ER Editor: One more surprising element in the French election story showing how thoroughly corrupt the country is.
We had reported how, following last Sunday’s presidential election, it quickly became apparent that there had been shenanigans with the electronic vote-counting process, as shown by vote counts on one of the government-sponsored TV channels, France 2. (We don’t mean that voters were using voting machines, simply that the electronic compilation of the vote on TV via the Ministry of the Interior had problems.) Le Pen had been somewhat ahead, then suddenly lost a chunk of votes while Macron stampeded to a 4 million vote victory by night’s end. See Monkey Business in the French Elections? Looks Like It. An appeal on behalf of citizens was filed by several lawyers: Request to Cancel Results of the Second Round of the French Presidential Elections.
Now it seems that the Registry of France’s Constitutional Council won’t accept these submissions. Why? Because the outdated law only allows a candidate or a representative of the state to challenge election results. Citizens are excluded! We predict even more suspicion over Le Pen’s weird “I’m-a-loser-but-it’s perfectly-OK” attitude, as she is not likely to issue any challenge to the results. Benjamin Fulford gave us a reason on Monday why this might be.
And yes, it is mentioned by one of the lawyers below that the SERVERS hosting French national, sovereign business, in this case election results of France’s Ministry of the Interior, are hosted by an AMERICAN company in Ashburn, VA. And in fact, the data of other French government ministries such as defense and intelligence, &etc. are held on the same servers. It APPEARS that OVH servers in Roubaix, France are holding all government information, but it’s not the case.
France may be waking up very fast.
Fraud in the presidential election: the registry of the Constitutional Council refuses to transmit the citizen appeal
The presidential frauds feed many concerns and many rumors hastily qualified as conspiracy by the subsidized press which openly called to vote Emmanuel Macron. Curiously enough, the registry of the Constitutional Council seems to have taken it upon itself to declare inadmissible the appeal filed by several lawyers, including Carlo Brusa and Maud Marian (and many others) on the famous France 2 affair. Serious questions about the commitment of the famous Constitutional Council, which is gradually ruining the reputation of independence that it had more or less managed to preserve up to now.
Everyone has heard of this famous inconsistency between the results displayed, on election night, by the public channel France 2, presented as being directly linked to the Ministry of the Interior, and the final results given… by the same Ministry of the Interior, a few tens of minutes later, where Marine Le Pen had mysteriously lost more than a million votes.
In fact, the electoral law provides that only a candidate (or a representative of the State) can contest the results of an election after the closing of the polls. Here we come across an oversight or a gap in French law: citizens are strangely excluded from the control of a central process in democracy.
The French results processed… in the USA!
As Maud Marian, co-editor of the appeal against the presidential election result, points out, this legal gap poses serious problems in view of the evolution, and especially the computerization of the electoral process itself.
With regard to voting machines, his colleague Tarek Koraitem has already explained to us the troublesome legal problems: illegal installation of voting machines, vagueness about the procedures for checking these machines, complete uncertainty about their operation and their regularity.
Regarding the computer processing of the results after the counting, Maud Marian raises another embarrassing point: the aggregation of the results by the Ministry of the Interior escapes all control, and takes place on servers… hosted in the USA, under American control!
Those who remember the disputes at the time of the counting of the results during the last American presidential election will not be reassured.
Law has not kept up with technology
As we can see, French electoral law is obsolete and completely ignores the problems posed by the technological innovations that have occurred since the adoption of the Constitution in 1958… Which makes for a heck of a lot of changes to integrate.
Maud Marian, Carlo Brusa, and the group of lawyers who prepared the appeal before the Council, have the merit of proposing “praetorian” developments, that is to say, decided by the judge, to adapt the law to its weather.
Very surprisingly, this request, which seems legitimate, is currently blocked by the registry of the Constitutional Council, which has announced its intention not to forward it to the Council. Such a refusal can only feed suspicions and, as Maud Marian points out, democracy has every interest in purging the electoral process of any toxic suspicion.
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.