March 24, 2025
Case has been assigned to Judge Ana C Reyes, in DC's District court, summonses issued and sent out.
Feb 22, 2025
Alter v President Trump has been assigned a case number in DC's District Court, 25-cv-00480
It is currently awaiting assignment to a court.
Feb 11, 2025 Related news, here is a Feb 11, NYTimes article chronicling The President and his administration defying court orders on Birthright Citizenship. Where exactly is this red-line we're supposed to wait for him to cross in terms of the rule of law? TRUMP DEFIES COURT ORDERS
Feb 9, 2025
So, yeah. I filed a complaint against Donald Trump last February, appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court, only to be denied certiorari, for no particular reason. My initial reaction was "well, at least I tried".
Then came Donald Trump's inauguration. Flanked by modern oligarchs and kleptocrats, bending a knee, his Executive Orders and Proclamations, His blanket pardon of all the convicted attackers, and co-conspirators from Jan 6, 2021 (minutes after swearing an oath), his attempt to re-write the constitution through EO, Elon Musk and his team of flying monkeys helping themselves to servers at the IRS, OPM, and disappearing websites (like even the US Constitution), and of course, the Nazi salute. To anybody that loves our country, in the vision that our Declaration of Independence set in motion, it was like watching a continuation of the 2021 attack on Congress. An end of all things we've been taught since we were in grammar school. With the ultimate 3rd Act defeat of him regaining office, and firing all the FBI and DOJ prosecutors that brought their criminal cases against him, the Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, ending all his criminal cases after the Supreme Court's yearlong shell game. In the story arc of a hero's Journey, it's caled "the Ordeal" it's like the scene Luke Skywalker says (spoiler!) "Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!" before getting his hand cut off and plunging thousands of feet to what looked like his ultimate doom. Or Rocky getting slugged and hitting the matt in slow motion.
I honestly, cannot fathom, why I haven't had more public support the first time around with the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment challenge to Trump, because it cuts straight to the core of who he is, and why he is dangerous and antithetical to the America we have struggled to become since 1776.
I suppose people have a hard time thinking the courts will ever do what's right. Which is sad. But what I WILL say, is that NOBODY is an expert about what won't work less than the one who is sure that nothing will work. I think given the gravity of what's going on, it's a mistake to pick at the edges by trying to pick the low hanging fruit and failing. I think this is the mistake Jack Smith made, it enabled the Supreme Court Republicans (much like Senate Republicans) not to take the threat very seriously, and scoff about it. They should have charged Sedition and or Treason, but particularly the Insurrection Clause.
Anyway, after all that, and the courage of a few judges that have already blocked some of those orders I have decided to try again..
My last effort was blocked by the Supreme Court's unlawful Opinion, in Trump v Anderson, in that instead of just ruling that The State of Colorado couldn't not rule on a 14se3 violation, they went, also, way outside of the lines of the Subject matter of that case to arrive at the irrelevant conclusion that section 5 suggests that section 3 is vested in Congress and must pass new laws. That was at the District Court level, which is the onramp for a Federal Case, where matters like facts and law are debated and decided, then in the US Court of Appeals, which is the next level up, the three judge panel decided that I don't have standing to bring the case. To explain what that means, it basically means, "ok, why is this any of your business, and what did he do to you for you to bring him to court?". I think I had pretty good reasoning on that stuff, since it's my elected representatives that his mob attacked. But the court was not buying it, at least not a year ago, when it seemed pretty unlikely that he'd ever be anywhere near the Whitehouse again.
It occurred to me, that even if we remove his conduct on Jan 6, 2021, from the equation (which was what was alleged last time), his actual pardon of the attackers, particularly right after swearing a second oath to protect the constitution, I mean, that is 14sec3 verbatim, all on it's own. Here is what 14sec3 actually says :
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
It simply means, that once you've sworn an oath to protect the constitution, you can't betray that oath, and if you do, you simply cannot hold any office in the US Government.
There really is no other way to interpret that, and even the Supreme Court did not question that, they just questioned whether this was congress's job or the court's. Without wading into those weeds, they do not contest what it says. They just apply a ridiculous spin on its meaning, when every one of us reading it, would say "bullshit".
The supreme court gets the last word on interpretation, un fortunately, however there is one thing that sits above even them, and is even out of their reach, and that is the "plain meaning" of the words. And I had an idea.
What if, rather than asking the lower courts for a remedy that requires any interpretation of it, and doesn't enforce with an injunction, what if the remedy quotes the entire sec 3 (above), and simply says "so ordered". It contains a remedy. And in it's verbatim form, how can even this supreme court dispute it? Supreme Court rulings are binding, but they can't prevent the lower courts from applying the exact language verbatim.
Plus, after all the unconstitutional crap he's been pulling, maybe they'll lose patience with him by the time it returns to them. But I'd really have to get some wins in the lower courts.
Anyway, that is the theory. It seems like it's worth a try.
Here is the text of my unassigned complaint that I submitted over the weekend in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, and this time, I request a jury.
This is not about Donald Trump's policy, this is about Donald Trump's deep problems with the Constitution. It may be, that half of us look at Victor Orban, and are like "hey, that's not so bad at least they're not all 'woke'" or whatever, but to go there, you have to abandon the Constitution, because every word in it, in fact, warns against exactly what his prescription for America is, and forbids one from unilaterally implementing that re-design, without a 2/3 majority of Congress. He does not have anywhere near a 2/3 consensus, so he is cheating (enter Elon and flying monkeys).
This is brilliant! "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."