The refusal by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the remaining election fraud cases led by Sydney Powell and Lin Wood announces the new Supreme Court. Instead of the classic statue of the woman wearing a blindfold while holding a set of scales, now we need to include a gag covering her mouth. The specific case of the suit against Pennsylvania is the heart of the problem. For the majority to issue no explanation other than to say it was “moot” is unprecedented. Yet to have the minority write a pointed analysis of their refusal to explain their reasoning leaves the American public with a discomforting situation. There is a massive and growing amount of evidence to weigh. But who decides? Recognized authorities? The discomfort grows from the authorities refusal to decide on the evidence.

The worst part of the dilemma is that this involves election fraud of which the public is quite aware. Millions of Americans have drawn their own conclusions. Yet for the Supreme Court to decided it will not draw any conclusion about the same evidence seems to part company with the rest of the country. The ”mere” act of rejecting this critical suit without comment by the court’s majority tells America an unspoken truth – “You have been cheated and we refuse to fix the mess.” If these cases were truly without merit, the court would have said so. The connotation of “moot” is that the issue is not worth discussing. Moot also means it is debatable.

The most common excuse for a moot ruling is that a deadline has passed. If it is about a deadline, what is the statute of limitations on election fraud?The website of the law offices of Seth P. Chazin, describes the statute of limitations on fraud as follows:

“Major fraud against the United States has certain conditions for the statute of limitations. The charge of major fraud against the US is established by 18 USC 1031 and must involve at a minimum 1,000,000. A person guilty of an offense where he knowingly defrauds the federal government in any grant, contract, loan, federal assistance, etc. is subject to 10 years in federal prison. The statute of limitations for major fraud against the United States is 7 years from the date that the crime was committed.”The main problem with this definition is that it is limited to money. The kind of fraud that involves stealing an election uses money. Stealing money by fraudulent means versus using money for a fraudulent objective might be different. Or maybe not. Would this be looked upon differently by some courts?

Moot v. Fraud The ruling issued on February 22, 2021, which starts on page 25, Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenried, was succinctly dismissed as “moot.” Around the nation, one could hear thousands upon thousands of lawyers muttering under their breath “cheap shot.” If there is a philosophy to the word, moot, it would demonstrate the extraordinary abuse and sloppy thinking that would earn the court a solid F. That is, F as in both flunked and as in fraud. The court has perpetrated afraud on the nation by deciding blatantly obvious fraud is moot. The best way to avoid charges of fraud committed by Roberts’s court? Say nothing by invoking “moot”.

It is the same pretzel logic used by Justice Roberts on the individual mandate for Obamacare:“Instead, he invented out of whole cloth a new definition of taxation that contravenes long-standing precedent.”Worse than that is how he effectively made the definition context-dependent by applying this basis for taxation in one case, and not others. But here, rather than put their flawed and escapist reasoning on public display, they chose silence.

When to Speak, when to be Silent Many will question the following claim, but the reality remains. The Supreme Court is behaving in an uncharacteristic way. The sudden change in conduct for a fundamentally important decision must raise questions, big questions.Face the facts. A ruling by the Supreme Court on any of these election fraud cases is high stakes. A ruling could trigger riots, violence and death. Consider an alternative scenario some see as even worse. Recall the Time Magazine article by Moly Ball. She was criticized by the left for essentially “spilling the beans”. Did she? That remains to be seen. What we do know is that all the players in the article are connected to yet other, bigger, players. If one traces the hidden lines in her article, it inevitably leads to the points of origin involving “the elites”. That means the fraud likely starts with a very small handful of very rich people. Researchers who track wealth have noted that the “richest” in the world have shrunk from around 1500 to some 700 people over roughly the last ten years. One name which has already earned noteworthy suspicion is Mark Zuckerberg. The Wisconsin Spotlight recently issued a report which sets the stage for implicating Mark Zuckerberg (and his wife) in election fraud that involved the battleground states:

“When Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife handed out hundreds of millions of dollars last year for a national safe voting initiative, the “donation” was heralded as vital support to “protect American elections” and to “bolster democracy during the pandemic.”But what the grant money really purchased in battleground states like Wisconsin was the infiltration of the November presidential elections by liberal groups and Democratic activists, according to hundreds of pages of emails and other documents obtained by Wisconsin Spotlight.”

What conspiracy theorist would dare suggest Mark Zuckerberg had anything to do with silencing the Supreme Court? We’re still waiting on that one.

The Minority OpinionPerhaps the most interesting argument of the minority opinion by Justice Thomas was the point that this issue will come back to the court again. Will they give the same moot ruling every time?

The Conservative Treehouse made their own succinct statement by arguing:“In essence the Roberts Court is saying they will allow any/all methods and manipulations of election law within states, and only look to the state outcome. This is very troublesome.”

Justice Thomas is simply noting that life and law do not work that way. Justice Roberts’s silencing of the court will eventually get crushed by reality. It is a silencing that speaks volumes, and the final word has not been written yet. Conservatives are confronted with finding ways to wrest this destructive narrative away from the hands of Americans who want to destroy America.

The silencing of the supreme court puts America at a cross roads. By whatever means, the ability to correct the court’s deathly mistake, whether it is at the state level, or by extraordinary public pressure, is our last chance. Let this stand, the rule of law will have suffered a profound death that makes the U.S. Constitution the death shroud.

Fraud Vitiates Everything, Ruins Everything

The fundamental failure of the Supreme Court is their blind faith that fraud will work out for the good. If the court knew the disasters caused by their silence, would they still be silent? Would they still fall back on their twisted notion of “moot”? The sense is that the court performed one kind of largely political calculus in order arrive at their decision. The other sense though is that they did not think this through. “Moot” is just an excuse that fools no one. When the heading for this section suggests fraud ruins everything, that includes the court system itself.Well, dear reader, please return for Part II when we take a closer look at the consequences of silence.