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

[johnwk]

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.

What was actually stated is as follows:

"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."


JWK

They are neither “liberal”, “progressive” nor are they Republican or Democrat Leaders. They are notoriously evil Socialist Revolutionaries and Globalists who intend to use government force to steal and then enjoy the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"but would not grant other relief" is intended to mean the court is not going to give Trump the presidency
but it will condone some other equitable fair reworking of the election.

 

[johnwk]

"but would not grant other relief" is intended to mean the court is not going to give Trump the presidency
but it will condone some other equitable fair reworking of the election.

The bottom line is, the court never addressed the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT which covers some of the outright fraud alleged to have been engaged in by Pennsylvania’s public officers . . . fraud which in fact constitutes a “deprivation of rights under color of law” because the good people of the United States have a guaranteed right to corruption free elections!

JWK


.Our socialist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

 

[johnwk]

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.

Well, I see Psycho, busybee01, has yet to provide that quote.

JWK

Our government once of the people, by the people and for the people, has been transformed into a government of politicians, by politicians and for politicians . . . witness the latest influence peddling fortune being made by the Biden criminal enterprise.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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

Deprivation of rights under color of law.....according to who?

No the State legislatures, not the State courts, not the Federal Courts, not the SCOTUS.

Who then?

 

[Skylar]

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

Or...you could show us the connection of your accusations about “deprivation of rights under color of law” and the assessment that that has occurred by any relevant State legislature, State Court, Federal Court or the SCOTUS.

As the only one that you're citing for your “deprivation of rights under color of law” claims having actually occurred.....is yourself.

And John....you're nobody.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Well, I see Psycho, busybee01, has yet to provide that quote.

JWK

My comment was mostly rhetorical. No one is surprised by her lack of a response.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Or...you could show us the connection of your accusations about “deprivation of rights under color of law” and the assessment that that has occurred by any relevant State legislature, State Court, Federal Court or the SCOTUS.

As the only one that you're citing for your “deprivation of rights under color of law” claims having actually occurred.....is yourself.

And John....you're nobody.

But you are somebody. Or rather something...a real rat turd. Smelly, useless, repugnant.

 

[Skylar]

Or...you could show us the connection of your accusations about “deprivation of rights under color of law” and the assessment that that has occurred by any relevant State legislature, State Court, Federal Court or the SCOTUS.

As the only one that you're citing for your “deprivation of rights under color of law” claims having actually occurred.....is yourself.

And John....you're nobody.

But you are somebody. Or rather something...a real rat turd. Smelly, useless, repugnant.

You seem confused....I'm not quoting me.

I'm quoting say, the SCOTUS, that dismissed the silly Texas petition as lacking standing.....with 0 out of 9 Justices deeming it worthy of any kind of remedy.

I'm quoting Attorney General Barr that has acknowledged that there's no evidence of election fraud that would have altered the outcome of the election.

I'm citing the CISA that confirms this was the most secure election in US history. And that there's no evidence of votes being changed.

I'm citing the State courts where issues of voting law violations were already adjudicated....and no constitutional violations were found.

I'm citing the Federal Courts that refused to over turn any of the State court findings........including the Supreme Court which has not granted cert to ANY such challenge.

I'm citing the actual election results, the initial count, every recount, every hand count, every physical ballot count, every electronic ballot tally, every certified results, every letter of ascertainment, and the electoral vote.

Whereas John....is citing himself as a legal authority. And ignoring all of the above.

No thank you.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Here is the Evidence of Voter Fraud from All over the US | We the People Convention

Find Links to Stories from All Over the United States about Voter Fraud in the 2020 Election...

wethepeopleconvention.org

I understand who you are citing. I'm saying there is overwhelming data that undermines who and what you
cite not to mention the first person evidence we have all see for ourselves.

If you have truly read and failed to appreciate the legal reasoning of Johnwk that's one thing.
Maybe you just can't lift that mental load.
But to put all these sources up as proof of something which you yourself, in many cases, have rejected and mocked many times (like William Barr for instance) is absurd and dishonest to say the least.

 

[johnwk]

Or...you could show us the connection of your accusations about “deprivation of rights under color of law” and the assessment that that has occurred by any relevant State legislature, State Court, Federal Court or the SCOTUS.

As the only one that you're citing for your “deprivation of rights under color of law” claims having actually occurred.....is yourself.

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

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

View attachment 429097

Unfortunately, I don't think the establishment GOP has the balls to take it to the 12th Amendment. It will be confirmed by Congress by nearly 100% and they will go about their lives.

...and we will go about Texit-ing...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

So many things wrong with this statement. You just interpreted that shit exactly the way you wanted, didn't you?

Where to begin???

Alito said that he disagreed that the SCOTUS was allowed to decide whether or not they will hear an original jurisdiction case (state v. state = original jurisdiction, therefore no authority to deny certiorari). He said that they are compelled to hear it as an original case, just like any other trial court. He said that in dissenting, he makes no comment on the merits of the case.

Get it right or zip it.

 

[johnwk]

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.

So many things wrong with this statement. You just interpreted that shit exactly the way you wanted, didn't you?

Where to begin???

Alito said that he disagreed that the SCOTUS was allowed to decide whether or not they will hear an original jurisdiction case (state v. state = original jurisdiction, therefore no authority to deny certiorari). He said that they are compelled to hear it as an original case, just like any other trial court. He said that in dissenting, he makes no comment on the merits of the case.

Get it right or zip it.

Thumbs up to that! Thank you!

JWK


When our judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.

 

[Nwolfe35]

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

You have yet to point out what right is being "deprived".

 

[johnwk]

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

You have yet to point out what right is being "deprived".

Try paying attention to what has been posted in the thread.



JWK



When our judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.

 

[busybee01]

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.

You definitely are a broken record.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Sorry I am not s Trump supporter so I am in my right mind.

 

[miketx]

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.

You definitely are a broken record.

Stop lying, vermin.

 

[johnwk]

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.

You definitely are a broken record.

Stop lying, vermin.

It's in the nature of the beast to lie!

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.