George Rebane
I asked this question of BarryP – "BarryP 549pm – don't the states have an argument for being aggrieved by the federally unconstitutional and/or purposive violation of state election laws that may/will foster an outcome of that state's election which on the federal level then illegally weighs against the legitimate voters of the aggrieved state? That is plenty of evidence for 'suffering harm' that supports the plaintiff state's standing with SCOTUS. What am I missing here?" Barry said the answer was a long one and wanted to know where to post it. My question is seminal, so I'm asking Barry to email me his answer, and I'll post right here for all to read.
Everyone else, please continue your election fraud relevant comment threads from 'Voter Fraud 5.0' hereunder.
[Worth repeating the 10dec20 update to Voter Fraud 5.0] Now here’s a shot in the shorts of all those on the Left telling the nation a slew of Big Lies about the integrity of the Dominion (Vote Editing) Software. ‘Election Supervisor Shows on Video How Dominion Software Allows Changing, Adding Votes’. This should renew some interest in the courts now chewing on election fraud suits. The evidence tsunami is of historical proportions. I know of no legal battle fought in my lifetime in which the plaintiffs have had such a profusion of evidence.
[update] Barry Pruett emailed me the following in answer to my question above.
George. Your comment regarding state election laws and not following them is definitely on point.
The problem is how the courts of the United States function. Generally speaking at both state and federal level, there are two different types of issues. There are factual issues, and there are legal issues. State trial courts and federal district courts are courts that deal with both of these issues. The jury in these courts or the judge must hear evidence and then make factual findings of what is true. The trial court then applies these findings to the law in order to make a determination and a final adjudication.
In my trials, we present evidence to the court, the court makes their findings of what the truth is, and then the judge applies those facts to the law and makes a final ruling. This trial process takes years, and the litigants herein are trying to jam this process into the matter of four weeks. It is simply not possible.
In any event, (if) a litigant does not like the ruling and would like to appeal, (then) the litigant can always appeal to the state appeals court or to the circuit court depending on whether the case is a state court or a federal court, respectively. The appeals court takes the facts as found and established by the trial court and then re-applies them to the law. The appeals court is not a court set up to hear evidence or to make new factual findings, as that function is a function of the trial court.
After the appeals court reads the briefs of the parties and after argument, the appeals court makes a ruling as to the law and whether the trial court followed the law when it applied the facts that the trial court found.
If the litigant again believes that the appeals court misapplied the facts (as found by the trial court) to the law and arrived at the incorrect result, the litigant can request the supreme court of the state or of the United States to review the appeals court ruling. This is called a petition for writ of certiorari. While litigants are entitled to one appeal, most litigants are not entitled to review by either the state supreme court or the Supreme Court without permission of that court. Supreme courts are selective in the cases that they review and will only review cases that affect state constitutional law or federal constitutional law. If supreme court grants certiorari, then the court will hear of the matter, and the court will apply the facts (as found by the trial court) to the law and make a ruling. The process from beginning litigation, having a trial, having two appeals and getting a ruling from a Supreme Court can take five years. It simply isn’t reasonable to have a trial on this matter in three weeks. It’s not possible.
On that backdrop, the Supreme Court has a problem with this case. This case is a case of original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means the Supreme Court is the first court and the only court to which states can go when they sue each other. This original jurisdiction creates a problem for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not equipped to have a jury trials or to sort out the facts of the case and make factual findings. What we have right now is Texas making factual and legal allegations against four other states. The four other states are denying the factual allegations of Texas. So the question becomes what is the Supreme Court supposed to do. Who is the Supreme Court supposed to believe? Does the supreme court appoint a trial judge (who) has a special master to determine the facts? Clearly the supreme court’s not going to have a trial on the merits. That’s not how the Supreme Court functions.
And even if the Supreme Court did appoint a special master or a special trial judge to sort out the facts, what remedy can the Supreme Court fashion? After they sorted out the facts and apply those facts to the law and potentially determined that, yes, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia fraudulently violated the electors’ clause in the Constitution in the way that they conducted their election, now what? I believe it would be within the power of the Supreme Court to decertify the elections in those four states but only after they’ve made adequate factual findings. I think some of the issues however are strictly legal. The state law says elections are to be conducted in X manner, but the executive officers of the states conducted the election in X plus Y manner. It is in writing, and it’s easily identifiable. The allegations of fraud are extraordinarily factual and would almost require testimony to be able to be determined. The question becomes whether the state executive officers unconstitutionally conducted the election and did it affect the outcome? Can anyone even know that? In any event, article II of the Constitution provides that the state legislatures shall make the rules and the laws in connection with electing electors for the state. State law says elections are to be conducted in X manner but the executive officers of the state conducted the election and X plus Y manner, then the executive officers violated the Constitution.
Is Texas affected by this violation of the Constitution? Certainly they’re affected. Their choice for president when they had a legal election is affected by the other states having an illegal election.
So now what’s the remedy? The only constitutional remedy is for the state legislators to determine who the correct electors are for each state or whether that can even be determined. Because the power of the state legislature is found in the constitution, the Supreme Court can’t order the state legislature to do anything. The state legislatures power is plenary, and the Supreme Court can’t do anything about that.
I believe that the Supreme Court will dump this back to the state legislatures and tell them to figure this mess out. The Constitution gives the state legislatures the responsibility and duty to figure out this mess, and it is not for the Supreme Court to nullify or de-certify an election without a well-developed factual basis.
The Supreme Court can assert that the timelines (as) established by Congress are unconstitutional. Legislation cannot add or take away from the dictates of the constitution. The only date in the constitution that is a hard deadline is January 20. The Supreme Court will probably give the state legislature some time to figure out this mess, and then dump it back to them to figure it out.
Again, trying to figure out what the Supreme Court will do at any given moment it’s like reading tea leaves. I hope this provides some background about how the system works and where we’re at right now. Barry
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment