Mr. President,
I am interested in your re-election, by legal means, of course.
I am interested because, quite simply, your opponent's election would establish definitively -on a global scale- illegal and anti-democratic means of electoral domination. I bother you because I raise the issue on a different basis, concerning what is known from your Twitter and your few friendly media.
So far, so good, you're essentially trying to cancel your opponent's ballots. They have voted dead, others on behalf of others, many times themselves etc. There are possible mistakes in the counts, using counters without observers or "fake counts" from the DOMINION software.
The crucial question is this: how many ballots can you cancel with this effort? Can you reverse the result? In other words, can you catch all the irregularities that have taken place?
I'm terrified not. And here is what I suggest.
First of all, there is a preliminary question: it is not so sure that every one disapproves of pool irregularities if, of course, pool irregularities were done. Sounds funny, but the famous cry "Count all votes!" this argues. They do not even understand that "Count all legal votes" makes a difference.
Therefore I argue that it is essential -and a priority!- to put aside those who consider pool irregularities magic. And the clumsy "Count all votes!" has been publicly uttered by your opponent -another matter that he did not dare to repeat it.
I wonder: is there even a judge who does not stand up anxiously at the hearing of the vulgar "Count all votes!"?
Therefore, I propose to change the strategic aim of your objections: instead of seeking ballot rejection, seek the rejection of your opponent's candidacy.
In terms of pool irregularities, I estimate that you probably need to prove three consecutive categories:
Firstly, that there has been such a significant number of pool irregularities incidents that it is clear that this is a coordinated effort for fake votes.
It is only necessary, that is, to prove the apparent intention of organized pool irregularities.
Secondly, a premeditated intention was to cheat, as the mail-in ballot was ostensibly abused, despite your timely public objections.
And thirdly, that in all this, there is the moral instigation of your opponent. I think this particular one is the easiest to prove.
There is, however, a much broader and more critical blow to your opponent, which may well be condemned in court.
You have cauterized it to a great extent, but -as far as I know- you have not put it as a reason for the invalidity of your opponent's candidacy. Namely, the moral instigation in the unacceptably anti-democratic and unconstitutional function of the mainstream media.
I explain.
The problem is not that most newspapers and most channels are against you. It is their absolute right.That's clear.
The unconstitutionality problem lies in ruthless censorship and vulgarlies, with the concealment of facts and the deliberate distortion of meanings.
Besides, there is the apparent orchestration of all this, in the form of monopoly perceptions.The same orchestration ensured publicity and immunity in the successive polls that showed you ruthlessly up to 20% "behind".
The premeditated "omerta" gave your opponent the comfort of being indifferent to your serious complaints at a time when you were mercilessly targeted for sins.
The highlight was the rude interruption of the broadcast of your statements. Unheard of the case of censorship by the President of the USA himself.
Your opponent's involvement in all these miseries is evident. But I suggest something crucial: all this is not freedom of the press but it's blatant impunity. It is not very good to consider some thing that the First Amendment baptizes freedom and thus protects, such impunity.
I, therefore, prove that the "crooked media" acted manifestly unconstitutionally.
Mr.President,
I feel that I do not need to write anything more than the above central idea for the judicial pursuit of annulling your opponent's candidacy. You have top lawyers who may well have already thought about it.
And I am sure that they can extract not just the assent of the majority of the Supreme Court, but an unanimous decision.
November 17, 2020
Sincerely yours,
Kostas Tzanavaras
