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

"Exorcist Fr. Ripperger is asking everyone to say this Prayer until the Election is Resolved"

A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said "exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved": Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature.  By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will.  I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit.  I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications.  I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protectio

High-profile Lawyer Barnes: Amy Coney Barrett would be a Disaster

High-profile trial lawyer Robert Barnes who deals in civil, criminal and constitutional law reported on Twitter that Amy Coney Barrett would be a disaster. The Barnes Twitter report shows that Coney Barrett has " sid[ed] with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations... [and] exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps... [and] hid behind precedent... to prohibit pro-life activists from exercising their free speech ." The Avvo.com lawyer directory reports that attorney "Robert Barnes embraces the challenge to defend the little guy and stand up for what is right. This is why he left the prestigious Yale Law School, whom publicly stated their unwill

If Kamala Harris' Father is part White & part Jamaican African and her Mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black?

  Is Joe Biden's running mate really Black? If Kamala Harris' father is part white and part Jamaican African and her mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black? Reason.com tries to figure it out: Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's pick to be the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee, is the daughter of an Indian immigrant mother and a Jamaican immigrant father. Her father, as I understand it, has ancestors of both European and African origin. [Welcome new Volokh readers. FYI, I've been working on a book on the American Law of Race, with this forthcoming article the first relevant output. My own opinion is that Ms. Harris should be deemed American, period, but there is no such box on government forms, and if you decline to state your race, someone will decide for you… First things first. There is no multiracial or mixed-race category in American law in any jurisdiction. Nor is there an Indian category. So Harris cannot be legally Indian, nor can she b