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

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to MOTION TO STAY ELECTION FILED IN COLORADO

  1. yasniger says:

    Obama: Student of Time

    Out now on pre-order
    A must read in the New Year.

  2. BELINDA RATHERT says:

    I want to do this in the state of Indiana. I wanted to do it last week but was not quite sure how to write it up as I’m not an attorney but I have been in law enforcement and an investigator for years. Anyway you can help me prepare the document for Indiana? I have a lot of people that would sign the petition is needed if not I will do it on my own. I I have represented cases recent cases by myself before. Please help me if you can. I would like for all 50 states to do the same.

    • That is FANTASTIC. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t help you. But I can tell you that these are the documents I filed, in addition to a request for an emergency hearing (which was basically the top of the front page, with a sentence requesting emergency hearing). You can go on the website for the Federal District Court and there are more directions. Make sure its the fed not the state or local district court. Let me know if you file. They will give you a time stamp and you can photograph that and send it to me. Oh, and on the front where it says plaintiff, that is where I put my name. I would also like for all the states to hear from the people on the illegitimacy of this president and our unwillingness to let him and ALL THE PEOPLE who were elected, stand. This election must be redone.

  3. Pingback: MOTION TO STAY ELECTION FILED IN COLORADO – freeandclear1

  4. Natasha Collins-Lynn says:

    I’m going to work om doing this in Tn.

  5. Alexi says:

    Tweet this to EVERY Sane anti-Trump person you know or have ever heard of including (and perhaps especially) Conservative Never-Trumpers, and members of the media.

  6. Tami says:

    I’m willing to file in Alabama if funds for the filing fee are sent/donated because I don’t have the extra funds at this time. But will be happy to do it because Trump is unfit.

    • Fantastic, re: funds, would recommend seeing if you have a group of 10 to 20 people who would pitch in to file. You can look your Federal District Court web site to see the procedure and fees. Right now, we are $1000 short for our filing fees, so we are asking folks to work together with friends to get it covered. You are SO KIND to look into this and even if you can’t do it, spreading the news is a great thing to help people understand what is happening and why it’s needed. We will be posting an FAQ soon.

  7. James Hamilton says:

    We need a new Vote ! This Election was Stolen from the American People by Russia for Donald Trump !!

  8. Pingback: motion filed in CO for new election – MamaKeiki

  9. Lynda Stewart says:

    How long do we have to file this. I’m in New Hampshire. I would do this but like a few others I can’t cover the filing fee either. I’m disabled with extremely few resources. I rarely leave my home and don’t know very many people. I know time is of the essence. Need help in New Hampshire!!!! We need some BIG donors and Supportors.

    • I get a LOT of requests about this. My recommendation is to get 10-15 people to do it with you and share the cost. I agree wholeheartedly that some large donors are needed for MANY needs we have right now. We are concerned about the legality of us giving funds to individual citizens to do this, hence the recommendation for people to go to their friends/family and create their own work. We do need funds for many other actions, including getting the word out, etc., and have this site if people just want to donate: https://www.gofundme.com/NewElection If a top PR firm in U.S. wants to help, we are here, also.

    • Anna says:

      thought maybe the New Hampshire Democratic Party could work w you or do it. Web address is http://nhdp.org. Or there may be a democratic club at one of the universities, or law school students who would like to take this on. I also want to say that reading your note gave me a lot of hope. We are not alone and we will prevail.

  10. Patricia Callahan says:

    AMERICANS DEMAND JUSTICE NOW! AMERICANS DESERVE A President WE CAN TRUST!

  11. Is this for any voter to sign? Please let me know, I will gladly sign it.

    • THANK YOU SO MUCH!! Right now, the existing cases are en route. We would be happy to see other citizens doing this same thing and you certainly, as a citizen, have a right to address your courts. You can have multiple people on your case to share the cost of the filing. You may be able to find someone with good computer skills to help with it. These are just suggestions from a fellow layperson as I am not a lawyer, and I thank you so much for your inquiry. Our heart is truly with all the people who see the insanity of respecting an illicit election. #Love

  12. Also, if groups do take this action, we want to know about it. Please send a photo of the stamped item to us so we can let people know. THANKS, AGAIN.

  13. Susan Nelsen says:

    More Blue States should file this same lawsuit..even though most likely will be shut down by the GOP right wing Judges, but at least we tried..as President JFK said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible,will make violent revolution inevitable.”

    • There are a lot of great and intelligent judges in every district, which is fantastic. That is why the more suits, the better we think it is. THANK YOU for your support!!! American people must demand this. READ UP on the 2004 Ukraine election. The SAME PEOPLE who hacked ours did theirs, and people ROSE UP and demanded a new election. Our people need to do the same!

  14. Pingback: From Russia With Love:  Donald Trump «

  15. Pingback: From Russia With Love:  Donald Trump

  16. This is awesome!!! I have been silently hand wringing over what we the people can do to stop the theft of the position of POTUS! I am reading NV law and am willing to file in Las Vegas, NV district court. I found a clause for IFP= in forma pauperis or one’s inability to pay the filing fee. You must fit the guidelines, but if you’re struggling but want to be a part of stopping this injustice, look into your states laws. LETS DO THIS TOGETHER!!!!

  17. Anne Peterson says:

    Why aren’t other states doing the same thing? Why can’t this go directly to Supreme Court? Has this actually been filed or is it just an idea?

  18. A. Shaw says:

    Is it to late to file and if not, when is the last day to file this paperwork in the federal court?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s