Category Archives: Court of Appeals

Todd C Bank Amicus brief in Timothy King et al v Gretchen Whitmer et al US Supreme Court Dec 18, “person who sustains personal harm” “has Article III standing”

Posted on December 19, 2020 | 4 comments

Todd C Bank Amicus brief in Timothy King et al v Gretchen Whitmer et al US Supreme Court Dec 18, “person who sustains personal harm” “has Article III standing”

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity
expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”…Marbury vs Madison

“We are calling upon the elections officials to engage the GBI to investigate any and all fraudulent activities, including those which were brought to light during Senate committee hearings on December 3, 2020.”…Georgia Senate Republicans December 8, 2020.

“Attorney Sidney Powell recently stated her cases were being “slow walked” by the SCOTUS. Justice Roberts should be recused.”...Citizen Wells

 

From:

Timothy King et al v Gretchen Whitmer et a

US Supreme Court

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF TODD C. BANK

Filed December 18, 2020.

“SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The District Court did not recognize that a person who sustains personal harm
within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution has Article III standing regardless of how many other persons suffered the same type and degree of harm.

The District Court, in finding that de-certification would be improper because
it would result in the denial of the right to vote to those persons who voted for
candidate Biden (“Biden”), overlooked the fact that the denial of de-certification would, in the event that candidate Trump (“Trump”) had received more lawful votes than had Biden, deny the right to vote of those persons who had lawfully voted for Trump.

The District Court overlooked the fact that the diluting of one’s vote is distinctly
harmful to a person who voted for a candidate who would have prevailed absent
unlawful conduct.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-815/164238/20201218233109254_King_v._Whitmer_Bank_Amicus_Brief.pdf

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

4 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Attorneys, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election 2020, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice

Tagged ,

Timothy King et al v Gretchen Whitmer, et al US Supreme Court re Michigan election fraud, “ballot-stuffing.” ” amplified…. by computer software “

Posted on December 17, 2020 | 3 comments

Timothy King et al v Gretchen Whitmer, et al US Supreme Court re Michigan election fraud, “ballot-stuffing.” ” amplified…. by computer software ”

“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

“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

 

Timothy King et al v Gretchen Whitmer

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Filed December 11, 2020

“The scheme and artifice to defraud illegally and fraudulently
manipulate the vote count to manufacture the “election” of Joe Biden as
President of the United States. The fraud was executed by many means,
but the most fundamentally troubling, insidious, and egregious ploy was
the systemic adaptation of old-fashioned “ballot-stuffing.” It has now
been amplified and rendered virtually invisible by computer software
created and run the vote tabulation by domestic and foreign actors for
that very purpose. The petition detailed an especially egregious range of
conduct in Wayne County and the City of Detroit, though this conduct
occurred throughout the State with the cooperation and control of
Michigan state election officials, including Respondents.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-815/163621/20201211163936285_Petition%20Michigan%20.pdf

From the

PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Filed December 15, 2020.

“11. In Michigan, a preliminary report, conducted by Russell James
Ramsland, Jr. of Allied Security Operations Group, LLC (“ASOG”), summarizing
the results of ASOG’s court-ordered forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems
equipment used in Antrim County, Michigan, was released on December 14, 2020. A copy of this report is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The report delivers the following preliminary conclusion:

We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and
purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and
influence election results. The system intentionally generates an
enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then
transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk
adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit
trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we
conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in
Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County
should not have been certified.

Exh. A, ¶ B(2), p. 1. This Interim Report finds that the Dominion software was
updated between the November 3, 2020 election and the subsequent recounts and that the updated software inexplicably produced wildly different results from the election day version. Id. at ¶ B(3), p. 2.

12. The Interim Report finds that the ballot adjudication process is a major
avenue for election fraud on the Dominion system. Further, it finds that the
adjudication log entries are missing from the system – evidence of tampering,
destruction of evidence and a violation of state law. “[T]heir conspicuous absence is extremely suspicious since the files exist for previous years using the same software.” Id. at ¶ B(15), p. 3.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-815/163875/20201215164905775_Final%20Michigan%20Notice%20of%20Supplemental%20Authority.pdf

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

3 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Attorney General, Attorneys, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, corruption, Court of Appeals, Courts, Crime, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Secretary of State, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , ,

Trump lawsuit dismissed 4 to 3 by corrupt Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, Dissenters Roggensack Ziegler & Bradley provide honest jurisprudence 

Posted on December 15, 2020 | 9 comments

Trump lawsuit dismissed 4 to 3 by corrupt Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, Dissenters Roggensack Ziegler & Bradley provide honest jurisprudence

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

“Administrative changes in Wisconsin election put tens of thousands of votes in question.   From allowing clerks to fix spoiled ballots to permitting voters to escape ID rules, Wisconsin election officials took actions that were not authorized by legislature.”...Just The News Nov 8

“We are called upon to declare what the law is. See Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (“It is emphatically the province
and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”).
Once again, in an all too familiar pattern, four members of this
court abdicate their responsibility to do so. They refuse to even
consider the uniquely Wisconsin, serious legal issues presented.”...Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler

 

Trump, et al v Biden, et al was dismissed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on December 14, 2020.

Justices Brian Hagedorn, Ann Bradley, Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky concurred in the majority opinion of 4 to 3.

They must know the law but for whatever reason chose to ignore it.

The following dissenting opinions highlight that.

Patience Drake Roggensack (dissenting)

Ҧ61 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J. (dissenting).
Elections have consequences. One candidate wins and the other
loses, but in every case, it is critical that the public perceive
that the election was fairly conducted.

¶62 In the case now before us, a significant portion of the
public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential
election was fairly conducted. Once again, four justices on this
court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require
to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast. I respectfully
dissent from that decision. I write separately to address the
merits of the claims presented.1

¶63 The Milwaukee County Board of Canvassers and the Dane
County Board of Canvassers based their decisions on erroneous
advice when they concluded that changes clerks made to defective
witness addresses were permissible. And, the Dane County Board of
Canvassers erred again when it approved the 200 locations for
ballot collection that comprised Democracy in the Park. The
majority does not bother addressing what the boards of canvassers
did or should have done, and instead, four members of this court
throw the cloak of laches over numerous problems that will be
repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to
correct them. The electorate expects more of us, and we are capable of providing it.2 Because we do not, I respectfully dissent. ”

“III. CONCLUSION
¶105 The Milwaukee County Board of Canvassers and the Dane
County Board of Canvassers based their decisions on erroneous
advice when they concluded that changes clerks made to defective
witness addresses were permissible. And, the Dane County Board of Canvassers erred again when it approved the 200 locations for
ballot collection that comprised Democracy in the Park. The
majority does not bother addressing what the boards of canvassers
did or should have done, and instead, four members of this court
throw the cloak of laches over numerous problems that will be
repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to
correct them. The electorate expects more of us, and we are
capable of providing it. Because we do not, I respectfully
dissent.”

Annette Kingsland Ziegler (dissenting)

“We are
called upon to declare what the law is. See Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (“It is emphatically the province
and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”).
Once again, in an all too familiar pattern, four members of this
court abdicate their responsibility to do so. They refuse to even
consider the uniquely Wisconsin, serious legal issues presented.
The issues presented in this case, unlike those in other cases
around the United States, are based on Wisconsin statutory election
law. Make no mistake, the majority opinion fails to even mention,
let alone analyze, the pertinent Wisconsin statutes. Passing
reference to other states’ decisionmaking is of little relevance
given the Wisconsin legal issues at stake. See Roggensack, C.J.,
dissent, supra; Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., dissent, infra. The
people of Wisconsin deserve an answer——if not for this election,
then at least to protect the integrity of elections in the future.
Instead of providing clarity, the majority opinion is, once again,
dismissive of the pressing legal issues presented.”

Ҧ136 Despite the fact that the majority relies on laches to
not declare the law in nearly all respects of the challenges
raised, it nonetheless segregates out the indefinitely confined
voter claim to analyze. Notably absent is any explanation why
this claim is not treated like the other challenges.

¶137 Therefore, the majority’s application of laches here is
unfortunate and doomed to create chaos, uncertainty, undermine
confidence and spawn needless litigation. Instead of declaring what the law is, the majority is legislating its preferred policy.
It disenfranchises those that followed the law in favor of those
who acted in contravention to it. This is not the rule of law; it
is the rule of judicial activism through inaction.

III. CONCLUSION
¶138 As I would not apply laches in the case at issue and
instead would analyze the statutes and available remedies as well
as the actions of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, I
respectfully dissent.”

Rebecca Grassl Bradley (dissenting)

“Once again,
the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court wields the
discretionary doctrine of laches as a mechanism to avoid answering
questions of law the people of Wisconsin elected us to decide.
Although nothing in the law compels its application, this majority
routinely hides behind laches in election law cases no matter when
a party asserts its claims. Whether election officials complied
with Wisconsin law in administering the November 3, 2020 election
is of fundamental importance to the voters, who should be able to
rely on the advice they are given when casting their ballots.
Rather than fulfilling its duty to say what the law is, a majority
of this court unconstitutionally converts the Wisconsin Elections
Commission’s mere advice into governing “law,” thereby supplanting
the actual election laws enacted by the people’s elected
representatives in the legislature and defying the will of
Wisconsin’s citizens. When the state’s highest court refuses to
uphold the law, and stands by while an unelected body of six
commissioners rewrites it, our system of representative government
is subverted.”

You are strongly urged to completely read the dissenting opinions.

They are powerful and should be spread throughout the land.

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395

Attorney Jordan Sekulow explains further.

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Attorney General, Attorneys, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election 2020, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Secretary of State, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, Voter fraud, voters

Wisconsin indefinitely confined ballots require audit, Supreme court belatedly clarifies, 2 opinions filed Dec 14, Why did WI court wait until day of Trump ruling?

Posted on December 15, 2020 | 4 comments

Wisconsin indefinitely confined ballots require audit, Supreme court belatedly clarifies, 2 opinions filed Dec 14, Why did WI court wait until day of Trump ruling?

“We’ve Identified 450,000 Ballots that Miraculously ONLY have a Vote for Joe Biden”…Attorney Sidney Powell

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

“Administrative changes in Wisconsin election put tens of thousands of votes in question.   From allowing clerks to fix spoiled ballots to permitting voters to escape ID rules, Wisconsin election officials took actions that were not authorized by legislature.”...Just The News Nov 8

 

On March 31, 2020 the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed the following ruling in Jefferson v Dane County:

“The temporary injunction the petitioners seek would order respondent, Scott McDonell, the Dane County Clerk, to remove a March 25, 2020 Facebook post in which he indicated, inter alia, that all Dane County voters could declare themselves to be “indefinitely confined” under Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2) due to illness solely because of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services Emergency
Order #12 (the Safer at Home Order) and difficulties in presenting or uploading a valid proof of identification, thereby avoiding the legal requirement to present or upload a copy of the voter’s proof of identification when requesting an absentee ballot. 1 The petitioners further ask this court
to order respondent McDonell and respondent Dane County to issue new statements setting forth the statutory interpretation proposed by the petitioners.”

In regard to clarification, the WEC has met and has issued guidance on the proper use of indefinitely confined status under Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2) in its March 29, 2020 publication, “Guidance for Indefinitely Confined Electors COVID-19.” The WEC guidance states as follows:

1. Designation of indefinitely confined status is for each individual voter to make
based upon their current circumstances. It does not require permanent or total
inability to travel outside of the residence. The designation is appropriate for
electors who are indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness or
infirmity or are disabled for an indefinite period.

2. Indefinitely confined status shall not be used by electors simply as a means to
avoid the photo ID requirement without regard to whether they are indefinitely
confined because of age, physical illness or infirmity, or disability.

We conclude that the WEC’s guidance quoted above provides the clarification on the purpose and proper use of the indefinitely confined status that is required at this time.”

https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/2020ap557-oa_3-31-20_order.pdf

On December 14, 2020, the day of the Electoral College vote, the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed 2 opinions.

Release date Case number Caption Select/view
Dec 14, 2020 2020AP002038 Donald J. Trump v. Joseph R. Biden  PDF 
Dec 14, 2020 2020AP000557-OA Mark Jefferson v. Dane County, Wisconsin  PDF 

 

Trump, et al v Biden, et al

ON PETITION TO BYPASS COURT OF APPEALS, REVIEW
OF DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

Filed December 14, 2020.

“The Campaign focuses its objections on four different
categories of ballots——each applying only to voters in Dane County
and Milwaukee County. First, it seeks to strike all ballots cast
by voters who claimed indefinitely confined status since March 25,
2020.”

“The challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots
is meritless on its face, and the other three categories of ballots
challenged fail under the doctrine of laches.”

“The Campaign does not challenge the ballots of
individual voters. Rather, the Campaign argues that all voters
claiming indefinitely confined status since the date of the
erroneous Facebook advice should have their votes invalidated,
whether they are actually indefinitely confined or not. Although
the number of individuals claiming indefinitely confined status
has increased throughout the state, the Campaign asks us to apply
this blanket invalidation of indefinitely confined voters only to
ballots cast in Dane and Milwaukee Counties, a total exceeding 28,000 votes. The Campaign’s request to strike indefinitely
confined voters in Dane and Milwaukee Counties as a class without
regard to whether any individual voter was in fact indefinitely
confined has no basis in reason or law; it is wholly without merit.”

¶10 All three of these challenges fail under the
longstanding and well-settled doctrine of laches. “Laches is
founded on the notion that equity aids the vigilant, and not those
who sleep on their rights to the detriment of the opposing party.”
State ex rel. Wren v. Richardson, 2019 WI 110, ¶14, 389
Wis. 2d 516, 936 N.W.2d 587. Application of laches is within the
court’s discretion upon a showing by the party raising the claim
of unreasonable delay, lack of knowledge the claim would be raised,
and prejudice. Id., ¶15.

¶11 For obvious reasons, laches has particular import in the
election context. As one noted treatise explains:
Extreme diligence and promptness are required in
election-related matters, particularly where actionable election practices are discovered prior to the election.
Therefore, laches is available in election challenges.
In fact, in election contests, a court especially
considers the application of laches. Such doctrine is
applied because the efficient use of public resources
demands that a court not allow persons to gamble on the
outcome of an election contest and then challenge it
when dissatisfied with the results, especially when the
same challenge could have been made before the public is
put through the time and expense of the entire election
process. Thus if a party seeking extraordinary relief
in an election-related matter fails to exercise the
requisite diligence, laches will bar the action.”

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395

The denial of tossing out all indefinitely confined ballots seems reasonable so as not to disenfranchise valid voters.

Not sure what this means:

The challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots
is meritless on its face”

And accusing the Trump challenge of violating the laches principle when viewed in light of the following, is interesting.

Filed also on December 14, 2020, when the oral argument was held September 29, 2020.

Jefferson, et al v Dane County, et al.

“(1) Respondents lack the authority to issue an
interpretation of Wisconsin’s election law allowing all electors
in Dane County to obtain an absentee ballot without a photo
identification and (2) Governor Evers’ Emergency Order #12
(“Emergency Order #12″) did not authorize all Wisconsin voters to
obtain an absentee ballot without a photo identification.”

“we conclude that Emergency Order #12 did not render
all Wisconsin electors “indefinitely confined,” thereby obviating
the requirement of a valid photo identification to obtain an
absentee ballot.”

“¶23 The plain language of Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) requires
that each elector make an individual assessment to determine
whether he or she qualifies as indefinitely confined or disabled
for an indefinite period. A county clerk may not “declare” that
any elector is indefinitely confined due to a pandemic. This
conclusion is supported by two distinct, but equally important,
reasons.”

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315283

Why was the above filed on December 14, 2020:

  • When oral arguments were on September 29, 2020.
  • Not before the election.
  • Long after the election.
  • On December 14, the day of the Electoral College vote.
  • And the same day as the Trump lawsuit denial.

???

This was after the Trump lawsuit was filed and heard and likely would have been quoted.

Anybody else reporting this?

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Attorney General, Attorneys, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election 2020, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, fraud, Secretary of State, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , ,

Trump Wisconsin election challenge lawsuit filings raise questions, Wis. Stat. § 9.01 (2017–18): “these actions should be filed in the circuit court”, Why not filed there?

Posted on December 5, 2020 | 3 comments

Trump Wisconsin election challenge lawsuit filings raise questions, Wis. Stat. § 9.01 (2017–18): “these actions should be filed in the circuit court”, Why not filed there?

“We’ve Identified 450,000 Ballots that Miraculously ONLY have a Vote for Joe Biden”…Attorney Sidney Powell

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

“Administrative changes in Wisconsin election put tens of thousands of votes in question.   From allowing clerks to fix spoiled ballots to permitting voters to escape ID rules, Wisconsin election officials took actions that were not authorized by legislature.”...Just The News Nov 8

 

Citizen Wells has a good fundamental knowledge of how the court system works and interacts.

Over half of the state statutes have been read and they have a common thread of election challenge avenues and remedies.

When the Trump Wisconsin lawsuit was first filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court there was some head scratching.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel December 3, 2020.

“The state Supreme Court rejected a request Thursday by President Donald Trump to revoke the certification of his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

The 4-3 decision left room for Trump to bring a new challenge to the election results and the president quickly did so. But the high court’s ruling provided a serious setback for him because even some of the dissenting justices signaled they do not support Trump’s call for throwing out hundreds of thousands of ballots.

Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn and the court’s three liberals declined to take the case he filed directly with them because state law requires election challenges like his to be filed in circuit court.

“We do well as a judicial body to abide by time-tested judicial norms, even — and maybe especially — in high-profile cases,” he wrote. “Following the law governing challenges to election results is no threat to the rule of law.””

Read more:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/03/wisconsin-supreme-court-rejects-trumps-election-lawsuit/3807385001/

From the WI Supreme Court ruling:

“All parties seem to agree that Wis. Stat. § 9.01 (2017–18)1
constitutes the “exclusive judicial remedy” applicable to this claim. § 9.01(11). After all, that is what the statute says. This section provides that these actions should be filed in the circuit court, and spells out detailed procedures
for ensuring their orderly and swift disposition. See § 9.01(6)–(8). Following this law is not disregarding our duty, as some of my colleagues suggest. It is following the law.”

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/2020AP1971-OA.pdf

 

The next filing was also confusing to observers and to U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig.

From Boston.com December 5, 2020.

Judge calls Trump request in Wisconsin lawsuit ‘bizarre’

“I have a very, very hard time seeing how this is justiciable in the federal court,” Ludwig, a Trump appointee, said. “The request to remand this case to the Legislature almost strikes me as bizarre.”

““It’s a request for pretty remarkable declaratory relief,” said U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig during a conference call to set deadlines and a hearing date. Ludwig, who said it was “an unusual case, obviously,” also cast doubt on whether a federal court should be considering it at all.

“I have a very, very hard time seeing how this is justiciable in the federal court,” Ludwig, a Trump appointee, said. “The request to remand this case to the Legislature almost strikes me as bizarre.”

The judge questioned why Trump wasn’t going directly to the Legislature if he wants lawmakers to get involved with naming electors.”

Read more:

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2020/12/05/judge-calls-trump-request-in-wisconsin-lawsuit-bizarre

The core arguments of the Trump and other lawsuits relate to the election procedures not following state statutes.

Yet, the Trump legal staff is not following WI statutes which call for challenges to begin in the circuit courts.

Is there some legal caveat I am missing?

It appears to me that we are wasting valuable time.

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

3 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Attorney General, Attorneys, Circuit Court, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election 2020, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Secretary of State, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , ,

Admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. Seth Rich article kept alive in Rich v Butowsky, Roger Aronoff affidavit filed October 9, 2020, Aronoff did not write article

Posted on October 13, 2020 | 1 comment

Admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. Seth Rich article kept alive in Rich v Butowsky, Roger Aronoff affidavit filed October 9, 2020, Aronoff did not write article

“The left, the Democrats, the Deep State. Obama holdovers employing high powered law firms and corrupt judges have done their best to hide and obfuscate the truth surrounding the DNC leaks and possible involvement by Seth Rich.”…Citizen Wells

“With the clearly unethical and most likely criminal behavior of the upper management levels of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) exposed by Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee, there are two complementary areas that have been conveniently swept under the rug. The first deals with the murder of the  Democratic National Convention (DNC) staffer Seth Rich, and the second deals with the alleged hacking of the DNC server by Russia.”...Admiral James Lyons

“Assange testimony requested in Rich v Butowsky et al  August 24, 2020”…Citizen Wells

 

This was a head scratcher at first glance.

Perhaps it was an attempt to find a live witness to the drafting of the article attributed to Admiral Lyons?

From Aaron Rich v Ed Butowsky October 9, 2020.

“AFFIDAVIT
Roger Aronoff, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says:
1. I have been a journalist and filmmaker for the past 50 years.
2. I was the Editor of Accuracy in Media (AIM) from 2010 through 2017.
3. I am currently the Executive Director and Editor of the Citizens Commission on National Security.
4. During the time I worked at AIM, I became friends with Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (ret.)
5. I proofread a number of columns, but certainly not all, for Admiral Lyons, which he would then usually submit to the Washington Times.
6. I was never asked by anyone and I never did write a first draft or any draft of a column for Admiral Lyons, ever at any time. The only thing I did was proofread what he had written. I would correct spelling, grammar and improve sentence structure. If l thought something was factually incorrect, I would correct it. All edits I made in the proofreading process were done by using the Review and Mark-up system that exists in Word. I would send the marked-up version back to Admiral Lyons, and he would take it from there. In most cases he accepted my proofing, but not always.
7. In the case involving the article he wrote about Seth Rich in February or March of 2017, no one asked me to write up a first draft, or any draft, and I am not sure that I did proof it at all. While I have been able to find some of the revised columns that I sent him back, I have been unable to find this one in particular, leading me to question if I ever reviewed it or proofed it at all. It is possible that I did, but if I did, that is all I did. But I have no specific memory of having proofed that particular column.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the forgoing is true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794.273.3.pdf

The article referred to above was from the Washington Times, March 1, 2018 not 2017.

It was retracted by the Times.

“More cover-up questions

The curious murder of Seth Rich poses questions that just won’t stay under the official rug

By James A. Lyons – – Thursday, March 1, 2018

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

With the clearly unethical and most likely criminal behavior of the upper management levels of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) exposed by Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee, there are two complementary areas that have been conveniently swept under the rug.

The first deals with the murder of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Rich, and the second deals with the alleged hacking of the DNC server by Russia. Both should be of prime interest to special counsel Robert Mueller, but do not hold your breath.

The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery.

This has all the earmarks of a targeted hit job. However, strangely no one has been charged with this horrific crime, and what is more intriguing is that no law enforcement agency is even investigating this murder. According to other open sources, Metro police were told by their “higher ups” that if they spoke about the case, they will be immediately terminated. It has been claimed that this order came down from very high up the “food chain,” well beyond the D.C. mayor’s office. Interesting.”

Read more:

http://citizenwells.net/more-cover-up-questions-by-admiral-james-a-lyons-jr-march-1-2018-seth-rich-murder-and-dnc-leak-julian-assange-implied-that-mr-rich-was-killed-because-he-was-the-wikileaks-source-of-the-d/

Admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. Obituary:

“Born in New Jersey to James A. and Marion F. Lyons, he entered the United States Naval Academy in June 1948 from the Naval Reserve and graduated with the Class of 1952. He served as a Surface Warfare Officer until his retirement as a four-star admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet on Oct. 1, 1987.

His early years of naval service were with surface combatants where he developed an extraordinary understanding of naval warfare that carried him through a brilliant career. It was also when he met and married Renee Wilcox Chevalier of Washington, D.C., in 1954. She was the love of his life for 64 years.

His early sea assignments included the Sixth Fleet flagship USS Salem (CA 139) and USS Miller (DD 535). Later sea assignments included command of the destroyer USS Charles S. Sperry (DD 967) and guided missile cruiser USS Richmond K. Turner (DLG 20). Intermixed were staff assignments in the Pentagon with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which played a major role in developing the outstanding strategic knowledge that characterized his Navy career. A principal advisor on significant Joint Chiefs of Staff matters, he was key in the development of the Navy Red Cell, an anti-terrorism group comprised of Navy Seals established in response to the 1983 bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut. He was a graduate of both the Naval War College and the National War College and his shore assignments included wide and significant experience in strategic planning and national security affairs.

In July 1981, upon being promoted to the grade of vice admiral, he took command of the U.S. Second Fleet, where he directed and conducted maritime operations throughout the Atlantic. Admiral Lyons showed his bold, aggressive naval strategies during the Cold War with the Soviet Union without firing a shot. He assumed command of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in September 1985, upon his promotion to admiral. It was during this time that he led three Pacific Fleet ships on the first U.S. Navy ship visit to the People’s Republic of China in 37 years. Also during this tour, he sent the hospital ship USNS Mercy (T-AH-19), a converted oil tanker, on her inaugural mission to provide humanitarian aide to the Philippines and the South Pacific. He continued his active involvement in Project Hope and other humanitarian organization in the United States and overseas after retirement from the Navy.

Admiral Lyons’ Navy awards include two Distinguished Service Medals, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Navy Expeditionary Medal (Cuba), Humanitarian Service and Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Lebanon), the French Legion D’Honneur and the Republic of Korea Order of National Security Merit.

In August 1987, Admiral Lyons retired from the Navy after 36 years of service and began an equally impressive career as President/CEO of LION Associates LLC, a premier global consulting company providing National Security advice. He was Chairman of the Center for Security Policy’s Military Committee and the senior member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi. He served on the Advisory Board to the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and was a consultant to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on issues of counterterrorism. He recently received an IMPACT Award, which honors unsung Leaders Defending Liberty and specifically his profound impact on this country’s liberty and freedom. His actions were driven by a profound desire to do what was right for our country and civilization.”

https://www.fauquiernow.com/fauquier_news/obituary/fauquier-james-ace-lyons-jr-2018

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

1 Comment

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Court of Appeals, Courts, DNC, Election 2016, Seth Rich

Tagged , , , ,

Hunter Biden business partner fraud conviction upheld by US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, “large sums of Chinese and Ukrainian money flowing into Archer’s and Biden’s accounts”

Posted on October 10, 2020 | 21 comments

Hunter Biden business partner fraud conviction upheld by US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, “large sums of Chinese and Ukrainian money flowing into Archer’s and Biden’s accounts”

“One of Brennan’s CIA employees, who worked with Vice President Biden on the Ukraine desk in the Obama White House, filed the bogus and untruthful hearsay Whistleblower complaint about President Trump’s conversation with the President of Ukraine—he or she said they didn’t like the tone of the conversation, when they never even heard the conversation.”…Captain Joseph R. John USN(ret)

“Joe Biden “Outraged We Seized Burisma Assets”, Could No Longer Pay His Son…”…Former Ukraine Prosecutor Shokin

“On April 16, 2014, Vice President Biden met with his son’s business partner, Devon Archer, at the White House. Five days later, Vice President Biden visited Ukraine, and he soon after was described in the press as the “public face of the administration’s handling of Ukraine.” The day after his visit, on April 22, Archer joined the board of Burisma. Six days later, on April 28, British officials seized $23 million from the London bank accounts of Burisma’s owner,
Mykola Zlochevsky. Fourteen days later, on May 12, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma, and over the course of the next several years, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for their participation on the board.”…US Senate Committee Hunter Biden Report Sept. 23, 2020

From Just The News October 8, 2020.

“Federal appeals court reinstates criminal convictions of Hunter Biden’s business partner

Devon Archer was found guilty of fraud, conspiracy.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Wednesday reversed a lower court decision to grant a new trial in a fraud case involving Hunter Biden’s ex-business partner Devon Archer.

Hunter Biden was not charged in the scheme, but Biden’s name was reportedly “invoked at various stages of the fraud as a selling point in transactions.”

Archer was indicted on March 26, 2018 and charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud for a Native American tribal bond scheme hatched by Archer and several of his business partners. After a trial lasting approximately one month, the jury found Archer guilty on both counts. Archer asked the district court to set aside the jury’s verdict and successfully pushed for a retrial.”

“Financial records made public during Archer’s 2018 trial revealed large sums of Chinese and Ukrainian money flowing into Archer’s and Biden’s accounts via a Morgan Stanley account for an entity called Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC (RSB). For example, the RSB financial records revealed that Ukraine’s largest gas company, Burisma Holdings, funneled millions to Archer and Biden in 2014 and 2015. According to Archer’s bank statement, Burisma paid at least $166,666.66 (twin payments of $83,333.33) into Biden and Archer’s joint account each month between May 2014 and October 2015.”

“The report raises serious questions that former Vice President Biden needs to answer,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) told Just the News. “There are simply too many potential conflicts of interest, counterintelligence and extortion threats to ignore.”

Read more:

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/federal-appeals-court-reinstates-charges-against-hunter

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

21 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Biden, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Court of Appeals, Courts, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, fraud

Tagged ,

Michael Flynn motion to strike attorney non party communications October 8, 2020, Strzok and McCabe attorney letters

Posted on October 9, 2020 | 1 comment

Michael Flynn motion to strike attorney non party communications October 8, 2020, Strzok and McCabe  attorney letters

“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

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

On Judge Sullivan: “if there was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”...Judge Rao dissenting opinion

 

From United States v Michael Flynn October 8, 2020.

GENERAL FLYNN’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER
COMMUNICATIONS AND TO FORECLOSE
FILINGS OF ANY OTHER NON-PARTIES

General Michael T. Flynn moves to strike the ex parte and unauthorized
extrajudicial communications received by this court’s chambers and improperly
entered into the public docket on September 28, 2020 and October 7, 2020. These attorneys should be addressing their concerns with the government, not emailing the judge in this case; and the letters do not belong in the record.

On September 28, 2020, Aitan Goelman, counsel to former FBI Deputy
Assistant Director Peter Strzok, who was fired from the Bureau after he was exposed for his own bias and extraordinary malfeasance, emailed a letter to the court regarding documents on the record. He did not copy counsel for the parties, nor did he seek leave to intervene. Instead of noting the impropriety of the correspondence, the court immediately entered the letter into the record. ECF No. 258.

Emboldened by the positive reception Mr. Strzok’s letter received, counsel to
Andrew McCabe sent a similar letter to Judge Sullivan’s chambers on October 5,
2020. On October 7, 2020, this court entered that letter, too, into the record of this case. ECF No. 263. Neither Peter Strzok nor Andrew McCabe is a party to this litigation, and their attorneys have no role in this litigation.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.267.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

1 Comment

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election 2016, FBI, US Constitution, US Department of Justice

Tagged , ,

General Flynn filing Oct 7, 2020 of newly released FBI notes Jan 25, 2017, Another smoking gun, “We know truth of something being falsely stated to public”

Posted on October 7, 2020 | 11 comments

General Flynn filing Oct 7, 2020 of newly released FBI notes Jan 25, 2017, Another smoking gun, “We know truth of something being falsely stated to public”

“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

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

On Judge Sullivan: “if there was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”...Judge Rao dissenting opinion

 

From United States v Michael Flynn October 7, 2020.

“FIFTH SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AGREED DISMISSAL
On May 7, 2020, the Government moved to dismiss the prosecution of General
Flynn. ECF No. 198. Until this case is dismissed with prejudice, the Government
has a continuing obligation to provide to the defense all evidence that is exculpatory of General Flynn, establishes misconduct by the Government in its many capacities that contributed to this wrongful prosecution, or otherwise is favorable to the defense. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The defense has a continuing obligation to make a record that mandates this dismissal. Today the Government produced a single page of FBI notes from January 25, 2020 taken by a lawyer in the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. In that meeting it was clear, the day after the FBI’s interview of General Flynn, that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a Logan Act charge regarding the December 29, 2016 phone call with Ambassador Kislyak, which was similar to communications by “other transition teams.””

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.264.0.pdf

In the note of January 25, 2017 the following is stated:

“We know truth of something being falsely stated to public”

FlynnFBInotesJan252017

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

11 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election 2016, FBI, US Department of Justice

Tagged , , , ,

Michael Flynn motion to disqualify Judge Sullivan October 7, 2020,  Judge Sullivan: “cast an intolerable cloud of partiality over his subsequent judicial conduct”

Posted on October 7, 2020 | 1 comment

Michael Flynn motion to disqualify Judge Sullivan October 7, 2020,  Judge Sullivan: “cast an intolerable cloud of partiality over his subsequent judicial conduct”

“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

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

On Judge Sullivan: “if there was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”...Judge Rao dissenting opinion

 

From United States v Michael Flynn October 7, 2020.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), (b)(1), and (b)(5)(i), General Michael T. Flynn
moves to disqualify Judge Emmet G. Sullivan from further participation in this case. At least by the time of his failure to follow the mandamus of the D.C. Circuit panel and his decision with his own retained counsel to take the unprecedented and improper step of filing his petition for rehearing en banc, Judge Sullivan “cast an intolerable cloud of partiality over his subsequent judicial conduct” and “risk[ed] [] undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process.” In re Al Nashiri, 921 F.3d 224, 237, 239 (D.C. Cir. 2019). ““[A]ll that must be demonstrated to compel recusal,” then, is “a showing of an appearance of bias…sufficient to permit the average citizen reasonably to question a judge’s impartiality.”” Id. at 234. Judge Sullivan satisfied that standard when he actively litigated against General Flynn. He has since far exceeded it—rising to the level of demonstrating actual bias. The
court’s contempt and disdain for the defense was palpable throughout the hearing on September 29, 2020, including when defense counsel made an oral motion for his immediate disqualification, which he refused to allow even to be fully stated for the record. Hr’g Tr., United States v. Flynn, No. 17-232, (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2020) at 64-65 (hereinafter “Hr’g Tr. 09-29-20”). Accordingly, the defense files this motion to confirm the oral motion made at the hearing.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.261.0_1.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election 2016, FBI, Federal Court, US Department of Justice

Tagged , ,