Posted on 11/26/2016 2:24:01 AM PST by Iron Munro
Voting machines suspiciously defaulting to Barack Obama? Buses loaded with strangers appearing at polling stations? Even ballots turning out 100 percent for one candidate in precinct reports?
In short, suspicions of vote fraud?
That’s too bad, because a race-based consent decree negotiated by Democrats against the Republican National Committee a generation ago still has tied the RNC’s hands, and GOP officials could be cited for contempt – or worse – if they try to make sure American elections are clean.
Impossible?
No. Fact.
The case is the Democratic National Committee vs. the Republican National Committee, originally from 1982.
Democrats alleged Republicans were trying intimidate minority voters in New Jersey and brought the legal action. The RNC, inexplicably, decided to agree to a consent decree before a Democrat-appointed judge rather than fight the claims.
The judge, Dickinson Debevoise, appointed by Jimmy Carter, later retired but decided he would continue to control the case. The decision requires the RNC – but not the DNC – to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The consent decree dates back to 1982, in the aftermath of the 1981 election in New Jersey. Facing a close governor’s race, the RNC and New Jersey Republican Party recruited volunteers (including off-duty law enforcement officers) to serve on a “National Ballot Security Task Force.”
The task force — wearing armbands and, in some cases, holstered guns — patrolled outside several polling places (which, according to Democrats, were all in predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods) on Election Day.The RNC tried to get the ban overturned in 2009 but failed.
It was extended another eight years and the decree is now set to expire in 2017.
The Decree is void under the doctrine of unclean hands. Courts cannot enforce an agreement for illegal activities.
Suggest you add the date to the headline — you can alert on yourself and ask the mod to do so.
Voter ID. in 2020
Just another example of the “level playing field” that is held in such high esteem by the liberal Democrats.
Heads I win, tails you lose. No matter how things come up, the outcome is the same, and always favors one side.
Consolidation of the electorate on one side or the other in relation to political party domination comes at a price. And the first of these is death of democratic expression. The entrenched power structure then remains in place long past its expiration date, and the frozen attitudes are unable to respond to changing circumstances.
Look closely.
You will see that I posted the correct date of the article as 11/20/2012 and that it does appear right below the headline.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094615p.pdf
Effective 2012, that ruling was upheld. It needs to be overturned, ignored, or worked around. The idea of court-protected voter fraud is absurd.
I knew about this issue but I did not know that in fact it will expire in 2017... I dont think the elite Democrats were expecting us to have a country after a Hillary election... Anyway, so this is true it expires next year?
Courts enforce agreements for illegal activities all of the time. This case is simply one more example of the deep corruption of the blackrobed tyrants.
idea of court-protected voter fraud is absurd.””
True, it is absurd, but most criminal activity is. The blackrobed crooks have been protecting voter fraud for a century. Just look at the history of Chicago and Illinios politics.
This does not include Trump or his political organization. He is free to examine any and all cases of voter fraud. He will be involved deeply in any recount efforts.
The decree is binding on the RNC. It does not affect a Trump-controlled DOJ and FBI, nor would it have stopped an independently-created organization.
A key reason to disband the GOP and form a new party. There’s never been a better time than now.
The stupid party needs to be retired and a new one to stand up to the evil party. It’s long overdue.
>>Look closely.
You will see that I posted the correct date of the article as 11/20/2012 and that it does appear right below the headline.<<
People will miss it, trust me.
If I hadn’t been burned earlier on another old article I would not have even noticed.
But it is just FRiendly advice (and good FRettiquette).
Take it for what it is worth.
Look for it to be made void via an EO from Mr. Trump.
this is why I have been trying to let those who keep saying Trump or Republicans should challenge various voting results should just leave it be.
So far he won on 11/8 and looks to be fine for Dec 19 EC vote so let God be in control instead of human will which could end up in a further extension.
Who cares if Trump got robbed another state or two just be glad for his victory and get him in office and peacefully let this agreement expire in 2017.
God can and likely will handle any injustice in due time.
Work-around?
But surely, a consent decree that limits the RNC does NOT bind independent groups like “True-the-Vote”.
As has been reported, there was plenty of fraud in this election — and more to come...
For once, let’s not rush to “Let by-gones be by-gone”
It’s a violation of free access to courts.
We The People must get involved in stopping voter fraud since the gutless, spineless Congress won’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.