Category Archives: Supreme Court

Senator Ben Sasse treasonous position on Jan 6 elector certification, Corrupt McConnell influence?, Idiot?, Uninformed?, More concerned about reelection?

Senator Ben Sasse treasonous position on Jan 6 elector certification, Corrupt McConnell influence?, Idiot?, Uninformed?, More concerned about reelection?

“Russell J. Ramsland, Jr., a cybersecurity expert from Texas, testified that his team had compared data from Dominion voting machines in those places where they were used around the nation…..Ramsland estimated that these anomalies translated to between 123,000 and 136,000 extra votes for Vice President Biden in Georgia.”…GA senate chairman Ligon report on testimony from Dec 3, 2020 hearing

“Urges the United States Congress to declare the selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute.” PA House Resolution 1094

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

 

Senator Ben Sasse’s position on the upcoming January 6, 2021 certification of Electoral College votes is

Treason!

Ignorance is no excuse.

Being influenced by treasonous Mitch McConnell, who apparently is in the pocket of the Chinese Government, is no excuse.

Covering your ass for reelection is no excuse.

Using the excuse of disenfranchising millions of Americans is no excuse because to do nothing would disenfranchise millions of Americans who are having their votes cancelled by illegal ballots.

His claims are the pleas of a liar, why?

WHAT HAPPENS ON JANUARY 6th
In November, 160 million Americans voted. On December 14, members of the Electoral College – spread across all 50 states and the District of Columbia – assembled to cast their votes to confirm the winning candidate. And on January 6, the Congress will gather together to formally count the Electoral College’s votes and bring this process to a close.
Some members of the House and the Senate are apparently going to object to counting the votes of some states that were won by Joe Biden. Just like the rest of Senate Republicans, I have been approached by many Nebraskans demanding that I join in this project.
Having been in private conversation with two dozen of my colleagues over the past few weeks, it seems useful to explain in public why I will not be participating in a project to overturn the election – and why I have been urging my colleagues also to reject this dangerous ploy.
Every public official has a responsibility to tell the truth, and here’s what I think the truth is – about our duties on January 6th, about claims of election fraud, and about what it takes to keep a republic.
1. IS THERE A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR CONGRESS TO DISMISS ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES?
Yes. A member of the House and the Senate can object and, in order for the vote(s) in question to be dismissed, both chambers must vote to reject those votes.
But is it wise? Is there any real basis for it here?
Absolutely not. Since the Electoral College Act of 1887 was passed into law in the aftermath of the Civil War, not a single electoral vote has ever been thrown out by the Congress. (One goofy senator attempted this maneuver after George W. Bush won reelection in 2004, but her anti-democratic play was struck down by her Senate colleagues in a shaming vote of 74-1.)
2. IS THERE EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD SO WIDESPREAD THAT IT COULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
No.
For President-Elect Biden’s 306-232 Electoral College victory to be overturned, President Trump would need to flip multiple states. But not a single state is in legal doubt.
But given that I was not a Trump voter in either 2016 or 2020 (I wrote in Mike Pence in both elections), I understand that many Trump supporters will not want to take my word for it. So, let’s look at the investigations and tireless analysis from Andy McCarthy over at National Review. McCarthy has been a strong, consistent supporter of President Trump, and he is also a highly regarded federal prosecutor. Let’s run through the main states where President Trump has claimed widespread fraud:
* In Pennsylvania, Team Trump is right that lots went wrong. Specifically, a highly partisan state supreme court rewrote election law in ways that are contrary to what the legislature had written about the deadline for mail-in ballots – this is wrong. But Biden won Pennsylvania by 81,000 votes – and there appear to have been only 10,000 votes received and counted after election day. So even if every one of these votes were for Biden and were thrown out, they would not come close to affecting the outcome. Notably, Stephanos Bibas (a Trump appointee) of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled against the president’s lawsuit to reverse Biden’s large victory, writing in devastating fashion: “calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
* In Michigan, which Biden won by 154,000 votes, the Trump team initially claimed generic fraud statewide – but with almost no particular claims, so courts roundly rejected suit after suit. The Trump team then objected to a handful of discrepancies in certain counties and precincts, some more reasonable than others. But for the sake of argument, let’s again assume that every single discrepancy was resolved in the president’s favor: It would potentially amount to a few thousand votes and not come anywhere close to changing the state’s result.
* In Arizona, a federal judge jettisoned a lawsuit explaining that “allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court,” she wrote. “They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election.” Nothing presented in court was serious, let alone providing a basis for overturning an election. (https://www.azcentral.com/…/federal-judge…/6506927002)
* In Nevada, there do appear to have been some irregularities – but the numbers appear to have been very small relative to Biden’s margin of victory. It would be useful for there to be an investigation into these irregularities, but a judge rejected the president’s suit because the president’s lawyers “did not prove under any standard of proof” that enough illegal votes were cast, or legal votes not counted, “to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election.” (https://www.8newsnow.com/…/judge-no-evidence-to…/)
* In Wisconsin, as McCarthy has written, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against President Trump, suggesting that President-Elect Biden’s recorded margin of victory (about 20,000 votes) was probably slightly smaller in fact, but even re-calculating all of the votes in question in a generously pro-Trump way would not give the president a victory in the state. (https://www.nationalreview.com/…/biden-won-wisconsin…/)
* In Georgia, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation complete audit of more than 15,000 votes found one irregularity – a situation where a woman illegally signed both her and her husband’s ballot envelopes.
At the end of the day, one of the President Trump’s strongest supporters, his own Attorney General, Bill Barr, was blunt: “We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” (https://apnews.com/…/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud…)
3. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMS OF THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN?
I started with the courts for a reason. From where I sit, the single-most telling fact is that there a giant gulf between what President Trump and his allies say in public – for example, on social media, or at press conferences outside Philadelphia landscaping companies and adult bookstores – and what President Trump’s lawyers actually say in courts of law. And that’s not a surprise. Because there are no penalties for misleading the public. But there are serious penalties for misleading a judge, and the president’s lawyers know that – and thus they have repeated almost none of the claims of grand voter fraud that the campaign spokespeople are screaming at their most zealous supporters. So, here’s the heart of this whole thing: this isn’t really a legal strategy – it’s a fundraising strategy.
Since Election Day, the president and his allied organizations have raised well over half a billion (billion!) dollars from supporters who have been led to believe that they’re contributing to a ferocious legal defense. But in reality, they’re mostly just giving the president and his allies a blank check that can go to their super-PACs, their next plane trip, their next campaign or project. That’s not serious governing. It’s swampy politics – and it shows very little respect for the sincere people in my state who are writing these checks.
4. WAIT, ARE YOU CLAIMING THERE WAS NO FRAUD OF ANY KIND THIS YEAR?
No. 160 million people voted in this election, in a variety of formats, in a process marked by the extraordinary circumstance of a global pandemic. There is some voter fraud every election cycle – and the media flatly declaring from on high that “there is no fraud!” has made things worse. It has heightened public distrust, because there are, in fact, documented cases of voter fraud every election cycle. But the crucial questions are: (A) What evidence do we have of fraud? and (B) Does that evidence support the belief in fraud on a scale so significant that it could have changed the outcome? We have little evidence of fraud, and what evidence we do have does not come anywhere close to adding up to a different winner of the presidential election.
5. BUT ISN’T IT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO INVESTIGATE THESE CLAIMS MORE THOROUGHLY? DOESN’T IT HELP GUARANTEE THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS?
I take this argument seriously because actual voter fraud – and worries about voter fraud – are poison to self-government. So yes, we should investigate all specific claims, but we shouldn’t burn down the whole process along the way. Right now we are locked in a destructive, vicious circle:
Step 1: Allege widespread voter fraud.
Step 2: Fail to offer specific evidence of widespread fraud.
Step 3: Demand investigation, on grounds that there are “allegations” of voter fraud.
I can’t simply allege that the College Football Playoff Selection Committee is “on the take” because they didn’t send the Cornhuskers to the Rose Bowl, and then – after I fail to show evidence that anyone on the Selection Committee is corrupt – argue that we need to investigate because of these pervasive “allegations” of corruption.
We have good reason to think this year’s election was fair, secure, and law-abiding. That’s not to say it was flawless. But there is no evidentiary basis for distrusting our elections altogether, or for concluding that the results do not reflect the ballots that our fellow citizens actually cast.
6. DO ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS?
When we talk in private, I haven’t heard a single Congressional Republican allege that the election results were fraudulent – not one. Instead, I hear them talk about their worries about how they will “look” to President Trump’s most ardent supporters.
And I get it. I hear from a lot of Nebraskans who disagree with me. Moreover, lots of them ask legitimate questions about why they should trust the mainstream media. Here’s one I got this morning: “We live in a world where thousands and thousands of stories were written about the Republican nominee’s alleged tax fraud in 2012, but then when Harry Reid admitted – after the election – that he had simply made all of this up, there were probably three media outlets that covered it for thirty seconds. Why should I believe anything they say?” As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has watched for four years as lies made up out of whole cloth are covered as legitimate “news” stories, I understand why so many of my constituents feel this in-the-belly distrust. What so much of the media doesn’t grasp is that Trump’s attacks are powerful not because he created this anti-media sentiment, but because he figured out how to tap into it.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that the best way we can serve our constituents is to tell the truth as we see it, and explain why. And in my view, President-Elect Biden didn’t simply win the election; President Trump couldn’t persuade even his own lawyers to argue anything different than that in U.S. federal courts.
…WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
The president and his allies are playing with fire. They have been asking – first the courts, then state legislatures, now the Congress – to overturn the results of a presidential election. They have unsuccessfully called on judges and are now calling on federal officeholders to invalidate millions and millions of votes. If you make big claims, you had better have the evidence. But the president doesn’t and neither do the institutional arsonist members of Congress who will object to the Electoral College vote.
Let’s be clear what is happening here: We have a bunch of ambitious politicians who think there’s a quick way to tap into the president’s populist base without doing any real, long-term damage. But they’re wrong – and this issue is bigger than anyone’s personal ambitions. Adults don’t point a loaded gun at the heart of legitimate self-government.
We have a deep cancer in American politics right now: Both Republicans and Democrats are growing more distrustful of the basic processes and procedures that we follow. Some people will respond to these arguments by saying: “The courts are just in the tank for Democrats!” And indeed the President has been tweeting that “the courts are bad” (and the Justice Department, and more). That’s an example of the legitimacy crisis so many of us have been worried about. Democrats spent four years pretending Trump didn’t win the election, and now (shocker) a good section of Republicans are going to spend the next four years pretending Biden didn’t win the election.
All the clever arguments and rhetorical gymnastics in the world won’t change the fact that this January 6th effort is designed to disenfranchise millions of Americans simply because they voted for someone in a different party. We ought to be better than that. If we normalize this, we’re going to turn American politics into a Hatfields and McCoys endless blood feud – a house hopelessly divided.
America has always been fertile soil for groupthink, conspiracy theories, and showmanship. But Americans have common sense. We know up from down, and if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. We need that common sense if we’re going to rebuild trust.
It won’t be easy, but it’s hardly beyond our reach. And it’s what self-government requires. It’s part of how, to recall Benjamin Franklin, we struggle to do right by the next generation and “keep a republic.”

 

On December 31, 2020 US Congressmen from Pennsylvania stated in a scathing press release:

“Therefore, the state’s official certification of electors was based upon a flawed system and an inaccurate vote count. Thus, very possibly resulting in an erroneous certification.

“Until these unlawful practices are acknowledged and corrected, we cannot agree to support electors chosen based upon an inaccurate total vote count. The voters of Pennsylvania deserve integrity in the election process and equal protection under the law.”

https://citizenwells.com/2020/12/31/pennsylvania-members-of-us-house-of-representatives-dan-meuser-et-al-statement-regarding-certification-of-electors-december-31-2020-pa-unlawful-actions/

Georgia  Senate chairman Ligon report on testimony from Dec 3, 2020 hearing.

“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.”

https://citizenwells.com/2020/12/21/ga-senate-chairman-ligon-report-on-testimony-from-dec-3-2020-hearing-should-not-be-certified-chaotic-and-the-results-cannot-be-trusted/

Arizona legislature press release December 4, 2020.

“Senate President Karen Fann and Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers today called an independent audit of the Dominion software and equipment used by Maricopa County in the 2020 General Election. The two leaders, along with incoming Senate Government Chair Michelle Ugenti-Rita and House Majority Leader Warren Petersen, had numerous phone calls with members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors,”

“A significant number of voters believe that fraud occurred and with the number of irregularities it is easy to understand why. Especially concerning are the allegations made surrounding the vendor Dominion.”

https://citizenwells.com/2020/12/04/arizona-legislature-calls-for-audit-of-dominion-software-and-equipment-used-by-maricopa-county-dec-4-2020-a-significant-number-of-voters-believe-that-fraud-occurred/

From the Wisconsin Supreme Court December 14, 2020.

Ҧ25 Next, as we stated above, whether to declare oneself
indefinitely confined is an individual determination. The plain
language of the statute does not permit persons other than the
elector to make that decision. We will not add words into a
statute that the legislature did not see fit to employ. See
Dawson, 336 Wis. 2d 318, ¶42 (citing County of Dane v. LIRC, 2009
WI 9, ¶33, 315 Wis. 2d 293, 759 N.W.2d 571). Therefore, neither
county clerks nor an order of the Governor may declare persons
indefinitely confined.”

https://citizenwells.com/2020/12/14/trump-likely-wins-wisconsin-wi-supreme-court-ruling-dec-14-a-county-clerk-may-not-declare-that-any-elector-is-indefinitely-confined-due-to-a-pandemic/

Furthermore, from strong dissenting opinions from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

“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”

https://citizenwells.com/2020/12/15/trump-lawsuit-dismissed-4-to-3-by-corrupt-wisconsin-supreme-court-justices-dissenters-roggensack-ziegler-bradley-provide-honest-jurisprudence/

The above are just the tip of the iceberg but come from high level government officials.

They blow out of the water the fraudulent arguments of corrupt Senator Sasse,

Senator Ben Sasse is a traitor

and should be expelled from the Senate and never reelected!

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump v Boockvar PA SOS et al US Supreme Court filed December 20, 2020, ” statutory provisions…may not be ignored by state election officials or changed by state courts”

Trump v Boockvar PA SOS et al US Supreme Court filed December 20, 2020, ” statutory provisions…may not be ignored by state election officials or
changed by state courts”

“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

“Big news coming out of Pennsylvania. Very big illegal ballot drop that cannot be accounted for. Rigged Election!”...President Trump December 21, 2020
“Urges the United States Congress to declare the selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute.” PA House Resolution 1094

 

From

DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.,

v

Kathy Boockvar, Secretary of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, et al

Filed in the US Supreme Court December 20, 2020.

“Article II of the Constitution provides that “Each State shall appoint [electors
for President and Vice President] in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (emphasis added). That power is “plenary,” and the statutory provisions enacted by the legislature in the furtherance of that
constitutionally-assigned duty may not be ignored by state election officials or
changed by state courts. Bush v. Gore (“Bush II”), 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000).

Yet, during the 2020 presidential election, that is what the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court did in four cases – three at issue in this Petition, and one already
before the Court. Statutory requirements were eliminated regarding signature
verification, the right of campaigns to challenge invalid mail ballots, mandates that mail voters fill in, date, and sign mail ballot declarations, and even the right of campaigns to observe the mail ballot canvassing process in a meaningful way.

Collectively, these three decisions resulted in counting approximately 2.6 million mail ballots in violation of the law as enacted by the Pennsylvania
Legislature. According to public reports, without these protections, the resulting
disqualification rate of invalid ballots was anemic—meaning over 110,000 invalid ballots were illegally counted—more than enough to have affected the outcome of the election, where the margin between the two principal candidates for President currently stands at 80,558. The questions presented are therefore:

Read more:

https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/trump-v-boockvar-petition.pdf

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

GA senate chairman Ligon report on testimony from Dec 3, 2020 hearing, “should not be certified”, “chaotic and the results cannot be trusted”

GA senate chairman Ligon report on testimony from Dec 3, 2020 hearing, “should not be certified”, “chaotic and the results cannot be trusted”

“Russell J. Ramsland, Jr., a cybersecurity expert from Texas, testified that his team had compared data from Dominion voting machines in those places where they were used around the nation…..Ramsland estimated that these anomalies translated to between 123,000 and 136,000 extra votes for Vice President Biden in Georgia.”…GA senate chairman Ligon report on testimony from Dec 3, 2020 hearing

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

“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

 

From

THE CHAIRMAN’S REPORT OF THE ELECTION LAW
STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE STANDING SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY FROM DECEMBER 3, 2020 HEARING
Honorable William T. Ligon, Chairman

“V. FINDINGS
1- The November 3, 2020 election was chaotic and the results cannot be trusted.
2- The Secretary of State and the State Elections Board failed to enforce the law as written in the Georgia Code, and furthermore, created policies that contravened State law. As Senator Matt Brass concluded at the December 3 hearing, “We have heard evidence that State law was not followed, time after time after time.”
3- The Secretary of State failed to have a transparent process for the verification of signatures for absentee ballots, for the counting of votes during the subsequent recount and audit, and for providing the type of guidance and enforcement necessary to ensure that monitors and other observers had meaningful access to the process.
4- The Secretary of State instituted an unconstitutional gag order so that monitors were told not to use photography or video recording devices during the recount.
5- Election officials at all levels failed to secure test ballots and actual ballots. Many reports indicate that proper procedures were not followed, and there was systematic failure to maintain appropriate records of the chain of custody for these ballots, both prior to and after voting and throughout the recount.
6- The Secretary of State and Election Supervisors failed to stop hostile behavior of workers toward citizen volunteer monitors during the recount process.
7- The events at the State Farm Arena are particularly disturbing because they
demonstrated intent on the part of election workers to exclude the public from viewing the counting of ballots, an intentional disregard for the law. The number of votes that could have been counted in that length of time was sufficient to change the results of the presidential election and the senatorial contests. Furthermore, there appears to be coordinated illegal activities by election workers themselves who purposely placed fraudulent ballots into the final election totals.
8- Grants from private sources provided financial incentives to county officials and exerted influence over the election process.
9- 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.”

Read more:

http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

From:

Timothy King et al v Gretchen Whitmer et a

US Supreme Court

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF TODD C. BANK

Filed December 18, 2020.

“SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

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

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

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

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

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Sidney Powell US Supreme Court motion to consolidate and expedite Michigan Georgia and Arizona and Wisconsin petitions, December 18, 2020

Sidney Powell US Supreme Court motion to consolidate and expedite Michigan Georgia and Arizona and Wisconsin petitions, December 18, 2020

“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

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

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

 

From the Sidney Powell motion to the 

US Supreme Court

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION OF THE EMERGENCY PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, TO EXPEDITE MERITS BRIEFING AND ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE EVENT THAT THE COURT GRANTS THE PETITION, AND TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION OF THIS MOTION

Filed December 18, 2020

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 21, Petitioners respectfully move for
consolidation and expedited consideration of two related filings, submitted
December 11, 2020, that concern the November 3, 2020, presidential election.
These filings have direct implications for the outcome of the election nationwide.

The first of the filings concerns the presidential election conducted in the
State of Michigan and was assigned Docket Number 20-815 (the “Michigan
Petition”). The Michigan Petition seeks emergency declaratory relief avowing that the presidential election results certified by Michigan officials were unconstitutional and otherwise contrary to law, together with injunctive relief de-certifying those results.

The second filing, Docket Number 20-816, parallels the first and concerns the
presidential election in Georgia (the “Georgia Petition”). The Georgia Petition seeks declaratory and injunctive relief similar to that requested in the Michigan Petition.

Under the briefing schedules established by this Court’s rules, the Michigan
and Georgia Petitions would not be briefed until January 14, 2020 at the earliest;
and in the event the Court were to grant review, the cases would not be argued and decided until Spring 2021 at the earliest. In the meantime, Petitioners claims will have changed beyond recognition and will very likely have become moot. On January 6, 2020, Congress is scheduled to meet in Joint Session to count electoral votes from, and perhaps certify a winner of, the 2020 General Election—an election irredeemably tainted by multi-state election fraud and malign foreign interference.

Petitioners respectfully request (1) that the Court consolidate the Michigan
and Georgia Petitions (together with similar petitions from Arizona and Wisconsin discussed below); and (2) expedite consideration of all four petitions. The expedited schedule proposed below would allow the Court to adjudicate the cases in advance of January 6, 2020 Joint Session of Congress.

Petitioners further request expedited consideration of this motion.”

“CONCLUSION
For reasons stated, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court
consolidate and expedite consideration of the Michigan and Georgia Petitions (and Arizona and Wisconsin Petitions).”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-815/164119/20201218094817656_SCOTUS.FINAL..GA.MI.Motion%20for%20Expedited%20Consideration.pdf

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

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

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/

 

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.”

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

re-election.

 

Lin Wood
@LLinWood

In discussing

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.

 

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

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/

 

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

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/

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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/

 

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”

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/