Dear SCOTUS: Texas HAS STANDING

While reading through the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular the 35 motions filed by Texas, 17 additional states, and both supporting and detracting entities, I observed two things:

  1. Texas does indeed have standing commensurate with U.S. Law.
  2. The U.S. Supreme Court did NOT rule that Texas didn’t have standing. Rather, they only ruled that Texas did not demonstrate their standing.

Solution: File an amendment to the original filing, this time with proper verbiage clearly demonstrating standing.

Please find enclosed the rest of this document which clearly demonstrates standing by demonstrating “a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” not merely upon the single requirement for standing as required by law, but upon all three requirements of standing allowed by law.

Put simply, when any state which a) engages in election fraud, b) allows individuals within its state to engage in election fraud, or c) which fails to secure its elections against election fraud to an extent whereby subsequent election fraud has occurred, then that state has defrauded not only it’s own citizens, but through the federal election process it has also defrauded the entire nation, both in part, including all citizens of all states, along with the states themselves, as well as the entire nation as a whole, visiting harm upon each and every citizen, each and every state, and the entire country.

standing

Justices Alito and Thomas were correct in their assessment. The filing not only falls within the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court commensurate with 28 U.S. Code §?1251. Original jurisdiction, but more importantly, and quite specifically, it falls within the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court commensurate with Article. III. Section. 2. of the Constitution for the United States of America, which mandates the United States Supreme Court hear this case.

The United States Supreme Court cannot lawfully refuse to hear this case.

Let’s examine the applicable law directly from “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article. VI.):

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Fathers, F. (1787). Article. III. Section. 2. of the Constitution for the United States of America. United States National Archives, United States Library of Congress. Retrieved from: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

The fourth word is “shall,” not “may” or “will.” When it comes to our Constitution for the United States of America, and commensurate with both modern and most importantly 1787 period language, the word “shall” constitutes an absolutely binding contract via Article. VI.:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Fathers, F. (1787). Article. VI. of the Constitution for the United States of America. United States National Archives, United States Library of Congress. Retrieved from: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Aside: The last phrase in the first paragraph isn’t an out. The term, “nothwithstanding” literally means State laws and even State Constitutions do not have standing i.e. “not with standing” when it comes to the Constitution for the United States of America, a fact agreed upon by all States when they applied for and were accepted into our Union.

Specifically, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States” includes all executive, legislative and judicial officers both of the States as well as the United States i.e. U.S. Federal Government, including the Justices of the United States Supreme Court. They, too, are bound, by the supreme Law of the Land to follow the Constitution for the United States of America.

In case anyone isn’t clear as to the meaning of the word, “shall,” let’s examine that, as well.

Definition: shall

3a —used to express a command or exhortation; ex: you shall go

3b —used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory; ex: the right of the people to keep and bare ares shall not be infringed; the right of trial by jury shall be preserved

shall, entry in Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shall

While Amendment XI blocks United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction for citizens suing a state, it does not block United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction for states suing other states.

In light of all of the above, original jurisdiction still applies and the Supreme Court of the United States of America must hear the case. Any refusal to hear this in and of itself constitutes grave harm upon the people and States of these United States of America, and is an illegal and heinous affront to justice.

I hope and pray Texas files an amendment to their original filing arguing its standing, thereby preserving the original filing date. Focus on the actual — and many — Constitutional and Federal laws violated by the other states and how allowing election fraud harms Texas.

My Argument for Standing

As even one state’s election can tip the federal election one way or the other, and the results of the federal election affect each and every American, town, city, county, state and nation as a whole, and election fraud adversely affects all of us, particularly when a fraudulent-elected political entity attains unlawful access to a governmental office, depriving all Americans severally (individuals) and collectively (states) of our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights fundamental to the election of government officials as well as law and order, we ALL have standing — each and every citizen, AS WELL AS each and every state in these United States States of America.

SPECIFICALLY and LEGALLY

In law, standing or locus standing is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case.

Standing exists from one of three causes:

ONE: The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

STATUS WITH RESPECT TO U.S. SUPREME COURSE CASE NO 22O155:

MET

Argument: We ALL have a great deal more than “something” to lose if Election Fraud is allowed to continue unchecked, and far more to lose if it results in a fraudulently-elected president. We will have lost the right to choose our own members of government as protected by both the Constitution and Federal Law. Texas, along with all 17 states who supported Texas’ Motion, are defending the harm visited upon them by a fraudulent election.

TWO: The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling effects” doctrine.

STATUS WITH RESPECT TO U.S. SUPREME COURSE CASE NO 22O155:

MET

Argument: In fact, not only Texas, but the other 17 states joining Texas are all combating the “chilling effects” of unchecked Election Fraud, while protecting “others who might not be able to ask a court for relief,” including not only all their own citizens, but the vast majority of U.S. citizens. Even those citizens who voted for Biden are harmed by election fraud.

THREE: The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney’s fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

STATUS WITH RESPECT TO U.S. SUPREME COURSE CASE NO 22O155:

MET

Argument: Election Fraud in its many and diverse forms is specifically addressed and prohibited by multiple, Constitutionally-sound acts of Congressional (Federal) law (please research an exhaustive list and delineate them here, State Attorneys General).

IN SUMMARY: Do Texas and the other 17 States have Standing? While only one of the above three bases is required to establish standing, Texas HAS STANDING on the basis of ALL THREE.

When it comes to federal elections, which affect each and every one of us, and in which fraud would adversely affect each and every one of us, WE ALL have standing, not only as individuals, but as a collective, ranging from the family to communities, villages, towns, cities, municipalities, counties, states, the federal government and our entire nation both specifically and at large.

TEXAS HAS STANDING.

WE ALL HAVE STANDING.

HEAR TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA