Search Results

12/5/2024 https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public \24-617.html Alter v Trump, assigned case number and docketed 24-617 Reply brief due on Jan 6 (!) 12/2/2024 Updated petition responsive to Clerk's notes submitted to The Supreme Court for docketing Updated Petition 11/15/2024 The legal printer has some more formatting stuff to change, but these are the broad strokes of what goes to SCOTUS on Mon. I think Trump v Anderson does not apply in this context, and would at least like SCOTUS to tell me why it does. This is not a "states rights" case, which Anderson was, this case wants the courts to consider the merits of 14 sec 3 to Mr. Trump's conduct on and before Jan 6 in Federal Court. Petition for Certiorari Alter v Trump

July 7, 2024 US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has opened case 24-4113. My appeal to California's Central District Court case number 2:24-CV-01803 FLA The US Court of Appeals has ethics panels, where anyone can submit ethics violations occurring in the circuit or district court. These panels are presided over by a panel of former judges who operate independently. They decide on the facts and law of the allegations and can take corrective measures and collect further information, including removing Judges from the bench for misconduct. The "good behavior" clause at the top of Article III, sec 1, plainly states that all judges, including the Supreme Court, are subject to the same "good behavior" standards of conduct on the federal bench. However, unlike the lower court, no Supreme Court has ever set up an independent ethics panel through which allegations can be objectively addressed; instead, in 2023, this court established an entirely toothless ethics standard, where judges preside over their own allegations, which is clearly not what the founders intended, James Madison speaks at length about the inherent corruption of judges presiding over their own cases. Absent such an alternative dispute resolution that the lower court has, Article III directly empowers the federal courts to preside over such allegations in a civil case. It's a riskier process for the plaintiff (who can get stuck with attorney's fees if they lose), but it does directly exist. Because of the "separation of powers," the DOJ can't bring such a suit in civil court, and neither can Congress or the President. But in such a case where the plaintiff is part of no branch of government, such allegations can be brought; they just never have, until now. That there is a clear lane spelled out for it in the constitution could not be more plain. That the courts will permit it remains to be seen. Is this ideal? No, it is not. I frankly don't like that I have to stick my neck out on a chopping block for the courts to investigate the ethics shennanigans these guys are up to, but it is a valid form of redress guaranteed to us all. I'd RATHER the judiciary set up a proper independent ethics panel that's empowered to fire a scotus judge. If they don't want to be sued, they only need establish one. This case has been complicated by a Trump-appointed district Court Judge who seems to have made it his mission to delegitimize and kill the case. So, I guess we'll see what the 9th Circuit says. All in good time.. they've been thinking about it since July.. Here is the updated copy of the Opening Brief for the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Opening Brief 24-4113 Alter v Gorsuch Appendix (exhibits and original case)

Appeal (original complaint in exhibit A) Trying to test the limits of "speech and debate" immunities, for McConnell's about-face on Jan 6 that let Trump off the hook from impeachment conviction despite declaring he was guilty. Do immunities even apply for such a grave violation of Oath?

UPDATE 9/12/2024 On 9/4/2024 The US Court of Appeals (without hearing arguments), in a preliminary judgement, decided Alter has no legal standing in Alter v Trump, Alter today files a Petition for rehearing. Petition for re-hearing Alter v Trump Appeal in light of the court's new claim of standing. 5/18/2024 Opening Brief 24-5132 US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has agreed to review Alter v Trump In an appeal brief, I dispute the basis of the dismissal order, which was based on Trump v Anderson. This case was filed in federal court before Trump v Anderson was decided, and I point out in the appeal that the ruling in Trump v Anderson does not actually bind Article III lower courts from issuing an opinion because they reserve their right to opine in the end. So, Article III subject matter jurisdiction either exists or it doesn't; it's not just for the Supreme Court, it's for any federal court and they haven't surrendered jurisdiction in their opinion in Federal Court, only implied one. It simply asks for establishing a factual declaration, and a direct injunction from serving for Mr Trump. (no messing around with ballots) And if you follow the plain language of Article III, it would disqualify him (not from running, but from holding or being sworn in) In any case, this is a civil case, and I am a civilian, so I can't prosecute a crime, but I can get the court to declare the violation of oath and the status of disqualification.