Category Archives: Supreme Court Justice

Chief Justice John Roberts erratic behavior and rulings possible explanation, Influenced by liberal wife?, Roberts is an  “anti-Trumper” ?, Liberal?

Posted on December 18, 2020 | 11 comments

Chief Justice John Roberts erratic behavior and rulings possible explanation, Influenced by liberal wife?, Roberts is an  “anti-Trumper” ?, Liberal?

“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

“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

 

An early indication of a problem with Chief Justice John Roberts.

From a commenter on Citizen Wells regarding a January 14, 2009 meeting between Justice Roberts and Obama.

“To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement.
A ‘ceremonial’ meeting between a president elect and justices of the
Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it’s
flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where
Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts
and the other eight justices have already held two ‘Distribution for
Conferences’ on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama’s citizenship
ineligibility.

Does anyone see major conflict of interest here? How can Chief Justice
Roberts meet with Obama behind closed doors under such circumstances?
Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate
in my humble opinion. Roberts should have notified Obama that under
the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, private or
with photogs in attendance. There must be zero appearance of any bias
or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court.”

John Hammer of the Rhino Times on Robert’s irrational decision in Obamacare being a tax in 2012.

“Here’s an explanation I haven’t read anywhere, but it seems possible. The problem is that Roberts has spent too much time in Washington. People talk about getting inside-the-Beltway syndrome, and maybe Roberts has been in Washington for so long he believes that the extreme left-wing views that dominate Washington are the norm for the nation. Or he doesn’t believe it, but like living in a town with a paper mill, after a while you think stench is normal. It’s tough for conservatives living in Washington because it doesn’t matter how big a majority the Republicans have in Congress, in Washington conservatives are a tiny minority of the population that usually dash to Capital Hill and then back to Reagan National Airport and somewhere more normal.”

“One of the most interesting articles to come out of the Supreme Court decision is by Jan Crawford of CBS News, who evidently has great sources inside the Supreme Court. She reports that Justice Anthony Kennedy was relentless in his pursuit of Roberts, attempting to get Roberts back in the conservative fold.

Those on the outside had figured that Kennedy would be the conservative judge to vote with the liberals, but according to this report, which seems to be generally accepted as true, Kennedy was the one who wouldn’t accept the fact that Roberts had changed sides.”

https://citizenwells.com/2012/07/05/chief-justice-roberts-decision-that-of-washington-insider-john-roberts-in-dc-too-long-john-hammer-rhino-times-greensboro-obamacare-truth-in-print/

Now to the present and Justice Roberts role in the rejection of the Texas lawsuit.

Kyle Becker reported:

“I don’t give a #@&^ about ‘Bush v. Gore’… at that time we didn’t have RIOTS!”

A staffer “heard *SCREAMING* through the walls as Justice Roberts & other liberal Justices were insisting this case *NOT* be taken up…”

Justice Roberts controlled by his wife?

Marc Rudov believes that John Roberts wife is liberal and influencing his decisions.

Chief Justice John Roberts must resign immediately!

He is unfit for office.

Read what Attorney Lin Wood tweeted yesterday.

https://citizenwells.com/2020/12/17/attorney-lin-wood-accuses-chief-justice-roberts-of-treason-series-of-tweets-phone-statement-on-trump-make-sure-the-mother-fker-would-never-be-re-elected/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

11 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Attorneys, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Courts, Election 2020, Election Law, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice

Tagged , , ,

Attorney Lin Wood accuses Chief Justice Roberts of treason, Series of tweets, Phone statement on Trump make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.”

Posted on December 17, 2020 | 13 comments

Attorney Lin Wood accuses Chief Justice Roberts of treason, Series of tweets, Phone statement on Trump make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.”

“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

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

 

Attorney Lin Wood has accused Chief Justice Roberts of treason in a series of tweets.

Justice Roberts has acted like a RINO for years and his alleged comments seem plausible.

But does Attorney Lin Wood have proof?

Lin Wood
@LLinWood

This may be most important tweet of my life. Chief Justice John Roberts is corrupt & should resign immediately. Justice Stephen Breyer should also resign immediately. They are “anti-Trumpers” dedicated to preventing public from knowing TRUTH of

@realDonaldTrump

re-election.

 

Lin Wood
@LLinWood

In discussing

@realDonaldTrump

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.

1:25 PM · Dec 17, 2020

 

Lin Wood
@LLinWood

Corruption & deceit have reached most powerful office in our country – the Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court. This is a sad day for our country but a day on which we must wake up & face the truth. Roberts is reason that SCOTUS has not acted on election cases. Others involved.

 

Lin Wood
@LLinWood

I have long had questions about “the John Roberts” on Jeffrey Epstein private jet flight logs. I suspected it was our Chief Justice. MSM has shown no interest in investigating issue to find TRUTH. America is now entitled to know the answer. Every lie will be revealed. Pray.

 

Lin Wood
@LLinWood

I have loved law almost my entire life. I love TRUTH: the good, bad, & ugly. I have revealed ugly TRUTH today about our Supreme Court. I know that I will be attacked & maybe worse. But I also love my country & freedom. We must ALL face the TRUTH.

 

Lin Wood
@LLinWood

The documentation of my claims about Justices Roberts & Breyer has been placed in hands of several third parties. When one cannot attack message, all too often messenger is attacked. But TRUTH cannot be denied. It cannot be destroyed. I have made sure of that TRUTH. – Lin

https://twitter.com/i/status/1339641451215544322

Lin Wood
@LLinWood

I think many are today learning why SCOTUS is rejecting petitions seeking FAIR review. Roberts & Breyer are “anti-Trumpers” They should resign immediately. CJ Roberts has other reasons to resign. He is a disgrace to office & to country.

 

Lin Wood
@LLinWood

By the way, if my date below is incorrect by a couple of months, just ask Chief Justice John Roberts. He can give you the exact date of his incriminatory phone conversation. While you have his attention, ask him some other questions. He owes The People answers. He owes us TRUTH.

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

13 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Attorneys, Chief Justice, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, conservatives, constitution, corruption, Courts, Crime, Election 2020, Election Law, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, Treason

Tagged , ,

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

Posted on December 15, 2020 | 9 comments

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

The following dissenting opinions highlight that.

Patience Drake Roggensack (dissenting)

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

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

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

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

Annette Kingsland Ziegler (dissenting)

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

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

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

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

Rebecca Grassl Bradley (dissenting)

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

You are strongly urged to completely read the dissenting opinions.

They are powerful and should be spread throughout the land.

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

Attorney Jordan Sekulow explains further.

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 Comments

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

Wood v Raffensperger Georgia Supreme Court case docketed Dec 11, Motion for expedited consideration of the petition for Writ of Certiorari

Posted on December 12, 2020 | 1 comment

Wood v Raffensperger Georgia Supreme Court case docketed Dec 11, Motion for expedited consideration of the petition for Writ of Certiorari

“Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would”...Texas response to defendants motions

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

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

 

Lin Wood
@LLinWood
I strongly believe my appeal to US Supreme Court has merit & 11/3 GA election was unlawful. My legal rationale tracks subsequently filed Texas petition re: GA. After 43 years of law practice, I know lawyers cannot control judges. We do the best we can & pray they get it right.
Quote Tweet
Lin Wood
@LLinWood
·
I filed this lawsuit on my own since time was of the essence. GA election was unlawful. It diluted our in-person votes & violated equal protection. I do not know if my case will be successful. But the cherished right to vote belongs to each individual member of We The People. twitter.com/llinwood/statu…

 

Search documents in this case:Search
No. 20-799
Title: L. Lin Wood, Jr., Petitioner
v.
Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State, et al.
Docketed: December 11, 2020
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
   Case Numbers: (20-14418)
   Decision Date: December 5, 2020
DATE PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS
Dec 08 2020 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 11, 2021)
PetitionAppendixCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Dec 08 2020 Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by petitioner.
Main Document
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
Attorneys for Petitioner
Harry W. MacDougald
Counsel of Record		 Caldwell, Propst & DeLoach, LLP
Two Ravinia Dr.
Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30328

hmacdougald@cpdlawyers.com

 404-843-1956
Party name: L. Lin Wood, Jr.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-799.html

 

L. LIN WOOD, JR.
Petitioner,
vs.
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, et al.,

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

“6. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision gave insufficient regard to the
Secretary of State’s unlawful and unconstitutional usurpation of the Georgia
Legislature’s plenary authority to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for theconduct of presidential and congressional elections. See Art. I, § 4, cl. L Bush v. Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 77 (2000) (per curiam). That court incorrectly rejected Petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the unlawful election procedure, which diluted his vote and violated his rights to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

7. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision affirming the denial of emergency relief
has now sanctioned the Secretary of State’s fundamentally and irredeemably flawed procedures concerning the “manner” for the conduct ofthe presidential and senatorial (federal) elections, in violation of constitutional mandates, which only underscores its error. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).”

“9. Unless this Court grants expedited consideration and relief, requiring
that the constitutional deficiencies be remedied almost immediately, it will be
impossible to repair the election results tainted by illegally cast ballots before Ignoration Day. Thus, without expedited review, Petitioner’s appellate rights – and this Court’s power to resolve the important constitutional questions presented by this election – will be irrevocably lost. Cf. Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 178 (2013). In other words, expedited review is, as a practical matter, the only way to protect this Court’s ability to conduct a plenary review of the Eleventh Circuit’s rulings concerning the 2020 Presidential election.1”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-799/163574/20201211141354816_20201211-141309-95752208-00000956.pdf

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

1 Comment

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

Tagged ,

Texas reply in motion for interim injunctive relief against GA MI WI PA Dec 11,”Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would”

Posted on December 11, 2020 | 10 comments

Texas reply in motion for interim injunctive relief against GA MI WI PA Dec 11,”Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would”

“Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would”...Texas response to defendants motions

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

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

 

One of the most important statements in the Texas response below is:

“Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would”

The elephant in the room.

Let’s add more clarity to that.

Due to the documented disregard for state election laws, rampant ballot and voter fraud, machine malfunctions and manipulations and human error, we do not know who lawfully won the election.

This affects every citizen in the US and indeed of the world.

It certainly disenfranchises every voter.

Any illegal ballots tossed disenfranchise no one.

From

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

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE STAY

December 11, 2020.

“REPLY IN SUPPORT OF INTERIM RELIEF

The State of Texas respectfully replies in support
of its motion for interim injunctive relief against the
States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, the
“Defendant States”) and their agents, officers,
presidential electors, and others acting in concert.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant States do not seriously address grave
issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other
court venues and decisions in which Texas could not
participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that
Texas seeks and the justification for that relief. An
injunction should issue because Defendant States
have not—and cannot—defend their actions.”

“Second, Texas does not ask this Court to reelect
President Trump, and Texas does not seek to
disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’
voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to
recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’
maladministration of the 2020 election makes it
impossible to know which candidate garnered the
majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike
unconstitutional action and remand to the actors that
the Constitution and Congress vest with authority for
the next step. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2; 3 U.S.C. §
2. Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as
taking action allegedly would. Moreover, acting
decisively will not only put lower courts but also state
and local officials on notice that future elections must
conform to State election statutes, requiring
legislative ratification of any change prior to the
election. Far from condemning this and other courts
to perpetual litigation, action here will stanch the
flood of election-season litigation.”

”
CONCLUSION

The motion for interim relief enjoining Defendant
States from certifying Presidential Electors and from
having such electors vote in the electoral college until
further order of this Court should be granted.
Alternatively, this Court should summarily vacate
Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors
and remand to Defendant States’ legislatures
pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and the Electors Clause.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163498/20201211111125165_TX-v-State-MPI-Reply-2020-12-11.pdf

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

10 Comments

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

Tagged ,

YouTube Thought Police panicked Why? because Supreme Court filings loaded with “fraud”, “We also disallow content alleging widespread fraud “

Posted on December 10, 2020 | 12 comments

YouTube Thought Police panicked Why? because Supreme Court filings loaded with “fraud”, “We also disallow content alleging widespread fraud ”

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!””...George Orwell, “1984”

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

 

YouTube for years has presented a category of “Top News”.

And what do you find there? The kings of fake news CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

They have been allowing smaller sites, with diverse opinions and reporting up until yesterday when they announced a new policy.

“Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections.”

https://citizenwells.com/2020/12/09/youtube-aka-big-brother-lies-about-election-will-remove-videos-that-challenge-their-views-no-president-elect-until-jan-6-at-earliest-likely-biased-not-stupid/

First of all the first line is a huge Orwellian Lie!

There is no president elect until January 6 at the earliest.

The electors have not even voted yet!

But why yesterday did they invoke an Orwellian Thought Police edict directed at alleged fraud in the 2020 election.

They panicked!

They knew that US Supreme Court filings were coming and that they would be loaded with references to fraud.

From the highest court in the nation with the most credible legal documents and arguments.

They could not allow videos referencing that to discredit their fake news accomplices.

The Texas lawsuit has 6 references to “fraud.”

The 17 state Amicus brief has 89 references to “fraud.”!!!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Arizona, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Courts, Election 2020, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, fraud, Orwell, Orwellian, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, Thought Police, Voter fraud, voters, YouTube

Tagged ,

Arizona AG Mark Brnovich motion to file Amicus in Texas v Pennsylvania US Supreme Court Dec 9, “resolve this challenge quickly to give the Nation certainty”

Posted on December 10, 2020 | 7 comments

Arizona AG Mark Brnovich motion to file Amicus in Texas v Pennsylvania US Supreme Court Dec 9, “resolve this challenge quickly to give the Nation certainty”

“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

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

 

From the Arizona AG Mark Brnovich

Motion to file Amicus in

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

“The State of Arizona and Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
(collectively, the “State of Arizona”) respectfully move for leave to file a brief as
amici curiae respecting the motions for leave to file a bill of complaint and for a
preliminary injunction in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 37.2(a). If granted leave, the
State of Arizona’s brief will make two primary points.1

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. Indeed, in just a few months, the State of Arizona and its Attorney General will appear before this Court in the critical case of Brnovich et al. v. Democratic National Committee et al., No. 19-1257, and urge the Court to adopt a construction of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that not only follows the text of that statute but also recognizes that to ensure “fair and honest” elections marked by “order, rather than chaos,” “there must be a substantial regulation of elections.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974) (emphasis added); see also Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932) (“[E]xperience shows” those “necessary” regulations include not just voting “procedure[s]” but also “safeguards”
for the “prevention of fraud and corrupt practices.”).

The State will also argue that if this Court exercises jurisdiction over Texas’s
complaint, it is equally important that the Court act quickly to give the Nation
certainty.”

Read more:

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

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

7 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Arizona, Attorney General, Attorneys, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Courts, Secretary of State, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged ,

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

Posted on December 9, 2020 | 2 comments

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/

 

 

2 Comments

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

Tagged , , ,

Texas v Pennsylvania et al US Supreme Court states must respond by 3 PM Dec 10, Allen West: LA AL AR FL KY MS SC SD likely to join, Sekulow explains

Posted on December 9, 2020 | 4 comments

Texas v Pennsylvania et al US Supreme Court states must respond by 3 PM Dec 10, Allen West: LA AL AR FL KY MS SC SD likely to join, Sekulow explains

“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 US Supreme Court.

Dec 07 2020 Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.
Motion for Leave to File a Bill of ComplaintCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Dec 07 2020 Motion to expedite filed by plaintiff Texas.
Main Document
Dec 07 2020 Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceOther
Dec 08 2020 Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

From 

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

“MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE STAY”

“CONCLUSION
This Court should first administratively stay or
temporarily restrain the Defendant States from
voting in the electoral college until further order of
this Court and then issue a preliminary injunction or
stay against their doing so until the conclusion of this
case on the merits. Alternatively, the Court should
reach the merits, vacate the Defendant States’ elector
certifications from the unconstitutional 2020 election
results, and remand to the Defendant States’
legislatures pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 to appoint
electors.
December 7, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
Ken Paxton*
Attorney General of Texas”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163052/20201208133328638_TX-v-State-MPI-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf

Attorney Jordan Sekulow explains.

 

Landry: Louisiana Is Joining Texas’ 2020 Election Lawsuit

“Millions of Louisiana citizens, and tens of millions of our fellow citizens in the country, have deep concerns regarding the conduct of the 2020 federal elections. Deeply rooted in these concerns is the fact that some states appear to have conducted their elections with a disregard to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, many Louisianans have become more frustrated as some in media and the political class try to sidestep legitimate issues for the sake of expediency.

Weeks ago, on behalf of the citizens of Louisiana, my office joined many other states in filing a legal brief with the United States Supreme Court urging the Justices to look into the conduct of the election in Pennsylvania where their state court ignored the U.S. Constitution in regard to the conduct of the election. The U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 4, states plainly: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature …” The power for the conduct of federal elections is held by the State Legislatures in each state. In states like Pennsylvania, the judicial branch attempted to seize control of these duties and obligations and to set their own rules. These actions appear to be unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to take this action, it is similarly unconstitutional for other states to have done the same.

Only the U.S. Supreme Court can ultimately decide cases of real controversy among the states under our Constitution. That is why the Justices should hear and decide the case which we have joined representing the citizens of Louisiana.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court should consider the most recent Texas motion, which contains some of the same arguments.

Louisiana citizens are damaged if elections in other states were conducted outside the confines of the Constitution while we obeyed the rules.”

https://thehayride.com/2020/12/landry-louisiana-is-joining-texas-2020-election-lawsuit/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

4 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Americans, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Election 2020, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Federal Court, Secretary of State, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , ,

Judge Alito orders all PA county boards “all ballots received by mail after 8:00 p.m. on November 3 be segregated… separate from other voted ballots” 

Posted on November 7, 2020 | 1 comment

Judge Alito orders all PA county boards “all ballots received by mail after 8:00 p.m. on November 3 be segregated… separate from other voted ballots”

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

“Judicial Watch Finds Millions of ‘Extra’ Registrants on Voting Rolls – Warns California, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, Virginia to Clean Up Voting Rolls or Face a Federal Lawsuit”…Jan 2, 2020

“This election is far from over.”…Citizen Wells

 

Supreme Court of the United States
No. 20A84
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Applicant
v.
KATHY BOOCKVAR, SECRETARY OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
O R D E R
All county boards of election are hereby ordered, pending further order
of the Court, to comply with the following guidance provided by the Secretary
of the Commonwealth on October 28 and November 1, namely, (1) that all
ballots received by mail after 8:00 p.m. on November 3 be segregated and
kept “in a secure, safe and sealed container separate from other voted
ballots,” and (2) that all such ballots, if counted, be counted separately. Pa.
Dep’t of State, Pennsylvania Guidance for Mail-in and Absentee Ballots
Received From the United States Postal Service After 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 3, 2020 (Oct. 28, 2020); Pa. Dep’t of State, Canvassing Segregated
Mail-in and Civilian Absentee Ballots Received by Mail After 8:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 and Before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 6, 2020
(Nov. 1, 2020). Until today, this Court was not informed that the guidance
issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question
whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified. The application received today also informs the Court that neither
the applicant nor the Secretary has been able to verify that all boards are
complying with the Secretary’s guidance, which, it is alleged, is not legally
binding on them.
I am immediately referring this application to the Conference and
direct that any response be filed as soon as possible but in any event no later
than 2 p.m. tomorrow, November 7, 2020.

/s/ Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States

Dated this 6th
day of November 2020.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110620zr_g31i.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

1 Comment

Posted in Accountability, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Election 2020, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged