. COUNT III: DUE PROCESS 140. Plaintiff State repeats and re-alleges the allegations above, as if fully set forth herein. 141. When election practices reach “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” the integrity of the election itself violates substantive due process. Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065, 1077 (1st Cir. 1978); Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 702 (5th Cir. 1981); Florida State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1183-84 (11th Cir. 2008); Roe v. State of Ala. By & Through Evans, 43 F.3d 574, 580-82 (11th Cir. 1995); Roe v. State of Ala., 68 F.3d 404, 407 (11th Cir. 1995); Marks v. Stinson, 19 F. 3d 873, 878 (3rd Cir. 1994). 142. Under this Court’s precedents on procedural due process, not only intentional failure to follow election law as enacted by a State’s legislature but also random and unauthorized acts by state election officials and their designees in local government can violate the Due Process Clause. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 537-41 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 (1984). 39 The difference between intentional acts and random and unauthorized acts is the degree of pre-deprivation review. 143. Defendant States acted unconstitutionally to lower their election standards— including to allow invalid ballots to be counted and valid ballots to not be counted—with the express intent to favor their candidate for President and to alter the outcome of the 2020 election. In many instances these actions occurred in areas having a history of election fraud. 144. The actions set out in Paragraphs 66-73 (Georgia), 80-93 (Michigan), 44-55 (Pennsylvania), and 106-24 (Wisconsin) constitute intentional violations of State election law by State election officials and their designees in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, in violation of the Due Process Clause.
Possible Election Fraud in Progress
- Thread starter BeautifulStranger
- Start date
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff States respectfully request that this Court issue the following relief: A. Declare that Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. B. Declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted. 40 C. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College. D. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and authorize, pursuant to the Court’s remedial authority, the Defendant States to conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors. E. If any of Defendant States have already appointed presidential electors to the Electoral College using the 2020 election results, direct such States’ legislatures, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all. F. Enjoin the Defendant States from certifying presidential electors or otherwise meeting for purposes of the electoral college pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 5, 3 U.S.C. § 7, or applicable law pending further order of this Court. G. Award costs to Plaintiff State. H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 41 December 7, 2020 Respectfully submitted, Ken Paxton* Attorney General of Texas Brent Webster First Assistant Attorney General of Texas Lawrence Joseph Special Counsel to the Attorney General of Texas Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, TX 78711-2548 kenneth.paxton@oag.texas.gov (512) 936-1414 * Counsel of Record
You do realize the "election fraud" clowns lost this court case and over 50 other similar courts cases (or had them dismissed). Now the fake electors and promoters of "election fraud" are being indicted across the nation for their attempt to undermine democracy.
Now for the result
Wasn't the case thrown out for jurisdictional issues? In other words, the "Facts" listed in the complaint were not confirmed or refuted by a trail on those facts.
Most of these cases involved standing, filing, or procedural issues, correct? The actual content of the lawsuits was never contested.
The cases were dismissed for the content being complete bullshiat.
If you think about it, we are all stupid if we believe our own individual efforts will change how the entrenched US political establishment conducts itself. Trump supporters are frustrated just as progressives are by the establishment. Look at Biden. Career, establishment politician with ethics and corruption issues wins an election under questionable circumstances. Look at AOC and her called campaign finance issues. The point is the establishment must have something on every political candidate, made up or not, so they can pull the plug should that candidate get "Too populist" and let establishment imperatives languish. Too bad too few people seek out independent media or think for themselves anymore. Admittedly, the establishment does provide political continuity (or not as the situation calls), which can be helpful in navigating foreign relations, for example.