Archive for December, 2020


Posted in Uncategorized on December 31, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

But first a recap of previous failed legal maneuvers concerning the election…

Somebody please tell President Trump’s election lawyers there’s a federal statute – 3 U.S.C. § 1 – which requires all elections for Presidential Electors to be completed on Election Day. Then tell his lawyers – and the lawyers for Texas who failed to cite it properly – that 3 U.S.C. § 2 only applies when 3 U.S.C. § 1 is violated. Texas failed to mention 3 U.S.C. § 1 in their brief, so how could Texas rely on 3 U.S.C. § 2, which states:

“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”

The day prescribed by law was November 3rd. Multiple States failed to choose electors on that day. Texas failed to invoke 3 U.S.C. § 1 for a violation of federal law. Instead, Texas tried to use 3 U.S.C. § 2 to remedy a usurpation of state law. And in doing so, Texas made it easy for SCOTUS to slap them down as the Court determined that Texas had no right to tell other States how to choose electors:

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

Had Texas invoked 3 U.S.C. § 1, SCOTUS would have been forced to address a usurpation of Congressional power enumerated specifically in the Constitution to mandate the exact time when Presidential Electors must be chosen. The Defendant States extended federal Election Day in violation of federal law. That created an unfair playing field which caused a violation of equal protection for all voters in states that did play fair in choosing electors on Election Day. The Constitution gives the States plenary authority over every aspect except the time of choosing electors, which is under plenary authority of Congress. See the difference?

And hey now, 3 U.S.C. § 1 was enacted for the core purpose of stopping election fraud. And there’s a SCOTUS unanimous decision from 1997 – FOSTER v. LOVE – wherein the Supreme Court stated that federal Election Day statutes were specifically designed to stop election fraud.

This 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court held that an election is “the combined actions of voters and officials” to make a selection of a winner on Election Day. Not in the middle of the night the day after; a week later; a month later. No. The election must be decided on Election Day. Read the case. Listen to the oral argument.

Were the elections in Pennsylvania and the other swing States decided on November 3rd, the day prescribed by law? No. And yet not one of the cases brought to fix this election disaster has mentioned 3 U.S.C. § 1 or the unanimous holding in the Foster case. None but mine that is. And mine has been sabotaged by the Supreme Court.

Below are links to the papers I filed on December 3rd and 4th with the United States Supreme Court. The Clerk’s Office sat on my papers until December 23rd, and then refused to file the case. The Clerk backdated a letter to me on December 17th, but waited until December 23rd to email it, despite multiple update requests and correspondence between the Clerk’s Office and myself. Supreme Court Rule 39.3 requires the Clerk to give Pro Se parties “due allowance”. This due allowance thing apparently works the exact opposite way it’s supposed to. Trust me on this.

In his judicial opinion, Clerk Scott Harris overruled multiple United States Supreme Court precedents allowing citizens to name States in actions that were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, when the litigants did not ask for monetary damages or injunctive relief, just like in my case. Not only is the Clerk’s ruling illegal, it’s obviously wrong and counter to prior precedents of the Court. He has effectively overruled multiple SCOTUS decisions. This is usurpation, and it’s in your face America.


On December 26th, I forwarded a new Emergency Application to Justice Alito to stay the usurpation of judicial authority by Clerk Scott Harris in denying to docket my case. (I have embedded that Emergency Application below. Please read it now.)

The Clerk was not appointed by a sitting President, nor was the Clerk confirmed by the Senate. So why is he making a substantive determination of law supported by a one paragraph opinion, signed into law by his hand? How is that legal?

But since I do now have a substantive decision on official Supreme Court letterhead – in an original jurisdiction action – the only court that has appellate jurisdiction over this decision is the United States Supreme Court. So, while my core filing is under original jurisdiction, my appeal of the Clerk’s usurpation of judicial power is under the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. And taking the form of an Emergency Stay, it is properly addressed to Justice Alito.


Think about that question. Share it on social media and in commentary. Call the Supreme Court. Ask them how a low clerk can both, overrule Supreme Court precedent by not allowing my case to be docketed, and forbid a Justice of the Court from reviewing the Clerk’s unauthorized issuance of judicial decree. This cowardly behavior by the Court is eroding whatever is left of its dwindling credibility.

My filing was proper according to Supreme Court Rule 17.4, and it should have been docketed. There is no statute, precedent, or Court Rule prohibiting it.

Do I believe that the Clerk failed to show the papers to at least one of the Justices? No, I do not. How could the Justices not be aware of my case? Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich cited to my case in his Motion to the Supreme Court in the Texas case. So, of course the Justices know about my case.

And it must scare the hell out of them, because they have used the low Clerk as an obstacle placed in the way of them “officially” having to deal with the case. You see, if the Clerk never dockets the case, then the Justices can attempt to avoid responsibility by claiming they never had it before them. That’s a game they have played with me before, and it’s a game they famously lost. (More on that soon.)

The Clerk is certainly taking orders. The Court does not want to go anywhere near my case, because they have already decided in Foster v. Love – in a 9-0 decision – that federal elections must be “consummated” on Election Day. The 2020 Presidential Election was not decided on Election Day. That means 3 U.S.C § 1 was violated. When that happens, 3 U.S.C. § 2 kicks in, sending the decision back to the Legislatures. It’s pretty simple actually. Unfortunately, most of these cases have taken forever and failed to cite the most appropriate law and precedent.

Did I bring this case because I believed the Supreme Court would decide it in my favor? No. I brought the case just to get it docketed. Once docketed, President Trump, the State of Texas, or any other State, or the Legislature of any other State, could have intervened in this case.

The Supreme Court made sure that didn’t happen…and they took their sweet time too. My case was filed four days before Texas filed. That case was handled in a fury by the Court, ultimately decided on December 11th, while no action on my case was communicated to me until two weeks after Texas struck out. How cute. SCOTUS ran out the clock, America. Then they dodged.

And that is why Supreme Court Clerk Scott Harris will not obey Rule 17.4 and docket the case. Did he make this draconian illegal move on his own? Or was he forced to do it? We all know the truth. I have sent the Emergency Application to Chief Justice Roberts’ legal Counsel as well.

Below are links to my initial filings, and my new Emergency Application to Justice Alito is embedded for your review:

Donofrio v Pennsylvania, Et al – Bill of Complaint

Donofrio v. Pennsylvania, Et al – Legal Argument


Posted in Uncategorized on December 24, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

Earlier today I posted about my Election Day SCOTUS case having been denied filing by a clerk making a substantive decision as if he were a Justice of the Court. I prepared an Emergency Application to Justice Alito asking him to stay the ruling of the clerk, and I spoke to a legal foundation that offered to represent me in this matter.

After doing the work, I realized that there is no way these clerks are making substantive judicial rulings on their own. Furthermore, since I served process, the Attorney General of Arizona mentioned my case in their Amicus Motion in the Texas case, which means the Justices knew about my filing.

Therefore, the clerk who denied to docket my case must have been taking orders from the Justices. They don’t want to officially recognize the fact that I picked their lock and found a true legal manner to challenge the election. I had standing, and the Court has jurisdiction, but they don’t want to look the case square in the eyes, because my case would force them to void the election in seven States.

So the Justices put these clerks out there and in a very cowardly manner the Justices of the Supreme Court expose their clerks by forcing them to make substantive decisions of law, which is actually an ethical violation.

If a clerk signs their name to a document that pertains to make a substantive decision of judicial interpretation, that clerk is usurping authority in violation of law. And the Justices who feed these clerks to the wolves are simply cowards.

I do not have a problem with any of the clerks at the United States Supreme Court. I have a huge problem with the Justices. This is the second time I have experienced this tragic phenomenon. I don’t blame the clerks. They are just taking orders.

There is no law in America now. The rot came from the top down, and it will surely rend this nation into factions. Invasion will follow. You can blame the United States Supreme Court for all of it. The Court is not a bastion of justice. The Court is a political animal. And it has failed us.

I don’t plan on posting to this blog again anytime soon.


Posted in Uncategorized on December 24, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

I don’t want responsibility for comments. Feel free to share my posts. Thank you.


Posted in Uncategorized on December 20, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

I want to thank everyone at American Thinker for publishing my piece over there today:

“Who has the power to appoint presidential electors?”

A few more thoughts on the piece. First, if you haven’t read it, please go to AT and do so. Then ponder this:

Will. That’s all it will take. Will. Self-convene by phone, video-conference, in person, anywhere, and set this election straight by choosing Presidential Electors for Trump.

Inferior officials have refused to obey your subpoenas in Arizona. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has just held that laws enacted to protect handicapped voters were trampled on by Wisconsin Election Officials and voters. In Pennsylvania, a United States Supreme Court order to segregate ballots was ignored, and the Legislature’s laws as to ballot deadlines were usurped. In Georgia, the Secretary of State unilaterally did away with the Legislature’s enactments on signature matching. In Nevada, and elsewhere, tens of thousands of people voted twice, or voted after death. All of the above took strong will.

But that was the will to break the law. You, State Legislatures, must now have the will to enforce the law. Your decision is to enforce the law, or to condone the will used to break the law. Those are your only two options.

The Legislatures were given plenary authority to police the appointment of Presidential Electors. That’s the Legislatures’ enforcement power. Call all of their bluffs now. You are terrible poker players if you fold America’s winning hand. The Florida Legislature called all bluffs in 2000, and they were praised for it.

And what about time? 3 U.S.C. § 7 set the time when the electors should meet and give their ballots. But the time is based on all electors having been appointed first. If a state is contested, especially by factions of its own Legislature, as in Arizona now, then the electors have not been finally appointed.

See my previous report, where I explain in detail why December 14th was not set in stone by 3 U.S.C. § 7. Most analysts have misinterpreted the statute. Let’s read it two ways; first, as it is written, then, as it has been misinterpreted:

“The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment…

If Arizona, or Michigan, or any State, discovered serious fraud that would change the election result, they would have the right and duty to fix the fraud. Let’s say, for example, that Arizona did a forensic audit of Dominion machines in Maricopa County, and it showed fraud, and by correcting the result, Trump has a clear victory.

On Dec. 22nd, the Legislature of Arizona orders the appointment of Trump electors. The second Wednesday in December “next following their appointment” is Dec 30, and the first Monday after that is January 4th.

Now let’s examine how most folks are reading 3 U.S.C. § 7:

“The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December…”

Full stop. They don’t read the next few words. You see? Most people stop at December, and they ignore “next following their appointment”. Without these words, 3 U.S.C. § 7 would set a date in stone each cycle, just as Congress did with 3 U.S.C. § 1, which states:

“The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.”

Federal Election Day is set in stone each cycle by the statute. You can look at the statute, look at a calendar, and put your finger on the exact day prescribed by law. You cannot do that with 3 U.S.C. § 7, because you need more information than just the statute and a calendar. You need the date all electors were finally appointed.

For example, had all Presidential Electors been appointed on November 3rd, 2020, then the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December “next following their appointment” would have been December 14th. But all Presidential Electors were not appointed on November 3rd. Appointment is contested in multiple States.

Just because one branch of state government usurps the plenary authority of a state Legislature, and barrels over them in seating electors prematurely, does not erase the plenary authority of the Legislature to police Presidential Election fraud.

So, 3 U.S.C. § 7 has a floating date built into its formula, based upon the day when every State in the Union has finally appointed the electors determined by the Legislature. If the Legislature is still unsure, and it is still investigating, then no final appointment shall have taken place.


Now let’s look past January 6th. And let’s imagine that the United States Supreme Court issues an order after its January 8, 2021 conference, stating that no votes in Pennsylvania can be counted which arrived after the time set by its Legislature for the Presidential Election to end, which was 8 P.M., Nov. 3rd. And let’s assume that two other states see their results overturned by their Legislatures, or the Supreme Court, after January 6th, but before January 20th? What happens then?

Read the Twentieth Amendment, § 3:

“If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President…”

That’s the Constitution of the United States, folks. Nobody knows what that means, because the United States Supreme Court hasn’t fully interpreted Section 3 yet.

But understand this: the Pennsylvania GOP case has been “DISTRIBUTED for conference 01/08/2021″ at SCOTUS. So maybe the Court will interpret Section 3 soon enough. Until January 20th, high noon, we are in muddy Constitutional waters.


After a wrongful election, where one candidate takes office, there’s always the possibility of a Writ of Quo Warranto. Some have argued that only impeachment and conviction in the Senate can remove a sitting President President. But if you get a Writ of Quo Warranto issued, that means the White House occupant it’s issued against was never actually President. Their holding the Office of President becomes a nullity. The person has not technically been “removed” from office, but rather, a Writ of Quo Warranto acts as if that person was never President to begin with.

There is a line of cases that issue Writs of Quo Warranto for false election results caused by fraudulent or faulty tabulation machines, after the wrong person takes office:

“Challenges to the outcome of a general election based upon alleged voting machine malfunctions necessarily fall within the purview of quo warranto.” Matter of Delgado v. Sunderland, 97 N.Y. 2d 420 (2002), 767 N.E. 2d 662.

Here is the federal Quo Warranto statute:

“A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.”

If President Trump has the will to keep fighting, then this horrific saga in United States election history still has a very long road to go before the final result is determined.


Posted in Uncategorized on December 17, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

This challenge concerns a very nebulous statement by the United States Supreme Court, as to whether “voter registration” is a “qualification” to vote for federal Senate seats. The Supreme Court specifically dodged this issue in 2013, and it’s time a Georgia litigant brought it back to them, and fast. If a federal court were to hold that “voter registration” is a “qualification” to vote, then, according to Georgia law, only voters who were registered to vote in the general election this past November could vote in the runoffs.

The Seventeenth Amendment changed the way the States elect Senators. Previous to ratification in 1913, Senators were chosen by the Legislatures of each State. The Seventeenth Amendment changed such selection to a popular vote by citizens:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. (Emphasis added.)

The Amendment is unambiguous as to the “qualifications” necessary to vote for a Senator. “Electors” in the Amendment are simply voters. In order to be an elector, a voter, for a Congressional Senate seat, in Georgia, you must meet the same qualifications to vote as Georgia requires for persons to vote for members of their House of Representatives, which is the most numerous branch of its Legislature. Regardless, the qualifications to be a voter for a Georgia State House seat, or State Senate seat, are the same, and are specifically provided for by the Constitution of Georgia, and its statutes.

Article II, § 1, ¶ 2, of the Georgia Constitution states:

“Every person who is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Georgia as defined by law, who is at least 18 years of age and not disenfranchised by this article, and who meets minimum residency requirements as provided by law shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the registration of electors. (Emphasis added.)

Not every State of the Union requires voter registration. North Dakota doesn’t require it. In Georgia, on the other hand, its statutes not only require voter registration, but the Constitution specifically provides that its General Assembly “shall provide by law for the registration of electors.” Voter registration is, therefore, a “qualification” to vote in the State of Georgia.

Furthermore, the Constitution of Georgia, at Art. II, § 2, ¶ 2, provides further for the qualifications of voters in runoff elections:

“A run-off election shall be a continuation of the general election and only persons who were entitled to vote in the general election shall be entitled to vote therein; and only those votes cast for the persons designated for the runoff shall be counted in the tabulation and canvass of the votes cast.” (Emphasis added.)

That would appear to prevent any person, who wasn’t previously registered to vote in the general election, from voting in the runoff. Now let’s look at the statutes enacted by the Georgia Legislature which were enacted to govern which electors in Georgia shall have the proper qualifications to vote. § 21-2-501(a)(1) states:

(a) No person shall vote in any primary or election held in this state unless such person shall be:

(1) Registered as an elector in the manner prescribed by law;

Here we see an enactment, specifically required to be enacted by the Georgia Constitution, requiring voter registration. § 21-2-224(a) lists the time before an election one must register to be able to vote:

“(a) If any person whose name is not on the list of registered electors maintained by the Secretary of State under this article desires to vote at any general primary, general election, or presidential preference primary, such person shall make application as provided in this article by the close of business on the fifth Monday or, if such Monday is a legal holiday, by the close of business on the following business day prior to the date of such general primary, general election, or presidential preference primary.”

So, in order to have been eligible to vote in the general election, according to the laws of Georgia, a Georgia citizen must have made an application to register five Mondays before November 3rd.

Now let’s examine the specific statute in Georgia that governs voter registration in runoff races, § 21-2-501:

“(10) The run-off primary, special primary runoff, run-off election, or special election runoff shall be a continuation of the primary, special primary, election, or special election for the particular office concerned.  Only the electors who were duly registered to vote and not subsequently deemed disqualified to vote in the primary, special primary, election, or special election for candidates for that particular office shall be entitled to vote therein…”

Therefore, based on all of the above, it’s very clear that under Georgia law, nobody should be voting in the Senate runoffs who wasn’t previously registered to vote in the general election. So why has Georgia been signing up new voters for the runoffs? The reason is a federal statute, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires that people be allowed to register to vote within thirty days of a federal election.

In 2017, Governor Kemp signed a consent decree, following a law suit, which lets voters bypass Georgia’s more stringent voter registration laws, by agreeing to the lesser thirty day window enacted in the NVRA. Similar law suits concerning voter registration requirements have been brought under the NVRA in other States.

The most important case decided by the United States Supreme Court which reviewed the constitutionality of the NVRA was Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 570 U.S. 1, 133 S.Ct. 2247, 186 L.Ed.2d 239 (2013). In that case, but not in the original brief, the State of Arizona asked the Court to hold that voter registration was a qualification to vote, and therefore, since qualifications to vote are specifically enumerated in the Constitution as being under the plenary authority of the States, the NVRA was therefore preempted by the United States Constitution, as to voter registration requirements.

Unfortunately, Arizona only raised the issue in their reply brief, and Justice Scalia pointed this out in the majority opinion, which allowed the Court to avoid that specific issue. Here is what the majority opinion said:

“Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.9 Arizona v Inter Tribal, 133 S.Ct. at 2258-2259.

Now we have to skip to Footnote 9, wherein Justice Scalia found an out to avoid determining the “serious constitutional doubts” raised by this issue:

“9. In their reply brief, petitioners suggest for the first time that ‘registration is itself a qualification to vote.‘ Reply Brief for State Petitioners 24 (emphasis deleted); see also post, at 2261-2262, 2269-2270 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); cf. Voting Rights Coalition v. Wilson,60 F.3d 1411, 1413, and n. 1 (C.A.9 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1093, 116 S.Ct. 815, 133 L.Ed.2d 759 (1996); Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) v. Edgar,56 F.3d 791, 793 (C.A.7 1995). We resolve this case on the theory on which it has hitherto been litigated: that citizenship (not registration) is the voter qualification Arizona seeks to enforce. See Brief for State Petitioners 50.” (Emphasis added.)

The case was not decided on the issue of whether voter registration is a qualification requiring serious constitutional review. The Court went out of its way to punt on that issue, by clearly stating that it was deciding the case on the issue of citizenship information required to register, and not on whether voter registration is a qualification to vote. This means that the issue is still ripe, has not been decided, and if a litigant from Georgia were to act fast now, the Supreme Court might be willing to take this issue on.

Everyone should read the wonderfully detailed analysis of this issue in the dissent by Justice Thomas, but here’s the exact moment where Justice Thomas states that voter registration is a qualification to vote, and that Congress cannot dictate to the States as to it:

“Both text and history confirm that States have the exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. The United States nevertheless argues that Congress has the authority under Article I, § 4, ‘to set the rules for voter registration in federal elections.’ Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 33 (hereafter Brief for United States). Neither the text nor the original understanding of Article I, § 4, supports that position.” Arizona v. Inter Tribal, 133 S.Ct. at 2265. (Emphasis added.)

Justice Thomas also addressed the Supreme Court’s decision in Smiley v. Holm:

“Respondents and the United States point out that Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 S.Ct. 795 (1932), mentioned ‘registration’ in a list of voting-related subjects it believed Congress could regulate under Article I, § 4. Id., at 366, 52 S.Ct. 397 (listing ‘notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns’ (emphasis added))…But that statement was dicta because Smiley involved congressional redistricting, not voter registration. 285 U.S., at 361-362, 52 S.Ct. 397. Cases since Smiley have similarly not addressed the issue of voter qualifications but merely repeated the word ‘registration’ without further analysis. See Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510, 523, 121 S.Ct. 1029, 149 L.Ed.2d 44 (2001); Roudebush v. Hartke,405 U.S. 15, 24, 92 S.Ct. 804, 31 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972).”

The previous quote from Justice Thomas stated his opinion that voter registration is a qualification, while this quote makes clear that the issue has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court. And the final parting statement by Justice Thomas sums it up:

“I would not require Arizona to seek approval for its registration requirements from the Federal Government, for, as I have shown, the Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to withhold such approval. Accordingly, it does not have the authority to command States to seek it. As a result, the majority’s proposed solution does little to avoid the serious constitutional problems created by its interpretation.” Arizona v. Inter Tribal, 133 S.Ct. at 2270.

With all that has happened in the 2020 federal elections, and all that is on the line, it would appear that now is the perfect time to put this “serious constitutional problem” before the nation’s highest judicial tribunal.

Furthermore, if the Legislature in Georgia, and the Legislatures in other States, would only seek to enforce their prior enactments regarding voter registration, and other laws concerning the choosing of presidential electors, it’s clear that Justice Thomas would agree, as can be the only conclusion from reading Footnote 2 of his Dissenting Opinion in the Arizona case:

2…This Court has recognized, however, that ‘the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing [presidential] electors is plenary; it may, if it chooses, select the electors itself.’ Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000) (per curiam) (citing U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1, and McPherson v. Blacker,146 U.S. 1, 35, 13 S.Ct. 3, 36 S.Ct. 869 (1892)). As late as 1824, six State Legislatures chose electoral college delegates, and South Carolina continued to follow this model through the 1860 election. 1 Guide to U.S. Elections 821 (6th ed. 2010). Legislatures in Florida in 1868 and Colorado in 1876 chose delegates, id., at 822, and in recent memory, the Florida Legislature in 2000 convened a special session to consider how to allocate its 25 electoral votes if the winner of the popular vote was not determined in time for delegates to participate in the electoral college, see James, Election 2000: Florida Legislature Faces Own Disputes over Electors, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 11, 2000, p. A16, though it ultimately took no action. See Florida’s Senate Adjourns Without Naming Electors, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 15, 2000, p. A6. Constitutional avoidance is especially appropriate in this area because the NVRA purports to regulate presidential elections, an area over which the Constitution gives Congress no authority whatsoever.” (Emphasis added.) Arizona v. Inter Tribal, Footnote 2, J. Thomas, Dissent.

And you don’t need the Supreme Court yet. All you need to stop the influx of new voters from voting in the Georgia State runoffs is a federal court injunction. If you get that at the District Court, or Circuit Court level, the other side will be forced to petition SCOTUS. Time is an issue. This needs to be filed immediately.


Posted in Uncategorized on December 15, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATED: second quote from Michigan Supreme Court added 5:27 A.M. 10/16/20.]

Yesterday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the election for presidential electors was illegally handled by Wisconsin Election Officials, and the Court indicated that all votes by persons claiming to be “indefinitely confined”, must be determined on a case by case basis:.

Furthermore, if individual electors did not follow the statutory mandate and continued to vote as indefinitely confined, despite no
longer meeting the statutory requirements, they would cast their votes contrary to the statute. In turn, because compliance with
the absentee ballot process is mandatory, their ballots would not count
. Wis. Stat. §§ 6.84(1), (2).”
. (Emphasis added.)

The decision then concluded:

“¶40 Accordingly, we conclude that the Respondents’ interpretation of Wisconsin’s election laws is erroneous.  Additionally, we conclude that Emergency Order #12 did not render all Wisconsin electors ‘indefinitely confined,’ thereby obviating the requirement of a valid photo identification to obtain an absentee ballot.”

Wisconsin has no statutory process dealing with this rare scenario, while the Wisconsin Legislature has plenary authority to investigate all of the suspect votes.  If the Democrat Governor, and/or Executive Branch and local election officials in Wisconsin refuse to comply with the Legislature’s investigative authority, the Legislature may – according to the long held SCOTUS precedent of McPherson v. Blacker – “resume the power at any time” to choose electors.  

The Wisconsin Legislature has a very fair and impartial process available to them:  those voters who were given false information by Wisconsin Clerks should be able to prove that they are indefinitely confined, according to the strict definition laid out yesterday by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. If they are so confined, their votes should count.

And those voters – who relied upon the illegal information given by Wisconsin Clerks – who were not truly indefinitely confined according to the Supreme Court’s strict definition, should be able to cure their votes by providing valid photo identification as required under Wisconsin law, previously enacted by the Legislature, unless they acted with intentional fraud. If those voters failed to comply with the Legislature’s prior enactments, as interpreted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, then those votes should not be counted by the Legislature.

I will remind the Wisconsin Legislature that you have plenary power, according to Article II, § 1, of the Constitution, to determine the manner of choosing electors. If any State officials deny your power, such usurpation must be met with the threat of using the nuclear option, meaning that you must be ready to appoint electors on your own, if they try to stop you from conducting the free and fair review, which is now necessary, after your Supreme Court has held that State officials conducted an illegal election as to indefinitely confined voters.

Taking action now, after the Wisconsin Supreme Court has given affirmative guidance, cannot, in any sense, be described as putting your fingers on the scale of justice. It’s the opposite. Your Supreme Court has determined that the scale of justice was tampered with by Wisconsin election officials, and it is your sworn duty to correct the illegal instructions and cure the illegal votes cast thereby.

“Donofrio v Pennsylvania Et al” Still Pending At SCOTUS

Posted in Uncategorized on December 13, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

The failed Texas theory of action was that the plenary authority of Legislatures in Defendant States had been usurped, causing violations of equal protection to Texas voters. The problem with such theory is that – by doing nothing to take back control of choosing electors – the Legislatures in the Defendant States have, using passive behavior, condoned invasions upon their exclusive power by inferior State officials. By that I mean, inferior in authority as to choosing presidential electors, as per Article II, § 1, of the Constitution, and also inferior as to federal statute 3 U.S.C. § 2.

By not taking back the presidential elector appointment power, after watching their enactments – designed specifically to protect election integrity – be discarded by Executive officials such as Raffensperger and Boockvar, those Legislatures have, by their failure to assert plenary authority after the violations, condoned such usurpation.

And unless they resume power soon, the usurpation will be forever endorsed by them. Passive approval is an exercise of plenary authority if the Legislatures themselves remain docile and allow such invasions to stand.

Plenary means plenary. The State Legislatures have plenary authority not to act. Those Legislatures are pretending they have no authority, but in pretending, they are, in fact, acting to protect their officials and the electors preferred by them.

My case, on the other hand, asserts that the Defendant States violated a Congressional election statute, 3 U.S.C. § 1, which was an exercise of plenary authority by the federal Congress as to the time when presidential electors shall be appointed. This is a power not even the State Legislatures can waive.

I didn’t want to put the caption of my case at SCOTUS into public awareness until it was docketed, because I didn’t want folks mass calling the Court, citing the caption, and clogging up the process. The Court is understaffed from Covid. But since the caption slipped out in Footnote 1 of AG Brnovich’s Amicus Motion on behalf of Arizona in the Texas case, the file is effectively unredacted. So let’s talk about it.

I was inspired by the Texas effort (filed three days after mine), because they raised awareness of 3 U.S.C. § 2, and the concept of vote debasement (both issues were invoked previously in my filing), but the Texas case most certainly had standing issues for asserting that the authority of other Legislatures was usurped.

Yes, those State Legislatures’ authority was usurped by their Executive Branch officials, but no Legislature has actually asserted their plenary authority to appoint electors. As per the Supreme Court precedent stated in McPherson v. Blacker – a State Legislature may “resume the power” to appoint electors “at any time”, as that power is “plenary”. Plenary means they alone may assert it.

Don’t be deceived, the State Legislatures can appoint electors right now, and if they do, it’s the other side who will be begging SCOTUS for help. And like Texas, they will lose. Blame the Legislatures for not appointing electors.

Those State Legislatures are avoiding their power by making believe state laws and constitutions bind them to accept a result. Only the Constitution of the United States binds them. It binds them to plenary authority which they clearly do not want to accept.

In fact, they can choose electors today. Nobody will stop them. Not even SCOTUS. They don’t need to invoke normal legislative procedures. All they need is will. The Florida Legislature asserted that will in 2000. And the GOP leadership praised them for it.

So why did the Pennsylvania Legislature leadership join the Texas suit, and why call on Congress to reject Pennsylvania electors, rather than doing it themselves?

They are obviously afraid. I get it. It’s human to be afraid. We can forgive fear. We can even forgive cowardice. But only if they admit the power they fear. Claiming that they don’t have the power is the unforgivable sin. In doing so, they are misleading others to think they are powerless. They aren’t.

If fear has taken over patriotic duty, they should admit that, resign, and find other careers. Ordinary citizens have stepped up by putting their lives in danger to swear affidavits and give live testimony concerning the disturbing behavior they witnessed during this election. If their representatives won’t stand by them, then those legislators need to go.

Why aren’t you submitting a slate of electors, Mr. Cutler? You have publicly asserted that your State officials violated your enactments. The Constitution armed you with plenary authority over presidential electors. That authority has been confirmed by SCOTUS multiple times. It’s paramount over your state constitution. Stop pretending you don’t know.


My case is completely different. 3 U.S.C. § 1 sets a single day for the election. If electors are not chosen on that day, the title of the tangential statute, 3 U.S.C. § 2, indicates that the election has failed, and it provides that the Legislature may then choose electors in any manner it likes, to be appointed on a subsequent day.

Were electors chosen on Nov. 3rd in the Defendant States? No. Study Foster v. Love. The unanimous SCOTUS decision from 1997 determined that “the election” must be consummated on “the day”. Foster v. Love held that an election is the “combined actions of voters and officials” used to determine a winner on Election Day. The Court was adamant that the election must be consummated on federal Election Day.

My filing asks the United States Supreme Court to acknowledge that a federal law – designed to prevent, not just fraud, but the potential for fraud – was usurped, when several States, that failed to discern a winner before Nov. 3rd ended, illegally extended federal Election Day indefinitely thereafter.

I have standing, because the Defendant States, by extending federal Election Day, debased my vote, in that those States, by their officials, illegally assumed an extended power to determine who would be the next Executive Branch occupant, because they gave themselves more time to award electors than Congress gave them under 3 U.S.C. § 1. That’s a violation of equal protection.

My case does not seek to assert the authority of the Legislatures. My case only seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the Defendant States violated federal statute 3 U.S.C. § 1, a law enacted specifically to stop fraud, and the appearance of fraud, and in doing so the Defendant States usurped the plenary authority of Congress to determine the exact time electors are appointed. The usurpation violated my right to vote as guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Those elections are void. And by declaring them void, SCOTUS can return this election back to control of the Constitution of the United States. If they do, then 3 U.S.C. § 2 kicks everything back to the Legislatures. The Legislatures will still have plenary authority to keep the previous electors, or choose new ones, but the previous election results will have been declared void for violating federal law. Then the State Legislatures will be forced to openly choose electors as per the design of the Framers.

While I have provided strong argument that the Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit original jurisdiction for this case at SCOTUS, such jurisdiction is not exclusive, and therefore the Court may decline, even though no other Court has the actual power to restore the dignity and equality of my vote.

My pleading involves a pure issue of law, not fact. And the Court has already unanimously decided – in Foster v. Love – that Congress intended a uniform election day for all federal offices. Will the Court now overrule that case and decide that the Presidential Election can be consummated on a later day? I doubt it.

I filed the case properly under Supreme Court Rule 17, on December 4, 2020. As per Rule 17.4, the case “will be docketed”, since I complied therewith. Although as of today, Sunday Dec. 13, 2020, the case has not been docketed yet. Please don’t call the Court. The official website states that an order list will drop tomorrow at 9:30 A.M. Maybe we will know more then.

Regardless, it’s very important that the issue is before the Court for posterity. If I didn’t believe that, I never would have filed the case. And filing it was not a joy. I’d much rather be playing online poker, or watching sappy Hallmark Christmas flicks. I’ve been down this road before. It’s a blind alley.

The hard deadline for the electors meeting is not Monday Dec. 14th. It’s January 4, 2021. If electors do meet and vote on Monday, and thereafter, 3 U.S.C. § 2 is invoked, by some State Legislature members, or by a court, the formula emanating from 3 U.S.C. § 7 gives until January 4th for the electors to meet again.


Jan 4 Is Statutory Deadline For Electoral College Meeting – NOT Dec 14

Posted in Uncategorized on December 10, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

[WARNING TO TEXAS: You submitted the following inaccuracy to the Court:

“However, 3 U.S.C. § 7 requires that presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020.”

The deadline is NOT Dec. 14. It’s January 4, 2021. See below.]

Front and center at the United States Supreme Court today is 3 U.S.C. § 2 – the controlling statute just relied upon by Texas in their monolithic original jurisdiction action to contest the 2020 Presidential Election. As explained in detail below, that statute – read in line with 3 U.S.C. § 7 – establishes January 4, 2021, as the hard federal deadline for Presidential Electors to meet, not December 14, 2020.

December 14th is wrong according to the proper statutory construction of 3 U.S.C. § 2, read in light of 3 U.S.C. § 7. Unfortunately, section 7 has been misconstrued repeatedly. You have to read section 7 in light of section 2, and only then does the January 6th date – set by 3 U.S.C. § 15 – for Congress to count the electoral votes make a perfect circle. The following analysis decodes the exact plan as to how all of these provisions work together, and they establish clearly that January 4, not December 14, is the hard deadline for the electors to meet in this Presidential Election cycle.


We know that there is a hard deadline for electors to meet before January 20th, because that’s what the Supreme Court held in McPherson v. Blacker. And it’s a mistake to argue otherwise. In that case, the unanimous opinion established decisive precedent that the Legislatures may resume power of appointing electors, “at any time”, before, during, or after, a general election. But the Supreme Court also held that Congress has plenary authority over when the electors shall meet, and that the Constitution mandates that they shall meet and give their votes in each State on the same day throughout the nation.

The Supreme Court agreed that the Legislature had plenary power to allocate electors by district, instead of by a statewide winner take all popular election, but the Court also ordered Michigan to comply with the time set by Congress for their electors to meet and vote. And no matter what litigants and pundits are now saying in court filings and on TV, the time set by Congress is granite. This is crucial. If you argue to SCOTUS that only January 20th matters, you will get crushed. Mcpherson is clear precedent on this as well.

The good news is that the media has it dead wrong too: December 14th is not the hard deadline established by 3 U.S.C. § 7. January 4, 2021 is the hard deadline. And here’s why.

Let’s start with the text of 3 U.S.C. § 2:

“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

Whenever 3 U.S.C. § 2 is invoked, it provides an extension from the federal election day statutory deadline, which was Nov. 3, 2020, this year, as codified in 3 U.S.C. § 1. But notice that section 2 contains no set deadline. It simply states that electors may be appointed – as the Legislature may direct – “on a subsequent day”. There’s no limiting date in this section.

We must look to 3 U.S.C. § 7 for the deadline:

“The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.”

I have put “next following their appointment” in bold for a very important reason. This is because, had Congress meant to set the day – in each presidential election cycle – to be exactly on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, then the statute would not say “next following their appointment”, but it would end full stop, making the day certain each cycle, just as they did with federal election day in 3 U.S.C. § 1.

The term “next following their appointment” refers to the final appointment of all States. And if the extension of 3 U.S.C. § 2 comes into play, then the States who appointed electors on election day, and the States that did not, will obviously appoint electors on different days, which means that the day prescribed by 3 U.S.C § 7 can only be determined after all States have conclusively appointed electors.

If a State’s electors are subject to a controversy under 3 U.S.C. § 2, alleged by a failure to conclusively choose electors on election day, then the electors in each State should not meet until that controversy is resolved.

In which case, 3 U.S.C. § 7, in this election cycle, establishes January 4, 2021, as the absolute hard deadline for electors to meet, since section 7 requires the date fall on the first Monday after a Wednesday in December. This year, the last Wednesday in December is the 30th, so the first Monday after that is January 4th.

Now take notice that the very last possible day a Wednesday could ever fall on in December is the 31st, making January 5th the absolute hard deadline possible under our calendar, regardless of the election cycle. This is why January 6th can be set in stone via 3 U.S.C. § 15.

All of these sections must be read together, construed together. So, even if the States are intent on having electors meet on December 14th, it won’t matter at all, should even one state Legislature – whether by their own volition, or by Court order – invoke 3 U.S.C. § 2 in appointing even one elector. They will have to meet again in that case, in order to satisfy section 7.

The federal codes enacted by Congress by powers enumerated exclusively to that tribunal, concerning the day electors shall meet and vote, cannot be changed by rogue States. Even if all 50 States meet on Dec 14th, should even one different elector be appointed by even a partial division of just one State Legislature, on a later date, all electors will be required to meet and vote again. And the hard deadline for such a meeting is January 4, 2021, not December 14th.

3 U.S.C. § 7 Proves Electors Must Be Appointed On Election Day, Not Certification Day

Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

The single Election Day issue, and Foster v. Love, the unanimous SCOTUS opinion behind it, just got a big boost of adrenaline from The Gateway Pundit linking to solid research at

In comments at TGP, three important issues that deserve discussion were raised. Below, I provide historical, legal and constitutional answers to all of them: 1) Some are saying that electors are actually “appointed” when the state “certifies” the election, not on Election Day; 2) We have early voting via absentee ballots, so this disproves “single Election Day”; 3) Back in 1845, when the single Election Day statute was passed, they could not gather statewide results. Let’s take them in order.


It was all over the media that California only just certified their presidential electors on Dec. 4th. AP also reported that Hawaii, Colorado and New Jersey still have not certified their results. By now, everyone reading this will understand that 3 U.S.C. § 1 requires that electors “shall be appointed on” election day. That statute is unambiguous. But, 3 U.S.C. § 7 provides more guidance:

“The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.”

So, plug Dec. 4, 2020, into 3 U.S.C. § 7, to determine the day on which electors “shall meet and give their votes”, but don’t use election day (Nov. 3rd) as the day of appointment, but instead plug in Dec. 4th, the day California certified electors.

The first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following Dec. 4th is December 21st, not Dec. 14th. If Dec. 4th, day of California certification, is also the day of appointment, then California must have their electors meet and vote on December 21st. However, everyone knows that the Constitution, Art II, § 1, cl. 3, requires that presidential electors vote on the same day in each State, and this year that date is Dec. 14th, as directed by Congressional enactment in 3 U.S.C § 7.

Therefore, it’s obvious that Congress never intended certification and appointment as the same thing. There could not be a certain uniform day for electors to meet, if the States all appointed electors on different days, and States like California chose to certify later than others, thereby violating the uniform electors code at 3 U.S.C. § 7.

McPherson v. Blacker, the controlling SCOTUS case everyone should be familiar with by now, addressed the language of “appointment”:

“The Constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket, nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors. It recognizes that the people act through their representatives in the legislature, and leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting the object…The framers of the Constitution employed words in their natural sense; and where they are plain and clear, resort to collateral aids to interpretation is unnecessary and cannot be indulged in to narrow or enlarge the text…It has been said that the word ‘appoint’ is not the most appropriate word to describe the result of a popular election. Perhaps not; but it is sufficiently comprehensive to cover that mode, and was manifestly used as conveying the broadest power of determination.

So, here we have black letter law, laid down by SCOTUS, stating that appointment, with regard to 3 U.S.C § 1, means election, if a popular election is held. It does not mean certification. The electors “shall be appointed on” election day.

If there was no popular election, then the electors are directly appointed by the Legislature. And let’s have a new quote from this case to further illustrate the plenary authority of the Legislatures:

The clause under consideration does not read that the people or the citizens shall appoint, but that ‘each State shall’; and if the words ‘in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct,‘ had been omitted, it would seem that the legislative power of appointment could not have been successfully questioned in the absence of any provision in the state constitution in that regard. Hence the insertion of those words, while operating as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power, cannot be held to operate as a limitation on that power itself.

“If the legislature possesses plenary authority to direct the manner of appointment, and might itself exercise the appointing power by joint ballot or concurrence of the two houses, or according to such mode as designated, it is difficult to perceive why, if the legislature prescribes as a method of appointment choice by vote, it must necessarily be by general ticket and not by districts. In other words, the act of appointment is none the less the act of the State in its entirety because arrived at by districts, for the act is the act of political agencies duly authorized to speak for the State, and the combined result is the expression of the voice of the State, a result reached by direction of the legislature, to whom the whole subject is committed.

Our State Legislatures better start taking their heads out of the sand, because see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, Sgt. Schultz, “I see nothing”, ain’t gonna cut it, folks. Denying your power doesn’t absolve you of the disaster caused by your failing to use the power. You are going to own the result, Legislatures. The Framers entrusted you with this awesome responsibility. Our soldiers have died to preserve it. Hunkering down and praying for Inauguration Day to come fast is not a strategy that you can avail yourselves of. The Democrats don’t own this mess. The SCOTUS does not own it. The GOP doesn’t own it. And while the villains who caused it certainly need to face Justice – should any such concept survive this disaster – they won’t own it either. You, the State Legislatures own this. The safety and well being of the nation are squarely in your hands tonight. What an honor.

Like the Supreme Court told you, in McPherson v. Blacker, and Bush v. Gore, the Legislature may “resume” the power “at any time”. The words are unqualified, unambiguous, and they apply to you. Stop asking the Governors for help. Appoint electors, and direct them where to meet. You control the meeting place by law. You can change it by resolution, teleconference, pizza and coffee. You have plenary authority. Submit the slate to Congress. If the Governor tries to submit another slate, go to court for a Writ of Prohibition to stop him. Get to SCOTUS. Win there.


The article linked above by Ren Jander at has this all covered discussing a 9th Circuit case that interpreted Foster v. Love:

“In Voting Integrity Project v. Keisling, 259 F. 3d 1169 (2011), the 9th Circuit reviewed an Oregon statute that allowed early voting by mail, holding that nothing in Foster v. Love prohibited early voting, as long as the election was not consummated until federal Election Day.  While Oregon allowed early voting, well before Election Day, unlike the Louisiana case, Oregon also continued voting on Election Day, the same day the election was decided. 

The 9th Circuit took notice of federal statutes that require the States to accommodate absentee ballots, which inherently require multi-day early voting, holding that 2 U.S.C. § 7 did not conflict with early absentee ballot voting, because the evils of early voting were not encouraged by it, since the results of early voting were not released to the public until Election Day, and therefore could not influence later elections.  The 9th Circuit assumed Congress intended both statutes to co-exist.”

Early voting is only part of “the election”, and as long as the election isn’t consummated prior to Election Day, the 9th Circuit was cool with it. Will SCOTUS be cool with it? I think so. Because Congress is given authority over the “time” of choosing electors. In McPherson, SCOTUS stated that not even the Legislature could mess with the time, and in that case, Michigan was forced to change her statute to comply with Congress setting a uniform day for electors to meet, just as Louisiana was forced to change her statute allowing federal elections to be consummated in October. (See my previous post.)

In Foster v. Love, the Court defined “the election” as the combined actions of voters and officials in selecting a winner on “the day” prescribed by Congress, aka election day. This is why, throughout the oral argument for Foster v. Love, the law was consistently referred to as the federal election day statute.

Early voting is allowed, because Congress has authorized it by way of absentee ballot statutes. But Congress has not authorized late ballots, or canvassing past Election Day. And to the extent a State, by legislative enactment, or otherwise, let’s call it Executive Branch usurpation, as happened in both Pennsylvania and Georgia, such extensions are preempted by the federal election day statutes, as was the holding in Foster v. Love, and McPherson v. Blacker, which held:

“The third clause of section 1 of Article II of the Constitution is: ‘The Congress may determine the time of choosing the Electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.’…The state law in question here fixes the first Wednesday of December as the day for the meeting of the electors, as originally designated by Congress. In this respect it is in conflict with the act of Congress, and must necessarily give way.

You see how they did that? State law cannot change federal election day. Louisiana tried that. But Louisiana got squashed 9-0. You can’t consummate the election on any other day besides the day prescribed by Congress, this year falling on November 3, 2020. It’s ok to have early voting, as long as the States don’t allow the results to be known, and as long as the election isn’t consummated before election day.

That being understood, in what universe does Congress allow a federal election to be consummated after federal election day? Not the one we are living in, unless we are now living in a nation completely untethered to federal statutes, and long held Supreme Court precedent.

And you can apply this same analysis to the Georgia runoff in the Perdue race. So far, it’s been accepted that 2 U.S.C. § 8 applies to Senate races, but I don’t see the Senate mentioned in the text of that statute. Georgia faced this question in 1992, in the Public Citizen case, but that was decided five years before Foster v. Love, and frankly, it was decided wrong (by lower courts, SCOTUS did not decide that one).

My analysis is that the Perdue runoff is illegal. There was a failure to elect, according to Georgia law, which conflicts with federal law, and as such, I believe the Governor must appoint a Senator until the next statewide election in Georgia, which isn’t until 2022. You folks in Georgia need to step up and get this issue into court…like yesterday.

And while you’re at it, check Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in, Arizona v. Inter Tribal, where the Court refused to decide if voter registration is a qualification to vote. If it is held that voter registration is a qualification to vote, that would end all chances of pipelaying in the Senate runoffs, because you would only be able to vote in the runoff if you had been registered to vote in the general election on Nov. 3rd. As it stands now, anyone who registers to vote in Georgia, 30 days or more before the election, can vote in a runoff. But if somebody challenges the NRVA with an emergency application to SCOTUS – citing the exact behavior Congress sought to end by having uniform elections – PIPELAYING – then you could get a historical ruling that voter registration is a qualification to vote.

The Constitution gives the States plenary authority to choose qualifications to vote for Senators. Georgia law requires registration to have been accomplished before the General election, for a person to vote in the runoff. As it stands now, that state law conflicts with the NRVA, but SCOTUS specifically kicked the issue down the road re registration vs qualification in the Arizona v. Inter Tribal case. So if you can get SCOTUS to look at it now, you might stop late registered voters, from in Georgia, or without, from voting in the runoff.

The Perdue issue and the NRVA issue deserve more in depth coverage. You need to get this over to Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, Et al.


The single federal election day statute for presidential elections was made law in 1845. However, it was not going to be relevant until 1848, the next presidential election. By 1845, the telegraph had become an exciting mode of new communication. And by 1848, it was spread far and wide throughout the country.

Before 1845, multi-day popular elections were common. But Congress had seen enough fraud to enact the uniform day for appointment. Besides the Pony Express, the telegraph added another mode of sharing election results. The single election day became law, and when a State needed an exemption from the election day statute, Congress enacted a separate one-time exception statute to accommodate them. This happened twice in 1872, for Texas (see pic above) and Louisiana.

Know the law. Know history. If we don’t educate our nation better, we are finished. The end is closer than it ever has been.

SCOTUS 9-0: Election Day Is One Single Day. Listen to oral argument from Foster v. Love (1997):

Posted in Uncategorized on December 7, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

If the state Legislatures would just sit down for an hour and listen to the oral argument in Foster v. Love, they would have such an easy time understanding their plenary authority was triggered at midnight after Nov. 3rd. (You may listen to the audio here.). Let’s examine some of the transcript:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

“It is an election, and it seems to me, being an election it conflicts with the Federal single Election Day.”

You can’t canvass for days/weeks on end. As Justice Ginsburg said, it’s “the Federal single Election Day.” And the unanimous opinion in this case was consistent with the oral argument, holding that “the election” must be consummated on “the day”.

Justice Souter then had this heated (listen to it) exchange with the Louisiana Attorney General, who was knocked out cold at oral argument, and then lost in a 9-0 decision. That’s going to be the outcome now as well if the state Legislatures would stop being bullied by their governors, secretaries, and attorneys general, and start fighting to end the usurpation of their elector choosing plenary authority. Check it out:

AG Richard I. Ieyoub

Louisiana could do that, Your Honor, but what we’re saying here is that Louisiana’s open primary scheme in no way really clashes or conflicts with the Federal Election Day statute.

Justice David H. Souter

Well, it does conflict, because it has an election on a day other than the day specified by the Federal statute.

That’s why we’re here.

Isn’t that a clear conflict?

AG Richard I. Ieyoub

No, Your Honor, because I believe that you can’t necessarily give a literal interpretation in this particular–

Justice David H. Souter

Why not?

AG Richard I. Ieyoub


Justice David H. Souter

The statute’s clear.

AG Richard I. Ieyoub

simply because I think that it might… it would lead to unreasonable–

Justice David H. Souter

What’s unreasonable about it?

Congress has decided that it wants the election to occur uniformly on a given day in November throughout the United States.

Sometimes, oral argument is not a good predictor of outcome, but looking back on this one, or rather, listening back – you really must hear this for yourselves – it was a very bad day for the Louisiana Attorney General.

State Representatives and Senators should be adopting Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997), in their statements to the public, and they should join this action now before the Supreme Court. The law is with you.