Monday, February 8, 2021

A Declaratory Judgment Action In a Court of Law Is the Best Chance that We Have to Learn the Truth About the 2020 Presidential Election and the Capitol Invasion


A Declaratory Judgment Action In a Court of Law Is the Best Chance that We Have to Learn the Truth About the 2020 Presidential Election and the Capitol Invasion

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

February 8, 2021


It looks like I was correct when I warned about Republicans turning on former President Donald J. Trump. See my previous articles with comments, “President Trump Must Immediately File A Declaratory Judgment Action to Vindicate Himself and Put an End to the Election Controversy and New Impeachment” (Jan. 11, 2021), “President Trump Needs to Make His Impeachment Defense First In Court Before Making It In the Senate” (Jan. 17, 2021), and “Former President Donald J. Trump Should File a Declaratory Judgment Action and Not a Quo Warranto Action” (Jan. 26, 2021).  

We have this just before Trump's Senate impeachment trial is set to begin.  "Breaking With G.O.P., Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial.”  Conservative Attorney Charles J. Cooper is the writer.  The mainstream media is in love with Mr. Cooper, given that he has represented and continues to represent various political foes of Trump and now argues that under the Constitution’s impeachment clause the House has the authority to charge and the Senate to convict a former president for his conduct occurring while he was in office, even though at the time of the Senate trial he is no longer in office. The simple reason for that is, as I have also stated, the Congress may still want to, in addition to removing such an offender from his current office, also ban him from future political office.  I have warned that this will be the winning argument, but the Republicans are bent on trying to get Trump's case dismissed without ever reaching the merits of the election irregularities and whether Trump caused the Capitol invasion.

At this time, Trump faces four scenarios, with only the fourth providing the public with the truth about the 2020 presidential election and the Capitol invasion that followed and Trump clearing himself from any wrongdoing. 

First, without Trump preparing and presenting a defense on the merits, Trump's Republican political enemies will win. I have explained that they hope to achieve a procedural dismissal so that the question of the 2020 presidential election does not have to be laid open before the Senate of the United States, which voted to certify that election on January 6, 2021. Hence, if Trump’s detractors win on procedural grounds, the election issue will not be revisited, and Trump will not have cleared his name.

Second, if the Senate denies Trump's motion to dismiss on procedural grounds and moves forward with the merits, Trump will need to be prepared to defend himself. At this time, it is not clear what Trump will present as his defense during the trial. The media is already reporting that there probably will not be any witnesses at the trial which means that it is not possible that Trump would be able to present all the facts related to the 2020 presidential election and his alleged role in the Capitol invasion.  It would also be a farce for Trump to testify at the trial without presenting any other evidence. If Trump’s detractors lose on procedural grounds, it is likely that 17 Senators, for the sake of their future political careers, will not join the impeaching Democrats which gives Trump only a veneer of victory, for Trump, while not being banned from future political office, will still not have cleared his name. The merits trial will be filled with propaganda imagery of the invasion which will be the Democrats' unspoken let alone proof that Trump caused what the viewers can see on the big media screens.  That show trial will create a biased record that will follow Trump and his supporters for life.

Third, if 17 Republicans do vote to convict, Trump will not have cleared his name and will most probably be forever barred from future office.   

Fourth, Trump has chosen at his peril the politically charged Senate rather than a court of law in which I have recommended he should file a declaratory judgment action, request a stay of the Senate trial, and where he has a better chance that his due process rights would be respected. The pending election lawsuits to be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court only addresses the actual election.  They do not involve the Capitol invasion and the critical question of whether Trump legally caused that invasion.   It is only in a declaratory judgment action filed in a court of law--where Trump (assuming he does not fear being deposed and called as a witness) would have discovery, subpoena powers, the ability to call witnesses, and the right to litigate both the integrity of the election in the contested states and whether he legally caused the Capitol invasion--that Trump stands any chance of creating a credible factual record of what happened in the 2020 presidential election and in the Capitol invasion. It is only in a court of law that Trump has any chance of proving to the American people and the world the truth of what happened in the 2020 election and in the Capitol invasion that followed.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 8, 2021


Copyright © 2021
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved


AnnD said...

I'm not an attorney, but this sounds like a very reasonable course of action. How to get it to President Trump's legal team?

Carlyle said...

"permanently banned from office"

How is this supposed to happen? The last I looked there were only 4 qualifications for president - the 3 often discussed here and term limit provisions. The impeachment trial cannot affect any of these. They could throw Trump in jail and we could still vote for him and elect him president!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article II, Section 4.

“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” Article I, Section 3, Clause 7.

Hence, the constitutional punishment upon impeachment and conviction is removal from office and can include disqualification from future office, the former with a two-thirds vote and the latter arguably with a simple majority vote. This is what the Constitution says and means.

Hence, you cannot read Article II, Section, 1 Clause 5 in isolation. The rest of the Constitution also counts. Also, we cannot just read the Constitution for what we like but must also read it for what we do not like.

Are you suggesting that a hypothetically disqualified Trump is going to just run for President in 2024 and pay no attention to the Constitution? Are you also suggesting that his adversary is going to just sit idly by and let him do that? Unlike natural born citizen clause enforcement which does not exist in our nation due to political correctness and cowardice, the same would not apply if Trump could be knocked down with disqualification from office.

ajtelles said...

Hi Mario,

Hmm, interesting point, "Judgment...removal from office, and ... disqualification to hold …" future office.

Since "impeachment" is step # 1, and "Judgment...removal from office" is step #2, and the so-called "impeachment" of President Trump while he was President did not result in a "judgment" for his "removal from office" after a Senate trial, it seems at we are in constitutional neutral territory.

Will former President X of the future, male or female, have a case to refute a so-called Senate "trial" if the Senate did not make a “judgment” and convict while the President was in "office" as President?

Will the answer depend on who is in control of the House and the Senate, and whether “the law disappeared”, or will the answer depend on the “rule of law” regardless of who is in control of the Congress?

Time will tell in a few days – or maybe weeks, and will tell us what will happen in the future.


Carlyle said...

Thank you for the thorough answer to my previous concern. Now, what about this?

I sure hope Trump and his lawyers have a better defense than "you have no authority to do this". In a political trial, that defense has never, not once, ever worked. It only excites the accusers to escalate their hate - foaming at the mouth.

The charge on the table is "he lied, therefore incited violence". The only possible defense is "I did not lie". And then proceed to prove it. That would be a good time to "release the kraken".

PS - I agree with your Declaratory Judgement idea, but it looks like that is not going to happen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


We are in full agreement.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

As I correctly predicted, the Senate (with 6 Republican Senators joining the 50 Democrat Senators) has rejected Trump's lawyers' argument that the impeachment Senate trial of a president who is no longer in office is unconstitutional. The trial is now supposed to move forward to the merits. But will it really?

The Senate will not treat him fairly there. The Democrat presentation will be driven by mostly emotion and rhetoric, all splashed via videos on big screens and impassioned speeches by invasion survivors, not to mention speeches about the unfortunate deaths. The legal issues, i.e., the integrity of the election in the contested states and whether Trump legally caused the Capitol invasion, will get lost in all that demagoguery. We have to hope that the Republican Senators do not get swept up by the propaganda and media pressure.

Now that Trump lost the unconstitutionality argument, he has to address the merits. Trump still has time to file his declaratory judgment action in federal district court to do that. That is why Trump has to get out of the show Senate and take his case to federal district court while he still has time. If Trump does not take his case out of the Senate, he would be stuck with a Senate conviction should it go that way. A declaratory judgment action court post-Senate impeachment conviction will decline jurisdiction, finding that there is no longer a live controversy between the parties given that the court could not give Trump any remedy that he would need to prevent his conviction in the Senate since that conviction would have already occurred. Hence, Trump would lose the ability to vindicate himself in a federal court.

Trump has to make a critical decision. The Democrats need 17 Republican votes. They already have 6 without getting to the merits show. Can Trump trust the remaining 11 Republican Senators not to cave in for whatever reason that may drive them to do so?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Nikki Haley has turned on Trump for the sake of what she considers to be in the best interest of her political career. See here,

Well, someone should never be rewarded for being a traitor. Dante, in his Dante's Inferno, placed traitors in Hell's innermost Ninth Circle, a punishment for the deep moral sin of treachery against and betrayal of one's loved ones, friends, countries, cities, guests, and masters. Dante assures that these offenders are forever frozen for their sins.

Furthermore and more importantly, Nikki Haley is not, like putative Vice President Kamala Harris, constitutionally qualified to be President or Vice President. While she might have been born in the United States, she was not born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Geoff Johnson has written an article, “Students need to learn about consequences of spreading disinformation,” . Well, Johnson should take a lesson from his own advice.

Johnson wants people to be ethical in their communications. Johnson complains about “misinformation, innuendo and, on occasion, outright indefensible lies” that people spread in social media and news sources. He wants schools to teach courses on ethics in online communications and courts to punish lies in the media. He gives two examples of these “lies.” He states that former President Trump spread the “stolen election” lie regarding the integrity of the election in the contested states and Fox News’s Lou Dobbs claiming “that former U.S. president Barack Obama was not a natural-born U.S. citizen.” Now, what irony. Johnson complains of people spreading disinformation. As to the election, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to decide the election issues in some of the contested states. Johnson makes no mention of that. As to whether Obama is a natural born citizen, anyone who has adequately researched the meaning of a natural born citizen should conclude that Obama was not a natural born citizen. He might have been born in the U.S., but he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. His father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born. This is a significant constitutional issue that the U.S. Supreme Court also needs to resolve. So, Johnson should follow his own advice and stop spreading lies in the news.

ajtelles said...

Hi Mario,

In reading your comment on February 15, 2021 at 5:39 AM, It seems that Geoff Johnson is an example of being "woke" about truth and lies.

What is a truth and what is a lie?

Well, Victor Davis Hanson has some interesting things to say about the mindset that may be behind new truths and new lies.

This is the info text from American Thought Leaders.

"American Thought Leaders - The Epoch Times

"In this episode, we sit down with classicist and historian Victor Davis Hanson to discuss the rise of critical social justice and woke ideology, growing limits on freedom of speech, and his take on the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump.

" 'It's like a public-shaming like the Communist Party used to make people wear dunce caps,' Hanson says.

"This is American Thought Leaders, and I’m Jan Jekielek."

Mario, Geoff Johnson can’t do anything about what he thinks ‘cause he’s “woke”, and he knows the truth about the election and the presidential eligibility status of Barack Obama. Donald Trump is wrong simply because he said what he said about fraud, and Lou Dobbs is wrong simply because he said what he said about eligibility. Geoff is “woke” and the U. S. Supreme Court opining about presidential eligibility will not be accepted unless the Court opines that being born on U. S. soil does NOT require birth to two U. S. citizen parents. See, it’s so easy to know a truth from a lie ‘cause when you are “woke” you are on the winning side.

For that “woke” reason, a constitutional amendment would be better than a Supreme Court “opinion” about the implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president. Unless, of course, the amendment agreed to articulated explicitly, not implicitly, that birth on U. S. soil to two U. S. citizen parents was not necessary to be president.

With a “woke” Supreme Court, who knows what could “opined” by the Court?

I’m just wondering out loud about what being “woke” implies because absolutely nobody has said anything about Kamala Harris NOT being eligible to be Vice President or President. That includes President Trump and also Lou Dobbs, before or after FOX silenced him by keeping him on the payroll.


ajtelles said...

Hi Mario,

Sharon Rondeau has posted on her blog, The Post & Email (, an article by Ron Ewart. Why Do Conservative Authors and Radio Hosts Waste Their Time?, a prescient and well-reasoned article. His abundant website is ( ).

His article is not about natural born citizen per se, but it could apply because of the “woke” Democrat and Republican politicos who asserted that only one U. S. citizen parent (Sen. Cruz and Rubio, Pres. Obama) or zero U. S. citizen parents (V-Pres. Harris) can produce a U. S. “natural born Citizen” with eligibility to be president, and because of the recent activity by the “woke” (my word) “socialist Democrats” as he calls those entrenched in the “socialist strongholds” of America, and whom I call the ideological thought leaders of the “footsoldiers of the marxist revolutionaries” (plural “revolutionaries” who are the big bucks ideological thought leaders of the “footsoldiers”).

In his article Ewart mentions the “socialist Democrats” nine times who “kept coming” through the decades, not simply that past 16 months when the “footsoldiers of the marxist revolutionaries” started burning buildings in Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington, and elsewhere, and started demanding defunding the police, the preface to overthrowing the civil authority of the citizens.

(para. 11) “For 32 years Rush Limbaugh plied the airways and was the undisputed voice of the conservative movement on talk radio. In spite of his efforts the socialist Democrats grew and kept coming.”

(para. 12) “Mike Gallagher, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity (and others too many to list here) all echoed the conservative ideology, but the socialist Democrats grew and kept coming.”

(para. 13) “Thousands of conservative authors (including this author) have shared their thoughts and ideas in on-line magazines, newspapers and blogs all across the Internet and in major publications. Many of them are excellent writers and capable of creating cogent articles with solid ideas and facts to back them up. Nevertheless, the socialist Democrats grew and kept coming.”

In paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 Ewart mentions “socialist Democrats” three times and expresses what I told a friend four days ago (Thursday, June 3), except that, instead of “socialist Democrats” being the perpetrators of a color revolution and social change, I referred to the “footsoldiers of the marxist revolutionaries” (plural “revolutionaries” – the internationalist, the globalist ideological thought leaders behind the scenes with the big bucks) on the streets of America and the ideological “footsoldiers of the marxist revolutionaries” in the November 3, 2020 presidential election ballot counting rooms (who is it that brought them the ballots?), and the January 6, 2021 “riot” that was instigated, NOT by Trump supporters but by the ideological “footsoldiers of the marxist revolutionaries” who planted bombs before the event (who funded the bombs?, who are the behind the scenes “thought leaders” of the footsoldiers?) who were masquerading as “Trump supporters” because that is what ideological “footsoldiers” do. The “socialist Democrats” are the “social justice warriors” (SJW) of the current iteration of Marcuse, Gramci, and others, and ideological footsoldiers of the German Frankfurt School’s cultural revolution which started a branch at Columbia University (and others) in the 20th century.

ajtelles said...

[part 2]
As Ron Ewart mentions in paragraph 13, “...conservative authors (including this author), I said the same thing to my friend about myself and about Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson, and others. They talk (while we listen) about the events of the day, and they talk about the events of the next day, and they talk, and they talk, and they talk (that’s exactly how I said it to my friend), and the marxist revolutionaries (the “socialist Democrats”) keep plodding along day, after day, after day, decade after decade, until they do something so revolutionary that the BIG Talkers on radio and television, the BIG Bloggers online, and the BIG Writers in print wake up the next day and ask “what happened on our watch today” and what does it mean?

So, now what?

Will Mike Lindell and his “Absolute” and awesome evidence, and his “Absolutely 9-0” video persuade the SCOTUS to agree to a quo warranto* look at his evidence of what he asserts is Chinese Communist Party interference in the Nov. 3, 2020 general election by manipulating the election machines, and before the states of Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, etc., reach legal decisions in their respective states, or before his $2 billion lawsuit against an election machine provider is decided in his favor?

Is the United States Supreme Court “woke” or awake? We’ll find out soon.

* I’m not a lawyer, so this is for us, we who are not lawyers.
quo warranto (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law)
1: and extraordinary writ requiring a person or corporation to show by what right or authority a public office or franchise is held or exercised.
2: a proceeding in the nature of a writ of quo warranto for determining by what authority or right an office or franchise is held or exercised and seeking as an extraordinary remedy the discontinuance of an unlawful exercise of office or franchise.

Mario, here is where the “stolen” presidency by Obama meets the “stolen” presidency of Obiden (“Obiden” since his first term is considered by Obama and his ideological soul mates to be Obama’s third term – where did all of the executive orders come from in the first few days after January 20, 2021? Huh? Hmm...).

Does the U. S. Constitution impeachment clause (Article II Section 1 clause 6, changed by the Twelfth Amendment) and Article II Section 4, apply to a president who did NOT “steal” the election but simply “accepted” the Electoral College “election” as found in Article II Section 1 clause 3 and 4 (# 3 changed by the Twelfth Amendment, a portion of which was superseded by section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment)?

If Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania (and the other contesting states) adjudicate in President Trump’s favor before or after the Supreme Court decides Mike Lindell’s quo warranto “Absolutely 9-0” case in President Trump’s favor, do the Ninth and Tenth Amendments* bridge the gap between what is explicit and what is implicit in the text of the constitution?

*Ninth Amendment – “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people”.
*Tenth Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

ajtelles said...

[part 4]

Replying to

(#7) Jenna! Jenna! Jenna!
Even you know this! When fraud is proven, the Supreme Court has ruled that “fraud vitiates all!”
The slate is clean! Trump is back!

[my comment – “fraud vitiates” is implied in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments]

2:31 PM · May 30, 2021·Twitter for iPhone


A few bullet points.

_U. S. Constitution
_impeachment of a “legal” president
_crime while in office
_impeach first, remove, then take the criminal to court
_Obama has suggested that his third term is being conducted by “Obiden”
_Obiden and Oharris did NOT steal the election
_they simply accepted stolen property “believing” (???) it was legitimate (???)
_the “stealers” are NOT addressed by the constitution and are not protected by the constitution
_Obiden and Oharris did NOT “steal” the election
_the election was “stolen” by persons NOT protected by the impeachment clause of the constitution
_the Electoral College did NOT elect” a “legal” winner
_the Electoral College “elected” a receiver of “stolen property”
_thief steals property and gives / sells property to a receiver of property
_the receiver of the stolen property must give it back to the rightful owner
_Obiden and Oharris must give their offices back to the owner (singular) “WE the People”
_Article 2 Section 4 – “impeachment” of a president/vice president is of a “legal” president/vice president
_Article 2 Section 1 clause 6 – “removal” of a “legal” president by “...Congress … by Law...”
_25th Amendment – “removal” of a “legal” president and vice president

25th Amendment Section 4 clause 1 –
“Whenever the [“legal”] vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the [“legal”] President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his [“legal”] office, the [“legal”] Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President”.

If, “when” both the president and vice president are found by the states and the federals to not be the “legal” winners of the November 3, 2020 presidential election, do the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in conjunction with the Twenty-fifth Amendment “imply” that the “Acting President” is the “legal” Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and the “Acting President” ONLY until the rightful president is either “reinstalled” as Jenna Ellis says is not possible, or is the “Acting President” ONLY until January 20, 2025 when President Trump is re-elected as the 47th President?

Hey, I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know, right?

Who is holding the trump card so to speak, or the royal flush? The thief who steals or the several states and WE the People? The “thief” is the plural states who “stopped” (so they say) the ballot count at almost the same time around midnight of Nov. 3, and “started” at almost the same time after 2 AM on Nov. 4. The several states and WE the People are implied in amendments nine and ten holding the royal flush – the trump card so to speak – to counter the criminal actors who “stole” the election and offered the presidency to Obiden and Oharris who accepted what they both thought (both thought ???) was legal to possess.

Just askin’ for a few million friends who want to know if the Supreme Court is “woke” or awake.


ajtelles said...

Hi Mario,

Here is part 3


[part 3]
The U. S. Constitution does not explicitly compel acceptance of an election “stolen” by state actors in favor of Biden and Harris. Kamala Harris’s lack of “natural born Citizen” eligibility to succeed as president is a different constitutional issue that could theoretically be addressed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, possibly with a quo warranto approach.

However, I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know, right?

Well, Jenna Ellis, a sincere Christian and a very nice lady whom I really, really, admire and agree with 99% of the time about the November 3, 2020 election that was “stolen” from President Trump, the “legal” winner, in her own words on Twitter does not think that Obiden and Oharris can be removed from office because the Constitution says so. The Electoral College “elected” and the House and Senate certified the president and vice president, and because Republicans follow the Constitution. “Just the Truth” is the name of Jenna’s daily TV program on Real Americas Voice at 6 pm, EST ( ).

Remember, Biden and Harris did NOT “steal” the election so they can NOT be “impeached” and removed from office. They did NOT do anything wrong while in office, so they can NOT be impeached.

However, I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know, right?

Jenna Ellis – Twitter

Jenna Ellis

(#1) The election was lawless, six states allowed their delegates to vote by false certifications, but the EC process happened.

The Constitution has only one process for removal of a sitting president: impeachment and conviction.

[my comment - “...only one process for removal...”impeachment” and conviction”]

No, President Trump is not going to be “reinstated.”

2:20 PM · May 30, 2021·Twitter for iPhone


(#2) The best thing we can do as constitutionalists moving forward is to ensure this utter disregard for states’ election laws never happens again.

That’s why election integrity is the number one issue facing America today.

2:21 PM · May 30, 2021·Twitter for iPhone


(#3) Even if Biden/Harris were impeached and convicted, there is a constitutionally prescribed presidential succession.

The states had their opportunity to cure the corruption before January 20; they refused.

This is what @RudyGiuliani
and I told them.

This is entirely on the GOP.

2:29 PM · May 30, 2021·Twitter for iPhone


(#4) Is this fair? No.

Did Trump win? Yes.

Were the GOP state legislatures utterly spineless? Absolutely.

But Americans follow the Constitution.

[my comment – “WE the People” are the “Constitution” – “follow” the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.]

And just because we can’t “reinstate” Trump does NOT mean we give up or that we lost. If our founders gave up, we’d still be British!

2:35 PM · May 30, 2021·Twitter for iPhone


Joe Gooding Hundred points symbolFlag of United States

Replying to

(#5) Unfortunately, .@JennaEllisEsq
is 100% correct on this. The Electoral College certification is bedrock, & those floating these theories of “reinstating” President Trump aren’t doing us any good. The state legislatures failed us. False hope is no hope. I’m all in for #Trump2024

2:59 PM · May 30, 2021·Twitter for iPhone



Replying to


(#6) And our party let it happen without lifting a finger to stop it!!! Donald Trump probably had no idea that the “swamp” included so many republicans at the state level Smiling face with tearSmiling face with tear!!
God Bless @JennaEllisEsq
and @RudyGiuliani
and many others for at least trying!!!

3:06 PM · May 30, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

ajtelles said...

[part 1]
Hi Mario,

A few minutes ago I read again your post before this one on January 26, 2021 titled Former President Donald J. Trump Should File a Declaratory Judgment Action and Not a Quo Warranto Action.

The titles of the sections in your article are listed #1 to #7.

(#1) Neither the U.S. Attorney General nor the U.S. Attorney will help Trump

(#2) The court would probably not give its permission for Trump to have the quo warranto writ issued

(#3) Neither the president nor vice president is an officer of the United States

(#4) The court would not rule that Biden and Harris have usurped their offices

(#5) A quo warranto action does not extend to the issue of whether Trump’s speech legally caused the Capitol invasion

(#6) The quo warranto statute would be unconstitutional if it could be applied to a sitting president or vice president

(#7) The declaratory judgment action that I propose is the only way that Trump should go

Just as you would probably have been proven right about Trump and the district court then, and quo warranto would not have been honored by the Court in favor of President Trump, what you wrote about Trump and the Court may be applicable for the same reason to Mike Lindell and his effort to expose Chinese Communist Party (CCP) interference in the 2020 presidential election, and for the same reason you mention in section #2 above about the "District Court for the District of Columbia (16 D.C. Code §§ 3501-3502".

Ninth Amendment – “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people”.

Tenth Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.


By replacing the name "Trump" with "We the People" or, for example, with "Mike Lindell", would Lindell’s "Absolute 9-0" "proof" of CCP voting machine interference in the Nov. 3, 2020 presidential election be accepted?

Do the “States” and the “people” have a say regardless of what the D.C. District Court and the Supreme Court decide, or is the Constitution a suicide pact if the federal court judges are vehemently against President Trump?

Do amendments Nine and Ten “trump” Trump derangement syndrome hate and election fraud and theft, or is the U. S. Constitution a suicide pact?

Are amendments Nine and Ten NOT a defense against a stolen election?

Will the District Court and Supreme Court get involved with defining the reason the legislatures of the States are mentioned in the U. S. Constitution, or will the District and Supreme Court continue to refuse to defend the original intent of the Constitution regarding presidential elections?

Some separate questions:

Is the Court awake to the existential threat against the Republic from foreign and domestic enemies of "We the People" and American sovereignty, or is the Court, in the street vernacular, "woke" due to obsessive Trump hate and an obsessive Trump derangement syndrome?

Does it matter for purposes of honest adjudication if Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is a vicious anti-Trumper, at least according to comments attributed to Justice Roberts in purported audio in which he is said to use demeaning and vulgar language about President Trump and his reelection bid, e.g., "...that m-fer…", and that he will not be president again?

Would it matter for purposes of adjudication if any Justice on the current Court is neutral about President Trump and the 2020 election?

ajtelles said...

[part 2]

The District Court and the Supreme Court will ignore the “States” and the “people” in Amendments Nine and Ten for the same reason they will ignore just the truth and truthful justice. John Roberts is Chief Justice and Justice Clarence Thomas is not, and NOT because quo warranto is not a remedy to deal with a stolen presidential election.

As I said humorously in my previous comments here a few days ago I repeat it here: hey, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know, right?

However, Mario, if I understand your previous “Declaratory Judgment Action and Not a Quo Warranto Action” article correctly, and I think I do, quo warranto could be accepted by an unbiased and honest District Court and then an unbiased and honest Supreme Court, even if it meant a ruling that would unseat Obiden and Oharris (“O” because they are both “thought” puppets of Obama, in my unbiased opinion).

Also, in agreement with your previous quo warranto article, with the current Trump derangement syndrome exhibited by some state legislatures and governors, and the D. C. District Court and the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts, if it had been Donald Trump who had benefited from a stolen election with an avalanche of mail in ballots and election machine interference, Chief Justice John Roberts would definitely communicate with the District Court and “suggest” that a quo warranto consideration is warranted even if Mike Lindel was the litigant for the States and We the People.

Why? For the deliberate purpose of unseating President Trump to defend the original intent of amendments Nine and Ten. Right?

Why would all 9 Supreme Court Justices agree with Roberts if this happened?

Because quo warranto is a remedy for a stolen election, and overturning a stolen election is implicit in amendments Nine and Ten. Right?

But, hey, I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know.. Right?