The court denies the motion to STAY Trump’s senate trial stating that the damage to Trump voters is too speculative and for that reason Trump voters do not have standing. Yet again the citizens and voters are denied standing
Posted on | January 29, 2021 | 7 Comments
The judge ruled that Trump voters have no standing since his conviction is speculative. At issue is not whether he will be convicted for sure, at issue that the whole trial of a private individual is totally illegal and unconstitutional. They judge ignored the very essense of the case. I could appeal, however, it probably would cost about $1,000. If someone can fund it, I will file an appeal
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS
FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES SCHUMER, in his capacity
as the Senate Majority Leader, and
KAMALA HARRIS, in her capacity as
the President of the Senate,
Defendants.
Case No.: SACV 21-00120-CJC(KESx)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND SUA SPONTE
DISMISSING THE ACTION [Dkt.
)
I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
On January 21, 2021, Plaintiff Defend Our Freedoms Foundation filed a complaint
against Defendants Charles Schumer and Vice President Kamala Harris, in their
capacities as the Senate Majority Leader and President of the Senate, respectively
challenging the pending United States Senate impeachment trial of former President
Donald Trump. (Dkt. 1 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Specifically, it argues that
the trial is unconstitutional and is “aimed at depriving his voters, [Plaintiff’s Members],
of their first amendment right to vote for [Trump] and have him elected in 2024 or at any
other time in the future.” (Id. at 2.)
On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking a
stay of the pending impeachment trial. (Dkt. 9; see Dkt. 13 [Amended Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, hereinafter “Mot.”].)1
Because Plaintiff lacks standing to bring
its claim, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED, and the instant action is sua sponte
DISMISSED.
II. DISCUSSION
“[F]ederal courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues such as
standing.” B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir.1999). To
satisfy Article III’s standing requirement, “a plaintiff must show (1) that [he] has suffered
an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of
the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs.
(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000). “Although imminence is concededly a
somewhat elastic concept, it cannot be stretched beyond its purpose, which is to ensure
1 In its motion, Plaintiff improperly seeks a February 1, 2021 hearing date. “[A]n application for
preliminary injunction shall be made by notice of motion,” Local Rule 65-1, which must be filed with
the clerk “not later than twenty-eight (28) days before the date set for hearing,” Local Rule 6-1. Because
Plaintiff filed its motion on January 26, 2021, the earliest this motion could be heard is on February 23,
2021.
that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes—that the injury is
certainly impending.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 n.2 (1992).
Plaintiff argues that the Senate impeachment trial will deprive Donald Trump’s
voters of their right to vote for him in the 2024 election or future elections. (Compl. at 2;
Mot. at 3, 7.) This alleged injury is far too speculative to constitute an injury in fact.
Plaintiff’s theory relies on at least three highly speculative possibilities which “do[] not
satisfy the requirement that threatened injury must certainly be impending”: (1) the
Senate will convict Trump by a two-thirds majority, (2) after convicting Trump, the
Senate will disqualify Trump from holding federal office by a simple majority, and
(3) Trump will be a candidate for public office the 2024 election or in the future. See
Clapper v. Amnesty Intern. USA, 568 U.S. 398, 410 (2013).
The Supreme Court has expressed “reluctance to endorse standing theories that rest
on speculation about the decisions of independent actors.” Id. at 414. Here, Plaintiff’s
apparent standing theory rests on speculation about the decisions of at least 101
independent actors, the 100 members of the United States Senate and Trump. In order
for Trump to be disqualified from running for public office, 67 Senators must vote to
convict him, and 51 Senators must then vote to disqualify him. Furthermore, Plaintiffs
can only speculate as to whether Trump will run for President, or other public office, in
the future. The Court is not aware of any facts, nor has Plaintiff provided any, which
substantiate the assumption that Trump will seek public office in the future. Simply put,
Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish that its injury is certainly impending. See Lujan v.
Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 564 n.2.25
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is
DENIED. Because Plaintiff lacks standing to bring its claim, the Court sua sponte
DISMISSES this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by
suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject
matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”).
DATED: January 29, 2021
HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Comments
7 Responses to “The court denies the motion to STAY Trump’s senate trial stating that the damage to Trump voters is too speculative and for that reason Trump voters do not have standing. Yet again the citizens and voters are denied standing”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
January 29th, 2021 @ 1:57 pm
I hope you find someone to fund it, Orly!
The ONLY good thing to come out of all of this is that we now actually know how totally corrupt all branches of our government are. Over 75 million of us are away (and united). I do hope that makes a difference somewhere, somehow.
I know that Leo Donofrio advocates for filing a Quo Warranto in D.C. District Court and that Mario Apuzzo thinks that’s wrong, and that the right approach is to file a Declaratory Judgment Action.
But it doesn’t seem like ANYTHING is getting filed except impeachment charges against the greatest president we’ve had in modern times!
January 29th, 2021 @ 2:20 pm
I did Quo Warranto before and the judges are saying that only attorney generals can do quo warranto, not private attorneys. Regardless of the form of an action, they keep denying us standing, so it doesn’t matter the essence of the case or form of a complaint, the keep dismissing, saying that 75 million Trump voters have no standing. We are reduced to slaves without a voice
January 29th, 2021 @ 3:20 pm
RE: We are reduced to slaves without a voice..
That’s because we are in fact a communist country now. Think there will be another prez election? Bet there won’t.
January 29th, 2021 @ 8:03 pm
I Strongly Believe in the Constitution to last beyond all those in Congress…
The Snake has now starting eating it’s own tail, therefore shall not Flourish.
“God Bless America – Amen”
January 30th, 2021 @ 12:49 pm
Well, my feeling is that WE SHOULD “HAVE” standing!!
Why should only judges have this standing?
Who should have this standing anyway? And…
Why should judges have the standing?
And why should we (75million) people NOT have standing!
We do the voting and they do the judging?
And that means that we do all the choosing!
Right?
Take this standing crap and shove it right up the judges A**ES!
They pretend that they are playing God? I don’t hate to tell them this, but we are the God! They are the trash!
They have that final “God” discussion with themselves!
I hate those miserable bastards!! Cause most of the time, they don’t do what’s right!!!!!!!!!!!
January 30th, 2021 @ 8:13 pm
I’m willing to donate $50 to $100, poll your viewers see if you can raise $1000.
February 5th, 2021 @ 7:39 am
Here’s my take on this flimsy way of doing things:…
“We The People…!” We are the citizens of this nation and by God they better be doing things like we need them to do it…
Or else, we replace them “Permanently!” or else!
We are not going to stand up for anyone ANY MORE!
This is getting to become to monontonous! And we are NOT going to put up with the Gods on OLympis, any longer!
This crap is not to be believed!
So once again, Folks, tell us what we need?
By God, this is becoming too damned ridiculous!
It’s either now…or later!
I choose NOW, you simple G.D. pieces of S***!