Marly Hornik & Harry Robert Haury – In a letter unanimously signed by the delegates to the First Continental Congress on October 26, 1774, our founders stated, “The first grand right, is that of the people having a share in their own government by their representatives chosen by themselves, and, in consequence, of being ruled by laws, which they themselves approve, not by edicts of men over whom they have no control.”
It is for this reason that our Constitution defines a zero-trust system. In America, transparency and direct accountability are central to securing our inalienable right — to live as a sovereign being, possessed of our own thoughts, experiences, and creativity to guide us.
Self-governance in our country is restricted by a moral duty to respect the free will of others and a civil duty to share in the responsibility and benefits of a limited government. Otherwise, we answer to our maker, whether we admit it or not.
When our laws no longer honor individual sovereignty, and are turned on the people who have ostensibly consented to their passing, elections are logically suspect. When officials arrogantly turn away from the cries of the people, it falls upon us to probe our zero-trust toolkit for a peaceful remedy. How fortunate we are to have that opportunity!
There are two ways to approach the problem of corrupt elections. First, the election challenge. This is historically very difficult to win. In order to ensure continuity of governance, our elections are designed to be self-adjudicating. Outcomes are required to be stringently accurate, tightly controlled, and auditable. These qualities make it hard to convince a judge to overturn an election, but relatively easier to use the second approach: prosecution of election fraud.
What is election fraud? The DOJ’s 2017 guide, “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses,” includes many powerful statements like these:
Election fraud usually involves corruption of one of three processes: the obtaining and marking of ballots, the counting and certification of election results, or the registration of voters.
The federal government asserts jurisdiction over an election offense to ensure that basic rights of United States citizenship, and a fundamental process of representative democracy, remain uncorrupted.
Examples in the DOJ document abound regarding conduct that constitutes federal election fraud. A pivotal “Achilles heel” moment occurs at the moment of certification, when the election official attests to the accuracy and legal compliance of the election. If results are later proven to be inaccurate, the following claim is valid, regardless of “intent”:
Malfeasance by election officials acting “under color of law” by performing such acts as diluting valid ballots with invalid ones (ballot-box stuffing), rendering false tabulations of votes, or preventing valid voter registrations or votes from being given effect in any election, federal or non-federal (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242), as well as in elections in which federal candidates are on the ballot (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307(c), 10307(e), 20511(2)).
The appalling inaccuracy of the nation’s voter rolls is not a clerical error, as election officials would have us believe. It is an offense. First, accuracy is identified as critical in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA):
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are—
(3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and
(4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.
Then, in the 2017 DOJ guide, the following federal crimes are identified:
Submitting fictitious names to election officers for inclusion on voter registration rolls, thereby qualifying the ostensible voters to vote in federal elections (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307(c), 20511(2)). … This “deadwood” allows for fraudulent ballots, which can be used to stuff the ballot box.
Providing false information concerning a person’s name, address, or period of residence in a voting district to establish that person’s eligibility to register or to vote in a federal election (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307(c), 20511(2)).
When we discover, as part of said appalling voter roll inaccuracy, 45,260 registered voters switched from purged to active, 14,604 registered voters with a new first name, and 7,898 voters with a new birth date, all within a single state (New York), in the span of a year, we are unquestionably looking at suspicious activity.
When the database that produced these deltas (as well as 774,069 votes cast in the 2022 general election by registration records that are illegal or invalid) is confirmed by cyber-intelligence experts to be in a “Total Loss of Control” breach, the election fraud is compounded. Those with a legal obligation to maintain accurate voter rolls have failed. In fact, it is evident that they are apathetic, incompetent, or malicious.
This creates layers of culpability for the election officials. As explained in a previous article, disobedience to the law constitutes intent where federal elections are concerned. An election based on a document that violates the law, in this case corrupted voter rolls, is a fraud ab initio:
UNITED STATES v. THROCKMORTON
98 U.S. 61, 1878
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.
Across America, volunteer patriot researchers have uncovered anomaly after anomaly regarding the 2020 and 2022 elections. It is time to take these oddities and start proving election fraud. We have been working for years in New York to develop actual evidence, things that can’t be refuted. Findings demonstrate an effect on election outcomes.
Thousands of anecdotal observations of misconduct do not rise to the level of determining whether an election was valid. But there is another tool in our tool set, one that doesn’t have the tight limit of time, and doesn’t have the prejudicial bias of court precedents that limit standing. It is open and less subjected to coercion. It is the actual enforcement of the law.
In America, we have a choice. Will we rise and be even better than we were in the past? At United Sovereign Americans, we choose to rise for justice and truth and honesty. We choose to unite to restore our sacred democratic republic. And we intend to go out and reach across the country, to the citizens who want to learn how to hold their election officials directly responsible for their misconduct.
This is a nonpartisan, volunteer effort to restore our democracy and democratic institutions, so that we can once again aspire to fulfill our potential as envisioned in our Declaration of Independence, and codified in our U.S. Constitution.
We have only a few precious months before 2024. We are calling all citizens of the United States that love liberty to let your voice be heard.
SF Source American Thinker Aug 2023