3:30 AM Donald Trump wins a landmark victory as 47th President of the United States
This editorial was completed before Donald Trump was declared victor.
To quote Democrat attorney, former whistleblower and computer scientist, Clint Curtis, 00:40:45:18 00:41:09:24 …”The winner always gets it right. Well, I’m good with it. I’m good. Rust-Okay. Yeah. …so they can complain about the elections up to the point where they win. When they win it makes it much more difficult to say. Now wait if the elections are so bad my guy might not have won”.
Now that President Trump has made the greatest comeback in American political history, he can fix the broken election process.
And the first step for his Department of Justice to take towards this goal is to have them support a fair and balanced adjudication of election fraud evidence starting with the pro se litigant team of Stenstrom, Hoopes et al.
The Writ of Mandamus that the Stenstrom and Judicial watch team submitted to the Supreme Court was intended to be heard by the Supreme court before the election. That did not happen. Nonetheless USA CN editorial board supports their legal brief and urges the Justices to adjudicate their evidence of election fraud.
PETITIONERS:
The following are the petitioners:
GREGORY STENSTROM, LEAH HOOPES,ROBERT MANCINI, JOY SCHWARTZ, KATHRYN BUCKLEY, SCOTT EDWIN THOMAS, ERIK KOCHER, CARRIS KOCHER, PAUL RUMLEY, JON MARIETTA, GENO GALLO, MELANIE PATTERSON, SUSANNA DEJEET, MICHAEL MILLER, BRIAN YANOVIAK, FELICE FEIN, JEANNE WHITE, SEAN PATRICK CONNOLLY, ASHLEY DUFF, DARLENE SMAIL, CARRIE HAHN, RENEE MAZER, MARTY SELKER
These petitioners, most of whom have been and or are Republican committeemen/women, and or candidates, for various local county and state elected positions. They have all been advocates for election transparency and reform in their respective Pa counties. All of their “statutory roles and involvements in election oversight places them at risk due to the DOJ’s policy.”
The request by the Stenstrom’s team and the amicus brief by Judicial watch comes down to a very simple point. The Pennsylvania pro se litigants are asking Supreme court Justice Alito to accept their case that asks the following questions:
1—“the justices senior clerk of many years…did not get their Writ of Mandamus Brief to the responsible judge, Justice Alito, in a timely manner given the urgency expressed in the brief.”
2–Stenstrom et al, ask the question: “Does the Department of Justice’s policy of deferring investigations, as outlined in its Election Crimes Branch Memorandum (Eighth Edition, 2017), violate the Take Care Clause of Article II, Section 3, by abdicating its constitutional duty to enforce federal election laws, and does this failure warrant immediate judicial intervention to prevent harm to the 2024 election?”
The USA CN editorial board feels that if a poll of the voting eligible citizens asked this question, there answer would be a resounding, “yes”!!
But leave it to what appears to be a partisan court system of uniparty judges to continue to over emphasize the rights of voters to vote even if it means illegal voters vote and reject evidence of significant election fraud.
The very election integrity issues that Stenstrom, Hoopes et al are fighting for in Federal and the Supreme court are not an isolated case. The following examples demonstrate past and current cases of election fraud evidence. They demonstrate the importance for the legal system to properly adjudicate this evidence. There are cases that are currently active in the November 2024 Presidential race.
In the document,Federal-Prosecution-of-Election-Offenses-DOJ-CRM-PIN-ECB-Eighth-Edition-Dec-2017, “Election fraud usually involves corruption of one of three processes: the obtaining and marking of ballots, the counting and certification of election results, or the registration of voters.”
For example, there have been reports of voters submitting paper ballots into the electronic voting machines or digital votes for Trump but their vote is identified as for Harris.
Laurel Co. pulls ballot-marking machine after viral video claims Trump vote went to Harris
Or voting machines that do not show President Trump’s name on the first page of the electronic ballot and the voter has to click on “more” to find his name, There are reports of voting machines breaking down.
Trump’s Name Not Seen on Screen of California Voting Machine Goes Viral
As expected there are even more articles calling these reports “conspiracies”: Voting systems reliable, despite conspiracies
Clint Curtis, A former computer scientist, IT programmer, whistleblower and Democrat attorney, said the following about electronic voting machines: “You can do the same thing with any computer, any tabulator… it’s gonna basically elect whoever you want to elect and flip the logs and flip the ballots and flip everything behind it.”
Democrat attorney and former computer scientist, Garland Favorito said that an IT expert “demonstrated to the court, just last week, by an expert named Clay Parikh. He’s a voting system tester and cybersecurity expert out of Huntsville, Alabama. And he demonstrated how to flip the votes. He added he had six lines of code to show how easy it is, and he just subtracted votes from one candidate and added to it to another”
Attorney Favorito commented on the evidence of election fraud based on a count of more votes than voters: “The most important problem to solve in Pennsylvania. …that statewide…when they certified the election in 2020, there were 123,000,… more, ballots than voters who voted. So that’s, huge, huge issue…there is still …about 80,000 more ballots that were cast in 2020 than voters who voted…in regards to the reconciliation process……if Pennsylvania’s election results don’t add up and they’re not reconciled, that could impact people in Georgia and Texas and other areas of the country.”
Somehow the courts keep citing the need to protect groups of poor voters who, according to the courts, do not have IDs, and will be disenfranchised from voting if they are required to show ID to vote. All citizens, poor or not poor, can not get through a day without having to show ID for many activities of daily living including basic government services. And for the very small group that may not have IDs, rather than create regulations of no voter ID to allegedly protect them as well as make it easier to commit voting fraud, NGOs can easily help them obtain IDs.
Judicial Watch submitted an Amicus Brief in which they stated that, “allegations that Supreme Court Clerk Scott S. Harris has withheld Petitioners’ Emergency Writ and Motion to Expedite raise serious questions about due process and the right to timely judicial review. Judicial Watch urges this Court to address these matters with the urgency they demand to preserve election integrity and public trust.”
USA CN editorial board views that the Supreme court of the USA has a record, since the 2020 election, of sidestepping it’s judicial role in ensuring that election laws get followed on a timeline that ensures Justice. The recent leak in the Dobbs case and the lack of accountability regarding identifying and punishing the leaker comes after the court rejected the 12 state AGs legal brief regarding the 2020 election fraud.
The chief clerks obstructing Stenstrom’s writ from Justice Alito is now another example of how dysfunctional the Supreme court has become.
The USA CN editorial board believes that the Writ’s SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT is correct and we support the pro se litigants argument.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The DOJ’s deferral policy on election-related investigations violates the Take Care Clause by effectively suspending federal enforcement powers when they are most urgently needed.
Now that Donald Trump has returned to the White House, we urge the President to fix our broken elections.
______________________________________________________________
Appendix
For those readers that want more information about the Stenstrom et al legal brief, they can find that in this appendix.
Judicial Watch’s experience in Pennsylvania underscores the importance of proactive enforcement of election laws. Through legal action in Pennsylvania, Judicial Watch compelled the removal of over 178,000 ineligible registrations from voter rolls, fulfilling the NVRA’s requirements for voter roll maintenance
_______________________________
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners: The petitioners are comprised of current and former candidates for public office, elected officials, Judges of Elections, “certified poll watchers,” “authorized representatives,” and Republican, Democrat, and Consti tution party officers, engaged in election oversight across multiple counties in Pennsylvania. These indi viduals are unified in their shared commitment to ensuring election integrity and have faced direct, imminent harm as a result of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) unlawful deferral policy regarding investigations into election fraud. Their particular ized, concrete harm, as well as their statutory duties under Pennsylvania’s Election Code (25 P.S.), establish their standing in this proceeding. The petitioners include: Delaware C
In their letter entitled, Gregory-Stenstrom-SCOTUS-Disclosure-Letter-01NOV2024, the pro se litigant team of Hoopes and Stenstrom describe to the Supreme Court of the USA an act of obstruction by the justices senior clerk of many years. The clerk did not get their Writ of Mandamus brief to the responsible judge, Justice Alito, in a timely manner given the urgency expresse3d in the brief.
In the document,Federal-Prosecution-of-Election-Offenses-DOJ-CRM-PIN-ECB-Eighth-Edition-Dec-2017, “Election fraud usually involves corruption of one of three processes: the obtaining and marking of ballots, the counting and certification of election results, or the registration of voters.”
In the document, Justice-Secured-Writ-In-Re-Gregory-Stenstrom-et-al-04OCT2024-final-filed, Stenstrom et al, ask the question: “Does the Department of Justice’s policy of deferring investigations, as outlined in its Election Crimes Branch Memorandum (Eighth Edition, 2017), violate the Take Care Clause of Article II, Section 3, by abdicating its constitutional duty to enforce federal election laws, and does this failure warrant immediate judicial intervention to prevent harm to the 2024 election?”
Motion-to-Expedite-Writ-14OCT2024-filed-bates
_________________________________
Judicial Watch’s mission aligns with the Petitioners’ urgent call for judicial intervention to prevent potential electoral misconduct and ensure adherence to constitutional principles. In recent years, Judicial Watch’s successful litigation has led to the removal of hundreds of thousands of ineligible voters from rolls in multiple states, including Pennsylvania, through strict enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
Judicial Watch supports Petitioners in this case because the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) policy of deferring investigations into election irregularities until after certification undermines the DOJ’s constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 (the Take Care Clause) to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. Additionally, allegations that Supreme Court Clerk Scott S. Harris has withheld Petitioners’ Emergency Writ and Motion to Expedite raise serious questions about due process and the right to timely judicial review. Judicial Watch urges this Court to address these matters with the urgency they demand to preserve election integrity and public trust.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The DOJ’s deferral policy on election-related investigations violates the Take Care Clause by effectively suspending federal enforcement powers when they are most urgently needed.
_______________________________
Request-for-Expedited-Consideration-in-In-Re-Gregory-Stenstrom-24-430-by-Judicial-Watch-Inc
Grounds for Expedited Consideration
1. Imminent Risk of Irreparable Harm: …Any delay in addressing these matters risks undermining the fairness of the November 5 election and the constitutional rights of voters and candidates.
2. Urgency Due to the DOJ’s Deferral Policy: Judicial Watch’s request emphasizes the urgency of addressing the DOJ’s policy of deferring investigations until post-certification, which directly contravenes federal election law and the DOJ’s duty under the Take Care Clause of Article II, Section 3.
3. Procedural Integrity and Alleged Obstruction by Administrative Staff: Allegations of procedural delays by the Supreme Court’s own Clerk’s Office,…require immediate Court review.
Request for Relief
Judicial Watch respectfully requests that this Court…schedule this matter for immediate review….judicial Watch further requests that the Court consider a timeline that allows for timely investigation and, if necessary, judicial intervention before November 5, 2024.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Search-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States
DOCKET 24-430 , FILED OCTOBER 4, 2024
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES:
DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FULFILL
STATUTORY DUTIES REGARDING
INVESTIGATION OF ELECTION FRAUD
BEFORE CERTIFICATION OF THE 2024
ELECTION.
PETITIONERS:
GREGORY STENSTROM, LEAH HOOPES,
ROBERT MANCINI, JOY SCHWARTZ, KATHRYN
BUCKLEY, SCOTT EDWIN THOMAS, ERIK
KOCHER, CARRIS KOCHER, PAUL RUMLEY,
JON MARIETTA, GENO GALLO, MELANIE
PATTERSON, SUSANNA DEJEET, MICHAEL
MILLER, BRIAN YANOVIAK, FELICE FEIN,
JEANNE WHITE, SEAN PATRICK CONNOLLY,
ASHLEY DUFF, DARLENE SMAIL, CARRIE
HAHN, RENEE MAZER, MARTY SELKER
RESPONDENT:
MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES
FILED BY: /S/ GREGORY STENSTROM
In Appendix-A The team of Stenstrom and Hoopes in association with Judicial watch address the issue of Pa voter rolls having registered voters that are illegally registered. Once again, this Delaware County pro se litigant team has identified an election integrity issue that could impact the outcome of the Pennsylvania (Pa) election today.
The Philadelphia Enquirer article published on Oct. 31, 2024 regarding Tim Defoors promise to perform an audit searching for illegal immigrants illegally registered to vote had the usual Democrat left wing analysis characterizing such a concern as misinformation and /or conspiracy theories.
.
Tim Defoors postpones audit until after the election. The reaction by one of the leaders of PIN was: “The audit was to focus on Shapiro’s automatic voter registration at driver’s licensing centers. In discussions with Pennsylvania Patriot Coalition leadership DeFoor made clear the audit would be done prior to the November election and would be intended to ensure noncitizens were not registered to vote. DeFoor is now saying his audit will not be concluded for nine to twelve months.”
The newsletter goes on to say that “Pennsylvanians have seen a lot of such betrayals in the last few years. We were promised a full investigation of the 2020 election results. That never happened. We watched in disbelief as Republicans in Harrisburg installed Al Schmidt as Secretary of State to oversee “election integrity”. Schmidt ran elections in Philadelphia in 2020 and got a medal from Joe Biden for delivering that city to the Democrats. We were stunned recently when Republican Senator Cris Dush introduced legislation to limit the ability of Pennsylvanians the right to make requests and determine what their government was doing without their knowledge. In that context, this feels a lot like yet another example of a Republican of iceholder turning his back on the people”
The PETITIONERS ask 5 questions:
1. Does the Department of Justice’s policy of deferring investigations… abdicating its constitutional duty to enforce federal election laws, and does this failure warrant immediate judicial intervention to prevent harm to the 2024 election?
2. Under Ex parte, Young does this Court have the authority to issue an emergency injunction compelling the DOJ to investigate credible election fraud allegations…?
3. Does this Court’s precedent in New Jersey v. New York justify the immediate appointment of a Special Master… particularly in light of the DOJ’s systemic misuse of prosecutorial discretion to defer investigations, which poses an imminent threat to the 2024 election?
4. Does the DOJ’s improper deferral of credible election fraud investigations violate Petitioners’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection…ensure the integrity of the 2024 election?
5. Does the DOJ’s systemic obstruction of election fraud investigations …violate Petitioners’ First Amendment right …and justify immediate judicial intervention to protect the electoral process ahead of the 2024 election?
In Appendix-B
“Investigations of allegations of election fraud or misconduct are particularly sensitive during the period immediately preceding an election, and overt actions during this period may inadvertently influence the election’s outcome. Therefore, the Department generally defers such investigations until after certification to avoid any appearance of partisanship or interference” (p. 11-12).
This deferral policy , that is no investigations of electoral fraud shortly before an election, potentially conflicts with federal mandates that require immediate investigation of election fraud,
policy potentially conflicts with federal mandates that require immediate investigation of election fraud, such as the following:
ensuring accurate and updated voter registration rolls while protecting eligible voters’ rights.
Allegations of Procedural Obstruction by Supreme Court Clerk Scott S. Harris
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The talking heads on TV and in podcasts keep quoting the small number of votes that Trump and other Republicans lost in 2020. What they leave out is the evidence for election fraud, described by computer science experts, such as Democrat attorneys Garland Favorito and Clint Curtis. And that is the evidence that there was significant evidence of election fraud in the 2020 election.
Drop boxes
Attorney Garland Favorito said that “Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook fame, he’s put $330 million into this organization, which I believe was essentially to buy the 2020 election.”
QR Coded Voting
QR Coded Voting system voters can’t read: Proprietary
Attorney Garland Favorito 00:11:00:22 00:11:32:07 In in Georgia, we have … a QR coded voting system…So the votes are, accumulated out of a QR code that you as a voter cannot read… because it’s proprietary, and you have no way of knowing what the votes were accumulated for your ballot, because what you see in the text is not what is in the QR code.
Attorney Garland Favorito 00:11:32:10 00:11:56:01 …the voting system, was found to be in violation of two Georgia statutes by the United States District Court before the election was conducted. ….but it was too late to make a change…
Attorney Clint Curtis 00:06:03:06 00:06:31:03 …I was a programmer … in 2000. Since then, I’m an attorney…but basically that I’d been for 20 plus years trying to tell people that they should not be using these electronic machines because they simply can’t trust them and they’re not allowed to look at them.
computer programmer
Attorney Clint Curtis 00:07:29:01 00:07:51:25…what happens is that if it’s a computer program, the programmer controls it. I am the god of this universe. So unless you can get something away from that, that can che
logs
Attorney Clint Curtis 00:07:51:28 00:08:16:04 When people say, oh, you can look at the logs there are really no logs on computers. There’s only what the programmer puts in for a log. You can write those logs. Nothing is automatic. If I don’t write it, it didn’t exist. If I do write it and I want to change it, I change it. If I make a ballot image and I want a different ballot image, I’m the one making the ballot image.
computers/electronic voting machines
Attorney Clint Curtis 00:14:14:29 00:14:40:09 Well, it is that you can’t use these computers to do your elections. You can’t let the elections be controlled by politicians or governments behind closed doors. Basically, you end up with the same system that Russia has. People get to vote in Russia. They just don’t get to see the count. And we’re in exactly the same place. They now give you the elaborate dog and pony show, but essentially you don’t get to see anything.
Attorney Clint Curtis 00:14:40:11 00:15:06:26 And if you look too close, they chase you away. And now if you complain, they try and put you in jail. Or if you try and investigate anything. So it’s getting worse, not better. So my goal is to get rid of it
Attorney Clint Curtis 00:17:06:18 00:17:27:15 …we were never able to check what happened to that machine in Pennsylvania.
Attorney Clint Curtis 00:17:27:18 00:17:37:25 Never. You can’t see the source code. You can’t see the ballots. You’re just out of luck. So you just have to trust them. Why?…
God help President Trump and God help save the Republic!!!!!!!!
The END
