“FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING” — United States Supreme Court (Ruling rendered in the 1878 case: United States versus Throckmorton)
* “Vitiates” in a legal context means negates, quashes, annuls, invalidates, revokes and abrogates
United States v. Throckmorton (98 U.S. 61) is an 1878 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on civil procedure, specifically res judicata, in cases heard at equity. A unanimous Court affirmed an appeal of a decision by the District Court for California upholding a Mexican-era land claim, holding that collateral estoppel bars untimely motions to set aside the verdict where the purportedly fraudulent evidence has already been considered and a decision reached. In the opinion it distinguished between that kind of fraud, which it called intrinsic, and extrinsic fraud, in which deceptive actions exterior to the proceeding prevented a party, or potential party, to the action from becoming aware of the possibility they could vindicate their rights in court.
Intrinsic fraud is an intentionally false representation that goes to the heart of what a given lawsuit is about, in other words, whether fraud was used to procure the transaction. (If the transaction was fraudulent, it probably does not have the legal status of a contract.) Intrinsic fraud is distinguished from extrinsic fraud (a/k/a collateral fraud) which is a deceptive means of keeping a person from discovering and/or enforcing legal rights. It is possible to have both intrinsic and extrinsic frauds.
Ipso facto, the outcome of a POTUS election that is rife with one-sided fraud and criminality is rendered null and void. Especially any result which saw the winner attain his or her victory through fraudulent means and/or criminal conduct is automatically canceled and invalid under the law.
The same U.S. Supreme Court ruling also determined that fraud vitiates contracts. An election is essentially a binding contract between the electorate and the elected. This indispensable social contract is irreparably broken through voter fraud as the public trust is profoundly violated.
Fraud does exist, obviously. And fraud has been argued, in court, and elections have been overturned, or re-done. However, for an election to be overturned, or redone, fraud must be argued, and won, in court.
And most people don't know, but Trump has never argued in any court that fraud took place. Look it up, not once, ever. To legally argue fraud, you must wait until the election is over, indicating you lost, so that you can have the proper standing to argue the election RESULT was fraudulent. That is why Kari Lake has been waiting to file her cause in Arizona accusing that fraud took place, because she has accepted the legal advice that a fraud charge can only be made after the initial result has been completely certified and officially announced. Meanwhile, all of Trump's actual cases were just trying to get ballots thrown out, such as all mail in ballots in certain states.
Trump and his legal team knew this, which is why he never filed any actual accusations of fraud. Instead, he decided to wage a PR war, instead of a legal challenge on January 6, that he is still waging. PR wars affect PR, both positively, and negatively. They do not result in fraud charges being heard and decided in a court of law. And without a case ever being made in court that fraud did exist, no election will ever be legally reversed, or re-done. He's completely trying to put the legal cart before the horse, in a PR campaign. Which is mainly why no lawyers want to go near him.
Thank you! I've really worked hard at that for a long time, so it's nice to see I've actually accomplished something as I get older. I really appreciate it!
However....
FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING” — United States Supreme Court (Ruling rendered in the 1878 case: United States versus Throckmorton)
When the Supreme Court (that is who you were citing, right?) makes a determination that fraud sufficient to overturn the election actually occurred, then that precedent might actually apply. And it wouldn't be Trump himself pronouncing that the election is invalid, it would be the duly constituted, constitutionally empowered Supreme Court of the United States.
But Trump doesn't have that Supreme Court decision on his side, does he? And there is absolutely nothing in that decision giving an individual's personal determination that fraud existed any legal effect at all.
Which means, once again, that we're talking about Trump advocating something absolutely outside the Constitution. He hasn't even filed anything with the Supreme Court (or any other court) even asking them to make that determination since this story broke.
Excellent essay, Robert.
Lately, I have been trying to make the legal point that the crimes of sedition and disrupting an election certification are not possible if the election was fraudulent.
I contend that the Department of Justice must first prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that the election was fair and honest.
I cannot prove that the election was fraudulent.
But, the DOJ cannot prove that the election was honest.