Supreme Court Rejects Request to Hear Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Election

Epoch Times ^ | 2/21/2023 | Zachary Stieber

[woodpusher]

[rx #43] 1961-vintage typewriters had only one fixed typeface

[woodpusher #51] Not that it really matters, the 1961 IBM Selectric typewriter changed fonts with a change of the typing ball.

[rx #56] The initial release date of the IBM Selectric was five days before Barry's supposed date of birth. It's entirely safe to say such a machine's distribution had not reached the HDOH's mundane clerical offices of the HDOH to type what LFBC Bob Bauer distributed 4/27/2011.

The claim of alleged expert sleuthing at #43 was, and remains, false. 1961-vintage typewriters, as a matter of documented fact, did offer more than one typeface. As I also stated, not that it really matters."

The long form COLB provided by Hawaii is self-documented as "a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health."

It appears as a computer document generated in 2011. It appears as a leaf from a book form register from which a scanner produced a PDF copy. The content of the book form register appears as a copy or abstract of the original record as nobody types in the leaves of a book.

The PDF indicates it was created 2011-04-27 07:09:24. It is not a scanned copy of the original document but a scanned copy of a copy or abstract in a bound book.

https://www.usbirthcertificates.com/glossary/abstract-birth-certificate

Abstract birth certificate definition

An abstract birth certificate is one where selected information has been copied from the original birth certificate or from a database and has been added to a new, simplied form.

Most birth certificates today are abstracted as they are printed from computer databases which contain the copied information from the original document.

- - - - -

[rx #56] Neither could a days-old Selectric type ball adeptly be exchanged mid-word as would be necessary, given the indications in Field 16.

Do tell how the changing of the type ball was any different depending on whether one was mid-word or between words.

[DMZFrank]

As you correctly point out, the actual election for POTUS occurs when the XII amendment process is invoked. But the states, using the plenary power that you speak of, have decided to allow their electorate to elect the state’s slate of electors. Those elections are always subject to investigative scrutiny as to their legality and validity under state and federal law and constitutions.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, as Article VI states. Article II states that “each state shall appoint, in such manner as the LEGISLATURE thereof shall direct, a number of electors.” The election laws of Georgia were altered without the consent of the Georgia legislature by Gov. Kemp and SOS Raffsenberger, more or less in secret behind closed doors with Stacy Abrams and her voter suppression lawsuits. The Supreme court of Wisconsin ruled that the mail in ballot procedure there was done illegally. The 2nd highest court in Pennsylvania ruled that the PA legislature violated the PA constitution when they changed the mail in ballot rules without the aid of an amendment to the PA constitution. Similar election law violations were reported in AZ and elsewhere.

CONSTITUTIONAL plenary power does not extend to violations of that document. Article III gives SCOTUS the power to examine such issues of Federal law and state constitutional issues in controversy.

[RitaOK]

The Initial birth of the blues, for Barry-the-foreign-born, first traveled directly from the canal of Hillary Clinton’s big mouth, during the Clinton v. Obama primary campaign for the Democrat Party nomination.

It was quickly seen as a drive-by remark of hers, that as I recall she never repeated, but it made the news and we Republicans were not adverse to entertaining it, and used it ourselves later.

Wherever her muck rakers then distributed, or “mis-laid” all their evidence, following her loss to Obama, would be a trip of interest. 🤔

Of course, since the McCain ticket seemd to actually leab *FOR* Obama, he never used it, nor did Romney the Nuisance.

[Jim Noble]

But I maintain that it is the State Legislature which has the authority to initiate a “case or controversy”.

If a State Legislature does not object to the appointments done under its authority, I think the appointments are final.

[DMZFrank]

The language in Article II is “direct,” not “acquiesce.” I believe that that a legal argument can be made that posits that such direction requires a positive affirmation expressed officially by statutory authority.

[philman_36]

The “election” alleged to be fraudulent has no Constitutional existence.

This had nothing to do with the election at all.

Legislators were being accused of breaking their oath of office, which is what the matter was about.
You can frame it how you like, and argue it however you like, but that's the bottom line.

[philman_36]

You missed my point completely. You STILL haven't gotten it.

Here's a clue...are you now citing American or British law?

[philman_36]

...a scanner produced a PDF copy.

With layers.

[woodpusher]

You missed my point completely. You STILL haven't gotten it.

You are correct. If you made any point, I have not gotten it.

Here's a clue...are you now citing American or British law?

I cited and quoted the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Throckmorton. The last time I checked, the U.S. Supreme Court was American, not British.

Fraud vitiates everything is not a law, it is a judicially created legal maxim as stated in Throckmorton. It originated in the British judiciary and was subsequently adopted within the American judiciary.

Here's a clue. In Brunson, the 10th Circuit stated,

Essentially, he contends that because he alleged the defendants acted fraudulently, and because “‘fraud vitiates whatever it touches,’” Aplt. Opening Br. at 5 (quoting Est. of Stonecipher v. Est. of Butts, 591 S.W.2d 806, 809 (Tex. 1979)), he has an “unfettered right to sue the Defendants,” id. at 2, and any federal law or case law is inapplicable if it “support[s] treason, acts of war or the violation of Brunson’s inherent unalienable (God-given) rights,” id. at 8. But none of his supporting authorities suggests that allegations of fraud, acts of war, or the violation of allegedly “inherent unalienable (God-given) rights,” id., relieve a plaintiff from demonstrating Article III standing.

Alleging fraud does not eliminate the need for the Complainant to show standing, or for the Court to find it has jurisdiction.

The 10th Circuit wrote,

Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK and CARSON, Circuit Judges.

Raland Brunson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Defendants removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim). Mr. Brunson filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (Recommendation) that the action be dismissed for two independent reasons: (1) Mr. Brunson lacked constitutional standing because his claimed injury was not concrete and personal to him but only the same as any citizen, and (2) Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the claims against the defendants, who were sued in their official capacity only, and Mr. Brunson failed to identify any statute or other express provision that unequivocally waives that immunity for his claims.

. . .

Mr. Brunson filed a timely objection to the Recommendation, arguing only that the magistrate judge did not address the arguments in his opposition to the motion to dismiss and thereby deprived him of due process. The district court overruled the objection, concluding there was no authority for Mr. Brunson’s proposition “that a reviewing court must specifically address arguments made in brief,” and finding he “was afforded procedural due process by receiving notice of the motion to dismiss and having a reasonable opportunity to respond to it.” R. at 510. Because Mr. Brunson did not assert any objections to the magistrate judge’s conclusions that he lacked standing or that the defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity, the district court determined he had “waived any objections to [those] conclusions.” Id. The court then adopted the Recommendation in full, dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and entered a separate judgment. This appeal followed.

In his Petition for Writ of Cert, Brunson asserted,

Because of Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought this action against Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondents, and consequently this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.

With his Petition, Brunson removed any conceivable doubt that his claimed injury was concrete and particularized to himself. Article III standing is a constitutional requirement. Claiming fraud does not relieve the requirement.

[woodpusher]

...a scanner produced a PDF copy.

With layers.

The document was scanned into Quartz PDFContext. It is a PDF and of course it has layers. Your point, if you have one?

[woodpusher]

Edit: With his Petition, Brunson removed any conceivable doubt that his claimed injury was not concrete and particularized to himself. Article III standing is a constitutional requirement.

[philman_36]

The notion of invoking the English Common Law regarding contracts as superseding the provisions of the U.S. Constitution is an interesting concept.
You said English law was invoked.

Fraud vitiates everything is not a law, it is a judicially created legal maxim as stated in Throckmorton.

I didn't say it was a law. YOU did that.

[woodpusher]

I didn't say it was a law. YOU did that.

You appear to lack a fundamental understanding of what common law is.

Common law, English or American, is a collection of precedent setting court opinions, a basic part of the Common Law system of law. It is the court interpretation of law. It is the judicial precedents established by appellate courts, also called caselaw. Judicial precedent is binding upon lower courts within the jurisdiction of the issuing court. It is never binding on higher courts or the issuing court, or courts outside the jurisdiction of the issuing court.

https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/what-is-common-law

What is common law?

The simplest definition for common law is that it’s a “body of law” based on court decisions rather than codes or statutes. But in reality, common law is often more complicated than that.

At the center of common law is a legal principle known as stare decisis, which is a Latin phrase that roughly means “to stand by things decided.” In practice, stare decisis is just a fancy way of saying that courts and judges need to follow earlier decisions and rulings — otherwise known as caselaw — when dealing with similar cases later.

[philman_36]

Common law, English or American...

You said Brunson used British Common Law when he didn't.

You did it, not me.
Talk all the smack you want, it's right there.

[woodpusher]

You said Brunson used British Common Law when he didn't.

I never referenced such an absurdity as British common law.

There is English common law. There is no such thing as British common law. England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom are not interchangeable terms.

However, moving on....

The problem is that you are a legal illiterate. Under the Constitution, America has no general federal common law. States have a general common law, but there are 49 different varities.

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938) ("There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or ‘general,’ be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts.").

United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812).

The only question which this case presents is whether the circuit courts of the United States can exercise a common law jurisdiction in criminal cases. We state it thus broadly because a decision on a case of libel will apply to every case in which jurisdiction is not vested in those courts by statute.

Although this question is brought up now for the first time to be decided by this Court, we consider it as having been long since settled in public opinion. In no other case for many years has this jurisdiction been asserted, and the general acquiescence of legal men shows the prevalence of opinion in favor of the negative of the proposition.

The course of reasoning which leads to this conclusion is simple, obvious, and admits of but little illustration. The powers of the general government are made up of concessions from the several states — whatever is not expressly given to the former, the latter expressly reserve. The judicial power of the United States is a constituent part of those concessions — that power is to be exercised by courts organized for the purpose, and brought into existence by an effort of the legislative power of the Union. Of all the courts which the United States may, under their general powers, constitute, one only, the Supreme Court, possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the Constitution and of which the legislative power cannot deprive it. All other courts created by the general government possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general government will authorize them to confer.

It is not necessary to inquire whether the general government, in any and what extent, possesses the power of conferring on its courts a jurisdiction in cases similar to the present; it is enough that such jurisdiction has not been conferred by any legislative act if it does not result to those courts as a consequence of their creation.

And such is the opinion of the majority of this Court.

As for Brunson in particular, the 10th Circuit stated,

Essentially, he contends that because he alleged the defendants acted fraudulently, and because “‘fraud vitiates whatever it touches,’” Aplt. Opening Br. at 5 (quoting Est. of Stonecipher v. Est. of Butts, 591 S.W.2d 806, 809 (Tex. 1979)), he has an “unfettered right to sue the Defendants,” id. at 2, and any federal law or case law is inapplicable if it “support[s] treason, acts of war or the violation of Brunson’s inherent unalienable (God-given) rights,” id. at 8. But none of his supporting authorities suggests that allegations of fraud, acts of war, or the violation of allegedly “inherent unalienable (God-given) rights,” id., relieve a plaintiff from demonstrating Article III standing.

Alleging fraud does not eliminate the need for the Complainant to show standing, or for the Court to find it has jurisdiction. You cannot get around the fact that Brunson lacked standing and, therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction.

Muttering "fraud vitiates whatever it touches" does not overcome the Constitution on standing or jurisdiction. There are no common law federal courts in the United States. All are created by statute law.

[philman_36]

#35 - The notion of invoking the English Common Law regarding contracts as superseding the provisions of the U.S. Constitution is an interesting concept.

I never referenced such an absurdity as British common law.