![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/lawfare-logo.jpg\"){kind=logo}
\nShoshoni
\nDecember 12th<\/sup><\/span> 2020<\/span><\/p>\n
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. <\/span><\/p>\n The major reason that the Scamdemic was created was to give the criminals who have gained their high office through massive and ongoing \u201cElection Fraud\u201d 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 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. <\/span><\/p>\n 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!<\/span><\/p>\n Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution there are two types of limitations to bringing a case to a \u201cFederal Court\u201d including the SCOTUS that must be overcome. The first is what is called <\/span>Justiciability<\/span>. A Federal Court may only hear cases and controversies that present direct or imminent personal injury actually caused by some \u201cGovernment\u201d action for which the court can effectively redress the damage to a legal right, of a qualified plaintiff by Judicial decree. <\/span><\/p>\n The matter must not be \u201cpurely political,\u201d i.e.<\/span>: conflict with the separation of powers, or unsettled State laws which require \u201cabstention!\u201d <\/span>Furthermore, the plaintiff must have standing to seek redress.<\/span><\/p>\n Standing.<\/span> 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. <\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Courts\u2019 denial of the State of Texas\u2019 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.\u00a0 <\/span>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.<\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201cpurely political matter\u201d 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\u2019s 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. <\/span><\/p>\n 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. <\/span><\/p>\n 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! <\/span><\/p>\n The <\/span>Supreme Court is known as the Court of last Resort. Therefore, rather than filing <\/span>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! <\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201cPolitical Question\u201d and neither did a number of the Federal Courts!<\/span><\/p>\n The following is just a screenshot of recent history regarding the lawfare involved in the lead up the 2020 Presidential Election. <\/span><\/p>\n In the lead up to election day on November 3<\/span>rd<\/sup><\/span> 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<\/span><\/a> (witness requirements for absentee ballots); Ohio<\/span><\/a> and Texas<\/span><\/a> (ballot drop-box locations); and Florida<\/span><\/a> (registration deadlines, all made the news as they made their way through the federal courts.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Absentee-ballot deadlines were a major contention\u2014especially 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.<\/span><\/p>\n Here are eight such cases:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) Pennsylvania<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n On Oct. 19, an evenly divided Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and thus left in place a ruling by Pennsylvania\u2019s Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party that would require\u2014according to that court\u2019s interpretation of state law\u2014State\u00a0officials to count absentee ballots received up to three days after the election even if they don\u2019t have a postmark showing they had been mailed by Election Day.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In a surprising move, it was Chief Justice Roberts who joined with the court\u2019s liberals to refuse Supreme Court review of the state court\u2019s decision.<\/span><\/p>\n Roberts didn\u2019t 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He claimed that because \u201cthe Pennsylvania applications implicated the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations,\u201d that case was different than \u201cthe federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes\u201d in Wisconsin.<\/span><\/p>\n According to Roberts, because \u201cdifferent bodies of law and different precedents govern these two situations,\u201d the circumstances require \u201cthat we allow the modification of election rules in Pennsylvania, but not Wisconsin.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The fallacy of that argument is that the U.S. Constitution delegates authority over election rules to state legislatures, not state courts.<\/span><\/p>\n On Oct. 24, however, perhaps in anticipation of possibly getting a better decision with the empty seat on the Supreme Court filled, the state\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201cfraudulent and blatantly criminal action\u201d should have vitiated the entire 2020 Presidential election in Pennsylvania.<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n 2) Wisconsin<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n The U.S. 7<\/span>th<\/sup><\/span> Circuit Court of Appeals\u2019 decision to stay (or stop from going into effect) the order of a federal district court judge appointed by then-President Barack Obama that \u201cextended 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. 3<\/span>rd<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n In doing so, the court of appeals chastised the district court judge, reminding him that \u201cthe Supreme Court has insisted that federal courts not change electoral rules close to an election date\u201d and that \u201cthe design of adjustments during a pandemic\u201d is not a \u201cjudicial task.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n On Oct. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, rejecting the Democratic National Committee\u2019s request for a stay of the 7<\/span>th<\/sup><\/span> Circuit\u2019s order. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence explaining his rationale for why this decision differed from the high court\u2019s decision in the Pennsylvania case (more on that in a moment), and Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence emphasizing that \u201cthe Constitution provides that state legislatures\u2014not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials\u2014bear 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 3) Indiana<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Unfortunately, the 7<\/span>th<\/sup><\/span> Circuit\u2019s election-related work didn\u2019t end with Wisconsin\u2019s case. The same court had to repeat itself only five days later when it stayed and \u201csummarily reversed\u201d an Indiana-based federal judge\u2019s order \u201crequiring the state of Indiana to count all absentee ballots received by November 13, 2020, ten days after Election Day.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The court relied on the same rationale as in its previous cases and in some instances even said \u201csubstitute \u2018Indiana\u2019 for \u2018Wisconsin\u2019 and the essential point remains.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n An important point to keep in mind that too many seem to forget or want to ignore is that, as the 7<\/span>th<\/sup><\/span> Circuit said, \u201cas long as the state allows voting in person, there is no constitutional right to vote by mail.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The fact that there is a pandemic is still \u201cnot a good reason for the federal judiciary to assume tasks that belong to politically responsible officials.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n 4) North Carolina<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s 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\u2019t like or that were passed by their political opposition.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s what happened in North Carolina, where the U.S. 4<\/span>th<\/sup><\/span> Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay a six-day extension\u2014from three days after the election to nine\u2014during which mail-in ballots could be received and counted by election officials so long as the ballots were mailed on or before Election Day.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n A lower court judge found that the board had \u201csecretly\u201d negotiated the settlement without consulting the legislature and \u201cshowed little or no interest\u201d in defending state law against the lawsuit.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Judge James A. Wynn, another Obama appointee, wrote the opinion for the entire 4<\/span>th<\/sup><\/span> Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III and G. Steven Agee, with whom Judge Paul Niemeyer joined.<\/span><\/p>\n The central dispute between the majority and the dissent centered on what constituted the \u201cstatus quo\u201d when applying the (Purcell principle), established by the Supreme Court in 2006. That\u2019s the idea that federal courts generally should not interfere with a state\u2019s election-related decisions close to an election.<\/span><\/p>\n Wynn and the majority said, \u201cThe state court issued an order approving the Consent Judgment on October 2.\u00a0 This October 2 order established the relevant status quo for Purcell <\/i>purposes. Under this status quo, all absentee votes cast by Election Day and received by November 12 would be counted.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The dissenters countered that \u201cwe 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\u201d to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As the dissenters pointed out, \u201cThe Constitution does not assign these powers holistically to the state governments, but rather pinpoints a particular branch of state government which is \u201cthe Legislatures thereof.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Foreshadowing Gorsuch\u2019s concurrence in the Wisconsin case, they went on to say, \u201cWhether it is a federal court \u2026 or a state election board\u2014as it is here\u2014does 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\u2014exactly what Purcell <\/i>\u2026 counsels against.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, Niemeyer noted, the 4<\/span>th<\/sup><\/span> Circuit majority was changing the rules when \u201cwell over 1,000,000\u201d North Carolinians had already voted.<\/span><\/p>\n The court\u2019s action \u201cdisrespects the Supreme Court\u2019s repeated and clear command not to interfere so late in the day.\u00a0 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 5) Minnesota<\/span><\/p>\n A federal district court in Minnesota recently confronted a similar issue with another collusive lawsuit. There\u2014as in North Carolina\u2014Steve 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 \u201cnot to enforce Minnesota\u2019s statutorily mandated absentee-ballot receipt deadline of 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n