On January 6th, 2021, the Parliamentarian of the United States Senate advised Vice President Pence that each of the certificates submitted by New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and California was:
…the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
However, not one of those states had legitimate authority to cast their votes on January 6th, 2021, and a brief review of an awkward moment in presidential election history reveals why.
Certifying The 1820 Presidential Election
In 1820, James Monroe won every electoral vote except for one faithless elector from New Hampshire. Nonetheless, the final tally was disputed since there was no consensus as to whether Missouri was a legitimate state entitled to vote.
Proponents of counting Missouri’s votes claimed it fulfilled the conditions Congress set for its entry into the Union—thereby making it a legitimate state. Whereas opponents claimed Missouri’s state constitution—excluding all "free negroes and mulattoes"—made it repugnant to the U.S. Constitution and thus an illegitimate state failing to satisfy its conditions of entry.
Therefore, Congress faced a dilemma. If they counted Missouri’s votes among “the whole Number of Electors appointed,” it would constitute recognition of its existence as a legitimate state. Alternatively, if they excluded Missouri’s votes from “the whole Number of Electors appointed,” it would constitute a denial of its existence as a legitimate state.
Since everyone already knew Monroe won in a landslide, the Senate rendered the issue moot with a resolution directing the tallying of votes both ways: once by including Missouri among “the whole Number of Electors appointed,” and once by excluding it.
Thus, the dispute over Missouri's status during certification of the 1820 presidential election cemented the principle that: An illegitimate state has no authority to cast votes for President and Vice President of the United States.
Tyrannical States Are Illegitimate Per Se
As the Declaration of Independence clearly established, when the sovereign exercises tyrannical power, its legitimate authority vanishes in a puff of logic. Thus, the United States is the only nation in history founded upon principle; namely, contradicting tyranny. In fact, contradicting tyranny is the principle around which all other American principles constellate. Liberty, justice, separation of powers, etc.—every principle of American government is predicated upon the principle of contradicting tyranny.
Thus, on January 6, 2021, the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and California had no legitimate authority to cast their votes for President and Vice President.
Why?
Because when a state uses the powers entrusted for the people’s protection to murder them, it constitutes “the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to” [1]—i.e., tyranny.
More particularly, the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and California committed DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER of U.S. citizens by:
1) mandating COVID patients into nursing homes while simultaneously 2) locking down the entire healthy population to keep COVID as far away from the elderly as possible.[2]
This violates the law of non-contradiction. Meaning, it is self-contradictory and hence a logical impossibility. In fact, mandating COVID patients into nursing homes during the lockdown is categorical proof of DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER.
What is DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER?
Good question.
A person is guilty of DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave and unjustifiable risk of death to another person, knowingly disregards such risk, and thereby causes the death of that person.
Let’s parse it out; shall we?
“Depraved indifference to human life” means a wicked, evil or inhuman state of mind, as manifested by brutal, heinous and despicable acts. We’re talking about conduct that is so devoid of regard for the life or lives of others that it’s just as malicious and criminal as the person who intentionally kills.
The phrase “recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave and unjustifiable risk of death to another person” means:
Engaging in conduct which creates a grave and unjustifiable risk that another person’s death will occur,
AND consciously disregarding that risk in a way that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
For example: No reasonable person would ever take two completely contradictory courses of action within a life-or-death situation while believing/claiming both were SIMULTANEOUSLY intended to save lives. The truth of one necessitates the falsity of the other.
More particularly: No reasonably prudent person or State would lockdown the entire healthy population like communists for the alleged purpose of keeping the COVID virus as far from the vulnerable elderly as possible WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY creating a grave and unjustifiable risk of their deaths by mandating COVID patients into nursing homes.
If one truly believed “the necessary precautions”—i.e., the CMS and CDC “transmission based precautions”—would keep the elderly safe enough to justify the nursing home mandate, then the lockdown was never necessary and all deaths resulting therefrom were DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER.
Alternatively, if one truly believed the allegedly “novel” virus was so lethal and difficult to contain as to warrant locking down the entire healthy population like communists to protect the elderly from COVID, then mandating COVID patients into nursing homes during the lockdown was DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER.
Thus, the mandating of COVID patients into nursing homes during the lockdown is categorical proof of DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER. Moreover, there can be no trial of fact because entertaining any defense would be a logical impossibility. (N.B. In case you’re wondering how everyone could have overlooked this, I've been asking myself the same question since I first noticed it FIVE MONTHS after finding proof of Andrew Cuomo’s intent to kill nursing home residents in Executive Order 202.5.)
The Parliamentarian Was Wrong
Accordingly, since a nation dedicated to the principle of contradicting tyranny logically excludes States that murder its citizens, on January 6, 2021, Congress was prohibited from counting the 134 votes of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and California among “the whole Number of Electors appointed” under Article II pursuant to their Article VI oath of loyalty. And since 2020 was “the most secure election in U.S. history,” we may safely conclude that subtracting those 134 votes from “the whole Number of Electors appointed” leaves Joe Biden with 172 votes and Donald Trump with 232 votes, making Donald J. Trump “The Person having the greatest Number of Votes and [thus] the President.”
Therefore, until Congress declares Joe Biden’s Presidency void ab initio and swears in Donald Trump immediately, the United States—along with every member state of the United Nations still acknowledging Biden as President—shall remain an illegitimate sovereign dedicated to the proposition of murdering mothers and grandmothers and pushing children to suicide in violation of America’s Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions against Tyranny, dated July 4, 1776.
For further details, see Declaration of House of Stone 76.
[1]John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Of Tyranny, §199 [2][Four] governors besides Cuomo who sent COVID-19-positive patients into nursing homes, By Cassidy Morrison, Washington Examiner, March 1, 2021; 'Death Sentence': Why Did Dem. Governors Place COVID-Positive Patients Back in Nursing Homes?, By Tyler O'Neil 5:09 PM on June 17, 2020