the damage to a legal right, of a qualified plaintiff by Judicial decree.
The matter must not be “purely political,” i.e.: conflict with the separation of powers, or unsettled State laws which require “abstention!” Furthermore, the plaintiff must have standing to seek redress.
Standing. Personal standing requires that a plaintiff have a concrete personal stake in the outcome. They must have injuries actual or imminent. The case must be ripe for review, where denial would result in immediate personal harm and the case is not already moot or resolved with finality by some other means.
There are also Constitutional limitations on what the Supreme Court can accept in the way of Original Jurisdiction. Under Article III. Original jurisdiction applies in those cases where a sovereign is a party to the lawsuit. Sovereigns include States, Indian Tribes, Consuls and Ambassadors.
The Supreme Courts’ denial of the State of Texas’ claim based upon lack of standing is incorrect because Donald Trump clearly has standing since he was joined as a Plaintiff along with the State of Texas. However, the original case that was brought before SCOTUS was the same subject matter which had already been decided by John Roberts casting the deciding vote. Therefore, the same controversy cannot be heard again which rendered it moot even with the added plaintiffs. It also had two major flaws which we saw being played out across state after state during the 2020 election cycle. It was wrongly decided for two reasons.
The first reason is that it should have never been accepted by the Federal Courts because the subject matter of the controversy required abstention based on the “purely political matter” of the violation of separation of powers clause of the Pennsylvania State Constitution. When the court failed to find that the Separation of Powers of the State’s Constitution had been violated and they allowed the lower court to decide what ballots would be accepted, the Courts became a party to the fraud.
The case brought against against Pennsylvania both before and after the election with this latest Texas case complained about the unconstitutional use of the Judicial branch to change Election laws before the 2020 election which required the Pennsylvania State legislature to act to change the election laws of Pennsylvania. This was a violation of the separation of Powers of the Pennsylvania Constitution which violated the equal protection of the right to vote of its citizens.
SCOTUS did not even bother to specifically cite their reasons for lack of Justiciability or Standing under Article III, except to call Texas’ arguments and any connected thereafter moot. Clearly, they are not, since the State Courts involved have refused to address these Election Fraud issues in all of these States or even look at the evidence across the board!
The Supreme Court is known as the Court of last Resort. Therefore, rather than filing with a plaintiff that qualifies for Original Jurisdiction these complaints should be brought by Donald Trump as a plaintiff with standing to the Supreme Court for Judicial Review based upon APPEAL!
Moreover, these issues that denied the landslide winner of the Presidential Election his Presidency have not been resolved or rendered moot simply because these corrupt State actors have certified Election Fraud on a massive scale. The Supreme Court did not deny the original suit as it should have based upon deference to another branch as a purely “Political Question” and neither did a number of the Federal Courts!
The following is just a screenshot of recent history regarding the lawfare involved in the lead up the 2020 Presidential Election.
In the lead up to election day on November 3rd 2020, at least fifty million Trump voters were well aware that the Democrats were already trying to steal the 2020 election. The evidence was everywhere! Thus there were challenges to election procedures in South Carolina (witness requirements for absentee ballots); Ohio and Texas (ballot drop-box locations); and Florida (registration deadlines, all made the news as they made their way through the federal courts.
Absentee-ballot deadlines were a major contention—especially when federal judges extended them well beyond Election Day. Those rulings raised many serious issues about the integrity of the election process and the possibility of ballot harvesting which is illegal in every State except California, after Election Day! In the State of California this process has been habitually abused by the Democrats in order to shift reported preliminary results and steal the vote from rightfully elected Republican Candidates.
Here are eight such cases:
1) Pennsylvania
On Oct. 19, an evenly divided Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and thus left in place a ruling by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party that would require—according to that court’s interpretation of state law—State officials to count absentee ballots received up to three days after the election even if they don’t have a postmark showing they had been mailed by Election Day.
In a surprising move, it was Chief Justice Roberts who joined with the court’s liberals to refuse Supreme Court review of the state court’s decision.
Roberts didn’t explain his vote in this case. However, he did write a short concurrence in the latter case out of Wisconsin in which he agreed to stop the extension of the absentee ballot deadline to try to explain why he voted differently in the Pennsylvania case.
He claimed that because “the Pennsylvania applications implicated the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations,” that case was different than “the federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes” in Wisconsin.
According to Roberts, because “different bodies of law and different precedents govern these two situations,” the circumstances require “that we allow the modification of election rules in Pennsylvania, but not Wisconsin.”
The fallacy of that argument is that the U.S. Constitution delegates authority over election rules to state legislatures, not state courts.
On Oct. 24, however, perhaps in anticipation of possibly getting a better decision with the empty seat on the Supreme Court filled, the state’s Republican Party went to the Supreme Court and asked it to decide the case on the merits, rather than simply asking it to stop the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order from taking effect while the litigation proceeded. Chief Justice Alito ruled that the ballots received after the election day without a postmark to be sequestered during the litigation. The crooks in charge of counting the votes ignored his ruling and continued as if his ruling was nonexistent. That “fraudulent and blatantly criminal action” should have vitiated the entire 2020 Presidential election in Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 23 that election officials could not reject absentee ballots because the signature on the ballot does not match the signature of the voter on file, throwing out one of the most basic security protocols in place for mail-in ballots.
2) Wisconsin
The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to stay (or stop from going into effect) the order of a federal district court judge appointed by then-President Barack Obama that “extended the deadline for the receipt of mailed ballots from Nov. 3 (Election Day) to Nov. 9, provided that the ballots [had been] postmarked on or before Nov. 3rd.
In doing so, the court of appeals chastised the district court judge, reminding him that “the Supreme Court has insisted that federal courts not change electoral rules close to an election date” and that “the design of adjustments during a pandemic” is not a “judicial task.”
On Oct. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, rejecting the Democratic National Committee’s request for a stay of the 7th Circuit’s order. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence explaining his rationale for why this decision differed from the high court’s decision in the Pennsylvania case (more on that in a moment), and Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence emphasizing that “the Constitution provides that state legislatures—not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials—bear primary responsibility for setting election rules and the Constitution provides a second layer of protection, too. If state rules need revision, Congress is free to alter them.”
3) Indiana
Unfortunately, the 7th Circuit’s election-related work didn’t end with Wisconsin’s case. The same court had to repeat itself only five days later when it stayed and “summarily reversed” an Indiana-based federal judge’s order “requiring the state of Indiana to count all absentee ballots received by November 13, 2020, ten days after Election Day.”
The court relied on the same rationale as in its previous cases and in some instances even said “substitute ‘Indiana’ for ‘Wisconsin’ and the essential point remains.”
An important point to keep in mind that too many seem to forget or want to ignore is that, as the 7th Circuit said, “as long as the state allows voting in person, there is no constitutional right to vote by mail.”
The fact that there is a pandemic is still “not a good reason for the federal judiciary to assume tasks that belong to politically responsible officials.”
In other words, it is up to state officials, not judges, to decide what the rules are applying to voting and the receipt of absentee ballots.
4) North Carolina
Shifting gears, some plaintiffs have pursued their election-related claims in state courts and then entered into settlement agreements or consent decrees with state officials who refuse to defend their state laws as they are obligated to do.
That’s known as collusive litigation, in which state election officials use lawsuits filed by their friends and political allies to subvert laws implemented by state legislatures that they don’t like or that were passed by their political opposition.
Even more problematic, these consent decrees in turn often spawn their own rounds of federal litigation by state legislators and others who object to state laws being undefended and summarily changed through settlement agreements.
That’s what happened in North Carolina, where the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay a six-day extension—from three days after the election to nine—during which mail-in ballots could be received and counted by election officials so long as the ballots were mailed on or before Election Day.
This extension was the result of a state court consent decree entered into between the state court plaintiffs and the North Carolina Board of Elections, which is controlled by Democrats, while both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly are controlled by Republicans.
A lower court judge found that the board had “secretly” negotiated the settlement without consulting the legislature and “showed little or no interest” in defending state law against the lawsuit.
Judge James A. Wynn, another Obama appointee, wrote the opinion for the entire 4th Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III and G. Steven Agee, with whom Judge Paul Niemeyer joined.
The central dispute between the majority and the dissent centered on what constituted the “status quo” when applying the (Purcell principle), established by the Supreme Court in 2006. That’s the idea that federal courts generally should not interfere with a state’s election-related decisions close to an election.
Wynn and the majority said, “The state court issued an order approving the Consent Judgment on October 2. This October 2 order established the relevant status quo for Purcell purposes. Under this status quo, all absentee votes cast by Election Day and received by November 12 would be counted.”
The dissenters countered that “we are faced with nonrepresentative entities changing election law immediately preceding or during a federal election. In making those changes, they have undone the work of the elected state legislatures, to which the Constitution clearly and explicitly delegates the power” to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections.
As the dissenters pointed out, “The Constitution does not assign these powers holistically to the state governments, but rather pinpoints a particular branch of state government which is “the Legislatures thereof.”
Foreshadowing Gorsuch’s concurrence in the Wisconsin case, they went on to say, “Whether it is a federal court … or a state election board—as it is here—does not matter; both are unaccountable entities stripping power from the legislatures. They are changing the rules of the game in the middle of an election—exactly what Purcell … counsels against.”
In fact, Niemeyer noted, the 4th Circuit majority was changing the rules when “well over 1,000,000” North Carolinians had already voted.
The court’s action “disrespects the Supreme Court’s repeated and clear command not to interfere so late in the day. This pernicious pattern is making the courts appear partisan, destabilizing federal elections, and undermining the power of the people to choose representatives to set election rules.”
5) Minnesota
A federal district court in Minnesota recently confronted a similar issue with another collusive lawsuit. There—as in North Carolina—Steve Simon, the Minnesota secretary of state, a former Democratic state legislator, entered into a consent decree with certain groups, as a result of a state court lawsuit, agreeing “not to enforce Minnesota’s statutorily mandated absentee-ballot receipt deadline of 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020.”
“Instead, the [state] court ordered [Minnesota officials, consistent with the consent decree] to count ballots that are postmarked by November 3, so long as election officials receive them within a week of Election Day.”
As a result, two Republican Party presidential electors brought suit in federal court challenging the collusive consent decree and the court order approving it as unconstitutional. Specifically, they argued the actions violated the “Electors Clause” in Article II of the Constitution, which grants state legislatures the authority to determine how to select presidential electors, and Congress’ power under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 to set the “time of choosing the Electors.”
However, the court never reached the merits of this case because it found that the electors did not have standing or the ability to pursue these claims in federal court. The court wrongly ruled that they had not been injured by the change in election procedures. However, having their roles as electors usurped was the injury which the court could have easily remedied with an injunction. Furthermore, the reason that State legislators have the constitutional right and duty to control the election laws of that State is because they are the closest representatives of the voters of each State. The injury to the voters of their state is directly connected to this usurpation of the constitutional protection of the separation of powers of their State Constitution.
6) Michigan
The Michigan Court of Appeals, that state’s intermediate appellate court, ruled on Oct. 16 that a lower Michigan court had incorrectly required the state to accept mail-in ballots up to 14 days after Election Day and that it had improperly prohibited the state from enforcing its laws relating to who, other than the voter, can handle and deliver his or her ballot.
It made clear that “designing adjustments to our election integrity laws is the responsibility of our elected policymakers, not the judiciary.”
In fact, the court said:
Our legislature has addressed the expected increase in [absentee] voter ballots by empowering clerks to begin processing [absentee] voter ballots earlier in an effort to provide a final vote tally after polls close for the 2020 election.
While plaintiffs may view these efforts as inadequate first steps, there is no reason to believe that these specific efforts are constitutionally required, even in the midst of a pandemic.
Instead, they reflect the proper ‘exercise of discretion, the marshaling and allocation of resources, and the confrontation of thorny policy issues’ that the people have reserved exclusively for our Legislative and Executive branches to exercise.
The court also acknowledged that “imposing limits on whether third parties can possess or collect ballots simply reflects a policy decision by a duly elected legislature, where the Constitution places responsibility to regulate and preserve the purity of elections.”
Interestingly, one of the plaintiffs in this case is the Phillip Randolph Institute. This is the same radical organization that lost a 2018 Supreme Court decision (Husted v. Phillip Randolph Institute,) in which it tried to prevent the state of Ohio from maintaining the accuracy of its voter-registration list by removing individuals who had died or moved out of the state.
7) Iowa
On Oct. 14, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a lower state court abused its discretion when it issued an Oct. 5 stay preventing the Iowa secretary of state from requiring that county officials distribute “only the blank Official State of Iowa Absentee Ballot Request Form.”
While the decision turns largely on state law, the court said, “Clearly, reasonable people can disagree on whether sending out blank or prepopulated absentee-ballot request forms is better policy. More importantly, it is not the role of the court system to evaluate the wisdom or fairness of policy choices made by other branches of governments.”
Contrary to the court’s comment about “reasonable people,” knowledgeable election officials understand that sending out absentee-ballot request forms that are already populated with a voter’s registration information—rather than requiring the voter to provide that information—cuts out one of the safety protocols for authenticating absentee-ballot requests.
8) Alabama
The 11th Circuit’s rulings have repeatedly stayed a recalcitrant federal district judge’s order prohibiting Alabama from enforcing its witness and photo-ID requirements for absentee ballots, and the fact that this same decision did not stay the district court’s order telling Alabama state officials they could not stop local officials from providing curbside voting, something not authorized under state law. Federal appeals court Judge Barbara Lagoa, who was rumored to have been one of two finalists for the Supreme Court vacancy that ultimately went to appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett—would also have stayed the district court’s order with regard to curbside voting.
Alabama officials sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, which it granted meaning Alabama officials can run their elections as they see fit (within constitutional bounds) and once again prohibit curbside voting.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, which Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined, that makes it clear that they would have no hesitation in substituting their “expert” judgment on how to deal with the health issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic for that of state and local officials.
All told, an avalanche of election-related litigation was filed in courts across the country. The common objective in all of these cases seems to be to get rid of the deadlines and security measures in place for absentee or mail-in ballots by overriding the rules set by state legislatures to govern the election.
The quantity and complexity of these lawsuits filed so close to an election after so many votes had already been cast, created a quagmire that the courts now seem to want to distance themselves from! Now that the damage has been done these feckless Judges continue to deny a viewing of the evidence of fraud which they had a primary hand in creating.
Rather than putting to rights the perfect storm of massive election fraud by the Democrats that these courts, and their unconstitutional interference in the swing states elections has allowed, they now refuse to look at the results “evidence of the fraud” and of their central role in the stolen 2020 election that has disenfranchised easily 100 million very angry and aware American voters!
What is so important to understand is that in every instance it was the Democrats who sought to usurp the role of the State Legislatures to make and control the election laws and processes in their States. In the 2020 election, the Democrats misused and colluded with every other branch of the Government in order undermine the equal protections and civil rights of every legal voter.
Moreover, while the courts could not stop interfering before the election, they are now using lack of standing based upon mootness to deny the President and 100 million voters their right to redress.
One hundred million legal voters followed the law in expectation that their vote would be counted and would count as an expression of their willingness cooperate in a social contract that has now been irreversibly breached by bad faith and fraud at every level.!
As a legal voter who voted in person before election day in the State of California and whose vote was not counted by the time CalifoRnia called the State for Joe Biden, I have a message for the Supreme Court.
“When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent
revolution becomes inevitable!”
— John F. Kennedy