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

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk

"The same Globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime... [&] those who did not volunteer for this are Literal Human Shields for the Zelensky/Soros government... [if] Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war"

Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and three other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.    What is the Real Agenda of the corrupt Joe & Hunter Biden's Russiagate backing of the Trudeau-like Obama corrupt Ukraine Operatives in their Warmongering Posturing? "If President Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war (because he respects Russia’s legitimate security interests and wants to disband NATO)." - Scott Lively Constitutional lawyer Scott Lively thinks that the "same globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime in Ukraine... [and] those who did not volunteer for this are literal human shields for the Zelensky/Soros government": The use of human shields in warfare of any kind is a horrifying satanic tactic, and, ironically, it is most effective against people who are truly humane. The tactic uses our humanity against us, because we don’t want the innocent t