Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Dec 19, 2020 by Martin Armstrong
The Supreme Court has come out and made a statement denying that Chief Justice Roberts screamed in a room because they met by phone. This shows that they have been monitoring the comments since they denied the Texas lawsuit when there was no justification for “discretion” to deny taking the case. This is like asking if someone beat their spouse on Sunday, and they say no I was at church. If later caught, they simply say: Oh, sorry, I thought that was Saturday. They did not deny refusing to take the case because of protests. There were other rumors that Chief Justice Roberts on a phone call to Justice Breyer also said they will not take any case from Trump on the election.
The Supreme Court has condemned the nation to violence for anyone who has read history knows that the very purpose of courts is to provide a civilized resolution. If courts will not be honest, then the only solution is violence which may rise to the level of revolution. It has now not just denied the civil rights of the 74 million people who voted for Trump, a record for any incumbent president, but they have condemned democracy for here on out there will be no trust in any future election. Our model warns that the United States has a short-fuse. The break-up of the nation has just been set in motion by the Supreme Court and we have perhaps at best 13 years left. There will only be hatred and bitterness and trying to claim Biden has a mandate to drastically change the country will lead to bloodshed. This will all be on the hands of the Supreme Court.
If there was no evidence of fraud then review the evidence, show the world, and rule. The refusal to hear the case will leave that question unanswered. Ruling against Trump would have at least calmed the turmoil. This way, there will be no rest.
This was jurisdiction squarely created by the Constitution. It is already well established that voter fraud violates the civil rights of everyone else. The rights of Texas as even a state are violated by any other state which engages in voter fraud. This now justifies the rising tensions for separatism.
Pennsylvania is often at the top of the list of voter fraud in the country. This is not a small number of ballots. Pennsylvania is violating EVERYONE’S civil rights and there should be a major class-action suit filed ASAP. We all now have a right to file a class-action lawsuit under 18 USC 241 for Pennsylvania and Michigan have violated the civil rights of everyone in the country.
Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. It has long been held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. It has been applied to stuffing a ballot box with forged ballots, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915) as well as preventing the official count of ballots in primary elections, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), which may come in handy in this election. This means private suites can be filed claiming that interfering with the ballots is a civil rights violation to all in the country.
Destroying voter registration applications is also applicable (United States v. Haynes, Nos. 91-5979, 91-6076, 1992 WL 296782, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 1992)), as well as destroying ballots (United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070, 1073–75 (8th Cir. 1988)).
Anyone who exploits the infirmities of elderly or handicapped people by casting absentee ballots in their names is also a violation of civil rights, United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1972), just as anyone who illegally register voters and cast absentee ballots in their names, United States v. Weston, 417 F.2d 181, 182–85 (4th Cir. 1969).
Anyone who threatens injury, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote is also a serious actionable issue under this statute, Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th
Cir. 1955). This even extends to someone who impersonates qualified voters, Crolich v. United States, 196 F.2d 879, 879 (5th Cir. 1952).
Chief Justice Roberts should be Impeached, but the Deep State will support him.
Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over suits between states. That original jurisdiction of SCOTUS is laid out by statute in 28 U.S.C. §1251. Section 1251(a) provides that with disputes between states, the jurisdiction of SCOTUS is not only “original,” it is exclusive. In other words, if the parties cannot settle the matter, no other court but SCOTUS has authority, under the Constitution, to take jurisdiction.
The Judiciary Actof 1925 made such jurisdiction discretionary, which requires a Motion for Leave to File a Bill Complaint when the complaint is between states. That legislatively created change is equivalent to locking the courthouse door to suits like Texas, et al v. Pennsylvania, et al. Giving “discretion to hear” to courts that have original and exclusive jurisdiction over a case or controversy between states destroys the fundamental right of access to the courts. The jurisdiction of SCOTUS was created directly by the Constitution. Therefore, such jurisdiction requires an amendment to the Constitution to alter same.
The Judiciary Act of 1925 passed by Congress cannot be substituted for an amendment to the Constitution when such is required, and a “no standing” ruling is,simply put a cop-out. Once leave to file a bill of complaint is denied there is no further remedy,so this maze of laws should be treated as an unintended consequence and a grave mistake of the American system of justice. Similar unintended consequences have occurred before, e.g., the famous “Moitie footnote” was rectified by the opinion of SCOTUS in Rivet v. Regions Bank,522 U.S. 470 (1998). This mistake ties the hands of other courts that could provide review of the denial of the fundamental right of access to the courts. The denial of the Motion to File a Bill of Complaint is, at its core, an action of a trial court with original and exclusive jurisdiction per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution but, untenably, with discretion to hear per the Judiciary Act of 1925, 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a). This scheme seems to have been designed by Kafka because it bars more than the courthouse door of the court of the first instance. When all doors to all courts that could provide review are barred in an unstoppable breathtaking cascade of severe judicial unfairness, it is reasonable, perhaps necessary, to assume that a mistake like the one made in the Moitie case was unintended, and that no one could possibly desire that such legal quandary continue. The movers in the Motion to File Bill of Complaint should take a step toward rectification of such by filing a Notice of Appeal with the D.C. Circuit under FRAP 4 which would spotlight the quandary and move forward toward rectification to achieve the goals of appellate procedure consisting, inter alia, of correcting errors, developing the law, and achieving uniformity across courts.At first blush, the errors are:
(1) violation of due process and equal protection for locking the door of the courthouse of SCOTUS by discretion where a case between two states must be heard in the first instance as per a grant and obligation of jurisdiction imposed upon SCOTUS directly by the U.S. Constitution,
(2) it was error to find no standing, because____________,
(3) the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional because it violates due process and equal protection by allowing SCOTUS discretion to hear a case when the case is within the court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction of Article III, Article 2 of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a), and by failing to provide a method of appeal that provides a review of a denial of a Motion to File Bill of Complaint alleging a case and controversy between two states thereby allowing the denial of access to SCOTUS to metastasize to other courts causing a monopolization of all avenues of relief,
(4) the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional because it converts a fundamental right to a discretionary right which Congress cannot do since such can only be done by the amendment of the Constitution, (5) any other error you can think of. EGM