Category Archives: Supreme Court Justice

Arizona AG Brnovich SCOTUS case importance in oral hearing today Tue March 2, 2021, Ga folded to Abrams DNC demands and AZ fighting to maintain election laws

Arizona AG Brnovich SCOTUS case importance in oral hearing today Tue March 2, 2021, Ga folded to Abrams DNC demands and AZ fighting to maintain election laws

“The certification of Arizona’s FALSE results is unethical and knowingly participating in the corruption that has disenfranchised AZ voters,” …Jenna Ellis

“.@realDonaldTrump has made it abundantly clear he’s more interested in pandering to his neo-nazi base than being @POTUS for all Americans.”…Katie Hobbs Arizona Secretary of State

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

 

Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, et al., Petitioners
v.
Democratic National Committee, et al.

This should be an open and closed case.

The procedures being questioned follow those of most states.

By the Constitution, the states have control over election procedures.

High powered law firms in conjunction with leftist activists such as Stacey Abrams, across the country, attacked many states’ election procedures.

In Georgia they folded and employed procedures that were contrary to state laws, thus invalidating election results.

Arizona’s honest Attorney General Mark Brnovich did not.

Hence today’s hearing.

From the Brnovich Amicus Brief in Texas v PA GA MI WI, Dec 9, 2020.

“The State of Arizona will first argue that election integrity is of paramount
importance. “Every voter” in a federal election “has a right under the Constitution to have his [or her] vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes.” Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227 (1974). Given this paramount importance, the State of Arizona, through its Attorney General, vigilantly fights to ensure election integrity, including for the 2020 election. The Attorney General participated in eight different suits to defend from attack Arizona election laws that were enacted by its Legislature.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163258/20201209171850333_TX%20v%20PA%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20FINAL.pdf

From the Brnovich Amicus Brief in the AZ Senate Maricopa County case Dec 30, 2020.

“The Arizona Legislature has broad authority to investigate the County’s
administration of the 2020 general election to determine whether Arizona law regarding election administration should remain the same or be changed. In resolving this matter, the Court should (1) recognize the Arizona Legislature’s broad authority to issue legislative subpoenas, (2) exercise deferential review of the subpoenas at issue, (3) hold that the presiding officer of either house or the chairman of any committee have the authority to issue subpoenas reviewing the County’s administration of elections, and (4) reject any effort by the County to interpose separation of powers concerns.”

https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Maricopa%20County%20v%20Fann_%20AGO%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

From the Brnovich Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

“QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Arizona, like every other State, has adopted rules
to promote the order and integrity of its elections. At
issue here are two such provisions: an “out-ofprecinct policy,” which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the
voter’s designated precinct, and a “ballot-collection law,” known as H.B. 2023, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members,
caregivers, mail carriers, and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot. A majority of States require in-precinct voting, and
about twenty States limit ballot collection.
After a ten-day trial, the district court upheld these provisions against claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment. A
Ninth Circuit panel affirmed. At the en banc stage, however, the Ninth Circuit reversed—against the urging of the United States and over two vigorous
dissents joined by four judges.

The questions presented are:
1. Does Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy violate
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?

2. Does Arizona’s ballot-collection law violate
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment?”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1257/142431/20200427105601341_Brnovich%20Petition.pdf

Why did the Supreme Court take this case?

It goes to the core of the constitution and states rights to administer elections.

Secondly, AG Brnovich is on defense, not offense.

 

Corrupt Trump and supporters hater SOS Katie Hobbs elbow bumps Gov Ducey after prematurely certifying the AZ election results while the election hearing was being held.

 

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

 

Attorney Lin Wood SCOTUS conference March 5, 2021 Petition for a writ of Mandamus, “expose the massive, coordinated election fraud that occurred in the 2020 General Election”

Attorney Lin Wood SCOTUS conference March 5, 2021 Petition for a writ of Mandamus, “expose the massive, coordinated election fraud that occurred in the 2020 General Election”

“in phone conversation in 8/19, Justice John Roberts stated that he would make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.” Roberts engaged in phone conversations with Justice Stephen Breyer discussing how to work to get Trump voted out.”...Attorney Lin Wood

“I have also received credible evidence of serious wrongdoing by high-ranking
government officials which I have brought to the attention of the public and to federal law enforcement officials. The evidence of wrongdoing includes evidence of potentially serious crimes perpetrated by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”...Attorney Lin Wood affidavit

“The oral testimonies of witnesses on December 3, 2020, and subsequently, the written testimonies submitted by many others, provide ample evidence that the 2020 Georgia General Election was so compromised by systemic irregularities and voter fraud that it should not be certified.”…Georgia Senate report December 17, 2020

 

FROM THE SCOTUS, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

No. 20-887

In re L. Lin Wood, Jr.

Distributed for conference of 3/5/2021

https://certpool.com/dockets/20-887

Dec 30 2020     Petition for a writ of mandamus

“The Georgia Legislature has plenary authority to set the “Times, Places
and Manner” of Federal Elections and has clearly set forth the procedures to be
followed in verifying the identity of in-person voters as well as mail-in absentee ballot voters. The Georgia Secretary of State usurped that power by entering into a Settlement Agreement with the Democratic Party earlier this year and issuing an “Official Election Bulletin” that modified the Legislature’s clear procedures for verifying the identity of mail-in voters. The effect of the Secretary of State’s
unauthorized procedure is to treat the class of voters who vote by mail different from the class of voters who vote in-person, like Petitioner. That procedure dilutes the votes of in-person voters by votes from persons whose identities are less likely to verified as required by the legislative scheme. The Secretary’s unconstitutional modifications to the legislative scheme violated Petitioner’s Equal Protection rights by infringing on his fundamental right to vote. The Eleventh Circuit has held that Petitioner does not have standing to chall enge State action that dilutes his vote and infringes upon his constitutional right to Equal Protection. The questions presented are:”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-887/165104/20201230211038462_Emergency%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Mandamus.pdf

 

 

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

Trump v Wisconsin SCOTUS conference March 5, 2021 Petition for a writ of certiorari, “did count, tens of thousands of invalid absentee ballots”

Trump v Wisconsin SCOTUS conference March 5, 2021 Petition for a writ of certiorari, “did count, tens of thousands of invalid absentee ballots”

“¶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.”…Wisconsin Supreme Court

“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

 

From the SCOTUS, United States Supreme Court

No. 20-883

Donald J. Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, et al.

from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Distributed for conference of 3/5/2021

https://certpool.com/dockets/20-883

Dec 30 2020 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed.

“After Election Day, Respondents encouraged the
counting of, and did count, tens of thousands of invalid absentee ballots received in violation of the “mandatory” requirement of Wis. Stat. § 6.84(2) that absentee ballots “in contravention of the [specified statutory absentee balloting] procedures…may not be counted.”
The foregoing raises the following questions:
1. Whether WEC and local election officials violated Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of
Equal Protection during the 2020 Presidential election by implementing unauthorized absentee voting practices in disregard of the Wisconsin Legislature’s explicit command that absentee voting must be “carefully regulated” and absentee ballots cast outside of the Legislature’s authorized procedures “may not be counted”?

2. Whether this Court should declare the Wisconsin election unconstitutional and void under Article II and thus failed under 3 U.S.C. § 2 and allow the Wisconsin Legislature to appoint its electors?

3. Whether federal courts may rely on the doctrine of laches to avoid reviewing Electors Clause or Equal Protection claims arising after absentee balloting began or which could not have reasonably been brought before absentee balloting commenced?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-883/165018/20201230144119028_20-___PetitionForWritOfCertiorari.pdf

From the Wisconsin Legislature January 4, 2021.

January 4, 2021 – Introduced by Representative Allen.

    ***AUTHORS SUBJECT TO CHANGE***

Relating to: addressing election law violations.
Whereas, in the United States, the power to govern is given by the people
through the process of democratic elections. It is by this process that our government obtains legitimacy; and
Whereas, we have three branches of government, and the legislative branch,
consisting of duly elected representatives of the people, is the branch charged with the power to write the laws. It is through this process that our government maintains legitimacy; and
Whereas, when the executive branch or administrative agencies charged with
enforcing the laws instead choose to step outside of the law, or go beyond the law, or stretch the law to something other than what is written, the legitimacy of the government begins to erode; and
Whereas, the 2020 election and the recount of the results of the presidential
election have brought to light a number of areas in which the letter of the law is not being followed. Those circumstances of departure from the letter of the law include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Clerks provided absentee ballots to electors without applications, as
required by Wis. Stat. § 6.86.
2. Clerks and deputy clerks authorized by the municipal clerk failed to write
on the official ballot, in the space for official endorsement, the clerk’s initials and
official title, as required by Wis. Stat. § 6.87 (1).
3. Clerks issued absentee ballots to electors who were required to enclose a copy
of proof of identification or an authorized substitute document, but who failed to do so under Wis. Stat. § 6.87 (1).
4. Clerks failed to enter initials on ballot envelopes indicating whether the
elector is exempt from providing proof of identification, as required by Wis. Stat. § 6.87 (2).
5. Clerks in Milwaukee and Dane Counties declared electors in their counties
to be “indefinitely confined” under Wis. Stat. § 6.86 (2), causing chaos and confusion, and failed to keep current the mailing list established under that subsection; more than 215,000 electors thus avoided identification requirements and safeguards that the legislature has established.
6. Clerks and the boards of canvassers permitted absentee ballots returned
without the required witness address under Wis. Stat. § 6.87 (2) to be counted in
contravention of Wis. Stat. § 6.87 (6d).
7. Clerks who received absentee ballots with improperly completed certificates
or no certificates filled in missing information in contravention of Wis. Stat. § 6.87 (9).

8. The Wisconsin Elections Commission, in contravention of Wis. Stat. § 6.875,
barred special voting deputies from entering qualified nursing homes and assisted living facilities, instead mailing ballots to residents directly, thereby avoiding safeguards the legislature put in place to protect our most vulnerable citizens and loved ones.
9. The clerk of the City of Madison ignored Wis. Stat. § 6.855 and created an
event named “Democracy in the Park” and, of her own accord, designated alternate sites where absentee ballots could be collected; these ballots were counted in contravention of Wis. Stat. § 6.87 (6); and
Whereas, without legitimacy, the government of the people, by the people, and
for the people shall not stand. Instead, our government will devolve into a system of coercion and bribery that seeks to use the guise of elections to hold a degree of credibility; and
Whereas, the people of Wisconsin are demanding that the legislature address
questions of legitimacy; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the assembly, That: the Wisconsin State Assembly recognizes
that the most important function for a government is to conduct fair and honest
elections that follow the duly enacted law; and, be it further
Resolved, That when there are significant portions of the population that
question the integrity of the elections due to the failure of election officials to follow the letter of the law, it is incumbent upon the legislature to address the issues that are in question; and, be it further
Resolved, That the members of the Wisconsin State Assembly place the
redress to these and other election law violations and failed administrative procedures as its highest priority and shall take up legislation crafted to ensure civil officers follow the laws as written.

https://citizenwells.com/2021/01/05/wisconsin-legislature-2021-assembly-resolution-3-introduced-january-4-2021-redress-to-these-and-other-election-law-violations-and-failed-administrative-procedures/

 

 

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

 

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

Lin Wood comments on Wood v Raffensperger before and after SCOTUS denial, Justices concerns, “Dissenting Opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas validates and confirms”

Lin Wood comments on Wood v Raffensperger before and after SCOTUS denial, Justices concerns, “Dissenting Opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas validates and confirms”

“in phone conversation in 8/19, Justice John Roberts stated that he would make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.” Roberts engaged in phone conversations with Justice Stephen Breyer discussing how to work to get Trump voted out.”...Attorney Lin Wood

“I have also received credible evidence of serious wrongdoing by high-ranking
government officials which I have brought to the attention of the public and to federal law enforcement officials. The evidence of wrongdoing includes evidence of potentially serious crimes perpetrated by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”...Attorney Lin Wood affidavit

“The oral testimonies of witnesses on December 3, 2020, and subsequently, the written testimonies submitted by many others, provide ample evidence that the 2020 Georgia General Election was so compromised by systemic irregularities and voter fraud that it should not be certified.”…Georgia Senate report December 17, 2020

February 19

“ALL of the Justices on the Supreme Court are flawed. Many are political. Some are corrupt.

 

“No word from SCOTUS yet on whether they will allow the election cases to proceed.

 

February 22

“I know many have been waiting on me to comment about the actions (or inaction) by the U.S. Supreme Court today in the 2020 election cases.

I will not mince words, We The People who seek honest elections conducted under the rule of law lost. The enemy won.

Having spoken that truth, the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas validates and confirms that the lawsuits pursued by Sidney Powell and me were based on legitimate issues of law. All accusations and proceedings seeking to penalize or “discipline” Sidney and me should be terminated as we raised important issues in those case recognized by Justice Thomas. I agree with his Dissent. His rationale in the Pennsylvania is directly on point with my Georgia case and Sidney’s cases in Michigan and Wisconsin.

But this legal battle is not about Sidney and me. It is about you and your right to rely on the rule of law, especially on the bedrock principle that we must have honest and legal elections.

I remain very concerned about the breakdown of the rule of law in our country.

I will not quit. As I have done in the past, so I will continue to do in the future. I will continued to exercise my right of free speech and my right to take lawful actions in courts and/or administrative proceedings to recognize and re-establish the rule of law in America.

Thank you for your support. Stay strong. Keep hope alive.

Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸
www.fightback.law”

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20489890/clarence-thomass-dissent.pdf

https://t.me/s/linwoodspeakstruth

 

 

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

Alito Gorsuch dissent Republican Party of Pennsylvania v Degraffenreid SOS, Feb 22, 2021, Trump Writ of Certiorari denied, Amicus briefs accepted

Alito Gorsuch dissent Republican Party of Pennsylvania v Degraffenreid
SOS, Feb 22, 2021, Trump Writ of Certiorari denied, Amicus briefs accepted

“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

“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

 

From the US Supreme Court in

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA
20–542 v.
VERONICA DEGRAFFENREID, ACTING SECRETARY
OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

Alito Gorsuch DISSENTING OPINION

“JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins,
dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
I agree with JUSTICE THOMAS that we should grant re-
view in these cases. They present an important and recur-
ring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Elec-
tors Clauses of the United States Constitution, Art. I, §4,
cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2, are violated when a state court holds
that a state constitutional provision overrides a state stat-
ute governing the manner in which a federal election is to
be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,*
and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.
In the cases now before us, a statute enacted by the Penn-
sylvania Legislature unequivocally requires that mailed
ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day. Pa. Stat. Ann.,
Tit. 25, §§3146.6(c), 3150.16(c) (Purdon 2020). Neverthe-
less, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, citing a provision of
the State Constitution mandating that elections “be free
and equal,” Art. I, §5, altered that deadline and ordered that                      mailed ballots be counted if received up to three days
after the election, Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boock-
var, ___ Pa. ___, ___–___, 238 A. 3d 345, 362, 371–372
(2020). Both the state Republican and Democratic parties
urged us to grant review and decide this question before the
2020 election. See Application for Stay in Republican Party
of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, No. 20A54, pp. 2–3; Demo-
cratic Party of Pennsylvania Response to Application for
Stay in No. 20A54, pp. 8–9. But the Court, by an evenly
divided vote, refused to do so. Nos. 20A53 and 20A54, ante,
p. ___ (THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ.,
noting dissents). That unfortunate decision virtually en-
sured that this important question could not be decided be-
fore the election. See No. 20–542, ante, p. ___ (statement of
ALITO, J., joined by THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ.).
Now, the election is over, and there is no reason for refus-
ing to decide the important question that these cases pose.
“The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on
state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make
rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a
state court could override the rules adopted by the legisla-
ture simply by claiming that a state constitutional provi-
sion gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules
it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”
Ante, at 3; see also Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing
Bd., 531 U. S. 70, 76 (2000) (per curiam). A decision in
these cases would not have any implications regarding the
2020 election. (Because Pennsylvania election officials
were ordered to separate mailed ballots received after the
statutory deadline, see Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar,
No. 20A84, ante, p. ___, we know that the State Supreme
Court’s decision had no effect on the outcome of any election
for federal office in Pennsylvania.) But a decision would
provide invaluable guidance for future elections.”

“For these reasons, the cases now before us are not moot.
There is a “reasonable expectation” that the parties will
face the same question in the future, see Wisconsin Right to
Life, Inc., 551 U. S., at 463, and that the question will evade
future pre-election review, just as it did in these cases.
These cases call out for review, and I respectfully dissent
from the Court’s decision to deny certiorari.”

Read more:

https://www.scribd.com/document/495533990/Supreme-Court-Refuses-Trump-Taxes-Case-2020-Election-Cases-Response#from_embed

 

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

Wood v Raffensperger Lin Wood Writ of Certiorari denied by SCOTUS Feb 22, 2021, Accusations against Chief Justice Roberts have any impact?

Wood v Raffensperger Lin Wood Writ of Certiorari denied by SCOTUS Feb 22, 2021, Accusations against Chief Justice Roberts have any impact?

“in phone conversation in 8/19, Justice John Roberts stated that he would make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.” Roberts engaged in phone conversations with Justice Stephen Breyer discussing how to work to get Trump voted out.”...Attorney Lin Wood

“I have also received credible evidence of serious wrongdoing by high-ranking
government officials which I have brought to the attention of the public and to federal law enforcement officials. The evidence of wrongdoing includes evidence of potentially serious crimes perpetrated by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”...Attorney Lin Wood affidavit

“The oral testimonies of witnesses on December 3, 2020, and subsequently, the written testimonies submitted by many others, provide ample evidence that the 2020 Georgia General Election was so compromised by systemic irregularities and voter fraud that it should not be certified.”…Georgia Senate report December 17, 2020

 

From the US Supreme Court February 22, 2021.

CERTIORARI DENIED

20-799     WOOD, L. LIN V. RAFFENSPERGER, BRAD, ET AL.

https://www.scribd.com/document/495533990/Supreme-Court-Refuses-Trump-Taxes-Case-2020-Election-Cases-Response#from_embed

From Citizen Wells February 19, 2021.

“Will Lin Wood’s accusations against Chief Justice Roberts have any impact?”

“From Lin Wood’s recent affidavit filed in US District Court:

“I have also received credible evidence of serious wrongdoing by high-ranking
government officials which I have brought to the attention of the public and to federal law enforcement officials. The evidence of wrongdoing includes evidence of potentially serious crimes perpetrated by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”

“I have not received a retraction demand from Justice Roberts or his counsel and he has not made any claim to date that my posts are false and defamatory. Former Vice President Mike Pence or Rod Rosenstein have not sent retraction demands or claims that my posts of and concerning them are false and defamatory.””

https://citizenwells.com/2021/02/19/wood-v-raffensperger-scheduled-for-scotus-conference-friday-feb-19-2021-todd-c-bank-amicus-filed-feb-18-how-will-wood-accusations-against-roberts-play-out/

 

 

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

https://citizenwells.com/2021/02/19/wood-v-raffensperger-scheduled-for-scotus-conference-friday-feb-19-2021-todd-c-bank-amicus-filed-feb-18-how-will-wood-accusations-against-roberts-play-out/

 

 

Justice Thomas dissent Republican Party of Pennsylvania v Degraffenreid SOS, Feb 22, 2021, Trump Writ of Certiorari denied, Amicus briefs accepted

Justice Thomas dissent Republican Party of Pennsylvania v Degraffenreid
SOS, Feb 22, 2021, Trump Writ of Certiorari denied, Amicus briefs accepted

“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

“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

 

From the US Supreme Court in

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA
20–542 v.
VERONICA DEGRAFFENREID, ACTING SECRETARY
OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

Justice Thomas Dissenting Opinion

“The motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for
leave to intervene as petitioner are dismissed as moot. The
motions of Thomas J. Randolph, et al. for leave to intervene
as respondents are dismissed as moot. The motion of Hon-
est Elections Project for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae
in No. 20–542 is granted. The motion of White House
Watch Fund, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in
No. 20–574 is granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari
are denied.
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
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.”

“Because the judicial system is not well suited to address
these kinds of questions in the short time period available
immediately after an election, we ought to use available
cases outside that truncated context to address these ad-
mittedly important questions. Here, we have the oppor-tunity                           to do so almost two years before the next federal elec-
tion cycle. Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is
befuddling. There is a clear split on an issue of such great
importance that both sides previously asked us to grant cer-
tiorari. And there is no dispute that the claim is sufficiently
meritorious to warrant review. By voting to grant emer-
gency relief in October, four Justices made clear that they
think petitioners are likely to prevail. Despite pressing for
review in October, respondents now ask us not to grant cer-
tiorari because they think the cases are moot. That argu-
ment fails.
The issue presented is capable of repetition, yet evades
review. This exception to mootness, which the Court rou-
tinely invokes in election cases, “applies where (1) the chal-
lenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated
prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable
expectation that the same complaining party will be subject
to the same action again.” Davis v. Federal Election
Comm’n, 554 U. S. 724, 735 (2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (resolving a dispute from the 2006 election);
see also Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 784, and
n. 3 (1983) (resolving a dispute from the 1980 election).
Here, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision
about six weeks before the election, leaving little time for
review in this Court. And there is a reasonable expectation
that these petitioners—the State Republican Party and leg-
islators—will again confront nonlegislative officials alter-
ing election rules. In fact, various petitions claim that no
fewer than four other decisions of the Pennsylvania Su-
preme Court implicate the same issue.3 Future cases will
arise as lower state courts apply those precedents to justify
intervening in elections and changing the rules.

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.”

Read more:

https://www.scribd.com/document/495533990/Supreme-Court-Refuses-Trump-Taxes-Case-2020-Election-Cases-Response#from_embed

 

 

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

 

2020 election lawsuits in conference before US Supreme Court Friday March 5, 2021, Trump v Wisconsin Elections Commission, Lin Wood v Raffensperger

2020 election lawsuits in conference before US Supreme Court Friday March 5, 2021, Trump v Wisconsin Elections Commission, Lin Wood v Raffensperger

“in phone conversation in 8/19, Justice John Roberts stated that he would make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.” Roberts engaged in phone conversations with Justice Stephen Breyer discussing how to work to get Trump voted out.”...Attorney Lin Wood

“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

“The oral testimonies of witnesses on December 3, 2020, and subsequently, the written testimonies submitted by many others, provide ample evidence that the 2020 Georgia General Election was so compromised by systemic irregularities and voter fraud that it should not be certified.”…Georgia Senate report December 17, 2020

 

No. 20-883

Donald J. Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, et al.

https://certpool.com/dockets/20-883

No. 20-887

In re L. Lin Wood, Jr.

https://certpool.com/dockets/20-887

 

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

2020 election lawsuits in conference before US Supreme Court Friday February 19, 2021, Arizona Georgia Pennsylvania Michigan Wisconsin

2020 election lawsuits in conference before US Supreme Court Friday February 19, 2021, Arizona Georgia Pennsylvania Michigan Wisconsin

“in phone conversation in 8/19, Justice John Roberts stated that he would make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.” Roberts engaged in phone conversations with Justice Stephen Breyer discussing how to work to get Trump voted out.”...Attorney Lin Wood

“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

“Resolved, That the members of the Wisconsin State Assembly place the
redress to these and other election law violations and failed administrative procedures as its highest priority “...WI legislature Jan 4, 2021

 

From the US Supreme Court Friday, February 19, 2021.

No. 20-542

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Veronica Degraffenreid, Acting Secretary of Pennsylvania, et al.

https://certpool.com/dockets/20-542

No. 20-815

Timothy King, et al. v. Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan, et al.

https://certpool.com/dockets/20-815

No. 20-882

Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, et al.

https://certpool.com/dockets/20-882

No. 20-845

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Veronica Degraffenreid, Acting Secretary of Pennsylvania, et al.

https://certpool.com/dockets/20-845

No. 20-809

Kelli Ward v. Constance Jackson, et al.

https://certpool.com/dockets/20-809

No. 20-799

L. Lin Wood, Jr. v. Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State, et al.

https://certpool.com/dockets/20-799

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/2021/02/19/wood-v-raffensperger-scheduled-for-scotus-conference-friday-feb-19-2021-todd-c-bank-amicus-filed-feb-18-how-will-wood-accusations-against-roberts-play-out/

 

No. 20-810

Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al. v. Pennsylvania, et al.

https://certpool.com/dockets/20-810

 

 

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