COUP D’ETAT OF U.S. SUPREME COURT AND PRESIDENCY

POWERFUL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS POLITICAL COMMITTEE

REPUBLICAN COUP D’ETAT OF U.S. SUPREME COURT AND PRESIDENCY

In 2000 a 5 justice Republican vote on the U.S. Supreme Court stole the election from Al Gore, Jr. and gave the presidency of the United States to George W. Bush by tossing out and invalidating an order from the Florida Supreme Court to allow all counties in Florida to have full recounts of presidential ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed every decision on the final authority of a state’s highest appellate court, in this case, the Florida Supreme Court, to rule on the meaning and application of the Florida state statutory election law [not the Florida State Constitution election guarantees]. In the 200 years from 1800 on, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a long line of election case precedents, that the decision of a state’s highest appellate court was not subject to U.S. Supreme Court review and did not present a federal question of the United States Constitution that was reviewable by the federal courts at any level. The most recent case on this was the Coke Stevenson challenge to the Lyndon B. Johnson Senate election victory, in a small rural county in the state of Texas, in the 1940s. Due to the fact that a corrupt 5 judge majority of the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review the Florida Supreme Court decision in Bush. v. Gore, George W. Bush, Jr. was wrongly given the popular vote victory by 852 votes and then George W. Bush won all of the Florida electoral votes. Because the U.S. Supreme Court wrongfully stole the election from Al Gore Jr. by a 5-4 vote, and awarded the popular vote win to George W. Bush Jr., the electoral votes of Florida were awarded to George W. Bush, Jr. and George W. Bush, Jr. won the majority of U.S. Electoral votes in the November 2000 election.

In George W. Bush’s second term in the presidency, Rehnquist and another U.S. Supreme Court Justice retired and Sandra Day O’Connor retired which created 2 vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court that George W. Bush, Jr. was able to fill. The appointees nominated by Bush, Jr. and approved by advise and consent of the U.S. Senate in a floor vote, were Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. These two Justices participated willingly the coup d’etat vote 5-4 to issue the opinion of Citizens United , which claimed that campaign money spent was speech and therefore under the freedom of speech guarantee of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was protected unlimited. Therefore corporations, business entities, an individual could engage in unlimited spending for and against candidates in state and federal elections. Citizens United was calculated to give an enormous advantage to Republican candidates who had millionaires and billionaires funding their campaigns. Citizens United struck an enormous blow to weaken the Democratic Party by allowing the very richest of U.S. Citizen voters to outspend ordinary U.S. Voters in elections.

The 5 Justice conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court upheld voter ID laws in Indiana as constitutional. This would allow states to require voters to have driver license or photo identification cards as a requirement to be able to cast ballots in person at the polls. Then the states could make it difficult or impossible for people to have access to Department of Motor Vehicle offices in the evening or weekend or at locations that were easy for poor people to get to. The 5 Justice majority on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an entire section of the Voting Rights Act that required preclearance of any state statutes on voting and voter qualification by attorneys in the civil division of the U.S. Attorneys office for the district the state was located in. This now freed Southern states to pass laws that restricted who could vote and what interference states could create with the right to vote. Voter ID laws would play a major role in reducing Democratic registered voter turnout in state and federal elections, and defeating Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio.

In 2008, Barack Obama was elected president as the first black president in U.S. History. In the first 5 years of Obama’s terms, two U.S. Supreme Court seats were vacated. Obama nominated and the U.S. Senate confirmed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayer. In February 2016 in the last year of Obama’s second term Antonin Scalia died creating a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court for Barack Obama to nominate, appoint and fill with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, then dominated by a Republican Party majority of 52 Senators and two independent Senators from Maine and Vermont, Rufus King and Bernie Sanders respectively.

When the judgeship formerly occupied by Scalia became vacant, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell, immediately went into action to tell all U.S. Voters that no Judge / Justice nominated by Barack Obama would receive a yea or nay vote from the full Senate, which is actually required as a quorum of U.S. Senators under the official Senate rules. Senator Mitch McConnell went on in a beyond belief manner to announce that no judicial nominee nominated by President Barack Obama, no matter who that nominee might be would receive a yea or nay vote by the full Senate, because he McConnell refused to allow that to happen and that he Sen. McConnell would refuse to schedule a yea or nay vote for any such Obama nominee. After a week or two Sen. Chuck Grassley and a number of meetings with Mitch McConnell and lobbyists for the National Rifle Association and the Koch Brothers and Phil Anschutz of Colorado, who wanted the seat saved for his darling Judge Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Chuck Grassley jumped on the Republican Party bandwagon. Sen. Chuck Grassley announced that there would be no hearings for the nominee nominated by President Obama, who was, in fact, Judge Merrick Garland. Sen. Chuck Grassley, in contempt of the U.S. Constitution, announced that there would be no Judiciary Committee hearings as per the U.S. Senate rules that applied to Judicial nomination for federal judgeships, including specifically the U.S. Supreme Court. For the first time in 220 years of United States history, a Senate conspiracy was created, by renegade lawless Senators, with McConnell and Sen. Grassley leading the renegade action to deny and sabotage the constitutional powers of the President of the United States, to fill vacancies in the U.S. Supreme Court, That president was Barack Obama in 2016. Sen. Grassley even went further in his civilly illegal and criminal behavior to announce that if Hillary Clinton were to win the election that he would make sure that there would be no Judiciary Committee hearings for any U.S. Supreme Court nominee for the entire 4 or 8 years of Hillary Clinton’s term, that she might serve, as President of the United States. This type of treason, obstruction of justice, violation of Obama’s and 45 Democratic Senators constitutional rights was committed by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Senator Mitch McConnell R-Kentucky, the Senate majority leader.

In summary:
President Obama nominates Merrick Garland.
Sen. Mitch McConnell refuses to hold an up or down approval or disapproval vote on Judge Merrick Garland.

1. Sen. Mitch McConnell states to news media, CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, and others that no matter whom President Obama nominates to the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, that Mitch McConnell will not allow or schedule a full Senate yea or nay vote on such Obama nominee during the remaining year of the Obama Presidency. McConnell says that he will let the voters decide in November who will get to nominate a Judge to the vacant judgeship on the U.S.Supreme Court.

2. Sen. Chuck Grassley holds secret meetings of the Judiciary Committee Republicans demanding their loyalty and illegally holding a vote of Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee, at which those committee members vote in secret without the Democrat Senators present, to refuse to schedule hearings on the Judge Merrick Garland nomination. Senator Grassley holds these secret meetings without an official Senate reporter with an Xscribe machine to record the meeting and record the unofficial votes cast at the meeting in violation of federal law. Grassley commits obstruction of justice by having official business committee meetings from which all Democrat Senators were excluded, but Grassley guesses that he can get away with that behavior with Mitch McConnell in agreement, that no one either President Obama or the Democrats on Judiciary will file any civil action or request criminal prosecution

3. Sen. Chuck Grassley refuses to hold judiciary committee hearings on nominee Judge Merrick Garland or any nominee chosen by Pres. Obama in Obama’s last year of his presidency of 2016 after Antonin Scalia’s surprise death in February 2016 until January 20, 2017.

4. Sen. Grassley, acting in civil conspiracy and, I allege, criminal conspiracy, states as Chairman of the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee, that he, Grassley, will refuse to hold hearings on Judge Merrick Garland or on any nominee chosen by President Obama in violation of his own Judiciary Committee Rules and the Constitution of the United States. Both Mitch McConnell and Sen. Chuck Grassley emphatically state in public speeches, that it does not matter whom President Obama nominates for the U.S. Supreme Court that no hearings will be held for such nominees and no yea or nay vote by the full Senate will be scheduled for any Obama Justice nominee,

Court process for removing Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

ACTIVITIES TO REMOVE GORSUCH AND BLOCK KAVANAUGH

Brett Sablosky

POWERFUL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS POLITICAL COMMITTEE
Neil Gorsuch was illegally appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch is not a tenured U.S. Supreme Court Justice because he was chosen by the legislative branch, the U.S. Senate, rather than the executive branch, the president of the United States. This is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine in the United States Constitution. The violation of the separation of power is so serious as render the confirmation vote on Justice Gorsuch void, and a null approval by the U.S. Senate. The United States Senate is not allowed to nominate judges of their own choice and prevent a sitting president from nominating a Justice to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution clearly states in Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2 that the President shall nominate and by and with the consent of the Senate, the President shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court. The language clearly states that the sitting president serving in office when the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy occurs shall in “shall” language, which is mandatory language, appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. When Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley stated to the public and the media, that they would not have hearings, and that they would not have a yea or nay vote of approval or disapproval on Merrick Garland, or on any other U.S. Supreme Court nominee, nominated by President Barack Obama, they were acting illegally, civilly, in violation of the above provision of the United States Constitution, which clearly states that it is the President, who is the only official, who can choose a potential U.S. Supreme Court Justice, by nominating that person and with Senate approval that is called appointment by the President. In the 2016 nomination event, that person was Judge Merrick Garland.

The refusal of Sen. Chuck Grassley to have Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Merrick Garland, as announced and ordered by President Barack Obama, violates the literal, explicit commands of the U.S. Constitution in shall language, that ‘shall’ is mandatory upon the president and is mandatory upon the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate, and “shall” is mandatory upon the majority leader, of the majority party, of the U.S. Senate, who was Senator Mitch McConnell Republican of Kentucky, as well as upon the entire U.S. Senate through McConnell. The goal of Powerful Constitutional Rights Political Committee is to convince Democratic Senators, who were serving in the U.S. Senate in year 2016, who wanted to vote on the Merrick Garland nomination, to file a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to sue to ask the United States District Court, to order the removal of Justice Neil Gorsuch from the United States Supreme Court, on the basis that Justice Gorsuch was chosen by U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley, and the Republican members only of the Senate Judiciary Committee who met secretly, and that Justice Gorsuch, was puppet nominated by Donald Trump. President Trump merely acted as a puppet under the control of Senators Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley. The case will have to be appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit. On the United States Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Democrats hold 8 Judgeships and the Republicans hold 6 judgeships. On an en banc panel, the Democrats outnumber the Republicans 8 to 6. However, Merrick Garland might recuse himself and that would give a 7 Democrat Judges and 6 Republican Judges en banc panel. The question in this political issue case, is a question of whether a Senate majority party, or a group of Senators in majority of control of Senate confirmation processes by the numbers of their partisan group, in the U.S. Senate, can disobey, contravene, and violate the governing processes, which are as a mechanism explicitly commanded, in the shall language in the United States Constitution, explicitly, that is, with regards to the powers of the President, and the explicitly described procedures, to advise and consent to a judicial nomination.

The question at hand is greater than just the Merrick Garland nomination of President Barack Obama. The question is do the Republicans or any majority party in the U.S. Senate, have the right to refuse to have hearings and refuse to have an approval vote on nominations, for any U.S. Supreme Court nominee, by any sitting President. Then the case goes on to the United States Supreme Court, on request for certiorari. Justice Gorsuch will have to recuse himself since he cannot rule on the legality of the questionable, suspicious, circumstances that caused him to be elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court. That leaves 8 Justices to hear the case. If the court ties in a 4-4 vote, then the final ruling of the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit stands, as if that ruling were a ruling of the United States Supreme Court, under the rules of the United States Supreme Court. Whatever the ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, that ruling will prevail in the case of a 4-4 tie on the United States Supreme Court.

The idea of our Committee is that the removal of Gorsuch will create a vacancy that will last until after the 2018 Senate elections are completed. If our Democrat Senators suing get their way, the Merrick Garland nomination will be resurrected on the basis of a U.S. Supreme Court, or U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, order based on the equity powers of the court and the law powers of the federal courts to decide political issue cases where there is a dispute between the branches of the federal government, in this case between the both the Executive and the the Legislative and the intrabranch [within the branch] dispute between the Republican Senators led by Sen. Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley and the minority Democrats led by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. Either the Garland nomination will be reactivated or another nominee who may even be chosen by ex-President Obama who was on Obama’s list for the U.S. Supreme Court will be chosen based on a remedy ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit. At that point, what the Democrats can do depends on how many votes they have in the U.S. Senate and how many votes the Republicans have in the U.S. Senate. What the Democrats can do after the Gorsuch case is resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court is dependent on what decision is written by the U.S. Supreme Court or if there is a tie vote on the U.S. Supreme Court 4-4, then what the decision is will be the decision of the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Government Shutdown, public debt for services and pensions & 14th Amendment

14th Amendment The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. (GPO annotated Constitution)

What about arbitrary and capricious due process 14th amendment protections?

When do we declare this Congressional abdication, the refusal even to execute agreed-upon budgets to keep the government running?

Sablosky v McConnell Attorney Misconduct Complaint (full text) link to come

Attorney Misconduct Complaint Against Addison Mitchell McConnell

Violation of the oath taken by Addison Mitchell McConnell as an attorney, as a member of the bar of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The specific violation that complainant / plaintiff Bret Sablosky alleges is that Defendant Addison Mitchell McConnell is guilty of violating the oath of attorney where McConnell swore to support the Constitution of the United States so help him God.
Bret Sablosky alleges that Addison Mitchell McConnell has deliberately, maliciously, and intentionally violated the explicit commands, written in shall language, both procedureally and substantively with respect to nomination and appointment of United States Supreme Court Justices. Addison Mitchell McConnell, hereinafter McConnell, between about February 1, 2016 and January 19, 2017 and continuing through April 30, 2018 did obstruct, interfere with, prevent, subvert, and sabotage the procedures and legislative acts required to be performed by the majority leader of the majority party in the U.S. Senate, the members of the majority party of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate , who at the time were the Republican Party Senators, and the full membership of all political parties and independent Senators in the U.S. Senate to lawfully provide “advice and consent” to the president of the United States, Barack Obama, to appoint a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, to fill a vacant Judgeship / Justiceship on such Court, which vacancy occurred in the month of February 2016.
Defendant McConnell along with other Republican U.S. Senators, the Republican Senate Whip , Sen. John Cornyn, the Republican President Pro Tem, Sen. Orrin Hatch and Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee acted to violate, subvert, interfere with, obstruct, and prevent the operation of the US. Constitution Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 which says:
Note that the pronoun “he” refers to the President of the United States, who at the time of the alleged criminal and civilly illegal acts of misconduct were committed by McConnell, was Barack Obama.
“and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court.”
A clear reading of this section makes the job of advising and consenting by the U.S. Senate to nominees for Judges, now called Justices, of the U.S. Supreme Court, mandatory, when a vacancy occurs on the U.S. Supreme Court, under a sitting president The U.S. Senate is not given and does not have the right to refuse hearings [required under the Senate’s own rules] ,and the the U.S. Senate does not have the right to refuse a yay or nay vote of a quorum of the full Senate membership, to deliberately obstruct the President’s nominee, who in this case was Judge Merrick Garland. The fact that the leaders and or members of the Republican Party. or any party in power, dislike or hate the political party and political philosophy of the sitting elected president, does not give those Senators of the majority party, the Republican Party, and their majority leader, Defendant McConnell, the power to nullify President Obama’s specific duties, obligations and powers of his office, the Presidency, required by the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was written to require and mandate that the President be allowed and is always required to perform his designated duties, including the nomination and appointment of U.S. Supreme Court Judges, now called Justices by statute, despite opposition and disagreement by U.S. Senators, who may politically oppose the philosophy or qualifications of the Judge / Justice nominee, nominated by the President.
Senators like Defendant McConnell are not allowed to refuse to provide the “advice and consent duty which is required in Article II, Section2, Paragraph 2. Refusing to provide the advice and consent required to be provided, is completely different than advising and consenting. Providing Advice and consent includes the public hearings required, under the current Senate Rules, which have been required since 1916. The US. Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 does not require hearings, but the current U.S. Senate Rules do. The Constitution does require a yay or nay vote on every nominee by the full Senate on any nominee, nominated by a sitting President. Defendant McConnell maliciously, deliberately, with criminal intent, purposefully obstructed President Obama from performing his presidential duties, required by the Constitution of the United States in Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2. Senators are allowed to refuse to consent by voting nay on a nominee, that the Senators wish to not be appointed to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. But Senators are not allowed to refuse to hold a yay or nay vote of the full Senate with a quorum of Senators present. McConnell holds that the Senate can refuse to hold Judiciary Committee hearings and refuse to hold a yay or nay vote on a nominee, and defendant McConnell falsely claims that is a refusal to consent. The advice is the consideration of the nominees qualifications and political / judicial philosophy. The consent is the vote yay or nay on the floor of the U.S. Senate by the full Senate with a quorum of Senators present under the U.S. Senate rules of what constitutes a quorum.
These are a clear, deliberate, malicious, premeditated intentional series of civilly illegal and of criminal acts committed by defendant McConnell to violate the sworn promise in the oath of officers and attorneys in Kentucky Constitution, Section 228.
“I do solemnly swear [or affirm as the case may be], that I will support the Constitution of the United States…….so help me God.”
At the heart of the questions over whether Defendant McConnell committed serious acts of attorney misconduct is the question of his refusal, in conspiracy with Sen. Chuck Grassley R Iowa, chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator John Cornyn R. Texas, Senate Republican majority Whip, and Senator Orrin Hatch R. Utah, Senate President Pro Tem, in all of year 2016, to hold hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and the refusal to hold a full Senate vote with a quorum of Senators present, that would have been a yay or nay vote, under the above “advice and consent” clause. The legal question here is: does Senator McConnell have the discretionary right to to prevent such nomination hearings from being held and does Senator McConnell have the discretionary right to prevent such yay or nay vote of the full Senate, with a quorum of Senators present from being held, after a serving president, has in presidential writing and in an official oral announcement, made a nomination, to attempt the bringing about of an appointment [called confirmation],of a nominee to the United States Supreme Court, upon the occurrence of a vacancy, of a judgeship on that court.
An examination of language, that Defendant McConnell refused to support, as required by the oath of attorney, and that Defendant McConnell worked hard maliciously, and evilly, to obstruct and to prevent, the “shall” commanded performance of Senate duties in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2:
“and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court.”
The “shall nominate” means the president must nominate a judge or judges to fill any vacant judgeship on the Supreme Court, when such vacancy occurs during a President’s term in office.
The “shall nominate” and “shall appoint” language makes at minimum a floor vote of all Senators with a quorum of senators present on the appointment mandatory.
The “shall appoint” language modifies the “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” phrase and is a prepositional phrase, that is also an adverbial clause. This adverbial clause modifies the”shall appoint” language and makes the work of the Senate mandatory, to perform the
advice and consent” duty to any nominee for Supreme Court Judge / Justice. If the Senate were allowed to deny hearings and or deny a yay or nay vote on presidential nominees to the Supreme Court, the term , “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate” in that Section of the U.S.Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, would say instead, in a separate sentence following, that, “the senate may refuse to give advice and consent for the purpose of preventing the president from nominating and appointing Judges of the Supreme Court at the choosing of the full Senate,by a yay or nay vote of the full Senate with a quorum present”. The Constitution does not say that.
Defendant McConnell states Obama nominee, Merrick Garland, or any Obama nominee, will not be given Judiciary Committee hearings, or a vote of yea or nay by the full Senate with a quorum between February 1, 2016 and January 19, 2017, because this is Obama’s 4th and last year in Obama’s
2nd term which makes Obama a “lame duck President”. The key self incriminating statements made by defendant McConnell, as to his own guilt, civilly and criminally, is that McConnell in multiple statements, made on the Senate floor and to the news media, states that there will be no hearings, no yay or nay vote of the full Senate, on any nominee nominated by Obama. The plaintiff wishes to point out that had McConnell said, that his party had such a dislike, hatred, or strong feelings against Merrick Garland, but that the president should nominate another nominee instead, immediately, and that he, defendant McConnell would certainly see that the other nominee would be given hearings and a yay or nay full Senate vote [with a quorum of Senators present], under the strict and specific constitutional commands of Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, then McConnell would still have obeyed the Constitutional commands, to honor the powers of the President, to nominate and appoint Supreme Court Judges / Justices. McConnell thought he was really a genius, by deciding that he would prevent members of his own Republican Party from voting on a lawful U.S. Supreme Court nominee. McConnell clearly believed that enough members of his own Republican party, who were Senators, would have voted yay in a floor vote on Judge Merrick Garland, that Garland would have been appointed [confirmed], with a majority of votes, in a floor vote of the full Senate, with a quorum of Senators present. This is clearly what defendant McConnell sought to prevent, by his civilly illegal and criminal subversion of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2. It is the duty of this disciplinary committee and the Judges of the Kentucky Supreme Court to punish defendant McConnell ,severely, for his serious crimes of attorney misconduct in obstructing, subverting, and interfering with the operation of the United States Constitution and the Presidency.
No section of the US. Constitution says that a president of the United States has no powers of his office during the 4th year of any term, that he or she is elected to, while the president serves his term to which that president was elected. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 does not limit or nullify or strip a serving president of his powers to nominate and appoint U.S. Supreme Court Justices in any year of a president’s term in office. McConnell acted to sabotage, subvert, obstruct, interfere with, and disobey, the clear shall language commands of Article II, section 2, Paragraph 2 of U.S Constitution quoted above. Defendant McConnell did not support the U.S. Constitution, which he swore to support, so help him God. Defendant McConnell’s malicious, illegal goal was, and is, to interfere with the operation of the U.S. Constitution as a Kentucky licensed attorney and as a U.S. Senator so that his Republican Party has 5 or more Judgeships, a majority of Judges / Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. This is contrary to the clear dictates of Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution both in procedural law and substantive law.
According to defendant McConnell, the word “president” as used in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 means next president, not the current serving president. Mysteriously, the word “next” is nowhere to be found in the text of the U.S. Constitution. “President” means the currently serving president, the president serving in office at the time, that the vacancy in the Judgeship on the U.S Supreme Court occurred, whether due to death or resignation. President does not mean next president, and skip the current serving president.
Defendant McConnell said,“Let the voters decide”, what nominee will fill this judgeship seat on the U.S. Supreme Court in the upcoming November 2016 election. That is clearly not what the U.S. Constitution says, about who fills a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, which says that the president nominates, nominees, for positions of Judge [Justice}on the Supreme Court. Voters are not mentioned, as deciding who such judge nominees will be. Defendant McConnell lies about “Let the voters decide” are contrary to the clear text of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 2, Paragraph 2. Defendant McConnell’s clear intention was to disobey, act contrary to, obstruct, subvert, and sabotage the procedural commands, as to procedures and the substantive commands as to substantive law, that all Senators in the Senate and Senators on the Judiciary Committee were to perform. The required duties were for all Senators to perform the “advice and consent” functions.
Defendant McConnell is clearly guilty of obstructing, interfering with, sabotaging, disobeying the operation and functioning of the executive branch of government, the presidency of the United States.
Why? Because when President Obama nominated nominee Merrick Garland. Defendant McConnell, in cooperation with Sen..Chuck Grassley, Sen.Orrin Hatch, Sen John Cornyn, and all Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, chose to not perform the required mandatory duties explicitly required by the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2. Obstruction, subversion, and interference with the exercise of powers of the presidency, the executive branch of the United States government, is disloyalty, disobedience, obstruction, subversion, and refusal to support the Constitution of the United states, and a malicious, evil, calculated, premeditated action to obstruct, interfere with, nullify, and overthrow the elected executive branch of the United States government. It should be noted that Sen. Orrin Hatch was the President Pro Tem of the U.S. Senate and Sen. John Cornyn was the Republican Senate Whip of the Republican Party majority in the U.S. Senate.
On Sunday August 6, 2016 Defendant McConnell appeared on a Kentucky Educational Television Show titled “Fancy Farm” and said “One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama “You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy.” This quote segment is available on snopes.comfactcheckspolitics. This quote proves malicious, evil premeditated criminal intent by defendant McConnell to obstruct, interfere with, nullify the powers of the presidency, the executive branch and prevent the operation of the U.S. Constitution with regard to the nomination and appointment of Supreme Court Justices..
Defendant McConnell has committed felony criminal acts of attorney misconduct to frustrate, disobey, disable, impede, obstruct, sabotage and interfere with the operation of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Presidency of Barack Obama, which is the executive branch of the U.S. Government.
Defendant McConnell must be punished with the most severe punishment for these criminal acts of attorney misconduct by revocation of his Kentucky license to practice law.
Under established federal case law, Justices of the Kentucky Supreme Court and the staff attorneys, who work for the State Bar of Kentucky disciplinary panels, can interpret the meaning of provisions of the U.S. Constitution including Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of determining if Defendant McConnell committed crimes of attorney misconduct by violating explicit commands and instructions, both procedural and substantive, of those constitutional provisions in the U.S. Constitution, which command the performance of duties of U.S. Senators to provide advice and consent on U.S. Supreme Court nominations.

Defendant McConnell as an elected public official who has served as a Senator in the United States Senate and who has a solemn responsibility, under the oath of attorney, as an officer of the courts of Kentucky, to uphold the United States Constitution, as he swore to do so. This responsibility to uphold the U.S. Constitution exists, even though in performing his duties in the U.S. Senate, defendant McConnell is not representing a client in a private or public law practice.

The plaintiff has attached a Table of Points and Authorities with evidence which includes both printed articles covering McConnell and news conferences given by defendant McConnell on video clips from TV news and C-Span on the Senate Floor.
On NPRpolitics newscast of March 16, 2016 See exhibit 2 attached: defendant McConnell states at page 3 paragraph 2
“The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be,” McConnell said.
In the above paragraph, McConnell incriminates himself of the crime of attorney misconduct that he committed successfully. Donald Trump won the November 2016 presidential election. Donald Trump was inaugurated in Washington, D.C. On January 20, 2017. Between January 20, 2017 and April 1, 2017, Senator McConnell led the Senate Republican Party effort to get Judge Neil Gorsuch, who was nominated by Donald Trump, appointed to fill the vacant U.S. Supreme Court seat. That vacant U.S. Supreme Court Judgeship was illegally held vacant by Defendant McConnell, Senate Whip Sen. John Cornyn R-Texas, Senate Pro Tem leader Sen. Orrin Hatch R-Utah, and the Republican majority of Senators on the U.S. Senate who held a 54 seat majority of the U.S. Senate during all of the year 2016. . Judge Neil Gorsuch was sworn in to fill the U.S. Supreme Court Judgeship, that was illegally kept open by Defendant McConnell. Complainant points this out, to show that the success of defendant McConnell crimes of attorney misconduct, resulted in the filling of the Judgeship by the wrong President, specifically, Donald Trump, who legally was not entitled to, or empowered by the Constitutional commands, both procedural and substantive, Of Article II, Section 2 Paragraph 2, to fill a vacant Judgeship that occurred during the last year of the prior president, Barack Obama’s term, calendar year 2016. In the common law, when a criminal, in this case defendant McConnell, commits a crime, and the crime is completed successfully, and then the alleged criminal actor, defendant McConnell, has benefited from the successful committing of such criminal act of attorney misconduct, then the criminal actor can be held guilty, of the crime of which he is accused, in this case of the crime of attorney misconduct. This was not an attempted crime. This was a crime that was successfully committed to completion by the defendant McConnell. The fact that the Judgeship on the U.S. Supreme Court was still vacant, at the time that Donald Trump was sworn in to be President of the United States , on January 20, 2017, and the fact that later in April 2017, the vacant Judgeship was filled by a President, other that Barack Obama after the term of President Barack Obama was expired, is proof of defendant McConnell’s success and guilt of committing his crime of attorney misconduct, and his failure to uphold the United States Constitution. Complainant prays that this Kentucky State Bar disciplinary court drafts the accusation of attorney misconduct alleged herein, puts defendant Addison Mitchell McConnell on trial for wrongful acts of attorney misconduct, alleged in this complaint, and convicts the defendant McConnell of these alleged crimes.
There are at least 3 criminal counts of attorney misconduct of failure to support the Constitution of the United States, that defendant McConnell should be charged with.
Count 1 is interfering with, obstructing, nullifying the powers of the Presidency, the Executive branch of government.
Count 2 is preventing, interfering, obstructing any Senate Judiciary Committee hearings from being conducted by Senator Chuck Grassley R-Iowa Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2016
Count 3 is preventing a yay or nay vote by the full Senate, with a quorum of Senators present on the Merrick Garland nomination or any nomination of any nominee to fill the vacant Judgeship on the U.S. Supreme Court made by President Barack Obama in 2016.

TABLES OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: EVIDENCE FROM
TELEVISION NEWS, RADIO NEWS, AND NEWSPAPERS.

AUTHORITIES BROADCAST ON TELEVISION AND RADIO NEWS
Exhibit 1 a USB memory stick is enclosed which contains all of the following television news shows where Senator McConnell makes self incriminating statements of offenses of attorney misconduct he is in process of committing.
1 AP archive February 23 2016 “GOP Senate Won’t Consider [Obama] Supreme Court Nominee”

2 Wall Street Journal “McConnell Next President Should Nominate [Supreme Court] Justice”

3 SCOTUS Battle GOP vow to block nominee Merrick Garland

4 Meet the Press Mitch McConnell on Supreme Court Showdown [full interview]

5 Wall Street Journal GOP Senators Say No To SCOTUS Hearings For Garland

6 Fancy Farm Kentucky Educational Television Show August 6, 2016. See quote in text of complaint.
AUTHORITIES IN PRINT
Exhibit 2 in print attached: NPR Politics Newscast March 16, 2016
NPR Politics Newscast March 16, 2016 McConnell: Blocking Supreme Court Nomination ‘About a principle not a person’

Congressional Power Values by State

Congressional Power Values

 

This is a measure of your ability to access your Congressional representation, per person.

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are the lowest @  0 representation at all – still listed as colonies by the UN, because they have no right to vote.

California’s is the lowest at .05 for the Senate, and 1.48 overall

Wyoming is the highest at 3.45 for the Senate, and 5.3 overall .

This means, in California, your chances of seeing your Senator are about the same as meeting Ariana Grande- 39 million constituents. In smaller states, like Wyoming or Delaware- 2 Senators serve 500k people.

As someone correctly noted you still have 2 Senators and one House Rep- but your chances of ever meeting your Senator, are next to non-existent.

A house has that has 2 bathrooms has 2 bathrooms if 1 or 14 people live there.  A considerable difference in how well it works out.

To be clear I do not believe this is the greatest problem in our country, but it is important to know. I don’t want small states or regions to be ignored, but I don’t think handicapping them is the way to go about it.

I believe this might be a better way, defining what regional area statistics are, and looking for anomolies and why things are different.

 

1 California
39,250,017
53 702,905 2 0.0537 1.4226 1.4763
2 Texas
27,862,596
36 698,487 2 0.0795 1.4316 1.5112
3 Florida
20,612,439
27
696,345 2 0.1064 1.4358 1.5422
4 New York
19,745,289
27
717,707 2 0.1032 1.3933 1.4965

 

43 Rhode Island
1,056,426
2
526,284 2 1.8995 1.8995 3.7989
44 Montana 1,042,520
1
989,415 2 2.0214 1.0107 3.0321
45 Delaware 952,065
1
897,934 2 2.2273 1.1137 3.3410
46 South Dakota
865,454
1
814,180 2 2.4564 1.2282 3.6846
47 North Dakota
757,952
1
672,591 2 2.9736 1.4868 4.4604
48 Alaska
741,894
1
710,231 2 2.8159 1.4080 4.2239
District of Columbia
681,170
0
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
49 Vermont
624,594
1
625,741 2 3.1962 1.5981 4.7943
50 Wyoming
585,501
1
563,626 2 3.5476 1.7738 5.3213

 

 

Contact us

 

 

 

drop us a line.

or if you do not wish to automatically be added to our contact list email clerk at powerfulconstitutionalrights.org

comments on the contact form is the quickest way to speak with us, or our clerk

Clerk@powerfulconstitutionalrights.org

Senate Majority Leader McConnell Disbarment Proceedings

Announcement: Senator McConnell Disbarment Proceedings

Bret Sablosky, President Powerful Constitutional Rights Political Action Committee, will announce that complaint of serious attorney misconduct has been filed against the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell, with The Kentucky State Bar in Frankfort, KY, with relief being McConnell disbarment.The complaint alleges McConnell failed to support the U.S. Constitution, which is a violation of the oath of attorney. McConnell did this by denying hearings and a full yay or nay Senate vote on the Merrick Garland nomination, obstructing an Article II Process to deny President Obama Judicial Appointments Power, and transfer it to his own group. The most relevant federal statutes are criminal, so this will be only the beginning.

#stopkavanaugh and address McConnell’s Crimes

 

                         

Brett Sablosky

Powerful Constitutional Rights Political Action Committee

Draft only- not for public viewing or to be shared other than paper and not after 9/25

brett@powerfulconstitutionalrights.org

 

ACTIVITIES TO REMOVE GORSUCH AND BLOCK KAVANAUGH

            Neil Gorsuch was illegally appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch is not a tenured U.S. Supreme Court Justice because he was chosen by the legislative branch, the U.S. Senate, rather than the executive branch, the president of the United States. This is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine in the United States Constitution. The violation of the separation of powers is so serious as render the the confirmation vote on Justice Gorsuch void, and a null approval by the U.S. Senate. The United States Senate is not allowed to nominate judges of their own choice and prevent a sitting president from nominating a Justice to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution clearly states in Article 2  Section 2  Clause 2  that the President shall nominate and by and with the consent of the Senate, the President shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.  The language clearly states that the sitting president serving in office when the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy occurs shall in “shall”  language, which is mandatory language, appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.  When Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley stated to the public and the media, that they would not have hearings, and that they would not have a yea or nay vote of approval or disapproval on Merrick Garland, or on any other U.S. Supreme Court nominee, nominated by President Barack Obama, they were acting illegally, civilly, in violation of the above provision of the United States Constitution, which clearly states that it is the President, who is the only official, who can choose a potential U.S. Supreme Court Justice, by nominating that person and with Senate approval that is called appointment by the President.  In the 2016 nomination event, that person was Judge Merrick Garland.

 

            The refusal of Sen. Chuck Grassley to have Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Merrick Garland, as announced and ordered by President Barack Obama, violates the literal, explicit commands of the U.S. Constitution in shall language, that ‘shall’ is mandatory upon the president and is mandatory upon the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate, and “shall” is mandatory upon the majority leader, of the majority party, of the U.S. Senate, who was Senator Mitch McConnell Republican of Kentucky, as well as upon the entire U.S. Senate through McConnell.  The goal of Powerful Constitutional Rights Political Committee is to convince Democratic Senators, who were serving in the U.S. Senate in year 2016, who wanted to vote on the Merrick Garland nomination, to file a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to sue to ask the United States District Court, to order the removal of Justice Neil Gorsuch from the United States Supreme Court, on the basis that Justice Gorsuch was chosen by U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley, and the Republican members only of the Senate Judiciary Committee who met secretly, and that Justice Gorsuch, was puppet nominated by Donald Trump. President Trump merely acted as a puppet under the control of Senators Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley. The case will have to be appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit. On the United States Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Democrats hold 8 Judgeships and the Republicans hold 6 judgeships. On an en banc panel the Democrats outnumber the Republicans 8 to 6. However, Merrick Garland might recuse himself and that would give a 7 Democrat Judges and 6 Republican Judges en banc panel.   The question in this political issue case, is a question of whether a Senate majority party, or a group of Senators in majority of control of Senate confirmation processes by their numbers of their partisan group, in the U.S. Senate, can disobey, contravene, and violate the governing processes, which are as a mechanism explicitly commanded, in the shall language in the United States Constitution, explicitly, that is, with regards to the powers of the President, and the explicitly described procedures, to advise and consent to a judicial nomination.

 

            The question at hand is greater than just the Merrick Garland nomination of President Barack Obama.  The question is do the Republicans or any majority party in the U.S. Senate, have the right to refuse to have  hearings and refuse to have an approval vote on nominations, for any U.S. Supreme Court nominee, by any sitting President. Then the case goes on to the United States Supreme Court, on request for certiorari. Justice Gorsuch will have to recuse himself, since he cannot rule on the legality of the questionable, suspicious, circumstances that caused him to be elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court. That leaves 8 Justices to hear the case. If the court ties in a 4-4 vote, then the final ruling of the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit stands, as if that ruling were a ruling of the United States Supreme Court, under the rules of the United States Supreme Court. Whatever the ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, that ruling will prevail in the case of a 4-4 tie on the United States Supreme Court. 

 

            The idea of our Committee is that the removal of Gorsuch will create a vacancy that will last until after the 2018 Senate elections are completed. If our Democrat Senators suing get their way, the Merrick Garland nomination will be resurrected on the basis of a U.S. Supreme Court, or U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, order based on the equity powers of the court and the law powers of the federal courts to decide political issue cases where there is a dispute between the branches of the federal government, in this case between the both the Executive and the Legislative and the intrabranch [within the branch] dispute between the Republican Senators led by Sen. Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley and the minority Democrats led by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York.  Either the Garland nomination will be reactivated or another nominee who may even be chosen by  President Obama who was on Obama’s list for the U.S. Supreme Court, will be chosen based on a remedy ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At that point, what the Democrats can do depends on how many votes they have in the U.S. Senate and how many votes the Republicans have in the U.S. Senate. What the Democrats can do after the Gorsuch case is resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court is dependent on what decision is written by the U.S. Supreme Court or if there is a tie vote on the U.S. Supreme Court 4-4, then what the decision is will be the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Emoluments Clause from Encyclopedia Britannica

 

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The Constitution also contains a “domestic emoluments clause” (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 6), which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument” from the federal government or the states beyond “a Compensation” for his “Services” as chief executive.

 
ADVERTISING

The plain purpose of the foreign emoluments clause was to ensure that the country’s leaders would not be improperly influenced, even unconsciously, through gift giving, then a common and generally corrupt practice among European rulers and diplomats. An early version of the clause, modeled on a rule adopted by the Dutch Republic in 1651 that forbade its foreign ministers from receiving “any presents, directly or indirectly, in any manner or way whatever,” was incorporated into the Articles of Confederation (1781) as Article VI, Paragraph I: Nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

All but the prohibition of titles of nobility was dropped from the initial draft of the Constitution but eventually restored at the request of Charles Pinckney, who argued at the Constitutional Convention for “the necessity of preserving foreign Ministers & other officers of the U.S. independent of foreign influence.” The final text of the clause included a provision that permitted acceptance of foreign gifts with the explicit approval of Congress, perhaps reflecting the awkward experience of Benjamin Franklin, who as American minister to France had been presented with a bejeweled snuff box by Louis XVI and, not wishing to offend the king, asked Congress for permission to keep it (permission was granted).

Although there has been some debate regarding the exact meaning and scope of the foreign emoluments clause, nearly all scholars agree that it applies broadly to all federal officeholders, appointed or elected, up to and including the president. That interpretation is supported by the historical record, such as it is, of the Constitution’s drafting as well as by the past practice of presidential administrations and Congresses. Thus Edmund Jennings Randolph, one of the Framers, remarked at the Virginia ratifying convention that the clause protected against the danger of “the President receiving Emoluments from foreign powers,” even asserting that a president who violates the clause “may be impeached.” There was no recorded dissent from Randolph’s view. From at least the early 19th century, presidents who were offered gifts by foreign states routinely requested Congress’s permission to accept them, and foreign rulers were politely informed (sometimes by the president himself) of the constitutional restriction regarding gifts. (The sole exception seems to have been George Washington, who accepted a print from the French ambassador without consulting Congress.)

The foreign emoluments clause also broadly encompasses any kind of profit, benefit, advantage, or service, not merely gifts of money or valuable objects. Thus, it would prohibit a federal officeholder from receiving special consideration in business transactions with a foreign state (or with a corporation owned or managed by a foreign state) that gave the officeholder a competitive advantage over other businesses. Arguably, as the legal scholar Laurence Tribe and others have suggested, the clause would forbid even competitively fair transactions with foreign states, because the profit accruing to the officeholder would fall within the ordinary meaning of “emolument,” and because such arrangements would threaten exactly the kind of improper influence that the clause was intended to prevent.

Election cheats: DNC RNC Consent Decree and RNC’s violations including Kemp purges and Kobach Crosscheck

2010 Consent decree definition, 3rd Circuit

The term “ballot security” is defined in the 2009 modification as follows: (3) . . . any program aimed at combatting voter fraud by preventing potential voters from registering to vote or casting a ballot. Such programs include, but are not limited to,6 the compilation of voter challenge lists by use of mailing or reviewing databases maintained by state agencies such as motor vehicle records, social security records, change of address forms, and voter lists assembled pursuant to the HAVA7;

Veasy v Abbott

(Intent finding on Remand from 5th Circuit) https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/2017-04-10_Order_Intent.pdf)

“5. Legislative Drafting History Proponents touted SB 14 as a remedy for voter fraud, consistent with efforts of other states. As previously demonstrated, the evidence shows a tenuous relationship between those rationales and the actual terms of the bill.

NAACP v McCrory

Governor Patrick L. McCrory signed Session Law 2013-381,

  1. Voter Information Verification Act, S.L. 2013-381, 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws 1505 (codified as amended in scattered sections of N.C. Gen. Stat.).which required several changes to the state’s voting procedures by 2016.

The law accepted a limited pool of photo IDs for in-person voting, reduced the number of early voting days from seventeen to ten, eliminated same-day registration, eliminated preregistration for sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, and banned out-of-precinct provisional voting.

Before ratifying the law, the state legislature had requested and considered racial data showing that black Americans disproportionately relied on all of the voting procedures the law eliminated or restricted and disproportionately used forms of identification the law excluded.

Voter ID

These efforts to implement a voter ID program- explicitly and obviously- a ballot security measure which the Republican party has agreed not to participate in. Further difficulties in obtaining specific or strict ID’s does represent a real restriction on poor folks. Plaintiff would be required upon changing addresses- to travel to his birth place, across several states, pay for it and back, again, for one identification point necessary to obtain an ID that would work even in relatively non-strict voter ID states. The cost would be approximately $120 dollars.  For women who changed their name, the birth certificate itself might need to be changed, after a name change requiring in person trips to multiple locations, sometimes in different states, and thus possibly in the realm of $200+ dollars.

Here is an incomplete list of the Federal cases which are expressly ballot security initiatives in 2013-2016

                                One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen

Feldman v. Arizona

Lee v. Virginia Board of Elections

Common Cause v. Rucho

Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute and NEOCH v. Husted

League of Women Voters v. Newby

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. The North Carolina State Board of Elections

Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner

Common Cause v. Kemp

Shelby vs Holder

Crosscheck

Kris Kobach of Kansas, is unquestionably a Republican and should be considered one for the sake of comparison to the Consent Decree.  The initiation of the Crosscheck program in 2013- with several other Republican Secretaries of State- ostensibly to prevent the dubious threat of double voting-  is clearly a ballot security initiative, creating voter challenge lists. It eventually grew to 29 states, 100 million records, and 7.2 million matches on their list.   To be clear- at every level of the court system- by Democratic and Republican appointed judges alike have questioned the validity of wide spread voter fraud-  an issue never demonstrated to be of valid or compelling state interest.   Instead, it seems to be a rebranded mode of the same voter caging techniques used in the original Consent Decree and an area they agreed- multiple times- to stop.

It also put the voting records of no less than 100 Million Americans in the hands of an individual who has repeatedly ignored court orders. At a time when it is believed that campaigns microtargeted Facebook users, using illegally obtained data.. this is a question mark that should be examined.