ELECTION LAWS: 2020 Grievance, Jerusalem v. Department of State Louisiana
Seeking to remedy the 2020 election certification failures, a citizen led lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the United States.
The 2020 presidential election in the United States sent shockwaves across the world. The attacks in the first term of President Donald Trump revealed how controlled and compromised the systems of power are. The coup attempts to remove him from the White House culminated in the theft of an election, altering his 2nd term. How they rigged the election was revealed in greater detail as citizen journalists ardently investigated. Election laws were not followed, while We The People were asleep at the wheel and failed to stop them. Citizens of the United States were deceived into following and funding the wrong luminaries and goals. We have a grievance to file. Where is our remedy? Soon to be heard in the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States is Jerusalem versus the Department of State Louisiana.
In 1888, James Bryce wrote that sunlight kills the germs of corruption that can infect a government, and his words remain true today.
Paxton, Public Information Request Handbook, 2020
Citizen Rights
The proper function of government is limited to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. Government is created by the people, for the people. No individual possesses the power to take another's wealth or force goods on them, so no government has the right to do so either. THE CREATURE CANNOT EXCEED THE CREATOR.
Over the years, courts have expanded protections for government officials through the employment of the generalized grievance doctrine and sovereign or governmental (qualified) immunity doctrine. These two doctrines have evolved to provide government officials near-total protection against personal liability for unlawful and abusive actions they take when carrying out their duties. The result has been significant abuses of power being perpetuated against people, even children, with impunity and next to no accountability. This jurisprudence has led to extreme violations of rights going unpunished. Since the only way to enforce the Constitution is through courts, these doctrines make the Constitution an empty promise by firmly shutting the courthouse doors because these doctrines not only shield the official from liability - but from the initiation of suit, as well.
President Trump has been involved in litigation before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that challenges the immunity doctrine (see also, Bates v. Trump on whether a citizen may have standing to sue the President derivatively on behalf of the United States).
The other, general grievance doctrine, was adopted over time through precedence. It compels those who use the courts for general grievances to seek other remedies, such as congressionally passed legislation. 2020 election integrity lawsuits have been dismissed for the reason of the plaintiff not being directly affected by the wrongdoing (lacking standing) or the lack of harm resulting from the violation of this election law. These rulings stem from the general grievance doctrine. But 3 years later those harmed by a stolen election have yet to have their grievances remedied.
Power of the Pen
Since the 2020 election, citizens across the United States have filed suits against their officials for deprivation of voting rights. The courts consistently applied the generalized grievance doctrine to block them from challenging the assault on their rights. A large number of these cases grew out of an overlooked community inspired by Terpsehore Maras (aka Tore Maras). As citizens sought a remedy, her calls to action broadcasted on her podcast and published on telegram carried unique substance. Her distinct background equipped her with remarkable foresight. A concentration of people emerged who were willing to fight the lawfare battles pro se (without paying for law firms). Many of these cases are making their way through the appellate courts. After years of this work, Tore Maras shared an exciting announcement with her listeners on January 25, 2024:
We have a CASE at SCOTUS to DESTROY General Grievance DOCTRINE!!!! Our exceptional team of attorneys are working on the filing, meaning ALL THE CASES THROWN OUT FOR STANDING will be in play again. The People Are Fixing 2020. Justice Comes In On A Donkey.
Battle in the People’s Courts
A case from this community is Jerusalem v. Louisiana Department of State, which filed its Writ of Certiorari to SCOTUS March 8, 2024. The case originated in the U.S. District Court of Louisiana, challenged the state’s use of electronic voting systems (EVS) in elections, and was dismissed for lack of standing due to generalized grievances. Jerusalem appealed to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals, and in an unpublished opinion the appellate court affirmed the District Court’s ruling stating: A "plaintiff seeking relief in federal court must demonstrate that he has 'a personal stake in the outcome, . . . distinct from a generally available grievance about government[.]'" Gill v. Whitford (2018) (quoting Lance v. Coffman (2007)).
One of the first cases to call a challenge to government lawlessness a generalized grievance was Fairchild v. Hughes (1922). The court refers to the Plaintiffs “general right” against the “alleged wrongful acts” of government officials stating, “Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not wasted.” This concept ultimately culminated as restated in the often cited, Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife (1992) as:
We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy.
However, if officials are breaking the law, it means the citizenry they officially represent are actively harmed by their actions: specifically (in relation to the statute/principle violated) and concretely (tangibly provided by said provision), which is injury in-fact. It is our duty to hold our representative government accountable – especially when our “elected” officials refuse. The fact that one or two citizens recognize the violation and initiate the suit should not negate the harm just because the injury is felt by all. It is unlawful to let lawlessness abound and to stay quiet. This judicial precedent has been instrumental in removing representatives’ accountability to “the people”, and in propagating injurious violations against “the people” and the U.S. Constitution (article VI) – without incurring repercussions.
SCOTUS has already determined, “To deny standing to persons who are in fact, injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody. We cannot accept that conclusion.” United States v. SCRAP (1973). “[It is a] self-evident proposition that more than one party may have standing to challenge a particular action or inaction… that plaintiff has standing-regardless of whether there are others who would also have standing to sue.” Goode v. City of Philadelphia (third circut 2008).
Again, SCOTUS says, “Whether styled as a constitutional or prudential limit on standing, the Court has sometimes determined that where large numbers of Americans suffer alike, the political process, rather than the judicial process, may provide the more appropriate remedy for a widely shared grievance. Warth, supra, at 500; Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War (1974); Richardson, 418 U.S., at 179; id., at 188-189 (Powell, J., concurring); see also Flast, supra, at 131 (Harlan, J., dissenting).” Federal Election Comm'n v. Akins (1998). “In Akins, the Court gave context to the notion of a generalized grievance, explaining that petitioners lack standing ‘in cases where the harm at issue is not only widely shared, but is also of an abstract and indefinite nature—for example, harm to the ‘common concern for obedience of law.’ 524 U.S. at 23, 118 S.Ct. 1777 (quoting L. Singer & Sons v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.,311 U.S. 295, 303, 61 S.Ct. 254, 85 L.Ed. 198 (1940).” Jewel v. National Security Agency (Ninth Circuit 2011).
However, the Fifth Circuit and the numerous district courts across the nation ignore this Supreme Court precedent in relation to election cases. The Jerusalem petition to SCOTUS asks:
Did the Fifth Circuit err in ruling a registered Louisiana voter for a federal election sustained insufficient injury in fact under Article III of the United States Constitution to grant standing despite well documented vulnerabilities found in the Louisiana electronic voting machines previously used by her and slated for use in upcoming federal elections in which she intends to vote?
Jerusalem’s cause states with particularity exactly how the “‘fundamental principle of our representative democracy,’ embodied in the Constitution, that ‘the people should choose whom they please to govern them’” is directly impacted by Louisiana’s actions. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) (quoting Powell v. McCormack (1969)). See also Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid (2021) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“Elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that “give citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election.”).
The Jerusalem petition spins the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation regarding Gill v. Whitford, 138 S.Ct. 1916 (2018) on its head:
As a basic proposition, "voters who allege facts showing disadvantage to themselves as individuals have standing to sue" to remedy that disadvantage. Gill, 138 S.Ct. at 1929 (citing Baker v. Carr (1962)). When the Court in Gill addressed similar standing issues raised by this case, namely determining when a voter can properly seek judicial redress for allegations of individual harm, it opened the door for lower court judicial review even when standing is not readily determined from the initial pleadings.
The Louisiana Secretary of State waived the right to answer the petition, and the case was distributed for conference on May 9, 2024. Will SCOTUS choose to grant the petition, and hear the case regarding the misapplication of generalized grievance and the unlawful implementation of Electronic Voting Systems not properly certified? This case implicates cases across the country addressing similar issues against their own state officials. Will this case be the breakthrough that ToreSays®+ suggested, and cause the reopening of cases dismissed on standing? One thing is for certain:
1) Officials across the United States have neglected to uphold the Constitution,
2) Officials across the United States were notified, and chose complicity, as well as perpetrating the implementation of unconstitutional EVS,
3) Officials across the United States breached their contract to their constituents through the violations of their Oaths of Office.
Election Laws
Accountability and integrity of this process that upholds election laws is imperative to support the principles undergirding this nation and is based on its foundational documents like the Magna Carta and Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Voting is intended for the protection against tyranny, for healthy maintenance of our Republican form of government bestowed upon us by our ancestors, and for the advantage of our descendants. To preserve and carry forward by underscoring a renewed Declaration of Independence. Even from Commissioners Court, “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.” The Federalist Papers #78 (1788). Representatives must be lawfully elected for the People to maintain their personal quality of life.
The right to vote derives from the right of association that is at the core of the First Amendment, protected from state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment. NAACP v. Button (1963); Bates v. Little Rock (1960); NAACP v. Alabama (1958). Indeed, the right to vote is "a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights," Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), and "other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined," Wesberry v. Sanders (1964). See also Reynolds v. Sims (1964). Storer v. Brown (1974).
The 2020 election is a turning point in the legacy of the United States. It activated citizens to wake from their sleep to see how corrupted and infiltrated their system of government had become. Then realize how long it had actually been THIS compromised. A strong remnant of the nation are rallying to put America First and Make America Great Again in their support of President Donald Trump. 2024 is the final battle and the winner will set the future course of the United States. But first a grievance must be heard. In the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States enters Jerusalem versus the Department of State Louisiana. In a case bearing the name JERUSALEM, it feels biblical. Pray!
No matter the outcome the people of the United States will never surrender, never give up and will continue to restore and secure their freedoms.
Great summary of the Generalized Grievance Doctrine, and the Jerusalem case. Yes, pray.