Civil Discourse Now

Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

Debate me on the merits of 16-1464---or 'fess up you are "CS.",

   “Give up or ‘fess up.”
   A California lawyer e-mailed that to me about the challenge to the 2016 election via a Petition for Writ of Mandamus before the Supreme Court. I infer from his eloquent statement he “disses” my argument that the Supreme Court has the authority to void an illegal election (as a District Court held in 1976) under its equitable powers. Const. Art. III, sec.2.
   He did not return my phone calls.
   No one will debate me on the issues in Bailey, et al v U.S., et al, docketed (16-1464) and set for conference at the U.S. Supreme Court next Monday, September 25.
   I want to clarify—no one will debate me. Law professors, “constitutional” lawyers, various pundits, and talking heads (not David Byrne) have conclusively pronounced only two ways exist to remove a sitting President: impeachment, Art. II, sec. 4, and inability of the President to perform the duties of that office. Amend. XXV.
   Mainstream media will not report on the case.
   A SCOTUS case that claims treason and cyber invasion “flipped” 40,000, votes in “swing” States for an illegal Electoral Majority is unworthy of some mention?
   Progressive media will not report on the case.
   Former Secretary of State Clinton has opined  there is no way to remove Trump from office if Russians colluded to place him there, so further argument is unnecessary.
   My arguments survive attacks by colleagues with whom I have conversed.  They read the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Request for Special Master, arch their eyebrows, nod slightly, and mutter a variation of  “you know they’ll never hear this.”
   “Give up or ‘fess up.” I say “403US15" you!
   I issue a challenge—put me on the air or the internet in a podcast to debate any of the law professors, “constitutional” lawyers, various pundits, or talking heads (David Byrne included) who have pronounced the case lacks merit.  Hey—line up eight or nine of them.  As long as each side has equal time—i.e., not eight or nine “slots” to my one—and interruption is not allowed—one way to drown someone out—I will concede defeat if one or all of them beat me on the issues.
   The thing is—they CANNOT beat me on the issues.
   Disclosure: I represent the Petitioners in Bailey, 16-1464.
   “Give up or ‘fess up”? That person can go to hell.
   If no one has either the courage to debate me on the issues raised in this case or the time to even read the Petition, their conclusions are without merit.
   In “American Graffiti,” a character places traffic tickets in his glove compartment and says “File those under ‘CS.’” The “C” stood for “chicken.” The “S” stood for a barnyard epithet. File under “CS” the opinions of those who do not engage on the issues of the case.
   In five days, the only legal action to seek an order void the 2016 elections due to Russia’s interference and its collusion with Trump’s campaign is set for conference.   The case might “die” on the decision of one law clerk.
   We have four (4) days to seek the Court’s order to consider the case. You should visit Revote2017.net to read suggestions of what you can do to ask the Court to hear this case.

Views: 53

Comment

You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2017   Created by Mark Small.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Offline

Live Video

My Great Web page