Pending before the United State Supreme Court is Blumstein v Pence in which three brave citizens seek appointment of what is called a Special Master to investigate whether cyber attacks and invasion by a foreign power – Russia – determined the outcome of OUR 2016 elections. I’m Mark Small. I represent these citizens.

Ample evidence suggests both the Executive Branch – the President – and the Legislative Branch -Congress – were compromised in OUR 2016 elections.  Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has said: “We know Russia meddled in the election. No one is disputing that.”  Seventeen US intelligence agencies found that Russia directly interfered in OUR elections.

During our elections, numerous high level Trump campaign officials – including then-campaign chairman Manafort, then-advisor Flynn, and now- attorney general Sessions – communicated w Russian officials and then-candidate Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin – a murderous despot.  We know that Putin wants sanctions lifted for financial gain, and undermining America’s democratic process is his vehicle. Putin has practice in stealing elections and he would not have wasted time on cyber attacks and disinformation without thinking he could succeed.

There never has been such credible and voluminous evidence of a foreign power substantively affecting OUR elections as to require new elections.  This legal action has been brought pursuant to Article 4 Section 4 – also called the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution. That clause guarantees we shall be protected from foreign invasion.

The Constitution was based on mistrust of those in power. In 1787, the Framers voted with quills on parchment. They could not envision computers or “hacking.” They were familiar with invasions, and foreign interference in other countries’ politics. They believed the Constitution insulated selection of the President from foreign control.  Whether Russia attacked with troops or with computers and disinformation, the acts constitute “invasion” to affect our elections’ outcome and mock our democratic system. This attack on our electoral system by another sovereign state attacks the integrity and existence of our country.

The remedies we seek are unprecedented, but so are these circumstances. The Supreme Court is our highest court and its rules allow for appointment of a special master and it also can determine the election was unconstitutional. James Madison, called by some the Father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist Paper 43 that only the judicial branch is sufficiently distanced from controversies under the Guarantee Clause to decide those controversies. The Constitution created the judicial branch to protect our rights and liberties.

If there is a reasonable probability that Russia’s undisputed actions – cyber attacks, disinformation, search engine optimization – materially altered the results of the election, the Supreme Court can and should appoint a Special Master. The judiciary is the only branch unblemished and capable of independent investigation, and a Special Master has authority to fully and independently investigate under these circumstances.

No one in the Executive Branch will allow such an investigation. They already have asked the FBI to determine there was nothing wrong with the Trump campaign’s communications with Russia in 2016. And Congress will not conduct an impartial investigation.  This is a non-partisan action. It is not gamesmanship. What occurred in our 2016 elections is unprecedented in America and goes to the heart of our democracy.

The Supreme Court receives applications for 7 to 8000 cases per term and disposes through decision fewer than 100. So this action is a long shot, but, statistically, so is every application to the Supreme Court.  Lincoln said “Let the people know the facts and the country will be safe.”

3 thoughts on “A statement by our lawyer

  1. Would it be appropriate and have I phrased this correctly to post the following on social media?
    I urge you to call or write before March 17th
    Dear Justice__________,
    I urge that the case, “A Writ of Mandamus over the 2016 election”, on the docket for March 17, 2017, (No. 16-907) be accepted. The federal government is obliged to protect the states from foreign invasion. Seventeen of our intelligence agencies have indicated that our election was interfered with by Russia. This is a foreign invasion into our electoral process. The only solution is that the election be nullified and I urge you to reach that conclusion. Thank you for your consideration.
    Your Name
    U.S. Mail:
    Supreme Court of the United States
    1 First Street, NE
    Washington, DC 20543
    (Available M-F 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern)
    John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States
    Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice
    Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice
    Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice
    Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
    Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice
    Elena Kagan, Associate Justice

    1. Christine, I checked with Mr. Small about your question and this is what he wrote: “The Justices are immune from public sentiment. As an officer of the Court, I would advise people to post in social media as direct contact with the Court or its Justices would be inappropriate. However, as an officer of the Court, I have to add that people have First Amendment rights both to free speech and to petition the government for grievances incurred. Therefore if someone chooses to mail a letter of appropriate content to the Court or its justices, that person has that right.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *