I would like to take a moment to respond to your article and address each of the points you made:
1. The writ was distributed for conference, this is a true point.
2. When Ukraine has their election invaded by these SAME offenders, they did not have anything in their constitution regarding this issue, either. But both of our countries are based on the premise that the vote of the people is critical to the country’s democracy. We actually have MORE legal grounds than they did, and they were successful. Our Supreme Court most definitely has the ability to protect the right of citizens to vote and have their vote counted and to protect us from foreign invasion, which is the heart of our argument.
3. I do not disagree at all with your assessment of our pro se legal writing. In fact, I would say it is the extremely poor quality of the phrasing of the writ itself, as you noted, which has garnered the highest level of criticism. But remember, we are laypeople expressing ourselves. Since that time, we have obtained an attorney who has added a motion which I hope clarifies our desires.
4. Regarding that case where the correct candidate was put in office, justice was done and I would hope justice would be done here, too. A lot of people can surmise what the court would have done, but no case was filed. Opinions, everyone has one. Especially people who do nothing and have a lot of time to criticize “the man in the ring”.
5. Regarding the “legal gibberish”, I have NO disagreement with you on the initial document which was presented by pro se litigants. Again, the vast majority of criticism we have received is related to the poor quality of writing. However, the legal reason for the case and the subsequent motion requesting the Supreme Court to do the necessary investigation into the Russian interference are both sound.
6. Regarding the strength of our case: Many people have underestimated us throughout this procedure and we have overcome each issue. Many of them do not understand what we are doing and do not know what the responses and interactions have been. Some of our loudest critics have not even read the documents, nor spoken with our lawyer. We have much reason to believe that the defendants, the defendant’s families, the court, court staff, and citizens take this very seriously. I would hope after learning more, you will, too.
Let’s begin with the 4 reasons the Supreme Court might hear a case:
-If there is a conflict of law
-If it serves a particular justice’s interests
-If lower courts have ignored prior Supreme Court decisions
-IF THE CASE IS IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTRY.
Regarding the contention that all cases get docketed, that is not true. Cases can and are thrown out for a variety of reasons. This case was not. They receive thousands of cases a year and have to hone them down to approximately 80 cases. The FACT IS they have already heard us twice, giving us strong feedback that they likely consider this case to be of GREAT IMPORTANCE TO THE COUNTRY. Given that information, it would be unrealistic to assume that the court does NOT consider this case important or of interest. Additionally, as you have noted, Justice Ginsburg did deny our emergency motion to halt the inauguration and could have easily thrown out the writ at that time. BUT SHE DID NOT. She placed it on the docket. Additionally, I know of no rule that says all docketed cases move to conference. The court can do what ever they want with a case.
It was noted in the press that Melania Trump visited a court in Maryland, with no necessity, regarding a case she filed against a news outlet. The press widely reported this as they found it did appear she was making a statement by her very presence. Likewise, on the day of the decision to pass this case to conference, Ivanka Trump made an extended visit to the court, hearing apparently mundane cases with her daughter and visiting with court staff. This was reported in the news. It’s just an observation.
No one thought Brown vs Board had a chance either. Nor many of the great, landmark cases. We do not consider the naysayers important to the success or failure of the case, for the case will stand or fail on its own.
It is important, though, to understand that the education of the citizens on the fact that a revote is:
LEGALLY POSSIBLE, MORALLY MANDATED
to help them know the power of their vote, the power of their voice and the fact that if we do not regain control of our democracy and tainted voting system immediately, we have lost it all.
I know, that is a scary and hard thing to really understand. But it is true. The fact is, as a Ukrainian said to me this week, his having helped direct the cause which saved his country, “This is the only way out.” It really is. Learn more about it. Ask questions. We will have more information forthcoming.
The Congress and the President are BOTH implicated in this crime. We do not have car thieves investigate their own crimes. Likewise, it is unreasonable to think the congress can or will adequately investigate crimes to which they are complicit, either before or after the fact. That leaves the Supreme Court as the only valid investigative body left to us in this dire situation.
I hope you will have the decency to post this response and to address these points.