New York, the Leading Act in Our Clownshow of Democracy
On June 24, 2021, former New York (NY) mayor and counsel for President Trump, Rudy Giuliani, received an interim suspension from practicing law in NY for publicly discussing election fraud and one in-court statement challenging the 2020 presidential election [*1], a shot across the bow to future lawyers who might speak publicly about election fraud, let alone choose to fight against it in court.
Ostensibly, this was done for "making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal," "knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a third person" in representation of a client, and "engag[ing] in fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation," of which "misrepresentation" can mean "partially true, but misleading statements or omissions."
In Giuliani's suspension, the State Supreme Court of New York relied on five statements:
(1) Giuliani claimed, in public speech, that 1,823,148 mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania were mailed out when the official narrative later emerged that 3.08 million were mailed. Of course, they assume the Democrats in power are telling the truth about "3.08 million," as a trial on the facts was denied.
(2) He filed an amended complaint in Pennsylvania that removed claims of illegal canvassing but told the judge his complaint was still about fraud nonetheless. Ergo, he "lied" to a tribunal. Again, election-fraud challenges were dismissed on procedural grounds, and no trials on the merits were held anywhere.
(3) He claimed, in public speech, that deceased former boxer, Joe Frazier, was voting from the grave when Pennsylvania claimed he didn't.
(4) He claimed, in public speech, that illegal aliens voted in Arizona, using different figures in different interviews, when there was no specific study on the figures to support his claims. Does anybody honestly believe illegal aliens never vote in Arizona elections? The Supreme Court of New York ostensibly does.
(5) He claimed, in public speech, the infamous Atlanta election-night video of votes being counted after poll watchers were kicked out (for a "water main" break, later a "plumbing issue"), involved "suitcases" being pulled from under a table covered by black cloth when they weren't technically "suitcases" but wheeled containers, and Georgia's secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger said this was normal and fine. Again, no trial on the merits here. The Court takes the government for its word, and questioning it is grounds for suspension.
Giuliani's out-of-court statements were deemed a "potential harm to the public," ongoing and to be mitigated with an interim supsension to protect the public. Evidence of the danger? On page 29, the Court pointed to two things: (1) the summer-2021 Arizona, Maricopa County, and coming Georgia, Fulton County, audits of the 2020 election and (2) that federal and state governments "actively engaged in enacting competing laws concerning voting in this country." Apparently, post-inauguration audits on elections and laws limiting mail-in ballots are a harm the Court needs to protect the public against by making an example out of Guliani.
Meanwhile, the New York City Board of Elections just found a 135,000-vote discrepancy in its June 22, 2021 mayoral Democratic primary, in which the New York Times reports 798,491 votes. That's 16.9% of the total votes. Is that the worst of it? How would we know? How could we find out?
What are lawyers allowed to say in public about this without risk of suspension? If they want to remedy injustice, what are they allowed to file in court without risk of suspension?
The comically-obvious election fraud evidenced in the 2020 United States (U.S.) presidential run [*2], renders few options for victims within U.S jurisdictional domain to anchor fealty to their rulers [*3]. This recent New York-mayoral fiasco reveals election shenanigans or "mistakes" are the new normal. How confident can we be that, now, and going forward, our rulers are legitimately selected?
Obedience to ruling authorities comes from three possible places:
(1) The authorities' rules match a commonly-agreed social consensus within the rulers' jurisdiction, and obedience stems from a higher moral order, independent of the rulers' decrees.
(2) The authorities' rules do not map on to a commonly-agreed social consensus and are irrational and/or command immorality, but the rules are obeyed out of a respect for a common system of governance between loved ones and neighbors and an understanding that such rules can be changed in the future by voters.
(3) The authorities' rules are irrational and/or command immorality and are obeyed out of fear of punishment for non-compliance and/or through bribery for fealty (e.g., cash payments disguised as "tax credits," or benefits).
The middle option (2) is what allows a stable democracy (or representative democracy if you prefer [*4]), especially one governing different nations. A democracy's subjects will naturally have competing value systems, and the more "diverse" a democracy is, such as in a democratic empire like the U.S. [*5], the more disparate its values. The opportunity for dissatisfied subjects to make just rules in the future or rules more in-line with their nations' cultures, makes those subjects tolerate unjust rule in the present.
The U.S. is too corrupt and disparate of a jurisdiction for rule by the first option (1). Its diversity alone makes this not possible, as competing cultures and nations (which are subsets of a country) produce competing value systems, making agreement on the same rules to apply to all not possible.
Thus, once a substantial number of subjects within the U.S. believe they can't change their government through voting and that their government is corrupt and irrational or commanding immorality, their fealty comes from the last option (3): fear and/or bribery.
Those that believe the U.S. 2020 election was stolen with fraud might hold out on the middle option (2) and accept temporary fealty in the way a coach continues a game in spite of a referee's bad call. The coach looks outside the game, to the season and seasons ahead. As long as he believes just calls could be made in the future, he won't withdraw his team; he'll continue with the season or to play again in future seasons.
In other words: they got away with it this time, but we'll be prepared and catch them next time! This thought process relies on the prospect that judges in the future might order stealers of future elections or their beneficiaries to seat the correctly voted-upon candidates. Or, maybe: the over-one-thousand affidavits filed by witnesses and video evidence weren't enough to overturn fraud in the 2020 run, but, next time, we'll get tens of thousands of affidavits, even more videos, and we'll have our lawsuits ready to go sooner!
The perpetrators of the comically-obvious election fraud, along with their beneficiaries, would prefer dissidents accept defeat and believe the election was honest, as the wicked always seek consent [*6]. But if dissidents don't believe so, at the very least, they are to sit down and shut up. The public's confidence in the scam must not be shaken. Dissidents might not like the present rules, but they must accept them as legitimate or at least keep their disbelief to themselves.
Since most derive their views from a consensus of subject-matter experts as opposed to foundational examination [*7] and whether elections were fair or not can be viewed as a "legal" matter, causing U.S. lawyers to "sit down and shut up" serves a dual purpose: (1) to dissuade court challenges of future election fraud and (2) point to the reduction or lack of challenges as evidence to the general public that, after all, elections are honest and "conspiracy theorists" stating otherwise can be dismissed [*8].
The two most prominent threats from our corrupt rulers to "sit down and shut up," are the State Supreme Court of New York's interim suspension of Giuliani's law license and the strict prosecution of the trespassers of the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, commonly referred to as an "insurrection" or a "riot" by the media. Attacking dissidents at these two pressure points presents a paradox.
Election-fraud grievances are to be resolved in our courts, since, obviously, they can't be resolved with votes. But, if a lawyer publicly speaks out against election fraud and says anything that is even "partially true, but misleading," he's to be disbarred (forbidden from practicing law). Because election fraud primarily occurs, especially in the 2020 presidential run, in Democrat strongholds, Democrat authorities, like the Supreme Court of New York, will remove lawyers' ability to make a living, let alone file challenges, if they question the results of elections. Protesting, on the other hand, is viewed as "insurrection" and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as an evil to be suppressed, even if the prosecutions amount to misdemeanor trespassing.
Those on the right who understand what happened in November 2020 can accept their conquest by the corrupt authorities ruling under the skinsuit of the U.S. empire and perhaps partake in the spoils of temporary cash payments governments enjoy doling for now. Or, they could engage in behaviors of the original U.S. nation's ancestors circa 1776.
Of course, such behaviors then were illegal by the colonial authorities and resulted in severe punishment when caught just as they are today. The U.S. is now visible as an empire not only by the territories it controls but also by much of its own fifty states and their people, who no longer believe in the legitimacy of the federal authorities ruling them.
No empire lasts. How long will the U.S. one continue?
---
FOOTNOTES
[*1] https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/giuliani-law-license-suspension/1ae5ad6007c0ebfa/full.pdf
[*2] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-measure-of-cowardice-and-sociopathy.html
[*3] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/planning-for-post-democratic-divided.html
[*4] Spare me the tired intervention: America is not a democracy; it's a republic! "Democracy" which includes "republic" as a subset of democracy, also known as "representative democracy," which all modern democracies ostensibly are or at least pretend to be.
[*5] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-glue-of-democratic-empires.html
[*6] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/06/why-does-evil-seek-consent.html
[*7] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/02/evidence-in-long-shadow-of-civilization.html
[*8] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-epistemology-of-conspiracy-from.html
Ostensibly, this was done for "making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal," "knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a third person" in representation of a client, and "engag[ing] in fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation," of which "misrepresentation" can mean "partially true, but misleading statements or omissions."
In Giuliani's suspension, the State Supreme Court of New York relied on five statements:
(1) Giuliani claimed, in public speech, that 1,823,148 mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania were mailed out when the official narrative later emerged that 3.08 million were mailed. Of course, they assume the Democrats in power are telling the truth about "3.08 million," as a trial on the facts was denied.
(2) He filed an amended complaint in Pennsylvania that removed claims of illegal canvassing but told the judge his complaint was still about fraud nonetheless. Ergo, he "lied" to a tribunal. Again, election-fraud challenges were dismissed on procedural grounds, and no trials on the merits were held anywhere.
(3) He claimed, in public speech, that deceased former boxer, Joe Frazier, was voting from the grave when Pennsylvania claimed he didn't.
(4) He claimed, in public speech, that illegal aliens voted in Arizona, using different figures in different interviews, when there was no specific study on the figures to support his claims. Does anybody honestly believe illegal aliens never vote in Arizona elections? The Supreme Court of New York ostensibly does.
(5) He claimed, in public speech, the infamous Atlanta election-night video of votes being counted after poll watchers were kicked out (for a "water main" break, later a "plumbing issue"), involved "suitcases" being pulled from under a table covered by black cloth when they weren't technically "suitcases" but wheeled containers, and Georgia's secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger said this was normal and fine. Again, no trial on the merits here. The Court takes the government for its word, and questioning it is grounds for suspension.
Giuliani's out-of-court statements were deemed a "potential harm to the public," ongoing and to be mitigated with an interim supsension to protect the public. Evidence of the danger? On page 29, the Court pointed to two things: (1) the summer-2021 Arizona, Maricopa County, and coming Georgia, Fulton County, audits of the 2020 election and (2) that federal and state governments "actively engaged in enacting competing laws concerning voting in this country." Apparently, post-inauguration audits on elections and laws limiting mail-in ballots are a harm the Court needs to protect the public against by making an example out of Guliani.
Meanwhile, the New York City Board of Elections just found a 135,000-vote discrepancy in its June 22, 2021 mayoral Democratic primary, in which the New York Times reports 798,491 votes. That's 16.9% of the total votes. Is that the worst of it? How would we know? How could we find out?
What are lawyers allowed to say in public about this without risk of suspension? If they want to remedy injustice, what are they allowed to file in court without risk of suspension?
The comically-obvious election fraud evidenced in the 2020 United States (U.S.) presidential run [*2], renders few options for victims within U.S jurisdictional domain to anchor fealty to their rulers [*3]. This recent New York-mayoral fiasco reveals election shenanigans or "mistakes" are the new normal. How confident can we be that, now, and going forward, our rulers are legitimately selected?
Obedience to ruling authorities comes from three possible places:
(1) The authorities' rules match a commonly-agreed social consensus within the rulers' jurisdiction, and obedience stems from a higher moral order, independent of the rulers' decrees.
(2) The authorities' rules do not map on to a commonly-agreed social consensus and are irrational and/or command immorality, but the rules are obeyed out of a respect for a common system of governance between loved ones and neighbors and an understanding that such rules can be changed in the future by voters.
(3) The authorities' rules are irrational and/or command immorality and are obeyed out of fear of punishment for non-compliance and/or through bribery for fealty (e.g., cash payments disguised as "tax credits," or benefits).
The middle option (2) is what allows a stable democracy (or representative democracy if you prefer [*4]), especially one governing different nations. A democracy's subjects will naturally have competing value systems, and the more "diverse" a democracy is, such as in a democratic empire like the U.S. [*5], the more disparate its values. The opportunity for dissatisfied subjects to make just rules in the future or rules more in-line with their nations' cultures, makes those subjects tolerate unjust rule in the present.
The U.S. is too corrupt and disparate of a jurisdiction for rule by the first option (1). Its diversity alone makes this not possible, as competing cultures and nations (which are subsets of a country) produce competing value systems, making agreement on the same rules to apply to all not possible.
Thus, once a substantial number of subjects within the U.S. believe they can't change their government through voting and that their government is corrupt and irrational or commanding immorality, their fealty comes from the last option (3): fear and/or bribery.
Those that believe the U.S. 2020 election was stolen with fraud might hold out on the middle option (2) and accept temporary fealty in the way a coach continues a game in spite of a referee's bad call. The coach looks outside the game, to the season and seasons ahead. As long as he believes just calls could be made in the future, he won't withdraw his team; he'll continue with the season or to play again in future seasons.
In other words: they got away with it this time, but we'll be prepared and catch them next time! This thought process relies on the prospect that judges in the future might order stealers of future elections or their beneficiaries to seat the correctly voted-upon candidates. Or, maybe: the over-one-thousand affidavits filed by witnesses and video evidence weren't enough to overturn fraud in the 2020 run, but, next time, we'll get tens of thousands of affidavits, even more videos, and we'll have our lawsuits ready to go sooner!
The perpetrators of the comically-obvious election fraud, along with their beneficiaries, would prefer dissidents accept defeat and believe the election was honest, as the wicked always seek consent [*6]. But if dissidents don't believe so, at the very least, they are to sit down and shut up. The public's confidence in the scam must not be shaken. Dissidents might not like the present rules, but they must accept them as legitimate or at least keep their disbelief to themselves.
Since most derive their views from a consensus of subject-matter experts as opposed to foundational examination [*7] and whether elections were fair or not can be viewed as a "legal" matter, causing U.S. lawyers to "sit down and shut up" serves a dual purpose: (1) to dissuade court challenges of future election fraud and (2) point to the reduction or lack of challenges as evidence to the general public that, after all, elections are honest and "conspiracy theorists" stating otherwise can be dismissed [*8].
The two most prominent threats from our corrupt rulers to "sit down and shut up," are the State Supreme Court of New York's interim suspension of Giuliani's law license and the strict prosecution of the trespassers of the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, commonly referred to as an "insurrection" or a "riot" by the media. Attacking dissidents at these two pressure points presents a paradox.
Election-fraud grievances are to be resolved in our courts, since, obviously, they can't be resolved with votes. But, if a lawyer publicly speaks out against election fraud and says anything that is even "partially true, but misleading," he's to be disbarred (forbidden from practicing law). Because election fraud primarily occurs, especially in the 2020 presidential run, in Democrat strongholds, Democrat authorities, like the Supreme Court of New York, will remove lawyers' ability to make a living, let alone file challenges, if they question the results of elections. Protesting, on the other hand, is viewed as "insurrection" and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as an evil to be suppressed, even if the prosecutions amount to misdemeanor trespassing.
Those on the right who understand what happened in November 2020 can accept their conquest by the corrupt authorities ruling under the skinsuit of the U.S. empire and perhaps partake in the spoils of temporary cash payments governments enjoy doling for now. Or, they could engage in behaviors of the original U.S. nation's ancestors circa 1776.
Of course, such behaviors then were illegal by the colonial authorities and resulted in severe punishment when caught just as they are today. The U.S. is now visible as an empire not only by the territories it controls but also by much of its own fifty states and their people, who no longer believe in the legitimacy of the federal authorities ruling them.
No empire lasts. How long will the U.S. one continue?
---
FOOTNOTES
[*1] https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/giuliani-law-license-suspension/1ae5ad6007c0ebfa/full.pdf
[*2] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-measure-of-cowardice-and-sociopathy.html
[*3] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/planning-for-post-democratic-divided.html
[*4] Spare me the tired intervention: America is not a democracy; it's a republic! "Democracy" which includes "republic" as a subset of democracy, also known as "representative democracy," which all modern democracies ostensibly are or at least pretend to be.
[*5] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-glue-of-democratic-empires.html
[*6] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/06/why-does-evil-seek-consent.html
[*7] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/02/evidence-in-long-shadow-of-civilization.html
[*8] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-epistemology-of-conspiracy-from.html
Comments
Post a Comment