Skip to main content

Attorney Lively: "The Supreme Court will "Vindicate Trump's Victory" by "Simple Invalidation of all Ballots received after the Close of the Polls on Election Night"

"We need only establish sufficient evidence to justify an official investigation. Everyone should be familiar with this very low standard because it was used to justify the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate President Trump in the Russian Collusion Hoax. His enemies had far less proof of criminal conspiracy (in fact zero proof) than we have now against the Democrats...investigations for criminal conspiracy usually must proceed on limited evidence because of the secretive nature of this type of crime... "

"... what we want at this point (at the very least) is not a conviction of individuals but the electoral equivalent of a mistrial – the legal requirement for that being merely “serious procedural error or misconduct” generally. That standard is met on its face in their refusal to allow meaningful access by pro-Trump observers, in at least one case directly defying a court order."

"... the best outcome (which I expect to occur) would be the simple invalidation of all ballots received after the close of the polls on election night." - Lawyer Scott Lively

Attorney, author and World Net Daily contributor Scott Lively said from a legal point of view he "expect[ed]" that the Supreme Court will "vindicate Trump's victory" by "the simple invalidation of all ballots received after the close of the polls on election night":

Why SCOTUS Will Vindicate Trump’s Victory

This brings me to the matter of Democrat-controlled states “legalizing” universal ballot mail-outs, and post-election day acceptance of ballots. I am firmly convinced that the main purpose of this change was to increase the number of “unclaimed” ballots available to be “harvested” by the Democrat voter fraud machines in the swing states.

Obviously, this is a “conspiracy theory” in the truest sense of the word, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I (along with millions of my fellow constitutionalists), am in fact alleging conspiracy. 

Now, in response to this well founded theory, and the ever growing body of evidence in support of it, much has been made by critics of the president that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that election fraud was committed.  

As an attorney, I believe that it is, but purely for the sake of argument, let’s say they’re right. My answer is “So what?” This isn’t (at this stage) a criminal trial where we must prove our case “beyond a reasonable doubt” or even establish “clear and convincing evidence.” We need only establish sufficient evidence to justify an official investigation. Everyone should be familiar with this very low standard because it was used to justify the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate President Trump in the Russian Collusion Hoax. His enemies had far less proof of criminal conspiracy (in fact zero proof) than we have now against the Democrats.

Frankly, investigations for criminal conspiracy usually must proceed on limited evidence because of the secretive nature of this type of crime.  

In Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee and other voter fraud crime scenes the left clearly believe they can get away with their ballot stuffing by ensuring no-one can get close enough to witness what they’re actually doing in the counting rooms. And they may or may not be correct as to individual culpability on a case by case basis, because of the standards of proof in the courtroom.  

But what we want at this point (at the very least) is not a conviction of individuals but the electoral equivalent of a mistrial – the legal requirement for that being merely “serious procedural error or misconduct” generally. That standard is met on its face in their refusal to allow meaningful access by pro-Trump observers, in at least one case directly defying a court order.  

Additionally, there is a common law legal principle still heavily used in civil tort law that has a corollary in deciding logically whether a conspiracy theory merits investigation. The old legal term for this is the Latin phrase res ipsa loquitur, “the thing speaks for itself.” Or to translate this into the common vernacular “it doesn’t pass the smell test.”  

However, as confident as I am that President Trump would win a re-do of the election in these key states, if such were ordered, that would not be the best outcome in this situation because the integrity of the election process itself will be permanently undermined if the bad policies at issue are not struck down. Least helpful would be recounts, which can not stop this particular type of fraud because the mail-in ballots have been separated from the envelopes they arrived in which bear the only identifying information about the voters. Yes, you can show the envelope is “from” a dead person but that doesn’t help in adjusting the vote tally either way.)   

The best outcome (which I expect to occur) would be the simple invalidation of all ballots received after the close of the polls on election night. I hope but don’t expect the court to set a clear uniform standard for future elections that minimizes the potential for fraud. Both of these are clearly within the power of the court and consistent with constitutional originalism. [https://www.scottlively.net/]
 
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. pic.twitter.com/npCuPzdnxP — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2021/08/what-could-be-so-important-that-francis.html] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[https://catholicherald.co.uk/roman-curia-the-popes-new-right-hand-man/] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul