Attorney Lin Wood SCOTUS conference March 5, 2021 Petition for a writ of Mandamus, “expose the massive, coordinated election fraud that occurred in the 2020 General Election”
“in phone conversation in 8/19, Justice John Roberts stated that he would make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.” Roberts engaged in phone conversations with Justice Stephen Breyer discussing how to work to get Trump voted out.”...Attorney Lin Wood
“I have also received credible evidence of serious wrongdoing by high-ranking
government officials which I have brought to the attention of the public and to federal law enforcement officials. The evidence of wrongdoing includes evidence of potentially serious crimes perpetrated by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”...Attorney Lin Wood affidavit
“The oral testimonies of witnesses on December 3, 2020, and subsequently, the written testimonies submitted by many others, provide ample evidence that the 2020 Georgia General Election was so compromised by systemic irregularities and voter fraud that it should not be certified.”…Georgia Senate report December 17, 2020
FROM THE SCOTUS, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
No. 20-887
In re L. Lin Wood, Jr.
Distributed for conference of 3/5/2021
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:”
More here:
https://mewe.com/i/citizenwells
Citizen WElls 