Search
  • Dagny

The SCOTUS Strategy



When Texas brought the suit it did not have standing according to the 11th Amendment. Nevertheless, it became a rallying point for numerous people and organizations to take a stand and show what they are made of. Since it was Texas - an important state - it was more effective at this.


Remember that the people Trump appointed to the SCOTUS are originalists. They do not legislate from the bench. The follow the Constitution and the 11th Amendment is clear about the lack of standing for Texas.


Nonetheless what Texas did was very useful in the battle: It drew a line, it made people stand up and be counted all over, and it made people mad when it was denied.


The solid cases are now in a great position to be heard and found in our favor.


Imagine if the Texas case had been heard and then was rightfully dismissed for lack of standing. That would have looked like we lost. This was actually the optimum path through this.


The cases brought by Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis now take center stage and will have the support and righteous demand for justice from We the People.


Yes, Trump is tweeting his distain for the decision, but that is the right thing for him to do. Most people don't know the details of standing and the 11th Amendment, and they won't want to learn.


Perfectly played assets, in my personal opinion...



Sidney Powell tweet:


Filing 4 emergency petitions with the supreme court right now for Georgia, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin. WE have standing.


Pay attention! We made emergency filings in #SupremeCourt tonight for #Georgia & #Michigan. Will be filing #Arizona #Wisconsin shortly. These cases raise constitutional issues and prove massive #fraud.


Our plaintiffs have #standing


WeThePeople will not allow #rigged elections


https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/1337597433283571712



Team Trump will quickly refile in District Court with Standing:


Rudy Giuliani, who leads Trump's legal effort, told Newsmax on Friday that the case wasn't rejected on the merits, but rather on standing.


"So the answer to that is to bring the case in the district court by the president, by some of the electors, alleging some of the same facts where there would be standing, and therefore get a hearing," he said.


"Originally we thought about this as possibly four or five separate cases. So that's the option we're going to have to go to. There's nothing that prevents us from filing these cases immediately in the district court," Giuliani said.


"We're not finished, believe me," he said at the end of the interview with a laugh.

Jenna Ellis, another member of the Trump legal team who appeared on Newsmax right after Giuliani, said a second major facet of their strategy is to convince legislatures in these battleground states to "reclaim their delegates."


Trump team believes they still have time to act, signaling they'll continue the fight into January.


Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, released a statement saying they would have heard the case. However, the statement explicitly said neither justice would have granted any further relief, meaning the lawsuit would have unanimously ended with Trump's defeat. [based on the lack of standing]





The 11th Amendment to the Constitution is the reason the SCOTUS declined the Texas suit against four States while Lin Wood's INDIVIDUAL suit was docketed.


Here is the 11th Amendment and it is pretty clear:


11th Amendment


The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


The "Judicial power" is the SCOTUS. That is established by Article III of the Constitution. We see from the 11th Amendment that the SCOTUS lacks power to rule where citizens of one State are suing another State.


However, Lin Wood's INDIVIDUAL suit against the executives of Georgia WAS docketed by the SCOTUS:


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


And here's the main document:


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


The Supreme Court has to follow the Constitution including all of its Amendments, whether we like it or not.


Read the main document (2nd link above). Lin Wood is suing Raffensperger et al as an individual suing the individual executives of his own State, Georgia, for diluting his vote (paragraph 6). This is what the SCOTUS was waiting for and they have agreed to hear the case. Wood is (almost) certain to win and that will be the beginning of the overturning of the fraud.


Meanwhile, the military is all over everywhere.


No fear.


https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/4156519




Trumps EO "Imposing certain sanctions in the event of election interference by a foreign country"

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1337646331997921280


Lin wood says to listen carefully to this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2MkvWh7poY&feature=youtu.be


Trumps EO "Imposing certain sanctions in the event of election interference by a foreign country" here:


https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/



Plus there is this far-reaching decision:


"On December 10, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tanzin v. Tanvir, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities.


Thursday's Tanzin v. Tanvir SCOTUS decision allowing individuals to sue officials returns immense power over our government to We The People.


"Thomas acknowledged that the Supreme Court had ruled in 2011 in Sossamon v. Texas that states could not be sued for money damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a statute similar to RFRA that also allows plaintiffs to “obtain appropriate relief against a government” for violations. “The obvious difference,” Thomas explained, “is that this case features a suit against individuals, who do not enjoy sovereign immunity.”


Thomas also rejected the government’s suggestion that allowing government officials to be liable for monetary damages “could raise separation-of-powers concerns,” noting that “this exact remedy has coexisted with our constitutional system since the dawn of the Republic.” There may be reasons why government officials should not be held liable, Thomas acknowledged – but those are policy reasons for Congress, rather than the court."


https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/opinion-analysis-justices-allow-muslim-men-placed-on-no-fly-list-to-sue-fbi-agents-for-money-damages/


https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2020/12/supreme-court-decides-tanzin-v-tanvir


This is a major wakeup call to a lot of formerly powerful government employees.


Consider this: Before government officials could cheat in elections, pursue frivolous investigations against people like General Flynn, enact draconian lockdowns based on whims or vindictiveness... and if they were sued then the taxpayers would pay be the bill.


Apparently these bureaucrats, agents, and politicians are not safe from paying personally from now on.



This law may also be currently applicable, although it has been around for a while:


The first paragraph is relevant to State governors imposing damaging lockdowns beyond their Constitutional authority.


The second paragraph is relevant to the Antifa/BLM mobs on the roadways and private property. In disguise ( with masks on )...


18 USC - 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or


If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured'


They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


And This:


Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law


Would this apply to certain Democrat Governors who sent COVID patients to nursing homes when other safer facilities were available? What about lost income from lockdowns preferentially applied?




The FCC just made a rule to remove communications equipment deemed to be a national security threat and replace it with components from a safe source:


https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-rules-secure-communications-networks-and-supply-chain-0


It's really about unplugging from China's surveillance.




Warning from the reliable Ron CodeMonkey:


If Trump goes through with his rumored "2018 EO Plan" in a few days, all of Big Tech will be quickly banning and censoring ALL support of the 2018 EO. Now you must establish communications off of Big Tech, otherwise you may quickly find yourself in the dark. It will be BLACK OUT.


Good advice. I'm doing it: Consider making account at Parler, WeMe, etc.


851 views0 comments

©2019 by Relevances. Proudly created with Wix.com