S.C., in rejecting Texas lawsuit, perpetuates a “depravation of rights under color of law”

johnwk

Gold Member
May 24, 2009
3,950
1,891
200
Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a depravation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.



To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
 
scotus.jpg
 
Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a depravation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.



To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

I don't think 'irrefutable' or 'fact' mean what you think it means. What you're offering is your personal opinion.

And the vote was 9-0 that the petition was unworthy of any remedy.
 
Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a deprivation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.



To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

I don't think 'irrefutable' or 'fact' mean what you think it means.

I suggest those interested in the connection between a “deprivation of rights under color of law” and the 2020 election see: State Action and “Under Color” of State Law

For example:

In United States v. Classic (1941), the federal government prosecuted county election officials under § 242 for depriving African-American voters of the right to vote by failing to count their votes, altering ballots to show votes for different candidates, and falsely certifying election results— all contrary to the officials’ state-law obligations to accurately count votes and properly certify the results. The officials’ conduct violated the voters’ federal constitutional rights to be free from race discrimination in voting, but also violated state election law. A 4–3 majority held that the federal prosecution could proceed. The election officials acted under color of state law because “[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken ‘under color’ of state law.” Public officials acted under color of state law whenever their conduct deprived an individual of her constitutional rights, even when officials did so in disregard of express legal obligations in the course of performing their state duties.*

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
___ Justice Story
 
Last edited:
Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a depravation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.



To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

I don't think 'irrefutable' or 'fact' mean what you think it means.

I suggest those interested in the connection between a “depravation of rights under color of law” and the 2020 election see: State Action and “Under Color” of State Law

For example:

In United States v. Classic (1941), the federal government prosecuted county election officials under § 242 for depriving African-American voters of the right to vote by failing to count their votes, altering ballots to show votes for different candidates, and falsely certifying election results— all contrary to the officials’ state-law obligations to accurately count votes and properly certify the results. The officials’ conduct violated the voters’ federal constitutional rights to be free from race discrimination in voting, but also violated state election law. A 4–3 majority held that the federal prosecution could proceed. The election officials acted under color of state law because “[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken ‘under color’ of state law.” Public officials acted under color of state law whenever their conduct deprived an individual of her constitutional rights, even when officials did so in disregard of express legal obligations in the course of performing their state duties.*

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Or.....your personal opinion establishes neither 'facts' nor 'irrefutable facts'. Nor has any particular relevance to the actual law.

And your personal opinion vs. the authority of the Supreme court has only one winner.

Not you.
 
And your personal opinion vs. the authority of the Supreme court has only one winner.

In fact we never heard the opinion of the Supreme Court because it never ruled on the merits!



For the Supreme Court to not hear the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT and rule on its merits is to willfully engage in a deprivation of rights under color of law, because the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in the matter.

I would hope our Supreme Court comes to its senses and abides by "the rule of law", which in this case guarantees federal protection against election corruption which begins with the Supreme Court hearing the case.

But see United States v. Classic (1941)

“Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted at Congressional elections. This Court has consistently held that this is a right secured by the Constitution. Ex parte Yarbrough, supra; Wiley v. Sinkler, supra; Swafford v. Templeton, supra; United States v. Mosley, supra; see Ex parte Siebold, supra; In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731 , 8 S.Ct. 1263; Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263 , 12 S.Ct. 617. And since the constitutional command is without restriction or limitation, the right unlike those guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, is secured against the action of individuals as well as of states. Ex parte Yarbrough, supra; Logan v. United States, supra.”

Also see Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting in the same case:

“Free and honest elections are the very foundation of our republican form of government. Hence any attempt to defile the sanctity of the ballot cannot be viewed with equanimity. As stated by Mr. Justice Miller in Ex parte Yarbrough (The Ku-Klux Cases), 110 U.S. 651, 666 , 4 S.Ct. 152, 159, 'the temptations to control these elections by violence and by corruption' have been a constant source of danger in the history of all republics. The acts here charged, if proven, are of a kind which carries that threat and are highly offensive. Since they corrupt the process of Congressional elections, they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain.”

JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
 
Well, it appears Skylar has no rebuttal!

My rebuttal is the same its always been: your personal opinion is neither fact nor irrefutable.

And the Supreme Court is a far better source on the law than you are.

Keep running. Your battle isn't with me....but relevance. As SCOTUS v. "some random dude on the internet who insists he knows better" has the same winner every time.

Not you.
 
For the Supreme Court to not hear the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT and rule on its merits is to willfully engage in a deprivation of rights under color of law, because the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in the matter.
Original jurisdiction yes. But the state bringing suit still has to have standing to sue.

Standing is a legal term which determines whether the party bringing the lawsuit has the right to do so. Standing is not about the issues, it's about who is bringing the lawsuit and whether they have a legal right to sue. Key to understanding standing is that federal courts have specific jurisdiction over certain issues.
 
In fact, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue).

That means the USSC turns down over 6,000 cases that have standing each year.
 
Original jurisdiction yes. But the state bringing suit still has to have standing to sue.
To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.

JWK
 
Original jurisdiction yes. But the state bringing suit still has to have standing to sue.
To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.

Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.

Nope.

Is this really the extent of your argument? Just randomly declaring that your personal opinion is 'irrefutable fact'?

If so, that was easy. As your personal opinions are just that.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, which has far more experience, the legal authority and the obligation to make determinations on issues of standing have contradicted you. Why would ignore them, and instead believe you?

Especially when your legal argument amounts to nothing more than 'uh-uh'.
 
Original jurisdiction yes. But the state bringing suit still has to have standing to sue.
To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.

Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.

Nope.
:ahole-1:

Election fraud in federal elections is a federal criminal act

In regard to the Plaintiff States in the Texas lawsuit not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a local dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in the 2020 election.


Election fraud in federal elections is a federal question and can involve a “deprivation of rights under color of law”.

.

I suggest those interested in the connection between a “deprivation of rights under color of law” and the 2020 federal election see: State Action and “Under Color” of State Law

For example:

In United States v. Classic (1941), the federal government prosecuted county election officials under § 242 for depriving African-American voters of the right to vote by failing to count their votes, altering ballots to show votes for different candidates, and falsely certifying election results— all contrary to the officials’ state-law obligations to accurately count votes and properly certify the results. The officials’ conduct violated the voters’ federal constitutional rights to be free from race discrimination in voting, but also violated state election law. A 4–3 majority held that the federal prosecution could proceed. The election officials acted under color of state law because “[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken ‘under color’ of state law.” Public officials acted under color of state law whenever their conduct deprived an individual of her constitutional rights, even when officials did so in disregard of express legal obligations in the course of performing their state duties.*

Also see Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses e.g.: page 37

2. Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law: 18 U.S.C. § 242

Section 242, also enacted as a post-Civil War statute, makes it unlawful for anyone acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive a person of any right, privilege, or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Violations are one-year misdemeanors unless bodily injury occurs, in which case the penalty is ten years, unless death results, in which case the penalty is imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or a sentence of death. Prosecutions under Section 242 need not show the existence of a conspiracy. However, the defendants must have acted illegally “under color of law,” i.e., the case must involve a public scheme, as discussed above. This element does not require that the defendant be a de jure officer or a government official; it is sufficient if he or she jointly acted with state agents in committing the offense, United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966), or if his or her actions were made possible by the fact that they were clothed with the authority of state law, Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). Because a Section 242 violation can be a substantive offense for election fraud conspiracies prosecutable under Section 241, the cases cited in the discussion of Section 241 that involve public schemes (i.e., those involving misconduct under color of law) apply to Section 242.

JWK

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel
 
Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a depravation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.



To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

7 justices disagreed. Just because Thomas and Alito agree with you on 1 aspect does not make you right and it does not make them right.. Also worth noting that Alito and Thomas stated they would not provide any injunctive relief. That means they deide not see a path to victory for Trump.
 
Or.....your personal opinion establishes neither 'facts' nor 'irrefutable facts'. Nor has any particular relevance to the actual law.

And your personal opinion vs. the authority of the Supreme court has only one winner.

Not you.
Ironic. You are just doubling down on your own stupidity while this guy is citing US case law.
If this were a boxing match you would be knocked out.
 
7 justices disagreed. Just because Thomas and Alito agree with you on 1 aspect does not make you right and it does not make them right.. Also worth noting that Alito and Thomas stated they would not provide any injunctive relief. That means they deide not see a path to victory for Trump.
Alito and Thomas literally did not claim what you said they did. Stop substituting your imagination for facts.
 
7 justices disagreed. Just because Thomas and Alito agree with you on 1 aspect does not make you right and it does not make them right.. Also worth noting that Alito and Thomas stated they would not provide any injunctive relief. That means they deide not see a path to victory for Trump.
Alito and Thomas literally did not claim what you said they did. Stop substituting your imagination for facts.

They did say they would not provide any relief other than hearing the case. That is fact. You are the one who lives in a imaginary world.
 
7 justices disagreed. Just because Thomas and Alito agree with you on 1 aspect does not make you right and it does not make them right.. Also worth noting that Alito and Thomas stated they would not provide any injunctive relief. That means they deide not see a path to victory for Trump.
Alito and Thomas literally did not claim what you said they did. Stop substituting your imagination for facts.

They did say they would not provide any relief other than hearing the case. That is fact. You are the one who lives in a imaginary world.
2019-05-Edith-eNews-broken-vinyl-record.jpg
 
7 justices disagreed. Just because Thomas and Alito agree with you on 1 aspect does not make you right and it does not make them right.. Also worth noting that Alito and Thomas stated they would not provide any injunctive relief. That means they deide not see a path to victory for Trump.
Alito and Thomas literally did not claim what you said they did. Stop substituting your imagination for facts.

They did say they would not provide any relief other than hearing the case. That is fact. You are the one who lives in a imaginary world.
Provide that quote, Psycho.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top