Category Archives: Supreme Court

Tagged 2021, Attorney Lin Wood on the Cabal child sex trafficking and pedophilia and fraudulent election, Jr. response Mon, March 7, SCOTUS In re L. Lin Wood

9 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Attorneys, Bill Clinton, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Clintons, corruption, Courts, Crime, Election 2020, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Evil, Secretary of State, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice

Lin Wood whistleblower transcripts transcribed Mar 1 2021 re Justice Roberts Mike Pence Rod Rosenstein et al, Ref in Feb 9 US District Court affidavit

Posted on March 5, 2021 | 5 comments

Lin Wood whistleblower transcripts transcribed Mar 1 2021 re Justice Roberts Mike Pence Rod Rosenstein et al, Ref in Feb 9 US District Court affidavit

“Ad Hominem: This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone’s argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.”…Dept. of Philosophy, Texas State

“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

From Attorney Lin Wood in a US District Court Affidavit filed Feb 9, 2021.

“I exercised my right of free speech and did urge attendees to consider engaging in acts of non-violent freedom of assembly and the right to publicly protest acts and inactions by the Georgia Governor and Secretary of State. I am in
possession of credible evidence supporting criminal acts by these Georgia officials.”

“I am in possession of credible evidence to support my statements about Pence and Rod Rosenstein, as well as information about the death of Seth Rich.”

“I have credible evidence to support the truth of my description of Former Vice President Pence as a traitor.”

“I have turned over whistleblower evidence to the United States Secret Service related to Former Vice-President Mike Pence and other high-ranking government officials. If desired by this Court, I am prepared to file that evidence along with a considerable amount of evidence of election fraud. I am not doing so at this time as I do not believe those issues are relevant to the
present motion which I believe is nothing more than an effort to smear my reputation and interfere with Plaintiff’s Constitutional right to counsel of her choice.”

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

https://citizenwells.com/2021/02/13/lin-wood-responds-to-ad-hominem-attacks-in-legal-docs-liberte-v-reid-jan-feb-2021-wood-credible-evidence-ga-officials-pence-rosenstein-roberts-no-retraction-demands/

From a Lin Wood whistleblower testimony transcribed March 1, 2021.

INTERVIEWER:· · · · This is an interview with Ryan
·2· Dark White.· This is an interview for Attorney Lin Wood.
·3· This is Saturday, January 9th, 2021.
·4· · · · · · And, Ryan, if you could just give us a brief
·5· background — excuse us — brief background about yourself —
·6· where you grew up, where you went to school — just so we
·7· know a little bit more about you.
·8· · · · · · INTERVIEWEE:· · · · Ryan D. White.· It’s not my
·9· birth name.· It’s not the name I prefer.· Originally from
10· Maryland.· I hold graduate degrees — I held graduate degrees
11· — I’ll explain that — in physics, mathematics, biology and
12· chemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and Green
13· College, Oxford.
14· · · · · · Graduate school would be University of
15· Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland,
16· University of Maryland’s physics program.
17· · · · · · Throughout this control that Rod has put on, he has
18· actually personally sent letters — or his assistant, but he
19· signed them.· I went to school very young — it throws people
20· off — and he used that against me.
21· · · · · · He would send letters to my schools, my undergrad
22· and grad, he’d send letters to the military saying that, you
23· know, “This person Ryan White is using John McGreavy’s
24· information.· John McGreavy’s deceased, so best if you just
25· destroy it.”

He got much of it destroyed.· There are still
·2· pieces there that can easily be verified and checked and
·3· rebuilt, hopefully, but he did his best to destroy it.· He
·4· did the same thing with the military, the U.S. Army, Army
·5· from ’85 to ’96 and Guard for — Maryland Guard for three
·6· years after that — three and a half years after that.
·7· · · · · · Rod apparently didn’t know that the Guard was
·8· separate, so they have a lot of the records.· He didn’t get
·9· to them.· But, like I said, it’s easy enough to check and
10· find the pieces, and hopefully somebody can help me put them
11· back together.”

· “I started providing this in 2005, and in 2008 I
13· started working directly with Rod Rosenstein in Baltimore,
14· and because of the access with the other agencies, the FBI,
15· for instance, would come for corroboration of something they
16· were working on, or just to ask questions, if I’d seen
17· something like this, if this related to anything.· Then it
18· grew from there.
19· · · · · · Because of the undercover nature of many of the
20· investigations I worked on, terrorists or domestic terrorism
21· within the country, they kept me fairly well concealed, and
22· access was limited to a certain group headed by Rod
23· Rosenstein.”

· “INTERVIEWEE:· · · · That group, I mean, they’re all
13· interconnected one way or another.· That particular group was
14· Rod, VP Pence, Paul Ryan.· That was the core of that group.
15· Rod was in there, but that was the core of it.· It was an
16· attempt, where Rod was the brilliant legal mind behind it, to
17· remove President Trump under the 25th Amendment.”

“And Rod and Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts — a lot
24· of the younger people involved, the ones that were brought as
25· favors, were supplied by Jeffrey Epstein’s channels, through his channels, his people.
·2· · · · · · We were able to get FISA warrants because Chief
·3· Justice Roberts had vice court and helped prepare them, but
·4· it was also — Epstein was an intelligence asset of some type
·5· to various agencies around the world.· They used his
·6· information.· They exploited it for their own good.”

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fk1qlm0ja2syywm/FULL%20Transcript%20of%20Whistleblower%20Interview.pdf?dl=0

More here:

Tagged Lin Wood whistleblower transcripts transcribed Mar 1 2021 re Justice Roberts Mike Pence Rod Rosenstein et al, Ref in Feb 9 US District Court affidavit

5 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Attorneys, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, corruption, Crime, District Court, fraud, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice

AZ Attorney General Brnovich US Supreme Court petition listen to oral arguments read transcript March 2, 2021, Fighting to maintain election laws

Posted on March 2, 2021 | 3 comments

AZ Attorney General Brnovich US Supreme Court petition listen to oral arguments read transcript March 2, 2021, Fighting to maintain election laws

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

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

“High powered law firms in conjunction with leftist activists such as Stacey Abrams, across the country, attacked many states’ election procedures. In Georgia they folded and employed procedures that were contrary to state laws, thus invalidating election results. Arizona’s honest Attorney General Mark Brnovich did not.”…Citizen Wells

Oral arguments were presented today before the US Supreme Court, March 2, 2021 in

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

More here:

Tagged 2021, AZ Attorney General Brnovich US Supreme Court petition listen to oral arguments read transcript March 2, Fighting to maintain election laws

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

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

Posted on March 2, 2021 | 3 comments

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

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

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

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

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

This should be an open and closed case.

The procedures being questioned follow those of most states.

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

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

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

Arizona’s honest Attorney General Mark Brnovich did not.

Hence today’s hearing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Brnovich Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

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

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

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

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

Why did the Supreme Court take this case?

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

Secondly, AG Brnovich is on defense, not offense.

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

More here:

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

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

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

Posted on March 1, 2021 | 3 comments

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

FROM THE SCOTUS, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

No. 20-887

In re L. Lin Wood, Jr.

Distributed for conference of 3/5/2021

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

Dec 30 2020 Petition for a writ of mandamus

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

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

More here:

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

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

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

Posted on March 1, 2021 | 2 comments

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

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

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

From the SCOTUS, United States Supreme Court

No. 20-883

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

from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Distributed for conference of 3/5/2021

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

Dec 30 2020

Petition for a writ of certiorari filed.

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

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

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

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

From the Wisconsin Legislature January 4, 2021.

2021 ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 3

January 4, 2021 – Introduced by Representative Allen.

***AUTHORS SUBJECT TO CHANGE***

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

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

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

More here:

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

1 Comment

2 Comments

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

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

Posted on February 25, 2021 | 8 comments

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

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

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

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

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

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he is wrong again.

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

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

Wrong!

If Biden was elected illegally, he can be removed.

For starters he can be impeached and removed.

That should be the last resort.

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

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

Justice Thomas error

I have the utmost respect for Justice Thomas.

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

However, in his statement:

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

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

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

Glenn Beck

Call me.

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

More here:

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

8 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Courts, Election 2020, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Judges, Marbury V Madison, Secretary of State, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, US Constitution

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

Posted on February 23, 2021 | 3 comments

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

February 19

“Many are watching and waiting on the U.S. Supreme today. In its conference, the Court will decide whether the cases from GA, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will proceed.

If the Court says NO, we will know the majority of the Court is corrupt. The cases are based on established, black letter law. The elections in those states were illegal and unconstitutional. They changed the election rules without approval of the state legislatures.

If the Court decides the cases will proceed, we will not know for sure if a majority of the Court is corrupt until final decisions are issued which could take months. Remember the decision in Obamacare?

Maybe the Court will allow the cases to proceed and buy time before the corrupt justices are exposed.

If the majority in the Court is not corrupt, a ruling should be issued today in Pennsylvania case. GA and Michigan should have cert granted with a reversal and remand to follow law in Pennsylvania case.

We are going to learn a great deal about the majority of our Supreme Court justices today whatever the rulings may be.

Keep praying that justice is done today.

God bless you. – Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸”

“I have concerns about the following members of the U.S. Supreme Court:

Roberts (you know why)

Breyer (anti-Trumper)

Barrett (nomination and confirmation pushed by McConnell)

Kavanaugh (tied to Bush 43)

Sotomayor (attended what may have been fake Bribes inauguration proceeding & appointed by Obama)

Gorsuch (who knows – flip-flopper)

Kagan (nominated by Obama)

I have confidence in Alito (based on earlier PA injunction ruling)

I have confidence in Thomas (Patriot)

The Federalist Society has had TOO MUCH influence on recent SCOTUS nominations. That needs to change in the future.

The U.S. Supreme Court should never be guided by politics. The rule of law is nonpartisan.

Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸”

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

God works through both believers and non-believers. His will shall be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.

The greatest Men of God in the Bible were flawed. Look at King David. But David was a man after God’s own heart. Moses was a lawgiver but he stuttered.

So whatever the decisions are today in SCOTUS, we know God controls this world which he created and the rulings will fit His plan. Remember – God’s plan is perfect.

Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸”

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

The cases were set for conference today and while I claim no firsthand knowledge of how the Court operates, I assume the Justices confer together in private.

Perhaps we will learn the decisions on Monday on whether the writs of certiorari will be granted. If so, the cases can proceed.

A grant of certiorari requires that a minimum of 4 Justices vote in favor of granting the review.

Hope that helps.”

“Thanks for sharing the notice below, Holly. My educated guess form this notice is that ORDERS granting or denying certiorari review will be issued Monday. OPINIONS in certain cases will be issued next Thursday.

SCOTUS has very little transparency in how it functions. In my opinion, ALL courts should be considerably more transparent. I believe public confidence in the judiciary would increase as transparency increases.

After all, We The People pay their salaries and let them wear fancy black robes to convey in part that Justices are important,

Are they that special and important? Yes and no. We need referees to honestly enforce the rules but the game belongs to the players, not the referees.

Judges and Justices are no better than any one of us. They are people too. We just let them be referees.

Maybe the answer is to establish courts that truly answer to We The People. Perhaps a network of “Courts of the People” where disagreements can quickly and fairly resolved without the expense and delay that results from lawyers being involved.

Then we could enact my “Modified Shakespearean” rule. We could get rid of 95% of the lawyers. Wow. Wouldn’t that make our country less litigious and more civil to each other?

Maybe its my advocacy for serious reforms in the legal profession that has the State Bar of Georgia up in arms against me?!?

Uh oh, fewer lawyers would reduce the Bar’s revenue from license fees. etc.

Lawyers Club of Atlanta would also have fewer members and could not serve as much free booze and fancy foods at its annual “Holiday” party . . .

Just sayin’ . . .

Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸
www.fightback.law”

February 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸
www.fightback.law”

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

Everyone who feels beaten down, discouraged, and losing hope as a result of the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ignoring black letter law and binding precedent today raise your right hand.

My right hand will not be raised.

Everyone who believes a lie will prevail over truth, raise your right hand.

My right hand will not be raised.

Everyone who believes that God is real and has a plan for your lives and the life of this country, raise both of your hands high in the air.

Both of my hands are raised high in the air.

I hope you stand with me and will continue to support my efforts to fight for TRUTH. I hope you will continue to fight for justice and righteousness within the bounds of the law. I pray that you will continue to trust God and know that ALL will be well.

Wait on the Lord. Until He acts pursuant to His plan, work each day, one day at a time, to help Him do His will on Earth as it is done in Heaven. God really loves it when you help Him, but remember He has ALL the power and can do it by Himself.

I had a good day. I hope you did too. Thanks for ALL you do to help me.

Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸

www.FightBack.law

https://t.me/s/linwoodspeakstruth

More here:

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

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

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

Posted on February 22, 2021 | 1 comment

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

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

From the US Supreme Court in

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

Alito Gorsuch DISSENTING OPINION

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

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

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

More here:

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

1 Comment

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Courts, Election 2020, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Marbury V Madison, Secretary of State, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice

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

Posted on February 22, 2021 | 1 comment

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

From the US Supreme Court February 22, 2021.

CERTIORARI DENIED

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

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

From Citizen Wells February 19, 2021.

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

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

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

More here: