Will any Judge, anywhere in this country, allow for any of this Absolute Proof to be presented? Unfortunately, I don’t think so. The corruption and the complicity are that widespread in Biden’s America. The only one’s suffering any negative consequences would be the conservative Truth Tellers. This bizarre new reality continues, unabated.
If you haven’t already seen the following thread, it provides a glimmer of hope where patriot judges are concerned.
Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered
Also, the Supreme Court wrongly denied Texas and the Trump Campaign due process when the Court decided not to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania in December imo.
More specifically, not only did the Supremes not invent the constitutionally undefined "no standing" excuse not to hear cases until Massachusetts v. Mellon, 1923, but Justice Joseph Story had previously clarified the Constitution’s state v. state clause.
"Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];—between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)-- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Based on the experience of the colonies, Story had written that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had made the state versus state clause to obligate (my word) the Supremes to consider evidence between conflicted states as a last effort try to avoid the worst possible outcome of such a conflict.
From the writings of Justice Joseph Story…
§ 1674. "Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [!!! emphases added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press.
§ 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
For emphasis, from paragraph 1675 above…
"The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
Also, consider that the Civil War Union States ignored any electoral votes of the Confederate States for the presidential election of 1864.
"Because eleven Southern states had declared secession from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America, only twenty-five states participated in the election." —Presidential election of 1864.
Finally, as another freeper has suggested, consider that Trump as private citizen actually has more flexibility to deal with many of the nation's problems, including election fraud by desperate Democrats, than if he had remained in Oval Office.
In other words, if he needs the Oval Office he may just go back there.
Corrections, insights welcome.