[Jim Noble #12] Did the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction over any of the matters you refer to as being “brought before them”?

It is an appellate case with no jurisdiction. It reminds me of birther litigants finding a way to waste time. The article failed to state that the case was already dismissed by the District Court citing lack of standing/jurisdiction, and by the Circuit Court; en banc petition denied.

[Thread article]
In the midst of all the conspiracy theories that have circulated concerning the Presidential election of 2020, and the “Fake News” that most of these theories claim, there is one legal, constitutional question that should be addressed, and that the United States Supreme Court should rule on: Were the changes made to election laws in 31 States, in the months before the Nov. 3 Presidential Election made legally?
Westchester County resident Tony Futia, and NY resident Robert Schulz have asked the US Supreme Court to hear their case on this matter. Futia and Schulz cite Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, ” which reads,

https://occupytheconstitution.org/lawsuit-congress-electors-clause-12th-amendment/

ROBERT SCHULZ and ANTHONY FUTIA, Jr. v CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, each member of the Senate and House of Representatives
On February 26th, 2021, the court assigned Case No. 21-cv-448 and Judge Dabney L. Friedrich to the case.
On March 4, 2021, the Court issued two Summonses:
Summons To: CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. House of Representatives General Counsel
Summons To: CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Senate Legal Counsel
On February 17th, 2021, the following documents were served on every member of congress:
Summons
Verified Complaint
Notice of Motion for Expedited Summary Judgement
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion
Letter to every member of U.S Senate
Letter to every member of the House of Representatives

https://occupytheconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/COMPLAINT-AGAINST-CONGRESS-2-15-2021.pdf

Verified Complaint

https://casetext.com/case/schulz-v-cong-of-us

OPINION OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, District of Columbia

Opinion
21-cv-448 (DLF)
06-16-2021
ROBERT L. SCHULZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Summary Judgment, Dkt. 2, and Motion for Default Judgement, Dkt. 7. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny both motions.
I. BACKGROUND
Robert Schulz and Anthony Futia, Jr., individuals representing themselves pro se, bring this action against the “Congress of the United States, each member of the Senate and House of Representatives,” for allegations related to the certification of Electoral College votes in the 2020 presidential election. See generally Compl., Dkt. 1. They allege that “the manner in which the Presidential Electors were chosen in 31 States violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America in that Executive and Judicial officials in those States usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their State’s election laws.” Id. ¶ 31. They claim that these violations necessitate the nullification of 401 of the available 538 electoral votes, leaving no candidate with the requisite majority needed to win the presidency. See Id. at 1, 2. Schulz and Futia delivered to each member of Congress a copy of a petition outlining the alleged violations of these states, to which Congress has not responded. Id. ¶¶ 28, 38. They claim that “Congress had a duty to respond to the Petition,”¹ and by not doing so, Congress has admitted that the “electors from 31 states were unconstitutionally chosen.” Id. ¶ 41. Schulz and Futia request that the Court “declar[e] the 2020 electoral college to have been unconstitutionally formed,” and direct Congress to “choose immediately, by ballot, the President and Vice President of the United States, in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution.” Id. ¶ 4(a), (b).
¹ Plaintiffs do not challenge Congress’ alleged failure to respond to their petition., see generally Compl.; Mot. for Expedited Summ. J.; Mot. for Default J., likely because it is established law that “nothing in the First Amendment or in [the Supreme] Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals' communications on public issues.” Minn. State Bd. for Cmty. Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 285 (1984); see We the People Found., Inc. v. United States, 485 F.3d 140, 144 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (holding that the Supreme Court’s ruling that the government does not have to reply to public petitions extends to all types of petitions and all levels of government).
The plaintiffs claim to have served Congress on March 3, 2021, by way of certified mail sent to the General Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Legal Counsel of the U.S. Senate. See Return of Service Aff. Dkt. 6. On May 14, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgement after Congress failed to respond. See Mot. for Default J. at 2.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Article III of the Constitution limits the “judicial Power” of federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “[T]here is no justiciable case or controversy unless the plaintiff has standing.” West v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 1228, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “To establish standing, a party must demonstrate: (1) an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized as well as actual or imminent; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3) a likelihood, as opposed to mere speculation, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Wheeler, 955 F.3d 68, 76 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The burden of establishing these elements falls on the party invoking federal jurisdiction, and at the pleading stage, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating each element.” Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 828 F.3d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
III. ANALYSIS
Schulz and Futia lack standing to bring this action because they have not made the showing that they have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. “For an injury to be particularized, it must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way,” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted), that is distinct from a “generally available grievance about government,” Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 (2007). In this case, Schulz and Futia base their standing on their claim to be “citizen-taxpayer-voter[s].” Compl. ¶¶ 10–11. But “[i]t has long been established . . . that the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the Federal Government,” Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 593 (2007), and the “narrow exception to the general rule” for “a plaintiff asserting an Establishment Clause claim” is not applicable here, id. The Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]he constitutionally mandated standing inquiry is especially important in a case . . . in which taxpayers seek to challenge laws of general application where their own injury is not distinct from that suffered in general by other taxpayers or citizens.” Id. at 598 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, neither plaintiff has asserted that their injury is in any way distinct from that suffered by any other taxpayer or citizen.
Furthermore, “voters cannot assert standing based on their generalized interest in fair elections.” La Botz v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 889 F.Supp. 2d 51, 56 (D.D.C. 2012); see Lance, 549 U.S. at 442 (holding that voters’ allegation of their state’s violation of the Electors Clause “is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past”). Other courts recently have found that plaintiffs lack Article III standing in comparable challenges related to the 2020 election. See Wisconsin Voters All. v. Pence, No. 20-cv-3791, 2021 WL 23298, at *1–2 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2021) (holding that voters who asserted standing based on “an interest in an election conducted in conformity with the Constitution . . . merely assert a generalized grievance”); Wood v. Raffensperger, 981 F.3d 1307, 1314–15 (11th Cir. 2020); Bowyer v. Ducey, No. 20-cv-2321, 2020 WL 7238261, at *4–5 (D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2020); King v. Whitmer, No. 20-cv-13134, 2020 WL 7134198, at *10 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020). Because Schulz and Futia have asserted no facts that show an injury particularized to them, they lack standing.
² The complaint also presents problems with regards to causation and redressability. To satisfy the causation element of Article III standing, “[p]laintiffs must show that it is substantially probable that the challenged acts of the defendant, not an absent third party, caused the particularized injury of the plaintiffs.” Lin v. United States, 177 F.Supp. 3d 242, 251 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). To the extent the plaintiffs have alleged any injury, it was caused by changes in state election laws, and not by Congress. See, e.g., Compl, Ex. B., at 3 (“[P]etitioners’ injury is clearly traceable to the actions of non-legislative government employees in those States.”). For the same reason, Schulz and Futia have not demonstrated a likelihood of redressability. See Wheeler, 955 F.3d at 76.
CONCLUSION
In sum, the plaintiffs have failed to establish Article III standing and, as a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Summary Judgment, Dkt 2., and Motion for Default Judgement, Dkt. 9, are DENIED.
The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/n/beam/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDoc/01208388569

DC Circuit, Judgment (4 Jan 2022)

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s October 1, 2021 order be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because appellants failed to establish their standing to sue.

DC Circuit, ORDER (25 Mar 2022)

O R D E R
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied.

DC Circuit, Docket Entry (06-27-2022)

LETTER [1952736] received from the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States notifying this court of the following activity in the case before it: A petition for writ of certiorari was filed and placed on the docket on 06/27/2022 as No. 21-1593. [21-5164, 21-5232] [Entered: 06/29/2022 01:14 PM]

Use both.

I’m from Westchester County, mostly, where Yonkers is (north of there, though.)

Did you know that Yonkers is the fourth largest city in New York state? New York, Buffalo, Rochester, Yonklers.

The Supreme Court wasn’t the only screw-up, but they SURE DID NOT HELP...US, THE AMERICAN CITIZEN, VOTER.

Bingo! The USSC needs to go, along with the FBI and the Dept. of Social Just Us.

Bagpipe bill said there is nothing to see here move along

Our enemedia and the Marxist Democrats are having a conniption because SCOTUS may rule the U.S. Constitution’s wording describing how State Legislatures have the right to write each state’s respective election laws is somehow “Constitutional”!!

Bookmarked

Yes.

Roberts is not a problem and not a tyrant

the same result as the Orly Taitz lawsuits

Orly's treatment by the Freeper Gadfly legal experts here was disgusting, much like the experts here are excusing Scotus by quoting all manner of legal opinions that don't matter one whit. The court has no intention of getting involved in this dispute altho they are required by the constitution to do so.

The Freeper legal experts are great about quoting the constitution when it ties our hands, not so much about the illegal actions that brung us here. Amazing how helpful that is the the Marxists that are committed to totally destroying our Republic.

TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS BAD NETIQUETTE

Were the changes made to election laws in 31 States, in the months before the Nov. 3 Presidential Election made legally?

No, they weren't and they all damn well know it. That's the main reason no one on the left wants to investigate anything to do with it.