Decertification

By Patrick Colbeck

Evidence of election fraud impacting the 2020 general election continues to pile up. This evidence makes the case for the decertification of election results more and more compelling. In Arizona, Senator Wendy Rogers and Representative Mark Finchem have been leading the call for decertification of the 2020 election results. Representative Finchem recently introduced a resolution to decertify the election results in three of Arizona’s 15 counties. If successful, Arizona’s 10 electors assigned to Joe Biden on January 6, 2021 would be called into question.

In her United States v. The Several States lawsuit, Texas Attorney, Kellye Sorelle, has made some of the most compelling legal arguments regarding decertification that I have discovered to date.  In addition to her legal arguments in favor of decertification she walks the court through what should happen in the wake of decertification. 

First, let’s review her legal arguments in favor of decertification.

Statement of Facts

1. See Affidavit provided by Kellye SoRelle regarding seats in the 117th Congress and the offices of President and Vice President being obtained by illegitimate, unlawful, and unconstitutional means as defined by law.

2. As to conduct beginning on January 3, 2021, and every action every day thereafter, the putatively official conduct of all those unconstitutionally and illegally seated is likewise unconstitutional, illegal, and illegitimate, including appointments.

3. Congress carries legislative authority and the power to create laws allocating funding. The 117th Congress is acting without authority. The purpose of the United States Constitution is to protect the citizens of the United States from governmental overreach and abuses of power. The Court’s system, Pacer, holds it all.

4. The United States Constitution Article 1 Section 4, Clause 1 states that the respective state legislatures determine the time, places and manner of electing congressional representatives but grants Congress the right to regulate. (Exception being the location for choosing Senators cannot be regulated by Congress).

5. The United States Constitution in article II, Section 1, states that the manner for appointing electors for the President and Vice President are directed by the state legislatures. All of the states failed to comply with their respective legislative directions, codified in state election laws, regarding the choosing of electors and therefor failed to conduct a constitutional selection of the presidential electors.

6. In 2002, after the hanging chad debacle, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

7. Federal Congressional elections are now regulated through the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which incorporates numerous requirements from the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

8. The states are given a choice in HAVA, the states can choose to adopt the minimum standards in HAVA, which will allow them to seek grants that finances their election equipment, or a state can continue to legislate their own elections, subject only to requirements from the various US Supreme Court cases over voting rights and legal protections.

9. All states opted to adopt the minimum standards and in 2020 (if not in earlier elections), states failed to maintain the minimum standards requirement in HAVA for the Congressional race and engaged in significant election modifications that were not authorized by their respective legislatures as to the states’ election regarding the Presidential ballot.

10. The use of mass mail out of voter’s registration cards, mass mail out of mail-in ballots, reduction or elimination of signature requirements to verify a voter’s identity, the widespread use of unsecure drop boxes and various other modifications all directly violated state and federal election law and created an environment that promotes fraud. None of these modifications were created by the state legislatures as Articles I and II of the US Constitution requires. All of them directly violated federal election laws.

11. In 2017, Election infrastructure was designated as critical infrastructure under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requiring additional security requirements under Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Those additional security requirements were likewise directly violated.

12. On June 27th, 2019, the 116th House of Representatives sent to the Senate, H.R. 2722 also known as the Securing America’s Federal Elections Act (SAFE ACT), an act designed to protect the civil rights of three hundred and twenty-eight million Americans. The SAFE ACT 5failed to pass the Senate, however the House committee hearing identified concerns with the electronic voting systems and identified numerous other concerns with our elections, pointing out that systemic fraud was already a substantial risk. That risk was exponentially increased by the unconstitutional and illegal modifications in the 2020 national elections.

13. In 2019 another bill was presented that acknowledged all the security requirements for election critical infrastructure. The bill was the Election Security Act of 2019. This and the SAFE Act discuss the known concerns with our election systems.

14. Without strict compliance to the U.S. Constitution and federal or state election laws, the American people are deprived of their fundamental right to vote and the U.S. government has failed to maintain a republican form of government as required in Article 4 of the United States Constitution.

15. Prior to the election, Congress issued approximately 400 million dollars in federal monies to state actors pursuant to the CARES ACT without lawfully creating a temporary modification to the requirements of HAVA or sponsoring an amendment to the United States Constitution to change the clear requirements of Articles I and II as to elections.

16. Evidence provided by the Relator obtained from public sources, including media, testimony and other records, show the conduct of numerous state actors, with support of the media, the political parties and the social media companies, caused the defrauding of the United States Government for all monies received under HAVA through the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in the 2020 federal election cycle.

17. Affidavits and Reports by Dennis Nathan Cain and Harry Haury show HAVA 301 violations and other technical violations derived from the election systems being classified as critical infrastructure.

18. Failure by State and Federal actors to comply with numerous provisions of Sections 302 and 303 of HAVA, as well as failure to comply with Article I and Article II of the U.S. Constitution, resulted in invalid representatives and/or electors, with offices obtained by unlawful, unconstitutional, and fraudulent means, and Relator believes that because of the actions of the states, as well as actions by parties to a willful conspiracy, who all failed to protect the election process as required by and set forth in the U.S. Constitution, the states and any of their “elected” representatives or electors should not be allowed to continue in positions obtained by unconstitutional, unlawful, and fraudulent means and furthermore should be prevented from further contracting with the United States Government.

As this Court held long ago in Ex Parte Milligan:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and

in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and

under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever

invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any

of the great exigencies of government. Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120 (1866).

The changes made by voting regions and states for the 2020 federal ballot were neither

constitutional nor legal and no emergency can circumvent the constitutionally mandated

election process.

FALSE CLAIMS ACT

False Claims Act; 31 U.S. Code § 3729 and all other applicable provisions8

(a)Liability for Certain Acts.—

(1) In general.—Subject to paragraph (2), any person who—

(A)knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;

(B)knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;

(C)conspires to commit a violation of subparagraph (A), (B), (D), (E), (F), or (G);

(D)has possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the

Government and knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, less than all of that

money or property;

(E)is authorized to make or deliver a document certifying receipt of property used, or to

be used, by the Government and, intending to defraud the Government, makes or delivers the receipt without completely knowing that the information on the receipt is true;

(F)knowingly buys, or receives as a pledge of an obligation or debt, public property from

an officer or employee of the Government, or a member of the Armed Forces, who lawfully may not sell or pledge property; or

(G)knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement

material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, or

knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, is liable to the United States Government as well as other remedies as described in Chapter 3

12. Relator argues that Defendants by certifying the November 2020 election knowingly certified an election that actors within each state knew did not meet the constitutional and legal requirements of a lawful election and proceeded to defraud the US Government by nonetheless accepting HAVA and CARES act grants.

13. Governors, county officials and secretaries of state significantly modified the procedures for the 2020 election without the required legislation by the state legislatures, and in direct violation of established state and federal election law, and thus deprived their respective voters of a “free and fair” election.

14. Relator will prove that the defendants knowingly, specifically in 2020, if not years beforehand, failed to meet the minimum requirements of HAVA through unlawful changes.

15. Relator believes that the Defendants and the US Election Assistance Commission (EAC) knowingly allowed the use of machines that do not meet the federal standards for election equipment and security as required in HAVA. The EAC, which has no rulemaking authority, is issuing “waivers” that they are not authorized to issue because of the Constitutional nature of elections and voting rights.

16. In issuing waivers, the EAC does not appear to be seeking testing or an independent analysis regarding whether the election software is still certifiable before issuing a waiver issued on de minimis changes.

17. Relator will show that any election count derived from a ballot that did not meet Federal Law requirements from a State that accepted Federal monies with the clear understanding said monies came with clear legal requirements that the state failed to meet, was an act of fraud and may show the involvement of two parties or more to make a conspiracy.

18. Evidence is beginning to emerge that indicates that the National Institute of Health was involved in funding the Wuhan Lab in China, where allegedly the Covid19 virus originated from. Evidence has also been released that indicates that the Covid19 virus may have been associated with Ft. Detrick, Maryland. But either way, if the leak was intentional then we are being assaulted by a biological weapon. State leadership should be taking an America first position and protecting the residents of their states, not continuing to give aid and comfort to foreign actors.

19. Persons in state office swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, as well as to their state constitution, which comes with an affirmative obligation to protect and defend. Like any fiduciary position, there is a due diligence obligation to ensure that the steps taken are protective of people’s constitutional protections. Greed, being compromised, corruption and/or towing the party line is NOT a legitimate excuse for unconstitutional behavior by our state officials.

ADDITIONAL CLAIMS

I. Relator also argues that actors within the several States and Commonwealths engaged in a Conspiracy to deprive Relator and clients she represents, of their Civil Rights.

18. Relator is a member of a class of persons who are protected in the Civils Rights Act. Relator is a female and is a registered member of the Choctaw Nation and is registered with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

II. Relator believes that actors both foreign and domestic are engaged in acts of Treason or Misprision of Treason against the United States of America. See Relator’s Affidavit.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in

adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of

Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession

in open Court.

Treason 18 U.S. Code § 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to

their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is

guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years

and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding

any office under the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2382 – Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission

of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and

make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the

governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason

and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

III. Relator also believes that the states acting in concert with the Republican National Party, the Democrat National Party (including their subsidiaries and associated organizations, DCCC, RCCC), and various foreign and domestic actors and organizations are violating via Racketeering Influences and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 18 U.S.C Ch. 96, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968

Now, let’s review what would happen in the wake of decertification.

Remediation

The result is that in all the several states there was no valid – constitutional and lawful – election and therefore no valid, constitutional, or lawful appointment of electors.

Because the electors were not constitutionally and lawfully appointed, there could be no proper state certification of those invalid, unconstitutional, unlawful electors, to send to Congress.

Furthermore, because the 2020 elections for U.S. Congress itself were neither constitutional nor lawful because they too did not comport with the U.S. Constitution or federal election law, the 117th U.S. Congress (the entirety of the House and 35 seats in the Senate) was also not legitimately seated, and therefore was/is incapable of certifying the state electors for president (or carry out any other congressional powers or duties).

As a result, there was no valid appointment of electors by means of popular vote under established state law, no valid certification of electors by either the states or the U.S. Congress, and therefore no valid transfer of power from Trump to Biden on January 20, 2021.

This means that neither Joseph Biden nor Donald Trump won the election, because the entire election was unconstitutional and therefore null and void from inception. And the same is also true of Kamala Harris and Mike Pence. As this Court has held, and reaffirmed on many occasions, any action, by any branch of government, contrary to the Constitution is null and void from inception. That maxim applies here as well, however painful may be the outcome.

And since there was not, and could not have been, a constitutional transfer of power to Biden, and Trump’s term ended on January 20, 2021, both the presidency and vice presidency was vacant at that time and the Speaker of the House would have become the President, except that the current Speaker of the House is herself improperly seated, because her 2020 election, along with that of all other House members, did not comport with the U.S. Constitution and federal election law.

And the same problem also applies to the Senators who ran for office in 2020, and were unlawfully declared the winners (despite the unlawful elections) and seated in January, 2021, and to their subsequent invalid votes in the Senate, such as their vote for President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate, who was putatively Senator Patrick Leahy.

This means that the first person in the line of presidential succession who has a valid claim to a legitimate ability to hold that office would not be Leahy, but in fact would be be the prior President Pro Tempore, Chuck Grassley, who would still be President Pro Tempore if the election of Leahy were ruled invalid by this Court because of the illegal election of some 35 U.S. Senators.

This Court Should Declare a Vacancy in the Office of President and Vice President and Trigger the Presidential Succession Mechanisms This constitutes a truly unprecedented constitutional crisis that requires immediate action by this Court to remedy. Thankfully, it is not so far gone, or so advanced, that it cannot be remedied.

First, this Court must rule that the offices of the President and Vice President are vacant. Neither Biden nor Harris has any right or authority to either office. And, neither does Donald Trump or Mike Pence, since President Trump’s term ended on January 20, 2021, and he was also a candidate in an unconstitutional and unlawful election and therefore cannot be considered the winner either. Contrary to the desires of some Trump supporters, Trump cannot be simply reinstated/or declared to still be President. The constitutional line of succession must be followed when there is a vacancy, even if the vacancy occurred under such extraordinary circumstances which in fact did rob President Trump of a fair election which he most likely would have won had it been constitutionally and lawfully carried out (see below for the one constitutional mechanism by which Trump could regain the Presidency prior to either a new election, or the states appointing electors).

The simple fact is, there is now a vacancy in the offices of President and Vice President. Second, with the massive illegality of the House elections, there is now no current, valid Speaker of the House, but there is a President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Senator Grassley is the last clearly legitimately and constitutionally elected President Pro Tempore of the Senate, elected by an untainted U.S. Senate. Senator Leahy was subsequently “elected,” in part, by 35 invalid Senators, and therefore cannot properly be considered a legitimate President Pro Tempore.

Senator Grassley, being the last – and therefore still – the legitimate President Pro Temper of the U.S. Senate, must now step into the office of the Presidency, and then select a Vice President, to serve until a new election can be held in November 2022, or until the states appoint new electors.

The above is the immediate solution to the current Presidential crisis, and as a followup, the state legislatures could retake their appointment power and appoint electors for whatever candidate they choose to become President. If the state legislatures do not do so, and instead continue to leave the decision of who shall be elected to the offices of President and Vice President in the hands of the people via popular vote, this Court could, and should, order a new election that actually does comply with Article II (being carried out in the manner directed by the state legislatures as established in state law) and also in compliance with federal election law. Any modifications deemed necessary because of Covid 19 would need to be made by the respective state legislatures, not by local or state executive branch officials as happened in 2020.

That new election could take place in November of 2022, and still be within the two year window of the 22nd Amendment in case that becomes a factor for any reason. And that brings us back to Trump. Once Senator Grassley becomes President, he will select a Vice President. He could, if he chose to, select Donald Trump to serve as his Vice President. Then, if President Grassley were to resign, Donald Trump would become President and could serve as President until a new popular election could be held, or until the state legislatures directly appointed electors. He would be able to run again for President in the new national election so long a he stayed within the two year window of the 22nd Amendment, which he would if the new election were held in November 2022. If Trump won the new November 2022 election, he could still serve four more years, starting in January 2023, even though he served during 2021 and 2022.

Regardless of how it all pans out, what is clear is that there are vacancies in the offices of President and Vice President, and they must be declared and then the proper steps made to fill them, pursuant to the Constitution and existing law. This Court Should Declare Vacancies in All U.S. House Seats and in 35 U.S. Senate Seats (all in contest in 2020), Triggering Emergency Vacancy Appointments by the States Until a Valid Election Can be Held.

Conclusion

I believe that these are all compelling legal arguments now before the Supreme Court of the United States.  It remains to be seen if this lawsuit will see the light of day or if the remedial course of action outlined in the wake of the election fraud will be pursued. The lawsuit was filed in May of 2021. As evidence of 2020 election fraud continues to mount, so will calls for remediation. Kellye Sorelle provides a compelling summary of what that remediation should look like.