The Gathering of Sovereigns, Part 6

Assessing the Performance of Our Branches of Government

Faith, patience, and vigilance.

That’s my First Sovereign mantra when it comes to this most strange form of warfare playing out before us on the world stage.

As a reminder to persevere, it serves its purpose well. It aids me in helping others to remember that we must all stay the course with our 45th president. But we First Sovereigns must employ a broader, longer-term mindset. A mindset that sees us as participants in the struggle.

Not merely partisan participants, however.

Principled participants.

I write today in praise of Mike Lindell, in general, and the recent lawsuit template he has published, specifically. But the exercise of writing Part 6 in this series has reminded me of the need for a constitutional republic to have an informed citizenry.

This reminder was amplified when I recently had a conversation with a friend that drifted into a brief discussion concerning “just war” theory. How is a determination made about a just cause? How is the citizenry to understand the stakes and conclude the action now required is an action of last resort?

All of it requires an informed citizenry, and that’s when I began to comprehend Mike Lindell’s role in this war.

Mike Lindell’s actions have served multiple purposes, none of which is mere distraction. All are either purposeful or need to be considered from that vantage point, employing the healthy skepticism required of First Sovereigns. More often than not, the primary purpose will be the stated purpose.

Occasionally unstated, however, are secondary purposes. They may be layered and didactic, surreptitiously intended to convey instruction and information as well as pleasure and entertainment while endowing the recipient with an enhanced ability to analyze and thereafter assess (or grade, if you prefer) actions observed versus actions required by the American concept of duty.

Do you see where I’m going with this?

Do you see what I suspect some of the multiple actions taken by Donald Trump or actions taken on his behalf constitute?

For instance, I previously thought the grandest grand jury of them all would be the January 6th session of Congress where the theft of the November election for President and Vice President would be halted by the President of the Senate, Mike Pence, and the issues via evidence hashed out.

But true to his January 2017 Inaugural Address, our 45th president kept his word.

He has returned that power to the First Sovereigns, We the People. *We* stand as the failsafe. Not the Supreme Court, though they may do their duty. They may.

But *we* are the grandest grand jury of them all. And we currently sit in judgment of our three branches of government.

We sit in judgment at the state level where what is in most instances our Second Sovereign (state government, but in certain circumstances, our Third Sovereign) exists as an entity filled with duty-bound agents required to represent our interests.

As First Sovereigns, we also sit in judgment at the federal level, where what is in most instances our Third Sovereign (the federal government, but in certain quite constrained areas, they constitute our Second Sovereign), exists as duty-bound agents required to represent our interests.

We sit in judgment of both as an informed citizenry necessary for the maintenance of a constitutional republic.

Are you informed?

Do you consider yourself informed?

Did you previously consider yourself informed?

The warfare waged against us for decades has actively sought to rob us of our ability as First Sovereigns to sit in judgment as informed citizens.

Unbeknownst to millions of Americans, Donald Trump is the first president in the modern era actively working to keep the faith with us, First Sovereign to First Sovereign.

That is why they’ve attacked him and General Flynn so relentlessly. It’s why they’ve ridiculed Mike Lindell.

Context

Recently Brian Cates’ Telegram channel did a wonderful job providing a magnificent contextual summary for me via three submissions from the @martyrmade Twitter account posted on Telegram by @KanekoaTheGreat.

For the sake of brevity I won’t present them in full here but they a very good summation for the foundational mindset of many Americans, especially – but not exclusively – many of us suspended or banned from Twitter for entirely specious reasons designed to protect the November 2020 theft of the presidential election clearly won by Donald Trump.

Submission 1 of 3 via @KanekoaTheGreat arising from Twitter posts by @martyrmade.

Submission 2 of 3 via @KanekoaTheGreat arising from Twitter posts by @martyrmade.

Submission 3 of 3 via @KanekoaTheGreat arising from Twitter posts by @martyrmade.

By now, most everyone knows the litany of recently occurring events are quite encouraging. As Pepe Lives Matter recently detailed on Telegram:

Chris Cuomo fired from CNN, cool.

Andrew Cuomo not only out as Governor of New York but under investigation for sexual harassment.

Our reprehensible mainstream media embarrassed and, at minimum, lacking in credibility.

Trump hater Alec Baldwin under fire with criminal charges lurking.

Bottom Bitch Numero Uno, Ghislaine Maxwell, has seen her trial begin and it appears all roads lead to Bill Clinton (among others).

First sovereign patriots have finally begun to take back their primary and secondary public schools.

And because countless people around the Western world are waking up, millions of them are protesting the shackles being forcibly placed upon them and their normal daily activities. 

But it was his “[r]igged elections exposed for all to see” line that captured my attention. It’s a true statement, yes, but so much more is involved in that process of exposure.

The process of exposure is also the process of engagement. If we’re ever to regain the ability as First Sovereigns to assess just what the heck is what regarding the “whole of government” operations, and thereafter assign a grade to the entirety of government based on our observations, we’ve needed some homework assignments.

That’s where Mike Lindell and Kurt Olsen come in. We all know who Mike Lindell is by now however Olsen is another matter. He is a D.C. area lawyer and Naval Academy graduate living in Maryland. He became nationally prominent for his efforts as a First Sovereign trying to convince the Justice Department to bring an action in the federal Supreme Court in the aftermath of rampant and obvious cheating in the November 2020 election.

Olsen urged President Trump’s Justice Department to file a Supreme Court suit similar to the one filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in order to address unresolved issues of standing - issues that had given SCOTUS reason to ignore the case. Then interim Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen ignored Olsen’s attempts to brief him on the effort and the Justice Department never filed a lawsuit over the rampant cheating that shocked most of America.

In our ongoing national Americanism versus Communism class, Mike Lindell and team are not only active agents working to save the American republic, but also as teachers employed to enhance the knowledge of the general public.

On a certain level, the importance of the Lindell lawsuit as lawsuit isn’t the most important factor in its existence.

No, we’ve been in need of additional tools to add to our First Sovereign toolkit. If not actual tools, perhaps a ledger by which we could objectively grade our government officials at all levels of government. Team Lindell is providing us with multiple ledgers allowing for a better assessment of how our employees are doing their jobs.

As with so much of this information warfare playing out before us on the world stage, we – as First Sovereigns – are consuming it in real time as something of a drama, much like the current popular series Yellowstone.

Except we’re not viewing this as passive consumers.

We’re viewing them as a grand jury sitting in judgment of our three branches of government.

What does the black-letter law (our state and federal constitutions) say, especially with respect to the limitations on the power of government? How are our governmental agents – given those constraints – meeting their duty to us in the performance of their daily job?

What does the statutory law (codified by acts of the state and federal legislatures) say about x, y or z? How are our governmental agents – given their limited powers – meeting their duty to us in the performance of their daily job?

I have maintained that Donald Trump’s 2015 run for the presidency allowed the Republican base to test the GOP establishment. The exasperated question posed to the double-digit number of candidates for the presidency was this: are you or are you not meeting your duty to us, the First Sovereigns?

It was a test they failed miserably. Except for Donald Trump, of course.

To me, Lindell’s efforts serve the same purpose. And our political establishment, state and federal, have likewise failed. But, as General Mike Flynn has implored to all who will listen, local action is necessarily changing that initial failure into something much more palatable: an adherence to the wishes of We the People.

Olsen indicated there are four significant differences in this complaint compared to the complaint that was filed by the State of Texas in December of last year. Why? Because there are new defendants and there are specific claims against those new defendants.

First, however, let us review a full outline of the lawsuit as if filed by the State of Florida.

Again, Kurt Olsen indicated there are four significant differences in this complaint compared to the complaint that was filed by the State of Texas in December of last year. Why? Because there are new defendants and there are specific claims against those new defendants.

Significant Difference Number One

The itemized list of new defendants represent, broadly, the United States government. Specifically, as listed individually, they are:

the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Attorney General, and the President Pro Tem of the Senate.

The old defendants from the Texas lawsuit remain the states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The lawsuit relies upon claims brought under two specific clauses found within Articles of the federal constitution.

First, a claim is made under Article IV of the constitution, generally involving states and the various state-federal interactions. Section 4 contains the Guarantee Clause.

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

As Lindell’s template makes clear, a stolen election is anathema to our federal constitution. Why? For, as specifically stated in the complaint, “A stolen election, as the November 2020 election was, neither faithfully executes the law nor provides a republican form of government.” The prior sentence links the Article IV and Article II constitutional claims made under the lawsuit.

Article II specifically covers the Executive branch of government, while Section 3 contained therein both grants and constrains presidential power. It reads:

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

With respect to the clause applicable in this lawsuit, an analysis in 2014 from the Congressional Research Service found:

[The] Take Care Clause has been interpreted as placing an obligation on both the President and those under his supervision to comply with and execute clear statutory directives as enacted by Congress. However, the Supreme Court has also construed the Clause as ensuring Presidential control over the enforcement of federal law. As a result, courts generally will not review Presidential enforcement decisions, including the decision of whether to initiate a criminal prosecution or administrative enforcement action in response to a violation of federal law.

Thus, the officers of the United States Government have a binding duty to ensure the laws of the United States are faithfully executed and clearly, in this election, they were not.

Olsen also points out that dismissal of a case on procedural grounds like standing, does not in any way speak to the court’s opinion on the merits of the cases - dishonest media claims notwithstanding.

Further, he said, as of October of 2020 when the original Texas complaint was heard, there were four Supreme Court justices who wanted to take up that case. A case, he noted, upon which the current matter is based, involving Article II violations.

It pays to remember the context of the 2020 lawsuit. The issue involved a situation in Pennsylvania where a politicized Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled by fiat that ballots could be counted after the legal statutory deadline of November 3rd at 8:00 p.m.

Do you see how these facts allow First Sovereigns to essentially grade all three branches of government, state and federal?

How did *your* state legislature respond to these facts? How did your Governor respond? Your state’s judiciary?

How did you, as an individual First Sovereign, respond?

Again, contrary to state law, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled elections officials could keep counting ballots even if the ballots are not postmarked or signed, and not only could they do that beyond 8 p.m. on November 3rd, but they were also permitted to do so through November 6th.

At that time in 2020, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away and the federal Supreme Court was composed of just 8 justices when the Republican Party of Pennsylvania petitioned them to stay that decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Given that four justices wanted to take that case up in 2020, and given that the applicable standard for the justices to accept such a petition in order to rule on the substantive matter is that they had to believe that the plaintiffs in that case – the Republican Party of Pennsylvania – would likely succeed on the merits, Olsen is right to be confident about the merits of this lawsuit.

These changes to election laws by non-legislative actors such as state courts or state officers clearly violate Article II of the federal constitution.

Significant Difference Number Two

Next, Olsen highlighted the fact that they are presenting entirely new arguments that address the question of standing.

In December 2020 the federal Supreme Court dismissed the Texas case, one joined by 18 other states either by intervention or by amicus briefs, by holding that there was no standing to bring the case by the filing official from the State of Texas.

This new filing makes two new arguments on standing. First, the Georgia runoff election resulted in the United States Senate being split 50-50. Given the claimed presidential election result, this means the presumed Vice President, Kamala Harris, is now the deciding vote in our Senate. Thus, the other states now have standing to bring an action because of the contested November 2020 election event and the allegation that presumed Vice President Kamala Harris was not legitimately elected and because she sits in a position that has the tie-breaking vote.

This means *all* states now have an injury as a direct result of the contested November 2020 election events that occurred in the multiple states listed in this complaint.

Second, the other basis for standing that has been alleged is this: the federal constitution is a compact amongst the citizens of the states through their respective legislative bodies. Through that compact, all first sovereigns in each state agree to play by the same rules, period.

Thus, Olsen maintained, while accepting, for the sake of argument, that the facts in the complaint as pled are true, which the court must, the legitimate electoral count would then fall below 270 and thus, as a consequence, every state has a right under the 12th amendment to demand an election pursuant to the agreed upon voting and electoral college architecture for the offices of president and vice president.

Significant Difference Number Three

There’s a plethora of new evidence and facts generated since the prior case was considered in December of 2020.

[1] On September 24th 2021 we had the limited results published from the severely limited Maricopa audit. The odd occurrences in that effort to discover the truth further prove why Arizona is a defendant in the new lawsuit.

[2] In October just last month, the Racine County sheriff in Wisconsin referred for prosecution felony criminal charges against the Wisconsin Election Commission saying that the election laws in Wisconsin were not just broken, they were “shattered.”

[3] You have the Wisconsin legislative audit bureau issue a damning report finding that tens of thousands of ballots were irregular and, I would argue, illegal. For example, there were over 50,000 new registered voters whose identification didn't even match what was on file at the Wisconsin Election Commission. Things such as the names weren't the same, obvious things that would raise questions of illegality.

This is all new information and, Olsen noted, there are new, manifestly relevant court decisions to consider.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled - after the federal Supreme Court dismissed the Texas case - that the Wisconsin Election Commission issued unlawful guidance on “indefinitely confined” voters which involves potentially over 160,000 ineligible voters.

You also have a March of 2021 Michigan ruling that the Secretary of State’s guidance - doing away with signature verification requirements- was entirely unlawful.

So, you have a host of new facts, new developments, and new findings that all make this complaint materially different from the case brought in2020.

Significant Difference Number Four

The last material difference is the ongoing desperate attempt to cover up transparently illegal acts.

There is evidence that in Maricopa County, Arizona, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors destroyed election records. They not only tried to block the audit every step of the way, but also destroyed their election records *after* the court in Arizona ruled that the election audit must go forward.

The evidence of that activity has been referred to the Arizona attorney general for further investigation and presumably, indictment.

There is also evidence of destruction of election records in Georgia. VoterGA, a grassroots activist group working to restore election integrity in Georgia, using information obtained via a freedom of information request, reviewed emails provided when they demanded copies of ballot images, that – contrary to well-established law – those ballots no longer existed.

And VoterGa also produced emails (which Olsen cited in the complaint) demonstrating that the director of elections in Georgia provided guidance to elections officials in the Peach State saying, essentially, “Hey, it's OK to go ahead and destroy the ballot images that existed on the disk for the dominion voting machines.”

These are outrageous breaches of the public trust.

Continuing with a focus on Georgia, there have also been recent courthouse developments where a renowned professor of computer science from the University of Michigan, Alex Halderman, raised warnings that he could hack into Dominion voting machines and steal votes. Unfortunately, the judge in that United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia case curiously sealed the professor’s 25,000 word report despite the professor himself begging the judge to make it publicly available. Through the federal Cyber Infrastructure and Information Security Agency so they could get movement on fixing these problems.

As detailed in an article on Lindell’s Frankspeech website:

Olsen, in a Tuesday, Oct. 5 interview, revealed that, on September 21, 2021, Professor Halderman filed a sworn Declaration with the Georgia federal court pleading with the court to unseal an explosive 25,000-word July 2021 cyber report on Dominion voting machines. Olsen said the cyber report by Professor Halderman, now hidden from public view, was submitted as evidence in a current Georgia civil case seeking the removal of Dominion voting machines from all Georgia elections, and according to Professor Halderman in his sworn Declaration, details how vulnerable Dominion’s voting machines are to hacking and vote stealing.

Professor Halderman stated, under penalty of perjury, that the hacking and malware threat to these Dominion machines is so “urgent” that his Report must be released to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to try to fix these issues. CISA is the government agency that defends against cyber threats to our Nation’s critical infrastructure, including voting systems.  Halderman also testified that he had already communicated with CISA officials, and those officials want to move forward to try and fix these security issues before upcoming elections can be hacked.

In Professor Haldeman’s statement submitted under penalty of perjury, he asserted the following:

"Informing responsible parties about the Dominion ICX's vulnerabilities is becoming more urgent by the day. Foreign or domestic adversaries who are intent on attacking elections certainly could have already discovered the same problems I did. It is important to recognize the possibility that nefarious actors already have discovered the same problems I detailed in my report and are preparing to exploit them in future elections."

Haldeman’s report indicates these vulnerabilities affect as many as 16 states, including Georgia. He doesn't say in the report which states in particular, but he is saying the current situation is so dire and so urgent that CISA needs to be promptly notified so they can work to fix these problems before the November 2022 midterm elections.

Conclusion

The national media would love to gloss over the fact that these same problems existed during the 2020 election but these bombshell developments prove the case that Texas brought in 2020 was totally meritorious.

So, as I give a tip of the cap in my series to Mike Lindell, here’s a snippet written in The Dispatch titled Inside the Mind of Mike Lindell:

As of 2018, according to Hollywood Reporter, Lindell was worth $300 million. He’s still at the helm of the company, but he estimates that he spends 90 percent of his 17-hour workdays on the voter fraud campaign. Most days he wakes up at around 6:30 a.m., and before he begins running through the list of media interviews lined up for the morning, he gets on the phone with his prayer group to, as he says, thank the Lord for all the great things he has. Lindell believes the things that are yet to come will be great too.

To him, it all seems very simple: The 2020 presidential election was stolen, we’ll soon have new evidence to prove it, the Supreme Court will overturn the election, and Trump will once again be president. And with Trump back in office, and a fraudulent election finally made right, the country can begin moving closer to God. And, that, according to Lindell, means the future is very bright.

With his mind not exclusively trapped in the ways of this world, we need to understand something important: the success of the current Supreme Court lawsuit isn’t the be-all, end-all for Mike Lindell. Nor does it hold such status, I suspect, with Donald Trump.

For me, there are no distractions in this war being fought.

Every effort undertaken should be presumed to be purposeful. So . . . the media narrative insisting these claims arise from baseless allegations is nonsense and totally untrue.

They were never baseless nor anything close to it.

The multiple mounds of evidence for the claims were always incredibly strong and they've only gotten stronger in 2021.

Toward that informed citizenry angle, the Americanism vs Communism angle, the knowledge gained from study of the Lindell lawsuit template for the 50 states angle, all of that, please consider this recent lawsuit filed by David Perdue in Georgia:

Georgia gubernatorial candidate and former Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) on Friday joined a lawsuit seeking to inspect absentee ballots in the state’s most populous county, pursuing unsupported allegations that election fraud kept him and former President Trump from victory in 2020.

The lawsuit echoes claims made in earlier failed lawsuits by Trump’s supporters, who insisted that the 2020 election in Georgia had been tainted by widespread voter fraud and systemic irregularities. A judge dismissed a similar lawsuit in October after investigators said that they were unable to find any counterfeit ballots in Fulton County.

In a statement to The Associated Press released by Perdue’s lawyers, the former senator and new Republican gubernatorial candidate said that he wants to use his “position and legal standing to shine light on what I know were serious violations of Georgia law in the Fulton absentee ballot tabulation.”

“We are asking a judge to consider the evidence after our forensic examination of the absentee ballots is completed and hold those persons responsible who engaged in this wrongful conduct,” Perdue said, according to the AP.

A spokesperson for Perdue’s campaign said that the former senator joined the existing lawsuit “to see if a candidate has legal standing to answer these questions as we get to the bottom of fraud in 2020 and make sure it never happens again.”

“Perdue has never called to overturn an election, and this lawsuit doesn’t do that – it aims to fix problems,” the spokesperson said, adding that “when Perdue is Governor, we’re going to have the safest and securest elections in the country.”

Have no doubt whatsoever, there *is* a method to the madness my friends.

Nothing can stop what is coming.

MAGA !!! MEGA !!!