JUDICIAL DEFERENCE!
On the Effects of Breaching the Separation of Powers in our Judicial System.
There is a school of thought that the only recourse for addressing the various issues uncovered in our elections is through relentless litigation in unfriendly courts. Although it is a reasonable concept to assume that the judicial branch is a path to remedy, and one we should be able to rely upon, when the original sin came from the Legislature the remedy can only be obtained in the place of origin. Until we are able to correct the breach of the separation of powers caused by legislation in violation of the Nondelegation Doctrine, and clarify the intent of a duly elected legislature, our constitutional cases will fail and the Rule of Law will continue to be subject to JUDICIAL DEFERENCE.
Judges are sworn to apply the law to cases brought before them. Case law is not real law as it is case-specific, though rulings can be cited in other cases and in the drafting of legislation, where relevant and constitutional. Judges cannot make a ruling based on information which has not been properly filed as evidence with the court. These elected and appointed judges review lawfully submitted evidence and compare that with cited applicable laws, hear expert and witness testimony, and examine all lawfully entered evidence, prior to the judge issuing a ruling.
At least that is how we believe the Judicial Branch is supposed to work.
What we are seeing in reality is something altogether different in the courts where it comes to applicable election statutes. Due to violations of the Nondelegation Doctrine committed by the legislature, judges are tasked with reconciling suspect advisory codes which plaintiffs allege oppose or violate state statutes, federal law, or constitutional rights.
Ruling after ruling, vague and superfluous dismissals of cases with a preponderance of evidence depicting maladministration, the facilitation of election fraud, general incompetence and lack of concern over adherence with the intent of state and federal legislators and constitutional law. Instead of courts favoring legislative intent by deferring to existing election statutes for context, rulings are made in favor of “expert” testimony, often from those with skin in the game of keeping these unlawful practices in place. These experts often offer blame and excuses for issues revealed through legal discovery, with no justification for discrepancies and constitutional crises created, other than “human errors/ unforeseen circumstances” meant simply to cast doubt over all violations we are able to establish as fact.
Doubt is the most powerful spell cast by the Administrative State to obfuscate their role in the devilish work of obfuscating who is really designing and managing our elections, in order to be found not liable for violations of state and federal election laws. If doubt can be cast on the evidence, it will be done without any attempt to debunk it.
HOWEVER… if it becomes even easier to cast doubt on the LAW itself… They will do so, and with devastating effects. After the following example, I will outline the ROOT CAUSE and IMMEDIATE EFFECT of the issue above described and exampled below.
This is why our Poll Watcher training instructs citizens on how to look for and document commonly reported issues with modern election administration in their own counties.
Here is an excerpt from the ruling on my own case related to access to election records. This case was filed by Heider Garcia, former Tarrant County Election Administrator and current Dallas County Election Administrator, against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for Paxton’s ruling that my public information request made to Heider for the Public Machine Testing tapes, be fulfilled per the Texas Public Information Act.
After hearing expert testimony about how the tapes, which I publicly viewed and filmed and touched during the public machine testing, should not be released to the public, the Judge only issued a partial ruling. During the course of this trial the legislature clarified their previously stated intent that the public is allowed access to election records, but the Judge still ruled partially against AG Paxton’s order to provide items related to the other respondent’s request. The Judge was convinced that allowing a more recent code to override a much earlier code, along with the Public Information Act, nullifying both simultaneously. This is what is looks like when a Judge defers to the “expert” testimony from Heider Garcia over the language and clear intent of the legislature:
“… On May 19, 2023, this Court granted the County’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment in part and denied it in part. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff Tarrant County’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, May 19, 2023 (May 19 Order). 6/16/2023 2:21 PM Velva L. Price District Clerk Travis County D-1-GN-22-006259 Susan Schmidt Cause No. D-1-GN-22-006259; Tarrant County v. Paxton Page 2 of 7 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL This Court found that Texas Election Code § 66.058 “is a more specific statute that Section 1.012 of the Texas Election Code,” and ruled that “[b]ased on the plain language of the statute . . . the information at issue is not subject to disclosure under the Public Information Act until 22 months after the relevant election day.””
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-22-006259
TARRANT COUNTY, Plaintiff, v. KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, Defendant.
So we cannot seek criminal action as most legislatures have been convinced to pass laws without due penalties and enforcement mechanisms for the violation thereof. We cannot rely on civil cases in court due to weak laws. Will the administrative deep state continue to waive, suspend and amend election laws until voters no longer trust the results and stop participating?
Did you notice the common denominator? Laws. Bad, weak or otherwise unenforceable laws. This is a ray of hope, because laws can be fixed, this we can do as a nation.
Article One, Section Four of the national constitution outlines how only state legislatures decide the time, place and manner of elections, and that congress can establish certain regulations for each state to meet in federal elections.
That means this: instead of allowing lobbyists to sweep our reps off of their feet, then draft bills related to election procedures, lawmakers must take a long, hard look at the current voting systems in place in their county’s elections. Elected representatives must honestly ask themselves whether they could confidently explain all security measures in place in their county’s elections to their constituents.
If your rep cannot show you how to pull a hash value from the voting equipment, they do not know how the details of how modern voting systems are secured from undue influence and improper practice. A significant amount of trust has been placed in the hands of voting systems that even the counties who purchase them cannot fully examine due to “proprietary” code. Representatives should only authorize for their state or federal elections what they understand, and only what systems they know their electorate will be able to understand.
With both the legislatures and judicial branch deferring to the very same “expert” testimonies when citizens become highly suspicious of election procedures and results, the people are left to look to the executive branch for enforcement of what constitutional law we have left. When the chief election official in the executive branch of each state is a member of NGOs funded by modern voting system vendors, the people are left with no recourse for stolen elections, as the voting system vendors have monopolized all three branches of our government.
We, the People must do the hard work to identify the amendments necessary to secure each of our respective state’s elections codes from misinterpretation by both executive and judicial branches. Our focus must be on meaningful legislation, we cannot waste any more time or money on unfavorable rulings setting up terrible precedent which will be cited in future, stronger cases as we continue our work.
The remedy is in the legislature, where the original sin of violations of the nondelegation doctrine initially occurred, NOT in the executive or judicial branches.
Any attorney with integrity will have already taken this position, if they have not then they are simply riding the wave until the money runs out for filing lawsuits on evidence they know won’t be enough. Just because an attorney tells you that they know what they are doing and can win these cases does not make it true.
Read your most recent election bills. Identify issues. Call and email your reps. Tell them to clean up the elections by simplifying the process and adhering to the ABC’s of Election Security: Auditability, Ballot Secrecy, and Chain of Custody.
Thank you, Patriots.
© Aubree Campbell 2024