Civil Discourse Now

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

"You can't reverse history"---kind of negates the concept of criminal justice.

   Yesterday, a person commented to me, “You can’t reverse history.”
   The comment was made in regard to the 2016 elections and Bailey v U.S., docket 16-1464, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) in which I am counsel for Petitioners who seek an order to nullify those elections. As grounds to nullify, the Petition cites case authority, admissions by the officials named as Respondents that Russia interfered in the election, and acts of treason and a cyber invasion by Russia flipped the Electoral College to Trump/Pence.
   “You can’t reverse history” was an observation, not of the merits of the arguments in the case, but a resignation to the results of an election, even if what the Petition alleges is true.  The person implied what it past is done.
   The Petition does not seek to reverse history, any more than it seeks to reverse time.
   More importantly, the statement would mean we cannot have a system of laws.
   If a gang robs a bank, we do not shrug and say “You can’t reverse history”—after all, the bank has been robbed and what is past is done.  We try to arrest and prosecute the robbers, and we divest them of the loot.
   We live “in” history every day.
   Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, in regard to Russia’s interference with the election, there is no mechanism in the Constitution to remedy the matter.
   Ms. Clinton is wrong.
   Over 40 years ago a Federal District Court stated.  “It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by ... illegal means. Indeed, entirely foreclosing injunctive relief in the federal courts would invite attempts to influence national elections by illegal means.... ” Donahue v. Board of Elections, 435 F.Supp.957, 968 (E.D.N.Y. 1976).  This would be done, in 16-1464, through the equitable jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  Const. Art. III, sec. 2. 435 F.Supp. at 963, citing to 403 U.S. 388, 404..
  “The point, however, is not that ordering a new Presidential election in New York State is beyond the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Protecting the integrity of elections - particularly Presidential contests - is essential to a free and democratic society.”
    On Monday, September 25, Bailey v U.S., docket 16-1464, goes to the end-of the-summer conference at SCOTUS. As I wrote earlier this week, most of the Justices on the Court use a “pool” system whereby one law clerk screens the cases.
   The end-of-the-summer conference , as one observer says, is the place where cases go to die.  Only .6%—not six percent (6%), but point six percent—survive this conference.
   This is the only legal action to challenge the validity of the election. The case is not dead yet.  No one will debate me about the merits of the case. When I have mentioned to people what the case is about, people are surprised they have not heard about it—and want to know how they can help.
   You can go to Revote2017 dot net and see what you can do.
 

Views: 33

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