Arizona Citizens Supporting Honest Representative Government At All Levels
Dear Mike Lindell
July 15th, 2021
By Lex Greene
Great pillows! Thank you…first time in years that I wake up every day without any neck or back pain…Now, to the point of my reaching out.
There is zero doubt that the 2020 elections were stolen via unprecedented levels and methods of election fraud, committed by the Biden–Harris campaign, the Democrat Party, and a laundry list of their global comrades and domestic fifth column Marxists. I am 100% confident that your investment in election integrity has resulted in massive indisputable evidence that will prove these facts beyond any honest doubt. Thank you!
The question is, who do you need to prove it to, and how?
Following your updates and comments on the matter, I understand that you have been advised by legal beagles to take your evidence directly to the U.S. Supreme Court via a Quo Warranto filing. If true, your legal beagle advisers have sent you on a suicide mission that will destroy all of the work you have done to expose 2020 fraud. Here’s why…
As I’m certain you have noticed over recent years, the Federal Courts are a total disaster in terms of their understanding and reverence for Constitutional Law. The most common response from Federal Courts concerning constitutional issues, especially any attempt to expose government corruption and fraud, is “denied access, due to lack of standing.” This has become the catch–all escape hatch the courts use to prevent evidence like yours, from ever being presented in their tightly controlled courts.
NOTE: Never forget that numerous Federal and State Courts participated in the 2020 fraud.
In this case, a Quo Warranto case concerning the 2020 elections would be based upon a question to the court, essentially asking “by what authority does Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have the right to occupy the Oval Office?” A reasonable and logical question, based upon the mountain of evidence that proves they have no legitimate right whatsoever to occupy the Oval Office.
However, if you file a Quo Warranto case with the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis of your valuable evidence, one of two things will happen, neither of which is good, and your investment and work will all be for nothing.
In other words, you will have slit your own throat by following the suicidal advice of legal beagles who have been losing cases like this in Federal Courts for years now. Once they walk you into this trap, intentionally or unintentionally, there will be nothing left after that.
Further, because the U.S. Constitution reserves all power over elections as an authority of each state, via each state legislature, the Federal Courts really have no legal authority over this matter to begin with. Because elections are a state–by–state matter, so is the challenge of any state election result.
If you want to take your evidence to any court, the right court would be the State Supreme Court in which you have evidence to prove that the certified outcome of the 2020 elections in that state were rotten with fraud, resulting in an unlawful and unconstitutional outcome which must be overturned.
The better legal tool for this type of case would be a Writ of Mandamus filing with each State Supreme Court, demanding the court review all of your evidence, and issue an order requiring State Officials to decertify previous fraudulent certifications, claw back the state’s Presidential Electors and any fraudulent down–ballot results, and certify the new results, correcting the fraud and holding everyone responsible for it accountable, under violations of their Oaths of Office and State election code.
State–by–state, this is the right way to overturn the fraud in a courtroom, by constitutional process in each state, resulting in the overturning of the 2020 fraud nationally. By going this route, the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to uphold the lawful and constitutional actions of the states who have righted the wrong via proper methods.
All Supreme Courts, both Federal and State, have two types of jurisdiction, appellate(which most are familiar with) and original, which few people seem to know or understand today, especially in the lawyer class. In order to go directly to a Supreme Court bypassing all lower courts, a case must be an “original jurisdiction” case.
“Original jurisdiction is distinguishable from appellate jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to hear and enter judgment upon a case brought for review. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court’s caseload consists almost entirely appellate cases from the circuit courts of appeal.” This is because British Common Law standards are being unconstitutionally applied in our court system today, using both “procedural” and “precedence” to control access to the courts.
When a court rules on “lack of standing” without ever hearing the case, they are making a “procedural” ruling. They are saying that the case does not meet the procedural standards created by the courts or legislatures, necessary to be granted access to the court. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing)
When regarding an “original jurisdiction” case, the high court must possess “original jurisdiction” over the matter being brought before the court. If not, then the case must be filed in a lower court and go through the lengthy and costly process of an appellate process in order to enter the high court on appeal.
When a matter pertains to a “constitutional crisis” or a “constitutional conflict,” Supreme Courts are supposed to be the first court to hear the case, bypassing all lower courts due to the severity and dangers associated with the case, rising to a level of URGENT “original jurisdiction” for the high court. No other court has any jurisdiction on original jurisdiction cases.
You will also have to make sure you can pass the bar set for “legal standing” in bringing an “original jurisdiction” case.
A case regarding the integrity of elections within a state is an original jurisdiction case for the State Supreme Court. Just make sure you approach the court in a manner which provides proof of “legal standing,” which essentially means, the right to approach the court on the matter. SEE “legal standing” here. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing)
In closing, the State Legislature in each State has full legal authority over elections within the state. This is the proper place to expose, fight and resolve election fraud that happened within the state. But the State Supreme Court could be utilized to “order” the legislature or other State Officials to abide by their oaths of office and do the job they were elected to do, via a Writ of Mandamus.
Especially in today’s corrupt and convoluted federal court system, I would do everything possible to avoid asking Federal courts for their legal opinion about anything, especially if it puts them in a highly uncomfortable position of having to consider overturning a national election that has already been allowed to happen and stand for more than six months.
Godspeed Mr. Lindell…
© 2021 Lex Greene – All Rights Reserved
E-Mail Lex Greene: NWVLexGreene@gmail.com
Share This Article
About the Author: Lex Greene
Comment to Lex Greene at: NWVLexGreene@gmail.com Lex Greene is a pen name and if you know American history, then you know why this name was chosen. Lex Greene is an avid historian with many years’ professional experience in U.S. and World events. He has not written for publication in several years, for the benefit of family and personal protection. Due to today's cancel-culture, a pen name is used by this writer to protect the writer’s true identity. You can also follow Radio FREE Lex Greene
Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.
LYLE J. RAPACKI, Ph.D.
Host and Commentator
I agree with the writer based upon my research. If the States that had the "Fraud" show up in their election reverse the errors caused as a result of Fraud there is little the Federal Government under the control of the Democrats/Globalist can do to prevent it and it will build a consensus as the other States follow the same program exposing the Frauds committed in their Jurisdiction. I am actually in doubt that any Court action is necessary to overturn it if this method is followed. It used to be a principal of law that nothing obtained by fraud was in any way legitimate. Any fraud and it's all bad. It is so difficult to quantify frauds that they don't try.
John, good reply and I hope you'll share it w/ many others. Is this info getting out on social media? Seems there needs to be a groundswell of conservatives to support this.
I don't use social media. I started an account with FB shortly after they opened up and the questions they asked were not something I was willing to answer for anyone so I did not go any further with it.
Section 3 of the 20th Amendment addresses what happens when the President elect and/or Vice-President elect “fail to qualify”. So §3 underlines Art. II, §1, cl. 5; the last sentence of the 12th Amendment; and the 22nd Amendment: If the President elect or the Vice-President elect “fail to qualify”, they are to be passed over.
Since the essence of a “Republic” is that power is exercised by Representatives elected by The People; the violations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art.II, §1, cl. 2; and Art. II, §1, cl.4 (which made massive election fraud possible) strike at the heart of our Constitutional Republic.
When Electors are selected in violation of our Constitution by means of last minutes changes unlawfully made to state election laws (as in the case of PA); and/or an election is stolen by means of fraud, the Right of The People to choose their Representatives is taken away from them – and the Republic is destroyed.
Those that say V.P. Pence was at fault by not sending electors back to the states is misleading as he has no “discretion” in deciding whether he will adhere to the Constitutional framework governing the Election. He – and every other Member of Congress – must adhere to and enforce each Constitutional provision. It is the Duty of the federal government to “check” the violations of federal elections but since these electors were chosen in violation of the Constitution; Congress has the Duty to check the violations and reject those Electors ... but the SWAMP didn't want that .. so we live without the rule of Law today on our streets, State governorship's, and a "democratic" collectivist Congress.
Mr. Lindell is a hero and a patriot. I see no reason to question his motives.
I don't believe this writer is questioning his motives (I may be wrong) but I do believe he is questioning Lindell's strategy! Someone call Bannon's Warroom and express these alternatives!
I agree 100% with the two hypothetical outcomes of the Comrade Supremes. Their political allegiance and deference to the the Socialist inclined agencies of the Federal Govt. is on record. Stick to seeking relief from the states, where election processes are made and implemented. Would you go the the Fed. DOJ to seek file a complaint about election fraud? Not unless you were the So. Poverty Law Center or the ACLU alleging a civil rights voting violation. On that note, what about a criminal fraud adjudication within the county of the violation? Seems like enough evidence is coming out, at least for an investigation.