Programmer Under Oath Admits Computers Rig Elections.
Was the presidential election rigged by hacked computer programmers? This under-oath expert testifies just that. Be sure and watch to the end.
So much evidence of voter fraud everywhere… Where is the RNC? Where are the leaders of the Republican party? Where is the tea party? Where are the constitutionalists and patriots? Where are our elected representative? Where is the Romney campaign?
Join the fight before it is too late…
Video: Electronic Ballots Were Rigged?
How to un-elect Obama & let House of Reps pick the President
This election does not get decided until Mid-December when the Electoral College cast their votes.
According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution AND the 12th Amendment – if 1/3rd of the States do not cast their votes in the Electoral College — then the matter falls onto the House of Representatives to choose the President.
In other words — if we pressure Congressmen, State Party Officials, and groups such as Tea Party Patriots, Heritage Foundation, etc., to call on RED States to NOT have their Electors cast their vote — then the House of Reps CAN choose the next President!!!!!
The democrats are stealing this election and it is up to WE, the people, to put the hammer down on their widespread vote-fraud. The founding-fathers gave us the Electoral College for several reasons.
Vote-Fraud is one of those reasons.
But it is up to us to hold tightly to the Constitution. If we don’t – then we are just as guilty as those who would ignore it.
The Constitution can stop the socialist machine in its’ tracks.
But it is up to YOU to get on the phone and make some noise.
Please call your State Party Officials, your Congressmen, and any political groups or organizations ASAP.
WE do not elect the President. The Electoral College elects the President. But if enough of them do not cast their vote – then the responsibility falls onto the House of Representatives to choose the next President.
MAKE THE CALLS!!!
If just 17 RED States agreed to NOT cast their votes in the electoral college – then it goes to the House. And if pressured – they just might do it.
We do NOT have to convince ANY democrats – at all.
All we have to do is convince 1/3 of the States to NOT cast their electoral college votes.
Well more than 1/3 of the States did in fact vote as RED States. And they too can see the obvious, wide-spread vote-fraud which has taken place.
So, if the Electors in 17 States which Romney won decided to NOT cast their electoral college votes — then the electoral college does not meet the requirement as defined in the Constitution. And in such a case, the electoral college is thereby null and void. The matter then goes to the House.
In every State, each political party chooses its’ own “electors”.
Then, whichever party wins the popular vote in each State is the party which gets to have its’ electors cast their vote in the electoral college.
However, according to the Constitution and the 12th Amendment, in order for the Electoral College to have a quorum – then at least 2/3rds of the States must cast their votes.
As stated in the Constitution and the 12th Amendment:
“A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States,”
So, if 1/3 of the States (17) do NOT cast their electoral college votes – then it goes to the House of Representatives (not the senate) to elect the next President.
1 state/1 vote
YES!! WE CAN DO THIS!!
GET THE WORD OUT!!
AND MAKE SOME CALLS!!
~Glenn Ellerbe 🙂
https://www.facebook.com/glenn.ellerbe
————————————————————————————————
Update from Glenn’s Facebook wall (read the comments!):
Oh By The Way (wink-wink)… Yes. There’s a method to my madness.
Before reading any comments correcting me about the 2/3rds requirement – I do know that the 2/3rds applies to the House; not the States represented in the Electoral College. But hopefully, what I wrote yesterday has motivated some of you to do two things:
1) Begin reading the Constitution.
2) Realize that the Constitution does not address how to proceed in the event that some of the Electors decide not to cast their votes.
In my opinion, such a situation would expose what is called a “Constitutional Crisis” and would most likely lead someone somewhere to file a court case. And then the Court may very well toss the ball forward to the House.
So… it’s worth a shot.
Related:
Barack Obama Voter Fraud 2012 – Obama Voter Fraud Volunteers Needed
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Murphy Attempts to Suppress the Vote in Allen West Retabulation
SHAM RECOUNT SUNDAY: Allen West vs. Patrick Murphy for Congress, FL; Updated
Massive Voter Fraud and I am ANGRY (please share)
Did voter fraud swing the election…Without a doubt?
Scalia vs. Thomas Jefferson on secession
Did Your Voting Machine Vote For You?
White House website deluged with secession petitions from 20 states
Did voter fraud swing the election…Without a doubt?
A Black Veil of Mourning Hangs Over America – Updated
Shaming Romney for Telling the Truth
Another Stolen Election… Vote Investigators NEEDED NOW!
@nikkihaley @Priebus, etc. – Please do not cast votes via electoral college. Read 12th amendment! We can do this. Oust Obama. He’s abused presidential power. – Please send this (type) tweet to the leadership and tea party in your state!
If people want their State to withhold the Electoral College Vote they should also notify their Governor and Sec of State at a minimum.
Ok patriots – Time to pull together to determine effective ways to make a vote recount happen before electoral college makes this all history!
askmarion 
is a recount being done. to quiet. romney team emailed me no said actions were being taken due to voter fraud. who do we call.
There are isolated recounts being done, but it is up to us as a grassroots swell to demand not only a full general recount and investigations, but convince the states not to have their elector’s vote and through this election into a House vote, where each state gets only one vote. Call, write, email, fax and tweet Reince Priebus at the RNC @Reince on Twitter, the Romney campaign, the governors and attorney generals of your states, the state representatives, your local tea party etc.
This article states, “According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution AND the 12th Amendment – if 1/3rd of the States do not cast their votes in the Electoral College — then the matter falls onto the House of Representatives to choose the President.” However, that is not what the 12th Amendment says. What the 12th Amendment says that if a candidate gets the majority of electoral votes (currently 270), the election does not go to the House of Representatives. If, and only if, the election goes to the House of Representatives, does the “2/3rds of the states” requirement kick in. See the text of the 12th Amendment.
The liberals and progressives try to modify, interpret, and twist the words of the constitution to suit the given situation. Conservatives and Republicans have no reason to do so; we should adhere strictly to the actual meaning of the words in the constitution.
One of the quorums is in case the vice presidential election goes to the U.S. Senate – each senator gets one vote, 51 votes are needed for election, and 2/3rds of the Senate must be present for a quorum to exist. And the other quorum is in case the presidential election goes to the U.S. House – each state delegation gets one vote, 26 votes are needed for election, and 2/3rds of the state delegations must be present for a quorum to exist.
However, these two quorums come into effect only if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes. If a candidate gets 270 or more electoral votes, they become the president. The 12th Amendment says: “A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States….” In this quote, “for this purpose” refers only to the case where no presidential candidate receives 270 electoral votes, and therefore the election has gone to the House. If a candidate receives 270 electoral votes, he is elected president, and the election does not go to the House, and “this purpose” never exists.
Pingback: URGENT CALL TO ACTION: The House Of Representatives Can Choose Our Next President « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ THE.GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL
Pingback: 2016 – The Election of the First Female President of the United States? | askmarion
Pingback: Why the GOP Will Not Challenge Vote Fraud… Can This Be? | askmarion
Pingback: URL
Pingback: Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » It’s Time to Upgrade Our Presidential Elections « Ye Olde Soapbox
ELECTION VOTE COUNT FRAUD, MACHINE OR HACKER?
Cris Ericson came in 3rd for Governor in 2010, and
the vote count was tampered with,
so from the “unofficial” results calculated by the
Vermont Secretary of State’s office,
to the “official” results released to the news media,
Cris Ericson’s votes for Governor and for U.S. Senate
(she was on the ballot for bothin 2010 and is also
on the ballot for both 2012)
were cut in half.
“Governor” Peter Shumlin of Vermont,
a Democrat, allegedly is a “fraud”, and after
having allegedly rigged the vote count, he allegedly paid
off the Vermont Secretary of State, Deborah Markowitz,
who allegedly changed the actual vote count,
by giving her a high paid appointed position.
Once the unofficial results were tabulated,
it was clear that no candidate
had received a majority of the vote.
Under Vermont law, when that happens,
the full state legislative body
must vote on a ballot with the names
of the three candidates who
received the most votes.
By changing the vote count, instead
of Cris Ericson’s
name being on that ballot,
Dennis Steele’s name was listed.
Unless the stolen votes are recovered
by finding out who may have
hacked into the system, who may
have been paid off, and who may
be guilty of alleged voter fraud,
it is not appropriate or legally correct
allegedly, for Peter Shumlin to
act as Governor of Vermont.
2010 GENERAL ELECTION UNOFFICIAL RESULTS
Click to access 2010GEUnofficialFedStateResults11.05.pdf
“Official” election results released to the News Media:
http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/2010GEOfficialFedStateResults11.09.xls
In the Superior Court of Washington County
State of Vermont
Docket No. 1115 -10-12 Cncv
Plaintiff
Emily Peyton
Independent For Governor
ballot of 2012 in the State of VT
POB 821, Putney, VT 05346
802 579-5524
emilypeyton2012@gmail.com
http://www.emilypeyton.org
VS.
Defendants:
The Burlington Free Press of Burlington Vermont
191 College Street Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 863-3441
WPTZ News Channel 5
Vermont Offices
553 Roosevelt Highway
Colchester, VT 05446
Phone: 802.655.5455
Fax: 802.655.5451
WCAX, of Burlington Vermont
30 Joy Drive South Burlington, VT 05403
PO Box 4508. Burlington, VT 05406-4508
Primary Phone: 802-652-6300
Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT)
89 Main Street
Suite 4
Montpelier, Vermont
05602-2948
1
Motion to release Defendant VLCT
Our Plaintiff initiated this complaint as a means to be fairly included in debates
during the election cycle, however her desire for fair inclusion could not be realized in a timely
manner, thus as the matter is now the subject of a complaint, the Plaintiff sees wisdom in
dismissing the claims against the VLCT because the nature of these claims against the
remaining three Defendants are substantially alike and substantially different
than the claims against the VLCT. It is our Plaintiff’s position that the VLCT acted in
violation of the parameters of their Not-for-profit status which prohibits the discrimination
of, and bias for- or against- any candidate. The VLCT gave Brock double the
appearance time when Shumlin did not appear for their forum, despite the fact that
the PLaintiff was present and requested permission to participate as a candidate.
Further the Chair of the VLCT was taped stating flatly “No” as a response to an inquiry
“Do you want integrity in government ?”, and despite the mission of the VLCT which states:
“To serve and strengthen Vermont local governments” .
Our Plaintiff sees wisdom in focusing her talent and time on claims of a singular
nature, regarding this suit, and so releases her claims against the VLCT, by the grace
of the Court. Our Plaintiff further believes that VPR should be named as a defendant
in this complaint, along with 7-days publication. However, the legal job is large enough
without filing against any additional defendants, unless the present Defendants wish to
motion for their inclusion which would be agreeable.
What follows is the body of the complaint.
2
Amended Complaint
1. Whereas of all conditions that have been accumulating over time to accrue to
complete domination of current political organization and corruption that prevents
aid of new leadership to benefit the good of all society, the corruption of the
Defendants as Press is the most actionable, for they alone are the most capable
of disseminating information to counter corrupt practices.
2. Whereas the Defendants have willfully and knowingly corrupted the election
process by design.
3. Whereas the Defendants exercise their own freedom of Press as a means to create
and ensure a certain limited outcome of elections and do so with full intent to
continue their bad actions into the future in full violation of Vermont Constitution
Article 8 .( Attachment 1)
4. Whereas the Defendants routinely promise the public they will deliver fair and
accurate news of all things important and newsworthy.
5. Whereas the Defendants entreat the public to invest trust in their media services as
conveyors of fact and truth.
3
6. Whereas the Defendants created hundreds of stories over a period of 4.5 months
that described the Governors race as a contest solely between two candidates and in so
doing framed the race with a reckless disregard for the truth.
7. Whereas these same stories could have been truthful had they been presented as
a focus on two candidates chosen by the Defendents with the fact of our Plaintiff’s
candidacy and presence in the race included as a matter of truth in each story.
8. Whereas the Defendants made no effort to discover the level of public interest in
the tenets of our Plaintiff’s platform or candidacy, and conducted themselves
instead to hide awayfrom public view alternative and conflicting policies that
could offer important public service, regardless of the public’s best interest.
9. Whereas the Defendants have reported on, and are aware of, enormous public
interest in policies that our Plaintiff represents that are in direct conflict with those
of the two candidates that enjoy free blanket coverage, yet for the candidate
that would deliver that relief the Defendants created a “bubble of silence” around
our Plaintiff, thereby becoming a third party preventing aid.
10. Whereas the Defendants had prior knowledge of matters of public importance to
Vermonters regarding at least the following issues:
a) Administration and costs of Health Care
b) Presence of the F-35’s
c) Concern for the influence of money in politics
4
d) Concern for industrial scale wind developments
e) Concern for the economy and the creation of jobs
f) Concern for the removal of prohibition of industrial hemp cannabis
h) Concern for the removal of prohibition of cannabis marijuana
i) Concern for reform of criminal justice system coping with nonviolent crime
j) Concern for Statewide food security
k) Concern for proactive policies relevant to global climate change
11. Whereas in the aggregate, interest of the public in policies offered by the Plaintiff
would likely translate into public support of the candidate who presents them, the
Defendants have altered the outcome of an election by hiding one particlurilly
dedicated candidate inside a “bubble of silence”. This hiding of the Plaintiff
constitutes an obstruction of her Freedom of Speech, and an abuse of their
Freedom of Press when it is used to hinder and obstruct “power (from) being
originally and inherent in and consequently derived from the people.”
12. Whereas the Defendants have abused their Freedom of Press when their actions
decidedly alter the outcome of elections and when they consider their Freedoms
as Freedoms more powerful, more instrumental, more meaningful than the
Freedom of Speech of Candidate Plaintiff who utilizes accepted civil methods
of offering alternative policy for the general welfare as a candidate.
Described best in Article 7 :
Government for the people; they may change it
That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common
benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community,
5
and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person,
family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community;
and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and
indefeasible right, to reform or alter government, in such manner
as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.
13. Whereas the Defendants, who are only a “set of persons”, have a working
agreement with two candidates and their political parties who are also only a
“set of persons ” to hide all but themselves. Defendents so intended long before
this particular 2012 election to create a “bubble of silence” around our Plaintiff
and all news regarding our Plaintiff while concurrently highliting this “set of
persons” known as Republicans and Democrats. Thus within the space of
6 months the Defendants have raised public awareness of candidate Brock
from relative obscurity to a household name.
14. Whereas Vermont community regards running for office one such method
“most conducive to the public weal” “to reform or alter government”.
Those who provided the 500 signatures to place the Plaintiff on the ballot
are a testimony in themselves that her platform should have been vetted
thoroughly, instead of hidden. These 500 Vermonters were prevented
the aid of the Plaintiff’s service, as was the Plaintiff herself. Were it
allowable for a pro se litigant to initiate class action, this complaint
could very well be actionable as a class action, giving reasons
for the Defendents to be thankful that our Plaintiff insists on acting pro se .
6
15. Whereas the Defendants name “major party” affiliation as the defining factor
that designates some candidates newsworthy and therefore given enormous
advantage and value of free press attention during the election. Defendants
are meanwhile well aware that the majority of Vermont voters no longer affiliate
themselves with either of these “set of persons” making major parties themselves
a “set of persons” acting for their own “particular emolument ” and
“advantage” in Vermont though they are “ are a part only of that community”.
In some polls the number of Vermonters who designate themselves as
“independent” is as high as 60%. The Secretary of State of Vermont places the
numbers of Voters who classify themselves as “Independent” as well above 40%
thereby rendering untrue Defendents’ position that independent views of
Independent candidates are not newsworthy or in the public’s best interest to cover.
16. Whereas the Defendants have used their Freedoms of Press to deliver
blanket coverage to one “set of persons” allowing candidates of that set
to be absorbed into everyday common knowledge, it is clear that Brock failed
to unseat Shumlin because of the public’s rejection of Brock’s platform, but
also clear that our Plaintiff’s failure to earn support of voters was in greatest
proportion due to actions of the Defendents deliberatly separating her from
the voting public, and preventing her capacity to alter government.
17. Whereas no one can truly say what the true sentiments of the People of Vermont
are, with respect to the Plaintiff as a Governor, because most are still unaware of
7
her platform and most will consider her un-electable because of Defendants
discrimination against her as completely unnewsworthy. Their bias towards
the “set of persons” known as major parties is expected to continue, and in reality
it is greater than a bias, it is a collusion as well. As it stands, armed with
only 4×4 cards and a good platform the Plaintiff’s showing is significant given the
Defendents behavior.
18. Whereas the Defendants will say that they are righteous in refusing news of a
candidate if that candidate has not achieved 5% of the overall vote in a previous
election, they nonetheless offered free blanket coverage to one candidate who
himself had never achieved 5% of that total in any election, including the
2012 primary. That candidate was Randy Brock.
19. Whereas the Defendants will say that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated a
record of public service and therefore is neither a viable candidate nor newsworthy.
20. Whereas, there is no way the Defendants could possibly claim that the Plaintiff
has not been a dedicated full time public servant to Vermont, only that they have
neglected to look for that service where it appears. (Attachment 2)
21. Whereas, there is a duty inherent in the Defendants to act proactively
when stakes are so high. Einstein clarifies succinctly ‘no problem can
be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it’.
When current worldwide crisies require of us all, Defendant’s included,
8
due care, diligence and responsible behavior as individuals and as corporations
helping to arrive collectively at solutions that replace global economic,
environmental and health predicaments with well-being and safety. Thus
Vermont should have the full benefit of dedicated, selfless,
uncorruptable public servants.
22. Whereas, if the level of consciousness of our Defendants is such that they are
invested in simply perpetuating the authority of a “set of persons” encouraging
greater crisies while hindering the true authority of the Vermont people then it is
our Plaintiff’s duty to move that dynamic towards a healthier outcome under
the auspices of this Court.
23. Whereas the Plaintiff made numerous good faith efforts to avail the Defendants of
her presence and platform, and numerous attempts to avoid the need of legal
action, and numerous attempts to use reason, common sense to promote
positive action by the Defendants. In one example, our Plaintiff announced a press
conference and traveled over 100 miles to appear locally at Burlington City Hall
for the convenience of Defendants, announcing her presence in the race
after the primary, however, none of our Defendants made the minimal effort to
appear.
24. Whereas our Plaintiff met numerous times with Defendants BFP, and was
directed by Publisher Jim Fogler to meet with the editorial board after a
6-page candidate profile was published on behalf of Randy Brock, a meeting
that the newsroom refused to make happen despite much effort by our
9
Plaintiff.
25. Whereas inclusion in the debates only without any further coverage may not
have resulted in political victory for the Plaintiff, it would have brought policy
to the public’s attention that has not been considered, thereby encouraging a greater
public understanding of potential future outcomes with alternative approaches.
Specifically:
a) The helpful potential of a Vermont public bank, a Vermont Credit Card and
a Vermont Coupon system to stabilize the economy of Vermont against an
unstable national and global backdrop.
b) The helpful discussion and resulting awareness of an alternative health
care approach that is executed elsewhere, utilizing tuition exchange for
service that creates a greater measure of health per public dollar.
c) The transformation of small dairy farms now financially failing into limited
eco-communities that focus on preparing Vermont’s Food security. Need
can be foreseen by gaining drought conditions of the Midwest.
d) The number of manufacturing jobs that come with the reintroduction of
Industrial hemp cannabis agriculture, and its pivotal role in maintaining a
similarity of current products currently made from harmful petrochemicals,
in some cases the petrochemicals can be totally eliminated and replaced
by products made with Industrial Hemp. This awareness is critical to our
future.
f) Tuition exchange for service in new arenas.
27. Whereas, it is for the reasons named in point 26 that the mere 5 minutes of
10
coverage or 5 name mentions with no headline anywhere, over the course of
the entire election cycle is most egregious. These policies cannot be shared
in that time with Vermont people. The Vermont public, inclusive of the Plaintiff,
so deserves opportunity to benefit from exposure to them for their full weight
and benefit to the good of all. Clearly, our Plaintiff speaks with the voice
of 5,812 people here.
28. Whereas presence of the Plaintiff in the aforesaid debates would not have
reduced their ratings, in fact it may have increased their ratings, and would not
have prejudiced the Defendants in any way.
29. Whereas the presence of the Plaintiff in the said debates constitutes a right and a
privilege of freedom of speech, and is supported by FCC rules as follows:
Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.
Nothing ……………………………….. shall be construed as
relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of
newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage
of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to
operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the
discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.
30. Whereas the absence of the Plaintiff in the aforesaid debates is a demonstrable
11
neglect of the public interest and neglects the reasonable opportunity for discussion
of conflicting views of issues of public importance as named in point ten (10) of this
cause of action.
31. Whereas the Defendants appear to claim that they are within their right to
exclude our Plaintiff from the debates on the basis that their debates constitute
“on-the-spot” news events. A close look at the rule does not suggest that their
debate is an “on-the-spot” news event, but rather a pre-planned event with
ceremony and pedantic procedure. Rather, as a media host, they are obliged to
include all candidates who request participation.
32. Whereas within the FCC rules the Plaintiff clearly qualifies as a bonefide
candidate on the ballot :
‘Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940] Legally qualified candidates
for public office.(f) The term “substantial showing” of a bona fide
candidacy as used in paragraphs (b), (d) and (e)of this section means
evidence that the person claiming to be a candidate has engaged to a
substantial degree in activities commonly associated with political
campaigning. Such activities normally would include making campaign
speeches, distributing campaign literature, issuing press releases,
maintaining a campaign committee, and establishing campaign
headquarters (even though the headquarters in some instances might
be the residence of the candidate or his or her campaign manager).
Not all of the listed activities are necessarily required in each case
to demonstrate a substantial showing, and there may be activities
not listed herein which would contribute to such a showing.’
12
33. Whereas the following sentence bears repeating : “Not all of the listed activities
are necessarily required in each case to demonstrate a substantial showing,
and there may be activities not listed herein which would contribute to such
a showing”. Our Plaintiff herein claims that at least the activities described in
attachment 2, and more that are not there named, constitute a substantial showing
of engagement.
34. Whereas our Plaintiff knows of at least one Vermonter who was told prior to their
debate that should our Plaintiff need merely request inclusion, that would then
naturally happen, giving the impression that our Plaintiff neglected to try to be
included. ( See attachment 3 for affidavit of Bruce Marshall)
34. Whereas, regarding the meaning of ‘on-the-spot’ news event as a reason of
exclusion, notwithstanding the Defendants’ duty to public interest, the phrase’s
meaning carries with it an immediacy, and spontaneity that defies the ceremony
of said debate or forum. (Attachment 4 for meaning of the phrase)
35. Whereas Defendant WPTZ was video-taped stating that the Plaintiff could
not participate in their debate due to the agreement it had with the two featured
candidates, describing a conspiracy to prevent exposure of one candidate. This
video will be made available to the Court in future proceedings.
36. Whereas by placing the Plaintiff in a proverbial ‘bubble of silence’ Defendants
describes to all of Vermont a falsehood that constitutes a form of libel.
13
As far as the majority of Vermonters were (and still are) concerned, no other
candidates were traveling around the state to reach out to voters, and showing up
for these debates and forums. Indeed, aside from our Plaintiff none of the other
three candidates were. The libelous actions of the Defendants created an
intentional impression of un-electability, and in so doing misrepresent the truth,
and in so doing prevents our Plaintiff from earning her living as a gubernatorial
public servant. How many votes Plaintiff lost from this form of libel, can
never be specifically shown, but the Plaintiff is confident she can secure
witnesses who will testify to this consequence.
37. Defendants did willfully impair the Plaintiff’s capacity to earn a living as
a governor by failing to mention the effort and extent of dedication our Plaintiff
displayed on the campaign trail and the dedication to the public the Plaintiff has
displayed by her activities of at least the last decade. In so doing Defendants
created an impression of neglect and lack of concern on our PLaintiff’s part, as if
election was just a game, one that wasn’t really a serious endeavor. This was
a reckless disregard for the actual truth on Defendants’ part, indeed tainted
with malice.
In summation, our Plaintiff’s causes of action include violation of FCC rules,
prevention of aid by a third party, libel and a reckless disregard for the truth,
obstructing the outcome of public election, acting against public best interest,
discrimination, censorship, collussion, conspiracy and violations of Vermont
14
Constitution especially article 8 which states:
‘[Elections to be free and pure; rights of voters therein]
That all elections ought to be free and without corruption,
and that all voters, having a sufficient, evident, common interest with,
and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, and be
elected into office, agreeably to the regulations made in this constitution.
It should be noted:
Within the Constitution of the State of Vermont, if indeed this document is still
of use to any of us, there is not one single requirement that a candidate belong to
one or another particular subset of groups known as Republican or Democrats to
have the duty to alter and reform corrupt government. It should be futher noted that
in case the question arises, that the Plaintiff is well aware of the length and breadth
of currupt attitudes that has permeated our politics, and therein can be found the
reason for her Independent approach, minimizing the potential of corrupting that
approach as well.
Therefore, in keeping with the foregoing complaint and cause of action, it is
our Plaintiff’s earnest prayer that our Court allow the matters decried herein
to proceed past discovery through to trial by a jury of the Plaintiff’s peers.
Our Plaintiff further requests that the outcome includes compensation to our
Plaintiff for damages in the amount of prohibited income as a result of Defendants’
bad actions such that a gubernatorial public servant could expect, and punitive
damages in an amount to be decided by the jury for the torts, violations of the
Constitution and bad actions of the Defendants.
Our Plaintiff additionally requires and does request compensation for court
15
and legal costs in the amount in average of same hourly wage as the
representatives of the bar present in this action, and travel costs. Lastly
our Plaintiff does most consistently pray that the sum of her efforts along with
the sum of the Court’s decisions are made for the greater good of all Vermont.
16
Pingback: Did Obama steal the 2012 election? | askmarion
Pingback: JTF: Romney Defeated Obama – If Not For Voter Fraud – But We Can Still Change the Outcome! – Updated | askmarion
Pingback: BREAKING NEWS! – LAW CENTER WARNS CONGRESS NOT TO CERTIFY 2012 ELECTION | askmarion