Post 45643 11 hours ago • View on 8kun
Seth Keshel
@SKeshel
·
3h
If the Maricopa County audit reveals a Trump win (less than 11,000 votes) in Arizona...
I think many are underestimating the massive powder keg moment that will ensue in America.
Every state will be under pressure as media creates new crises to distract.
Brace yourselves.
Joseph J Flynn @JosephJFlynn1 · 3h The shit is going to hit the fan in Maricopa County....mark my words... if you don't think this audit won't find 11,000 fraudulent ballots.... you must be a Democrat.
The world is watching Maricopa county.
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 annulling 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 don't 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.
Fraud definition:
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Vitiate definition:
To impair or make void; to destroy or annul, either completely or partially, the force and effect of an act or instrument.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/vitiate
TheFreeDictionary.com (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud)
fraud
Definition of fraud in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary
Essentially if Maricopa county auditors prove that Maricopa county was won by fraud, Trump should technically be allowed to file a lawsuit with the intent to annul the Maricopa county election results. If he manages to annul Maricopa county’s results, then he will technically have won all of the electoral votes for Arizona.
If this occurs in just a couple more states, then it is possible that he will have officially won enough electoral votes to be the winner of the office of the presidency.
Since congress has already constitutionally confirmed Biden as president, there is a potential of entering into a constitutional crisis of which the Supreme Court would be required to examine evidence and preside over.
What the Supreme Court ultimately decides to do in such a scenario is anybody’s guess, but dont be surprised if the word “MOOT” is their reply if/when this issue eventually arrives at their desk.
Democrats in DC will introduce a bill to add four more Supreme Court justices.
Will they be using the projected riots and media frenzy around the Chauvin case to hastily push this bill through the system while everyone is distracted and watching cities burn?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/14/democrats-plan-bill-add-four-supreme-court-justice/
“The Chauvin trial will likely end up in riots regardless of the ruling, what should we do to prepare?”, a concerned citizen asks.
“Lets use the resulting melee to quietly stack the Supreme Court”, Congress replies in a whisper.
How to quickly stack the Supreme Court:
1. Allow riots to engulf the country
2. Pass legislation while everybody is distracted
With the results of election audits potentially making their way to the Supreme Court, it makes sense for them to try and stack the court sooner rather than later.
Comments