THE CHICAGO WAY: Thousands Of Residents Commit Fraud To Keep College Student Off Ballot

[Swordsmyth]

A conservative college student attempted to take on the Chicago political machine and lost — but the way he lost may result in more than 2,600 residents charged with a felony.
David Krupa, a 19-year-old freshman at DePaul University, decided to run for alderman of Chicago’s 13^th ward and take on current alderman Marty Quinn. But Krupa wasn’t just going up against Quinn. He was actually going up against Illinois state House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, the state’s most powerful politician, referred to as Boss Madigan, according to Chicago Tribune reporter John Kass.

Krupa drives a forklift and is studying political science and economics. He needed 473 valid signatures from residents of the 13^th ward in order to run for alderman. He got 1,703. In a strange — and corrupt — turn of events, before Krupa could file his signatures, 2,796 ward residents signed affidavits revoking their signatures to Krupa’s petition.
“Revocations are serious legal documents, signed and notarized. Lying on a legal document is a felony and can lead to a charge of perjury. If you’re convicted of perjury, you may not work for a government agency. And I know that there are many in the 13th Ward on the government payroll,” Kass wrote.
Jim Allen, an election board spokesman, told Kass the board receives “a few revocations here and there in very rare electoral board cases over the years,” but said no one could remember ever receiving this many in the past.
Just 187 of the signatures on Krupa’s original petition matched with those of the revocations, meaning 2,609 people committed fraud by signing an official legal document saying they had signed the original petition but hadn’t. One has to wonder what these ward residents were told to get them to sign such a document. This reporter can’t imagine they were told the whole truth about what they were signing.

Michael Dorf, the election attorney representing Krupa, called the case a “clown car of felonies”
“This is clown school and election fraud. This is going way, way beyond the line. David is a huge underdog. Go ahead and beat him on Election Day, or do subtle fraud, like taking away yard signs, but when this number of false affidavits are filed, you’re talking fundamental fraud, epic fraud,” Dorf told Kass.
Current alderman Quinn probably could have beaten Krupa easily, so the level of fraud committed to keep the college student off the ballot is stunning. As Kass points out in his article, it is unlikely any repercussions will be felt, as the matter could be referred to Democrat Kim Foxx, Cook County State’s Attorney, who wouldn’t dare go against Boss Madigan. Incoming Attorney General Kwame Raoul also accepted $1 million of “Madigan political money,” according to Kass. Oh, and current Illinois AG is Lisa Madigan — the daughter.

More at: https://www.dailywire.com/news/39218...eep-ashe-schow

[oyarde]

Business as usual there . Voter fraud capital of the midwest .

[Swordsmyth]

Business as usual there . Voter fraud capital of the midwest .

What will it take before we declare that one of these deep blue states no longer has a Republican form of government?

[oyarde]

What will it take before we declare that one of these deep blue states no longer has a Republican form of government?

There has been no republic govt in chicago longer than most people on this forum have been alive . It is a cess pool . The Dem dream.

[Swordsmyth]

There has been no republic govt in chicago longer than most people on this forum have been alive . It is a cess pool . The Dem dream.

Yup, I'm just wondering exactly what it will take to get a declaration admitting that one of these states no longer follows the rule of law.

[Pauls' Revere]

Yup, I'm just wondering exactly what it will take to get a declaration admitting that one of these states no longer follows the rule of law.

Is your question what law(s) would need to be broken to meet that circumstance? I would first ask what is the legal definition of a Republican form of government. Because you'd have to define what that means legally to see if law(s) were violated.

I have no idea what that is but imo that's where I'd start.

[Swordsmyth]

Is your question what law(s) would need to be broken to meet that circumstance? I would first ask what is the legal definition of a Republican form of government. Because you'd have to define what that means legally to see if law(s) were violated.

I have no idea what that is but imo that's where I'd start.

Yes, just how lawless does a state have to be?

Definition of republic

1a(1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government

b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government


More at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic



If elections are compromised sufficiently or if the rule of law is openly defied the state no longer has a Republican for of government and the feds are obligated to restore one:

A4S4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

[enhanced_deficit]

Business as usual there .

Don't know for sure but won't be surprised if things got bit better and honesty in leadership had top down effect since new MAGA funded leadership took charge of Chicago in 2010.

Trump donated $50000 to Rahm Emanuel's mayoral bid - Illinois Review
Apr 25, 2011 - CHICAGO -- Donald Trump gave Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel $50000 in December 2010.

[Swordsmyth]

Don't know for sure but won't be surprised if things got bit better and honesty in leadership had top down effect since new MAGA funded leadership took charge of Chicago in 2010.

Trump donated $50000 to Rahm Emanuel's mayoral bid - Illinois Review
Apr 25, 2011 - CHICAGO -- Donald Trump gave Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel $50000 in December 2010.

Doing real estate business in Chicago requires payoffs.

[enhanced_deficit]

Doing real estate business in Chicago requires payoffs.

That's why it's hard to understand all the outrage when liberal democrat businessmen like Soros, Adelson buy fund politicians from both parties since it's required for them to do business. Swamp-purists want to drain the swamp.

[Swordsmyth]

That's why it's hard to understand all the outrage when liberal democrat businessmen like Soros, Adelson buy fund politicians from both parties since it's required for them to do business. Swamp-purists want to drain the swamp.

[Pauls' Revere]

I'm guessing that a state would have to do something that would be an act of treason or secede?

[Swordsmyth]

I'm guessing that a state would have to do something that would be an act of treason or secede?

But that wouldn't make it not a Republican form of government, a Republic could do either of those things.

If elections are completely compromised as is the case with California and ballot harvesting or if the rule of law completely breaks down as has begun to happen with the politicized law enforcement and court cases we have been seeing that should qualify as non-Republican government.

At some point there will be an incident that crosses a threshold in the national psyche and we need to be prepared to bring up the Republican form of government clause, it would be best if we could spread the idea ahead of time.

[Pauls' Revere]

b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

So, even if a law was broken, if due process is done were ok? or if someone holds an office that was not elected to that office than we have a problem?

[Swordsmyth]

b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

So, even if a law was broken, if due process is done were ok?

Yes, if you mean that the guilty are punished, but the rule of law has been decaying before our very eyes to the point that it isn't even given token consideration with leftists allowed to break the law without consequence and conservatives found guilty on trumped up charges, also the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and if it is wantonly violated in ever more egregious manners then you do not have a Republican form of government.

or if someone holds an office that was not elected to that office than we have a problem?

If elected offices are held by fraud then you don't have a Republican form of government and that should apply if the electoral system is so corrupted that fraud can't be detected or stopped, legalized ballot harvesting for instance.

[Pauls' Revere]

Yes, if you mean that the guilty are punished, but the rule of law has been decaying before our very eyes to the point that it isn't even given token consideration with leftists allowed to break the law without consequence and conservatives found guilty on trumped up charges, also the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and if it is wantonly violated in ever more egregious manners then you do not have a Republican form of government.


If elected offices are held by fraud then you don't have a Republican form of government and that should apply if the electoral system is so corrupted that fraud can't be detected or stopped, legalized ballot harvesting for instance.

Ok, lets say there is something that happens (were not entirely clear what that would/could be) to trigger such an event. Would this be an executive order? Martial Law? Would the Feds then come in and essentially set up a Federal System in such a state by non-elected people until proper elections could be held? Would this require both houses to vote to intervene? Do you need a 2/3 majority in each in order to make it happen? What is the process for this?

[Swordsmyth]

Ok, lets say there is something that happens (were not entirely clear what that would/could be) to trigger such an event. Would this be an executive order? Martial Law? Would the Feds then come in and essentially set up a Federal System in such a state by non-elected people until proper elections could be held? Would this require both houses to vote to intervene? Do you need a 2/3 majority in each in order to make it happen? What is the process for this?

There is no guidance in the Constitution so we would be in uncharted territory, whatever happened would undoubtedly end up in court and go all the way to SCOTUS.

Unless the GOP takes back the House in 2 years then Congress is out of the question and even if they do it is unlikely that they would pass such a resolution even by a simple majority, that is why I asked about Senate hearings in my Rand thread about this.
The citizens/victims of California or some other state could file a court case requesting relief but no lower court would be willing to rule on it because of the total lack of precedent so you would need to get SCOTUS to take the case after being thrown out of every other court on the way, if RBG dies and is replaced then the odds of getting accepted by SCOTUS will go up but right now I would expect to be denied.
That leaves executive action.

The federal government would need to seize control of the state and hold honest elections to replace the current government and then not relinquish control until the rule of law and honest elections were restored, that would require the removal of politicized law enforcement and judges and an end to legalized ballot harvesting etc.

[Pauls' Revere]

There is no guidance in the Constitution so we would be in uncharted territory, whatever happened would undoubtedly end up in court and go all the way to SCOTUS.

Unless the GOP takes back the House in 2 years then Congress is out of the question and even if they do it is unlikely that they would pass such a resolution even by a simple majority, that is why I asked about Senate hearings in my Rand thread about this.
The citizens/victims of California or some other state could file a court case requesting relief but no lower court would be willing to rule on it because of the total lack of precedent so you would need to get SCOTUS to take the case after being thrown out of every other court on the way, if RBG dies and is replaced then the odds of getting accepted by SCOTUS will go up but right now I would expect to be denied.
That leaves executive action.

The federal government would need to seize control of the state and hold honest elections to replace the current government and then not relinquish control until the rule of law and honest elections were restored, that would require the removal of politicized law enforcement and judges and an end to legalized ballot harvesting etc.

Let's say your right, and your probably in the infield of the ballpark. People would probably take their chances on open revolt instead. Hell, Calexit was almost on the ballot for this last November. There's no way in hell the left here in CA would let the Feds walk in and administer the state. My bet is that depending on where it takes place (whatever the event is) depends on the outcome.

[Swordsmyth]

Let's say your right, and your probably in the infield of the ballpark. People would probably take their chances on open revolt instead. Hell, Calexit was almost on the ballot for this last November. There's no way in hell the left here in CA would let the Feds walk in and administer the state. My bet is that depending on where it takes place (whatever the event is) depends on the outcome.

Perhaps that could lead to the ideal solution, a division of California with the leftists allowed to leave as an independent country and the red counties kept as the state of California.

The event and the place will make all the difference as you say.

[Pauls' Revere]

Perhaps that could lead to the ideal solution, a division of California with the leftists allowed to leave as an independent country and the red counties kept as the state of California.

The event and the place will make all the difference as you say.

Ok, so let this play out. Heck, help it along if you can. Now who would write the E.O. to set this in motion? The Donald aint going to do it. Only because this is going to take more time and he'd be out of office, even if he gets a second term. I don't think anybody in the G.O.P. has the political cajones to do it. They would need to be Trump on roids.

[Swordsmyth]

Ok, so let this play out. Heck, help it along if you can. Now who would write the E.O. to set this in motion? The Donald aint going to do it. Only because this is going to take more time and he'd be out of office, even if he gets a second term. I don't think anybody in the G.O.P. has the political cajones to do it. They would need to be Trump on roids.

Or there would need to be enough public outcry, that is why I want to know what it would take to get Rand to talk about it and hold hearings about it.

If legalized ballot harvesting fraud isn't enough what would be?

Will it take an armed uprising against single party/voter fraud rule in California?

[Zippyjuan]

Ok, so let this play out. Heck, help it along if you can. Now who would write the E.O. to set this in motion? The Donald aint going to do it. Only because this is going to take more time and he'd be out of office, even if he gets a second term. I don't think anybody in the G.O.P. has the political cajones to do it. They would need to be Trump on roids.

It would take more than an executive order. Two thirds of the voters in the state would have to approve it as well as two thirds of Congress.

[Swordsmyth]

It would take more than an executive order. Two thirds of the voters in the state would have to approve it as well as two thirds of Congress.

Citation please.

The clause in question says nothing about how it is to be implemented and it has never been dealt with in the entire history of the US.

[Zippyjuan]

Citation please.

The clause in question says nothing about how it is to be implemented and it has never been dealt with in the entire history of the US.

US Constitution.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state

And yes, it has already been used. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...draw-the-u-s-a

This process has been used successfully to create five states: Vermont (from New York, in 1791); Kentucky (from Virginia, in 1792); Tennessee (from North Carolina, in 1796); Maine (from Massachusetts, in 1820); and West Virginia (from Virginia, in 1863).

[Swordsmyth]

US Constitution.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv



And yes, it has already been used. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...draw-the-u-s-a

Are we talking about the same thing?

What has that got to do with seizing control of California to restore a Republican form of government?

[Zippyjuan]

Are we talking about the same thing?

What has that got to do with seizing control of California to restore a Republican form of government?

You suggested dividing up the state.

Perhaps that could lead to the ideal solution, a division of California with the leftists allowed to leave as an independent country and the red counties kept as the state of California.

The event and the place will make all the difference as you say.

[Swordsmyth]

You suggested dividing up the state.

As a resolution to a rebellion, that is just a possibility and it would take place with the consent of the legislature of the state.

The post you replied to was about the invocation of the Republican form of government clause in the first place not about the possible result.

[Zippyjuan]

As a resolution to a rebellion, that is just a possibility and it would take place with the consent of the legislature of the state.

The post you replied to was about the invocation of the Republican form of government clause in the first place not about the possible result.

The post I replied to was a reply to the one of yours suggesting the division of California.

[oyarde]

The Madigan - Quinn dem 13th ward website still asks if you would like to sign a petition when I looked last .

[Swordsmyth]

The post I replied to was a reply to the one of yours suggesting the division of California.

The post of mine that was referenced was also about the basic idea and that is the EO that Paul's Revere was referring to, I never suggested any other EO.