Flowers

“Arizona seems like they aren’t really fighting back against this in their responding documents to the court. Texas and the 17 other states have a very STRONG case! Media said this was a SHOW, but this is not a SHOW and is huge. Other NEWS about Hunter Biden and Friends also. Join this channel to help support REAL NEWS, either by hitting the join button, or copying and pasting the link below: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBWF…

JDMOONAN – Youtube website
  • link to SCOTUS docket
  • link to TEXAS v. PA U.S. Supreme Court Case
    • Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint
    • Ken Paxton *
    • Attorney General of Texas
    • * Counsel of Record
    • State of Texas, Plaintiff, v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin, Defendants.
    • Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) and this Court’s Rule 17, the State of Texas respectfully seeks leave to file the accompanying Bill of Complaint against the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Defendant States”) challenging their administration of the 2020 presidential election.
  • As set forth in the accompanying brief and complaint, the 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in the Defendant States:
  • Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
  • Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.
  • The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.

All these flaws – even the violations of state election law – violate one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.

Taken together, these flaws affect an outcome- determinative numbers of popular votes in a group of States that cast outcome-determinative numbers of electoral votes. This Court should grant leave to file the complaint and, ultimately, enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review andratification by the Defendant States’ legislatures and remand to the Defendant States’ respective legislatures to appoint Presidential Electors in a manner consistent with the Electors Clause and pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2.

December 7, 2020

i

TABLE OF CONTNTS

Bill of Complaint ……………………………………………….. 1

Nature of the Action…………………………………………… 3

Jurisdiction and Venue ………………………………………. 8 Parties…………………………………………………………….. 10

Legal Background ……………………………………………. 10 Facts……………………………………………………………….. 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania………………….. 14

State of Georgia …………………………………………. 20

State of Michigan ……………………………………….. 23

State of Wisconsin………………………………………. 29

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bill of Complaint ……………………………………………….. 1

Nature of the Action…………………………………………… 3

Jurisdiction and Venue ………………………………………. 8 Parties…………………………………………………………….. 10

Legal Background ……………………………………………. 10 Facts……………………………………………………………….. 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania………………….. 14

State of Georgia …………………………………………. 20

State of Michigan ……………………………………….. 23

State of Wisconsin………………………………………. 29

Count I: Electors Clause …………………………………… 36

Count II: Equal Protection………………………………… 37

Count III: Due Process ……………………………………… 38

Prayer for Relief ………………………………………………. 39

New California State website – link

Agenda 21 Radio website – link

Petition (White House) – link

Red State Talk Radio Scott Adams – link

“Scott Adams is currently the Owner & General Manager of Red State Talk Radio and host of the Scott Adams Show, a political radio talk show that airs live each and every morning at 8AM EST.

Red State Talk Radio website

  • link Federal Case Referred to
    • U.S. V. Ike Brown
    • Filed Feb, 17th., 2005
    • U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Mississippi Eastern Div.

6 states ask SCOTUS to join Texas lawsuit; US Sanctions CCP official for persecuting Falun Gong – NTD

HotRod80@HotRod801

My Other Website – link

Castro Rainbow Flag SF CA 2018 1
Texas goes to SCOTUS 3

JLegare


Amateur writer, pianist, denizen of Houston and part-time GLBT activist. Email: james.legare.CEO@jameslegare.us -> I would be delighted to hear from you!


Post navigation


error: Content is protected !!