Here it is -
PolitiJim writes for Gulag Bound, November 13, 2012, that during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity. The answer?
Nothing. They arent legally able to.
This all goes back to a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981. The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee, Case No. 09-4615.
In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).
The lawsuit alleged that:
The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.
The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.
The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with National Ballot Security Task Force armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.
To settle the lawsuit, in 1982, the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNCs ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the courts approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:
[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:
(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;
(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;
(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;
(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;
(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;
(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.
The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.
As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined ballot security activities to mean ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.
Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back for the sole purpose of renewing his 1981 order for another year.
U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise
In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed to vacate or modify the Consent Decree in Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee, Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012). (I paid The Judicial Review $10 for the PDF of Case No. 09-4615 and uploaded the 59-page document to FOTMs media library. To read Case No. 09-4615, click here!)
This is a summary of the appeals judges ruling, filed on March 8, 2012:
In 1982, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) entered into a consent decree (the Decree or Consent Decree), which is national in scope, limiting the RNCs ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the courts approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNCs Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Courts judgment.
Surprise! The judge who denied the RNCs appeal to vacate the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last Tuesdays election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:
Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.
All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced problems with voting machines.
This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it.
Now you know why.
Ill leave you with one last, even more disturbing thought:
The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations. The term substantial proportion is not defined.
The Democrat Party knew this 30 years ago, more than enough time to put a plan in place to identify and groom their perfect candidate in the words of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008, a light-skinned black Democrat who has no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.
Being a black Democrat, this perfect candidate would get the support of almost all black Americans (96% in 2008!) and other racial minorities (two-thirds of Hispanics in 2008).
Being a light-skinned black with no Negro dialect, this perfect candidate would get the support of white Americans perpetually guilt-ridden about Americas original sin of slavery.
It doesnt matter if this perfect candidate has dubious Constitutional eligibility to be president. They would see to it that his original birth certificate (if there is one) would never see the light of day. The same with his other documents his passports, school and college records, draft registration, and medical records (so well never know why Obama has that very long scar from one side of his head to the other.)
Now, we understand the significance of the account Tom Fife wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.
Now, we finally understand the cryptic remark made in May 2010, by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: Obama was selected before he was elected.
In 2008, this perfect candidate won the presidential election. And despite his many failures in his first term, he would be reelected in 2012 for a second term via massive vote fraud. But nothing would be done about the vote fraud, because of that Consent Decree signed by the RNC 30 years ago.
The Republican Party is dead and with it, the U.S. two-party system as well and the sooner we voters recognize that the better.
The question that remains is whether the American Republic is also dead.
Okay, after reading the essay I am left saying that a lawsuit bake then cannot make law for the present. IF Pribus said the court case prevented challenging this election, he is blowing smoke up someone’s butt. The Bush v Gore case should be a clue ...