THE TEXAS LAWSUIT (+ MAIN NOTES)

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 and ratification 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.

Main Notes:

1. (Fact) This is a lawsuit among states, therefore the only court that can hear it is the one of 'original jurisdiction' which is the US Supreme Court.

2. (Fact) Texas filed before the so-called 'Safe Harbor Date' which is today Dec 8, 2020. This allows the Supreme court to consider the relief sought by Texas.

3. (Fact) The 'Safe Harbor Date' is not based in the Constitution, rather it is a federal statute passed to streamline and organize the timeline for all states to adhere for the purpose of tidiness, uniformity.

4. (My opinion) The Safe Harbor Date and the follow-on Meeting of Electors date (Dec 14, 2020) were not passed in the context of an enormous election fraud perpetrated in conjunction with a Coup d'Etat carried out according to a formula known as a 'Color Revolution'. Traitors and foreign enemies are using these dates to rush an outcome and cover up crimes. The Supreme Court should thus declare extraordinary circumstances to override these non-constitutionally based deadline dates in effect rendering all relevant US federal statutes to be 'In Extremis' requiring only the Constitution's deadline date of January 20, 2021 unless a federal prosecution (possible limited Martial Law) impacts resolution of Electors and requires the election to be taken up in Congress according to the Constitution.

5. (My opinion) Although Texas cannot dictate to other states how they run their own elections, Texas voters can suffer injury by another state's appointment of Electors by fraudulent means. There is a presumption that each state carry out their elections in good faith. The Constitution's due process and equal protections provisions apply to all citizens regardless of which state they reside in. If the will of citizens is thwarted in one state and not another, the will of the People as a whole is under a cloud, the People are not provided due process and equal protections, the People of Texas cannot be assured the weight of their vote is equal to the weight of votes in other states. In the context of a presidential candidate, if a candidate has a fair process in one state but not another, that candidate is not provided due process and equal protections. President Trump may consider joining the Texas lawsuit.

6. (View of Facts) Importantly, Texas is not asserting certain fraud, it is asserting that investigations are not yet complete and THEREFORE the relief requested is that the non-constitutionally based deadlines for States and Electors to finalize the outcomes should be delayed. The statutory deadlines are not written into the Constitution, they are written to provide a degree of uniformity among states. The Supreme Court can therefore continue past those dates for the Electoral College to vote.

In effect, Texas is asking the Supreme Court to use its equitable powers to not allow unlawful acts to be carried forward into the Electoral college. Texas is requesting the timeline of the Electoral College be continued (stayed) until a resolution of the unlawful acts is made and pending no resolution, (my insertion) the Supreme Court is asked to throw the election into Congress as provided for in the Constitution where a majority of 50 state delegations in the House of Representatives determines who will be the President of the United States.

On this last point of state delegations, this is also under a cloud. DNI Ratcliff has evidence of bribery by the CCP including bribery and control of members of Congress. It appears members of both parties may have committed treason against the United States by becoming controlled agents of foreign enemies.

Yes Texas has standing.

Texas was careful not to complain about how other states choose their electors.

They are asking for the deadlines to be moved out because their people can be injured by violating equal protections.

In a nutshell, a Texas voter in a precinct has ONE VOTE. But illegal voters say in Arizona have more than zero votes, the Texas voter is thus injured in their vote for the President of the United States.

Among all states and territories, not all legal voters have equal votes for President.

The Texas case is not yet fully laid out, they have only asked for leave to make a complaint, they are asking for time to get their case together and in the meantime to suspend administrative deadlines.

Se we will see how strong their case comes back when they file their complaint.

My gut feel is their case would be strengthened by President Trump joining their lawsuit. I could be wrong but it seems certain that his equal protections among all states were violated.

It’s a very good development to see other states signing on. There are a lot of brilliant lawyers in those states that can make a formidable case against the fraud states and the Electoral College.

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.