| The
plaintiffs seek this temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction
at this time to constrain the Defendant from recognizing and presiding
over the commencement of a Congress in standing violation of the
Constitution and predicated on a "Winner Take All" electoral formula
ungrounded
in either state or federal law that serves no democratic purpose but to
maintain racial and regional party supremacy. |
| Proceeding
pro se, Asa Gordon and Thelma Thorpe (collectively, "plaintiffs") bring
this action against the Honorable Lorraine C. Miller, the Clerk of the
U.S. House of Representatives, in her official capacity, alleging
violations
of their constitutional rights resulting from the practice of Arkansas,
Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas of allocating their
presidential
electors on a "winner take all" basis. Before the Court is plaintiffs'
application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). Based on the
reasons
stated today in open court, it is this 4th day of January 201 1 hereby
ORDERED that
the plaintiffs' application for a TRO is DENIED
|
February
25th, 2011
MOTION
TO INTERVENE
| Pursuant to rule 24 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure two
Louisiana voters filed a motion to intervene in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia as co-plaintiffs in support
of the civil action Gordon et.al. vs
Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. |
March 17th,
2011
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant the Honorable Karen L.
Haas respectfully moves for an order dismissing with prejudice all
claims asserted against her for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum
of Points and Authorities filed simultaneously herewith. ...
|
March 22nd,
2011
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
| In Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507
(D.C. Cir. 1988), the D.C. Circuit held that a district court must take
pains to advise a pro se party of the consequences of failing to
respond to a dispositive motion. |
April 18th,
2011
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO RESPOND
Pursuant to Rules 6(b) and 12(a),
Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiffs hereby moves to extend, until April
29th,2011 the date to oppose the Motion of Defendant Clerk of the
U.S. House of Representatives, to Dismiss the Complaint, filed on
March 17th, 2011
|
April 19th,
2011
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME
TO RESPOND
April 29th,
2011
PLAINTIFFS'MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
More specifically,
as we now show, the Defendant's MTD should be denied because
(1) plaintiffs' standing in this action meets, indeed exceeds,
the standards for standing established in the classic "minority vote dilution" precedents, (2) The Speech or Debate Clause does not apply to the ministerial nature of the act of the Clerk in this
matter and therefore does not abolish standing; rather it guarantees
it. (3) This is not a "moot" case. This case falls within the
classic exception to the "mootness" doctrine, a case that is constantly
recurring and yet escaping judicial review. (4) the Complaint
states a claim for relief as a matter of law pursuant to the " Reduction
ofrepresentation" U.S.
Code 2USC§6 for an abridgment of
plaintiffs' votes in the 2008 presidential election in
explicit violation of Amend. XIV§2.
|
May 11th,
2011
DEFENDANT’S
REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
May 20th,
2011
(PLAINTIFF'S SURREPLY)
PLAINTIFFS’
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REPLY (DR) TO PLAINTIFFS’
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant is laboring
hard, and is desperately trying to misconstrue this action as an equal protection claim under the
"one-person, one-vote" principle directed at the electoral
college. It is not. Let us be clear, any equal protection
claims in this action are derivative claims that are not directed
at the electoral college. They are directed at a state practice
not even grounded in state law. Any derivative injuries to the
Fourteenth Amendment's section one equal protection clause raised in
this action are a natural by product of a violation of the
malapportionment penalty clause of Amend.14§2. ...
|
PLAINTIFFS’
TWO PART MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF
(1) Plaintiffs
move the Court for injunction relief, to enjoin the Defendant pursuant
to action taken under Rule II of the U.S. House of Representatives from
recognizing the full slate of unbounded
electoral states' Congressional representatives in
the next session of Congress who are subject to the malapportionment penalty clause for
minority vote dilution
by Race and/or Party Affiliation in the
allocation of presidential electors by a general ticket
(winner-take-all) rule ungrounded in a State's election code.
Plaintiffs move the court to apply the sanction in section two of
the Fourteenth Amendment as implemented by 2USC§6 which
calls for the reduction of the number of the offending State's
representatives in congress in proportion to the disenfranchised
class of U.S. Citizens whose voting rights were denied and/or abridged .
(2)
Plaintiffs move the Court to enter a declaratory
judgment that Amend. XIV§2 as implemented by 2USC§6
mandates proportional apportionment of presidential electors based on
the popular vote split for the subject states of this civil action that
award their Presidential Electors by a Winner-Take-All rule that is not
specified in the State's election statutes.
A brief reflection on our
past, in order to illuminate our present, so as to gain informed
insight into our future.
The "Negro"
Electoral Slush Fund.
Let us be honest, the purpose of the Electoral
College was to create a "Negro" Electoral Slush Fund to establish and
sustain white supremacy, and a great deal of our jurisprudence in this
matter is in denial of this historical truth. That is one other reason
why this is a case of first
impression, it does not shy away from this historical legacy of
infamy.
The existence of the Electoral College's Negro Electoral Slush Fund (unwarranted
political power) is a documented historical fact.1 The
Negro Electoral Slush
Fund was eight electoral votes in 1800 when Jefferson won the
Presidential Election over John Adams by eight electoral
votes. It grew ...
|
July 26th, 2011
August 11, 2011
Attorney's amicus letter brief for Plaintiff to
Hon. Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., United States District Judge
Dear Sir:
... To my knowledge, I am
the only attorney in the United States actually challenging the
constitutionality of the Electoral College in court. I have
participated in over a dozen different lawsuits and appeals against the
constitutionality of the Electoral College beginning with Henderson v. Electoral College... Phillips v. Electoral College
.... I have written half a dozen books and many articles on the
subject.
|
August 22, 2011
Plaintiff Response to amicus letter for Plaintiff
Amicus Letter for Plaintiff
August 24, 2011
Co-Plaintiffs' Response to Amicus Letter for
Plaintiff.
... The present Cause of
Controversy
is not directed at the
constitutionality of the Electoral College. The Court is advised that
the plaintiffs' and co-plaintiffs' pleadings before the
court in this matter are for redress for injuries arising from an
unconstitutional mal-apportionment in their "right to vote" for presidential electors. This
injury to the value of their vote derives from a "winner-take-all"
state practice ungrounded in state law. This civil action,
in fact, pleads for a remedy grounded in the Constitution that in
effect Democratizes the Electoral College for plaintiffs casting a vote
as racial and/or political minorities. ...
|
[Plaintiffs' and co-Plaintiffs' fully
concur and welcome the "amicus letter for Plaintiff" representation to
the court that ]:
"[T]he
silence of the books is an
authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment."
"This
was the
common law of England before the separation from the Mother Country."
|
Nov. 22, 2011
CASE REASSIGNED
US District Court District of
Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing_The following transaction was entered on
1122/2011 at 7:52 AM EDT and filed on 11/22/2011
Case Name:GORDON et al v. MILLER
Case Number: 1:11-cv-00003-RCL _ Document Number: 25
Case directly reassigned
to Chief Judge Royce C Lamberth Judge Henry H. Kennedy has retired and
is no longer assigned to the case (gt,)
|
|
