https://www.bitchute.com/video/rS0wcnLG4djO Trump Interview 4Nov2021
https://frankspeech.com/tv/video/summary-us-supreme-court-complaint
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bkq1QLtlQ57Y General_Flynn-_Patrick_Byrne_Talk_January_6th_and_2022_Election
https://www.bitchute.com/video/3LHFijOQD0oy Absolute Proof https://www.bitchute.com/video/AaCD0xX2yAaB Absolute Interference
https://donaldjtrump.com/ https://welovetrump.com/ https://michaeljlindell.com/ https://cdn.michaeljlindell.com/downloads/fix2020first/states-v-us-and-state... No. ______, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF [INSERT YOUR STATE], Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, VICE- PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN, Defendants. BILL OF COMPLAINT [counsel name, address] * Counsel of Record i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Exhibits .......................................................... iv Introduction................................................................... 1 Nature of the Action ..................................................... 4 Jurisdiction and Venue ................................................ 8 Plaintiff State raises an Article III case or controversy. ...................................................... 9 Sovereign immunity does not bar this action. ... 10 Plaintiff State lacks an alternate remedy for this action. ...................................................... 11 This action is timely............................................. 11 Parties .......................................................................... 12 Legal Background ....................................................... 12 Facts ............................................................................. 15 The uncontrolled use of mail-in ballots in 2020 made widespread election fraud inevitable. ....................................................... 16 Electronic voting systems are inherently vulnerable to hacking and manipulation. ... 18 The State of Arizona's electoral votes were unlawfully certified and counted. ................ 23 1. Arizona's election violated the Electors' Clause. ...................................... 23 2. Audits of Maricopa County found outcome-determinative numbers of unlawful votes. ........................................ 24 The State of Georgia's electoral votes were unlawfully certified and counted. ................ 29 1. The violations of Article II in Georgia resulted in outcome-determinative numbers of unlawful votes. .................... 30 ii 2. Georgia's use of electronic voting machines opened the door to electronic manipulation of the vote. ...... 34 3. The Georgia Senate Election Law Study Subcommittee found numerous outcome determinative numbers of unlawful votes and concluded the election results "must be viewed as untrustworthy." ....................................... 37 The State of Michigan's electoral votes were unlawfully certified and counted. ................ 39 1. The violations of Article II in Michigan resulted in outcome- determinative numbers of unlawful votes. ..................................................... 39 2. Election officials' illegal acts in Wayne County resulted in outcome determinative numbers of unlawful votes. ..................................................... 43 3. A "glitch" in electronic voting machines in Antrim County wrongly awarding 6,000 votes to Mr. Biden. ...... 46 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's electoral votes were unlawfully certified and counted. ................................................... 47 1. Pennsylvania's voter registration system can be easily hacked and manipulated. ........................................... 47 iii 2. Pennsylvania's final results show 49,141 more votes than voters and the Secretary of State unlawfully certified the Pennsylvania election results. ..................................................... 49 3. Pennsylvania misled this Court and continued to illegally count tens of thousands of ballots received after November 3, 2020. .................................. 52 4. The Pennsylvania Secretary of State unconstitutionally threw out state election integrity laws governing mail-in ballots. ........................................ 54 The State of Wisconsin's electoral voters were unlawfully certified and counted. ....... 57 1. The Wisconsin Election Commission has obstructed investigations into the November 2020 election. ........................ 58 2. The Racine County Sheriff found the WEC committed a felony and three misdemeanors by encouraging voter fraud in nursing homes .......................... 60 3. The WEC's and other officials illegal use of drop boxes in violation of Wisconsin law .......................................... 62 4. The WEC encouraged voters to illegally declare themselves "indefinitely confined" thereby avoiding ballot security requirements .. 64 5. The LAB found that 45,665 voters used identification to register that did not match the records on file ........... 67 iv 6. The Office of the Special Counsel's findings of illegal votes in its First Interim Report. ....................................... 67 7. Democrat operatives were given access to "hidden" networks connecting "sensitive machines" at the ballot tabulation center in Green Bay, WI .................................................... 69 Count I: Electors Clause ............................................ 70 Count II: Due Process ................................................. 71 Count III: Guarantee Clause ..................................... 72 Count IV: Take Care Clause ...................................... 73 Prayer for Relief .......................................................... 73 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Memo., John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence, Views on Intelligence Community Election Security Analysis (Jan. 7, 2021) ............... 1 Letter from Pamela S. Karlan, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, to Arizona Sen. Karen Fann (May 5, 2021) .......................................................................... 2 Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, Summary Report, Election Auditing, Key Issues and Perspectives (2018)................................ 3 Declaration of Col. John R. Mills (USAR Ret.) (Nov. 21, 2021) .......................................................... 4 Declaration of J. Alex Halderman (Sept. 21, 2021) .......................................................................... 5 Email, Steven Rosenberg, Fulton County Deputy County Attorney to Garland Favorito (Sept. 27, 2021) .................................................................... 6 v Email, Chris Harvey, Georgia Election Director, to Larry Sampson, Murray Cty., Georgia (Dec. 2, 2020) ...................................................................... 7 Sen. William Ligon, Chairman, Election Law Study Subcommittee of the Georgia Standing Senate Judiciary Committee (Dec. 17, 2020) ......... 8 Letter, Sen. William Ligon, Georgia State Senate, to Donald J. Trump (Jan. 2, 2021) ............ 9 Genetski v. Benson, Case No. 20-000216-MM, (Mich. Ct. Claims, March 9, 2021) ........................ 10 Affidavit of Jessy Jacob (Nov. 7, 2020) ..................... 11 Affidavit of William Hartman (Nov. 18, 2020)......... 12 Affidavit of Monica Palmer (Nov. 18, 2020) ............. 13 Affidavit of Lisa Gage (Dec. 10, 2020) ...................... 14 Affidavit of Ben Cotton (Apr. 8, 2021) ...................... 15 Letter, Rep. Francis X. Ryan, Pennsylvania House of Representatives, to Rep. Scott Perry, U.S. House of Representatives (Dec. 4, 2020) ...... 16 Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau Report (Oct. 2021) ........................................................................ 17 Presentation, Sheriff, Racine County, Wisconsin (Oct. 28, 2021) ......................................................... 18 First Interim Rept., Wisconsin Office of the Special Counsel (Nov. 10, 2021) ............................ 19 Cyber Ninjas, Maricopa County Forensic Election Audit, vol. III (Sept. 24, 2021) ................ 20 A. V. Shiva Ayyadurai, Ph.D., Pattern Recognition Classification of Early Voting Ballot (EVB) Return Envelope Images for Signature Presence Detection: An Engineering Systems Approach to Identify Anomalies to Advance the Integrity of US. Election (Sept. 2124, 2021) .............................................................. 21 vi Letter, Eugene A. DePasquale, Pennsylvania Auditor General, to Tom Wolf, Governor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Dec. 13, 2019) ........................................................................ 22 Wisconsin Elections Commission Memoranda, To: All Wisconsin Election Officials 3 (Aug. 19, 2020) ........................................................................ 23 Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan 2020 Submitted to the Center for Tech & Civic Life, June 15, 2020, by the Mayors of Madison, Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay (Jun. 15, 2020) ........................................................................ 24 1 "You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it." John Adams INTRODUCTION We are in unchartered territory as a Nation. The November 2020 election was stolen. Our Country is divided in a manner not seen in over a century. Just last month, 56% of respondents agreed that "it's likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election"--a 5% increase since April 2021.1 The fault for this deepening divide lies directly with the federal and state public officials who not only abdicated their sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, but in many cases actively sought to subvert it. The Justices of this Court can no longer ignore what the public already sees--a time in history like that which Churchill once characterized as the gathering storm. Revelations of rampant lawlessness by officials in states like Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Pennsylvania (collectively, "Defendant States") involving outcome-changing illegal votes appear daily. For example, in Pennsylvania, after all counties had finally uploaded their official November 2020 election results, there were still 49,171 more votes 1 That includes 84% of Republicans, 32% of Democrats, and 54% of Independents. Rasmussen Reports, Vote-By-Mail: Most Voters Think It Will Cause More Cheating (Oct. 11, 2021), https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gene ral_politics/october_2021/vote_by_mail_most_voters_think_it_w ill_cause_more_cheating (last visited Nov. 23, 2021). 2 than voters--just one of many examples of illegal votes. Under express Pennsylvania law, the election should not have been certified. This September, it was revealed that election officials in Maricopa County, Arizona were caught red-handed destroying election records from the November 2020 election--in violation of federal law-- after a court rejected the County's attempt to thwart the Arizona Senate's investigation into the November 2020 election. That investigation also found tens of thousands of illegal ballots, and that there were hundreds of thousands of corrupted or missing ballot images--on which the November 2020 election vote count is based. Also in September, a renowned cyber security expert, University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman, revealed in a Georgia federal court that he had conclusively demonstrated that Dominion Voting Systems machines used in at least sixteen states can be easily hacked to "steal votes." Inexplicably, the district court denied Prof. Halderman's request to strategically unseal his expert report detailing these systemic vulnerabilities for the limited purpose of bringing it to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ("CISA") to attempt to fix these issues before the next election. Prof. Halderman also testified that Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger, a defendant in that case, refused to even look at the report or meet with him to go over these dangerous security vulnerabilities. The district court's decision to bury Prof. Halderman's evidence 3 and prevent it from being shared with authorities charged with protecting elections is unfathomable. This October, the Racine County, Wisconsin, Sheriff announced the results of a felony criminal investigation of the Wisconsin Election Commission ("WEC") into illegal vote harvesting in nursing homes. The Sheriff stated that the governing "election statute was in fact not just broken but shattered" in all 72 counties across Wisconsin and referred the case for prosecution. The validity of up to 50,000 ballots may be at issue as a consequence. Two issues regarding the November 2020 election are not in dispute. First, in the months leading up to the November 2020 election, a few non- legislative officials in the Defendant States used the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to unconstitutionally revise or violate their states' election laws. Their actions had one effect: to uniformly weaken security measures put in place by state legislatures to protect the integrity of the vote. These changes squarely violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 vesting state legislatures with plenary authority to make election law. These government officials then flooded the Defendant States with millions of illegal ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody as required by law.2 2 See, e.g., Tiffany Morgan, Five Months After 2020 Election, Georgia Still Has Not Produced Chain of Custody Records for 355,000 Absentee Vote by Mail Ballots Deposited in Drop Boxes, THE GEORGIA STAR NEWS, Apr. 8, 2021, available at https://georgiastarnews.com/2021/04/08/five-months-after-2020- election-georgia-still-has-not-produced-chain-of-custody-records-for-355000-absentee-vote-by-mail-ballots-deposited-in- drop-boxes/ (last visited Nov. 23, 2021). 4 Second, the United States' failure to challenge the Defendant States' violations of Article II, including at a time when four of eight justices had evenly split on whether to hear such violations in October 2020, violated the Take Care Clause and the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution commanding that the Executive "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." A stolen election, as the November 2020 election was, neither faithfully executes the law nor provides a republican form of government. Since Marbury v. Madison this Court has, on significant occasions, had to step into the breach in a time of tumult, declare what the law is, and right the ship. This is just such an occasion. In fact, it is situations precisely like the present--when the Constitution has been cast aside unchecked --that leads us to the current precipice. In times such as this, it is the duty of the Court to be a "faithful guardian[] of the Constitution." THE FEDERALIST NO. 78, at 470 (C. Rossiter, ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Against that background, the State of [insert Your State] ("Plaintiff State") brings this action based on the following allegations: