Source: https://analysisanddiscourse.com/2017/01/02/writ-of-mandamus/
Timestamp: 2017-08-18 05:06:23
Document Index: 560812481

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 1331', '§ 1983', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', 'arty\n8']

Writ of Mandamus | AnalysisAndDiscourse
← When Ukraine Faces These SAME Election Hackers, They Nullified, Held New, Fair Election
URGENT Open Letter to Vice President Biden →
Posted on 01/02/2017	by Analysis and Discourse
In re Jane Doe Petitioner,
Telephone Number: 917.523.9163 Email: VoicesofMillions@gmail.com
Is the Court Obligated to Uphold the Rule of Law Without Regard to Political Consequence?
[ X ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
JURISDICTION …………………………………………………8 ARTICLE III STANDING…………………………………… 9 RELIEF SOUGHT……………………………………………. 10 ISSUES PRESENTED ……………………………………… 12 FACTS PRESENTED……………………………………….. 17 REASON WRIT SHOULD ISSUE……………………… 24
Contrary to well-settled law, injunctive relief—a non-political remedy—is available under Article IV§ 4 pursuant to the Court’s powers of judicial review.
The Court has reason to permanently enjoin Congress from ratifying 2016 federal election results, since the United States failed to protect States’ cyber territories from foreign invasion.
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) ………………………. 9
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S. Ct. 2408, 120 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1992) ……………………………12
New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2433 (1992) 13 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ……………………. 15 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) ………………………. 17
28 U.S.C. § 1331 ………………………………………………… 8 42 U.S.C. § 1983 …………………………………………………8 U.S. Constitution, Article IV § 4 …………………………12 U.S. Constitution, 12th Amendment ……………………..9
) Jane Doe, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) United States of America ) Defendant ) ) ) )
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES
Plaintiff was a registered voter in a national election held on November 8, 2016, whereby Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence were selected as President and Vice President of the United States. Several other candidates were selected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Plaintiff is challenging the constitutionality and lawfulness of current federal officials’ planned exercise of power (Flast v. Cohen) in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment beginning on January 3, 2017, and culminating soon after Friday, January 20, 2017. During that period of time, representatives of the political branches of government will exercise their powers to officially install into federal offices persons unwittingly made party to a fraudulent election by a third party seeking to undermine the “people’s” republican form of government.
Plaintiffs request the Court permanently enjoin the President of the Senate, Members of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. House, and other persons in the U.S. Government from:
2) RatifyingonJanuary6,2017,electoral votes cast by state electors and transmitted to the President of the U.S. Senate;
1 FBI Cyber Crime website:https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber.
Plaintiff comes before the Court seeking a judicial remedy in the form of a permanent injunction under Article IV § 4 (The Guarantee Clause) to prohibit persons elected to federal office in 2016 from taking office based upon hacked election results.
The Court has long held that questions arising under Article IV § 4 “are political, not judicial, in character, and thus are for consideration by Congress or the Executive Branch and not the courts.2 In New York v. United States, Justice O’Connor, writing for the Court, questioned the conventional wisdom that cases under the Guarantee Clause are summarily nonjudiciable:
2 Cases Under the Guarantee Clause Should Be Justiciable, by Erwin Chemerinksy: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1696 &context=faculty_scholarship.
The remedy plaintiff seeks is judicial in nature and would not be within the authority of the executive or legislative branch to grant.
The 2016 primary and general elections fail to comply with constitutional standards, since the federal government failed to protect states and election systems in the states used to capture and calculate votes from invasion by third parties who evidenced an intent to skew election results in favor
of candidates of their choosing. The United States has changed in incalculable ways since our Founders ratified the U.S. Constitution. The population of the U.S. has increased exponentially, and the nation has greatly enlarged its land mass. The U.S. has developed technologically in ways that simply could not have been foreseen when the Constitution was drafted. The constitutional guarantee to protect states from invasions would today necessarily include invasions of any of a state’s territories, including cyber and other territories.
Section IV § 4 guarantees that the federal government will assure and provide States the following protections: 1) a republican form of government; 2) protection against invasion; and 3) protection of legislatures and executives from domestic violence.3
3 What does Article IV, Section 4 really mean? by The American Way, http://www.theamericanview.com/q-what-does-article-iv-section-4-really- mean/.
It is well-settled that the court does not entertain questions that are political in nature (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)). The federal court’s power of judicial review is to examine the facts of the case and render judgment within the jurisdiction of the court’s judicial powers. Plaintiff requests the court review a constitutional matter and provide a remedy in the form of permanent injunctive relief even though it will give rise to an extraordinary political conundrum that will require the political branch of the U.S. Government to hold a new election, which is the same remedy the Supreme Court in Austria4 and the Ukraine5 ordered following foreign intervention into their elections.6
4 Austria’s Top Court Throws Out Presidential Election Result, Orders A Do-Over, NPR (July 1, 2016): http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/07/01/484300814/austrias-top-court-throws-out- presidential-election-result-orders-a-do-over
2004:Yushchenko wins Ukraine election rerun, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/27/ne wsid_4408000/4408386.stm.
Political leaders charged with transition-of- power responsibilities have also taken an oath of office promising to uphold the U.S. Constitution and comply with this nation’s laws and now must make a difficult choice due to third-party cyber invaders. Political leaders must either comply with Amendment Twelve of the U.S. Constitution and ratify electoral votes significantly determined by hackers or comply with their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and thereby refuse to help perfect the criminal acts of cyber terrorists. Never has the Court’s counterbalancing influence been more needed.
Voting Is the Hallmark of American Democracy.
Although the right to vote for electors may not be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution—(“[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”] (Bush v. Gore))—citizens in the Republic of America view the right to vote as an inherent right.
There is a reason citizens wrongly believe the right to vote is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Citizens regard voting as the mechanism by which they participate in our republic. Never has the importance of the people’s right to vote been more evident than now. During the 2016 election, third- party hackers committed criminal and terroristic acts, invaded our cyber territory, and interfered in U.S. elections in a manner we have yet to fully discern. (See Appendix A—Limited Number of Election Hack Scenarios.)
Rule—1: Sovereignty
2. The accepted definition of “sovereignty” was set forth in the Island of Palmas Arbitral Award of 1928. It provides that “Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to
exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State.”
Computer experts, advocacy organizations, think tanks, and security experts have perpetually warned states and the federal government that state election laws, policies, processes, and machines that
7 Tallinn Manual Sovereignty by Martin Walls (June 12, 2015): http://insct.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Tallinn-Manual- Sovereignty.pdf.
together create America’s voting system during a federal election are plagued by numerous vulnerabilities and irregularities that allow for voter suppression, manipulation, and invasion by third- party actors who have sinister intent.
The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires the United States to protect all its territories from invasion. While Founding Fathers could not have envisioned today’s technological society, protection against invasion applied to all of the nation’s borders and today includes cyber territories:
On multiple occasions throughout the 2016 election cycle, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Intelligence Community, which is composed of 16 agencies, warned that third-party
8 What does Article IV, Section 4 really mean?, The American View: http://www.theamericanview.com/q-what-does-article-iv- section-4-really-mean/.
actors, alleged to be Russian, were interfering in U.S. elections and invading election systems.9
 The Chicago Tribune publicized that the Illinois State Board of Elections reported that hackers—believed to be of foreign origin—had obtained personal information from over 200,000 voter records beginning in June 2016.10
 An intelligence report titled FBI/DHS Summary Report: GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity, published on December 29, 2016, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation tells of widespread election hacking. The report provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence
9 Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security: (October 7, 2016): https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement- department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national.
10 Illinois Election Official Say Hack Yielded 200,000 Voters, Chicago Tribune (August 29, 2016): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-illinois-state-board- of-elections-hack-update-met-0830-20160829-story.html.
Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. government, political, and private sector entities. This activity by RIS is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens.11
 A CBS News website article titled More State Election Databases Hacked Than Previously Thought, dated September 28, 2016, reveals that government officials were growing increasingly concerned about Russian efforts to disrupt or influence the 2016 election. The report also claimed that a total of about 10 states had their systems probed or breached by hackers, similar to the election systems breaches that had already occurred in Arizona and Illinois.12
Political leaders who were aware of the cyber- terrorist activity failed to stop the invasions into state election systems or develop stopgap measures that would have allowed for easy detection of voter fraud activity by hackers or other parties. As a
11 FBI/DHS Summary Report: GRIZZLY STEPPE–Russian Malicious Cyber Activity: https://www.us- cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16- 20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf.
12 More State databases hacked than previously thought, CBS News (September 28, 2016): http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-state-election-databases- hacked-than-previously-thought/.
result, election results were characterized by several anomalies.13
13 A Fair Election? Serious, Hard-to-Explain Questions Arise About Trump Vote Totals in 3 Key States, Alternet (November 18, 2016): http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/fair-election-
serious-hard-explain-questions-arise-about-trump-vote-totals-3- key .
The highly charged nature of America’s political environment has pitted party interests against national interests and has rendered some political guardians unable to act and others unwilling to act to remediate the effects of the unprecedented attack on our sovereign nation’s most important process—the election of top leaders who determine national policy, oversee military and intelligence assets, manage our economy, oversee our government, and chart our future.
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2017
I hereby certify that on January 2, 2017,
I sent a copy of the Petitioner’s Opening Brief by mail to:
Signature: Jane Doe Date: January 2, 2017
I certify that the total number of pages I am submitting as my Petitioner’s Opening Brief is 30 pages or less or alternatively, if the total number of pages exceeds 30, I certify that I have counted the number of words and the total is 3688, which is less than 13,000. I understand that if my Petitioner’s Opening Brief exceeds 13,000 words, my brief may be stricken and the appeal dismissed.
Limited Number of Election Hack Scenarios by Brian Fox-CAVO
In this scenario, a machine has its software changed
during the primary elections. The goal of the change is to install software that will run during the general election, and will change the way the votes are counted during that election. This type of attack often generates a sense of safety and security among the election officials, because when they hand count and otherwise audit the results of the primary election, the results match perfectly. Election officials then believe that the machines are working and have not been tampered with. When the votes are tallied for the general election, the hack is activated, and the counts are skewed.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged biden, election, hacking, mandamus, obama, russians, Trump, vote, writ. Bookmark the permalink.