Category Archives: Judges

Glenn Beck on Justice Thomas dissent and 2020 election, Beck is right about Thomas but no constitutional scholar, Thomas wrong on “seems to have affected too few ballots”

Glenn Beck on Justice Thomas dissent and 2020 election, Beck is right about Thomas but no constitutional scholar, Thomas wrong on “seems to have affected too few ballots”

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“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.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison

“I just warn you that we are in a spiritual battle against evil unleashed,”   “We are not fighting the Democrats — we are fighting Satan himself.”...Glenn Beck

“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 answer for over 200 years is in Marbury V Madison.

And Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas nailed it in his dissenting opinion in REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA V VERONICA DEGRAFFENREID, et al.

“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority
to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4,
cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. Yet both before and after the 2020
election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it
upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we
received an unusually high number of petitions and emer-
gency applications contesting those changes. The petitions
here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legisla-
ture established an unambiguous deadline for receiving
mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days.                    The court also ordered officials to count ballots
received by the new deadline even if there was no evi-
dence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed
by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to
have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any
federal election. But that may not be the case in the future.
These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address
just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set elec-
tion rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle.
The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to set-
tle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear
rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future
elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath
a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite
further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fel-
low citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respect-
fully dissent.”

https://citizenwells.com/2021/02/22/justice-thomas-dissent-republican-party-of-pennsylvania-v-degraffenreid-sos-feb-22-2021-trump-writ-of-certiorari-denied-amicus-briefs-accepted/

Glenn Beck, on his show on February 23, 2021 rightfully heaped praise on Justice Thomas for his dissenting opinion and agreed that we must fix the issues plaguing the 2020 election before moving forward.

Beck proved he is no constitutional scholar with his mishandling of the Obama eligibility issues in 2008.

And he is wrong again.

He wants us to forget about the outcome of the 2020 election since we can do nothing about it.

That there is no provision in the constitution to remedy a revelation of sufficient wrongs.

Wrong!

If Biden was elected illegally, he can be removed.

For starters he can be impeached and removed.

That should be the last resort.

If he and Harris were not legally elected, they should be escorted from the White House with or without force.

Of course all of the participants in the charade must be prosecuted.

Justice Thomas error

I have the utmost respect for Justice Thomas.

I believe he is the most constitutionally grounded of all the justices.

However, in his statement:

“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election.”

I would replace it with “may or may not have affected”.

Justice Thomas was in no position to make that statement since the Supreme Court did not hear any evidence in the Pennsylvania case or in any other states such as Georgia or Wisconsin where election officials disregarded state laws.

Glenn Beck

Call me.

Ignoring evidence of election fraud because the election is already over is like ignoring a murder because the victim is already dead.

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

https://mewe.com/i/citizenwells

https://gab.com/citizenwells

https://rumble.com/user/CitizenWells

https://parler.com/profile/Citizenwells/posts

Electoral college rules and governing laws explained , Elector warnings, Faithless electors to US Constitution vs states or parties, Knowingly voting for fraudulent certification

Electoral college rules and governing laws explained , Elector warnings, Faithless electors to US Constitution vs states or parties, Knowingly voting for fraudulent certification

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

“Electoral College electors owe an allegiance first and foremost to the US Constitution over State and political party dictates.”...Citizen Wells

“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

 

Electors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and indeed all states you are being forewarned.

Voting for a candidate as a result of a fraudulent certification is fraud.

Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

A review of the current status of the 6 states above will be forthcoming.

An injunction in those states should be filed preventing you from being in jeopardy of committing fraud.

From Citizen Wells December 13, 2020.

“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/December

From Citizen Wells December 17, 2008.

“The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.

The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.

The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.

Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.”

“Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/

Alabama

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

Connecticut

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”

Hawaii

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

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

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Minnesota

“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Tennessee

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Utah

“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”

Virginia

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

  • The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
    Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
  • Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
    party line over law will not be tolerated.
  • Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
    for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
    certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
  • Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
    and should be applauded for doing so.
  • There are consequences for false attesting.
  • One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
    null and void.
  • Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?”

https://citizenwells.com/2008/12/17/2008-electoral-college-votes-certification-of-voters-state-laws-us-constitution-electors-signed-certification-certifications-invalid-obama-ineligible-violators-should-be-prosecuted-constitutio/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Trump Motion to Intervene Texas v Pennsylvania et al Dec 9, 2020, Attorney John Eastman, Bill of Complaint in Intervention against PA et al

Trump Motion to Intervene Texas v Pennsylvania et al Dec 9, 2020, Attorney John Eastman, Bill of Complaint in Intervention against PA et al

“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

” This must be about stopping Trump”…Gabriel Sterling , GA election official

 

From the Donald Trump 

Motion to Intervene in

STATE OF TEXAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN,
STATE OF WISCONSIN

And

Bill of Complaint in Intervention

“Our Country is deeply divided in ways that it arguably has not been seen since the election of 1860.There is a high level of distrust between the opposing
sides, compounded by the fact that, in the election just held, election officials in key swing states, for apparently partisan advantage, failed to conduct their state
elections in compliance with state election law, in direct violation of the plenary power that Article II of the U.S. Constitution confers on the Legislatures of
the States. Indeed, a recent poll by the reputable Rasmussen polling firm indicates that 47% of all Americans (including 75% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats), believe that it is “likely” or “very likely” the election was stolen from the current incumbent President.1”

“In the 2020 election, under the guise of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, election officials in several key states, sometimes on their own and sometimes in connection with court actions brought by partisan advocates, made a systematic effort to weaken measures to ensure fair and impartial elections by creating new rules for the conduct of the elections—rules that were never approved by the legislatures of the defendant states as required by Article II of the
United States Constitution. These new rules were aimed at weakening, ignoring, or overriding provisions of state law that are aimed at ensuring the integrity of the voting process.

As more particularly alleged in the Bill of Complaint filed by the State of Texas, for the first time in history, these officials flooded their States with millions of ballots sent through the mail, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody and, at the same time, intentionally weakened or eliminated the
few existing security measures protecting the integrity of the vote—signature verification and witness requirements.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.%2022O155%20Original%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett opening statement Supreme Court nomination hearings October 12, 2020, Released Sunday

Judge Amy Coney Barrett opening statement Supreme Court nomination hearings October 12, 2020, Released Sunday

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires,” ..Joe Biden, Georgetown Law School 2016

“When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination … There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the Constitution text.”...Barack Obama 2016

“Even if President Trump wants to put forward a name now, the Senate should not act until after the American people select their next president, their next Congress, their next Senate,”...Joe Biden 2020 

 

“Chairman [Lindsey] Graham, Ranking Member [Dianne] Feinstein, and Members of the Committee: I am honored and humbled to appear before you as a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

I thank the President for entrusting me with this profound responsibility, as well as for the graciousness that he and the First Lady have shown my family throughout this process.

I thank the Members of this Committee—and your other colleagues in the Senate—who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. It has been a privilege to meet you.

As I said when I was nominated to serve as a Justice, I am used to being in a group of nine—my family. Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me.

My husband Jesse and I have been married for 21 years. He has been a selfless and wonderful partner at every step along the way. I once asked my sister, “Why do people say marriage is hard? I think it’s easy.” She said, “Maybe you should ask Jesse if he agrees.” I decided not to take her advice. I know that I am far luckier in love than I deserve.

Jesse and I are parents to seven wonderful children. Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law. Vivian came to us from Haiti. When she arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never walk or talk normally. She now deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym, and I assure you that she has no trouble talking. Tess is 16, and while she shares her parents’ love for the liberal arts, she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents’ generation. John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait. Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad. Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, including one she recently submitted for publication. And our youngest—Benjamin, who has Down Syndrome—is the unanimous favorite of the family.

My own siblings are here, some in the hearing room and some nearby. Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael are my oldest and dearest friends. We’ve seen each other through both the happy and hard parts of life, and I am so grateful that they are with me now.

My parents, Mike and Linda Coney, are watching from their New Orleans home. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains how I ended up as a law professor. More important, my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a life of service, principle, faith, and love. I remember preparing for a grade-school spelling bee against a boy in my class. To boost my confidence, Dad sang, “Anything boys can do, girls can do better.” At least as I remember it, I spelled my way to victory.

I received similar encouragement from the devoted teachers at St. Mary’s Dominican, my all-girls high school in New Orleans. When I went to college, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys. My freshman year, I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. When I did my first presentation—on Breakfast at Tiffany’s—I feared I had failed. But my professor filled me with confidence, became a mentor, and—when I graduated with a degree in English—gave me Truman Capote’s collected works.

Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors—in particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit gave me my first job in the law and continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture, and he is cheering me on from his living room now.

I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.

Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.

A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.

When the President offered this nomination, I was deeply honored. But it was not a position I had sought out, and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed— requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.

I come before this Committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me. I was nine years old when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the Court. When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat. She told the Committee, “What has become of me could only happen in America.” I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.

If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the President noted when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.

As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/11/amy-coney-barrett-opening-statement-supreme-court-428635

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Seth Rich coverup Part 4, Seth Rich murdered July 10, 2016, Julian Assange murder considered December 2017?, Assange extradition hearing testimony

Seth Rich coverup Part 4, Seth Rich murdered July 10, 2016, Julian Assange murder considered December 2017?, Assange extradition hearing testimony

“Replying to this last point, the prosecution pointed out that a Grand Jury against Assange had been established by Obama and there was no indication the investigation had been closed. Feldstein agreed, the “Obama administration was very eager to file charges against Assange and they conducted a very aggressive investigation.” All of which speaks for the point that Assange is being sought for political reasons—motivations which are common to the whole American ruling class. It was current Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden who branded the WikiLeaks publisher and journalist a “high-tech terrorist.””…Laura Tiernan and Thomas Scripps, Sept 9, 2020

“In the media, Hannity has been one of the loudest voices to warn of the dangers of a “deep state”. On Thursday, he called for Mr Trump to “purge” the executive branch of Obama-era bureaucrats and appointees.”…The Telegraph March 11, 2017

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

 

Fact: Seth Rich was murdered July 10, 2016.

Fact: There is a mountain of evidence that indicates Rich was involved in the DNC leak.

Fact: Julian Assange is the one man still alive who can confirm Seth Rich’s involvement in the leak.

Fact: Witness testimony in the Julian Assange extradition hearing just indicated that the CIA considered killing him in December 2017.

Fact: US prosecution of Assange was spearheaded by Obama holdovers.

From Consortium News September 30, 2020.

“FINAL REPORT: ASSANGE HEARING DAY SEVENTEEN—US Intel Spying on Assange Detailed in Court, Including Plans to Kidnap or Poison Him”

“United States intelligence discussed plans to kidnap or poison Julian Assange, the court was told on Wednesday.

After the prosecution said it was unable to do checks on the two anonymous witnesses from the UC Global case in Spain, defense attorney Mark Summers read out the testimony in court a day earlier than had been expected.”

“The witness said the Americans were “very nervous” about the visit of then California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher to Assange. “Morales asked me to control everything to do with that visit,” the witness said. ”

“In December 2017, the witness testified that “the U.S. was desperate” to get Assange out of the embassy, and that “more extreme measures should be used.”

“Leaving the embassy door open to allow Mr. Assange to be kidnapped and even poisoning was under consideration,” the witness testified Morales told him.  Summers for the defense then explained to the court how both witnesses approached an attorney who contact a court in Madrid that ordered an arrest warrant and search of Morales’ home, and issued charges against him.”

Read more:

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/30/live-updates-assange-hearing-day-seventeen-us-intel-spying-on-assange-detailed-in-court-including-plan-to-kidnap-or-poison-him/

From Citizen Wells September 18, 2020.

“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.

Many of those asking questions early on such as Fox News and the Washington Times were threatened and subsequently sued or threatened to be.

At least 4 lawsuits are still active involving the Rich Family, Fox News, Ed Butowsky and others.

Many of us question how the Rich Family could afford such expensive law firms.

On March 1, 2018 the Washington Times posted an Analysis/Opinion by Admiral James A. Lyons. It was scrubbed by the Times after a lawsuit was threatened by Aaron Rich. It is presented in entirety from the Wayback Machine.

“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.”

“With regard to the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC server, Mr. Assange also offered information to the Trump administration to prove Russia didn’t hack the DNC server, as the DNC claimed. Mr. Assange also met with Orange Country Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, and gave him information to present to the Trump administration to prove no one hacked the DNC server.

However, with the Obama holdovers in key positions, it is not surprising that no one from the Trump administration would meet with the congressman or Mr. Assange. New Zealand tech expert Kim DotCom said he has proof that both he and Seth Rich were involved in passing the emails to Wikileaks, but he has been ignored as well.”

https://citizenwells.com/2020/09/18/assange-seth-rich-dnc-leaks-truth-all-forces-of-left-evil-harnessed-to-suppress-revelations-high-powered-attorneys-intimidate-obama-holdovers-still-control/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

General Flynn hearing instructions for listening Sept 29, 2020, Peter Strozk Attorney files letter alleging note changes

General Flynn hearing instructions for listening Sept 29, 2020, Peter Strozk Attorney files letter alleging note changes

“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

 

The General Michael Flynn hearing begins at 11:00 today September 29, 2020.

Public audio access to Flynn hearing today:

Prior to the start time of the hearing, dial the public access teleconference number for the presiding Judge and enter the access code when prompted, followed by the pound (#) sign. Due to technical limits on the number of dial-in listeners who may be accommodated, you may wish to establish your connection at least 10 minutes early to ensure access.

Wait for the hearing to begin. You will be automatically muted and will not be heard by the Judge or participants in the hearing.

The motion hearing scheduled for September 29, 2020 at 11:00 AM shall now take place via VIDEO TELECONFERENCE (VTC). The Courtroom Deputy Clerk shall contact the parties to provide the dial-in information. The public and media may listen to the hearing by dialing in to one of the following teleconference numbers and entering the access code when prompted: 877-336-1839 (access code 5524636); 888-363-4734 (access code 6114909); 877-336-1839 (access code 1429888); 877-402-9753 (access code 2090166); 888-557-8511 (access code 4140864); 888-273-3658 (access code 1773796). Persons joining via teleconference will be automatically muted and will not be heard by the Court or participants in the hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/25/2020. (lcegs3)

Peter Strozk’s Attorney, Aitan Goelman has just filed a letter alleging note changes.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.258.0_3.pdf

More on the hearing here:

https://citizenwells.com/2020/09/27/michael-flynn-motion-hearing-sept-29-2020-video-teleconference-judge-emmett-sullivan-oral-argument-from-government-flynn-and-amicus-curiae/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Joel and Mary Rich v Fox News et al, “Fox defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and aiding and abetting IIED…is granted”

Joel and Mary Rich v Fox News et al, “Fox defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and aiding and abetting IIED…is granted”

“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

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

From Joel Rich and Mary Rich

v

Fox News Network, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky

September 25, 2020.

“Fox defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and aiding and abetting IIED , (ECF No. 102), is granted”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.490098/gov.uscourts.nysd.490098.208.0.pdf

This case had been returned to this lower court on appeal.

From Citizen Wells July 14, 2019.

“This is possibly the most unreported important news story I have ever encountered.

Joel and Mary Rich lost their lawsuit against Fox News in 2018 and on September 27, 2018 filed an appeal.

First, their lawsuit results.

From the Federalist Papers.

“Fox News Wins Seth Rich Lawsuit; Judge Dismisses

A New York City judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the parents of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich on Thursday that asserted Fox News Channel colluded with the White House to propel a false, politically-biased narrative about Rich’s death.”

“It is understandable that plaintiffs might feel that their grief and personal loss were taken advantage of, and that the tragic death of their son was exploited for political purposes,” but Fox evidently did not intend to inflict emotional distress, Judge George Daniels wrote in his decision.””

https://citizenwells.com/2019/07/14/joel-and-mary-rich-v-fox-news-appeal-seth-rich-murder-investigations-and-reporting-appeal-of-richs-failed-lawsuit-almost-unreported/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Michael Flynn motion hearing Sept 29, 2020 video teleconference, Judge Emmett Sullivan, oral argument from  government, Flynn, and amicus curiae

Michael Flynn motion hearing Sept 29, 2020 video teleconference, Judge Emmett Sullivan, oral argument from  government, Flynn, and amicus curiae

“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

***  Update 5:18 from the court  ***

“Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan:Motion Hearing Via VTC as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN held on 9/29/2020 re 198 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by USA. The Court Heard Oral Arguments From Government Counsel, Defense Counsel And Amicus. The Court Will Issue A Minute Order. The Court Will Take This Matter Under Advisement. Bond Status of Defendant: WAS NOT PRESENT; REMAINS ON PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE; Court Reporter: LISA BANKINS; Defense Attorney: SIDNEY POWELL; JESSE BINNALL; US Attorney: KENNETH KOHL/ HASHIM MOOPPAN; Amicus: John Gleeson (mac)”

*********************************

Public audio access to Flynn hearing:

Prior to the start time of the hearing, dial the public access teleconference number for the presiding Judge and enter the access code when prompted, followed by the pound (#) sign. Due to technical limits on the number of dial-in listeners who may be accommodated, you may wish to establish your connection at least 10 minutes early to ensure access.

Wait for the hearing to begin. You will be automatically muted and will not be heard by the Judge or participants in the hearing.

The motion hearing scheduled for September 29, 2020 at 11:00 AM shall now take place via VIDEO TELECONFERENCE (VTC). The Courtroom Deputy Clerk shall contact the parties to provide the dial-in information. The public and media may listen to the hearing by dialing in to one of the following teleconference numbers and entering the access code when prompted: 877-336-1839 (access code 5524636); 888-363-4734 (access code 6114909); 877-336-1839 (access code 1429888); 877-402-9753 (access code 2090166); 888-557-8511 (access code 4140864); 888-273-3658 (access code 1773796). Persons joining via teleconference will be automatically muted and will not be heard by the Court or participants in the hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/25/2020. (lcegs3)

 

From US v Michael Flynn.

“MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. In view of the motion hearing on September 29, 2020, the Court shall hear oral argument from the government, Mr. Flynn, and the Court-appointed amicus curiae. See L. Civ. R. 7(o)(6) (“An amicus curiae may participate in oral argument only with the court’s permission.”); see also United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 737 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/23/2020. (lcegs3)”

“MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. The motion hearing scheduled for September 29, 2020 at 11:00 AM shall now take place via VIDEO TELECONFERENCE (VTC). The Courtroom Deputy Clerk shall contact the parties to provide the dial-in information. The public and media may listen to the hearing by dialing in to one of the following teleconference numbers and entering the access code when prompted: 877-336-1839 (access code 5524636); 888-363-4734 (access code 6114909); 877-336-1839 (access code 1429888); 877-402-9753 (access code 2090166); 888-557-8511 (access code 4140864); 888-273-3658 (access code 1773796). Persons joining via teleconference will be automatically muted and will not be heard by the Court or participants in the hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/25/2020. (lcegs3)”

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/?page=3

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Amy Coney Barrett President Trump pick for SCOTUS, Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia

Amy Coney Barrett President Trump pick for SCOTUS, Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires,” ..Joe Biden, Georgetown Law School 2016

“When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination … There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the Constitution text.”...Barack Obama 2016

“Even if President Trump wants to put forward a name now, the Senate should not act until after the American people select their next president, their next Congress, their next Senate,”...Joe Biden 2020 

 

The NY Times is calling it:

“President Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the favorite candidate of conservatives, to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and will try to force Senate confirmation before Election Day in a move that would significantly alter the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court for years.

Mr. Trump plans to announce on Saturday that she is his choice, according to six people close to the process who asked not to be identified disclosing the decision in advance. As they often do, aides cautioned that Mr. Trump sometimes upends his own plans.

But he is not known to have interviewed any other candidates and came away from two days of meetings with Judge Barrett this week impressed with a jurist he was told would be a female Antonin Scalia, referring to the justice she once clerked for. On Friday night, Judge Barrett was photographed getting out of her car outside her home in South Bend, Ind.

“I haven’t said it was her, but she is outstanding,” Mr. Trump told reporters who asked about Judge Barrett’s imminent nomination at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington after CNN and other news outlets reported on his choice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html

From The University of Notre Dame Law School.

“The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in October 2017. She is a Notre Dame Law School alumna and has taught as a member of the Law School’s faculty since 2002.

Judge Barrett teaches and researches in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. Her scholarship in these fields has been published in leading journals, including the Columbia, Virginia, and Texas Law Reviews. From 2010-2016, she served by appointment of the Chief Justice on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She has been selected as “Distinguished Professor of the Year” by three of the Law School’s graduating classes.

Judge Barrett earned her B.A. in English literature, magna cum laude, from Rhodes College, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and, among other honors, was chosen by the faculty as the most outstanding graduate in the college’s English department. She earned her J.D., summa cum laude, from Notre Dame, where she was a Kiley Fellow, earned the Hoynes Prize, the Law School’s highest honor, and served as executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.

Before joining the Notre Dame faculty, Judge Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. As an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts. Judge Barrett has served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at the George Washington University Law School,  as a visiting associate professor of law at the University of Virginia and is a member of the American Law Institute (ALI).”

Read more:

https://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett/

Lawyer and law clerk endorsement letter:

https://law.nd.edu/assets/253073/amybarrettscotus.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney General Barr on passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg September 18, 2020, “Her legal ability, personal integrity, and determination were beyond doubt”

Attorney General Barr on passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg September 18, 2020, “Her legal ability, personal integrity, and determination were beyond doubt”

“In a 2015 dissent, Justice Ginsburg, citing a New York Times article examining arbitration agreements, wrote that the 2011 decision and later ones “have predictably resulted in the deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses, and, turning the coin, they have insulated powerful economic interests from liability for violations of consumer protection laws.””...NY Times May 21, 2018

“Having experienced the abuse of mandated arbitration first hand, I agree with Justice Ginsburg. It may be the only time it happens, but injustice is injustice.”...Citizen Wells

 

From Attorney General William P. Barr September 18, 2020.

“On behalf of the Department of Justice, I extend my deepest sympathy on the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Justice Ginsburg led one of the great lives in the history of American law.  She was a brilliant and successful litigator, an admired court of appeals judge, and a profoundly influential Supreme Court Justice.  For all her achievements in those roles, she will perhaps be remembered most for inspiring women in the legal profession and beyond.  She and I did not agree on every issue, but her legal ability, personal integrity, and determination were beyond doubt.  She leaves a towering legacy, and all who seek justice mourn her loss.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-passing-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/