The Republicans have been controlling the Supreme Court for almost fifty years. One strategy to regain control of the White House is described. A most recent instance(s) of what took place during the late seventies is the case of Smith v McDonough, 1:2019-cv-04096. An administrative proceeding that provides a background in this case includes Smith v Shinseki¹.  A brief explanation of my position and analysis of the case is described from a lay viewpoint.

     I did not appeal this case because there is a high probability the higher court would have upheld the decision. The decision would have been upheld because there is no “Due Process” without the “Separate of Powers”. Another reason is who is to represent or to be more accurate misrepresent me has been decided. This would have been another instance of me doing the labor and someone else getting the reward or forcing me to represent myself and accusing me of UPL. Also, the “statute of frauds” must be specially pleaded with the court not having to reach this issue in this case because misrepresentation is the entire case.

     Appealing the decision would have given it more force than it was qualified for because there are policy violations with Rudin v. Lincoln (2005)² being the case on point. The difference in this circumstance and 1976 – 77 is the consequences, ramifications, or negative forces put into play by these actions and decisions cannot be escaped by those who committed them, like in 1976 by enacting Indiana’s and California’s, P. L. 148. It is not that they could not enact these policies, these policies were already enforced, and the republicans were asked to cover their tracks.

     This is not the first time Republicans have helped self-serving Democrats. The only difference between the present day and 1976 – 77 is the dynamics of these acts are described, and prove themselves. An act not legal when committed cannot later in a civil proceeding be made legal by the legislative, executive, or judiciary branch. A court can legislate; however, the decision must be within Constitutional boundaries. An issue of attorney/client exists where I am not represented in policy violations. Some of the pleadings in this proceeding will be added to this post or they can be seen in the docket sheet of the above-mentioned case.

1. https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120130700.txt
2. Rudin v. Lincoln Land Cmty. Coll., 420 F.3d 712

-One cannot escape the Constitution-

Disclaimer:

This blog is not intended to be an endorsement of a candidate for president of the United States or legal advice.