- Monday, December 7, 2020 -
[ssba]
Election
2020: The US Constitution Goes to Court. Or, … Vaccinating America’s Political
Virus.
“Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the
mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII
Section 14 as the plain
language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the
mail-in provisions of Act 77.“–
PA Judge Patricia McCullough
In one ruling, a bombshell.
Issued in the late evening this past Friday by Pennsylvania
Commonwealth judge, Patricia McCollough, her bold– and absolutely correct–
ruling is about to make Nov 27, 2020 the day that the highly questionable 2020
election blew to pieces.
To make matters worse for the Dems, the same day, just down
the street from Judge McCollough’s chambers, civil war broken out on the floor
of the PA State House. Outraged Republicans announced they would proceed,
post haste, to pass a resolution that,
“Declares that the selection of presidential electors and
other statewide electoral contest results in this commonwealth is in dispute”
and “urges the secretary of the commonwealth and the governor to withdraw or
vacate the certification of presidential electors and to delay certification of
results in other statewide electoral contests voted on at the 2020 general
election.”
Thinking ahead to the Electoral College:
“urges the United States Congress to declare the
selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute.”
That’s as polite as civil war gets.
*
When both McCullough’s decision and the PA’s awakening are
considered in detail The Keystone State has, after more than two centuries,
once again become the epicenter of the war for American democracy.
Over the past three weeks, this ongoing report has
documented the intricacies of: the US Electoral College, Media’s complicity as
partisan censorship, the initial allegations of mail-in ballot fraud, and the
inner workings of American voting machines. All are players in this high stakes
drama unfolding before the eyes of all Americans.
If they look.
Outrage is increasing; slowly becoming bi-partisan contempt.
Except in the media that has buried this news.
As the author, next in the series, began to examine the
illegal, if not unconstitutional, self-serving mandates imposed on the voters
by many States’ Legislatures, their Governors and their Secretaries of State,
this past Wednesday a story leaked out that lite the fuse of Friday’s
bombshell.
In power politics there are few checkmates, but political
irony is coming in the form of two previous court decisions, and judge
McCollough’s, and are about to force feed these decisions to the DNC’s masters
of the universe… for a second time in thirteen days.
This, is the stuff of history!
Three Weeks in November.
As has been suggested previously that all the salacious
allegations across the battleground states are legally, for the moment, nothing
more than circumstantial evidence. Yes, thee allegations are important and together
may have much weight eventually in court. This was evidenced by Trump’s
handlers losing their case repeatedly in a multitude of jurisdictions.
What has been missing has been a constitutional challenge
born of its own merits. Strangely, as the reader will see, those merits became
obvious- in writing- first on Nov 3 and again on Nov 6.
When a new law suit was filed on Monday, Nov 23 in PA using
purely constitutional reasoning bolstered by the allegation directly germane to
the argument, this author snapped to attention. It’s been a very busy week.
On Wed Nov. 25, 2020, PA Commonwealth Judge Patricia
McCullough ordered the state, “to not take any further steps to complete the
certification of the presidential race”, which the state already announced
on Tuesday. In calling for a Friday hearing, McCullough added, “Respondents
are preliminarily enjoined from certifying the remaining results of the
election, pending the evidentiary hearing.” [Emph.
added]
McCullough was presiding over a lawsuit brought by Republican
affiliates against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf (D),
Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, and
the Pennsylvania General Assembly. All four were instrumental, it is alleged,
in the unconstitutional passage of Pennsylvania’s absentee ballot and
vote-by-mail statute: Act 77. A copy of that action is provided here.
In short, the PA legislature too hastily crafted Act 77
which allowed, in part, for virtually all unregulated mail-in ballots to be
tabulated. However, Act 77 was created in violation of PA state statutes and
constitutional law. Boockvar knew it, as did the PA
Supreme Court. So did SCOTUS, before it put a temporary stop to some of these
rather limited but highly effective vote counting irregularities on Nov 5.
At the very moment that this ruling permeated the last
remnants of quality American journalism, a storm of a different kind was
blowing an ill wind for state democrats in a conference room in Harrisburg, PA.
Upon the request of Pennsylvania Senator Doug Mastriano
(R), the state’s Senate Majority Policy Committee was holding a public
hearing, on Thursday, to discuss these election issues and
irregularities. Outside thousands rallied with their demands that their
currently elected officials do their duty.
This, for most, of course, translated into “toss the
election to Trump,” but, interestingly, the additional presence of many
banners and signs suggested a growing non-partisan call to, “Investigate!”
Echoing the days old of SCOTUS Associate Justice, Samuel
Alito, Mastriano said,
“Elections are a fundamental principle of our democracy
– unfortunately, Pennsylvanians have lost faith in the electoral
system…Over the past few weeks, I have heard from thousands of
Pennsylvanians regarding issues experienced at the polls …We need to
correct these issues to restore faith in our republic.”
At the public hearing, Trump consiglieri Rudy Giuliani
appeared as point man with his usual layout of many allegations and
presentation of witnesses. Certainly, this hearing was a very partisan showing
of self-serving facts by a legion of GOP sponsored camera moths, but their
testimony was indeed pause for further investigation; not a cover-up.
The more important charges were:
– 47 memory cards containing over 50,000 votes are missing.
– PA’s registry shows 1.8 million absentee ballots
were mailed out, yet 2.5 million mail-in ballots were counted.
Of course, not one MSM source covered the hearing and, as
punishment for his efforts, Twitter disabled the Mastriano’s account as it did
to the author last week. It should be noted now by all that being banned by
Twitter, Facebook- and even Parler- is quickly
becoming, in the minds of Americans, not censorship, but certification of the
allegations themselves.
As goes PA, the voters in both GA and MI will soon watch
special sessions of their state congresspersons begin to factually examine very
similar claims as those in PA. Other states are sure to follow, if not, their
own politicians with stand guilty by the same association to a silent and
corrupt media.
Little of this, however, had a purely constitutional
foundation.
*
To understand the constitutional strength of the civil suit
before McCollough in PA a good example is already on the books of Election 2020
and it comes by way of, strangely, California..
On election eve Monday, Nov 3 a
California judge ruled that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) overstepped his authority
when he issued an executive order amending state election law and thus required
mail-in ballots to be sent to every registered voter amid the COVID-19
pan-panic.
In her ruling, Sutter County Superior Court Judge, Sarah
Heckman, said that Newsom’s order was “an unconstitutional exercise of
legislative power.”
In March, Newsom, like many officials in other states,
declared a state of emergency in CA due to the alleged spreading of COVID-19.
Three months later, in June, Newsom issued a blanket executive order to send
mail-in ballots to all registered California voters. Overall, Newsom issued more
than fifty orders that changed a number of state laws under the auspices of the
California Emergency Services Act (CESA). That law gives the governor the
authority to issue orders and rules while suspending certain laws during a
declared state of emergency.
But California GOP Assemblymen James Gallagher and Kevin
Kiley filed suit against Newsom, claiming his mail-in vote order was a gross
abuse of power and an overreach. In May, former GOP Rep. Darrell Issa
also filed
suit against Newsom, along with Judicial Watch, in which they, too,
claimed the order was “unconstitutional.”
Heckman did not overturn Newsom’s state of emergency but
ruled the CESA,
“does not authorize or empower the governor of the state of
California to amend statutory law or make new statutory law, which is
exclusively a legislative function not delegated to the governor under the
CESA.”
In an interstate summation of Newsom’s violations, and those
in PA and other states, Heckman wrote in finality:
“…the Constitution gives the legislative branch the
exclusive authority to make law and the executive branch the power to see that
the law is faithfully executed.”
Heckman’s words may very soon be re-written even more
powerfully by SCOTUS, a court, that on Nov 6 already agreed with Heckman. Both
have embodied in their words a singular constitutional prerogative:
Article II Sect 1, Clause Two of the Constitution of the
United States of America.
*
Returning to PA and Judge McCullough, unilateral violations
of PA constitutional provisions and procedures by the legislature are at the
foundation of the matter.
As referenced in part two of this series, previously three
weeks ago U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Samuel Alito, on Friday, Nov 6, ordered very publically overruled the PA Supreme Court and Pennsylvania
state election officials to segregate and separately count mail-in ballots
that arrived after 8 PM on Election Day. Many PA counties did not honor Alito’s
injunction.
Alito’s injunction was a direct result of the PA Supreme
court playing fast and loose with US Article II Sect 1, Clause two and the PA
constitution as well.
To understand the PA Supreme Courts outrageous
decision is to understand a court that cared not for either.
In 2019, the PA legislature passed a law called Act 77 that,
among other provisions, permitted all voters to cast their ballots by mail but,
in Justice Alito’s words,
“unambiguously required that all mailed ballots be received
by 8 p.m. on election day.”
This was, by using plain English and the PA constitution,
absolutely true.
Indeed, the exact text from the
2019 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2019-77, reads,
“No absentee ballot under this subsection shall be counted
which is received in the office of the county board of elections later than
eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.”
Even more prohibitively, Act 77 also provided that if any
portion of Act 77 was ever invalidated, the entirety of Act 77, including its
liberalization of absentee balloting voting, would also be immediately void.
Pretty clear so far, except if you’re on the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court.
Like the edicts imposed by Calif’s Gov. Brylcrèem,
just as outrageously the PA Supreme Court attempted to use Emergency Powers
created for the mythic Coronavirus to justify a strange emergency ruling. The
court ruled that mailed ballots did not need to be received by election
day at 8 PM. Further, that ballots can be accepted if they are postmarked on
election day or received within three days thereafter. Next, the court allowed
that a mailed ballot with no postmark, or an illegible postmark, must be
regarded as timely if it is received by that same date.
The SCOTUS injunction of Nov 6 put a temporary stop to all
that. However, when Trump attorneys tried to effect certiorari with the court
on their allegation of fraud, SCOTUS was reticent. A 4-4 vote sent Trump’s
forces back to the lower courts to seek further relief.
Of course, MSM called this a defeat for Trump. It was really
just a moot attempt applied to the incorrect jurisdiction and court venue and
no more than a “nice try” that SCOTUS had seen before.
Make no mistake. SCOTUS can afford to be patient and has a
long historical track record of watching dramatic cases unfold before
their eyes while within the pleadings of their lower courts.
So, here were the voters of PA as of this past Monday
morning, in a lower court. A court and a judge that already had in mind the
previous words of wisdom of Calif. Judge Heckman, and the days-old admonishment
of Alito, who similarly assessed regarding the “nice try,” of the PA Supreme
Court:
“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
legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the
courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the
conduct of a fair election.” [Emph. Added]
With these words, Alito is directly referring to the
established law of the land in America: Article II Sect 1, Clause two of the US
Constitution
So, at the evidentiary hearing, this Friday Judge Mc
McCullough likely had a firm grasp of all these words of wisdom. Perhaps, also,
the shouts of an ever maddening public just outside her courtroom walls.
What Judge McCullough had most in mind, however, is the PA
Constitution and its own legally required provisions under Article VII, Sect
14.
In a hangman’s twist of political and judicial irony that
will soon extract a dark irony all of its own, the Dems have filed an emergency
petition in court to immediately block Judge McCullough’s ruling. That court:
The Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.
For any political aficionado, it doesn’t get any better
than that.
MATERIAL FACTS.
Article VII of the PA Constitution allows for only two kinds
of votes to be cast in the Keystone State. One: In Person. Two: Absentee.
However, and here was the consideration for Judge
McCullough: Only under the expressed provisions and restrictions of Art VII
Sect. 14 can Article VII be changed. No exceptions. Further, these provisions
can only be amended by using a mandated process under Article VI Sect.1.
Article VII provides,
“provision[s] underlining the limited circumstances under
which an elector is permitted to vote without being present at a polling
location- Absentee Voting.”
In the rush to put in place Act 77, PA failed to follow this
prescribed methodology that could, at least, only have been finalized as
completed legislation during the following state election scheduled for May 18,
2021.
It would appear that the Biden forces realized this mistake
Unconstitutionally, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) signed Article 77 into
law on Oct 31, 2019. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, these same PA
legislators were scrambling to have the PA Supreme Court come to their rescue
by using COVID-19 and emergency powers as the reason to approve the arbitrary
mail-in ballot provisions added to Act 77, which Alito rebuked.
The current suit cites that, as to all current changes to
absentee ballot regulations, PA has had no legal changes since being amended
in1967. Further, the suit states that at that time the PA legislature
did correctly follow both law and precedent in creating and subsequently
passing these amended statutes so long ago.
The suit also alleged that the current PA legislature and
its spawn ART 77, did not.
Art VI Sect 1 provides the only permissible
methodology for changing absentee voting rules- or any other part of the PA
constitution- in any way at any time. To do so, this statute first requires a
majority vote of a joint session of the State House and Senate, not once, but
twice and in succession.
Those two vote results and intended legislation, if
successful, must then be advertised as pending in two newspapers in each and
every PA county for a full three months before the next scheduled State General
Election. At the time of that election, the Bill must be presented to the voter
as a ballot question about amending the statute, or not. A simple majority must
agree.
The PA legislature is deficient on all but one count. They
did vote collectively for Act 77 and to change absentee voting rules, but only
once on April 29, 2020.
In violating these provisions, the legal actions now before
judge McCullough claim Act 77 and all its related mail-in ballots to be
constitutionally invalid.
That’s a bunch of votes. Potentially, 2.5 million.
*
Act 77 started its life first as Bill 411 and was then
rolled into Bill 413 on March 9, 2019. The Bill passed the Senate on Oct 22,
2019, and made its way out of the House committee on April 6, 2020. Interestingly,
by then the words, “Mail-in Balloting” had been removed from the title
of the Bill after it was sent to the House.
Then S.B. 413 was passed, one time only, by both House and
Senate on April 29.
Act 77 functionally crossed out almost all of Art. VII sect.
14 which required any eligible voter to, when first requesting an absentee
ballot, “provide a permissible reason to do so” before being sent a
ballot.
It did not provide for the mass mailing of unsolicited
ballots to the entire PA voting constituency.
The PA mandate that an absentee voter first personally and
individually request a ballot is a significant requirement and protection. This
allows for the initial substantiation and likely legitimacy of that mail-in
vote when received by the state. It also significantly eliminates the
temptation towards massive endemic election fraud by mail-in ballots.
Article VII sect. 5 does allow for the advent of the
possibility of other methods of absentee voting, but only “as may be
prescribed by law.”
As to this possibility of an amendment, Art VII sect 14
allows for changes only if “The legislature, by general law, provide [such]
a manner.” General law means, Article VII, Sect 5 and Article VI,
Sect 1.
Translated into plain English: Hillary, …you have a problem!
A Multi-State Pandemic.
As of Friday night’s, ruling and keeping in mind Alito’s
words and the previous decision of CA judge Heckman, the magnitude of
McCollough’s ruling has equally dramatic national implications.
Across America, many other state governors and Secretaries
of State also ignored their state’s constitutional procedural mandates thinking
that a medical virus would allow the cover to affect a political one.
The voters of at least the states of AZ, GA, MI, MT, NV, IA,
ND, VT and WI had their Sec.of State also required
unsolicited absentee ballots to be sent out statewide while citing a virus as
the reason. Considering the PA example, it is very likely that their unilateral
decisions are also in violation of state constitutional law. In NV a state
court also helped matters along when refusing to accept a similar challenge
from private citizens.
Certainly, these violations with respect to the outcome of
the US election matter little in many of these states. However, the voters in
every state should be just as outraged as in PA. since the ruse that was a
virus-induced rationale for canvassing any state with absentee ballots, and/ or
eliminating almost all restriction on other types of mail-in ballots, should
now be obvious to anyone following the litany of allegations mounting daily in
their own state.
It does indeed seem evident that all of this was by design.
*
In GA, WI, MI, however, the states that do matter in their
effect on the Electoral College totals for president, all three are at this
moment in court and under legal action to petition these state courts to stop
and then rectify similar unilateral political moves.
MSM would have their voters believe that, since these states
have managed to certify their election results under very dubious
circumstances, the matter is settled. AS is the case now in PA, nothing is
settled until the Electoral College on each state certifies its slate of
electors on Dec 14.
That’s two more weeks.
As a previous article highlighted, Trump and his minions had
no choice but to be patient and allow for certification before beginning
serious legal challenges that may move through state and district courts and
then all the way to SCOTUS.
As of Thanksgiving Day, if Trump’s lawyers as smart as those
in PA, three new judges will soon be facing a similar constitutional
determination as McCullough, Heckman, and Alito. Like the PA lower courts, in
the other three battleground states, politicians have already attempted to
ignore their own state’s constitutions, not examined evidence, nor considered
the merits of the plaintiff’s- the voter’s- claim.
Today, Former Assist. US attorney, Sidney Powell finally
delivered her, much advertised “Kraken” to the courts in both MI and
GA. Previously in GA, noted attorney Lin Wood served his own legal action
regarding mail-in voting not being constitutionally approved. Wood had his suit
quashed by U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg,
who refused to grant standing to Wood’s claims and thus avoided any court
examination of evidence or constitutional claims.
Powell has waited until the GA vote was certified. If her
salacious accusations of the past week are accurate she will be providing
evidence of voter fraud along with allegations of constitutional violations of
absentee voting statutes in a manner very similar to PA.
Previously, U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross, an
Obama appointee wrote that voters must be protected during the coronavirus pandemic,
when record numbers of Georgians were expected to cast absentee ballots and
then extended the deadline for absentee ballots to be returned in Georgia,
ruling that they must be counted if postmarked by Election Day and delivered up
to three days afterwards.
This, like the PA Supreme Court’s abuse of power, is
certainly unconstitutional per US Art II, Sect 1, Clause two as referenced
above.
That GA judge’s decision
likely resulted in tens of thousands of ballots being counted after Nov. 3 that
would have otherwise been rejected, and enough to swing this close election,
since Ross, all by herself, invalidated Georgia’s requirement that ballots had
to be received at county election offices by 7 p.m. on Election Day.
In MI, similar violations have allowed Powell to virtually
cut and paste the GA legal filing when introducing it to the MI courts.
Michigan, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) unilaterally
voided the legal requirement that voters provide a signature when requesting an
absentee ballot, establishing instead an online request form. She then took
things a step further by announcing that she would “allow civic groups and
other organizations running voter registration drives to register voters on
their behalf through the state’s online registration website,” granting
activist and partisan groups such as Rock The Vote direct access to
Michigan’s voter rolls.
Since the MI legislature had not created this new law, Ross
did so with a stroke of her pen. In doing so she became a co-conspirator in
this growing indictment of MI election fraud.
Up in WI, the election is not yet certified. For Trump, the
case in point may be the reports that the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) told
poll workers to ‘add a missing witness address’ to any
deficient ballot and that some poll workers allegedly took it one step
further by signing for non-existent witnesses.
If proven true in court, these workers, who have testified
to these illegal instructions, may have invalidated thousands of more ballots,
committed a felony offence and necessitated further SCOTUS intervention.
Wisconsin
Statute 6.86 provides that:
“an absentee ballot must be signed by a witness, who is also
required to list his or her address. If a witness address is not listed,
then the ballot is considered invalid and must be returned to the voter to
have the witness correct.”
“The statute is very, very clear,” said retired
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, a
Milwaukee poll watcher on Election Day. “If an absentee ballot does not
have a witness address on it, it’s not valid.”
It is a safe bet that the Trump minions will proceed
similarly to court within hours of certification.
*
The Only Effective Vaccine.
At this point in the story, and with voter interest growing,
refusal by any court to provide some degree of investigation will encourage a
popular voter revolt on their streets and likely on their doorsteps.
Should these judges perform their duty to the voter-not the DNC- when they
commence these proceedings they will be faced with a difficult and simple
constitutional polar choice of decision.
Beyond technicality, wholesale denial of the allegations, or
a court refusing standing to the many voter plaintiffs and their allegations,
these politicians, judges, and legislators now under popular attack will have
only one remaining affirmative defense to offer,
“The virus made me do it.”
This argument did not work previously in CA with judge
Heckman nor with SCOTUS judge Alito. So, the choice becomes a simple one for
these judges:
One: Allow a virus- a political one- to prevail within their
courts and next infect all others.
Or…
Two: Vaccinate publicly, in court, the voters of their
states against a national pandemic of viral democratic corruption.
With each day and new civil suit, it appears more probable
that it will ultimately be up to SCOTUS to make this all-important polar
choice. A landmark choice that will likely decide America’s true future
beginning the very next day.
*
The still-developing story of the election conspiracy of
2020 has, yesterday, taken on the greatest of importance. Election 2020 has
revealed many important facts, yet all are almost exclusively covered over by
American media which must be considered also a co-conspirator. Why have you not
heard this week’s historic news? Well, that’s a rhetorical question now, isn’t
it?
As this series has progressed,
evidence of demonstrative state-by-state election fraud, the complicity of
the Dominion
voting machines, and the dire need for these states to invoke
the Electoral College to stop this political virus from destroying the body
politic of a nation, have been offered in these pages as a furthering of
this collective indictment.
In PA, this Friday’s call to take back the power of the
Electoral College from one Secretary of State of questionable motives, and
place it in the hands of a full body of elected officials, is an advent that
will almost assuredly be repeated in other states. The public will demand it. Probably
before Dec 14.
The most powerful and necessary vaccine, factual
investigation, must now be jabbed, not into the arms, but directly into the
foreheads of all Americans of any party affiliation before their country and
their democracy dies the violent death of American color revolutions past.
As has been suggested, a purely political virus has utilized
the virus known as Covid-19 to great effect: That of anointing, not electing,
Joe Biden president.
If the state and federal courts fail in their proper duty,
there is but one court remaining.
This court has failed the American public in the past, most
famously with the Citizens United decision. Will it fail once again at
this Rubicon of American history?
Of which of the two polar choices that “the highest court
in the land” ultimately allows to prevail, Americans are increasingly
bearing witness and closer scrutiny each day.
It seems an increasing probability that this political football
of Election 2020 will require a landmark decision and will soon be punted as
high and as long as it possibly can.
However, when that ball finally lands in the dramatic days
to come, it will do so upon the grounds of the most important location in Washington,
DC:
#1 First Street.
Perhaps, too long ago, there was a damn good reason
for providing SCOTUS with that address.