The Purpose Of Dual Slate Electors-By Harsha Sankar(December 2020)

Senator Rand Paul might join a bid by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) to challenge the election's outcome and overturn the results in several states on January 6th. Paul, hardly a Trump fan, is very reputable!

This is how dual slate of electors works. If there is only one slate of electors and if an objection is raised as to whether or not the laws of the state were complied with properly, both houses of the federal legislature take a vote on this issue of compliance. If both houses are not in agreement, then the electors as certified by the Governor will be chosen and their votes for President will be counted. That would be the slate of electors present.

If there are two slates of electors present and if an objection is raised as to whether or not the laws of the state were complied with properly, both houses of the federal legislature take a vote on this issue of compliance.

Both houses of the federal legislature decide who the lawful electors are. If both houses cannot choose the same set of electors as lawful, they then decide what slate of electors are not lawful.

If both houses decide that both slate of electors are unlawful, then the electors from that specific state are barred from casting votes for President. If both houses choose the same set of electors as unlawful, then the other set of electors will be chosen to as lawful electors. If both houses are in disagreement, then the set of electors sealed by the governor will cast votes for the President. 

President Trump did the right thing having Republican electors in 4 states cast their votes for him. It would be difficult for either house to reject votes from a state if there was only one slate of electors.

Since there are two slate of electors, the Republican slate in those two states stand a much higher chance of being selected by both houses in case an objection is raised. When there are two slates, no slate is outright rejected but rather not chosen. This decreases the difficulties for both houses to make its choice.

The Courts' Handling Of Election Matters In Wisconsin-By Harsha Sankar(December 2020)

Three dissenting Wisconsin justices agreed with the Trump campaign’s claims that election officials in Dane and Milwaukee Counties violated state laws by instructing election clerks to correct small errors in the addresses listed for witnesses of absentee ballot signatures. They were right because to object to this practice because ballots that have improper addresses for its witnesses could later be deemed to be invalid.

They also objected to Dane County accepting absentee ballots at a preelection “Democracy in the Park” event in Madison, regarding it as a form of unauthorized early in-person voting. Again, they were right to object to this because no one really knows who submitted those ballots. How can anyone be certain registered voters turned in those ballots?

The dissenters did not address a third Trump claim that voters claiming “indefinitely confined” status due to the COVID-19 pandemic were illegally allowed to evade photo ID requirements. However, Common Law cites that if two laws contradict each other, only the law that is regarded as supreme should be given consideration. Obviously, in this case, the voter ID requirement is the supreme law in this matter because it is necessary to prove one's identity. Any law contradicting its purpose by stating voter ID is not necessary has to be declared null and void. The Wisconsin Supreme Court should have advised that the Voter ID law should have totally superseded "indefinitely confinement" laws.

Legal Team Trump was only one vote away from winning Wisconsin. They should have earlier approached the executive and legislative branches about these issues but they failed to do so.

Noted Defects In Electronic Voting-By Harsha Sankar(December 2020)

In Antrim County, Michigan, 7000 ballots that should have gone to Trump went to Biden due to software programming. Their failure rate was 68% when it should only be 2.5 ten thousands of one percent.

That county had 16.000 voters. In Maricopa County, Arizona, which has a population of 4.5 million, their Dominion Software machines apparently had the same glitches. Their machines, which are the same as the Antrim County machines, will now be audited. In a court of law, evidence like that should stand because specific ballots have been proven to be changed from one candidate to another.  

 The preceding is specific evidence. If Maricopa County,Arizona proves to have the same error rate in its machines as Antrim County,Michigan, that states' election should not be advised by the courts to be certifiable or valid in a best case scenario. In a worst case scenario, the courts should advise that Trump is indeed declared to be the winner of that state.

Presidential Succession If Joseph Biden Is Inaugurated As President- A Harsha Sankar Article

 Dear Citizen,                                               December 2020

Once January 20th arrives and Biden happens to be inaugurated, Trump would be out of the picture.

If it is proven after that date that Biden,after being sworn in as POTUS, was involved in rigging the elections, he would have to step down as he would have been convicted. Harris would be presumed to take his place but if he was implicated, then she too would be implicated.

Nancy Pelosi, as House Speaker, would be called to serve as Acting President. Since Pelosi is nearly 81 and is not in the best of health, she may have to be replaced by the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate. If something happens to the House Speaker, it is best to have someone from the Senate serve as Acting President who currently does not extra authority/responsibility. The Founding Fathers did not want a Senate Member with added authority such as a Majority Leader to serve as Acting President if something happened to the House Speaker. That is because they feared that Senate leader would use his/her leverage possibly to oust that House leader.

Since the BAR Attorney De Facto takeover of our entire governance, the U.S Constitution has been reduced as a document which provides guidelines.

                                                         Harsha Sankar
                                                         Virginia                                                                                                   

The Basic Philosophy That Courts Should Employ In Deciding Presidential Election Cases-By Harsha Sankar(December 2020)

Even if the courts opined that 50% of the voters and votes were bad, they still cannot disqualify an election. The courts should opine that Dominion Software(used in 28 states) should not have been used and that the officials who allowed it to be used should be subject to criminal prosecution. However, that advisement would not permit the courts to overturn the entire election nor should they.

For example, a referee is bribed to officiate against against a certain team. That referee should be barred and even punished for his actions. However, the results of that sporting event would stand.

Even though the courts cannot invalidate an election, they can still support and apply the law. They can opine and advise that any ballot that does not meet lawful requirements should not be deemed as lawful and therefore should not be counted.

This measure alone would give President Trump the victory. Of course the non-legislative officeholders who unlawfully changed how the elections should have been conducted should be tried for misconduct. If they are found guilty, this court finding would result in impeachment in the state's lower legislative house and then later conviction in the state senate. That conviction would necessitate the removal of that officeholder.

The Conduct Of Congressional Objections To Presidential Electors-By Harsha Sankar(December 2020)

This is how it should work on January 6th, 2021, according to Title 3 Section 15 and Title 3 Section 17, United States Code, when US Congress decides if objections to the choice of electors are necessary.

If member(s) of both the House Of Representatives and the US Senate decide that the electors were unlawfully appointed according to the laws of its own state, then that objection has to be voted on by members of each legislative chamber. If a majority of both houses objects to a slate of electors from a certain state, then that state's electors' votes are rescinded.

Every state will be subject to a vote if objections about its electors are made from member(s) from both houses. If a sufficient number of electors have their votes rescinded to cause no candidate to reach 270 electoral votes, then the House of Representatives will pick the President with each state having one vote. The top 3 candidates will be eligible to be chosen by such representatives.

If a sufficient number of electors have their votes rescinded to cause no VP candidate to reach 270 electoral votes, then the US Senate will pick the Vice-President. The top 2 candidates will be eligible to be chosen by the senators.   

If Biden still receives enough electoral votes to become President, then Trump can declare a National Emergency to declare new elections. He can cite both the Insurrection Act of 1807 and the 14th Amendment as justifications if he feels the state governments were complicit in the fraudulent elections.

Citizens Have The Right To Be Protected From Anything Not Properly Passed As Law- A Harsha Sankar Article(December 2020)

Dear Citizen,

Frankly, Trump should not have to be pursuing anything. Real crimes have been committed and the local, state, and federal prosecutors should be cracking down on this.

As per defective laws, the US Supreme Court is supposed to have original jurisdiction when states file suit against each other. "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction".

Presidential candidate Trump can take States to US Supreme Court for the same reasons Texas and other States did. It would be over constitutional violations. Article 4 Section 4 Phrase 1 of the US Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" Frankly, this means that each state branch of government shall have the same powers as their federal counterparts. The emphasis is divided government as each branch has its own separate role and power.

No State is authorized to allow a non-legislative body to change the manner in which anything is handled from the manner by which the laws dictate. No State is authorized to allow changes in the manner in which anything is handled that is in violation of its Constitution. Only the proper amendment process can alter the directives of its constitution.

Presidential Candidate Donald Trump has the right to be protected from anything that has not been properly passed as law, plain and simple. A candidate for office has the right to take a State to the United States Supreme Court provided he or she is not a citizen of that State. Since President Trump is a resident of Washington, D.C., he is not a citizen of any State.

                                                                   Harsha Sankar
                                                                   Virginia

Foreign Government Interference In Presidential Elections- By Harsha Sankar(December 2020)

Dear Citizen,                                  

In September 2018, Trump signed an executive order that says “not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election.”

President Trump should either use the Insurrection Act of 1807 or the 14th Amendment as an absolute last resort. He would have no choice since he has already declared these Presidential elections to be massively fraudulent. As head of the federal executive branch, he is directly responsible for the conduct of these Presidential elections.

He has already accused people of treason by stating that foreign actors were involved with government agencies to orchestrate this Coup D'Etat. For DJT to leave it now would itself be considered an act of treason. He cannot allow the results of these past elections to stand under any circumstances. That would be perceived as collaboration with the forces of treason and sedition.

Trump has also already taken an oath to protect America from the enemies of the US Constitution, both foreign and domestic.

                                                                              Harsha Sankar
                                                                              Virginia, USA

Vice-President Mike Pence Could Emerge As President-By Harsha Sankar-(December 2020)

The US Supreme Court could allow US Congress to decide the eligibility of the electors!

On January 6th, 2021,both chambers of Congress can block electors. Both houses can vote on each state's electors to see if the prescribed manner in which they were picked was proper. If there are insufficient number of electors(270) to choose the President, the house will choose on a state by state basis!

On January 6th, if enough electors are deemed ineligible by both houses so that neither candidate gets 270, it goes to the House. However, if neither candidate gets 26 states to choose him/her, then the U.S. Senate selected VP becomes President. That VP would serve as Acting President.
 

This could happen if a few states' House of Representative members oppose both Trump and Biden. There are those who oppose Trump and at the same time feel Biden lacks fitness to be President.

Cite Hippocratic Oath As Refusal To Take Vaccine- By Harsha Sankar (December 2020)

Instead of being a "Refusenik", just cite the Hippocratic Oath. People need to make this a medical issue, not a political issue. Mentioning MRC-5 and latrogenic issues are all that is needed to avoid taking vaccines.

A formal request that the government agency,responsible for such administration of vaccines, provide a written documented waiver should be made.

Therefore, no services, such as flying or attending public gatherings, can be denied. If one claims that foreign substances(chemical or biological) have a probability of causing one medical harm, then that bureaucratic agency has to issue to you a waiver certificate.

The United States Supreme Court Is Lawfully Compelled To Rule On Non-Legislative "Rulings- By Harsha Sankar(December 2020)

This Monday, (December 14th)the Electoral College must cast votes for President. On January 6th, the House and Senate accept the votes by electors. Electors per state can be prohibited from voting if both houses feel they were not chosen in the properly prescribed manner.

There were many rule changes by non-legislative entities that allowed such numerous stark anomalies and yet the US SC refused to confirm the US Constitution.

All the United States Supreme Court had to do is opine that these rule changes by the executive and judicial branch were not constitutional. No one was asking them to overturn an election.

Once the US SC opined like they should have, it would be the prerogative of each state executive and then finally each state legislature to decide, since those rule changes were no longer legally valid, if the earlier and original laws would have allowed a different determinative outcome to be yielded.

Common Law Clarified-By Harsha Sankar(December 2020)

The concepts of Common Law have been so misunderstood. Of course the fraudulent and non-constitutional BAR Attorneys have totally butchered its meaning to suit themselves. They have twisted the meaning of common law to mean case law.

Courts are not supposed to take the law into their own hands. They are not supposed to make law so obviously the Common Law is not case law. Common Law rather uses case law to partially form its basis but it is distinctly different than case law, which is clearly prohibited.

Common Law is the overriding and supreme law that is generally unwritten explicitly. It is very broad in its meaning as it is simple and generic to the extent of being indisputable.

The Founding Fathers knew the dangers of the citizenry voting themselves out of the Republic for which they are supposed to stand. They also knew the dangers of laws being passed that are so numerous, interpretive, arbitrary, and unclear in nature, the very purpose that a specific law is supposed to serve is defeated.

That is why they adapted the Common Law into the legal system just so people would be reminded of the ultimate and original purpose of that law. For example, this is how the Common Law would apply in elections. The Common Law would read that the candidate who receives the highest number of valid votes by eligible voters wins the election.

Obviously, no one will dispute that statement. It really goes without saying but that is the essence of Common Law. The Common Law was supposed to be used when the written law(Constitutional or statutory) did not provide a specific solution to a controversy. It was also to be used to nullify bad laws through the process of jury nullification. The Founding Fathers wanted proper perspective in the adjudication of all matters. Common Law, when properly used as a last resort, does just that.
 

Unfortunately, BAR judges and BAR hand-picked juries use the pretext of common law as a trojan horse to advance their their own personal, political, and professional agenda!

Facebook Censorship, Vaccines, And Presidential Elections-By Harsha Sankar(December 2020)

Dear Citizen,

No one despises Zuckerberg and FB’s censorship more than me.

However, since they are a private company, they should do as they please, provided they respect all Common Law Bailment Rights of its members. I am against any private monopoly if there is no reasonable means of competition. With Wimkin, Rumble, and Parker, that simply is not the case. We should allow the marketplace decide the fate of social media. Free enterprise markets, and not the courts, should pick the winners and losers.

I do believe that the controversy pertaining to the elections is a red herring and a weapon of mass distraction to divert people's attention from the real issue at hand. That issue is vaccination because it symbolizes enslavement to the NWO!


                                                                                          Harsha Sankar
                                                                                          Virginia

The Courts' Handling Of Election Matters In Pennsylvania-By Harsha Sankar(December 2020)

The Courts, in these specific instances dealing with the Presidential elections, may be doing the right thing. The last thing anyone wants is for people to state attorney-monopolized courts decided this election.

While the Pennsylvania Constitution was clearly violated, the US Supreme Court is sending the proper message that they will not be body overriding bad law. What they are stating is they want the legislative or executive branches at the state and federal level to ignore bad law and instead apply the US Constitution in finally deciding this Presidency. Article III, Section 2, Paragraph One states the following: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

THE PRECEDING IS THE REASON WHY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WILL REJECT VAST MAJORITY OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS CASES! THEY WILL NOT ENTERTAIN ANY CASE IN WHICH A STATE AND CITIZENS OF THAT SAME STATE ARE THE PARTIES.

Two Weeks Before Inauguration, Congress Can Block Electors-By Harsha Sankar (December 2020)

Dear Citizen,

January 6th is a critical day as well. If both a member of the House of Representatives and a member of the US Senate object to the legality(lawfulness) in which electors are chosen by any State(s), they can invoke 3 U.S. Code § 15 and 3 U.S. Code § 17 to object to the electors who had already cast votes for the President and Vice President.

The US Constitution states clearly in the first phrase of Article Two Section 1 Clause 2 the following: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress".

If member(s) of both houses agree that the manner of appointment of electors violated basic laws and fairness, they can get each house( Senate and House of Representatives) to vote on the electors of each state in controversy to determine if they were lawfully eligible to cast votes for President in the first place. If the two Houses concurrently reject votes from any state(s), they claim that such electoral votes "have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified".

Again, 3 U.S. Code § 15 and 3 U.S. Code § 17 provide the statutory justification of the constitutional objection for votes from any State(s). Both houses in the US Congress must decide that these electors were not lawfully chosen according to state law or to Common Law Election fairness.

                                                            Harsha Sankar

The Legislative And Judicial Handling Of Fraudulent Elections-Part Three (A Harsha Sankar Article-December 2020)

The following measure would be the last resort. It is still a resort though. Hopefully it will not come down to this!

Trump already declared a National Emergency once. He may have to do it again. We The People Convention (WTPC) calls for President to Invoke Limited Martial Law to Hold New Election and Protect our Vote, in Full Page Washington Times ad, if Legislators, Courts and Congress Do Not Follow the Constitution.

Please read their stated mission: “When the legislators, courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment, you must be ready Mr. President to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote. A vote that assures a fair election in every jurisdiction and reflects the true will of the people. Federal candidates only. Paper ballots. No computers. Hand-counted with both parties watching every vote. Only registered voters. Photo ID to prove residence. Conducted safely with everyone wearing masks and six feet apart, just like we did in Ohio. Only then can the winning candidate be accepted as legitimate by a true majority of We the People who must give our consent to be justly governed!”

The Legislative And Judicial Handling Of Fraudulent Elections-Part Two (A Harsha Sankar Article-December 2020)

 

For President Trump's representatives and advocates, they must realize the following.

1. The state judiciary deals with proven facts that determine cases between two parties.They are in no position to cast a verdict on the entire election. For them to get involved, real crimes would have to have been committed. The judiciary simply will not deal with defects due to incompetence and ineptitude.
2. The state's executive branch(Secretary Of State and Governor),they certify elections in their capacity of an inspector. Evidence, either circumstantial or proven, speculative or hard, has to be weighed by them before they can deem an election as not worthy of certification. For that to happen, they have to believe that the evidence contaminated the elections to such a broad based extent, the elections were not capable in producing clear results. This could be due both to incompetence or crime.
3. The state's legislative branch is ultimately responsible for the choosing of electors. They can, according to the authority vested in them, act according to their own beliefs and convictions. No evidence is necessary for them to be compelled to take decisions. If Trump's representatives can convince the legislatures in those states that have disputed results that the elections were defective to the extent it yielded the wrong winner, then those legislatures can decide accordingly. In other words, Trump's representatives do not have to allege that the entire system of elections was faulty. They instead just need to claim that there were enough defects in the casting and counting of ballots to change the outcome of the election. The defects neither have to be factually proven nor does it have to be deemed as a crime.

The sooner Trump's representatives realize this, the better. Frankly, the American People will not accept judicial intervention as the remedy as much as they would the acts of the legislature. Since the legislators are elected by the People directly, if they invalidate the election and deem it as "failed", it would be much more accepted by the rank and file citizenry. The American People need to see that voters, and not attorney-monopolized courts, decided this Presidential election.

I do feel that the controversy pertaining to the elections is a red herring and a weapon of mass distraction to divert people's attention from the real issue at hand. That issue is vaccinations because it symbolizes enslavement to the NWO!

The Legislative And Judicial Handling Of Fraudulent Elections-Part One (A Harsha Sankar Article-December 2020)

Only the United States Supreme Court, of all judicial bodies, should be involved at this stage of dealing with fraudulent elections.

The lower courts should not be approached at this stage because they simply cannot invalidate an election. They also cannot change defective laws. The lower courts can apply and support existing laws but only if two parties are involved. The courts also need to have direct evidence produced that is unique to the specific case being filed.

I really do not know why "Legal Team Trump" is wasting their time and resources approaching these inferior courts. They need to approach the executive branch officials instead(Secretary of State and/or Governor) to protest their pending certification of the election. Moreover, they need to really approach the legislative branch and ask them to not accept certification from the executive branch.

After all, the state legislatures have final authority on who the electors will be. If they opine that the certification process by the state's executive branch was indeed flawed,they can rescind that certification. In any event, they have the authority to unilaterally choose the electors.

Yes there has been widespread fraud pertaining to the election process. However, at this stage, it is indeed only speculative.The courts are doing the right thing to reject these lawsuits from "Legal Team Trump". What they are telling this team is to approach the executive and much more importantly the legislative branch of the state to air their grave concerns about the highly probable voting and election fraud.

Martial Law And Its Application In America-By Harsha Sankar(December 2020)

General Flynn is correct in calling for martial law as a last resort. Please understand the following.

While it is true the United States Supreme Court, in Ex parte Merryman, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9487 (1861), advised President Lincoln that he could not suspend institute martial law and suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, President Lincoln was right in ignoring this judicial body for two reasons.
1. The judiciary only gives opinions as to how the law should be applied and supported. This governmental branch is supposed to be passive as it does not rule by fiat.
2. President Lincoln only instituted martial law in the Union(Northern and Copperhead states as well as its territories) as he basically declared war on the Confederate States Of America. He never legally treated their secession attempt to be a rebellion.

Historical facts prove that he treated the CSA as a separate nation during the four years of the US Civil War so that his blockade and other military measures could be justified. Furthermore, since the CSA was treated as a separate nation, their leaders could not be successfully prosecuted for treason after the war.

The Buck Stops With The Executive- A Harsha Sankar Article (December 2020)

The state legislatures have the responsibility to pass laws that establish how the Presidential electors are chosen. Electors have to be chosen in a prescribed manner. If they are not and if the federal executive branch, with the President at its head, believes that the state legislators were complicit in violating their state's own laws on how the electors should have been chosen, then the President can declare martial law to schedule fresh elections for the Presidential electors.

The "Buck Always Stop" with the President. The executive branch executes and they directly have to answer for their execution. It is a time-honored legal precedent that if laws are violated just so a legal authority can ascertain lawful power, that lawful power becomes null and void. The executive branch can only be held accountable for violating basic laws and not for refusing to treat court opinions as decrees.

If Trump genuinely believes that state legislators were complicit in any type of fraud just so they can have the authority to pick the selectors, he can disqualify those state's electors from "participating in the Electoral College" and then from voting for the President. Of course, if no candidate receives 270 votes from the electors, then the House will pick the President on a per state basis.

Ultimately the "Buck Stops With Him". It has to stop somewhere. It is much better for the head of the executive to take final decision rather than a judge or legislative body. Congress does not have the authority to reject electors since they will be either accepting the candidates or perhaps voting for the candidates.

All this upholds checks and balances in the best way possible. Who would The People, in a Representative Democratic Republic, rather take ultimate decision? Should it be Judges who are supposed to be apolitical or rather legislators who may have to vote for both the President and Vice-President? The head of the executive branch can be held accountable for breaking the law. He or she cannot be held to account if he or she upholds the law as he or she sees fit.

Judges are only supposed to apply and support the law when there are two different parties in the court. They are supposed to be a passive branch of government "who calls balls or strikes" in matters of law by dispensing it in the presence of two distinct parties. The judges have no right as the courts have no jurisdiction in deciding a matter that neither involves two parties and also in deciding a matter in which guilt is not required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The rejection of electors is a judgment call that only a President(head of the executive) can or should make. If he/she believes that the state legislatures were complicit in producing fraudulent or even just inaccurate elections, then that head of the executive branch has to reject the electors. That President will have to invoke the 14th Amendment or the Insurrection Act Of 1807 to do just that. Again, it is the President's call as there exists a rebellion, a Coup D'Etat.

Why are the Courts are rejecting most of his "Legal Team's"petitions as they should? Because they are not legal cases as of yet. Really, the local, state, and federal prosecutors and police should be investigating and prosecuting this.
 

Trump is correct to approach legislators and executive branch officials to remind them of their lawful roles and is consistent with the US Constitution. Certification of an election is a political, not legal, move.

Free And Fair Elections Are Vital Features Of A Representative Democratic Republic- Part Four (By Harsha Sankar-December 2020)

Free And Fair Elections Are Vital Features Of A Representative Democratic Republic- Part Four

Because of the institution of "Private Justice", the vast network of operatives who are responsible for these crimes genuinely have no fear for their actions. The local, state, and federal(FBI and other agencies) police should be "cracking down" on this vast crime spree of treason. The federal AG, state AGs, and municipal prosecutors should be processing numerous indictments in order to convict numerous people who perpetuated these unprecedented acts of sedition.   

Yet, because of BAR attorney domination, dominion, and domain of the legal and governmental system, this is not happening when it should be. The issue at hand is not who wins the Presidency. It should be having totally free and fair elections by having those who infringe on that to be punished quickly, with uniformity, and to the fullest extent of the law.

Free And Fair Elections Are Vital Features Of A Representative Democratic Republic- Part Three (A Harsha Sankar Article) December 2020

Free And Fair Elections Are Vital Features Of A Representative Democratic Republic- Part Three

Because of the proliferation of the unconstitutional, hypocritical, and fraudulent Bar associations and their unlawful agents, "the attorney-at -law profession",all matters have become civil to accommodate the huge influx of attorneys in the last five decades so they can extort more money and influence.

The transnational BAR has converted our entire system of governance(politics and law) into an arbitration center of private justice. There is no public law anymore as the entire apparatus is their private fiefdom. President Trump or his campaign is not supposed to have any involvement in these legal actions. No other private entities, such as attorneys Lin Wood, Sydney Powell, American Center for Law and Justice, and others should be involved in these legal actions.
Private actors should never  participate in constitutional matters involving state and local governments.

They should neither ever be included in the prosecution of crimes. Many people are skeptical of the allegations of massive and vote fraud. For most of them to be convinced, all crimes associated with this fraud must be prosecuted by all levels of law enforcement. The American people want specific guilty people to experience jail time and/or fines for anyone who engages in fraud or obstruction. They are much more worried about fixing deceitful elections then they are about which candidate won the Presidency.

Even if Trump remains as President,what has he really won if people who were responsible for this extreme rigging are not punished? Moreover, it is totally imperative that the voting systems are fixed so that these crimes do not happen again. It is important to note that BAR hegemony of our legal system has "watered" the rule of legitimate law to the greatest extent. High levels of standardlessness have arisen because of this. This consequently has promoted total promiscuity as well as the erosion of objective and standalone principles.

Free And Fair Elections Are Vital Features Of A Representative Democratic Republic-Part Two (By Harsha Sankar-December 2020)

Free And Fair Elections Are Vital Features Of A Representative Democratic Republic-Part Two

The three issues that the federal government, not President Trump on a personal basis or his campaign, should address are as follows.

1. The state governments have the responsibility to choose its electors unequivocally on election day itself. This is mandated in the US Constitution and US Code. If a "State"(state government) is not certain who their electors will be, then that "State" should be disqualified from having its electors vote for President.

2. Federal law was never changed to allow for mail-in balloting. Therefore, all mail-in balloting that did not conform to the existing and current law should be considered ineligible.

3. The US Constitution is very clear that Federal Law supersedes state and local via its 14th Amendment.

E.O. 18438 issued in 2018 prohibits foreign interference of United States elections. Please read the following text of this E.O.: I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the ability of persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

The key words is "election infrastructure". Dominion Software Systems and Smart Matic are foreign based companies. Therefore, any "State" who used such foreign companies could have the entire popular vote tally invalidated. It could also be argued on behalf of the Federal Government that the Postal Service was never sanctioned to participate in federal elections other than what is prescribed in existing law.

Free And Fair Elections Are Vital Features Of A Representative Democratic Republic- Part One(By Harsha Sankar)- December 2020

Free And Fair Elections Are Vital Features Of A Representative Democratic Republic- Part One

What people really want is a free and fair election. Frankly, they can easily accept President Trump losing if he did so fair and square. The evidence is overwhelming that he did not lose to a cognitively declined 78 year old whom even most Progressives condemn as corrupt.

The manner President Trump is handling this "election theft" is incorrect. BAR Rule is responsible for the lawlessness that resulted in such a heist. Increasing their involvement and kleptocratic stranglehold of the political process makes no sense. Frankly, the only thing President Trump should have judicially done was file a case,on behalf of the federal government,to the US Supreme Court and address three separate issues. The state governments that had disputed elections would be the named parties in this suit to the US SC.