MASSIVE FRAUD: Major Lawsuits (update: all foiled so far)

[greybeard]

BREAKING: President Trump and 18 States File at Supreme Court

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=L0LcH-GyUoo

[Eric J (Viking)]

ELECTION 2020: FRAUD, CONSTITUTION & SUPREME COURT = Trump win.

Link to video...

http://stateofthenation.co/?p=40830

Viking

[OmeyocaN777]

Six states ask Supreme Court to ‘intervene’ in Texas election case

https://therightscoop.com/breaking-s...election-case/

[Eric J (Viking)]

From RMN

If True, Seized SYCTL Data Shows Trump's Win
Was Gigantic - OAN Report. Trump 410 and Biden 128

From The Net
12-10-20



--------------------------------
Dear RM Agents and Readers,

Considering the rallies that those of us that visited or watch on the web, that total makes sense.

Many Blessings,
CrystalRiver

https://rense.com/general96/SYCTL-data.php

Viking

[OmeyocaN777]

Disclose.tv
@disclosetv
JUST IN - 106 Republican House members just filed an amicus brief in support of Texas' bid to overturn Biden's win in the Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/statu...39566550147078

https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/sta...40243053547522

https://therightscoop.com/breaking-1...supreme-court/

[thepainterdoug]

were getting to the point where we need non arguable non contestable evidence , and someone to move on it. these maps and graphs can't keep going back and forth . we need someone or something to drive this home and results to follow.

[iota]

Posted by OmeyocaN777 (here)
Disclose.tv
@disclosetv
JUST IN - 106 Republican House members just filed an amicus brief in support of Texas' bid to overturn Biden's win in the Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/statu...39566550147078

Oh my goodness! this IS truly moving ...

the implications of people arising to make their voice heard INTOLERANT of the subversive action pushed upon them
was both NECESSARY

and is STILL downright EXTRAORDINARY

was a teenie bit almost afraid for a moment ...
ahhhhh ... can breathe again!

once the people SPEAK and CHOOSE?

they are UNSTOPPABLE

NONE can prevail against them ...


the importance of a leader ....

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_Tuh8Ff3V8k

yay Texas!! and thank you Phillippe!

Posted by Philippe (here)

Posted by iota (here)

Posted by OmeyocaN777 (here)
Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

IOTA:


sorry!! just got a little excited MY state and guy are taking on the lawsuits with FOUR states!!...this news actually moved me ...


Very very good news Iota and so well done. I truly hope you Americans succeed without any bloodshed to turn this around!

[Satori]

Posted by pueblo (here)
Would like to hear Satori's take on the legal implications of this.

I had to look up 'Amicus brief'

An amicus curiae is someone who is not a party to a case who assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. The decision on whether to consider an amicus brief lies within the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin. Wikipedia

As I recall "amicus curiae" translates literally to "friend of the court."

One cannot just file an amicus curiae brief. One must file a motion for leave of court to file an amicus curiae brief. The proposed brief must, however, be attached to the motion. Thus, anyone reading the motion will have access to the proposed amicus (singular) or amici (plural) submission(s).

If the court, here the SCOTUS, grants leave to file the amicus submission, then that too becomes part of the record and will (should) be considered by the court for what ever weight the court puts on it.

The issues raised by Texas and the other states are a huge deal, of great public and Constitutional importance. Few matters of this magnitude come before the SCOTUS.

It is my opinion the SCOTUS will grant the motions for leave to file the amicus or amici submissions. (This is if the SCOTUS accepts Texas' and the other states' (7 or 8 of them) request to file an original complaint in the SCOTUS. I believe it will do that too, if it has not already done so.)

A similar analysis goes too Trump's intention to intervene in the Texas case. Intervention is a privilege not a right. Trump has to move to intervene and get leave to do so. He cannot just intervene. But, I believe the SCOTUS will allow him to do so. (If it has not already done so.) If it does not, that does not mean that Texas (and the other states) will lose in the SCOTUS. It will only mean that in the judgment of the SCOTUS they do not think Trump's intervention is required to decide the issues before the court and to do "justice".

PS In a case I had in the SCOTUS involving the writ of habeas corpus and extradition, 28 states, through their Attorneys' General, sought to file amici briefs. The SCOTUS permitted that. My point being, if they allow it in case like the one I had, they'll certainly allow it in this case.

[pueblo]

22 states pushing back..

[iota]

Posted by greybeard (here)
BREAKING: President Trump and 18 States File at Supreme Court

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=L0LcH-GyUoo

Great Video!

@ 1:35

This is now a very serious piece of Legislation. But now it is a piece of Litigation that has garnered national attention. We have, with the 17 States that have come into this case now a substantial number of jurisdictions that are supporting the position of TX that the choice of Electors and the jurisdictions that are named as Defendants was in violation of the STATE LAWS pertaining to HOW you choose Presidential Electors and therefore it diluted the vote of Texas and therefore it violated the Equal Protection of the Laws.”

.. If they (SCOTUS) take it? At that point the case IS “Outcome Determinant”
(the Defendant’s Electoral votes at stake are 62!)

And it is BEYOND question that the Constitutional issue surrounding Article II of the Constitution, the Elector’s Clause, is in play and each and every State in the United States has an interest in this particular case going before the United States because to the extent that

State “A” engages in MISconduct in violation of the United States Constitution that then dilutes the vote of EACH and EVERY citizen of the United States ..

@4:38

“You will find that these are questions of LAW ~ Not Election Fraud ~ it’s questions of LAW”

[TargeT]

Posted by pueblo (here)
22 states pushing back..

Guam and the US virgin islands aren't states.... why does it list states as Territories? Generally the language has to be pretty precise on these things doesn't it?

[greybeard]

I hope the Supreme Court is not influenced by the numbers for and against but purely the law.
How long will it take before a verdict is reached?
Chris

[thepainterdoug]

6 Things To Know About Texas’s
Supreme Court Petition
Over 2020’s Messed-Up Election
Texas argues that the case ‘presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,’ namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities.

By Margot Cleveland
The Federalist
December 9, 2020

On Monday, Texas filed a motion for leave to file a “Bill of Complaint” with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin’s administration of the 2020 presidential election. The combined filings, which also include a request for an expedited review and a preliminary injunction, spanned more than 150 pages. Here’s what you need to know about this latest election case.

1. This Is Not Bush v. Gore
Texas’s lawsuit is a procedural creature differing greatly from the Bush v. Gore case about the 2000 election. Unlike Bush v. Gore, which traveled to the Supreme Court on appeal, Texas’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” or power to hear a case initially.

The Constitution establishes several types of cases that fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but other than cases involving disputes between two states, Congress has created “concurrent jurisdiction” with lower federal courts. This means those other types of disputes may be heard by federal district courts.

Not so in the case of a state suing a state. The U.S. Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such cases, meaning that such disputes can only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Paradoxically, however, the Supreme Court does not have to hear a dispute between the states. Rather, controlling precedent holds that whether to hear such a dispute is within the Supreme Court’s discretion. That is why Texas filed a “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint"—because it needs the court’s permission to file the complaint.

In its memorandum in support of its motion, Texas argues that the case “presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,” namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The brief also argues that a ruling would help “preserve the Constitution and help prevent irregularities in future elections.”

Texas, however, also argues the Supreme Court’s “review is not discretionary.” In other words, Texas is also asking the Supreme Court to overturn its precedent that holds that the high court need not accept a complaint filed by one state against one or more defendant states. Given the time-sensitivity of the election dispute, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will want to waste precious days revisiting this precedent—something unnecessary if the Supreme Court accepts the Bill of Complaint on a discretionary basis.

2. The Time Is Short—And the Court Has Already Acted
Along with its Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint, Texas also filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration of its motions, including its second motion, a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or Alternatively a Stay. In this latter motion, Texas asks the court to order Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania not to take any action to certify presidential electors, participate in the Electoral College, or vote for a presidential candidate until the Supreme Court resolves Texas’s lawsuit.

Noting that federal law establishes Dec. 8 as a safe harbor for certifying presidential electors, that the Electoral College votes on Dec. 14, and the House of Representatives counts votes on Jan. 6, Texas implores the court to expedite the proceeding, as “absent some form of relief, the defendants will appoint electors based on unconstitutional and deeply uncertain election results.”

Yesterday the court, recognizing the urgency of the matter, ordered responses by the defendant states to Texas’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaints, and Texas’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or a Stay, to be filed by Dec. 10, 2020, at 3 p.m.

3. Texas Presents Serious Constitutional Claims
Notwithstanding some branding Texas lawsuit a “Hail Mary” attempt to block the outcome of the 2020 election, the Lone Star State’s complaint presents serious constitutional issues. Those issues, as Texas puts it, far exceed the electoral irregularities of “the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election.”

In its Bill of Complaint, filed along with its Motion for Leave, Texas presents three constitutional challenges. Count 1 alleges the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution.

The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides “[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” As Texas notes, this clause “makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.”

But, as Texas reveals in its detailed summary of the facts, each of the defendant states, through non-legislative actors, nullified legislatively established election laws in violation of the Electors Clause. For example, several large Wisconsin counties used drop boxes in direct violation of the Wisconsin Election Code that provides detailed procedures by which municipalities may designate sites for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Wisconsin election officials also ignored the statutory certification requirements for absentee ballots, counting votes that the state legislature defined as illegal because they did not include a witness signature and address.

Michigan election officials likewise violated the statutory mandates established by the state legislature, with the secretary of state mass mailing absentee ballots in contravention of state law. And in Wayne County, the home of Detroit’s Democratic stronghold, election officials ignored the state’s signature verification requirement. Georgia also violated the legislature’s requirement for signature verifications, according to Texas’s complaint.

The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania, these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law.

These and other practices, Texas alleges, establish a clear violation of the Electors Clause because that clause makes clear that it is the state legislature—and not administrative agencies, election officials, or even courts—charged under our constitutional system with selecting electors. (This argument finds support in the three-justice concurrence authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.) From there, Texas’s Count 1 argues that “electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.”

In Count 2, Texas relied on the same facts, then asserted an Equal Protection claim, premised on the reasoning of the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president.

“The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise,” the Supreme Court wrote. “Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

Then, citing its detailed statement of the facts, which highlighted the defendant states’ disparate treatment of voters, Texas argues in Count 2 that “equal protection violations in one State can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process.

These three counts, and the detailed facts Texas alleges, make clear that Texas’s beef is not with the states’ election laws, but with the states’ violation of their own election laws, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.

4. Texas’s Standing to Sue
Merely alleging the defendant states violated the Constitution, however, is not enough. Texas must also establish that it has “standing” to sue, meaning it has been injured in a way entitling it to stand before the court and seek redress. In its Motion for Leave, Texas argues at great length that it has standing, and presents three separate bases for it.

First, Texas claims the right to present the constitutional claims of its citizens, who “have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.”

Second, Texas “presses its own form of voting-rights injury as States” premised on the structure of the Constitution. “Whereas the House represents the People proportionally, the Senate represents the States,” Texas notes. Thus, “[w]hile Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate,” the Texas brief stresses. “Through that interest,” the brief continues:
States suffer an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election. This injury is particularly acute in 2020, where a Senate majority often will hang on the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote because of the nearly equal—and, depending on the outcome of Georgia run-off elections in January, possibly equal— balance between political parties. Quite simply, it is vitally important to the States who becomes Vice President.

Finally, Texas argues it has standing to sue as a representative of the state’s “electors.” These electors, Texas argues, suffer a “legislative injury whenever allegedly improper actions deny them a working majority.” Since “[t]he electoral college is a zero-sum game,” the unconstitutional appointment of electors in other states injures Texas’s electors, according to the briefing.

5. Texas Is Not Seeking to Overturn the Election—Or Install Trump
These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.

No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”

6. Texas Brings the Quotes
The Texas attorney general’s legal team excelled in its briefing. With clear and striking facts and detailed and persuasive argument, Texas has made a solid case for Supreme Court involvement, and along the way, the legal team included some stellar quotes—some from years past and some new classics, such as this opener:

Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.

If the Supreme Court does intervene, it will indeed be “in the spirit of Marbury v. Madison,” as Texas put it.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

[OmeyocaN777]

Senator Doug Mastriano
@SenMastriano
Honored to be among the 24 PA Senators that are part of the amicus in support of the Texas case going before the US Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/SenMastriano/sta...52538450255873

[Satori]

Posted by greybeard (here)
I hope the Supreme Court is not influenced by the numbers for and against but purely the law.
How long will it take before a verdict is reached?
Chris

The SCOTUS will want to make a decision on these cases, one way or the other, before 1/20/2021. Inauguration day is arguably the only constitutional deadline. But, I think they would like to act on this before 1/6/2021, which is the day both houses of Congress are to open and count the certified electoral votes and, thereby, choose and formally elect the President and VP--if they can agree on the vote count.

[OmeyocaN777]

Lou Dobbs
@LouDobbs
Cyber Pearl Harbor:
@SidneyPowell1
reveals groundbreaking new evidence indicating our Presidential election came under massive cyber-attack orchestrated with the help of Dominion, Smartmatic, and foreign adversaries.

https://twitter.com/LouDobbs/status/1337168084541575171

[greybeard]

Chinese Honeypot Spy in the US?; Texas' Spirit is the American People's Will| Beyond The Noise

Today's topics include discussing Hunter Biden's tax investigation, will it really matter? What exactly is the goal in the investigation? Is it to drag Hunter down or is it just a distraction?

How has digital censorship evolved in China? How will it's effects be used against the American people. The discussion is important as Big Tech are pushing their censorship dial to the max!

Texas may possibly be the most important state soon! Find out why in this episode of Beyond The Noise with David Zhang

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=By9VeJ0rLtw

Im impressed with this channels way of imparting information. Clear and concise.
Chris

[iota]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Chinese Honeypot Spy in the US?; Texas' Spirit is the American People's Will| Beyond The Noise

Today's topics include discussing Hunter Biden's tax investigation, will it really matter? What exactly is the goal in the investigation? Is it to drag Hunter down or is it just a distraction?

How has digital censorship evolved in China? How will it's effects be used against the American people. The discussion is important as Big Tech are pushing their censorship dial to the max!

Texas may possibly be the most important state soon! Find out why in this episode of Beyond The Noise with David Zhang

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=By9VeJ0rLtw

Im impressed with this channels way of imparting information. Clear and concise.
Chris

you're right Chris! really good video! thanks for posting it!

[norman]

22 states file counter suit against Texas at supreme court.



http://82.221.129.208/.uy1.html

[greybeard]

WE WILL WIN!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=eHvAsgDuG4M