IN AG Todd Rokita’s latest email says he joined 19 other attorneys general on an amicus (friend of the Court) brief w/the Colorado Supreme Court. [FN1] Colorado judge held: 1) trump engaged in insurrection, but 2) It’s not clear Amend XIV applies to POTUS. [FN2] Rokita says to 1/9

ban trump from Colorado’s 2024 ballot “smacks” of “underhanded sliminess” [FN3] like 2020's elections. [FN4] It “disenfranchises voters in other States, like Indiana.” [FN5] The amicus brief is wrong to assert: “Congress [] rendered its judgment” & “disagrees with petitioners’ view 2/9

that former President Trump engaged in insurrection.” [FN6] The House passed one article of impeachment. In the Senate, a 57-43 majority voted to convict trump, short of the 2/3 required. The majority of members of Congress agreed w/petitioners. 3/9

Implied, but not stated, in the amicus brief is preclusion of the case by either double jeopardy or estoppel.[FN7] The Fifth Amendment precludes double jeopardy, or a person being tried for the same crime, and only applies to criminal proceedings. [FN8] 4/9

The Fifth Amendment only is applicable to criminal proceedings. [FN6] Another dodge might lie w/estoppel or res judicata, where the same parties to the same claim are bound by a prior decision on the merits. [FN8] Such is not the case in Colorado. nt. 5/9

The Colorado case probably will be taken up by the Supreme Court. If the people trump placed on the Court do as they’re told, the rule of law will be dead. Sliminess, even of the overhanded variety, is a quality no advocate of this iteration of the GOP should mention. 6/9

Footnotes: FN1. Anderson, et al v Griswold, et al., 2023 SA 300. FN2. Evid est’d trump “engaged in an insurrection” on 1/6/21 “through incitement” & Amend I does not protect trump’s speech,” but Amend XIV does not clearly apply to POTUS . Order, 11/17/23, pp. 95, 99-102. 7/9

Footnotes: FN3. There was no voter fraud in 2020 as claimed by trump. FN4. Rokita’s sliminess is not underhanded. FN5. This iteration of the GOP disenfranchised voters for candidates who WON the popular vote for Pres in 2000 and 2016. will be addressed in a later blog. 8/9

Footnotes: FN6. Amicus Br., p. 24. FN7. U.S. v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992). FN8. Allen v McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 93 (1980). 9/9