PRESS RELEASE, DENIAL, CALL TO ACTION

russian-military

 

Emergency Order to Stay the Election Fails at the Supreme Court; Campaign to Clean Voting System Continues

CALL TO ACTION!!!

A small group of concerned citizens filed complaints with Federal courts around the country to ask for a Stay and a revote on the 2016 election (Writ of Mandamus), due to a compromise on the democratic voting process. This petition reached the highest court in our land. The emergency motion to stop the inauguration failed. Deep and abiding concerns about the legitimacy of this election have become only more disconcerting since November 8.  Day after day, it becomes clearer that the citizens of this country did not choose their “elected” leaders, but a coven of Russian hackers did.  The Supreme Court was petitioned for a new vote and, unfortunately, our argument was denied. We feel this was due to a hole in our constitution, rather than a weakness in our petition or our cause.

We implore the citizens of this country to rise and demand, back, the control of our Country. It is more than clear, as evidenced by a flood of academic articles on the subject, that we now live in an oligarchy run by billionaire oil interests and Russian mobsters. We know that the executive branch (with legal ability), the entire legislative branch, all of our elected officials and, significantly, our media failed to act because they chose to deny the facts in front of them and move on. They could have taken action to stop this but they did not. This was a tainted election and they have proceeded on as if it were as normal as rain. This is not acceptable in any way. The American people deserve a free and fair election.

It is imperative that the American people do not consider the failure of our petition to be a final judgment on the validity of the concerns about this election, our voting system, the flood of dark money and evil intents directing our nation, or the lack of input of citizens into our own governance. We must stand up now, and demand return of our rightful heritage, which is governance of our nation.

Citizens of every political stripe should be concerned about these illegal and immoral acts. For it may be one side receiving it now, but be assured, until we regain control of our country, particular concerns will hold no valor, either.

An emergency state has befallen our country. Citizens, rise and have your voice heard. If your congress person turns off their phone, march to their office. Be RELENTLESS in your position. Do not stop until we have returned this nation to its rightful heirs, the citizens of our nation.

Thank you to every single voice who spoke up, shared our efforts, donated, and cheered us on. Your words of encouragement, solidarity and love have warmed our tired hearts beyond measure.

Be relentless. Resist. http://www.REvote.info

Contact Kirstin Elaine Martin 917-523-9163 or Kirstin@sparx3.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Docs 1 18 2017

In The
Supreme Court of The United States

DIANNE  NANCY  DONNA

Petitioners, Pro Se

JOSEPH A. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S. SENATE (114TH CONGRESS)

MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (114TH CONGRESS)

MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE (114TH CONGRESS)

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT MIKE PENCE

DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM)

Respondents,

Case No. __________

vs.

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING REVIEW OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND FOR A TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE STAY PENDING FULL CONSIDERATION OF THIS MOTION

Diane

Donna

Nancy

INTRODUCTION
Pro Se Petitioners request that the U.S. Supreme Court deploy its powers of

judicial review, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief to prevent cyber terrorists from perfecting a sinister scheme to undermine the U.S. government and its citizens. Beginning in 2015, cyber terrorists—said to be working on behalf of Russia—engaged in a yearlong criminal effort to materially determine 2016 congressional and presidential election outcomes.1

The U.S. Constitution prescribes the inaugural process that must be carried out to accomplish a peaceful transition of power. The process encompasses several official acts that include swearing in newly elected Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, ratifying electoral votes, and swearing into office the President and Vice President of the United States.

During Congressional swearing-in ceremonies, members of Congress raise their right hand and recite the Congressional Oath of Office, as required by Article VI § 3. The oath, enacted into law by Congress in 1884, reads:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this

1 FBI/DHS Summary Report: GRIZZLY STEPPE–Russian Malicious Cyber Activity: https://www.us- cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

3

obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

In 2017, existing members of the 114th Congress were confronted with a constitutional conflict. They could either:

  1. Fulfilltheirconstitutionallymandatedtransition-of-powerdutiesand ratify electoral votes on January 6, 2017, that were materially determined by a foreign cyber invader; andSwear into office on January 3, 2017, newly elected leaders—some of whom were materially helped by a third party invader; or
  2. Refusetoperformtransition-of-powerdutiesonJanuary3and January 6 in order to uphold their oath of office pledge to protect our nation against enemies, foreign and domestic.

During that period, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies comprising the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) were reconfirming to the President of the United States and Congressional leaders their findings that Russia had intervened in the 2016 U.S. elections for the explicit purpose of determining election outcomes.

4

The IC reported that the cyber invasion began in 2015 and included multiple cyber intrusions into State election data bases, and hacking and exfiltration of emails from the Democratic and Republican National Committee members’ email accounts. Numerous states also reported cyber intrusions: Illinois reported that a third party extracted more than 200,000 records from voter registration files. The Cyber Division of the FBI reported that election data bases in at least 12 states were hacked.

Cyber security experts acknowledged they cannot know for sure the degree to which hackers partly or wholly determined U.S. presidential or congressional election outcomes (Appendix A).

America Is a Nation-State with Many Boundaries, Including a Cyber Territory

America is a sovereign nation-state that has a government, territories, and population. With the advent of computing, new territorial boundaries emerged in the form of cyber territory:

It is the sovereignty that a state enjoys over territory that gives it the right to control cyber infrastructure and cyber activities within its territory. Accordingly, cyber infrastructure situated in the land territory, internal waters, territorial sea (including its bed and subsoil), archipelagic

5

waters, or national airspace is subject to the sovereignty of the territorial state.2

New nomenclature emerged such as cyber warfare, cyber intrusions, cyberattacks, and cyber invasions—all of which are similar to terms used to characterize encroachments upon other types of U.S. territories such as air, land, and sea. While these terms are often used interchangeably, Petitioners note that the intent of a cyber invader is often very different from a cyber intruder.

The nature of cyber intrusions is spelled out in 18 U.S.C. § 1030: Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers,3 which also describes the damaging effects of cyber intrusions4 and the need to protect against them. A cyber invader, however, generally acts on behalf of a nation-state such as Russia that is intent on undermining the stability of a government such as the United States by harvesting trade or other secrets from its target or disrupting affairs.

Petitioners find support for their distinctions in several books written by U.S. government security experts. Richard A. Clarke, in his book titled Cyber War (May 2010) defines “cyberwarfare” as “actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation’s computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption.”

2Tallinn Manual Sovereignty by Martin Walls (June 12, 2015): http://insct.syr.edu/wp- content/uploads/2015/06/Tallinn-Manual-Sovereignty.pdf
3 Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
4 FBI—What We Investigate, Cyber Crimes: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber

6

Some governments have made cyberwarfare an integral component of their overall military strategy.5,6 and have adopted a warfighting strategy7 for preventing cyberattacks that involves:8 1) Preventing cyberattacks against critical infrastructure; 2) Reducing national vulnerability to cyberattacks; and 3) Minimizing damage and recovery time from cyberattacks.” Nations also employ offensive national level cyber strategies in conjunction with officially declared wars and undeclared secretive operations.”

The Federal Government and States Have Long Known State Voting Systems Are Vulnerable

Voting is the bedrock of the U.S. electoral process outlined in the Constitution’s Twelfth Amendment. While the right to vote for electors may not be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution,9) voting is the mechanism by which citizens participate in our republic. Without the citizens’ votes, Secretaries of State would be unable to determine which party’s electors to seat for the Electoral College and, consequently, which electors are entitled to vote for the President and Vice President of the United States.

The American system of voting utilizes various methods to capture and count votes, including paper ballots, optical scan paper ballot systems, direct recording

5 Clarke, Richard A. Cyber War, HarperCollins (2010) ISBN 9780061962233
6 B Lynn, William J. III. “Defending a New Domain: The Pentagon’s Cyberstrategy,” Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct. 2010, pp. 97–108
7 USAF HQ, Annex 3–12 Cyberspace Ops, U.S. Air Force, 2011

9 “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”] (Bush v. Gore)

8 Clapper, James R. “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community,” Senate Armed Services Committee, 26 February 2015 p. 1

7

electronic (DRE) systems, ballot marking devices and systems, punch card voting systems, mechanical lever voting machines, and online balloting by military and overseas Americans. Some electronic voting systems create a paper audit trail and some do not.

Computer experts, advocacy organizations, think tanks, and security experts have perpetually warned states and the federal government that state election laws, policies, processes, and machines that comprise America’s voting system during a federal election are plagued by numerous vulnerabilities and irregularities that allow for voter suppression, manipulation, and invasion by third-party actors who have sinister intent.10

On multiple occasions throughout the 2016 election cycle, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Intelligence Community, warned that a third-party actor—alleged to be Russia—was invading U.S. cyberspace and intruding into election systems.11 The President of the United States acknowledged that he and Congressional leaders were briefed about the invasions throughout the 2016 election cycle. FBI Alerts12 also reveal that Secretaries of State were made aware of the widespread election system breaches.

10 http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-systems/oversight/top-bottom-review/ 12

A CBS News website article titled More State Election Databases Hacked Than Previously Thought, dated September 28, 2016, reveals that government

11 Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security: (October 7, 2016): https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/ joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

8

officials were growing increasingly concerned about Russian efforts to disrupt or influence the 2016 election. The report also claimed that a total of about 10 states had their systems probed or breached by hackers, similar to the election systems breaches that had already occurred in Arizona and Illinois.13

The United States Failed to Protect States Against Invasions As Required by the Guarantee Clause (Article IV § 4)

The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires the United States to protect all its territories from invasion:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

While the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned today’s technological society, the United States’ obligation to protect States against invasion of all the nation’s borders today would include a state’s cyber territory.

Protection against invasion was a continuation of an established centralized foreign policy and defense under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Framers understood that protection of the

13 More State databases hacked than previously thought, CBS News (September 28, 2016): http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-state-election-databases-hacked-than-previously-thought/

9

borders was essential to both the security of the people and the viability of the economy.14

U.S. leaders who were aware of ongoing cyber invasions in 2016 failed to stop the invasions into state election systems or develop stopgap measures that would have allowed for easy detection of terrorists’ intrusions.15

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioners in the present action before the U.S. Supreme Court filed their Extraordinary Petition for Writ of Mandamus on January 5, 2017, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Appendix B). The writ asserts:

  1. The hacking of the 2016 elections provides a new context for examining the intent of our Founding Fathers as it relates to the Guarantee Clause;
  2. The non-political remedy of permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief are available to the courts under Article IV § Section 4 (The Guarantee Clause);
  3. The United States failed to protect States from invasion during the 2016 elections as required by Article IV § Section 4;

What does Article IV, Section 4 really mean? The American View:

15 FBI/DHS Summary Report: GRIZZLY STEPPE–Russian Malicious Cyber Activity: https://www.us- cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

10

  1. The Court is required to uphold the rule of law without regard to political consequence; and
  2. Members of Congress who ratified the 2016 federal electoral votes participated de facto in a scheme orchestrated by an invader.

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus also requested the Court permanently enjoin the President of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. House, and other persons in the U.S. Government from swearing in newly elected congressional members on January 3, ratifying electoral votes on January 6, and inaugurating Donald J. Trump President and Mike Pence Vice President on January 20, 2017. The petition also requested the Office of Personnel Management be enjoined from issuing public official performance bonds to members of Congress and the executive branch who were elected on November 8, 2016.

Almost all of the scheduled inauguration activities had been completed by January 6, 2017—the day on which the Appeals Court rendered its decision (Appendix B) dismissing Petitioners’ action.

11

ARGUMENT

Legal Standard for Granting a Stay Pending Appeal

In determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the Court considers four factors: “1) whether stay applicants have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits; 2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; 3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and 4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559F.2d 841, 842- 43 & n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1977); D.C. Cir. R. 8(a)(1). “The [probability of success]” element “is inversely proportional to the degree of irreparable injury evidenced.” Cuomo v. NRC 772 F.2d 972, 974(D.C. Cir. 1985) [per curriam]. “A stay may be granted with either a high probability of success and some injury or vice versa.” Id.

In accordance with precedent, Courts judge the four criteria on a sliding scale Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2009). They also “balance the strengths of the requesting party’s arguments in each of the four required areas,” such that “[i]f the movant’s showing is particular strong in one area, [a stay] may issue even if the showing in the “other areas are rather weak,” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297, (D.C. Cir. 2006).

12

Petitioners Have a Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit states

that Pro Se Petitioners introduced “novel constitutional arguments” in their original Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Court also did not reject Petitioners’ argument that Article IV § 4 is justiciable as follows:

  1. TheCourthasthepowerofjudicialreviewasitrelatestotheExecutive and Legislative Branches;
  2. TheCourtcanreviewthemannerinwhichmembersoftheExecutive Branch or Legislative Branch exercise their powers; and
  3. TheCourtcanprovideinjunctiveanddeclaratoryreliefonthebasisof Article IV § 4 in accordance with its powers of judicial review.

Petitioners’ case, in addition to presenting a “novel constitutional issue,” purports to contribute to an area of law where precedent is almost non-existent (Court’s authority to order a special election). It also promises to unify the limited precedent that does exist as it relates to key matters pertaining to special elections:

  1. Fladellv.ElectionCanvassingCommission,statingthatarevotewas constitutionally impermissible.
  2. Donohuev.BoardofElections,inwhichtheDistrictCourtruledithadthe authority to order a new election.

13

3. PoliticalQuestiondoctrine,whichholdsthatcourtscannotdirecteitherof the co-equal branches of government to carry out a specific act.

4. Article II, Section 1, requirement [3 U.S.C. Sec 1], that the presidential election take place on a particular Tuesday in early November.

Petitioners and Their Nation Will Suffer Incalculable Long-term Harm Absent a Stay

The hacking of the U.S. elections in 2016 was unprecedented in scope. It contaminated the election process to such an extent, it is impossible to determine to what degree election outcomes for the highest offices in our Nation, i.e., President, Vice President, and Congress, were determined by the people of the United States.

There is no disputing that an “emergency stay” and a “stay pending review of petition for writ of mandamus and for a temporary administrative stay pending full consideration of this motion” will have a temporary seismic effect and significant disruption throughout the United States. But the incalculable harm to U.S citizens and our democracy of being presided over by officials selected by a foreign adversary is far weightier than our nation can bear.

14

A Ruling Granting Injunctive Relief Will Have Positive Unintended Consequences

A ruling granting the remedy sought, permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief, will have the unintended consequence of causing the President and members of the Legislative Branch—many of whom were beneficiaries of the cyber hacks—to join together, devise procedures for holding new elections, enact revote legislation, and implement measures to ensure state and federal elections are tamper-free in the future. Without such remedies, the door to undermining America’s democracy will remain wide open.

Public Interest Favors Granting a Stay

The hijacking of U.S. 2016 elections may have allowed one of the nation’s fiercest adversaries to accomplish the ultimate coup by helping to “elect” leaders at the highest levels of the U.S. Government.

Granting a stay to allow Petitioners to defend their claim of an unconstitutional election while affording them an opportunity to demonstrate the need for injunctive and declaratory relief “advances ‘broader’ public interests in the observance of law . . . .” (Upjohn, 449 U.S. 389).

A favorable granting of the relief petitioners ultimately seek will have unintended positive consequence. The 2016 elections revealed a gaping hole in our democracy, which is the inability to quickly hold new elections in the face of an

15

attack or national disaster. There exists a clear need for a Supreme Court-invoked process for holding new presidential and congressional elections.

A ruling from the High Court granting permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief will have the unintended consequences of causing the President and Legislative Branch to join together, devise procedures for holding new elections, speedily enact revote legislation with public input, and implement measures to ensure state and federal elections are tamper-free in the future. Without such remedies, the door to undermining America’s democracy will remain wide open.

CONCLUSION

During the 2016 election cycle, the United States was humiliated nationally and internationally as the world observed our voting processes undermined. The U.S. Supreme Court can help reestablish faith in our election process and our democracy by demonstrating that—like the Ukraine and Austria—this Nation will engage in extraordinary measures to protect our right to vote and preserve the strength and stability of our Union.

A stay will provide the Court an opportunity to determine if elected officials in the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch exercised their vast powers in a manner that was inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution in both spirit and intent and thus determine if this election rises to the intent set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

16

January 18, 2017

Respectfully Submitted:

—————————————

Diane

Donna

Nancy

17

APPENDIX A
Limited Number of Election Hack Scenarios
by Brian Fox-CAVO (California Association of Voting Officials)

SCENARIO I — Hack Early, Reap Later

In this scenario, a machine has its software changed during the primary elections. The goal of the change is to install software that will run during the general election, and will change the way the votes are counted during that election. This type of attack often generates a sense of safety and security among the election officials, because when they hand count and otherwise audit the results of the primary election, the results match perfectly. Election officials then believe that the machines are working and have not been tampered with. When the votes are tallied for the general election, the hack is activated, and the counts are skewed.

This type of attack can be carried out by an individual who shows up to vote at a precinct.

SCENARIO II— Hack and Reap

In this scenario, the election equipment is used as normal, but, at tally time, the memory card associated with the tally is modified (this can be done in seconds, but not likely by a voter). Once again, the counts are skewed, and the election results are different than they would have been. However, after this has happened, ballots are either destroyed or discarded, so that there is no record or auditable verification of the false count.

18

Because of the way our Electoral College works, in both of these scenarios, the place to attack is within states that are expected to vote about 50/50 between the two major parties. In those states, find a couple of larger precincts to hack, where you expect the vote to be overwhelmingly for the candidate that you do not want to win. Steal 10% of the votes cast there for your candidate, and you’ve not changed the precinct results, but you have changed enough votes to change the state’s results.

About the Author—Brian J. Fox

Brian J Fox is an American computer programmer, entrepreneur, consultant, author, and free software advocate. He was the original author of the GNU Bash shell, which he announced as a beta in June 1989. He continued as the primary maintainer for Bash until at least early 1993.

In 1985, Fox and Richard Stallman began Stallman’s newly created Free Software Foundation. At the FSF, Fox authored GNU Bash, GNU Makeinfo, GNU Info, GNU Finger, and the readline and history libraries. He was also the maintainer of Emacs for a time, and made many contributions to the software that was created for the GNU Project between 1986 and 1994. He is founder of CAVO and pioneered the initial OS vote tabulation systems.

19

APPENDIX B
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit January 6, 2017, Decision

NO. 16-

IN THE

Supreme Court of The United States

               ______________________

DIANNE , NANCY , DONNA  Petitioners, Pro Se
v.

JOSEPH A. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S. SENATE (114TH CONGRESS), MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (114TH CONGRESS), MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE (114TH CONGRESS), PRESIDENT- ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP, VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT MIKE PENCE, DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM),
Respondents. ______________________

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit ______________________

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

             ______________________

NANCY

DONNADIANEQUESTIONS PRESENTED

  1. Did the Appeals Court Err by Requiring Petitioners to Provide Legal Precedent for their “Novel Constitutional Claim” in Light of the Expert Evidence Provided?
  2. Did the Appeals Court Err by Not Issuing a Declaratory Finding that U.S. Officials Exercised their Powers in an Unconstitutional Manner While Performing 2016 Inauguration Duties?
  3. Did the Appeals Court Err by Not Issuing a

Writ of Mandamus Prohibiting the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence Based Upon 2016 Presidential Election Outcomes?

IV. Did the Appeals Court Err by Failing to Find that 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Under the Executive Branch of Government Concluded that Russia Invaded U.S. Cyber Territory in 2016 to Influence Election Outcomes?

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED …………………………….i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………iv JURISDICTION……………………………………………. 3 ARTICLE III STANDING ……………………………… 4 RELIEF SOUGHT ………………………………………… 4 ARGUMENT ………………………………………………….6

I. Contrary to well-settled law, injunctive relief and declaratory relief—non-political remedies—are available under Article IV § 4 pursuant to the Court’s powers of judicial review…………………………………6

  1. The manner in which U.S. elected officials have exercised their powers during the 2016 Inauguration is unconstitutional………………………………8
  2. There has never been a more urgent need for the Court to issue an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus ….. 10
  3. The U.S. Supreme Court has authority to deploy its powers of judicial review to determine if a federal election rises to the standards set forth in the U.S. Constitution …………………………………. 10ii

Page

FACTS PRESENTED ………………………………….. 11 REASONS WRIT SHOULD ISSUE ………………. 13 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………15 APPENDICES ……………………………………………..17

APPENDIX A: Decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit…………a1 APPENDIX B: Limited Number of Election Hack Scenarios …………………………………………………a3

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ……………….. 13 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) ………………….. 15 Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) …………………. 8 New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2433

(1992) ………………………………………………………… 11 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S. Ct. 2408, 120 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1992) ………………………11

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES

U.S. Constitution, 12th Amendment……………….10 U.S. Constitution, Article II …………………………..10 U.S. Constitution, Article III …………………………..8 U.S. Constitution, Article IV § 4 …………………….10 18 U.S.C. § 1030 ……………………………………………..7 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ……………………………………………. 8 42 U.S.C. § 1983 …………………………………………….8

OTHER AUTHORITIES CITED

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- room/news/293636-fbi-foreign-hackers-penetrated- state-election-databases ……………………………….15 https://www.dni.gov/index.php ……………………….11 https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber …………..5, 7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 …. 7 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael- morell-russia-us-elections-232495…………………..10 Richard A. Clarke, Cyber War (May 2010)…………7 The Tallinn Manual Sovereignty by Martin Wells (June 12, 2015) ……………………………………………….6

iv

IN THE

Supreme Court of The United States

              ______________________

DIANNE , NANCY , DONNA

 

v

Petitioners, Pro Se

JOSEPH A. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S. SENATE (114TH CONGRESS), MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (114TH CONGRESS), MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE (114TH CONGRESS), PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP, VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT MIKE PENCE, DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM),

Respondents

              ______________________

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

              ______________________

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Petitioner Seeks to Prove:

The United States had an obligation to protect the States against cyber invasions during the 2016 elections pursuant to Article IV § 4.

The United States knew that a foreign adversary was invading U.S. cyberspaces and intruding into State election systems.

1

The United States failed to take sufficient actions to prevent cyber intrusions into State election systems during the 2016 elections.

No one can identify with certainty the extent to which cyber intrusions determined election outcomes.

Congressional leaders and the President of the United States took an oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States “against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

The manner in which U.S. elected officials exercised their powers during the 2016 Inauguration is in conflict with their oath-of-office pledge.

Permitting a foreign adversary to help select America’s most powerful leaders is likely to have a catastrophic consequence.

Contrary to well-settled law, the U.S. Supreme Court can provide injunctive relief and declaratory relief—non-political remedies—under Article IV § 4 pursuant to the Court’s powers of judicial review.

There has never been a more urgent need for the Court to provide injunctive and declaratory relief in order to compel the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch to hold new presidential and congressional elections.

2

JURISDICTION

This court has jurisdiction and authority to provide injunctive relief and declaratory relief under the following statutes and laws: 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Petitioners were faced with overcoming longstanding, well-settled precedent in its original Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit:

Is the Non-political Remedy of Permanent Injunctive Relief and [Declaratory Relief] Available to the Court Under Article IV § 4 (The Guarantee Clause)?

Petitioners argued that the hacking of the 2016 elections provides a new context for examining the intent of our Founding Fathers as it relates to the Guarantee Clause. Petitioners assert that the remedies they seek are judicial in nature (injunctive relief and declaratory relief) and are not within the authority of the Executive Branch or Legislative Branch to grant.

3

ARTICLE III STANDING

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit labeled Pro Se Petitioners’ case a “novel constitutional claim.”

Petitioners were registered voters in a national election held on November 8, 2016, whereby Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence were selected as President and Vice President of the United States. Several other candidates were selected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Petitioner is challenging the constitutionality and lawfulness of current federal officials’ exercise of power (Flast v. Cohen) in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment and Article II of the U.S. Constitution, beginning on January 3, 2017, and culminating soon after Friday, January 20, 2017.

During the referenced timeframe, representatives of the political branches of government will have unwittingly participated in cyber terrorists’ scheme to subvert the U.S. election process and the “people’s” republican form of government.

RELIEF SOUGHT

There exists compelling evidence that operatives acting on behalf of a third party (named as the Government of Russia) illegally and repeatedly invaded U.S. election systems, extracted voter records, and engaged in other criminal acts of cyber terrorism, yet to be discerned, during the 2016 election cycle to materially influence congressional and presidential election outcomes.

4

While it cannot be ascertained—due to the nature of clandestine cyber-attacks1—the degree to which cyber invasions were or were not determinative of election results, there exists clear and convincing evidence that some elected officials who prevailed in the 2016 elections were “selected” by a foreign power rather than “elected” in accordance with states’ electoral voting processes.

Petitioners request:

The Court permanently enjoin all U.S. officials, including judges, the President of the Senate, Members of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. House, and other persons from:

1) Swearing Donald J. Trump into the Office of the U.S. President on January 20, 2017;

  1. 2)  Swearing Mike Pence into the Office of Vice President on January 20, 2017;
  2. 3)  Procuring and or issuing public servant performance bonds to President Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence; and
  3. 4)  Engaging in all other acts that would be in accordance with the peaceful transition of power as defined in the U.S. Constitution.

Petitioners also seek declaratory relief and request the Court find that persons who exercised inauguration-related powers in accordance with Amendment 12 and Article II following the 2016 elections acted unconstitutionally by violating the spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution and their oath of office.

1 FBI Cyber Crime website:https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber

5

ARGUMENT

I. Did the Appeals Court Err by Requiring Petitioners to Provide Legal Precedent for Their “Novel Constitutional Claim” in Light of the Expert Testimony Provided?

Petitioners assert that the Guarantee Clause (Article IV § 4) imposes upon the United States Government an obligation to protect a State’s cyber territory against invasions.

While Petitioners were not able to identify precedent in support of its “novel constitutional claim,” Petitioners did provide fact-based evidence from cyber experts confirming a State’s right to control its cyber infrastructure and the cyber activities within its cyber territory. The publication, The Tallinn Manual Sovereignty by Martin Wells (June 12, 2015), is published by the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) in collaboration with distinguished international law scholars and practitioners.

The Tallinn manual sets forth non-binding standards governing a nation-state’s sovereignty and right to exercise jurisdiction and control over its cyberspace. It states:

Although no state may claim sovereignty over cyberspace per se, states may exercise sovereign prerogatives over any cyber infrastructure located on their territory, as well as activities associated with that cyber infrastructure. . . .

6

Petitioners make a key distinction between a cyber invasion and a cyber intrusion. 18 U.S.C. § 1030: Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers2 describes the importance of protecting cyber boundaries and the damaging effects of cyber intrusions. The statute outlines the criminal nature of intrusions into systems under the jurisdiction and control of another party. The FBI Cyber Division investigates cybercrimes.3

A cyber invasion, however, involves a cyber act by a foreign terrorist or nation-state intent on undermining the stability of the United States or harvesting U.S. trade or other secrets. During an act of cyber terrorism, a foreign actor invades U.S. cyberspace and intrudes into systems operated by the Government or other entities. The intent of a cyber invader is often very different from the intent of a cyber intruder.

Petitioners find support for their distinctions. U.S. government security expert Richard A. Clarke, in his bookCyber War(May 2010), defines “cyberwarfare” as “actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation’s computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption.”

Petitioners note that the nomenclature (cyber attacks, cyberwarfare, cyber terrorists, etc.) used to define cyber invasions is analogous to the nomenclature that would be used to characterize other hostile acts of war taken by an adversary against the United State or a U.S. territory, i.e., U.S. airspace, U.S. waters, and U.S. land territories.

2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 3 https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber

7

II. Did the Appeals Court Err by Not Issuing a Declaratory Finding that U.S. Officials Exercised Their Powers in an Unconstitutional Manner While Performing 2016 Inauguration Duties?

The hacking of the U.S. elections in 2016 was unprecedented in scope and contaminated the election process to such an extent that it is impossible to ascertain if cyber terrorists determined election outcomes for the highest offices in our nation.

Expert testimony confirms that no one except for the invader can know the degree to which the invader impacted systems, records, or outcomes, given the number of election systems deployed on Election Day in the U.S. (Appendix B).

Expert testimony also confirms the existence of multiple access points and vulnerabilities a third party can exploit in order to determine election outcomes (Appendix B).

News reports, Senate hearings, and reports from the U.S. Intelligence Community confirm that a third party invaded U.S. cyber space in 2016 and intruded into U.S. election systems.

News reports and details from press conferences confirm that the political branches of the U.S. Government knew of the cyberspace invasions, but failed to take the extraordinary precautions needed to protect State election systems from intrusion during the 2016 election cycle.

8

Associate Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center, Christopher S. Chivvis, who is also a senior political scientist, says there are ways to render attempts at cyber invasions ineffective. He states:

[T]he United States could seek simply to make such operations impossible by developing highly effective cyber-network defenses—a strategy akin to what was sometimes called active defense.

While FBI alerts4 indicate the United States took some action to prevent election cyber invasions during the 2016 elections, actions taken by the United States were not sufficient to prevent cyber terrorists from significantly influencing U.S. election outcomes.

The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a list of requirements Secretaries of State, the President of the U.S. Senate (Vice President of the United States), Members of the Congress, and Members of the Executive Branch must complete to accomplish a peaceful transition of power.

In 2016, political leaders charged with transition- of-power responsibilities were forced to make a difficult choice: Comply with Amendment 12 of the U.S. Constitution and ratify electoral votes significantly determined by hackers or comply with their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and thereby refuse to help perfect the criminal acts of

4 https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber 9

cyber terrorists. Never has the Court’s counterbalancing influence been more needed.

III. Did the Appeals Court Err by Not Issuing a Writ of Mandamus Prohibiting the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence Based Upon 2016 Presidential Election Outcomes?

Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Mark J. Morell, labeled Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election to help President-elect Donald Trump as “the political equivalent of 9/11.” The quote, which Petitioners observed Morell reiterate on CNN, was also publicized in numerous online and print publications.5

The extraordinary nature of a Writ of Mandamus renders it the perfect instrument for remedying an egregious terrorist act that threatens to obliterate the integrity of our Nation’s foundational structure. In 2016, cyber terrorists invaded U.S. cyberspace and launched a highly public, pervasive, and unprecedented attack on the U.S. voting process— the root from which all political power in this nation stems.

IV. Did the Appeals Court Err by Failing to Find that 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Under the Executive Branch of Government All Concluded that Russia Invaded U.S.

5 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-morell-

russia-us-elections-232495
10

Cyber Territory in 2016 to Influence Election Outcomes?

The United States Intelligence Community (IC) is a coalition of 17 agencies and organizations, including the ODNI, which is in the Executive Branch. The intelligence agencies work both independently and collaboratively to gather and analyze the intelligence necessary to conduct foreign relations and national security activities.6 The Coalition is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

On January 5, 2017, following the submission of Petitioners’ original Writ of Mandamus to the Appeals Court, DNI James Clapper reaffirmed a finding issued by the IC on October 7, 2016. Clapper stated that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia directed the election interference that occurred during the 2016 elections.

FACTS PRESENTED

Pro Se Petitioners Sought to Find a Path to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Door.

Petitioners began by filing an Extraordinary Petition for Writ of Mandamus in a Federal Court of Appeals on January 5, 2017. Petitioners argued:

1. The hacking of the 2016 elections provides a new context for examining the intent of our Founding Fathers as it relates to the Guarantee Clause;

6 Intelligence Community: https://www.dni.gov/index.php 11

  1. The non-political remedy of permanent injunctive relief is available to the courts under Article IV § 4 (The Guarantee Clause);
  2. The United States failed to protect States from invasion during the 2016 elections as required by Article IV § 4;
  3. The Court is required to uphold the rule of law without regard to political consequence; and
  4. The hacking of the 2016 election enlisted Congressional leaders who ratified the election results de facto in a scheme orchestrated by an invader.

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus also requested the Court permanently enjoin the President of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. House, and other persons in the U.S. Government from:

  1. Swearing in on January 3, 2017, persons newly elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate;
  2. Ratifying on January 6, 2017, electoral votes cast by state electors and transmitted to the President of the U.S. Senate;
  3. Swearing in of Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2017;
  4. Procuring and issuing performance bonds to persons elected to federal office on November 8, 2016; and12

5. All other acts commensurate to the peaceful transition of power following a valid election.

Almost all of the scheduled inauguration activities had been completed by January 6, 2017— the day on which the Appeals Court rendered its decision (Appendix B).

REASONS WRIT SHOULD ISSUE

Officials overseeing the political branches of government (Legislative Branch and Executive Branch) were aware of cyber terrorists’ invasions into U.S. election systems long before November 8, 2016. Yet U.S. Government officials failed to sufficiently protect systems against invasion or implement revised voting processes to mitigate the threat. As a result, a foreign adversary invaded U.S. cyberspace and intruded into election systems to materially influence—and perhaps determine—U.S. 2016 election outcomes.

During Congressional swearing-in ceremonies, members of Congress raise their right hand and recite the Congressional Oath of Office, as required by Article VI § 3. The oath, enacted into law by Congress in 1884, reads:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and

13

that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

In 2017, existing members of the 114th Congress were confronted with a constitutional conflict. They could either:

1) Fulfill their constitutional duties by swearing into office newly elected leaders—some of whom were materially helped by a third party invader— and ratifying electoral votes that were impacted by a foreign cyber invader;

or

2) Refuse to perform transition-of-power duties and thereby uphold their oath of office pledge to protect our nation against enemies, foreign and domestic.

At the same time, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, comprising the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC), were reaffirming to the President of the United States and Congressional leaders their findings that Russia had intervened in the 2016 U.S. elections for the explicit purpose of determining election outcomes.

The IC reported that the cyber invasions began in 2015 and included multiple cyber intrusions into State election databases and the extraction of emails from the Democratic and Republican National Committee members’ email accounts. Numerous states also reported cyber intrusions. The Cyber

14

Division of the FBI reported that election databases in at least 12 states were hacked.7

Cyber security experts acknowledge they cannot know for sure the degree to which hackers partly or wholly determined U.S. presidential or congressional election outcomes (Appendix B).

While the U.S. President has responded by taking steps to retaliate against Russia for the cyber invasions, including expelling 35 Russian diplomats, the President’s acts do little to redress the impact of the hacks on states, electors, voters, and the nation as a whole.

The leaders of our government have enormous influence. They determine national and international policy, oversee military and intelligence assets, manage our economy, oversee our government’s vast resources, and chart our future. The extraordinary risks of allowing such an openly tainted election to stand are incalculable and undermine our nation’s position and image on the world stage.

CONCLUSION

Petitioners request the Court issue an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus permanently enjoining the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as President and Mike Pence as Vice President of the United States.

Petitioners also request that the U.S. Supreme Court declare unconstitutional the acts of Senate

7 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/293636- fbi-foreign-hackers-penetrated-state-election-databases

15

President Joseph Biden and other officiants involved in the 2016 inauguration process, since such acts unwittingly enlists U.S. officials in cyber terrorists’ scheme to undermine the U.S. Government.

The Supreme Courts in Austria and the Ukraine ordered new elections after cyber terrorists invaded their elections. The citizens of this great nation are asking our Supreme Court to declare the 2016 election results unconstitutional in order to pave the way for a new election.

16

APPENDICES

1a

APPENDIX A
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
————
No. 17-1029
————
IN RE: DIANE  NANCY ; DONNA,

Petitioners. ————

Before

Lynch, Kayatta and Barron, Circuit Judges.

———— JUDGMENT Entered: January 6, 2017

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for those occasions when a petitioner demonstrates a clear entitlement to relief. See In re Sterling-Suarez, 306 F.3d 1170, 1172 (1st Cir. 2002). Petitioner cites no precedent legitimately supporting her novel constitu- tional claim, and we see no basis for concluding that there is a clear entitlement to relief. See California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086, 1091 (9th Cir. 1997)(“For this Court to determine that the United States has been ‘invaded’ when the political branches have made no such determination would disregard the constitutional duties that are the specific responsibil- ity of other branches of government, and would result in the Court making an ineffective non-judicial policy decision.”).

2a

For this reason, the motion for a stay is denied and the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed.

By the Court:
/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Diane Blumstein

3a

APPENDIX B

Limited Number of Election Hack Scenarios

by Brian J. Fox, CAVO (California Association of Voting Officials)

SCENARIO I — Hack Early, Reap Later
In this scenario, a machine has its software changed during the primary elections. The goal of the change is to install software that will run during the general election, and will change the way the votes are counted during that election. This type of attack often generates a sense of safety and security among the election officials, because when they hand count and otherwise audit the results of the primary election, the results match perfectly. Election officials then believe that the machines are working and have not been tampered with. When the votes are tallied for the general election, the hack is activated, and the counts are skewed.
This type of attack can be carried out by an individual, who shows up to vote at a precinct.

SCENARIO II— Hack and Reap

In this scenario, the election equipment is used as normal, but at tally time, the memory card associated with the tally is modified (this can be done in seconds, but not likely by a voter). Once again, the counts are skewed, and the election results are different than they would have been. However, after this has happened, ballots are either destroyed or discarded, so that there is no record or auditable verification of the false count.

Because of the way our Electoral College works, in both of these scenarios, the place to attack is within

4a

states that are expected to vote about 50/50 between the two major parties. In those states, find a couple of larger precincts to hack, where you expect the vote to be overwhelmingly for the candidate that you do not want to win. Steal 10% of the votes cast there for your candidate, and you’ve not changed the precinct results, but you have changed enough votes to change the state’s results.

About the Author—Brian J. Fox

Brian J. Fox is an American computer programmer, entrepreneur, consultant, author, and free software advocate. He was the original author of the GNU Bash shell, which he announced as a beta in June 1989. He continued as the primary maintainer for Bash until at least early 1993.

In 1985, Fox and Richard Stallman began Stallman’s newly created Free Software Foundation. At the FSF, Fox authored GNU Bash, GNU Makeinfo, GNU Info, GNU Finger, and the readline and history libraries. He was also the maintainer of Emacs for a time, and made many contributions to the software that was created for the GNU Project between 1986 and 1994. He is founder of California Association of Voting officials (CAVO) and pioneered the initial OS vote tabulation systems.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Letter to President Obama, Jan 18

Hi all,

I’m glad things are proceeding, and as long as there is a judicial appetite for justice, we’re in good shape.

This is the next letter I wrote to the White House Comment line:

Dear Mr. President,

You are STILL President and can therefore make executive decisions which stretch far beyond what furniture to move out of the West Wing first.  I apologize for the sarcasm but I have written to you several times about perhaps the most central issue facing our country:  Our 17 intelligence agencies said that we were hacked by the Russians–all the way to its top–which had the purpose of installing Trump in the White House and giving him a Senate and House majority.  It worked. YET, you, and no member of Congress has stood up to say that the election results therefore, must be THROWN OUT, AND TO HOLD A NEW ELECTION.

Yet that’s the Elephant in the room.  It is embarrassing that smart people are ignoring this obvious next step.  If it is not done, Putin placed Trump in the White House, NOT the American People. And you are willing to hand the keys over to a Putin-appointed U.S. President?  Only John Lewis has had the conviction to speak up.  Isn’t it outrageous that our Democracy and Congress are literally in the hands of Putin?

A group of us have submitted a Motion calling for a stay to the inauguration and any forward movement of the transition to SCOTUS.   The civil unrest and unsettled feeling across the country including buyer’s remorse continues to mount.  There is still time for you to act.   A peaceful transition is a great thing when it is to a legitimately elected President.  It should be a mindlessly peaceful thing.  Thank you in advance for acting.

Next is, I ask again, as so many thousands have for decades, to grant clemency to Leonard Peltier.  It is a CRIME that he has been in jail for 40 years when the evidence is skewed and he is innocent.  That is a LIFETIME.  PLEASE pardon him immediately.

You can still do so much good in these remaining days.

Again, thank you.

Mitchell J. Rabin, M.A., L.AC.
Creative Consulting, Stress Management
Host & Producer, A Better World Radio & TV
212 420-0800

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

AMERICA CAN NOT HAVE AN ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT

flagWe know that we are dealing with an election tainted by Russian interference. We know that scores of congresspersons have taken office under this tainted election and that we, as a country, are about to inaugurate an illegitimate president. This can not happen.

I want to discuss three facts:

1. We have a motion submitted to the Supreme Court, currently pending processing, to put a stay on the election, halting the inauguration. Putting a stay on this election is LEGALLY VIABLE, MORALLY MANDATED. There is nothing left of our democracy if we allow an illegitimate president to take office. We KNOW that other elections in the United States have been thrown out for electoral malfeasance and this one can, too. This is NOT scary. It is NOT unprecedented. It is NOT dangerous. It is merely doing the right thing. The constitutional thing. The American thing. Other countries, when attacked by these SAME PLAYERS, have immediately held revotes. The United States can CERTAINLY do this, too. We are a great country and our constitution DOES allow for the revote of elections in the event of electoral malfeasance.

2.  This election was hacked by Russians. Now, I could write for an hour on the irrefutable proofs we have that actual votes were changed. But sinking into the details, which could take months to sort out and get across to the electorate, does not help in this constitutional crisis. We have to STOP the inauguration now, and sort it out. Taking a moment to make sure we have the correct president in office is critical to the very survival of our country. I know, the things which are happening are hard to digest. Americans have got to digest them faster, for we have a mere 72 hours to digest. The time to act is now. Votes were hacked. Votes were altered. If this was even SUSPECTED and not verified, a new vote would be required.

3. These actions are NOT unprecedented. This has happened before in elections around the country. The two differences here are that this is our presidential election and that a foreign nation was the actor. Other than that, there is no reason we cannot redo the vote to insure Americans have the correct elected leaders.

The news stations are doing what, around the world, is called “normalization”. They are covering stories which do NOT tell the truth of our election in an attempt to woo the public into acceptance. This, also, is not a new tactic.

We need every one of you to contact every single news source, including The Hill, CNN, NBC, your local stations and every single news source you can reach asking them why they are not covering this story. We know some of the reasons they are not, and as the days roll on, I believe we will know much more. But the “why” right now is not as important as letting them know they MUST cover the news of the Russian hacking and the illegitimate president. They have to cover a hacking of our election by a hostile foreign nation with evidence it is related to a $500 billion dollar oil deal. It is indeed, a HUGE story. Why are they not covering it?

Please, take time now for action. Take time now, to call, write, message every single news media source and ask them to DO THEIR JOB.

As a fellow American citizen watching our country fall, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Please, jump into action. The time is now, or forever hold your peace.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Re-Vote PRESS RELEASE

Press Releasevom-logo

Voices of Millions Coalition Contact:

Kirstin Elaine Martin Telephone: 917.523.9163

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

“Citizens Go To Supreme Court Seeking to Enjoin the Results of the 2016 Election”

Washington, D.C., January 10, 2017—Citizens from Voices of Millions—a coalition of racially and economically diverse citizens who are united around a mutual commitment to integrity in elections—is filing an emergency petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court. This action comes on the heels of petitions filed in several federal courts throughout the country over the past few days.

The group is also requesting a ruling declaring the 2016 Presidential and Congressional election outcomes unconstitutional. Petitioners allege that members of the 114th Congress and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management violated Article IV, Section 4 (Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution) by failing to protect States from invasions during the 2016 election cycle. As a result, cyber terrorists invaded U.S. cyber territory, hacked into state election systems, and materially affected election outcomes.

Dr. Kelly Sennholz, one of the petitioners and a spokesperson for Voices of Millions, states, “There is only one right thing to do and that is to hold a new vote—no matter how much of a disruption the revote causes. After all,” she adds, “the Supreme Courts in Ukraine and Austria ordered new elections under similar circumstances. Why are U.S. officials not contemplating the same? There is no reason whatsoever not to.”

Currently, there is no existing process in the U.S. Constitution for holding a revote at the federal level, but there is a path. According to Jerroll Sanders, author of the Writ, “A new election would require our political leaders to devise a process for holding a new

election, enact it into law and conduct national elections. Never has there been a greater need for the federal courts to weigh in, resolve this huge conundrum and provide this counter-balancing effect.” While a federal court cannot tell the President or Congress how to resolve this, it can prohibit actions and can issue an injunction prohibiting it from exercising its power in an unconstitutional manner.

Although Sanders herself is not a lawyer, she has overseen projects of enormous magnitude for some of the nation’s largest private and governmental entities and has consulted with lawyers throughout the country while preparing the Writ. She believes the process could be completed in as little as four months.

“A new election may cause disruption,” Sanders acknowledges, “but if we don’t have one, we will continue to be held hostage by a foreign power and lose our democracy altogether.” Dr. Sennholz concurs and adds, “Americans are better than this and know that any disruption is a small price to protect our democracy. With a new election,” Dr. Sennholz continues, “I can assure you that our Union will emerge stronger than ever, with the integrity of our elections intact.”

“The assault on our elections in 2016 by hackers was unprecedented in scope and carried out in full view of the entire world,” Sanders laments. “A new election is the only sufficient remedy and anything less than a new election will be fatal to our Republic.”

Voices of Millions Coalition is asking everyone in this nation to make their voices heard by contacting elected officials, protesting, and taking other actions to make their demand for a new election known.

Voices of Millions Coalition

Contact: Kirstin Elaine Martin Telephone: 917.523.9163 http://www.revote.info

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

State of The Union 2017- Security memo from the computer science community

State of The Union 2017- Security memo from the computer science community
BRENT TURNER· SATURDAY, JANUARY 7, 2017

It should be stated clearly that of this date the President of The United States, the President-elect, nor members of the intelligence community have adequately addressed the issue of vote count tampering within the United States and have failed to specifically address the issues surrounding the 2016 Presidential election.

With recent statements coming from the United States government ( as well as pundits ) it is incumbent upon the scientific community to issue statement. This recent statement serves as foundation on point. In summary, due to the “ privatized / corporate “  technology utilized by the current voting systems and the surrounding intellectual property protections, it is currently unknown whether or not, or to what degree, the 2016 Presidential election accurately reflected the will of the American people.
http://navo-us.org/PDFS/2016-electi…
ELECTION SYSTEM SECURITY ISSUES-
For many years the “intellectual property “ software purveyors contended “ security by obscurity “ was the optimal security practice. In other words,  the corporate owned “ secret “ code was appropriate for elections..  as the hacker would not be able to penetrate the “ Diebold type” fortress.  This is now recognized as a hoax.
The 2000 Bush v Gore “ Hanging Chad “ incident ..  .  This failure to achieve a precise vote count  set off a series of policy and environmental disasters that has kept the modern world reeling to the current moment . Still  now, in 2017,  the current state of election systems, though shifted to electronic versions,  used for casting votes and counting  votes has been concluded by government study ( California Secretary of State “ Top to Bottom Review “ to be  deficient and INSECURE.  This is not a “ conspiracy theory “  but rather science.  The systems run on buggy  Microsoft platforms  and vendor created “ secret “ software with intellectual property protections.  This environment creates a system that is not properly coined “ rigged “ but rather “ riggable “  In other words, it is stipulated that with the current voting systems, a bad actor could manipulate the results without detection.  The foremost threat would not necessarily be from a foreign “ hacker “ , but more obviously from an “ insider ‘  with access to the system  and / or it’s software code. Obviously either scenario strikes to the heart of our democracy and statement or effort to deny this science is detrimental to the American people. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vot…
HOW DID WE GET HERE ?  –  The current systems were cobbled together in a hurry to capture funding from the 2002 Help America Vote Act ( HAVA ) . A handful of companies, some with nefarious backgrounds and convicted criminal participants, received 4.5 BILLION dollars to provide voting systems to the U.S. jurisdictions.  These systems were flawed in their design and security  The Government Accountability Office ( GAO )  attempted to provide remedy to this crisis by advising the National Science Foundation ( NSF ) on a project  ( ACCURATE  – http://accurate-voting.org/ )  but open source technology / best design direction was rejected  and that 7.5 million dollars yielded no corrective results.   The battle between the “open source “ scientists and those working to retain the status quo of vendor controlled proprietary systems had begun.
MICROSOFT’S ROLE-   The agenda of Microsoft and the Intellectual Property lobbyist community is well documented.  The protection of routine sales to the public and private sectors being paramount,  Microsoft and it’s aligned proprietary voting system vendors  donate to both political parties and are well skilled in “ black -ops “.  They have inserted themselves into the political arena as well as the “social justice“ space via contributions and leverage.  Their lobbyists have been very heavy handed applying pressure to thwart  best security solutions, with their main target to delay the implementation of publicly owned  “open source“  voting systems .  The proprietary community does not wish for open source progress to infringe upon their “ gravy train “  Also it should be noted that the same groups that absorb the grant monies  and have relationships with the political parties also control the activist conversation – http://cavo-us.org/matrix.pdf
WHAT IS “ PUBLICLY OWNED “  ?  Open source software is defined as   “denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified. “  ( further definition at http://www.opensource.org )   In a nutshell, open source allows a community of proof-reading “ eyes on the code “ .. and creates an environment where the process is no longer “ faith based “.  Some Microsoft allies like to inject a response  to a conjured up statement  that has never been made .. i.e. “ Open Source is NO panacea “..  Open source is merely a necessary component to a proper voting system.. as the alternative is secrecy and corporate control.  http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Voting-Vulnerability-Could-Open-Source-Computer-Code-Thwart-Threat-from-Hackers-395867861.html
A publicly owned voting system is a security upgrade as the transparency of “ knowing “ is preferable to “ trusting “.  and it is stipulated an open source system must be surrounded by best security practices and procedures ( as open source is not a “ panacea “ ) to gain CAVO certification – http://www.cavo-us.org .
SOLUTION CURRENTLY  DEPLOYED -Here is an example of an appropriately designed system that runs on appropriately secure software- https://vimeo.com/99856962. This was slated for use in Wisconsin but unfortunately was shelved after the politicians were lobbied by intellectual property interests.  Currently New Hampshire is the only state using this secure system, albeit only partially.  New Hampshire still needs to complete the tabulation portion of the former “ Prime lll”  system,now called the “ All For One “ system.
SOLUTIONS COMING  AVAILABLE.  San Francisco County  in California recently began funding of an open source election system.  The hoped for design is a paper ballot printing system that tenders a perfectly marked printed ballot. The software should be General Public License ( GPL v3)  open source  ( to be differentiated from “open wash “ newer licenses currently emerging ) .  The hardware should be commercial off the shelf tablets and printers. http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/02/09… There are now other projects, including Los Angeles and Texas, purporting to be open source, but there is concern about those projects and Microsoft’s involvement.  Election rights activists are “ watch-dogging “ those projects currently.   Once California has a suitable system certified , it will be likely be utilized by all states as a less expensive / more secure model. . Currently the proprietary  vendors are rushing to sell US jurisdictions another round of the insecure systems previous to the certification of an open source system.
The general population is now well aware of the defective systems.. so purporting the systems to be secure triggers more and more suspicion.  The best method now is to move quickly forward with the available open source technology to create and deploy publicly owned systems –  The U.S. government– from the White House (  Office of Science and Technology Policy as well as Cyber-security ) to the Congress- Secretaries of States-  State and County Election Officials  as well as DOD / DNI/ DHS etc.. have all been briefed.  Now it is merely an issue of ” political will” . With the recent classification of election systems as “ critical infrastructure “ by the Department of Homeland Security there is renewed hope that political will can be garnered and funding of secure-publicly owned – open source- voting systems obtained.
Brent Turner

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

FAQ for Voices of Millions

1. Who is Voices of Millions and what is this all about? 

We are a coalition of people who came together to demand a new election. We started as a small group of citizens determined to not accept Russia’s influence, and Putin himself, as the last word on our 2016 Presidential election. When the majority of our leaders failed to respond to the legitimate concerns regarding the integrity of the election, we jumped into action and have been working long days and nights to bring this issue to light.

2. Is this a party issue? 

NO! This is about the integrity of our voting system and our right to vote.

3. Has this ever happened before? 

Not only has it happened before, but the VERY SAME PEOPLE hacking our election have hacked elections in other countries.

4. What did those other countries do when faced with a hacked election? 

When citizens of other countries found out their elections were hacked, tens of thousands of citizens rose up in the streets and DEMANDED A NEW ELECTION. The Supreme Court in those countries immediately ordered a revote.

5. Why aren’t Americans rising up to demand a new, non-hacked election? 

There are many reasons people are not vehemently challenging this election and demanding a revote, including fear, belief that a new election cannot be achieved, loss of hope due to failed attempts to stop electoral voters, feelings of hopelessness, and the news media’s efforts to “normalize” our 2016 abnormal election. “We the People” deserve to be heard!

6. What are we doing here? 

We fully researched to find the best solution. We talked to top constitutional lawyers, advocates, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives, security experts, professors, and citizens throughout our great country. It quickly became clear that there was one real path to a new election and it was through the courts. That is why we filed a writ of mandamus to void the 2016 election on the grounds that the U.S. Government failed to protect the States against invasion and protect our Republican form of government by allowing a foreign invader to invade our election system..

7. Why isn’t anyone doing anything? 

Well, they are. We are the “someone” and we are working on what we are confident is the best solution with the highest probability of getting us what we want—a new election!

8. Who is Jane? 

#ImAJane (Just a New Election) is our hashtag on Twitter. We are also using the hastags #NewElection and #Revote. Share our hashtags and the link to these FAQs so people can learn about this effort and have their questions answered.

9. I am so sick of election stuff. Can’t we just wait and see what happens? 

Believe me, you have no idea how sick of this we all are, too. But our country’s continued existence is at stake. No democracy can stand when its foundation is lost. Our vote is the foundation of our nation’s Republican form of government. We will never again have the power of our vote if we allow an outsider to pick our officials. A new election will undoubtedly create chaos. But the chaos we will experience for three or four months while holding a new election will help us avoid the fallout of a destabilized nation—which may last forever.

10. I’m scared—what would it look like? 

A new election merely means a rapid, fair, untainted vote be held, using paper ballots, so a recount, if necessary, can be done. A new election is not something to be afraid of. It must be done. A new election would be established and organized through our Congress and our President—using its emergency powers as outlined in the constitution.

11. Could this lead to civil unrest or even civil war? 

No doubt there will be Trump supporters who will view this effort as an attempt to deny him office. But in this nation, the rule of law prevails and we all must follow the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court determines this election was unconstitutional, everyone in this nation will be expected to comply.

15. How can we stay informed?

Visit our website at http://www.revote.info for a daily update. Also, donate as much as you can.

16. So what do you want me to do? Here are some action steps you can take:

a) Review the action steps posted daily to http://revote.info

b) Donate at https://www.gofundme.com/NewElection to support our actions. We need funds to file cases, hire attorneys and take other actions.

c) Also visit some of our coalition members’ social media pages at https://analysisanddiscourse.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=249&action=edit @Mtnmd @KirstinElaine1 @ChangeIsOnUs1 @ABetterWorldWeb.

d) Share the link to this website and video with at least ten new people every day.Time is running out.

e) Make at least 3-5 calls a day to your senators, representatives, President Obama, VP Biden, and others and convey one single message, which is “I WANT A NEW ELECTION.” Call 202-224-3121.

f) Hold protests and gatherings in front of the Federal District Court House or your County Court House.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

MOTION TO STAY ELECTION FILED IN COLORADO

This is a blog, you can ask question at bottom:

These documents have been filed in Colorado Federal District court. This document asks for the results of the election to be voided immediately because we were hacked by a hostile foreign nation. Our country was subject to an INVASION of our sovereign technology by a foreign nation with the express purpose of altering the election for the favor of one candidate over another.

I ask that this election be voided and politicians set up a new vote.

Note: Any citizen can file this sort of document URGENTLY with their district or appeals court. If you can’t file but want to help, anything you can do to support this is appreciated. https://www.gofundme.com/NewElection

TIME TO PUT A STOP TO THIS INVASION BY A HOSTILE FOREIGN AGENT.

Onward.21

 

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the ______________ District of_______________

Petitioner ProSe

v.

Joseph A. Biden, President of the United States Senate (114th Congress) Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (114th Congress) Members of the United States Senate (114th Congress), U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

Respondents –

Case No.

Petitioner’s Opening Brief

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

                 ______________________

i

ISSUES PRESENTED

  1. Is the Non-political Remedy of Permanent Injunctive Relief Available Under Article IV § 4 (The Guarantee Clause)?
  2. Did the United States Fail to Protect States from Invasion During the 2016 Elections?
  3. Is the Court Obligated to Uphold the Rule of Law Without Regard to PoliticalConsequence?
  4. Does Allowing Current Members of U.S. Congress to Ratify 2016 Federal Election Results Enlist Members De Facto in a Scheme Orchestrated by an Invader?

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

JURISDICTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 ARTICLE III STANDING…………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 RELIEF SOUGHT……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 ISSUES PRESENTED ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 FACTS PRESENTED…………………………………………………………………………………………. 15 REASON WRIT SHOULD ISSUE ………………………………………………………………………. 21 CONCLUSION AND CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………………. 22 ………………………………………………………………………………………

Petitioner Seeks to Prove:

Contrary to well-settled law, injunctive relief—a non-political remedy—is available under Article IV§ 4 pursuant to the Court’s powers of judicial review. The Court has reason to permanently enjoin Congress from ratifying 2016 federal election results, since the United States failed to protect States’ cyber territories from foreign invasion.

iii

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: LIMITED NUMBER OF ELECTION HACK SCENARIOS

iv

TABLES OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) ………………………………………………………………………… 8 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S. Ct. 2408, 120 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1992) …..11 New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2433 (1992) …………………………………………………. 11 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ……………………………………………………………………… 13 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) ………………………………………………………………………… 15

v

STATUTES AND RULES

28 U.S.C. § 1331………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 42 U.S.C. § 1983 …………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 U.S. Constitution, Article III …………………………………………………………………………………..8 U.S. Constitution, Article IV § 4 ……………………………………………………………………………10 U.S. Constitution, Article II …………………………………………………………………………………..10 U.S. Constitution, 12th Amendment ……………………………………………………………………….10

vi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the ______________ District of_______________

Petitioner

Case No.

Petitioner’s Opening Brief

Joseph A. Biden, President of the United States Senate (114th Congress) Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (114th Congress) Members of the United States Senate (114th Congress) U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

Respondents –

ProSe v.

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

                 ______________________

vii

JURISDICTION

This court has jurisdiction and authority to provide injunctive relief under the following statutes and laws: 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ARTICLE III STANDING

Petitioner was a registered voter in a national election held on November 8, 2016, whereby Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence were selected as President and Vice President of the United States. Several other candidates were selected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Petitioner is challenging the constitutionality and lawfulness of current federal officials’ planned exercise of power (Flast v. Cohen) in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment beginning on January 3, 2017, and culminating soon after Friday, January 20, 2017. During that period of time, representatives of the political branches of government will exercise their powers to officially install into federal offices persons unwittingly made party to a fraudulent election by a third party seeking to undermine the “people’s” republican form of government.

viii

RELIEF SOUGHT

There exists compelling evidence that operatives acting on behalf of a third party (named as the Government of Russia) illegally and repeatedly invaded U.S. election systems, extracted hundreds of thousands of voter records, and engaged in other criminal acts of cyber terrorism, yet to be discerned, during the 2016 election cycle to materially influence congressional and presidential election outcomes.

While it cannot be ascertained—due to the nature of clandestine cyber-attacks1—the degree to which cyber invasions were or were not determinative of election results, there exists clear and convincing evidence that some elected officials who prevailed in the 2016 elections were “selected” by a foreign power rather than “elected” in accordance with states’ electoral voting processes, since untampered popular vote totals could not be discerned.

Petitioners request the Court permanently enjoin the President of the Senate, Members of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. House, and other persons in the U.S. Government from:

  1. 1)  Swearing in on January 3, 2017, persons newly elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate;
  2. 2)  Ratifying on January 6, 2017, electoral votes cast by state electors and transmitted to the President of the U.S. Senate;
  3. 3)  Swearing in of Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2017.
  4. 4)  Procurement and issuance of performance bonds to persons elected to federal office on November 8, 2016; or

1 FBI Cyber Crime website:https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber. ix

5) All other acts commensurate to the peaceful transition of power following a valid election.

Petitioner also seeks declaratory relief and requests the Court find that persons who exercised election-related powers, as defined in Amendment 12 and Article II of the U.S. Constitution during the 2016 election failed to fulfill the spirit and intent of those provisions.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Is the Non-political Remedy of Permanent Injunctive Relief Available to the Court Under Article IV § Section 4 (The Guarantee Clause)?

The hacking of the 2016 elections provides a new context for examining the intent of our Founding Fathers as it relates to the Guarantee Clause. Article IV § 4 provides:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasions and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Petitioner comes before the Court seeking a judicial remedy in the form of a permanent injunction under Article IV § 4 (The Guarantee Clause) to prohibit persons elected to federal office in 2016 from taking office based upon hacked election results.

The Court has long held that questions arising under Article IV § 4 “are political, not judicial, in character, and thus are for consideration by Congress or the Executive Branch and not

x

the courts.2 In New York v. United States, Justice O’Connor, writing for the Court, questioned the conventional wisdom that cases under the Guarantee Clause are summarily nonjudiciable:

The view that the Guarantee Clause implicates only nonjudiciable political questions has its origin in Luther v. Borden . . . . This view has not always been accepted. In a group of cases decided before the holding of Luther was elevated into a general rule of nonjusticiability, the Court addressed the merits of claims founded on the Guarantee Clause without any suggestion that the claims were nonjusticiable . . . . More recently, the Court has suggested that perhaps not all claims under the Guarantee Clause present nonjusticiable political questions . . . . Contemporary commentators have likewise suggested that courts should address the merits of such claims, at least in some circumstances. (New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2433 (1992).)

The remedy petitioner seeks is judicial in nature and would not be within the authority of the executive or legislative branch to grant.

Did the United States Fail to Fulfill the Mandates of the Guarantee Clause by Failing to Protect the States from Cyber Invasion During the 2016 Elections?

The 2016 primary and general elections fail to comply with constitutional standards, since the federal government failed to protect states and election systems in the states used to capture and calculate votes from invasion by third parties who evidenced an intent to skew election results in favor of candidates of their choosing. The United States has changed in incalculable ways since our Founders ratified the U.S. Constitution. The population of the U.S.

2 Cases Under the Guarantee Clause Should Be Justiciable, by Erwin Chemerinksy: http:// scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1696&context=faculty_scholarship.

xi

has increased exponentially, and the nation has greatly enlarged its land mass. The U.S. has developed technologically in ways that simply could not have been foreseen when the Constitution was drafted. The constitutional guarantee to protect states from invasions would today necessarily include invasions of any of a state’s territories, including cyber and other territories.

Is the Court Obligated to Uphold the Rule of Law Without Regard to Political Consequences?

Section IV § 4 guarantees that the federal government will assure and provide States the following protections: 1) a republican form of government; 2) protection against invasion; and 3) protection of legislatures and executives from domestic violence.‐3

The Court may exercise its power of judicial review to examine cases involving the political branches of government (Executive Branch and Legislative Branch) and enjoin unconstitutional acts.

The U.S. Government failed to protect State cyber territories from invasion. The failures enabled invaders to taint, extract, and manipulate election data in a manner and to the extent only the invaders know.

Should the Court Concern Itself with Creating an Extraordinary Political Conundrum?

It is well-settled that the court does not entertain questions that are political in nature (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)). The federal court’s power of judicial review is to examine

3 What does Article IV, Section 4 really mean? by The American Way, http://www.theamericanview.com/q-what- does-article-iv-section-4-really-mean/.

xii

the facts of the case and render judgment within the jurisdiction of the court’s judicial powers. Petitioner requests the court review a constitutional matter and provide a remedy in the form of permanent injunctive relief even though it will give rise to an extraordinary political conundrum that will require the political branch of the U.S. Government to hold a new election, which is the same remedy the Supreme Court in Austria4 and the Ukraine5 ordered following foreign intervention into their elections.6

A ruling granting permanent injunctive relief will have the unintended consequence of compelling the President and the Executive Branch—many of whom were beneficiaries of the cyber hacks—to join together, devise procedures for holding new elections, enact revote legislation and implement measures to ensure state and federal elections are tamper-free. Without such remedies, the door to undermining America’s democracy will remain wide open.

Does Allowing Members of the U.S. Congress to Ratify 2016 Federal Election Results Enlist Members De Facto in an Illegal Scheme Orchestrated by an Invader?

The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a list of requirements Secretaries of State, the President of the U.S. Senate (Vice President of the United States), Members of the Congress, and Members of the Executive Branch must complete to accomplish a peaceful transition of power.

4 Austria’s Top Court Throws Out Presidential Election Result, Orders A Do-Over, NPR (July 1, 2016): http:// http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/01/484300814/austrias-top-court-throws-out-presidential-election-result- orders-a-do-over

5 2004:Yushchenko wins Ukraine election rerun, BBC News (2004): http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/ stories/december/27/newsid_4408000/4408386.stm.

xiii

Political leaders charged with transition-of-power responsibilities have also taken an oath of office promising to uphold the U.S. Constitution and comply with this nation’s laws and now must make a difficult choice due to third-party cyber invaders. Political leaders must either comply with Amendment Twelve of the U.S. Constitution and ratify electoral votes significantly determined by hackers or comply with their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and thereby refuse to help perfect the criminal acts of cyber terrorists. Never has the Court’s counterbalancing influence been more needed.

FACTS PRESENTED Voting Is the Hallmark of American Democracy.

Although the right to vote for electors may not be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution— (“[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”] (Bush v. Gore))—citizens in the Republic of America view the right to vote as an inherent right.

Voting is the bedrock of the U.S. electoral process outlined in the Constitution’s Twelfth Amendment. Without the citizens’ votes, Secretaries of State could not determine which party’s electors to seat for the Electoral College and, consequently, which electors are entitled to vote for the President of the United States.

There is a reason citizens wrongly believe the right to vote is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Citizens regard voting as the mechanism by which they participate in our republic. Never has the importance of the people’s right to vote been more evident than now. During the 2016 election, third-party hackers committed criminal and terroristic acts, invaded our cyber

xiv

territory, and interfered in U.S. elections in a manner we have yet to fully discern. (See Appendix A—Limited Number of Election Hack Scenarios.)

The people’s vote is their voice, and that voice was muted by hackers who undermined the U.S. electoral process in 2016.

The Federal Government and States Have Long Known State Voting Systems Are Subject to Invasion by Third-party Actors.

America is a sovereign nation that has a government, territories, and population. With the advent of computing, new territorial boundaries emerged in the form of cyber territory: Encroachment upon a nation’s sovereign boundaries is a criminal act:

SECTION 1: SOVEREIGNTY, JURISDICTION, AND CONTROL Rule—1: Sovereignty

A State may exercise control over cyber infrastructure and activities within its sovereign territory.

1. This rule emphasizes the fact that although no state may claim sovereignty over cyberspace per se, states may exercise sovereign prerogatives over any cyber infrastructure located on their territory, as well as activities associated with that cyber infrastructure.

2. The accepted definition of “sovereignty” was set forth in the Island of Palmas Arbitral Award of 1928. It provides that “Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is

xv

the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State.”

3. It is the sovereignty that a state enjoys over territory that gives it the right to control cyber infrastructure and cyber activities within its territory. Accordingly, cyber infrastructure situated in the land territory, internal waters, territorial sea (including its bed and subsoil), archipelagic waters, or national airspace is subject to the sovereignty of the territorial state.7

The American system of voting utilizes various methods to capture and count votes, including paper ballots, optical scan paper ballot systems, direct recording electronic (DRE) systems, ballot marking devices and systems, punch card voting systems, mechanical lever voting machines, and online balloting by military and overseas Americans. Some electronic voting systems create a paper audit trail and some do not.

Computer experts, advocacy organizations, think tanks, and security experts have perpetually warned states and the federal government that state election laws, policies, processes, and machines that together create America’s voting system during a federal election are plagued by numerous vulnerabilities and irregularities that allow for voter suppression, manipulation, and invasion by third-party actors who have sinister intent.

In 2016, Cyber Terrorists Criminally Invaded Several States’ Cyber Territories

The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires the United States to protect all its territories from invasion. While Founding Fathers could not have envisioned today’s

7 Tallinn Manual Sovereignty by Martin Walls (June 12, 2015): http://insct.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ Tallinn-Manual-Sovereignty.pdf.

xvi

technological society, protection against invasion applied to all of the nation’s borders and today includes cyber territories:

Protection against invasion was a continuation of an established centralized foreign policy and defense under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Framers understood that protection of the borders was essential to both the security of the people and the viability of the economy.8

On multiple occasions throughout the 2016 election cycle, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Intelligence Community, which is composed of 16 agencies, warned that third-party actors, alleged to be Russian, were interfering in U.S. elections and invading election systems.9

Intelligence reports reveal that the President of the United States and members of Congress were briefed about the cyber invasions throughout the 2016 election cycle, and Secretaries of State were also made aware of third parties’ continuous efforts to breach U.S. election systems. The alarms were numerous and included a stream of reports and news articles:

▪ The Chicago Tribune publicized that the Illinois State Board of Elections reported that hackers—believed to be of foreign origin—had obtained personal information from over 200,000 voter records beginning in June 2016.10

8 What does Article IV, Section 4 really mean?, The American View: http://www.theamericanview.com/q-what-does- article-iv-section-4-really-mean/.

9 Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security: (October 7, 2016): https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-

security-and-office-director-national.

10 Illinois Election Official Say Hack Yielded 200,000 Voters, Chicago Tribune (August 29, 2016): http:// http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-illinois-state-board-of-elections-hack-update-met-0830-20160829- story.html.

xvii

  • ▪  An intelligence report titled FBI/DHS Summary Report: GRIZZLY STEPPE –Russian Malicious Cyber Activity, published on December 29, 2016, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation tells of widespread election hacking. The report provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. government, political, and private sector entities. This activity by RIS is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber- enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens.11
  • ▪  A CBS News website article titled More State Election Databases Hacked Than Previously Thought, dated September 28, 2016, reveals that government officials were growing increasingly concerned about Russian efforts to disrupt or influence the 2016 election. The report also claimed that a total of about 10 states had their systems probed or breached by hackers, similar to the election systems breaches that had already occurred in Arizona and Illinois.12Political leaders who were aware of the cyber-terrorist activity failed to stop the invasions into state election systems or develop stopgap measures that would have allowed for easy detection of voter fraud activity by hackers or other parties. As a result, election results were characterized by several anomalies.1311 FBI/DHS Summary Report: GRIZZLY STEPPE–Russian Malicious Cyber Activity: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/ default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf.12 More State databases hacked than previously thought, CBS News (September 28, 2016): http:// http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-state-election-databases-hacked-than-previously-thought/.13 A Fair Election? Serious, Hard-to-Explain Questions Arise About Trump Vote Totals in 3 Key States, Alternet (November 18, 2016): http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/fair-election-serious-hard-explain-questions-arise- about-trump-vote-totals-3-key.

xviii

Positive Unintended Political Consequence of a Permanent Injunction

While the rule of law may preclude the Court from contemplating the political ramifications of its actions during judicial review, permanently enjoining persons elected to federal office in 2016 will have the positive and unintended consequence of requiring the political branches of government (Executive Branch and Legislative Branch) to fulfill their constitutional obligation to devise election standards and approaches that protect states’ cyber territories against encroachment, as required in Article IV § 4. Should a cyber terrorist manage to defeat state election systems’ safeguards in the future, properly instituted procedural safeguards can enable the speedy detection of illegitimate votes, manipulation of vote totals, unauthorized removal of voters from registration files, and other sinister acts of which only the hackers are aware (Appendix A).

The hacking of the U.S. elections in 2016 was unprecedented in scope and contaminated the election process to such an extent that it is impossible to determine the reliability of election outcomes for the highest offices in our nation.

REASONS WRIT SHOULD ISSUE

A third party invaded State election systems across the nation, extracted voter registration records, tampered with data, disseminated data, and as a result, no one can determine conclusively—due to the extraordinary and massive nature of the cyber invasions—if or the extent to which foreign hackers determined election outcomes.

The highly charged nature of America’s political environment has pitted party interests

against national interests and has rendered some political guardians unable to act and others xix

unwilling to act to remediate the effects of the unprecedented attack on our sovereign nation’s most important process—the election of top leaders who determine national policy, oversee military and intelligence assets, manage our economy, oversee our government, and chart our future.

The President of the United States has responded to the election cyber attacks by expelling Russian diplomats. But the acts of retaliation do little to mitigate the injury to state, electors, and voters. The risks of allowing such an openly tainted election to stand poses incalculable and extraordinary risk to the preservation of our Union and the perception of the United States on the world stage.

CONCLUSION AND CERTIFICATION

Petitioner requests that the Court issue an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus permanently enjoining political leaders from proceeding with transition of power duties contained in Amendment Twelve of the United States Constitution and other duties stated in this petition.

Under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge,, information, and belief that this writ: (1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.

xx

Petitioner:

Name:
Street Address: Apt/Suite: City:
State Petitioner:

Name:
Street Address: Apt/Suite: City:
State Petitioner:

Name:
Street Address: Apt/Suite: City:
State Petitioner:

Name:
Street Address: Apt/Suite: City:
State Petitioner:

Name:
Street Address: Apt/Suite: City:
State

xxi

xxii

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January _____, 2017, I sent a copy of the Petitioner’s Opening Brief by mail to:

The Solicitor General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice, Room 5616 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Name:
Street Address: Apt/Suite: City:
State

xxiii

APPENDIX A

Limited Number of Election Hack Scenarios

by Brian Fox-CAVO

SCENARIO I — Hack Early, Reap Later

In this scenario, a machine has its software changed during the primary elections. The goal of the change is to install software that will run during the general election, and will change the way the votes are counted during that election. This type of attack often generates a sense of safety and security among the election officials, because when they hand count and otherwise audit the results of the primary election, the results match perfectly. Election officials then believe that the machines are working and have not been tampered with. When the votes are tallied for the general election, the hack is activated, and the counts are skewed.

This type of attack can be carried out by an individual, who shows up to vote at a precinct.

SCENARIO II— Hack and Reap

In this scenario, the election equipment is used as normal, but at tally time, the memory card associated with the tally is modified (this can be done in seconds, but not likely by a voter). Once again, the counts are skewed, and the election results are different than they would have been. However, after this has happened, ballots are either destroyed or discarded, so that there is no record or auditable verification of the false count.

Because of the way our Electoral College works, in both of these scenarios, the place to attack is within states that are expected to vote about 50/50 between the two major parties. In those states, find a couple of larger precincts to hack, where you expect the vote to be

xxiv

overwhelmingly for the candidate that you do not want to win. Steal 10% of the votes cast there for your candidate, and you’ve not changed the precinct results, but you have changed enough votes to change the state’s results.

About the Author—Brian J. Fox

Brian J Fox is an American computer programmer, entrepreneur, consultant, author, and free software advocate. He was the original author of the GNU Bash shell, which he announced as a beta in June 1989. He continued as the primary maintainer for Bash until at least early 1993.

In 1985, Fox and Richard Stallman began Stallman’s newly created Free Software Foundation. At the FSF, Fox authored GNU Bash, GNU Makeinfo, GNU Info, GNU Finger, and the readline and history libraries. He was also the maintainer of Emacs for a time, and made many contributions to the software that was created for the GNU Project between 1986 and 1994. He is founder of CAVO and pioneered the initial OS vote tabulation systems.

xxv

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the ______________ District of_______________

Petitioner ProSe

v.

Joseph A. Biden, President of the United States Senate (114th Congress) Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (114th Congress) Members of the United States Senate (114th Congress)

President Elect Donald J. Trump Vice President Elect Mike Pence Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

Case No.

Petitioner’s Opening Brief

MOTION TO STAY PENDING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND FOR A TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE STAY PENDING FULL CONSIDERATION OF THIS MOTION

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule ((FRC) 62. Petitioners respectfully request an emergency stay pending disposition of their contemporaneously filed petition for writ of mandamus.

1

INTRODUCTION

There exists compelling evidence that operatives acting on behalf of a third party (named as the Government of Russia) illegally and repeatedly invaded U.S. election systems, extracted hundreds of thousands of voter records, and engaged in other criminal acts of cyber terrorism yet to be discerned, during the 2016 election cycle to materially influence and undermine congressional and presidential election outcomes.

While it cannot be ascertained—due to the nature of clandestine cyber- attacks1—the degree to which cyber invasions were or were not determinative of election results, there exists clear and convincing evidence that some elected officials who prevailed in the 2016 elections were “selected” by a foreign power rather than “elected” in accordance with states’ electoral voting processes, since untampered popular vote totals could not be discerned.

Petitioners request the Court permanently enjoin the President of the Senate, Members of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and other persons in the U.S. Government from:

  1. Swearing in on January 3, 2017, persons newly elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate;
  2. Ratifying on January 6, 2017, electoral votes cast by state electors and transmitted to the President of the U.S. Senate;
  3. Swearing in of Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2017;

1 FBI Cyber Crime website: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber. 2

  1. Procurement and issuance of performance bonds to persons elected to federal office on November 8, 2016; or
  2. All other acts commensurate to the peaceful transition of power following a valid election.

Petitioner also seeks declaratory relief and requests the Court find that persons who exercised election-related powers, as defined in Amendment 12 and Article II of the U.S. Constitution, during the 2016 election failed to fulfill the spirit and intent of those provisions.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Article IV § 4 of the U.S. Constitution2 specifically states that the United States Government “shall protect each of them [States] against Invasion. . . .” The President of the United States and the U.S. Congress failed to protect each the States’ cyber territory during the 2016 election by ensuring the necessary safeguards. It is therefore impossible to determine if winning votes cast in the United States on November 8, 2016, were cast by registered voters or by cyber terrorists. Tainted votes compromised every stage of the electoral process, including dictating which party’s electors were permitted to cast electoral votes. It is impossible to know if the electors who voted for President of the United States were, in fact, legally authorized to do so according to the state that dictated how electors were to be selected.

2 The President of the United States is the only member of the federal government constitutionally mandated in Article II to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

3

ARGUMENT

I. Petitioner Has a Substantial Likelihood of Success Barring Prejudice on the Part of the Court

A noted professor of law spoke of the bias citizens should expect to encounter upon presenting to the Court a petition to permanently enjoin the President of the Senate, Congress, and the President-elect from performing inauguration activities.

The granting of such an injunction would have far-reaching consequences that would be abated by Congress and the President, who would work together to enact a new law prescribing the guidelines for voiding an election and holding a new one.

II. The Potential Harm Is Inconsequential When Compared to the Incalculable Destruction Done to the United States Republic

A Stay Will Cause Significant Disruption. The United States currently has no process for granting a new election as has been done in countries such as the Ukraine and Austria following widespread election tampering. The granting of a stay and injunctive declaring the exercise of power by Congressional and Executive Branch officials in accordance with the transition of power will undoubtedly create national chaos.

But the incalculable harm to U.S citizens and preservation of our democracy is far more injurious if tainted 2016 election results are permitted to stand, since the transition of power may well confer all the power and assets of the most powerful Union in the world to impostors.

III. Power of the Executive

4

Article II of the U.S. Constitution imbues the President of the United States with enormous power. The President oversees 15 executive agencies, each of which is managed by an appointed member of the President’s cabinet. The President and his or her cabinet members oversee the daily functions of operating the federal government as well as the administration of several other executive agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The President also has countless other responsibilities that include appointments and a vital role in helping legislation become law.

Power of the Congress

Article I of the U.S. Constitution defines the lawmaking powers of the Congress, which includes the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Congress authorizes taxing and spending, regulates commerce, controls budgeting, enacts federal laws, authorizes military actions, and carries out other important government functions.

The U.S. Presidency and the U.S. Congress are immensely powerful and determine or administer policies that deeply affect the life of every person in the United States.

IV. Stay Is Necessary to Prevent Irreparable Harm

A new election will undoubtedly cast this nation into temporary chaos and require the President to declare a temporary state of emergency while he and Congress develop a process for holding a new election. If the tainted election is

5

allowed to stand in full view of the world, America is likely to suffer irreparable harm on the world stage ad elected leaders are likely to favor those who put them in office—even if the culprits were hackers, working on behalf of a third party adversary to disrupt U.S. political activities and undermine the U.S. Government.

V. The Public Interest Favors Granting a Stay

The hijacking of U.S. 2016 elections may have allowed one of the nation’s fiercest adversaries to accomplish the ultimate coup by helping to “elect” leaders at the highest levels of the U.S. Government.

Never before has there existed a greater urgency for the judiciary to counterbalance the political arms of government, since many politicians benefited from the cyber terrorists actions.

CONCLUSION

The risk to the Union and its people has never been greater. All seventeen of the nation’s top intelligence organizations are in full agreement. A foreign adversary invaded our cyber territory and manipulated election data in order to materially influence election outcomes. While the issuance of a stay will assuredly temporarily disrupt the peaceful transition of power, such an act will recalibrate our democracy and make it stronger and more prepared to combat cyber terrorism in the future.

6

Petitioner prays the court grants the motion to stay pending petition for writ of mandamus, and for temporary administrative stay pending full consideration of this motion.

Dated January 5, 2017

Respectfully Submitted, _____________________, Pro Se

Petitioner:

Name:
Street Address: Apt/Suite: City:
State

Petitioner:

Name:
Street Address: Apt/Suite: City:
State

Petitioner:

Name:

Street Address:

Apt/Suite:

City:

State

Petitioner:

Name:
Street Address: Apt/Suite:

7

City: State

Petitioner:

Name:
Street Address: Apt/Suite: City:
State

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 5th day of January, 2017, a copy of the foregoing motion, including its appendices, was served by hand delivery on:

The Solicitor General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice, Room 5616 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Signature: ________________________________ Printed Name: ______________________________

9

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 29 Comments

FILED for Emergency Hearing, Void Election Results

1 2

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

An Open Letter to Senator McCain

Dear Senator McCain,

First, thank you for your long-term, dedicated service to our country in so many ways.

We are facing a terrible Constitutional issue that has the power to debilitate our Republic if we allow a known, hacked election by a foreign power, namely the Russians, is allowed to stand.

It is in violation of Article 4, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees protection to all states in the Union for a free and fair election, protected from foreign powers (governments).  Our  17 intelligence agencies have publicly stated and made clear that in fact, we were invaded by a foreign government, even with the intention of placing one candidate in office over another.

We are calling for a new election.  Not the campaign, but all those who ran as a result of the respective primaries, to simply hold a new election which each of these candidates, Presidential and down-ballot.
This is so extreme that you have come out to call this nothing short of “An act of war.”

A dedicated group of us have filed a motion to stay this election immediately and to hold a new, legitimate, valid election forthwith.  We have also filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Supreme Court regarding the honoring of Article 4, Sec. 4 of the Constitution, and for an immediate ruling to nullify all the election results and hold a new election.

We cannot let this stand.  As a representative of an org. called The Voice of Millions and the host of A Better World Radio & TV in NYC, I, and millions like me, urge you to take a loud, public stand, go beyond partisan politics now, because our entire Republic and Democracy are literally at stake in our and in the eyes of the world.  We have to ask, if this is allowed to stand, which foreign power will be hacking our elections in 2018, 2020 and on?

Our action now can maintain our position in the world and in the eyes of our own people.  If the same President-elect emerges in a new, valid election, so be it, but he will be legitimately elected, not selected by a foreign government, in this case, the Russian government.

I would like to invite you to be a guest on A Better World Radio at your soonest if you could be available for an uninterrupted, 15-minute interview.

Thank you in advance.

Mitchell Rabin
Voice  of Millions
A Better World
http://www.abetterworld.tv
http://www.mitchellrabin.com
mjr@abetterworld.net
212 420-0800

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment