Schulz V US Congress USCA DCC 21-5164 Appellate Brief

USCA Case #21-5164 Document #1911490 Filed: 08/23/2021 Page 1 of 60
1 Ul'f
\
ALS 2 3 2D2i
I
5
j __
ujn’ied staies Court o! Ay-puass
Dlstrici of Cj)hin;bi»Si££glU. 21-5164
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROBERT L. SCHULZ, ANTHONY FUTIA, Jr., CASE BEING CONSIDERED

and all others similarly situated FOR TREATMENT PURSUANT
TO RULE 34(j) OF THE
Appellants COURT’S RULES
V. District Court Case No.

21-CV-448
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Each member of the Senate and
House of Representatives,
Appellee
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
August 20, 2021
ANTHONY FUTIA, JR. pro se

2458 Ridge RoSd 34 Custis Ave.
Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 N. White Plains, NY 10603
(518)361-8153 (914) 906-7138
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

All parties to the proceedings are listed in the caption. Plaintiffs in the
District Court, Appellants here are Robert L. Schulz, Anthony Futia, Jr. and all
others similarly situated. Defendant in the District Court, Appellee here is the
Congress of the United States of America, each member of the Senate and House
of Representatives.
There were no Corporations, Intervenors or Amici before the District Court.
RULING UNDER REVIEW
District Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, entered June 16, 2021.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................ ............................................ . ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... iv
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT........................................................... 1
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........................................ ............. 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY........... 3

FACTUAL EVIDENCE........ ................................................................... . 8
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.......................................................... 11
ARGUMENT...................... 14
I. A Majority of the 2020 Electors Who Were Appointed Following

the 11/3/20 General Election Were Imposters ................. ................. 14
II. The Votes Cast by the Imposters at the Electoral College on

12/14/20 Were Meaningless......... ............................ 15
III. The 1/6/21 Act of Congress That Included all the Votes of the
Imposters in the Count of the Votes for President and Vice
President is Constitutionally Invalid, Void From Inception and
Confers No Contractual Rights Under the U.S. Constitution............. 15
IV. Plaintiffs’ Have A Right To A Summary Or Default Judgment

With Relief Provided By The 12th Amendment Given Their Proper
And Rightfully Pertinent Pleadings, Defendants’ Total Silence
And The Complete Absence Of A Genuine Issue Of Material Fact.... 20
V. Congress Was Obligated to Provide a Meaningful Response to

Plaintiffs’First Amendment Petition for Redress ........................... 21
VI. Plaintiffs Have Standing.................................................................... 39
VII. The District Court’s “Defendant: Not Obligated To Respond”

and “Plaintiffs’: No Standing” Decisions Would Weaken Our
Constitutional Safeguards of Separation of Powers and
Checks And Balances, And Thus The Structure Of The
Constitution...................................................................................... 44
VIII. Citizens Have The Right Of Non-Violent Enforcement Of

Endowed Rights That Government Refuses To Secure................... 45
CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 48
FRAP FORM 6, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE................................. 49
APPELLANTS’ APPENDIX
DOCKET SHEET; D.D.C.FORCASE# l:21-cv-00448-DLF................... A-i
DKT ENTRY # 1, COMPLAINT.............................................................. A-1
Exhibit A - Dec. 18, 2020 Letter, Schulz to Rep. Stefanik............. A-17
Exhibit B - Jan. 2, 2021 Service Letters, Schulz to each member

of Congress, transmitting Petition for Redress................ A-21
Exhibit C - Jan. 4, 2021 photographs showing the arrival of the

Petition For Redress at the Congressional Acceptance
Site for service on each Member of Congress................ A-77
DKT ENTRY # 2, MOTION FOR EXPEDITED

SUMMARY JUDGMENT................................................................... A-87
DKT ENTRY #5, SUMMONS ISSUED AS TO CONGRESS

OF THE UNITED STATES................................................................ A-92
DKT ENTRY #7, MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT................... A-100
DKT ENTRY #8, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER............. A-115

IV
DKT ENTRY #9, NOTICE OF APPEAL.............................. .................. A-121
APPELLANTS’ AFFIDAVIT
Exhibits Annexed To Affidavit:
A: Letters, dated 2-17-21 that transmitted Plaintiffs’ Complaint to

every member of Congress
B: Voter Registration Report For Plaintiff Robert Schulz
C: Voter Registration Report For Plaintiff Anthony Futia, Jr.
D: A Record of Schulz’s Service in the Armed Forces of the

United States
E: A Record of Futia’s Service in the Armed Forces of the

United States
F: A Record of Schulz’s and Futia’s Service in the We The People

Foundation For Constitutional Education, Inc.
G: Congressional Record, Proceedings And Debates Of

The 117th Congress, First Session: January 6, 2021, Senate
H: Congressional Record, Proceedings And Debates Of

The 117th Congress, First Session: January 6, 2021, House
I: “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved

the 2020 Election,” Time Magazine, February 15, 2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Cases
Borough ofDiiryea v. Giiarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011)............................. 26,27
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).............................. 21
District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 579 (2008) .............. 26,27
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)............................. ................ 23
Lin V United States, 111 F. Supp. 3d 242, 251 (D.D.C. 2016).”............. 7
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 162-163 (1803)................ 45
Minnesota State Bd. v. Knight, 465 US 271 [1984].................................. 13,22-25
New York Times Co. v. U.S., 403 U.S. 670 (1971) ...................................................... 33
Spokeo, Inc. y Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2010) ...................................... 13
Lance v Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007)..................................................... 13
La Botz V. Fed. Election Comm ’n, 889 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2012).... 13
Wisconsin Voters All. v. Pence, 2021 WL 23298 (D.D.C. Jan. 4,2021) .... 13
Woodv. Raffensperger, 981 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2020)............................ 13
Bowyer v. Ducey, 2020 WL 7238261(D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2020).................... 13
Kingv. Whitmer, 2020 WL 7134198 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020 ............ 13
We The People v. United States, 485 F.3d 140 (2007).............................. 13,22-26
Federal Statutes
3 U.S.C. Section 15 (Rejection Clause) ................................................... passim
VI
28U.S.C. Section 1331 ......................................... .................................... 2
28U.S.C. Section 1343(a)(3)..................................... ............................... 2

Chapter 90 of the 49th Congress.................................................................. 2,10,17
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)........................................................ ................... . 21
First Amendment (Petition Clause) ....................................................... passim
Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection and Due Process Clause)....... passim
Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl 2 (Electors Clause) .................................................... passim
Article IV, Section 4 (Guarantee Clause) ................................................. passim
Other References
HISTORICAL RECORD OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION

GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.............. ....... 24-33
Time magazine article published 2/15/21, titled “The Secret History

of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” .................. 11
Julie M. Spanbauer, The First Amendment Right to Petition

Governmentfor a Redress of Grievances: Cut From a Different
Cloth, 21 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 15, 22-33 (1993) ......................... 25
Norman B. Smith, ‘'Shall Make No Lcnv Abridging. .. An Analysis

of the Neglected, but Nearly Absolute, Right ofPetition,
54 U. CIN. L. REV. 1153,’l 154-68, 1170-75 (1986)............................. 25,31,33
James E. Pfander, Sovereign Immunity and the Right to Petition:

Toward a First Amendment Right to Pursue Judicial Claims Against the
Government, 91 NW. U. L. REV. 899, 905 n.22 (1997)......................... 25,31
David C. Frederick, John Quincy Adams, Slavery, and the Right of Petition,
9 LAW & HIST. L. REV. 113,141 (1991)............................................ 25
Stephen A. Higginson, Note, A Short History of the Right to Petition,

96 YALEL.J. 142, 155-56(1986)........................ ................................... 25,31
VII
LIBELOUS" PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES -

BAD HISTORIOGRAPHY MAKES WORSE LAW, Eric Schnapper,
74 Iowa L. Rev. 303 (January 1989)......................................................... 31
A Petition Clause Analysis of Suits Against the Government:

Implications for Rule 11 Sanctions,
106 HARV. L. REV. 1111,1116-17,1119-20 (1993)........................... 25,31
Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution,

100 YALE L.J. 1131, 1156(1991)............. ........................................... 25,31
Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman, Downsizing the Right to Petition,

93 NW. U. L. REV. 739, 756 (1999)....................................................... 26
THE VESTIGIAL CONSTITUTION: THE HISTORY AND

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION, Gregory A. Mark,
66 Fordham L. Rev. 2153 (May, 1998)............................ ....................... 31
A RIGHT OF ACCESS TO COURT UNDER THE PETITION CLAUSE

OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT: DEFINING THE RIGHT,
Carol Rice Andrews, 60 Ohio St. L.J. 557 (1999)............ ............... ........ 31
MOTIVE RESTRICTIONS ON COURT ACCESS: A FIRST

AMENDMENT CHALLENGE, Carol Rice Andrews, 61 Ohio St.
L.J. 665 (2000)................................................................................ ........... 32
Bill of Rights, 1689, 1 W & M., ch. 2 Sections 5,13 (Eng.), reprinted in
5 THE FOUNDERS’ CONSITUTION 197 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph
Lemer eds., 1987)............................................. .................. ....................... 32
1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 138-39 ................. . 32
David C. Frederick, John Quincy Adams, Slavery, and the Disappearance

of the Right to Petition, 9 LAW & HIST. REV. 113, at 115..................... 32
Charles E. Rice, Freedom of Petition, in 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE

Viil
AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 789, (Leonard W. Levy ed., 1986) ........ 32
David A. Anderson, The Origins of the Press Clause, 30 UCLA L.

REV. 455, 463 n.47 (1983)......................................... .............. ............... 33
1 ANNALS OF CONG. 434 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834)................ ............ 33
Don L. Smith, The Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances:

Constitutional Development and Interpretations 10-108 (1971)............... 34
K. Smellie, Right to Petition, in 12 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL

SCIENCES 98, 98-101 (R.A. Seiligman ed., 1934................................... 34
RAYMOND BAILEY, POPULAR INFLUENCE UPON PUBLIC

.POLICY: PETITIONING IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIRGINIA,
43-44(1979)............................................................................. ............... 35
THOMAS M. COOLEY, TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL

LIMITATIONS WHICH REST UPON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF
THE STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION, 531 (6th ed. 1890) ............. 35
CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Session. 1293 (1866) (statement of Rep.
Shellabarger) (declaring petitioning an indispensable Right “without
which there is no citizenship” in any government) ................................... 35
JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF

THE UNITED STATES 707 (Carolina Academic Press ed. 1987) (1833)
(explaining that the Petition Right “results from [the] very nature of the
Structure [of a republican government]”)................................................ 35
DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE CONTINENTAL

CONGRESS 3 (Am. Col. Oct. 14, 1774), reprinted in 5 THE
FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION, n5 at 199............................................ 36
IX
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF THE STAMP ACT CONGRESS

13 (Am. Col. Oct. 19, 1765)......................................................... ............. 36
Lee A. Strimbeck, The Right to Petition, 55 W. VA. L. REV. 275, 277

(1954)...................... ................................... ........... ............................... 36
STAFF OF HOUSE COMM. ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 99t h

CONG., 2D SESS., PETITIONS, MEMORIALS AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF
CONGRESS, MARCH 4, 1789 TO DECEMBER 15, 1975, at 6-9
(Comm. Print 1986)..................................................................... ............. 37
H.J., 25th Cong., 2d Sess. 647 (1838)........ ....................... ....................... 37
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws ofEngland 23.............. ............ 45
Magna Carta, Chapter 61.................... ....... ........................ ........... ......... 29
Continental Congress To The Inhabitants Of The Province of Quebec.

Journals of the Continental Congressl774. Journals 1:105-13 ................. 30,46
Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225 ................... 30,46
Declaration of Independence................................................................. passim

SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION
This case and controversy arose from the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution (the Petition Clause), the Fourteenth Amendment (the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clause), Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United
States Constitution (the Electors Clause), Chapter 90 of the laws of the 49th
Congress of the United States and Chapter 1 of Title 3 of the United States Code
(Presidential Elections and Vacancies), and Article IV, Section 4 of the United
States Constitution (the Guarantee Clause).
This case and controversy arose as a result of:
1) The fact that a majority of votes cast at the Electoral College on
12/14/2020 were cast by imposters, and
2) the fact that Congress’ refused to respond to Plaintiffs’ 12/18/2020, and
1/4/202 IPetitions for Redress of the grievance, and
3) the fact that on 1/6/2021, Congress included the electoral votes of the
imposters in its count of the votes for President and Vice President.
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under:
a. Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “The judicial power shall
extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,”
and
b. 28 U.S.C. Section 1331: “The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States,” and
c. 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3): “The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of any civil matter authorized by law to be commenced by
any person ... To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law,
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or
immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States ....”
This Court has jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
Rule 3(a).
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Whether a majority of the presidential electors who were appointed
following the 11/3/2020 general election were imposters.
2. Whether the votes cast by the imposters at the Electoral College on
12/14/20 were meaningless and unworthy of inclusion in Congress’ 1/6/2021
count of electoral votes for President and Vice President.
3. Whether the 1/6/21 act of Congress that included the votes of the
imposters in its count of the votes for President and Vice President is
constitutionally invalid, void from inception and confers no contractual rights
under the U.S. Constitution.

4. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to summary or default judgment with relief
provided by the 12th Amendment given their proper and rightfully pertinent
pleadings, Defendants’ total silence and the complete absence of a genuine issue
of material fact.
5. Whether Congress was obligated to provide a meaningful response to
Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Petition for Redress.
6. Whether Plaintiffs have standing.
7. Whether the District Court’s “Defendants: not obligated to respond” and
“Plaintiffs: no standing” decisions weaken our constitutional safeguards of
separation of powers and checks and balances, and thus the structure of the
Constitution itself.
8. Whether Plaintiffs, as citizens of the United States of America, have the
Right of non-violent enforcement of endowed Rights the Government refuses to
secure as, for example, by “Redress Before Taxes”
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Following the 12/14/2020 vote by the Electoral College, Plaintiffs have
steadfastly sought the protection of the Rule of Law to shield them from an illegal,
unconstitutional seizure of national legislative and executive power by a group of

people in position of authority, including the Congress of the United States of
America.
On December 18, 2020, Plaintiff Schulz petitioned his Congresswoman and,
through her, the leadership of both houses of Congress, detailing the appointment
of the electoral imposters, state-by-state, urging Congress to:
“nullify the votes of the Electoral College taken December 14,

2020 in the States identified above, direct the Legislatures of those
States to appoint Presidential Electors in a manner consistent with
the Electors Clause and pursuant to 3 U.S.C. Section 2, and that the
terms of the current President and Vice President be extended, if
necessary to the seventh day following such appointments.”
(Appendix at page A 17, A 23-40).
Attached to the Petition was a detailed record of the origin, line of growth,
scope and purpose of the Petition Clause, as a reminder of the fact that the
Congress was obligated to respond to the Petition for Redress. (A 41-46).
However, there was no response to the Petition.
On January 4, 2021, Plaintiffs served the Petition, signed by 1,058 citizen-
voters residing in all 50 States, on each of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate and
each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives (A 23-82). The Petition
included a serious, tough and exacting letter that conveyed the constitution-related
importance Plaintiffs placed on receiving a meaningful response to the Petition and
the enormity of the attention needed to fix a difficult problem (A 21, 22). However,
there was no response to the Petition.

Fully informed by Plaintiffs and others and thus wise to the fact that a
majority of the Electors who cast their votes for President and Vice-President
at the Electoral College on December 14, 2020 were imposters - fakers who
were appointed in a manner not directed by their State Legislatures, thus
knowing the vote of the Electoral College was inconsequential, worthless and
good-for-nothing. Congress nevertheless included all the electoral votes in its
1/6/2021 count of votes for President and Vice President, thereby seizing
national legislative and executive power in violation of the rule of law,
including but not limited to the equal protection and due process rights of all
who voted on 11/3/2020.
On January 6, 2021, Congress consciously and deliberately certified the
December 14, 2020 votes of the Electoral College with knowledge that a majority
of those votes were cast by imposters whose votes were meaningless. The
members of the Senate and the members of the House of Representatives had been
informed of the irregularly given electoral votes not only by Plaintiffs’ repeated
Petitions but also by Members of Congress who registered objections during the
counting of the electoral votes. However, instead of investigating and rejecting
those electoral votes that were not regularly given, in keeping with the clear
Intent of the mandates of the Electors, Guarantee and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Constitution and the laws pursuant thereto, including 3 U.S.C.
Section 15, Congress included the votes of the imposters in its count of votes
for President and Vice President.
On February 17,2021, Plaintiffs filed with the Court and served each member
of Congress with a Verified Complaint and Motion for a Summary Judgment. (A
1-82).
Together with said Complaint and Motion, each member of Congress received
a cover letter that based the Complaint on Congress’ failure to respond to the
Petition, saying that because “no member of the Congress has responded to the
Petition although constitutionally bound to do [so] ... we have decided to request
the assistance of the judicial branch.” (A 123-124).
On March 3, 2021 the District Court officially signed and issued a Summons
against the Senate and a Summons against the House of Representatives each of
which stated in relevant part, “[Y]ou must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the
attached Complaint... If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered
against you for the relief demanded in the complaint....” (A 92-95). The
Summonses were served on March 4, 2021. (A 96-99). However, neither the
Senate nor the House responded to its Summons.
On May 14, 2021, Plaintiffs properly filed and served a motion for default
judgment. (A 100-105). Defendant Congress did not respond;

On June 16,2021, the District Court issued a Memorandum Decision and
Order which held in part, “Schulz and Futia lack standing to bring this action
because they have not made the showing that they have suffered a concrete and
particularized injury ... Because Schulz and Futia have asserted no facts that show
an injury particularized to them, they lack standing.” (A 116-120).
In footnote 2, the District Court stated, “The complaint also presents problems
with regards to causation and redressability. To satisfy the causation element of
Article III standing, ‘[pjlaintiffs must show that it is substantially probable that the
challenged acts of the defendant, not an absent third party, caused the
particularized injury of the plaintiffs.’ Lin v United States, 111 F. Supp. 3d 242,
251 (D.D.C. 2016).” (A 119).
In footnote 1, the District Court stated, “Plaintiffs do not challenge Congress’
alleged failure to respond to their petition ... likely because it is established law
that ‘nothing in the First Amendment or in [the Supreme] Court’s case law
interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require
government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals communications on
public issues.’” (citations omitted). (A 117).
On July 1, 2021, Plaintiffs filed and served a Notice of Appeal. (A 121-122).

FACTUAL EVIDENCE
Evidence of the changes made to the voting laws in 31 States by State
executive and judicial officials rather than their State Legislatures, leading up to
the November 3, 2020 general election, and thus to the appointment of the fake
Electors in those States, is included in the Appendix at A 23-40.
Evidence of the fact that between December 18, 2020 and Januaiy 4, 2021,
all Members of both Houses of the U.S. Congress were informed and aware of the
fact that the votes by the fake Electors, given at the Electoral College on December
14, 2020; were not “regularly given,” is included in the Appendix at A 17, 21, 22.
Evidence of the fact that Plaintiffs’ Complaint includes a challenge to
Congress’s failure to respond to the Petition is included in Plaintiffs letters dated
2-17-21 that were part of the Complaint served on every member of Congress.
True copies of the letters are included in Plaintiffs’ Affidavit annexed hereto at
Exhibit A.
Personal injury-related evidence - the fact that Plaintiff Schulz voted for
President Trump (as a registered Republican) in the General Election on November
3, 2020, is included in Plaintiffs Affidavit and its Exhibit B.
Personal injury-related evidence - the fact that Plaintiff Futia voted for
President Trump (as a registered Democrat) in the General Election on November
3, 2020, is included in Plaintiffs’ Affidavit and its Exhibit C.

Personal injury-related evidence - the fact that Plaintiff Schulz served in the
Armed Forces of the United States and has thus taken an oath to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States of America, is included in Plaintiffs’
Affidavit at Exhibit D.
Personal injury-related evidence - the fact that Plaintiff Futia served in the
Armed Forces of the United States and thus has taken an oath to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States of America is included in Plaintiffs’
Affidavit at Exhibit E.
Personal injury-related evidence - the fact that both Plaintiffs Schulz and
Futia have served, since the organization’s founding in 1997, as members of the
Board of Directors of the We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education,
Inc,, whose official purpose has always been to hold government accountable to
the Rule of Law, from our federal and state constitutions on down, with full
reliance on the Petition Clause of the Constitution, is included in Plaintiffs’
Affidavit at Exhibit F.
Evidence of the fact that on January 6, 2021, Congress violated the rule of
law (3 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 15), by consciously and deliberately approving
and certifying all of the electoral votes given on December 14, 2020 at the
Electoral College, including those votes that were known by the Members of
Congress to have been irregularly given — given by imposters, whose appointments

10
as Electors were determined by means directed by other than their State
Legislatures and whose votes were thus not “regularly given,” is included in the
Congressional Record, a copy of which is included in Plaintiffs’ Affidavit at
Exhibits G and H.
Evidence of the fact that on January 6, 2021, all Members of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, each of whom had previously been petitioned by
Plaintiffs for redress regarding said irregularly given electoral votes, were
officially informed again of some of those violations by various Members of
Congress themselves, who officially registered their fact-based objections to the
inclusion of those irregularly given votes in the total of electoral votes being
counted by Congress that day is also included in the Congressional Record, a copy
of which is included in Plaintiffs’ Affidavit at Exhibits G and H.
Evidence of the fact that on 1/6/21, each of said fact-based objections was
opposed by members of Congress but none of the opposing statements included
any argument, much less factual evidence meant to prove any of the fact-
based objections to be wrong or false, is also included in the Congressional
Record, a copy of which is included in Plaintiffs’ Affidavit at Exhibits G and H.
Evidence of the fact that on 1/6/2021, Congress purposefully violated the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Section 4 of Chapter 90 of the
laws passed by the Forty-Ninth Congress of the United States - codified at Title 3 ,
11
Chapter 1, Section 15 of the United States Code, by deliberately choosing not to
investigate much less reject any of the irregularly given electoral votes, but to
include them all in the total count of votes for President and Vice President, is also
included in the Congressional Record, a copy of which is included in Plaintiffs’
Affidavit at Exhibits G and H.
Evidence of “a conspiracy ...an informal alliance between left-wing activists
and business titans ... [whose] work touched every aspect of the election ... [and]
got states to change voting systems and laws” is included in a Time magazine
article published 2/15/21, titled “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That
Saved the 2020 Election,” (emphasis added). A copy of the full article is included
in Plaintiffs’ Affidavit at Exhibit I.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
As voters Plaintiffs have standing under the 14th Amendment.1 They are
entitled to equal protection of the law, and due process, not to the inclusion by
Congress in its count of the State’s electoral votes for President and Vice
1 “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”
Amendment XIV,,Section 1.
12
President: a) those electoral votes that may have been skewed, intentionally or
otherwise by the States, to favor former Vice President Biden over President
Trump by making it more likely that more new votes for him would turn up than
would new votes for President Trump; or b) electoral votes that Members of
Congress objected to but were not investigated and guaranteed to be compliant
with the law, but were instead decided by a simple up or down vote by an out of
control Congress in a highly-politically-charged chamber.
This is not a political question to be decided by a political branch, whose
defiance of the underlying laws and principles caused the harm in the first place
and who is now the Defendant in this matter. Justice in the case of a violation of
the rule of law is not to be decided by those responsible for the breach.
On 1/6/2021, Congress was out of control. Its action in counting the votes
for President and Vice President was so eccentric that it amounted to a
congressional displacement of the power committed by the Constitution to the
State Legislatures to direct how presidential electors are to be appointed.
If left undisturbed, this stain of shame on our Constitution is likely to
reoccur.
The Court overlooked the particularized, standing-related injuries referred to
by Plaintiffs in their Complaint and discussed below.

13
The District Court erred in its decision not to grant Summary or Default
Judgment in spite of Plaintiffs’ proper and rightfully pertinent pleadings,
Defendant’s complete and total silence and thus the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. Defendant Congress failed to respond to any of the legal papers and
factual evidence properly served upon them including the two Summonses issued
by the District Court.
The Court also engaged in a binary abuse of “stare decisis,” the judicial
doctrine of determining points in litigation according to precedent. First, the Court
relied on two inapplicable cases in declaring Congress was not obligated to
respond to Plaintiffs’ Petition - Minnesota v. Knight 465 U.S. 271(1984) and We
The People v. United States, 485 F.3d 140 (2007). In addition, the Court relied on
inapplicable cases in declaring Plaintiffs lacked standing - Spokeo, Inc. v Robins,
136 S. Ct. 1540 (2010); Lance v Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007); La Botz v. Fed.
Election Comm ’n, 889 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2012); Wisconsin Voters All. v.
Pence, 2021 WL 23298 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2021); Woodv. Raffensperger, 981 F.3d
1307 (11th Cir. 2020); Bowyer v. Ducey, 2020 WL 7238261(D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2020);
King V. Whitmer, 2020 WL 7134198 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020).
If left undisturbed, the District Court’s “Defendant: Not Obligated To
Respond” and “Plaintiffs’: No Standing” decisions would weaken our

14
constitutional safeguards of Separation Of Powers and Checks And Balances, and
thus the structure of the Constitution itself.
Citizens of the United States have the right of non-violent enforcement of
constitutionally endowed rights that the Government refuses to secure.
ARGUMENT
POINT I
A Majority of the 2020 Electors Who Were Appointed

Following the 11/3/20 General Election Were Imposters
A majority of the 2020 Electors who were “appointed” following the 11/3/20
General Election were imposters - fakes who were appointed in an unlawful and
unconstitutional manner.
Soon after the November 3, 2020 Presidential election, 401 individuals from
31 states assumed the title of “Elector” in a manner not determined by their State
Legislatures and known to be inconsistent with the mandate of the Electors Clause.
Constitutionally speaking, they were imposters, having assumed a false identity for
the purpose of deception.
Only 137 electors were constitutionally chosen which is less than the majority
(270) needed for a successful, constitutionally valid election.
The factual evidence of the changes made to the voting laws in 31 States by
State executive and judicial officials rather than their State Legislatures, leading up
15
to the November 3, 2020 general election, and thus to the appointment of the 401
fake Electors in those States, is included in the Appendix at A 23-40.
POINT n
The Votes Cast by the Imposters at the Electoral College

On 12/14/20 Were Meaningless
The votes cast by the imposters at the Electoral College on 12/14/20 were
inconsequential, worthless and good-for-nothing.
On 12/14/2020, at the Electoral College, 163 fake Republican Electors
from 14 States and 238 fake Democrat Electors from 17 States cast 401
meaningless electoral votes. (See Appendix at A 36-37). Those votes, cast by those
individuals who assumed the title of Electors in a manner not determined by their
State Legislatures, were obviously meaningless and certainly unworthy of
inclusion in the upcoming, official, final count by Congress of the votes for
President and Vice President.
No real harm done, the Electoral College does not decide the winners of the
Presidential Election, Congress does.
POINT in
The 1/6/21 Act of Congress That Included all the Votes of the
Imposters in the Count of the Votes for President and Vice
President is Constitutionally Invalid, Void From Inception and
Confers no Contractual Rights Under the U.S. Constitution
16
It is the Congress of the United States of America, and only that
governmental body that gets to officially determine and declare as true, correct and
genuine, the final results of the fifty-state-wide Presidential Election.
However, on 1/6/2021, Congress was out of control. Its action in counting
the votes for President and Vice President was so eccentric that it amounted to a
congressional displacement of the power committed by the Constitution to the
State Legislatures to direct how presidential electors are to be appointed.
a. The 14th Amendment
The 14 Amendment includes the constitutional guarantee that no person or
group will be denied the protection under the law that is enjoyed by similar persons
or groups. On 1-6-2021, Congress’ action in counting the imposters’ votes violated
the 14th Amendment in two ways:
First, the changes in the voting laws made by other than the State
Legislatures in said 31 States might have been so skewed, intentionally or
otherwise, to favor former vice president Biden by making it more likely that new
votes for him would turn up than would new votes for President Trump.
In addition, Congress had the power to determine who the Electors were and
to reject their votes if necessary. However, its counting system did not guarantee
that any Electoral votes that were alleged to have not been irregularly given
would be investigated and if necessary rejected.

17
b. Section 4 of Chapter 90 of the 49th Congress,

Codified at 3 U.S.C. 15
Chapter 90 of the 49th Congress is “An act to fix the day for the meeting of the
electors of President and Vice President, and to provide for and regulate the
counting of the votes for President and Vice President, and the decision of
questions arising therefrom.” Section 4 reads in relevant part:
“That Congress shall be in session ... succeeding every meeting of the

electors ... The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the
Hall of the House of Representatives ... the President of the Senate
shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously
appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of
Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the
President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be
certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be
opened, presented, and acted upon ... Upon such reading of any such
certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections,
if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly
and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be
signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of
Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections
so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and
read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be
submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the
House of Representatives for its decision .... and no electoral vote or
votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by
electors ... shall be rejected.”
Obviously, the intent (also codified in 3 U.S.C. 15), in keeping with the plain
language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, is that votes not
y.
regularly given are to be rejected. They are not to be included in the count
18
and if as a consequence of such rejections, no candidate receives a majority of
the total of 538 available votes, the Congress is to then decide the matter based
on the direction provided by the 12th Amendment.
On 1/6/2021 the Members of Congress failed to object, much less investigate
and reject, most of the electoral votes from the 31 States that were known by the
Members to have been irregularly given (A 27-37).
Officially, there were objections to the manner in which the electoral votes
were given in Arizona and Pennsylvania and unofficially to votes of a few other
so-called “swing states,” but there were no rejections. Instead, in violation of the
intent of the Rejection Clause of 3 U.S.C. 15, and the plain language of the
Electors Clause of the Constitution, each of the two Houses deliberately chose
to ignore, via a simple up or down vote, each electoral vote known to the
Members to have been irregularly given.
On January 6, 2021, in violation of the Rule of Law, Congress consciously
and deliberately certified the December 14, 2020 votes of the Electoral College
while knowing a majority of those electoral votes were cast by imposters. Electors
who were unconstitutionally appointed and thus those votes were not “regularly
given” as required by the Electors Clause and by extension, 3 U.S.C. Section 15.
Knowingly violating the Constitution is a form of lawbreaking. Besides
violating the Rejection and Electors Clause, those members of Congress who voted
19
against the objections to the inclusion of irregularly given electoral votes also
violated the 14 Amendment by giving aid and comfort to the imposters and to
those State officials who were responsible for their appointments.
A review of the Congressional Record of the proceeding reveals the complete
absence of any refutation aimed at proving wrong or false the factual evidence of
irregularly given electoral votes, such as the evidence provided by Senators Cruz
and Hawley and Representatives Gosar and Perry. (Aff Exhibit G at SI5-32 and
Exhibit H at H77-93, 98-112). Instead, the central theme of nearly every
Member who spoke in opposition to the removal by Congress of any State’s
electoral vote from the total count was, “By their votes, the People in each
State have spoken; they, not Congress get to choose the President.” (Affidavit,
Exhibits G and H ).
While that regularly recurring sentiment sounds good, it is not always true, as
in this case. Under our Constitutional Republic and its laws, the Congress does get
to choose the President, pursuant to Title 3 of the United States Code and the 12th
Amendment, if: a) the majority of the Electors in the Presidential Election were
appointed in a manner not determined by their State Legislatures, a violation of the
Electors Clause of the Constitution; and b) if, as required by 3 U.S.C. Chapter 1,
Section 15, Congress rejects the votes of those imposters.
c. The Guarantee Clause Claim

20
By including the votes of the imposters, Congress knowingly made a false
entry in the congressional record, a written instrument constituting a record of a
public office, thereby violating every voter’s Right to a “Republican Form of
Government,” a Right guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution,
(the Guarantee Clause). A distinct trademark of our Republican Form of
Government is the Rule of Law.
Plaintiffs’ Guarantee Clause claim does not suffer from a lack ofjudicially
discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it. The record demonstrates a
clear distinction between Congress’ conduct and existing law. This case does not
present a political, non-justiciable question. A violation of existing law by the
political branches is not a political question to be entrusted to the political
branches, out of reach of the Guarantee Clause and the Courts.
Plaintiffs’ Guarantee Clause claim is unresolved.
POINT IV
Plaintiffs’ Have A Right To A Summary Or Default Judgment

With Relief Provided By The 12th Amendment Given Their Proper
And Rightfully Pertinent Pleadings, Defendants’ Total Silence
And Complete Absence Of A Genuine Issue Of Material Fact
Given their proper and rightfully pertinent pleadings. Defendants’ total
silence and the complete absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiffs
remain entitled to Summary or Default Judgment.

21
Defendant Congress failed to respond to any of the legal papers and factual
evidence properly served upon them including the two Summonses issued by
District Court.
Summary judgment must be entered against a party who fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
“ [T]he plain language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) mandates the entry of

summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon
motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to
establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case,
and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a
situation, there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, since a
complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the
nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.
The moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because
the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an
essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden
of proof” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US. 317, 322-23 (1986).
POINT V
Congress Was Obligated to Provide a Meaningful Response to

Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Petition for Redress
a. Complaint Includes A Challenge To Congress’

Failure to Respond To The Petition
In footnote 1 of its Memorandum Decision and Order, the District Court
stated, “Plaintiffs do not challenge Congress’ alleged failure to respond to their

22
petition., see generally CompL; Mot, for Expedited Summ. J.; Mot. for Default J.,
likely because it is established law that ‘nothing in the First Amendment or in [the
Supreme] Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak,
associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to
individuals communications on public issues.’ Minn. State Bd. for Cmty. Colleges
V, Knight, 465 U.S.271, 285 (1984); see We the People Found., Inc. v. United
States, 485 F.3d 140, 144 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (holding that the Supreme Court’s
ruling that the government does not have to reply to public petitions extends to all
types of petitions and all levels of government).” (App. at 116).
Most assuredly, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does include a challenge to
Congress’ failure to respond to their Petition,
On February 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed with the Court and served each member
of Congress with a Verified Complaint and Motion for a Summary Judgment.
(App. 1-91). Included with said Complaint and Motion, was a letter also dated
February 17, 2021 and signed by Plaintiff Schulz which based the Complaint
squarely on Congress’ failure to respond to the Petition, saying that because “no
member of the Congress has responded to the Petition although
constitutionally bound to do [so] ... we have decided to request the assistance of
the judicial branch.” (emphasis added) (Plaintiffs’ Aff Exhibit A).

23
b. District Court Misapplied Minnesota v. Knight

and We The People v. United States
By overlooking Plaintiffs’ private, non-govemment-employee status and
Plaintiffs’ claim of government lawbreaking as opposed to lawmaking, the
District Court misapplied Minnesota v. Knight, 465 US 271 (1984), and We The
People V. United States, 485 F3d 140 (DC Cir. 2007).
Minnesota State Bd. v. Knight, 465 US 271 (1984) is inapplicable not only
because the petitions involved in Knight were aimed at government policymaking
rather than government lawbreaking, but also because the petitioners in Knight
were public sector employees whose speech and petition rights are limited to begin
with. Some rights of public sector employees, especially union activity, and spe'ech
and petition regarding employment-related policy questions are limited so that the
govermnent agencies may perform their functions and because these employees
often hold positions of trust in the Society. “[A] citizen who accepts public
employment ‘must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.’ Garcetti
V. Cehallos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006).” Borough ofDuryea v. Guamieri, 564
U.S. 379, 386 (2011).

24
In addition, the District Court overlooked incongruities extant in We The
People Foundation v United States, 485 F3d 140 (DC Cir. 2007).2
While the petitions for redress at issue in We The People were against law
breaking by government officials (not law making as in Knight), and the
petitioners in We The People were not public employees (the petitioners in Knight
were public employees), the We the People court nonetheless felt bound by Knight
to hold the government was not obligated to respond to petitions for redress.
However, the separate, nine-page opinion by Judge Rogers in We The
People Ms the hallmarks of a dissent, admitting: 1) that the historical record of the
Petition Clause, which was before her Court in We The People, was not before the
Court in Knight, and 2) that there is an emerging consensus of scholars’ embracing
appellants’ interpretation of their rights under the Petition Clause, including the
right to a meaningful response.
In her opinion. Judge Rogers held: “As the court points out, we have no
occasion to resolve the merits of appellants' historical argument, given the binding
Supreme Court precedent in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S.
463, 99 S. Ct. 1826, 60 L. Ed. 2d 360 (1979), and Minnesota State Boardfor
Plaintiffs Schulz and Futia, both Founders and Directors of the We The People Foundation For
Constitutional Education, Inc., in their individual capacities, were petitioners-appellants in We
The People v United States, 485 F3d 140 (DC Cir. 2007).
25
Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 104 S. Ct. 1058, 79 L. Ed. 2d 299
(1984). Op. at 9. That precedent, however, does not refer to the historical
evidence and we know from the briefs in Knight that the historical argument
was not presented to the Supreme Court.” (emphasis added). We The People at
145.
Judge Rogers’ opinion went on to say,
“Appellants point to the long history of petitioning and the importance

of the practice in England, the American Colonies, and the United
States until the 1830's as suggesting that the right to petition was
commonly understood at the time the First Amendment was proposed
and ratified to include duties of consideration and response. See Julie
M. Spanbauer, The First Amendment Right to Petition Government for
a Redress of Grievances: Cut From a Different Cloth, 21 HASTING S
CONST. L.Q. 15, 22-33 (1993); Norman B. Smith, ^Shall Make No
Law Abridging... An Analysis of the Neglected, but Nearly Absolute,
Right of Petition, 54 U. CIN. L. REV. 1153, 1154-68, 1170-75 (1986).
Based on the historical background of the Petition Clause, most
scholars agree that the right to petition includes a right to some
sort of considered response. .Tames E. Pfander, Sovereign Immunity
and the Right to Petition: Toward a First Amendment Right to Pursue
Judicial Claims Against the Government, 91 NW. U. L. REV. 899,
905 n.22 (1997); .see David C. Frederick, John Quincy Adams,
Slavery, and the Right of Petition, 9 LAW & HIST. L. REV. 113, 141
(1991); Spanbauer, supra, at 40-42; Stephen A. Higginson, Note, A
Short History of the Right to Petition, 96 YALE L.J. 142, 155-56
(1986); Note, A Petition Clause Analysis of Suits Against the
Government: Implications for Rule 11 Sanctions, 106 HARV. L.
REV. nil, 1116-17, 1119-20 (1993); .see <37soAkhil Reed
Amar, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 YALE L.J. 1131,
1156 (1991) (lending credence to Higginson’s argument that
the Petition Clause implies a duty to respond). Even those who take
a different view, based on a redefinition of the question and
differences between English and American governments.
26
acknowledge that there is an emerging consensus of scholars’

embracing appellants' interpretation of the right to petition.
See Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman, Downsizing the Right to
Petition, 93 NW. U. L. REV. 739, 756 (1999).” (emphasis added). We
The People at 147.
Plaintiffs here are not government employees and the complaint here is
against government officials who have clearly strayed from their proper course.
Plaintiffs’ Petition challenges not the legitimate power of those government
officials to make law; Plaintiffs’ Petition seeks to rectify lawbreaking by those
government officials.
c. Heller and Guarnieri - Historical Practice

Determines the Scope of the Petition Clause
Here, in relying on Knight (1984) and We The People (2007), the District
Court not only overlooked the historical record of the Petition Clause, which was
included, as an attachment to Plaintiffs’ Petition and then in the Complaint (App. A
41-45), the District Court overlooked District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570
(2008) and Borough ofDuryea v Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379, 386 (2011).
Plaintiffs’ reliance on the historical record of the petition clause comports
with numerous principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Heller and Guarnieri
as follows:
“The First Amendment's Petition Clause states that ‘Congress shall

make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people ... to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.’ The reference to ‘the
right of the people’ indicates that the Petition Clause was intended to
27
codify a pre-existing, individual right, which means that we must

look to historical practice to determine its scope. See District of
Columbia Y. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 579, 592, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.
Ed. 2d 637 (2008).” (emphasis added). Guarnieri at 403.
“[To determine] the proper scope arid application of the Petition Clause
... Some effort must be made to identify the historic and fundamental
principles that led to the enumeration of the right to petition in the First
Amendment, among other rights fundamental to liberty.” Guarnieri at
394.
“The right to petition is in some sense the source of other fundamental

rights, for petitions have provided a vital means for citizens to ...
assert existing rights against the sovereign.” (emphasis added).
Guarnieri at 397.
“Rights of speech and petition are not identical. Interpretation of the

Petition Clause must be guided by the objectives and aspirations
that underlie the Right. A petition conveys the special concerns of
its author to the government and, in its usual form, requests action by
the government to address those concerns.” (emphasis added).
Guarnieri at 388-389.
“There is abundant historical evidence that Petitions were

directed to the executive and legislative branches of government,
not to the courts.” Guarnieri at 402.
“Petition, as ... an essential safeguard of freedom, is of ancient

significance in English law and the Anglo-American legal tradition.”
(emphasis added). Guarnieri at 394.
In this case, consistent with the direction given by the Supreme Court in
Heller and Guarnieri, Plaintiffs rested their Petition Clause claim on a detailed
Historical Review of the origin, scope, purpose and line of growth of the Right to
Petition, from the 1215 English Magna Carta to its addition to the U.S.
28
Constitution’s Bill of Rights in 1791, through the “Gag Rule” of 1836-1844 and
beyond. Clearly evident is the Right of the People to a meaningful response to
a proper Petition for Redress of governmental oppression such as its
violations of the Constitution and the laws pursuant thereto.
Chapter 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215 reads in part:
“61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom
and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us
and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous
that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance
forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security,
namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the
kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their
might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace
and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this
our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs
or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards
anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this
peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four
barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall
repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying
the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression
redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the
transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our
justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning
from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we
should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer
that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five
and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the
whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely,
by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way
they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit,
saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and
children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume
their old relations towards us....” (emphasis added by Plaintiffs).
29
Chapter 61 was thus a procedural vehicle for enforcing the rest of the Charter. It
spells out the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government, and the
procedural steps to be taken by the People and the King in the event of a violation
by the King of any provision of that Charter: the People were to transmit a Petition
for a Redress of their Grievances; the King had 40 days to respond; if the King
failed to respond, the People could retain their money or violence could be
legally employed against the King until he Redressed the alleged Grievances.3
The First Amendment of our Bil l of Rights, prohibiting laws “respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” was rooted
in the 1689 English Declaration of Rights which proclaimed in part, “[I]t is the
Right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions
for such petitioning is illegal.”
In 1774, the same Congress that adopted the Declaration of
Independence unanimously adopted an Act in which they gave meaning to the
People’s Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the Right of
enforcement as they spoke about the People’s “Great Rights.” Quoting:
3 Magna Carta, Chapter 61. See also William Sharp McKechnie, Magna Carta, 468-77 (2nd ed.
1914).
30
“If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner

oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances
are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without
trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public
tranquility.”4
In 1775, prior to drafting the Declaration of Independence, Thomas
Jefferson gave further meaning to the People’s Right to Petition for Redress of
Grievances and the Right of enforcement. Quoting:
“The privilege of giving or withholding our moneys is an

important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which
if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great
oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession
for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights, an how
improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator.”5
In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental
Congress. The bulk of the document is a listing of 27 grievances the People had
against the Government that had been ruling the colonies for 150 years. The final
grievance on the list is referred to by scholars as the “capstone grievance,” the
grievance that prevented Redress of the other Grievances, finally caused the People
to withdraw their support and allegiance to the Government, and that eventually
justified War against the King, morally and legally. Thus, the Congress gave
“Continental Congress To The Inhabitants Of The Province of Quebec.” Journals of the

Continental Congressl774. Journals 1:105-13.
5 Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.
31
further meaning to the People’s Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the
Right of enforcement. Quoting the so-called capstone grievance:
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for

Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have
been answered only by with repeated injury. A Prince, whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a
Tyrant, is thus unfit to be the ruler of a free people....We,
therefore...declare. That these United Colonies...are Absolved
from all Allegiance to the British Crown....” Declaration of
Independence, 1776.
Though the Rights to Popular Sovereignty and its “protector” Right, the Right
of Petition for Redress have become somewhat forgotten, they took shape
early on by government’s response to Petitions for Redress of Grievances.6
6 See A SHORT HISTORY OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR

THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, Stephen A. Higginson, 96 Yale L.J.
142(November, 1986); "SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING..AN ANALYSIS OF
THE NEGLECTED, BUT NEARLY ABSOLUTE, RIGHT OF PETITION, Norman B.
Smith, 54 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1153 (1986);MLIBELOUS" PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES - BAD HISTORIOGRAPHY MAKES WORSE LAW, Eric Schnapper, 74
Iowa L. Rev. 303 (January 1989);THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS A CONSTITUTION, Akhil
Reed Amar, 100 Yale L.J. 1131 (March, 1991); NOTE: A PETITION CLAUSE ANALYSIS
OF SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR RULE 11
SANCTIONS, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1111 (MARCH, 1993); SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND
THE RIGHT TO PETITION: TOWARD A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PURSUE
JUDICIAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, James E. Pfander, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev.
899 (Spring 1997); THE VESTIGIAL CONSTITUTION: THE HISTORY AND
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION, Gregory A. Mark, 66 Fordham L. Rev.
2153 (May, 1998); DOWNSIZING THE RIGHT TO PETITION, Gary Lawson and Guy
Seidman, 93 Nw. U.L Rev. 739 (Spring 1999); A RIGHT OF ACCESS TO COURT UNDER
THE PETITION CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT: DEFINING THE RIGHT, Carol
Rice Andrews, 60 Ohio St. L.J. 557 (1999); MOTIVE RESTRICTIONS ON COURT
32
The Right to Petition is a distinctive, substantive Right, from which other
substantive First Amendment Rights were derived. The Rights to free speech, press
and assembly originated as derivative Rights insofar as they were necessary to
protect the preexisting Right to Petition. Petitioning, as a way of holding
government accountable to natural Rights, first appeared in England in the
11th century22 and gained official recognition as a Right in the mid-17th
century.23 Free speech Rights first developed because members of Parliament
needed to discuss freely the Petitions they received,24 Publications reporting
Petitions were the first to receive protection from the frequent prosecutions against
the press for seditious libel.25 Public meetings to prepare Petitions led to
recognition of the Right of Public Assembly.26
The Right to Petition was widely accorded greater importance than the
Rights of free expression. For instance, in the 18th century, the House of
ACCESS: A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE, Carol Rice Andrews, 61 Ohio St. L.J.
665 (2000).
22
Norman B. Smith, “Shall Make No Law Abridging..Analysis of the Neglected, But
Nearly Absolute, Right of Petition, 54 U. CIN. L. REV. 1153, at 1154.
23
See Bill of Rights, 1689,1 W & M., ch. 2 Sections 5,13 (Eng.), reprinted in 5 THE
FOUNDERS’ CONSITUTION 197 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lemer eds., 1987);
I WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 138-39.
24 See David C. Frederick, John Quincy Adams, Slavery, and the Disappearance of the Right to
Petition, 9 LAW & HIST. REV. 113, at 115.
25 See Norman B. Smith, supra, at 1165-67.
26
See Charles E. Rice, Freedom ofPetition, in 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE AMERICAN
CONSTITUTION 789, (Leonard W. Levy ed., 1986)
33
28
Commons,27 the American Colonies,25 and the first Continental Congress29 gave
official recognition to the Right to Petition, but not to the Rights of Free Speech or
of the Press.30
The historical record shows the framers and ratifiers of the First Amendment
also understood the Petition Right as distinct from the Rights of free
expression. In his original proposed draft of the Bill of Rights, Madison listed the
Right to Petition and the Rights to free speech and press in two separate sections.31
In addition, a “considerable majority” of Congress defeated a motion to strike the
assembly provision from the First Amendment because of the understanding that
all of the enumerated rights in the First Amendment were separate Rights that
should be specifically protected.32
Petitioning government for Redress of Grievances has played a key role in
the development, exercise and enforcement of popular sovereignty throughout
27
See Norman B. Smith, supra, at 1165.
28
For example, Massachusetts secured the Right to Petition in its Body of Liberties in 1641, but
freedom of speech and press did not appear in the official documents until the mid-1700s. See
David A. Anderson, The Origins of the Press Clause, 30 UCLA L. REV. 455, 463 n.47
(1983).
29
See id. at 464 n.52.
30 Even when England and the American colonies recognized free speech Rights, petition Rights
encompassed freedom from punishment for petitioning, whereas free speech Rights extended
to freedom from prior restraints. See Frederick, supra, at 115-16.
31
See New York Times Co. v. U.S., 403 U.S. 670, 716 n.2 (1971)(Black, J., concurring). For the
full text of Madison’s proposal, see 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 434 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
32 See 5 Bernard Schwartz, The Roots Of The Bill OfRights at 1089- 91 (1980).
34
British and American history. In medieval England, petitioning began as a way
for barons to inform the King of their concerns and to influence his actions.34
Later, in the 17 century. Parliament gained the Right to Petition the King and to
bring matters of public concern to his attention. This broadening of political
participation culminated in the official recognition of the right of Petition in the
People themselves.36
The People used this newfound Right to question the legality of the
38
government’s actions,37 to present their views on controversial matters,and to
See Don L. Smith, The Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances: Constitutional
Development and Interpretations 10-108 (1971) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation) (Univ.
Microforms Int’l); K. Smellie, Right to Petition, in 12 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL
SCIENCES 98, 98-101 (R.A. Seiligman ed., 1934).
34 The Magna Carta of 1215 guaranteed this Right. See MAGNA CARTA, ch. 61, reprinted in 5
THE FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION, supra n.5, at 187.
35
See PETITION OF RIGHT chs. 1, 7 (Eng. June 7, 1628), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS’
CONSTITUTION, supra at 187-88.
36 In 1669, the House of Commons stated that, “it is an inherent right of every commoner in
England to prepare and present Petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievances, and
the House of Commons to receive the same.” Resolution of the House of Commons (1669),
reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION, supra at 188-89.
37 For example, in 1688, a group of bishops sent a petition to James II that accused him of acting
illegally. See Norman B. Smith, supra, at 1160-62. James II’s attempt to punish the bishops
for this Petition led to the Glorious Revolution and to the enactment of the Bill of Rights. See
Donald L. Smith, supra at 41-43.
38
See Norman B. Smith, supra at 1165 (describing a Petition regarding contested
parliamentary elections).
35
demand that the government, as the creature and servant of the People, be
responsive to the popular will.
In the American colonies, disenfranchised groups used Petitions to seek
government accountability for their concerns and to rectify government
misconduct.40
By the nineteenth century, Petitioning was described as “essential to ... a
free government”41 — an inherent feature of a republican democracy,42 and one of
the chief means of enhancing government accountability through the
participation of citizens.
This interest in Government accountability was understood to demand
Government response to Petitions. 43
In 1701, Daniel Defoe sent a Petition to the House of Commons that accused the House of
acting illegally when it incarcerated some previous petitioners. In response to Defoe’s demand
for action, the House released those Petitioners. See Norman B. Smith, supra at 1163-64.
40 RAYMOND BAILEY, POPULAR INFLUENCE UPON PUBLIC POLICY: PETITIONING
IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIRGINIA, 43-44 (1979).
41 THOMAS M. COOLEY, TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS WHICH
REST UPON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION,
531 (6th ed. 1890).
42 See CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Session. 1293 (1866) (statement of Rep. Shellabarger)
(declaring petitioning an indispensable Right “without which there is no citizenship” in any
government); JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES 707 (Carolina Academic Press ed. 1987) (1833) (explaining that the Petition
Right “results from [the] very nature of the structure [of a republican government]”).
43 See Frederick, supra at 114-15 (describing the historical development of the duty of
government response to Petitions).
36
American colonists, who exercised their Right to Petition the King or
Parliament,44 expected government to receive and respond to their Petitions.45
The King’s persistent refusal to answer the colonists’ grievances outraged the
colonists, and as the grievance that capped all the others it was the most
significant factor that led to the American Revolution.46
Frustration with the British government led the Framers to consider
incorporating a people’s right to “instruct their Representatives” in the First
Amendment.47 Members of the First Congress easily defeated this right-of-

An
instruction proposal. Some discretion to reject petitions that “instructed
government,” they reasoned, would not undermine government accountability
to the People, as long as Congress had a duty to consider petitions and fully
respond to them. 49
44 See DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 3 (Am.

Col. Oct. 14, 1774), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 199;
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF THE STAMP ACT CONGRESS 13 (Am. Col. Oct. 19,
1765), reprinted in id. at 198.
45 See Frederick, supra at 115-116.
46
See THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE para. 30 (U.S. July 4,1776), reprinted in 5
THE FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION, supra at 199; Lee A. Strimbeck, The Right to Petition,
55 W. VA. L. REV. 275, 111 (1954).
47 See 5 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, supra 1091-105.
48
The vote was 10-41 in the House and 2-14 in the Senate. See id. at 1105, 1148.
49
See 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 733-46 (Joseph Gales ed., 1789); 5 BERNARD SCHWARTZ,
supra at 1093,-94 (stating that representatives have a duty to inquire into the suggested
measures contained in citizens’ Petitions) (statement of Rep. Roger Sherman); id. at 1095-96
(stating that Congress can never shut its
37
Congress’s response to Petitions in the early years of the Republic also
indicates that the original understanding of Petitioning included a governmental
duty to respond. Congress viewed the receipt and serious consideration of every
Petition as an important part of its duties.50
Congress referred Petitions to committees51 and even created committees to
deal with particular types of Petitions.52 Ultimately, most Petitions resulted in
either favorable legislation or an adverse committee report.53
Thus, throughout early Anglo-American history, general petitioning of
the legislative and executive (as opposed to judicial petitioning) allowed the
people a means of direct political participation that in turn demanded
government response and promoted government accountability.
ears to Petitions) (statement of Rep. Elbridge Gerry); id. at 1096 (arguing that the Right to
Petition protects the Right to bring non-binding instructions to Congress’s attention)
(statement of Rep. James Madison).
50 See STAFF OF HOUSE COMM. ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 99t h CONG., 2D
SESS., PETITIONS, MEMORIALS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE
CONSIDERATION OF CONGRESS, MARCH 4,1789 TO DECEMBER 15,1975, at 6-9
(Comm. Print 1986) (including a comment by the press that “the principal part of Congress’s
time has been taken up in the reading and referring Petitions” (quotation omitted)).
51 See Stephen A. Higginson, Note, A Short History of the Right to Petition the Governmentfor
the Redress of Grievances, 96 YALE L. J. 142, at 156.
52 See H.J., 25th Cong., 2d Sess. 647 (1838) (describing how petitions prompted the
appointment of a select committee to consider legislation to abolish dueling).
53 See Higginson, supra at 157.
38
d. Plaintiffs’ Petition Exceeds Any Rational Standard

Requiring a Response
Plaintiffs’ Petition exceeds any rational standard for a Petition for Redress
requiring a meaningful response in that it:
1. provided legal Notice seeking substantive Redress to cure the

infringement of a right leading to civil legal liability;
2. was serious and documented, not frivolous;
3. contained no falsehoods;
4. was not absent probable cause;
5. had the necessary quality of a dispute;
6. came from citizen outside the formal political culture and
involved a legal principle not political talk;
7. was punctilious and dignified, containing both a “direction”
and a “prayer for relief;
8. addressed a public, collective grievance with widespread
participation and consequences;
9. was an instrument of deliberation not agitation.
e. The Opinion Of This Court Regarding The Rights of the People

And Obligations Of The Government Under The
Petition Clause Would Be Of Tremendous Importance
The history of the People’s natural Right to Petition the Govermnent for
redress of grievances shows the Right was recognized and meant to remain as one
of the most, if not the most powerful of the checks and balances embodied in
America’s Constitutional Republic, her political ideology — a principal means, in
addition to the electoral and judicial processes, for citizens to hold their servant
government accountable to their rule of law, from their federal and state
constitutions on down.
39
To use the words of Thomas Paine in Common Sense, Plaintiffs are an
example of People who are unfortunately “recklessly petitioning” - that is,
repeatedly petitioning the Government for redress of Government’s violations of
existing law, only to have their repeated petitions answered only with repeated
injury.
This is a case of Government stepping outside the boundaries drawn around
its power, gaining ground as individual Liberty loses ground. No government can
continue good except under control of the People. No Court has declared the rights
of the People and the obligations of the Government under the Petition Clause.
Doing so now would be of great moment for the Republic and its People.
POINT VI
Plaintiffs Have Standing
A. Injury
The District Court declared Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action
because “neither plaintiff has asserted that their injury is in any way distinct from
that suffered by any other taxpayer or citizen” and, “Schulz and Futia have asserted
no facts that show injury particularized to them.” (App. A 117, 118).

40
The Court overlooked Plaintiffs’ statement of personal-injury-related facts
in their Complaint attesting, for instance, to the fact that they are American citizens
and voters who have:
1) personally taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States of America (an oath not taken by “the public at large”) as
evidenced by the fact that both Plaintiffs served in the Armed Forces
of the United States of America (see Aff. Exhibits D and E), and
2) personally voted on November 3rd in the 2020 presidential election as
evidenced by Plaintiffs’ official voter registration records (see Aff
Exhibits B and C). In the Affidavit the Plaintiffs not only prove they
voted, they also declare who they voted for.
3) personally founded in 1997, and have been serving as Board Members
of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.,
an organization incorporated in 1997 in New York State with the
official purpose of holding government accountable to the Rule of Law
and institutionalizing citizen vigilance (a personal commitment and
service to America not engaged in by the public at large), as evidenced
by the organization’s Certificate of Incorporation and Amended
Certificate (see Aff. Exhibit FT

41
4) expended personal time and energy researching the issue and learned
executive and judicial officials in 31 states had usurped their State
Legislature’s authority by unlawfully changing their State’s election
laws, producing 401 Electors who were unconstitutionally appointed in
2020 (a unique expenditure and knowledge gained by few “other”
citizens, taxpayers or voters), as evidenced at App. A 27-36, and
5) personally delivered to Congress, on December 18, 2020, nearly three
weeks before Congress was scheduled to count the “regularly given”
electoral votes, a comprehensive First Amendment Petition for
Redress of the Grievance (no other American citizen or voter
expended such time and .energy for the purpose of holding their
government accountable to the Rule of Law or suffered the further
injury of “no response”). See App. A-17.
6) personally expended time, energy and more than five thousand dollars
to have the Petition signed by 1,058 other citizen-voters residing in all
50 States of the Union, have 545 copies of the Petition with its
signatures and 545 cover letters printed, one for each member of
Congress, drive to Washington D.C. and serve the signed Petitions and
cover letters on each member of Congress days before Congress was
scheduled to consider the matter, only to suffer the further injury of

42
another “no response.” (No “other” citizen, taxpayer or voter was so
injured). See App. A-21-81.
Particularly egregious is the fact that the District Court ignored and
dismissed without explanation the concrete and particularized injury-related
evidence that Plaintiffs had included in their Complaint, seemingly ignoring the
fact that Plaintiffs obviously have “more than a general interest common to all
members of the general public,” meaning Plaintiffs’ grievance is distinguishable
from the generally available grievances about government that the courts have
come to refuse to serve as a fomm for. The relief sought by Plaintiffs will
obviously more directly and tangibly benefit them and those similarly situated than
it will the public at large as evidenced further by the common knowledge of: a)
the general public’s widespread lack of proper civic education and general
ignorance about the provisions of the Constitution; b) and the
wiciespread, reckless reliance on individuals and political parties having or
hoping to achieve power.
Not a Political Question

Constitutional Adjudication Required
Even if Plaintiffs “asserted no facts that show injury particularized to them’:
which is most definitely not the case (above), their grievance would not be better
43
addressed through the political process than through constitutional adjudication for
such would amount to vindication and recognition of Congress’ displacement of
the power committed by the Constitution to the State Legislatures to direct how
presidential Electors are to be appointed, a seizure of power by the Legislative and
Executive branches.
For the Court to act with and show the utmost care and thought for the future
it would adjudicate the matter on the merits. The situation calls for the
straightforward application of the Constitution and laws pursuant thereto to the
facts with relief available under the 12th Amendment.
B. Causation and Redressability
In footnote 2, the District Court stated, “The complaint also presents problems
with regards to causation and redressability. To satisfy the causation element of
Article III standing, ‘[pjlaintiffs must show that it is substantially probable that the
challenged acts of the defendant, not an absent third party, caused the
particularized injury of the plaintiffs.’ Lin v United States, 111 F. Supp. 3d 242,
251 (D.D.C. 2016).” (A 119).
Plaintiffs have shown herein that it is substantially probable that the
challenged acts of Congress, not an absent third party, caused their particularized
injury. - -
44
True, Plaintiffs listed 63 violations of the Electors Clause by numerous
executive and judicial officials in 31 States but those violationsj in and of
themselves, were not the cause of Plaintiffs’ injury. Neither those violations nor
the vote by the unconstitutionally formed Electoral College, in and of themselves
injured Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ particularized injury was caused by the actions of the
Congress between 12/18/2020 and noon on 1/6/2021, in failing to respond to
Plaintiffs Petitions for Redress of the Grievance, and on 1/6/2021 by including in
its count of the votes for President and Vice President those votes known to have
been iiTegularly given. The violations of the law by the officials in the 31 States
would not take on any significant meaning to Plaintiffs until recognized and
legitimized by Congress.
Again, it is the Congress of the United States of America, and only that body
that determines when a Presidential Election has met the required legal standards
and gets to officially declare as true, correct and genuine, the final results of a
Presidential Election.
The matter is redressable. The Court can lessen the harm and improve the
situation for Plaintiffs by first recognizing the harm and the granting the relief
provided by the 12th Amendment and requested in the Complaint.

45
POINT VII
The District Court’s “Not Obligated to Respond” and “No Standing”

Decisions Would Weaken Our Constitutional Principles of Separation of
Powers and Checks and Balances, and Thus the Structure of the Constitution
Congress must not be enabled by the Court to effectively abolish a provision
of the constitution on the ground that the violation injures all citizens equally and
impartially, without distinction. Such a doctrine is tyrannical, especially when
coupled with a judicial doctrine that declares government is not obligated to
respond to proper petitions for redress of grievances for they would severely
cripple the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances, thereby
rendering the Constitution itself good-for-nothing.
POINT VIII
Citizens Of The United States Of America

Have The Right Of Non-Violent Enforcement Of
Endowed Rights The Government Refuses To Secure ....
... as, for example, by “Redress Before Taxes.”
In English and American jurisprudence, there is a legal maxim that for
every Right there is a Remedy and where there is no Remedy there is no Right.
Thus, any Right that is not enforceable is not a Right.
It is a settled and invariable principle, that every right when with-held must
have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress. See Blackstone, Commentaries
46
on the Laws ofEngland 23 and Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 162-
163 (1803).
Thus far, Plaintiffs’ Rights endowed under the 1st, 12th and 14th Amendments
and Articles II and IV of the Constitution and laws pursuant thereto, all the subject
of Plaintiff s Complaint, expressed or implied, have not been redressed.
Useful and informative today is the wisdom and instructions given by the
founders of our Constitutional Republic.
In 1774, our first Congress, the Congress that went on to adopt the
Declaration of Independence and guide the colonists through the Revolutionary
War, unanimously adopted an Act in which they gave meaning to the People’s
Right of “Redress Before Taxes” in enforcement of their “Great Rights.” Quoting:
“If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed

the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed,
and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised
petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.” Continental
Congress To The Inhabitants Of The Province of Quebec.”
Journals of the Continental Congress 1774. Journals 1:105-13.
In 1775, prior to drafting the Declaration of Independence, Thomas
Jefferson gave further meaning to the People’s Right of “Redress Before Taxes.”
Quoting:
“The privilege of giving or withholding our moneys is an

important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which
if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great
47
oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession

for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights, an how
improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator,”
Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.
In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the People’s
Congress. The bulk of the document is a listing of 27 grievances the People had
against the Government. The final grievance on the list is referred to by scholars as
the “capstone grievance,” the grievance that prevented Redress of the other
Grievances and finally caused the People to withdraw their support and allegiance
to the Government. Thus, the Congress gave further meaning to the People’s Right
of enforcement. Quoting the so-called capstone grievance:
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for

Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have
been answered only by with repeated injury. A Prince, whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant,
is thus unfit to be the ruler of a free people....We,
therefore...declare. That these United Colonies...are Absolved
from all Allegiance to the British Crown....” Declaration of
Independence, 1776.
In sum, if the People have evidence that government officials in the political
branches have stepped outside the boundaries drawn around their power and are
acting in spite of constitutional prohibitions, and if the People have intelligently,
rationally, professionally and non-violently Petitioned those officials with proper
statements of grievances and proper prayers for relief, and it the government has
48
decided to ignore the People’s Petitions, fail to justify their constitutionally tortious
behavior and refuse to be held accountable to the Constitution and Bill of Rights,
the Sovereign People have a natural, lawful Right to defend the Constitution and
enforce their individual Rights by, for example, retaining money wanted by those
government officials until their grievances are redressed, and to exercise such
Right without retaliation by the government.
CONCLUSION
The American People are meant to be free, with natural and constitutionally
endowed Rights, rather than privileges. Those Rights are unalienable, to be
faithfully and justly secured by a servant Government.
The Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the
people. The Constitution, not the Government is the ultimate mechanism for
expressing the people’s will. The power of the government to act is strictly limited
by the original meaning of the words of the U.S . Constitution and laws pursuant
thereto. Should those words come to show a wide-spread lack of support, the
Constitution can be amended. Neither We The People, nor our servant
government are free to change the law by ignoring it.
Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order:
a. declaring a majority of the electoral votes cast by the Electoral
College on 12/14/2020 were not regularly given, and

49
b. declaring Congress’ 1/6/2021 count of the votes for President and
Vice President to be constitutionally invalid, and
c. directing Defendant Congress to choose immediately, by ballot, the
President and Vice President of the United States, in accordance with
the terms of the 12 Amendment to the Constitution, and
d. For such other and further reliefas the Court may deem just and fair.
Dated: August 20, 2021
ROBERT L. SC ANTHONY FUTIA, JR. pro se

2458 Ridge Road 34 Custis Ave.
Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 N. White Plains, NY 10603
(518)361-8153 (914) 906-7138
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Form 6. Certificate of Compliance With Type-

Volume Limit
Certificate of Compliance With Type-Volume Limit,

Typeface Requirements, and Type-Style Requirements
1. This document complies with [the type-volume limit of Fed. R. App. P. [insert Rule
citation; e.g., 32(a)(7)(B)'\\ [the word limit of Fed. R. App. P. [insert Rulecitation; e.g.,
5(c)(lj]] because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f)
[and [insert applicable Rule citation, ifany\\\
I—I / h ^^3
\__ [this document contains [state the number of] words, or
□ this brief uses a monospaced typeface and contains [state the number of] lines of
text.
2. This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and
the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because:
I—I
I__ Ithis document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using [state
name and version of word-processing program] in [state font size and name of
type style], or
I_Ithis document has been prepared in a monospaced typeface using [state name and
version of word-processing program] with [state number of characters per inch
and name of type style].
Afetume V foi >• /pA-tP.
Dated: ~ ^

Schulz V US Congress USCA DCC 21-5164 Appellate Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schulz V US Congress USCA DCC 21-5164 Appellate Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schulz V US Congress USCA DCC 21-5164 Appellate Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USCA Case #21-5164 Document #1911490 Filed: 08/23/2021 Page 1 of 60

ROBERT L. SCHULZ, ANTHONY FUTIA, Jr., CASE BEING CONSIDERED

V. District Court Case No.

August 20, 2021

ANTHONY FUTIA, JR. pro se

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

There were no Corporations, Intervenors or Amici before the District Court.

RULING UNDER REVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................ ............................................ . ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... iv

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........................................ ............. 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY........... 3

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.......................................................... 11

I. A Majority of the 2020 Electors Who Were Appointed Following

II. The Votes Cast by the Imposters at the Electoral College on

IV. Plaintiffs’ Have A Right To A Summary Or Default Judgment

V. Congress Was Obligated to Provide a Meaningful Response to

VI. Plaintiffs Have Standing.................................................................... 39

VII. The District Court’s “Defendant: Not Obligated To Respond”

VIII. Citizens Have The Right Of Non-Violent Enforcement Of

FRAP FORM 6, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE................................. 49

DOCKET SHEET; D.D.C.FORCASE# l:21-cv-00448-DLF................... A-i

DKT ENTRY # 1, COMPLAINT.............................................................. A-1

Exhibit A - Dec. 18, 2020 Letter, Schulz to Rep. Stefanik............. A-17

Exhibit B - Jan. 2, 2021 Service Letters, Schulz to each member

Exhibit C - Jan. 4, 2021 photographs showing the arrival of the

DKT ENTRY # 2, MOTION FOR EXPEDITED

DKT ENTRY #5, SUMMONS ISSUED AS TO CONGRESS

DKT ENTRY #7, MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT................... A-100

DKT ENTRY #8, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER............. A-115

DKT ENTRY #9, NOTICE OF APPEAL.............................. .................. A-121

Exhibits Annexed To Affidavit:

A: Letters, dated 2-17-21 that transmitted Plaintiffs’ Complaint to

B: Voter Registration Report For Plaintiff Robert Schulz

C: Voter Registration Report For Plaintiff Anthony Futia, Jr.

D: A Record of Schulz’s Service in the Armed Forces of the

E: A Record of Futia’s Service in the Armed Forces of the

F: A Record of Schulz’s and Futia’s Service in the We The People

G: Congressional Record, Proceedings And Debates Of

H: Congressional Record, Proceedings And Debates Of

I: “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).............................. 21

District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 579 (2008) .............. 26,27

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)............................. ................ 23

Lin V United States, 111 F. Supp. 3d 242, 251 (D.D.C. 2016).”............. 7

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 162-163 (1803)................ 45

Minnesota State Bd. v. Knight, 465 US 271 [1984].................................. 13,22-25

Spokeo, Inc. y Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2010) ...................................... 13

Lance v Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007)..................................................... 13

La Botz V. Fed. Election Comm ’n, 889 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2012).... 13

Woodv. Raffensperger, 981 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2020)............................ 13

Bowyer v. Ducey, 2020 WL 7238261(D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2020).................... 13

Kingv. Whitmer, 2020 WL 7134198 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020 ............ 13

We The People v. United States, 485 F.3d 140 (2007).............................. 13,22-26

28U.S.C. Section 1331 ......................................... .................................... 2

28U.S.C. Section 1343(a)(3)..................................... ............................... 2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)........................................................ ................... . 21

First Amendment (Petition Clause) ....................................................... passim