Category Archives: Bill of Rights

Georgia election disturbing pattern emerges, Third county Walton ballots not counted, Poll workers or Dominion error/fraud?, Officials protecting themselves or Dominion?

Georgia election disturbing pattern emerges, Third county Walton ballots not counted, Poll workers or Dominion error/fraud?, Officials protecting themselves or Dominion?

“we did have a problem with one of the vote scanners.”…Tom Rees, chairman of Floyd County’s Board of Elections

“We discovered that these systems are subject to different types of unauthorized manipulation and potential fraud,”  “There is a reason that Texas rejected it,”...Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

“It’s Massive, Criminal Voter Fraud! – It’s Going to Blow the Mind of Everyone In This Country!”...Attorney Sidney Powell on Dominion Voting Systems 

 

We now have a pattern in Georgia which meshes with a pattern in the US and possibly internationally.

As part of the Georgia recount, a third county, Walton, has found ballots that were not counted during the election process.

Georgia election officials have consistently blamed poll workers.

Why?

Who are they protecting?

Themselves and/or Dominion Voting Systems?

From the Walton Tribune November 17, 2020.

The audit of votes in the presidential race revealed missing votes in Walton County.

Two hundred eighty-four ballots were added from the Between precinct. They netted 176 votes for President Donald Trump.

The certified totals as of last week showed Trump, the Republican incumbent, with 37,617, or 74.03%, of 50,811 votes in Walton County.

But as of Tuesday afternoon, Trump’s local haul had risen to 37,842, or 74.06% of 51,095 votes.

Democratic nominee Joe Biden came in a distant second in Walton County at 12,682 votes, or 24.82%. He was at 12,633 after the certification last week.

Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen gained 10 votes. She finished at 571, or 1.12%.

Lori Wood, chairwoman of the Board of Election, said the Between precinct had two scanners.

“One of them got uploaded and another one didn’t,” she said.

Read more:

https://www.waltontribune.com/article_23fa8af0-290f-11eb-b159-7fbad026ff58.html

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

Texas Dominion Voting Systems testing and rejection, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton: tested three times, System failures were evident in both software and hardware

Texas Dominion Voting Systems testing and rejection, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton: tested three times, System failures were evident in both software and hardware

“We discovered that these systems are subject to different types of unauthorized manipulation and potential fraud,”  “There is a reason that Texas rejected it,”...Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

“Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”...Eric Coomer, executive with Dominion Voting Systems

“It’s Massive, Criminal Voter Fraud! – It’s Going to Blow the Mind of Everyone In This Country!”...Attorney Sidney Powell on Dominion Voting Systems 

 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton as been in the news cycle recently explaining why Texas decided not to use Dominion Voting Systems for their election processing.

From The BL November 12, 2020.

“Texas tested Dominion voting machines and found them untrustworthy, confirming President Trump’s suspicions”

“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, said they decided not to go with Dominion software for vote counting in the 2020 election, as they had recognized there were problems with it, and it couldn’t be trusted.

Dominion Voting Systems has been used widely across many states in the United States. Fraud and inaccurate results have plagued areas where it’s used, resulting in the Trump campaign filing lawsuits to expose voting corruption across the nation.

Paxton explained to Newsweek they had tested Dominion and found it unworthy of use.

“There is a reason that Texas rejected it,” Paxton told “Stinchfield” host Grant Stinchfield. “We didn’t do it arbitrarily. We knew that these were unreliable systems. We didn’t want to trust them.

“We didn’t want to be in the same situation that some of these other states are in now where we’re questioning the results, so we believe that this was a problem.”

Paxton said the Dominion system was tested three times, starting in 2012, and each time system failures were evident in both software and hardware.

“We discovered that these systems are subject to different types of unauthorized manipulation and potential fraud,” he said.”

“Dominion has been heavily criticized for not preventing the system irregularities and the opportunity for fraud.

Dominion purchased Sequoia Voting Systems in 2010, a system suspected of being used to rig the Venezuelan elections in 2004, reported Newsweek.”

Read more:

https://thebl.com/us-news/texas-tested-dominion-voting-machines-and-found-them-untrustworthy-confirming-president-trumps-suspicions.html

Texas Dominion Voting Systems testing and evaluations report dated February 15, 2019.

“Re: Inspection of the Dominion Voting Systems’ Democracy Suite 5.5 conducted on January 16 and 17, 2019

Dear Mr. Ingram:
Pursuant to my appointment by the Texas Secretary of State as a voting systems examiner under TEXAS ELECTION CODE § 122.035, please allow this letter to serve as my report concerning the above referenced examination. I, along with the other statutory examiners and staff from the Secretary of State’s office, examined the Democracy Suite 5.5 voting system presented by Dominion Voting Systems (“Democracy 5.5 System”) on January 16 and 17, 2019, at the offices of Elections Division of the Texas Secretary of State in Austin, Texas.”

“RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing observations and my examination of the Democracy 5.5 System, its accompanying literature and the presentation made by Dominion officials both in its literature and at the examination, I cannot recommend that the Democracy 5.5 System be certified as compliant with the requirements of the TEXAS ELECTION CODE and the TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE. My opinion could potentially change of corrections to the identified problems (in my report and other reports) are properly corrected and presented to the Secretary’s office. ”

https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/jan2019-hurley.pdf

The following excerpt is timely and informative:

“In a follow-up, the vendor stated that only black Sharpie markers should be used for marking the ballots; however, when the black sharpie was used during testing, it did, on a few occasions, bleed through to the back side of the two-sided ballot in such a way that it could confuse the ballot scanner or kick the ballot out. “

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

Arizona lawsuit update Nov 12, Donald Trump v Katie Hobbs AZ Secretary of State, Unlawful procedures, Judge refuses to seal names of witnesses

Arizona lawsuit update Nov 12, Donald Trump v Katie Hobbs AZ Secretary of State, Unlawful procedures, Judge refuses to seal names of witnesses

“Poll workers struggled to operate the new voting machines in Maricopa County, and improperly pressed and told voters to press a green button to override significant errors,”  “The result is that the voting machines disregarded votes cast by voters in person on Election Day in Maricopa County.”…Matt Morgan, Trump 2020 campaign’s general counsel

“Attorney Sidney Powell 42k ballots in Arizona with only Joe Biden selected on ballots”…Maria Bartiroma show

“Arizona’s voter participation rate is 78.6%. Wisconsin’s is over 89%. Somebody is lying.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Donald Trump v Katie Hobbs AZ Secretary of State.

 

1. “Qualified electors casting ballots in person on Election Day in Maricopa County submitted their completed ballot to an electronic tabulation machine. Numerous voters were alerted by these devices to a facial irregularity in their ballot—frequently an ostensible ‘overvote’ — but were induced by poll workers to override the tabulator’s rejection of the ballot in the good faith belief that their vote would be duly registered and tabulated. In actuality, overriding the electronic tabulator’s alert automatically disqualifies the putative ‘overvotes’ without additional review or adjudication.​”

2. Arizona law requires that putative overvotes be subjected to further review in
an effort to discern the actual intent of the voter. While this safeguard was afforded to putative overvotes cast on early ballots and on Election Day ballots that poll workers properly segregated in a separate repository, potentially thousands of voters across Maricopa County have been disenfranchised by systematic improper tabulator overrides.

3. Upon information and belief, the adjudication and tabulation of these ballots
will prove determinative of the outcome of the election for President of the United States in Arizona and/or other contested offices in Maricopa County.

4. Declaratory, injunctive and mandamus remedies are necessary to prevent
irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs, vindicate the clear directives of the Arizona Legislature, ensure the fair and equal treatment of all Maricopa County electors, and secure the integrity of the results of the November 3, 2020 general election.”

Read more:

https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/verified-complaint-with-attachments.pdf

From NewsMax November 11, 2020.

“An Arizona state court judge refused to seal evidence, including video taken within a polling place and declaration of witnesses with their name and other identifying information, in a case brought by the Trump campaign and Arizona Republican Party claiming voter fraud.

Judge Daniel Kiley refused the request, Phoenix NBC network affiliate KPNX reported, apparently agreeing with attorneys for Maricopa County officials.

The Trump campaign and Arizona GOP filed the lawsuit on Saturday claiming that thousands of votes in Maricopa County were unlawfully disqualified or considered ”overvotes” — voided because they were marked for more than one candidate in the same race. They asked for the sealing of the evidence in a subsequent motion.

Read more:

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/arizona-fraud-evidence-seal/2020/11/11/id/996632/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

“President Elect”, Do not lie to my grandkids, No President Elect until Congress certifies votes of electors of Electoral College, No winner of general election yet

“President Elect”, Do not lie to my grandkids, No President Elect until Congress certifies votes of electors of Electoral College, No winner of general election yet

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”     Benjamin Franklin

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”...Abraham Lincoln

“The (American) press, which is mostly controlled by vested
interests, has an excessive influence on public opinion.”... Albert Einstein

 

 

DO NOT

LIE

TO MY

GRANDKIDS

There is no President Elect!

For that matter, there is not a winner of the general election yet.

The fake news media lies constantly.

We are supposed to be better educated.

I was and I expect the folks teaching our kids to be.

In the general election, we elect electors of the Electoral College who meet and elect the president.

Even then there is no President Elect until Congress certifies those votes in January.

Make sure your grandkids are taught this!

From Citizen Wells December 13, 2008.

Presidential Election

ELECTORAL COLLEGE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: What is the Electoral College?:

A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more

Q: Frequently asked questions:

A: Read more here

Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:

A:  The Founding Father’s intent

Here is a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding
fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come
to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made
by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were
proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to
possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least
to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the
President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so
happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an
effectual security against this mischief.”

Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:

A: List of states and restrictions on Electors

Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:

A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here

The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.

Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:

 A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):”

“§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

ARE ELECTORS REQUIRED TO VOTE ACCORDING TO POPULAR VOTE?

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.”   (From US National Archives)

SO CALLED “FAITHLESS ELECTORS”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here

STATE LAW EXAMPLE: PENNSYLVANIA

Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat
of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the
day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United
States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon
them by the Constitution and laws of the United States
.”

“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here

ELECTORS HELPED SAVE THE UNION

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Q: What happens after the Electoral College vote?:

A: Electoral College procedures

Q: What is the significance of your vote?:

A: The US Constitution clearly gives the states the power
and duties associated with electing a qualified president.
It is also clear that the states have not performed their
duties to ensure that the Electoral College votes will be
for a Qualified candidate. The Electors have a constitutional
duty to perform that supersedes any party contract or state
law. Each day that passes without verification of eligibility
of any candidate being voted for by Electors, brings us closer
to a constitutional crisis. There are pending court cases before
the US Supreme Court and state courts. Congress will meet in
January to count and certify votes and there will certainly be
challenges in Congress. If Congress or the courts shall fail to
do their duty, a Supreme Court Justice will be faced with a
decision to uphold the Constitution. The crisis will increase
in intensity.

https://citizenwells.com/2008/12/13/2008-us-presidential-election-electoral-college-electors-us-constitution-federal-election-law-state-election-laws-state-officers-state-election-officials-judges-us-supreme-court-justices-dem/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 Citizen Wells charges fake news CBS AP et al of criminal negligence in the reckless reporting of Biden win, Great potential for inciting violence

Citizen Wells charges fake news CBS AP et al of criminal negligence in the reckless reporting of Biden win, Great potential for inciting violence

“An U.S. Postal Service Insider told Project Veritas founder and CEO James O’Keefe his supervisor instructed mail carriers at his work site here that all new ballot envelopes should be segregated in bins, so that postal clerks could fraudulently hand-postmark them as received Nov. 3.”…Project Veritas

“A group of concerned attorneys from Texas went to Michigan to monitor the ballot integrity. The details in the following video echo what many experienced election night with the sudden jump in Biden votes around 4 AM.”...Citizen Wells November 5, 2020

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

 

I Citizen Wells, on behalf of the American public, charge CBS, AP, et al with the reckless act of prematurely projecting Joe Biden as president.

This flies in the face of facts and decent responsible behavior.

Knowing full well what the consequences of their past consistent fake news has had upon the public, including, but not limited to rioting and violence across the nation.

If Joe Biden loses or the results are delayed long enough, protests and violence are a foregone conclusion given the history of the impact of fake news.

CBS, AP, et al ignored and/or did not care about the following important facts:

  1. As of this morning, 20,000 votes separated Joe Biden and President Trump in Arizona. As of approx. 9:15 this AM there were over 100k ballots not counted. The post election counts have been favoring Trump.
  2. Georgia, which is still very close, is conducting a recount. Georgia also encountered a computer glitch.
  3. Fraud charges have been filed in Nevada.
  4. Michigan had documented glitches in their computer processing. There should be a recount.
  5. A mere 20k votes separates Biden and Trump in Wisconsin. There should be a recount.
  6. Extensive election improprieties in the election process including but not limited to poll watcher denial in PA. Justice Alito has ordered the separation of post Nov 3 ballots setting the stage for a possible ruling and disallowal.

Those are just the most glaring examples.

There have been computer and software issues in multiple states and half or more of the country uses the same computer software as Michigan.

The election equipment in AZ is an eye opener and will be reported soon at Citizen Wells.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Flynn original FBI 302 witness found, Sidney Powell: “witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”

Flynn original FBI 302 witness found, Sidney Powell: “witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”

“And I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”...Attorney Sidney Powell

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

“The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those
records in bad faith.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger October 11, 2019

 

From The Gateway Pundit January 17, 2020.

“HUGE! Attorney Sidney Powell: We Now Have a Witness to the Original 302 Who Says Flynn Was Honest with the Agents (AUDIO)

Sidney Powell filed a motion in October revealing that General Flynn was indeed set up by the FBI with an ambush, damaging leaks and altered 302 reports.

Powell revealed that former FBI lawyer Lisa Page EDITED General Mike Flynn’s 302 report, then lied to the DOJ about the edits.

A 302 summary report consists of contemporaneous notes taken by an FBI agent when interviewing a subject.

“Lisa Page, Special Counsel to Deputy Director McCabe, resigned; she edited Mr. Flynn’s 302 and was part of a small, high-level group that strategically planned his ambush.” the filing said.”

“Sidney Powell:  “And I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”

And yet the government is withholding this evidence!”

Read more:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/huge-attorney-sidney-powell-we-now-have-a-witness-to-the-original-302-who-says-flynn-was-honest-with-the-agents-audio/

Sidney Powell on The Larry O’Connor Show 01.16.2020

https://omny.fm/shows/the-larry-o-connor-show/sidney-powell-on-the-larry-oconnor-show-01-16-2020

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Flynn Supplemental Brief In Support of motion to withdraw plea of guilty, January 16, 2020, To clarify Van Grack’s responsibility for redline draft

Flynn Supplemental Brief In Support of motion to withdraw plea of guilty, January 16, 2020, To clarify Van Grack’s responsibility for redline draft

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those
records in bad faith.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger October 11, 2019

 

From the General Michael Flynn

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA OF GUILTY.

“Michael T. Flynn “Mr. Flynn” submits this supplemental brief to clarify and supplement his Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty.
To clarify the sequence of events, especially Mr. Van Grack’s responsibility for the redline draft that deleted the assertion that Mr. Flynn “then and there knew” there were “false statements” in the FARA registration form, ECF No. 151 at 12, also attached here as Exhibit 1 (highlighting added). The defense provides the following emails (attached as Exhibits 2-4):
• Monday, Nov. 27, 2017, at 6:21 pm: Brandon Van Grack sent the proposed plea
documents to Covington & Burling LLP (“Covington”) lawyers.
• Monday, Nov. 27, 2017, at 6:31 pm: Robert Kelner passed the draft plea documents to the Covington team.
• Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2017, there was no email traffic on these issues found even
internally throughout Covington team members and Mr. Van Grack.
• Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, at 8:55 am: Brandon Van Grack sent Robert Kelner and Steve Anthony an updated, PDF redlined version of the plea documents, that deleted “as he then and there knew” (this deleted the only language that implicated Mr. Flynn with any knowledge of any “false statements” in the FARA registration when he signed t).
• Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, at 7:49 pm: Brandon Van Grack wrote to Covington that he could not send the signed documents that night. 1

The import of this is that the Special Counsel’s Office (“SCO”) and Mr. Van Grack in particular knew full well that Mr. Flynn had consistently maintained that he did not know the FARA filings were false when he signed them, and during the plea process, Mr. Flynn had refused to sign a statement that said he did.

Even though Mr. Van Grack and SCO deleted that crucial language themselves, and Mr. Van Grack transmitted it back to Covington, Mr. Van Grack exploded at Mr. Flynn’s new counsel in the EDVA when she advised that Mr. Flynn would not lie and testify that he knowingly and intentionally signed a FARA registration containing any known “false statements.” Every step
Mr. Van Grack, Mr. Turgeon, and other prosecutors have taken against Mr. Flynn since that moment has been retaliatory, vindictive, and in bad faith—including the government’s about-face in its sentencing memorandum of January 7, 2020. 2

Shockingly, this evinces the strong inference the prosecutors themselves conspired to cause Mr. Flynn to make false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001, and they conspired and encouraged the subornation of perjury as they tried to force Mr. Flynn to say he lied to his lawyers when they knew their narrative was false and the FARA registration was correct.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.153.0_1.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Flynn prosecution case unraveling?, Supplemental status report September 30, 2019, US v. Rafiekian, “Mr. Van Grack knew that was not true”

Flynn prosecution case unraveling?, Supplemental status report September 30, 2019, US v. Rafiekian, “Mr. Van Grack knew that was not true”

“Given the material defense counsel has requested, which remains outstanding, Mr. Van Grack’s denial that further Brady material exists is patently absurd. It demonstrates arrogance and utter contempt for the letter and the spirit of this Court’s explicit order, the rule of Brady v. Maryland, and the protections guaranteed to defendants by the U.S. Constitution.”…US v. Flynn motion to compel production of Brady Material 

“Prosecutors Brandon Van Grack of the Justice Department’s national security division, who was formerly on Mr. Mueller’s team, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, of Washington, provided little explanation as to why they were not turning over the transcripts.”…Pittsburgh Post-Gazette June 1, 2019

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

United States v. Michael T. Flynn

Supplemental Status Report

September 30, 2019.

“At the Court’s request, counsel have previously updated the Court on the status of the case in the Eastern District of Virginia, United States v. Rafiekian, No. 1:18-cr-00457, in which Mr. Flynn was a cooperating witness. As described in Dkt. 98, Mr. Flynn cooperated with the government in multiple additional witness preparation sessions for more than 30 hours, waived
attorney-client privilege on many issues, provided documents and substantial cooperation—until the government decided at the last minute not to use him as a witness.

On September 24, 2019, Judge Anthony Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia granted Mr. Rafiekian’s motion for acquittal in its entirety. In a thorough 39-page opinion (attached), Judge Trenga acquitted him on one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C §371 and one count of acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government in violation of 18 U.S.C. §951.
Rafiekian, at Dkt. 372.

The government changed its tack as to Mr. Flynn when he would not testify exactly as the government demanded. It suddenly claimed it needed to name him as a coconspirator to admit one piece of evidence for which it already had another means of admission. Judge Trenga wrote:

On July 3, 2019, the Government filed a Notice of Correction to the Record [], in
which it advised the Court that it no longer planned to call Flynn as a witness in its case in chief. The Government also took the position for the first time, contrary to its earlier in-court statements, that Flynn was regarded as a co-conspirator and that it would seek to have his out-of-court statements introduced pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).
Id. at 11.

Yet, “neither the original nor superseding indictment in this case references Flynn as a member of the alleged conspiracy or as an agent of the Turkish government; and in response to the Court’s explicit questioning, the Government stated in open court that Flynn, who it planned to call as a witness, was not a member of the charged conspiracy and that it would not rely upon
his testimony to establish the foundation for the admission of Alptekin’s hearsay statements.” Id.

As to the substantive counts, Judge Trenga held that “[t]he Government [] failed to offer substantial evidence from which any rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafiekian knowingly acted and caused others to act in the United States as an agent of a foreign government without proper notification to the Attorney General in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 951.”
Id. at 25. The court’s analysis made clear that there was “no substantial evidence that Rafiekian agreed to operate subject to the direction or control of the Turkish government.” Id.

The court determined that even though the government contended that “the payments made to FIG from Inovo and from FIG to Alptekin allow[ed] the inference that Rafiekian was acting as an agent of the Turkish government or that Alptekin was acting as the agent of Turkey in retaining
FIG,” there was “no evidence, direct or otherwise, sufficient to reasonably infer that Turkey funded the engagement of FIG, or that the engagement was not in fact funded by a group of Turkish businessmen, as Rafiekian stated consistently throughout.” Id. at 28.

Further, the court held, id. at 33, that “[t]he Government [had not] presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafiekian conspired with Alptekin or anyone else to violate 22 U.S.C. § 618(a)(2), and that “[t]here [wa]s no evidence of discussion or suggestions, let alone an agreement, express or implied, to either avoid filing under FARA or to cause the filing of a false FARA registration statement.” (emphasis added).

The government’s own timeline failed to support its theory of the case:

[t]he superseding indictment alleges that the alleged conspiracy began from at least July 2016; but the DOJ did not even raise the specter of a need for a FARA filing until its letter to Flynn dated November 30, 2016 (which did not become known to Flynn until December 24, 2016), by which time FIG had ceased operations and was not performing any work for Inovo or anyone else.”
Id. at 34.

Ultimately, according to the court, the government’s case rested on unsupported assumptions:

The Government claims ‘the three co-conspirators [Rafiekian, Flynn, and Alptekin] again gave substantially identical explanations [in the FARA filings] that the jury plainly deemed false and used as further evidence of a concerted agreement to lie.’. . . But that contention ignores the lack of evidence to establish the presumed conspiracy, or any agreement, among these three individuals concerning the FARA filing, as discussed above.

Id.

Judge Trenga also granted, in the alternative, a motion for new trial, against the (highly unlikely) possibility that his primary ruling of acquittal would be reversed or vacated. Upon further analysis, he realized the “jury was not adequately instructed as to the role of Michael Flynn in light of the government’s in-court judicial admission that Flynn was not a member of the alleged
conspiracy and the lack of evidence sufficient to establish his participation in any conspiracy; and there was a substantial danger that the jury drew inferences against Rafiekian with respect to the existence of and his participation in the alleged conspiracy based on a belief that Flynn could be regarded as a member of the alleged conspiracy.” Id. at 36-37.

Finally, the court underscored the need to fulfill the scienter requirement, which burden the government had not carried, holding that “the mens rea requirement under this general intent statute required the government to prove that the defendant knew he was acting in a manner not authorized by statute or regulation.” Id. at 37.1

Remarkably, the government did not indict the specious Rafiekian case until more than a year after the Flynn indictment—just a few days before Mr. Flynn was to be sentenced in this Court—when the government was concerned that Mr. Flynn would withdraw his plea.

Even more troubling, Mr. Van Grack was determined that Mr. Flynn would testify in the Rafiekian case that he had knowingly signed a false FARA registration, even though Mr. Van Grack knew that was not true and Mr. Flynn had not agreed to that in the course of his plea agreement. Mr. Flynn’s refusal to get on the witness stand and lie for the government on that point prompted a heated tirade from Mr. Van Grack with Mr. Flynn’s lead counsel, in which Mr. Van Grack claimed Mr. Flynn had agreed to plead to a knowing and intentional false FARA filing. Dkt. 98-1.

In our endless document review, we now have a draft of the statement of offense that proves the contrary, showing similar language deleted. The absence of that language from the statement of offense or any charge of a false filing did not deter Mr. Van Grack from doubling down.
Enraged that Mr. Flynn reject their demand to lie, the prosecutors in the EDVA (Mr. James Gillis, Mr. Evan Turgeon, and Mr. John Gibbs, with Mr. Van Grack’s oversight) retaliated with an ex parte gag order and sealed filing on July 3. For the first time, the prosecutors claimed that Mr. Flynn was a co-conspirator. They put Michael Flynn Jr. on the witness list for the Rafiekian trial.

They even had FBI Agent Taylor contact the latter directly, despite knowing he was represented by counsel. See Dkt 246 in EDVA; Dkt. 95 in this Court.

In sum, however, the entire prosecution failed for lack of evidence of any conspiracy or anyone acting as a foreign agent. As Judge Trenga wrote: “the Government has failed to offer substantial evidence . . . that Rafiekian knowingly acted and caused others to act . . . as an agent of a foreign government,” and there was “no evidence Rafiekian agreed to operate subject to the
direction or control of Turkey,” and “no competent evidence . . . Alptekin acted as the type of ‘intermediary’ [as] the Government contend[ed].” Op. at 25.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.121.0.pdf

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

NC insurance issues, Hurricane Florence ramifications, Mandatory arbitration impact, Most have no flood insurance, My disability claims impact

NC insurance issues, Hurricane Florence ramifications, Mandatory arbitration impact, Most have no flood insurance, My disability claims impact

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“Companies don’t want to go to court because it puts them on a level playing field. Courts are ruled by law, legal precedent, and legal discovery, which allows litigants to obtain information and evidence from their opponents or from third parties. Discovery is a privilege in arbitration, but not a right. Arbitrators can’t enforce subpoenas, meaning you have to file a lawsuit just to get a third party or a piece of information into the hearing. In open court, you don’t have to jump through nearly as many hoops. Further, judgments in court are often more favorable to the consumer, both in the rate of success and the dollar amount of judgments.”…North Carolina Consumers Council

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”…Matthew 7:15

 

Hurricane Florence and its subsequent short term and long term flooding impact has been dominating much of the news in NC.

The impact is much worse than most people realize due to the extensive flooding and the fact that most people affected by the flooding do not have flood insurance.

Those who do have insurance coverage may be in for another shock.

The mandatory arbitration clause that may be in their insurance contract and permitted in NC. If they do not get what they consider a fair settlement, they may not be able to litigate, to have an attorney protect their interest in a court of law.

From the North Carolina Consumers Council.

“Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Are Everywhere But Aren’t Good For The Consumer

MANDATORY ARBITRATION TIES YOUR HANDS AND PREVENTS YOU FROM GETTING PROTECTIONS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW”

“Arbitration can be voluntary or mandatory. Voluntary arbitration is preferred as it preserves your legal rights. Mandatory arbitration, on the other hand, compels you to first submit to the arbitration process as a condition of buying or using a product or service before you take your case to court. In many situations, however, accepting a mandatory arbitration clause means you surrender your rights to further court action at any time in the future for anything.”

“Arbitration providers market entirely to businesses and their arbitrators often consist primarily of corporate executives and their lawyers. So, arbitration is tilted heavily in the favor of the company because the arbitrator is chosen by and paid for by the company. That arbitrator has a financial incentive to rule in the favor of the company in order to be chosen in the future by the company for other arbitration cases. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the arbitration will not find for the consumer. But arbitrators aren’t required to take law and legal precedent into account when making decisions like in legal proceedings. And since arbitration is private, everything that happens behind those closed doors is supposed to remain secret, meaning there is no public review of the process and no appeal in the case of binding arbitration.”

Read more:

https://www.ncconsumer.org/news-articles-eg/mandatory-arbitration-clauses-are-everywhere-but-arent-good-for-the-consumer.html

I recently received a gift, a blessing, from the NC Insurance Commission regarding my disability claim with Thrivent.

I am not at liberty to release the information at this time.

However, the impact this has had on me is significant.

It is my story and the story of thousands, if not millions of others.

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/09/25/thrivent-disability-claim-denial-and-treatment-impact-on-my-life-2009-to-present-delay-and-deny-alice-in-wonderland-protocol/

From the NAIC, The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016.

“Peter Kochenburger and Brendan Bridgeland, NAIC Consumer Representatives 
Section One: Why arbitration clauses should be banned”

“Insurers that would insist on mandatory arbitration of policyholder disputes have selected the forum that they believe will be more favorable to them than to their policyholders, if not on each individual claim then in the aggregate. However, manipulating the dispute resolution process in this manner conflicts with the duties insurers owe their policyholders and is not holding their policyholders’ interests “at least equal to their own.”

“If arbitration was truly a neutral forum rather than one favoring insurers, then there would be no need for an insurer to insist on its use before a dispute has even arisen. Insurers should utilize arbitration only when the policyholder has consented to do so after an actual dispute occurs (which is what the suggested amendment to the Model Unfair Trade Practices Act should accomplish), rather than requiring it in boilerplate language that the policyholder is very unlikely to read, could not bargain over the provision even if she did, and could not make an
informed decision at the point of sale on the merits. True freedom of contract, combined with the fundamental right to a trial, requires a knowing relinquishment of that right, which can only occur voluntarily once a specific dispute has materialized.”

Read more:

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/07/16/naic-banning-arbitration-clauses-in-insurance-policies-why-arbitration-clauses-should-be-banned-companies-that-include-pre-dispute-mandatory-arbitration-clauses-do-so-because-it/

Aside from continuing my disability claim struggle, I hope to play a part in removing mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance policies.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Colin Brock appeal, Thrivent nonpayment of disability benefits, Order denying Thrivent’s motion to confirm arbitration award, Brock alleges fraud corruption or other undue means

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Colin Brock appeal, Thrivent nonpayment of disability benefits, Order denying Thrivent’s motion to confirm arbitration award, Brock alleges fraud corruption or other undue means

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”…Matthew 7:15

“Martin Luther may or may not have stated ‘Here I Stand’ but his actions certainly did.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Colin Brock.

“This interlocutory appeal and original proceeding arise from a dispute between Colin Brock and his insurer, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans (“Thrivent”) over nonpayment of disability benefits, which Brock claims Thrivent owes him under a Thrivent insurance policy.   As required by the policy, the trial court compelled the parties to arbitrate.   Following an evidentiary hearing, the arbitrator denied Brock’s claims.   Thrivent moved the trial court to confirm the arbitration award.   In turn, Brock requested the trial court to vacate the arbitration award on the ground that the award was obtained “by fraud, corruption, or other undue means.”   The trial court signed an order denying Thrivent’s motion to confirm the award, vacating the arbitration award, and directing a rehearing before a new arbitrator.   Thrivent appeals the order and also seeks review by way of a petition for writ of mandamus.   Brock contends that we have no appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory order and requests that the petition for mandamus be denied.

We dismiss Thrivent’s interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny its petition for writ of mandamus.”

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1108836.html

AAL, Aid Association for Lutherans, implemented a change to their contracts, retroactively in 1999, to impose mandatory dispute resolution consisting of Appeal, Mediation and Arbitration in lieu of litigation. Their member dispute resolution program is referred to as MDRP. They claim, and many courts have upheld that they could implement and enforce the change retroactively due to their fraternal status. This has not been challenged in all states and since the states differ on how insurance entities are treated, this is still an open question.

The embracing of mandatory arbitration has become widespread in consumer and employment contracts. This has led to a huge impact on our day in court and given companies much power to control outcomes and continue unsavory practices, harmful to consumers.

This is not just a Thrivent problem or insurance problem, it is a problem affecting the daily lives of all Americans. Thrivent’s practice of using their special status is particularly unjust and alarming and runs contrary to their platitudes touted in company policies.

Thrivent v. Brock revelations and questions.
  • Brock alleges: “the award was obtained ‘by fraud, corruption, or other undue means.’”  We have no way of knowing because the MDRP, culminating in arbitration, was held behind closed doors, out of the light of day of a courtroom.
  • Brock had taken the arbitration decision to trial court and next the appeals court. How much were the legal fees?
  • Thrivent has a large legal staff and engages outside legal firms who specialize in disability cases.
  • How much time elapsed from the first disability claim to the appeals court decision and probable redo of arbitration?
  • What happened next? Arbitration? What was the outcome.
  • What is Colin Brock’s disability? Is it life threatening or painful? Is Mr. Brock getting adequate treatment?
  • Was Mr. Brock able to pay his bills? Feed a family?
  • How has the MDRP process helped Mr. Brock? Did he experience the blessings of the Christian beliefs touted by Thrivent?
  • How many Thrivent members drop out of this MDRP process for various reasons such as too engulfed in pain and stress or discouraged by improper Thrivent procedures and attitudes? Mr. George Tiedemann went through the process for 2 years and dropped out. He was 83.
  • How many Thrivent members were shocked to find out that the policy they took out years earlier, had been modified without their consent or signature?
  • How many Thrivent members sought legal representation to no avail because many attorneys will not touch a case with mandated arbitration?

 

“Thrivent’s Christian Calling

Thrivent’s Lutheran heritage of answering God’s call has led to a strong membership-owned organization that now welcomes Christians seeking to live out their faith.

Fraternal benefit societies have a common bond among members. Thrivent’s common bond is Christianity. We embrace the core Christian beliefs as articulated in the Apostles’ Creed as follows:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

If you share these beliefs, we invite you to join other Thrivent members called to pursue a life of generosity and wisdom with money.”

https://www.thrivent.com/about-us/files/28023.pdf

Here I stand.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/