Dianne Blumstein, Nancy Goodman, Donna Soodalter-Toman Petitioners, Pro Se
Joseph A. Biden, President of the U.S. Senate (114th Congress) Respondents et al.
ABOUT: Three petitioners have succeeded at getting a case for a revote of the 2016 federal election heard before the Supreme Court. The petitioners have requested a writ of mandamus. A mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action (in this case conduct a revote of the 2017 federal election), and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. The petition to the court asks the following questions:
- Did the Appeals Court Err by Requiring Petitioners to Provide Legal Precedent for their “Novel Constitutional Claim” in Light of the Expert Evidence Provided?
- Did the Appeals Court Err by Not Issuing a Declaratory Finding that U.S. Officials Exercised their Powers in an Unconstitutional Manner While Performing 2016 Inauguration Duties?
- Did the Appeals Court Err by Not Issuing a Writ of Mandamus Prohibiting the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence Based Upon 2016 Presidential Election Outcomes?
- Did the Appeals Court Err by Failing to Find that 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Under the Executive Branch of Government Concluded that Russia Invaded U.S. Cyber Territory in 2016 to Influence Election Outcomes?
The petitioners make several claims in their petition to the court:
- The United States had an obligation to protect the States against cyber invasions during the 2016 elections pursuant to Article IV § 4.
- The United States knew that a foreign adversary was invading U.S. cyberspaces and intruding into State election systems.
- The United States failed to take sufficient actions to prevent cyber intrusions into State election systems during the 2016 elections.
- No one can identify with certainty the extent to which cyber intrusions determined election outcomes.
- Congressional leaders and the President of the United States took an oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States “against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
- The manner in which U.S. elected officials exercised their powers during the 2016 Inauguration is in conflict with their oath-of-office pledge.
- Permitting a foreign adversary to help select America’s most powerful leaders is likely to have a catastrophic consequence.
- Contrary to well-settled law, the U.S. Supreme Court can provide injunctive relief and declaratory relief—non-political remedies—under Article IV § 4 pursuant to the Court’s powers of judicial review.
- There has never been a more urgent need for the Court to provide injunctive and declaratory relief in order to compel the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch to hold new presidential and congressional elections.
Petitioners argued that the hacking of the 2016 elections provides a new context for examining the intent of our Founding Fathers as it relates to the Guarantee Clause; you can read their full petition to the court online. The case will be reviewed this week.
- In DC you can attend events outside The Supreme Court:
- Candlelight Vigil | Sunday, February 19th @ 6pm
- Rally | Monday, February 20th @ 11am
- Sign a Petition
- Spread the word on Social Media:
- Tweet at @revotecoalition using hashtags: #NewElection, #Revote2016, #SCOTUS
- Share the link this post on other platforms.
- Consider starting a rally where you live in support.