Disclaimer: This article may contain the personal views and opinions of the author.
Do you trust the main stream media?
"*" indicates required fields
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a crushing blow to a group of eight Americans who allege that Facebook and Dominion Voting Systems had an illegal and undue influence on the 2020 elections.
The court has refused to hear the case, rejecting the appeal by the group led by Kevin O’Rouke. This is the third round of court losses for the group.
In May of this year, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Tymkovich rejected the lawsuit.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals followed with the same ruling. That ruling lead to the request for the Supreme Court to intervene.
The group wrote, “To ‘fortify’ the election, Respondent, Facebook, Inc., k/n/a, Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) regulated information that a cadre of progressives thought was misleading to the public.”
“Additionally, Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) sought to control the process of local elections across the county under the cover of COVID-19 relief through conditioned grants totaling hundreds of millions of dollars provided by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Facebook, Respondent, Mark Zuckerberg (Zuckerberg), and his wife, Respondent, Priscila Chan (Chan),” the group added.
“Extraordinary lengths were taken to ensure the incumbent’s defeat,” the group wrote.
In their appeal, the group reminded the court that it had claimed in its lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems “has played in the creation and perpetuation of concerns regarding ‘vulnerabilities and a lack of transparency in the election technology industry.’”
The complainant also contends that “‘hundreds of thousands of votes’ were switched in the 2020 presidential election ‘as a result of the systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities’ in the software utilized by Dominion’s voting systems.”
Photo byPublic Use
The group also alleged in its appeal brought to the Supreme Court that “Dominion’s voting systems are ‘intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.’”
This group of Americans is representing a larger group who feel disenfranchised and pessimistic about our elections. Many voters feel like they no longer have a voice.
In the lawsuit, the group spells out the reason they feel damaged. They said, “illegal votes and unconstitutional procedures dilute the votes of the legally registered voter, persons that create policies and procedures that authorize, encourage, and cover-up unconstitutional behavior are liable for the damages they cause to Plaintiffs with proper standing.”
The District Court ruling said, “Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest or injury sufficient to grant them standing to sue. With Plaintiffs not having standing to sue, there is no case or controversy, a necessary predicate for federal court jurisdiction under Article III.”
The plaintiffs rejected that idea and attached the ruling to the Supreme Court filing. They contend that the damage is evident.
The group says that the law regarding a person’s right to sue someone who is depriving that person of his or her rights is not very clear.
They ask how can someone stop “corporations the size of Facebook and Dominion and persons as powerful and rich and Zuckerberg and Chan from violating his or her rights?”
The answer is they can’t.