[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.


  1. USC Title 3 Chapter 1 Section 15 says if there are two sets of electors from a state, the two houses must vote on which slate to pick and both houses must agree. If they can’t agree the slate that complies with section 5 and is certified by the executive of the state is counted.

    BTW, I did not see you case listed on yesterday’s SCOTUS order list. Do the clerks have some discretion in what to docket?

    • naturalborncitizen Says:

      3 USC 15 is unconstitutional vs state Legislatures. Congress only has plenary Authority as to time Electors vote, and absolutely no authority as to who are true electors. The Legislatures simply need to petition Courts for Writ of Prohibition as to other slates.

  2. […] the action. Furthermore, the D.C. District Court will be required to take Judicial Notice of the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that officials there invited illegal voting by encouraging voters to […]

  3. […] and lawlessness supported by hundreds of sworn affidavits, the favorable Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, video evidence, and voting machine irregularities, it will be required to allow a jury trial under […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: