Must watch. 👀 https://truthsocial.com/users/annvandersteel/statuses/110196900004325201
Ann Vandersteel.
Breaking: Federal Public Officials found with no Oath of Office on file. (Big names have no oath to the Constitution on file.)
Writ of Quo Warrento filed with U.S. attorney in Washington, DC. They have to provide an affidavit to the DC court and attorney in 10 days or get replaced or immediately terminated…per 5 U.S. code 3332. (If I read it right.)
Vice President
Sec. of Defense
Sec. of Treasury
Sec. of Health and Human Services
Sec. of Energy
Sec. of Education
Sec. of Commerce
Sec. of State
Sec. of Labor and Transportation
Department of Homeland Security
Attorney General
Food and Drug Commissioner
CDC Director
And so on…
WH’s got ‘em coming and going…again. If they refuse to pledge an oath to the Constitution, they get replaced (and maybe jailed). If they do pledge an oath to the Constitution, they can be held accountable for their (past?) and future actions. And piss off their handlers.
Stop right there, especially after we have spent the last 3 years listening to "serious medical minds".
I listened to serious medical minds tell us that all the covid bs was bs. But I didn't even need that. It was pretty apparent.
Show me a single serious legal mind that actually believes this suit is viable. I am skeptical that there is even one. But even a blind hog gets an acorn sometimes so there is probably 1 or 2 guys claiming so. A first year undergrad pre-law student would fail if they turned in that lawsuit. You don't have to like it. You are free to wish this suit did something. But living in reality is a lot better than actually believing this was going somewhere. At least don't send these clowns money. Don't let them grift off your righteous indignation and hope for accountability.
You are again stuck in the perspective that only other people can decide legality. My suggestion is, if you want a real answer, read the lawsuit for yourself. Look up the relevant parts of the constitution / US code and determine for yourself whether it is valid or not.
We are not talking about "viable" here - thats a very subjective term and depends on subjective interpretations of various people. We are talking about "valid" - which is whether its objectively correct or not as for as Law is concerned, assuming they can prove all the factual claims they make.
I did quite a few breakdowns of this a few months ago when everyone was getting hyped about it. It’s bad. It isn’t valid.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqPbRnN9/x/c/4ToipzNEEaa
I think this link goes where I intended it. Ive commented ad nauseam about this case and how it will predictably go nowhere. And if we had perfect angels on the bench, the outcome would be identical - booted.
I cannot believe these fools cite a criminal statute defining the punishment for treason as grounds for a court to grant them this relief in a civil suit, either.
The only fraud they claim is fraud in the inducement. Not “election fraud.” To illustrate how non sensical that is, they would need to claim they would never have voted at all if they had known this was the outcome. They were duped into voting. Which makes zero sense.
You cannot get caught up in all the hype they start their lawsuit with. It is the bulk of their complaint. But none of that ties in with the actual claims for relief that they made. I can’t read it any other way than one of two options: (1) they are morons; or (2) they cloak their grift in everyone’s righteous indignation about egregious fraud in the 2020 election. I suppose it could also be both.
Calling the Constitution a “contract” is more of a philosophical analogy than it is a legal argument. “Promissory estoppel” is a form of equitable relief arising out of contract law when there is no binding contract between the parties. It is rarely successful. An example of promissory estoppel being successful was an old case between Aretha Franklin and a concert venue in New York. At least I think it was her. It was a famous singer from Detroit. There were negotiations about her coming in to play a series of concerts. They reached a preliminary agreement on basic terms but had not finalized all of them. But the concert venue began planning/spending on improving the venue to put on her shows. She eventually backed out and got sued for promissory estoppel. The venue incurred substantial sums of money in preparing the venue and an advertising campaign. They were allowed to recover it on the basis that they relied on the assurance she would sign the final deal; it was only minor issues left to work out. When you lack a contract, you cannot demand specific performance as relief. Only expenses you incurred in reliance on the agreement can be claimed as damages. The benefit of the bargain is not on the table as relief.
The biggest red flag of all: they accused Tracy Beanz of treason for questioning the validity of their suit. Now that is a head scratcher…
Just want to make sure, are we reading the same docket?
I am referring to this one
You have claimed:
How did you come up with this? There is not a single occurrence of the word "inducement" in that filing. Every single occurance of "fraud" with respect to the defendants is coupled with either "treason" or "violation of oath of office".
So I do not believe this claim of yours is accurate.
What does this even mean? The statute they are filing this is under 18 U.S. Code § 2381. which states:
When you say they did not claim "election fraud", are you referring to a different U.S. Code under which they should have filed? If so, what Code is that?
How are to claiming all this? There is not a single mention of the word "contract" in the filing. Where in the filing are they claiming that the Constitution is a "contract" ?
All your further arguments are based on these claims which dont seem to hold up when checked against the filing.
In addition to the case itself, which involves treason and "violating oath of office" (which, surprise surprise, ties back in with this current post) they are also asking the SC to decide on two conflicting doctrines - Equitable maxim and Object principle of justice.
They are claiming that the Equitable maxim doctrine is being used to dismiss the case by the lower court even when the plaintiffs have standing and are claiming the violation of First Amendment which ensures that citizens cannot be restrained from their right to petition the Government for redress of their grievances.
This seems to be the crux of the problem faced by other patriots who had all their cases regarding various aspects of the elections dismissed not on their merits. This seems to be a mechanism the courts are using to avoid hearing cases, which exactly amounts to violation of the right to redress the grievances.
This aspect of the case by itself should be important to us, let alone the treason.
As far as I could see, their case has never been dismissed based on merits. This by itself would make one believe that there is merit to their claims and hence is not being touched by anyone. If you believe the case has been ruled based on the merits by a lower court, please link me the court order that does so.