| From a conservative attorney friend of mine:
November 13, 2012, that during the weekly True the Vote
webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus,
the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP
would do about voter integrity. The
answer? Nothing. They aren’t legally
able to.
This all goes back to a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981. The
following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View , a legal website
specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic
National Committee v Republican National Committee
<http://judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Civil-Procedure/Democratic-National-Committee-v-Republican-National-Committee/10/201975>
<http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rnc-v-dnc.pdf>
,”
Case No. 09-4615.
In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey
(NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State
Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and
Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965
(VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States.
The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals
(Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).
The lawsuit alleged that:
· The RNC
and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate
them.
· The RNC
created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in
precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered
voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were
returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.
· The RNC
enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National
Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at
polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers
allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.
To settle the lawsuit, in 1982, the RNC and RSC entered
into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the
RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC
obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and
RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:
[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the
United States:
(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws
protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s)
of their choice;
(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs
which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose
that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other
committees participating with the party committees;
(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting
their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed
campaign materials or signs;
(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting
their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate
prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to
a polling place;
(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security
activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic
composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the
actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant
effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the
conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts
that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be
considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;
(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law
enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.
The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants,
and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or
indirectly through other party committees.”
As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot
security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other
efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”
Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every
year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickinson_Richards_Debevoise>
Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired,
Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order
for another year. <http://gulagbound.com/36046/no-joke-the-gop-can-not-legally-help-stop-vote-fraud/#.UKPfJWd4CSq>
U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise
In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or
modify” the Consent Decree in “Democratic National Committee v Republican
National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012). (I paid The
Judicial Review $10 for the PDF of Case No. 09-4615 and uploaded the 59-page
document to FOTM’s media library.
To read Case No. 09-4615, see sebsite !)
<http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rnc-v-dnc.pdf>
This is a summary of the appeals judge’s ruling filed on
March 8, 2012:<http://judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Civil-Procedure/Democratic-National-Committee-v-Republican-National-Committee/10/201975>
,
In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the
Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the
“Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s
ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains
the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part,
the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the
District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to
the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by
modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the
following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to
“vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee
<http://www.afj.org/judicial-selection/nominees/joseph-a-greenway.html>
, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.
Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd
Circuit
Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last
Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states: <http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/11/12/the_400000_votes_that_tipped_the_election>
· Florida:
73,858
· Ohio: 103,481
· Virginia:
115,910
· Colorado:
113,099
Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348
votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so
additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275
electoral votes.
All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up
to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a
substantial margin,all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for
Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had
experienced problems with voting
machines.
This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud.
Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely
silent about it.
Now you know why. I’ll
leave you with one last, even more disturbing thought:
The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in
1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to
commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the
language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic
populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.
The Democrat Party knew this 30 years ago, more than
enough time to put a plan in place to identify and groom their “perfect
candidate” — in the words of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in
2008, a “light-skinned” black Democrat who has “no Negro dialect unless he
wanted to have one.”<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/harry-reid-barack-obama.html>
· Being a
black Democrat, this perfect candidate would get the support of almost all
black Americans (96% in 2008 and other racial minorities (two-thirds of
Hispanics in 2008).
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/06/5-voting-demographics-where-barack-obama-made-headlines>
!)
· Being a
“light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect”, this perfect candidate would
get the support of white Americans perpetually guilt-ridden about America’s
original sin of slavery.
It doesn’t matter if this “perfect candidate” has dubious
Constitutional eligibility to be president. They would see to it that his
original birth certificate (if there is one) would never see the light of
day. The same with his other documents — his passports, school and college
records, draft registration, and medical records (so we’ll never know why
Obama has that very long scar running from one side of his head, over the
crown, to the other side <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/what-are-those-scars-on-obamas-head/> ).
Now, we understand the significance of the account Tom
Fife wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a U.S. government
contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with
undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently
collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born
of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by
communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.
<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/obama-a-sleeper-agent-for-world-communism/>
Now, we finally understand the cryptic remark made in May
2010, by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: “Obama was selected before
he was elected.” <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/louis-farrakhan-obama-was-selected-before-he-was-elected/>
In 2008, this “perfect candidate” won the presidential
election. And despite his many failures in his first term, he would be
reelected in 2012 for a second term via massive vote fraud. But nothing would
be done about the vote fraud, because of that Consent Decree signed by the
RNC 30 years ago.
The Republican Party is dead — and with it, the U.S.
two-party system as well — and the sooner we voters recognize that the
better. The question that remains is whether the American Republic
is also dead.
Source: Victoria Baer, Victoria@baeredge.net, November 19, 2012
|
Comments:
I am stunned. Why is this the first time I have ever heard of this ?
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment