gary coutin, esq:

Dear Press of Philadelphia,
I learned your names and emails during the recent fight to alter the Electoral College law of the State of Pennsylvania.   This effort to rig a two hundred old law by partisans for partisan advantage got me to thinking that the law governing the election of the highest official of the nation should rest upon the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence.  
What better place to hear a lawsuit than on the Declaration of Independence than Philadelphia, home of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.   Home of the place where the Constitution was written.   In Pennsylvania, home to the battle field where the proposition was to be tested whether a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal could long endure.
This lawsuit will be the last battle of the Civil War.  This lawsuit will be the last battle of the American Revolution.   Is the Declaration of Independence the Supreme Law of the Land, superior to the Constitution of 1787 where the two are inconsistent and repugnant to one another?  That is the question.
I have written many articles and books on the subject.  I will be sharing them over the next few days.
I have been suing the Electoral College since November 2000. This lawsuit is sponsored by Roseanne Barr as part of her political campaign for the Presidency on the Green Party Ticket.  Her platform is that the Declaration of Independence is the Supreme Law of the Land, superior to the Constitution of 1787.  Abraham Lincoln thought so as well.  He said so at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.  
Third parties led the movement which led to the direct vote for Senators and the votes for women.  Don’t speak too soon.  The wheel’s still in spin.  And there’s no telling who it is naming.
Yours truly,
Gary Michael Coutin

Proceeding Vox
Populi against the Electoral College


I am the attorney vox populi speaking for the
majority to vote directly and equally for the President as set forth in the
Declaration.  I have been suing the Electoral College since November 2000
when the Electoral College threatened to reverse the vote of the American
people.  This is illegal.  Andrew Jackson said it was illegal 180
years ago.


To the people belongs the right of electing
their chief magistrate; it was never designed that their choice should, in any
case, be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges, or by the
agency confided, under certain contingencies, to the House of Representatives


The Electoral College is a device of the one
percent to reduce the 99% to a state of slavery, for if you cannot vote
for the President, then you are nothing but a slave.  The Electoral
College is unconstitutional. 


…Let all the
votes of all the voters be collected in one general return; and let the
election be decreed to him who has a majority of the whole.


The Constitution (e.g., the Electoral College)
denies the American people the right to vote for the President and then gives
the weight of the vote unequally (e.g., depending upon the place where the vote
is cast).  This is a violation of the Declaration.  If the
Declaration is the Supreme Law, then the Electoral College is


The law of the
Electoral College violates the Constitution itself. For if the majority of the
people, could by mutual agreement enter into a binding social compact, then
certainly a majority of the country could by direct and popular vote choose the
leader of the executive branch of government established under that


The Electoral College is inextricably tied to
slavery in its origins.  In 1958, a
political scientist from Princeton named Lucius Wilmerding so concluded that
the Electoral College was “unconstitutional.” [iv] 
Wilmerding had spent years researching the Electoral College as a
consultant to Congress.  He tied
the Electoral College its distortions to slavery and succinctly described the
Negro Slush Fund created by the Electoral College: 


Slaves could not vote, but in the basis of
representation five slaves counted for three freemen.  Had the national plebiscite system prevailed in the election
of the President, the Southern states would have lost the privilege allowed
them by the Constitution of votes upon three fifths of their population other
than freemen.


Later on, the difficulty became, if
anything, even more obvious.  The
Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. 
In so doing, it added to the Southern bass of representation two fifths
of the former slaves


As long as the Electoral College exists we
are nothing but slaves.  If you have no rights to vote for the Chief
Magistrate then you have no rights at all.  Six amendments to the Constitution say that there is a
“right to vote.”  But the Supreme
Court said that you have no “right” to vote for the President in Bush v.


The 1% in 1787 demanded and obtained
“protection for their property.”   (e.g., protection for
slavery) at the Constitutional Convention.  1) the right to go to African
and engage in war upon innocent people, and to kidnap them by force and
violence and bring them to America (international slave trade); 2) to reduce
those captured and held illegally into “property” by denying them the freedom
of movement; 3) using that “property” in slaves which only slave owners possess
into political power against the will of the slave and without consent of the
governed at 40% (e.g., the 3/5 clause) for representation in Congress; 4) and
converting that unwarranted representation in the House into unwarranted voting
power for the President.  
E.G., say Thomas Jefferson had a hundred slaves.   When he voted for himself to be
President, the weight of that vote was 61, because he had his own vote (one)
and 60 for the 100 slaves reduced by the three fifths factor).   This was the original package of
subsidies to slavery in the Slaveholder’s Constitution written by slaveholders
for a government of slaveholders for the benefit of slavery. 


At the time of the Civil War, 70, 000 slaveholder
owned 80% of the land in the South and that was disproportionately the best
land.    Through
ownership of this land (and the slaves to run it), they controlled the state
legislatures.   The state
legislatures at that time appointed Senators.   So the Slaveholders controlled the Senate, unwarranted
votes in the House, unwarranted power in the election of the President, and
therefore the Supreme Court.  In
other words, the four pillars of slavery “rigged” the government for the
benefit of the 70,000 slaveholders.


Now slavery was not ended by amendment.  It was ended by Civil War and then
reinstituted by Jim Crow laws enacted by the same slaveholders after the Civil
War who ignored the existence of amendments 13, 14, and 15.  


The four pillars of slavery are called the Negro
Slush Fund as it takes the right to representation due to African Slaves and
converts that right of representation into representation of the white slave
master.   This “rigs” the


So why not amend the constitution to get rid of
the Negro Slush Fund (and the four pillars of slavery including the Electoral
College).   Because of a
hidden pillar of slavery, the fifth pillar).  The mode of amending the Constitution is also rigged” to
prevent you from getting rid of the rigging of the government by the Negro
Slush Fund.  


You can’t end slavery except by civil war. 
And by parallel construction, you can’t end the Electoral College except by civil war.    Or you can file a lawsuit
in a court of law to end the Electoral College to declare the Electoral College
unconstitutional as a violation of the Declaration of Independence.   The action should be filed in
Philadelphia because that is where both the Declaration of Independence and the


For if the Declaration is true, the Electoral
College is false.   As the
Declaration was to be law for all people at all times in all places, there is
no time place or people bound by the Electoral College.   The Electoral College is an
ongoing crime against the people of the United States.

[i]             Andrew
Jackson, Recommendation to Congress (December 8, 1829).  See “The Addresses and Messages of
the Presidents of the United States,” New York (1842), at p. 359.  In The Executive Power
In the United States:  A Study of Constitutional Law,
by Adolphe de Chambrun, Translated from the Original French by Madeleine Vinton
Dahlgren, Inquiry Printing and Publishing Company: Lancaster, Pa. (1874), at p.
42.  In the first seminal study of
the electoral college, a political scientist from Princeton named Lucius
Wilmerding, Jr., concluded that: “The Electors were never meant to choose
the President but only to pronounce the votes of the people.” The Electoral
College, by Lucius Wilmerding, Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick,
N.J. (1958). 

[ii]             The
Electoral College, by Lucius Wilmerding, Rutgers University
Press: New Brunswick, N.J. (1958), at p. 95. 

[iii]             The
Electoral College, by Lucius Wilmerding, Rutgers University Press: New
Brunswick, N.J. (1958). 

[iv]             Lucius
Wilmerding was one of the most original characters to graduate Princeton in
1927.  As an undergraduate was a
member of the varsity chess club and a clearheaded thinker. His subsequent
career included 10 years of distinguished service with the Treasury Department,
work for the city of New York, and service as a naval staff officer in England
during World War II.  He later
taught at the Army/Navy staff college. 
A prolific writer and a nationally recognized authority on the origins
of the Constitution, Lucius, following the war, became a fellow at the
Institute for Advanced Study.

[v]             The
Electoral College, by Lucius Wilmerding, at p. 100.