THE LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THAT THE US SUPREME COURT SHOULD RULE ON REGARDING THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2020

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,

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

The lawsuit claims that the changes made by 31 states were not made by their respective state legislatures, but by a state or federal judge, or by an official in the executive branch, thus making the changes made unconstitutional and void.

“During the calendar year 2020, thirty-one (31) States appointed 401 of the nation’s 538 Presidential Electors – 163 Republican Electors and 238 Democrat Electors, in a manner directed by their State Executive and/or Judiciary rather than by the Legislatures of those States as the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution mandates. On December 14, 2020, the 401 unconstitutionally appointed and 137 constitutionally appointed Electors cast their votes at the Electoral College for President and Vice President.”

Schulz served his member of Congress, upstate New York Rep. Elyse Stefanik with a petition for redress of the violations. “Said Petition for Redress documented sixty-three (63) changes to election dates, procedures and administration that occurred in those 31 States – changes that were not authorized by State Legislatures as the Electors Clause of the Constitution required, resulting in the 401 Electors who were not constitutionally chosen and thus had no standing.

“There was no response to the 12/18/2020 Petition for Redress from any member of Congress. Between 12/18/2020 and 1/2/2021, 1,058 U.S. citizens residing in all 50 States, signed said Petition for Redress which was served on 1/4/2021 on each of the 100 members of U.S. Senate and each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives, under separate cover letters, one addressed to “Each Member of the House of Representatives” and the other addressed to “Each United States Senator,” that conveyed the enormity of the attention needed to fix the difficult problem and the constitution related importance.

“There was no response to the 1/4/2021 Petition for Redress from any member of Congress. At 1 p.m. on 1/6/2021 Congress met at the Capitol in a joint session for the purpose of counting and certifying the legitimate, “regularly given” Electoral College votes. The proceeding was interrupted for many hours by a large, problematic public disturbance at the Capitol.

Shultz and Futia then sued Congress, seeking relief under the 12th Amendment which states that if no candidate for President receives a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives must choose from the top three candidates and cast their votes, one vote per state, and the senate must vote for the vice-president.

In March of 2021, after receiving no response from Congress to their petition, a US District Court “issued a Summons against the Senate and a Summons against the House of Representatives stating, “[Y]ou must serve on the Plaintiff an answer to the attached Complaint . . . If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. . . .” But “Congress did not respond, and the Court failed to issue a Default Judgment.”

In October 2021, the District Court issued a Minute Order stating, “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 . . . Because Schulz and Futia have asserted no facts that show an injury particularized to them, they lack standing.

“When faced with a constitutional crisis of the highest order… the Judicial Officers of the courts of the D.C. Circuit chose to substitute their judgment of what may be best for America for their sworn commitment and responsibility to administer justice by applying the law to the facts of the case, no matter the level of difficulty,” states the suit, which goes on to claim that the riots at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, hurt and did not help the constitutional claim of Futia and Schulz.

“Congress knew on 1/6/2021 that there were votes given on 12/14/2020 at the Electoral College that were ipso facto, null and void. However, on 1/6/2021, due to the problematic disturbance at the Capitol and its aftermath, Congress was out of control. Its action in counting the electoral votes for President and Vice President was so unconventional, so eccentric that it resulted in a congressional displacement of the power committed by the Constitution to the State Legislatures to direct how presidential electors are to be chosen.

“Congress’ procedure did not allow for any refutation or investigation, much less a rejection of any of the electoral votes that were objected to and known to have been given by Electors who were undoubtedly unconstitutionally chosen.

“On 1/6/2021 the Members of Congress failed to investigate and reject the electoral votes from any of the 31 States that were known by the Members to have been irregularly given – that is, given by Electors chosen as a result of election dates, procedures and administration set by State Executive and Judicial officials rather than by the people’s popularly elected State Legislatures.

“Officially, there were objections to the manner in which the electoral votes were given in Arizona and Pennsylvania and unofficially in a few other so-called “swing states,” and there were statements in opposition to the objections, but there was no opportunity or allowance for investigations much less rejections. Instead, in violation of the Electors Clause, and by extension the Guarantee Clause and the 14th Amendment, each of the two Houses chose to ignore, via a simple up or down vote, each electoral vote known to the Members to have been irregularly given – that is, given by Electors who were chosen/appointed as a result of election dates, procedures and administration directed by State Executives and Judges rather than by popularly-elected State Legislatures as the Constitution mandates.”

Most lawsuits questioning the election law changes made in 2020 were from citizens from individual states. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a suit contesting the election results in four states, and used the same arguments that Futia and Schulz argue. “Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”

But Futia and Schulz have included all 31 states that they claim improperly and unconstitutionally changed their election laws in the months before the 2020 election.

Each of the alleged violations in the 31 states are briefly described in the suit, and include:

Alaska: Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s order suspending the state’s witness requirement for absentee/mail-in ballots.

Arizona: two rulings by US District Court Judges–one ordering that Arizona’s voter reg deadline be extended to Oct 23; and giving voters until the fifth business day AFTER the election to sign their ballot if they failed to sign when they submitted

Arkansas: Gov. Asa Hutchinson-exec order extending absentee ballot who cited health risk concerns from voting in person–as a valid excuse for voting absentee

California: Gov Gavin Newsome–exec order for county election officials to send mail in ballots to all registered voters

Connecticut–Secretary of state announced all eligible voters would automatically receive absentee/mail in ballots

Georgia: US District Court Judge extended the return deadline for absentee ballots -postmarked Nov 3 and received by November 6

Kentucky-Extension of absentee/mail in voting eligibility to all voters “concered with COVID

Maryland: early voting enacted by BOE-and 127 ballot drop boxes for absentee /mail in available and absentee mail in ballot forms

Michigan-A state judge extended the deadline for absentee/mail in ballots to be received to Nov 17 -if postmarked by Nov 2, and automatically mailed ballot applications to all voters, and changed the date that anyone can return ballots up to Nov 3.

Montana-conducted their election entirely by mail, per order of Governor Steve Bullock.

New Jersey-Per Governor Murphy, mail in ballots automatically sent to all voters.

New York-Governor Cuomo created absentee ballot boxes at 300 locations statewide.

NC-The US Court of appeals declined to reinstate an absentee-mail in ballot deadline and permitted the acceptance of ballots received by Nov. 12.

Ohio: A State District Court permitted the Secretary of State to offer multiple drop box locations for ballots, and also allowed that ballot applications be sent by fax or email.

Oklahoma: Governor John Stitt extended state of emergency by 30 days, triggering the modification of the absentee ballot law.

South Carolina: The US District Court ruled that the Board of Elections could not reject absentee ballots/mail in ballots that appeared not to match the signature on file, and the requirement that a witness must accompany a mail in/absentee ballot could not be enforced.

Tennessee: The US Court of Appeals temporarily suspended a law requiring first time voters to vote in person and extended absentee voting to all voters.

Texas: The US District Court overturned an order restricting a straight ticket ballot option, and also extended early voting and said that ballots submitted with an apparent signature mismatch could not be rejected.

Virginia: A State judge ruled that ballots mailed in could be accepted without a postmark, and up to 3 days after November 3. Also in Virginia, a US District Court ordered that the voter registration deadline be extended by 2 days and waived the witness requirement for absentee ballots.

West Virginia: All voters concerned about their health (COVID) could vote absentee, per the Secretary of State.

In Minnesota, the US Court of Appeals ruled by a 2-1 vote that the extension of absentee-mail in ballot was likely unconstitutional because, “the sec of state extended the deadline for receipt of ballots without legislative authority.” The court also ordered the state board of elections to keep ballots received after Nov 3 separate.

In Pennsylvania, on October 28, the United State Supreme Court declined to expedite consideration of a case involving the PA Supreme Court’s decision extending the state’s mail-in ballot deadline, allowing the extended deadline to stand.

The PA Supreme Court issued two other rulings. On Sept. 17, the court authorized the use of drop boxes for returning mail in ballots, and on Oct. 23, they ruled that election officials could not reject mail in ballot that did not match the signature on file.

In Rhode Island, on Aug. 13, the US Supreme Court denied an application by the Republican National Committee and the state republican party objecting to the suspension of the witness/notary requirements for mail in ballots.

On Sept. 11, the Secretary of State announced they would send out absentee/mail-in ballots to all active registered voters.

The relief that Futia and Schulz are asking for is that 18 months after President Joe Biden took office, the USSC, “nullify the votes of the Electoral College taken Dec. 14, 2020, in the States identified above, and direct the Legislatures of those States to appoint Presidential Electors in a manner consistent with the Electors Clause.”

The relief requested is so severe that it may result in the USSC to decline hearing the case. But with a conservative majority sitting on the court, it is wise to wait for their decision to hear or not hear the case, which is expected by the end of September.

Congressman Jaime Raskin, who has prominently appeared in the Jan. 6th hearings, wrote for constitutionalcenter.org that, “When it comes to presidential elections, the voters are at the mercy of the state legislatures. constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-ii/clauses/350

[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]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS BAD NETIQUETTE