///Habbermans tweet has not been established with evidence.///
Post 58762 9 hours ago • View on 8kun
Josh Barnett for Congress (AZ-06) @BarnettforAZ The facts are that fraud vitiates ANYTHING...no one is talking about a myanmar style coup...you are literally making shit up and spreading more bs lies with your fakenews propaganda fraud vitiates ANYTHING
Ron Watkins popularized the phrase Fraud Vitiates Everything.
https://t.me/CodeMonkeyZ/50 14 April 2021
Fraud vitiates everything and why Maricopa County may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
In a few days, auditors at Maricopa County will be reviewing - under great scrutiny - the 2020 general election ballots and tabulation results in said county. If there is discovery of hard evidence proving widespread fraud in that county, then the victim of the fraud will be allowed to introduce a lawsuit to present evidence not previously allowed in court with the intent of annuling the previous decision.
In the case of which fraud is proven with hard evidence in Maricopa County, other counties around the country may follow suit with similar audits and lawsuits with the intent of annulling any previous decision.
It may only require a handful of such lawsuits before the republic finds itself in a constitutional crisis.
It is unclear what remedy will be available for a general election vitiated by fraud, but with the state of the current Supreme Court, I dont recommend holding your breath.
Lets examine United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878).
Supreme Court:
“There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.”
Explanation:
Fraud voids contracts, documents and judgements.
Supreme Court:
“There is also no question that many rights originally founded in fraud become—by lapse of time, by the difficulty of proving the fraud, and by the protection which the law throws around rights once established by formal judicial proceedings in tribunals established by law, according to the methods of the law—no longer open to inquiry in the usual and ordinary methods.”
Explanation:
“Rights” obtained through fraud are very difficult to overturn through normal measures.
Supreme Court:
“If the court has been mistaken in the law, there is a remedy by writ of error. If the jury has been mistaken in the facts, the remedy is by motion for new trial. If there has been evidence discovered since the trial, a motion for a new trial will give appropriate relief. But all these are parts of the same proceeding, relief, is given in the same suit, and the party is not vexed by another suit for the same matter. So in a suit in chancery, on proper showing a rehearing is granted. If the injury complained of is an erroneous decision, an appeal to a higher court gives opportunity to correct the error. If new evidence is discovered after the decree has become final, a bill of review on that ground may be filed within the rules prescribed by law on that subject. Here, again, these proceedings are all part of the same suit, and the rule framed for the repose of society is not violated.”
Explanation:
There are systems in place to correct errors in courts, juries, and trials.
Supreme Court:
“But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practised on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client's interest to the other side,—these, and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment or decree, and open the case for a new and a fair hearing.”
Explanation:
However, there is an exception for the situation of which the winner utilized fraud or deception to prevent the loser from fully presenting his case in court. In such situations a new lawsuit may be introduced to annul the previous judgment or decree.
Comments