A Weekly Dose of President Trump- Trump Family Train 12/6/20

Free Republic ^ | Deplorables

[Irish Eyes]

2618 post

Great picture. This is a very promising young man.

:)

[Freee-dame]

I am so proud of President Trump for being a fighter… For us. He has been through so much and treated so unfairly by the swamp and the intelligence services throughout his presidency.

[LilFarmer]

I believe this is one of the filings, but it’s not docketed yet:
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:eb4f4f40-d94f-49e1-8177-4af4140650e7

[sweetiepiezer]

That could be the Trump card.

[hoosiermama]

This is too small for me to read. There’s seems to be a section in it about the history of voter fraud at SCOTUS Pleas post larger section to share

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains/voter-fraud

[hoosiermama]

Thanks for sharing. Will keep an eye on it.

[RightGeek]

[Irish Eyes]

Thank you for this link. It is a must see and hear for everyone.

https://rumble.com/vbngzz-election-2020-the-true-invisible-enemy.html

[hoosiermama]

Here’s another article on contentious election. 1876

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-1876-voter-fraud-suppression-partisanship/

Still looking for the fraud decision.

[sweetiepiezer]

https://www.infowars.com/posts/nhs-commercial-terrifies-children-by-showing-santa-dying-of-covid/

NHS Commercial Terrifies Children by Showing Santa Dying of COVID
A television commercial for the NHS terrifies children by showing Santa Claus wheeled into hospital on the verge of dying from COVID. Because frightening kids is definitely what the good guys do.
www.infowars.com

[STARLIT]

Preserving the great experiment that is the American republic is dependent upon free and fair elections. When selecting a city councilor or the president of the United States, every American must be able to trust the process and the result, or the democratic system itself breaks down.

Election integrity is essential and the security of the ballot box cannot be left to a simple honor system.. It is incumbent upon state governments to safeguard the electoral process, and ensure that every voter’s right to cast a ballot is protected

The history of voting in the United States

Contrary to the claims of many liberals, the problem of voter fraud is as old as the country itself. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted when it upheld Indiana’s voter identification law, “flagrant examples” of voter fraud “have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.”

Attempts to commandeer election results have been documented dating back to the 19th century, when New York City’s infamous Tammany Hall was synonymous with political corruption and election fraud. In one New York election 1844, 55,000 votes were recorded even though there were only 41,000 eligible voters. Decades later, these efforts have continued and determined fraudsters have become only more creative in their efforts to fix the outcome of elections.

Different types of election fraud

There are many ways for criminals to steal votes and change the outcome of an election. These include:

Impersonation fraud at the polls:Voting in the name of other legitimate voters and voters who have died, moved away, or lost their right to vote because they are felons, but remain registered.

False registrations: Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.

Duplicate voting: Registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state.

Fraudulent use of absentee ballots: Requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter’s signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for.

Buying votes: Paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate.

Illegal “assistance” at the polls: Forcing or intimidating voters—particularly the elderly, disabled, illiterate, and those for whom English is a second language—to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with “assistance.”

neligible voting: Illegal registration and voting by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, are convicted felons, or are otherwise not eligible to vote.

Altering the vote count: Changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted.

Ballot petition fraud: Forging the signatures of registered voters on the ballot petitions that must be filed with election officials in some states for a candidate or issue to be listed on the official ballot.

Can illegal votes actually affect election outcomes?

Liberal groups often claim that known instances of voter fraud are inconsequential when compared to the total number of ballots cast in American elections. However, as the National Commission on Federal Election Reform has stated, the problem “is not the magnitude of voter fraud. In close or disputed elections, and there are many, a small amount of fraud could make the margin of difference.” The U.S. Supreme Court has concurred with this assessment, noting that known instances of fraud “demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Indeed, recent elections bear this out. In 2015, a city council election in the New Jersey town of Perth Amboy was decided by a mere 10 votes. A judge overturned the election and ordered a new one after it was revealed that at least 13 illegal absentee ballots had been cast. The 2003 mayoral primary in East Chicago, Indiana, was overturned by the state Supreme Court after evidence of widespread fraud was revealed. The new election resulted in a different winner. Numerous convictions for election fraud resulted from this election, and are documented in The Heritage Foundation’s Voter Fraud Database

Who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of elections?

Each state is generally responsible for the administration of its own electoral systems, including elections for federal office. State governments must take this responsibility seriously and adopt policies sufficient to secure their elections against fraud, including efforts by noncitizens to vote, and by citizens registered in multiple states.

The Heritage Foundation has outlined several policies states should adopt, including requiring government-issued identification and proof of citizenship to vote. States should enter into interstate voter registration crosscheck programs to identify voters registered in multiple states. They should verify the accuracy of their voter registrations, by comparing voter rolls with jury forms, DMV files, and other government records to identify noncitizens so that they can be removed from voter rolls. The federal government should cooperate with state efforts to clean up their registrations, and make Department of Homeland Security and other databases available to state officials for this purpose.

In recent years, some proactive secretaries of state across the country have taken the lead in securing American elections. Kansas’ Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program has identified hundreds of thousands of potential duplicate registrations in the 30 states participating in the initiative, as well as evidence of double voting. At the same time, more states have passed voter ID laws to detect and deter fraud.

There are now 34 states that have laws requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, although not all require photo identification or proof of citizenship. A small number of states have extended that ID requirement to absentee ballots, a requirement that all states should implement.

Examples of election fraud cases across the country

Heritage’s Voter Fraud Database contains a sampling of voter fraud cases from across the country, all of which have resulted in either a criminal conviction or an overturned election. The Heritage Database is not representative of the full scope of the problem. Unfortunately, too often voter fraud goes undetected, and when it is discovered, overburdened prosecutors seldom prioritize these cases.

Here are 11 examples from the database:

1982 An estimated 100,000 fraudulent ballots were cast in a 1982 Chicago election. After a Justice Department investigation, 63 individuals were convicted of voter fraud, including vote buying, impersonation fraud, fictitious voter registrations, phony absentee ballots, and voting by non-citizens.

1994 After an extensive investigation of absentee ballot fraud in a 1994 Greene County, Alabama, election, nine defendants pleaded guilty to voter fraud, and two others were found guilty by a jury. The defendants included Greene County commissioners, officials, and employees; a racing commissioner; a member of the board of education; a Eutaw city councilman; and other community leaders. Among other things, the conspirators used an assembly line to mass produce forged absentee ballots meant to swing elections in favor of preferred candidates.

2003 Allan “Twig” Simmons, an operative for the East Chicago, Indiana, mayor’s campaign, persuaded voters to let him fill out their absentee ballots in exchange for jobs. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years of probation and 100 hours of community service. Fraud in the 2003 East Chicago mayoral primary was so widespread that the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately overturned the election results and ordered a special mayoral election that resulted in a different winner.

[CottonBall]

I love that - such hypocrisy

[CottonBall]

“The Director of National Intelligence shall deliver this assessment and appropriate supporting information to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.”

There was some talk here last night that the 45-day maximum for the assessment will be on Monday. And after that:

“(b) Within 45 days of receiving the assessment and information described in section 1(a) of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate agencies and, as appropriate, State and local officials, shall deliver to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense a report evaluating, with respect to the United States election that is the subject of the assessment described in section 1(a):”

[STARLIT]

Thanks.

[CottonBall]

Thanks for the soup ideas. I love barley, so I might go with the barley lentil recipe that I have. But the pumpkin chili sounds intriguing. How do you make that one? And your taco soup

[CottonBall]

I love cabbage rolls, so cabbage roll soup has to be good. I have a stuffed green pepper soup recipe that hubby loves, he says it’s better than stuffed peppers. I can probably just make it and add cabbage instead of peppers. And it would be so much easier! Thanks for the idea

[hoosiermama]

Thank you so much. Still trying to read.
Ran across this one again

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/98/61

[sweetiepiezer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX3pP3NM6aI&feature=emb_title

[STARLIT]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/98/61

UNITED STATES v. THROCKMORTON.
https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/publications/supreme-court-confirms-fraud-unravels-all/

03/04/2019

Why is this case important?
Walker Morris’ Andrew Beck a specialist in litigation and dispute resolution with extensive experience of dealing with fraud cases, explain the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Takhar v Gracefield. This high profile case was concerned with the apparently competing principles of finality of litigation on the one hand; and ‘fraud unravels all’, on the other.

Finality of litigation v fraud
Res judicata is the fundamental legal and public interest principle which states that there should be finality to litigation and that defendants should not face repeated litigation in respect of the same set of circumstances. The courts also have the power to strike out claims which amount to an abuse of process. Although there is no specific definition of ‘abuse of process’ in this context, it is clear that this covers (non-exhaustively) re-litigation situations; advancing a case or issue that is inconsistent with an earlier judgment [1]; and advancing claims or arguments that could and should have been made in earlier proceedings [2].

Res judicata and the rules against abuse of process exist for the protection of all. The certainty and finality of litigation; the authority and supremacy of a judgment of the court; and the cost-efficiency of the court process for individual parties and for the public as a whole, all depend upon these important principles…

… but what is the position if an earlier judgment has been obtained by fraud?

Under English law, there is no defined cause of action of civil or commercial ‘fraud’. Instead, the term is used to cover a range of legal options, including deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation; claims arising out of conspiracy, bribery, forgery, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust; and inducing breach of contract, many of which often form elements of lender litigation. The common theme is deliberate action on the part of the wrongdoer which generally involves dishonest conduct. The law sees any such action as being so serious that the maxim ‘fraud unravels all’ is now well established. The presence of a fraud might therefore invalidate a contractual agreement or carve-out, or it might lift the bar on re-litigation which would otherwise exist.

In the recent case of Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors [3], the Supreme Court has considered the interaction between res judicata/abuse of process and fraud unravels all.

What were the facts and key issues?
In 2008, a claim which the claimant had issued against the defendant was rejected because, despite the claimant maintaining in those proceedings that she did not remember signing key documentation disclosed by the defendant, she did not have a positive case to assert and she did not have any evidence that her signature had been forged. Following the court’s judgment against her, however, the claimant went on to obtain evidence of forgery and, in 2013, the claimant issued a fresh claim against the defendant.

The defendant argued that the 2013 claim should not be allowed to proceed pursuant to the rules against re-litigation; particularly in circumstances where evidence of the fraud was not new and could, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered by the claimant before the 2008 trial. The claimant countered that ‘fraud unravels all’, such that the rules against re-litigation should not apply and/or it would be wrong to impose this ‘due diligence condition’ in the case of fraud.

The Court of Appeal decided in 2017 that a party seeking to set aside an earlier judgment on the basis of fraud must establish that evidence of the fraud was not available at the time of the original trial and could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered.

What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court has, however, now allowed the claimant’s appeal. In doing so, it has clarified:

where it can be shown that a judgment has been obtained by fraud; and
where no allegation of fraud had been raised at the trial which led to that judgment
then a requirement of reasonable diligence should not be imposed on the party seeking to set aside the judgment.
(The Supreme Court has also acknowledged that the position may be different, and a court may have discretion whether to impose the reasonable diligence requirement, in cases where fraud was raised at the original trial and new evidence is prayed in support of the case for setting aside judgment or where a deliberate decision may have been taken not to investigate the possibility of fraud in advance of the first trial, even if that had been suspected.)

WM Comment and practical advice
The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that the principles of preserving the finality of litigation and preventing the prevailing of a fraud both remain essential and in effect. It clarifies, however, that those principles do not compete in a case where fraud was not in issue between the parties in the original proceedings. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court considered that the policy reasons for finding that ‘fraud unravels all’ were “overwhelming” [4].

The best advice for any party who suspects the commission of a fraud is to take diligent steps to obtain evidence of any dishonesty or wrongdoing and to bring it to the attention of the court at the earliest possible time. If it is not possible to do that before an initial judgment is obtained, an application to set aside will have to be made. Despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Takhar v Gracefield, for all practical purposes, that application will have to be supported with some evidence as to how and when the fraud came to light and the steps that were taken by the applicant, both prior to the original trial and since, to prove that the fresh application does not amount to an abuse.

[LilFarmer]

That is fantastic. I was in tears by the end. Well made and covers it all, sending to several folks now