ACTIVE CASES

Federal Cases I have Filed to push back on MAGA, Federalists and Heritage Foundation hacks.. mission statement and updates included

MISSION STATEMENT

This is my formula for taking on the right (Heritage Foundation, Federalists, MAGA, textualists) in the federal courts.

File well reasoned law suits challenging the absurd, with a principled position.. hope for the best… chips fall where they may.. learn stuff..

Note - it costs $400 to file a federal suit pro se, and $605 for an appeal. It’s a fair amount of work, I take it seriously, and it’s worth it regardless of outcome. A Supreme Court cert application will cost about $3500 in printing and court fees.

Winning isn’t the only thing that’s important in the courts; someone also has try the principalled cases you’re going to lose because the deck is stacked. Because only then can you point out the inequity in the system and try to change that by establishing a portfolio of those losses where you were right on the law and the courts were clearly wrong, that you can point back at to challenge the system foundationally. Because the DOJ won’t do it for you, certainly not right now. It’s ok to be a squeaky wheel.

We need squeaky wheels.

The thing is, because of out-of-control immunities, you can’t bring civil cases for damages against federal employees, no matter how egregious their violations of civil rights. Still, you CAN bring a case for declaratory judgment, however, without damages. Unless you have millions of dollars to spend on a lawfirm that has no financial interest in bringing the case, Pro se is the workaround, but if there is one thing this effort has shown, it’s that it's impossible to get a civil case of civil rights violations as a pro-se plaintiff to get a fair hearing. This basically means there really is no way to hold the truly powerful accountable or to have a disfavored federal question answered. So the Roberts Court can get away with “signaling” what it wants to hear, and what it doesn’t, and this tends to foreclose all challenges it doesn’t want to hear, even in the lower courts. Not because that’s the way the courts are supposed to work, but because anyone practicing before or preside over the federal the court must bend over backwards to curry favor, in one way or another, with the Roberts Court to stay in their good graces. It really is a problem.

In any case, I’m just looking for meaning, via a judiciary that feels like it’s lost its core purposes. We’ll see how it goes, I guess. My approach continues to evolve on my own schedule, but the theme remains about the same. Not trying to troll the court, but in a plain spoken way, at least, point out the incongruity of its reasoning as I see it.

For example, we have all these protections that (somewhat rightly) protects federal employees from civil damages, or criminal liability, but all those protections predicate themselves on there still being a route to remedy through declaritory judgement, but in practical terms that route becomes entirely discretionary, even when it involves structural rights. Unless you can move a judge with damsel in distress style harms, you’re not likely to meet standing “requirements”, but if you ask for damages, even nominal damages of 1 penny, that standing is automatic, but if you cite nominal damages, immunities kick in. So that basically forecloses all routes to routine justice, despite promises to the contrary. When policy sets out to harass disfavored groups, it’s plainly not constitutional, but who can bring such a case? Rights are rights; there is no particular level of suffering that is supposed to trigger the courts to hear them, particularly for harms that millions of people wind up sharing. That is the theme for these cases; I’m trying to navigate a lane for these challenges. It’s just my way of searching for meaning in a system that’s changing under our feet and dealing us out.

8/4/2025 Alter v US Filed, awaiting case number in DC, vindicates 1st, 4th, 5th, and contests the constitutionality of standing. sua ponte dismissal, and preclusion doctrines on citizens bringing cases under bond/leximark to assert constitutional mandates and allege government misconduct without seeking damages relief. Follow the above link for the full text of the complaint.

Update 7/23/2025

25-CV-00480 Alter v Trump, dismissed, but filed motion to reconsider and will notice an appeal.. because she’s wrong ..

Updated 5/31/2025

Alter v Trump defense counsel has entered case, pre-motion briefing has begun
Updated 5/20/2025

This is an index page I will keep updated on active case information.

Most of these cases, in a perfect world, are “slam dunk” on the merits if we had a court that was following the constitution, in this world, however, they’re all long shots that SOMEONE has to try (in this world). Feel free to ask any questions; I do respond.

Most Important Case (in my view) :

Alter v President Trump - issue: Qualification/Insurrection (14th , sec 3) - Judge Ana C Rayes
status : reply brief due from defense on May 31, 2025 (waiting)

Other than impeachment, 14th sec 3, is the ONLY basis (aside from treason, I would think) for a case that can get someone removed from office. It can remove office holders for having ANYTHING TO DO with an insurrection. Even conviction for a crime cannot remove a president from office.

US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit

Alter v McConnell - issue : “Oath of Office”, regarding his efforts to sidestep the issue of conviction in trump impeachment concerning j6
status : Awaiting decision since March 2024

Alter v Alito Thomas Roberts Kavenaugh Gorsuch Barrett - issue: “Good Behavior”- remedy sought - suspend from the bench
status: awaiting decision since April 2024

District Court for the District of Columbia

Alter v DOJ/Bondi - issue : Appoint special prosecutor / Humphrey’s executor
status: service of summons executed, defense has asked for and has been granted an extension of time to file reply : July 31, 2025

Alter v President Trump - issue: Qualification/Insurrection (14th , sec 3) - Judge Ana C Rayes)
status : Trump Counsel has entered the case, pre-motion briefing begun

status update: case dismissed for standing in June, considering appeal options/need

Alter v FCC - issue: Do not renew Fox licensing/Electioneering/Loper Bright v Raimondo - Judge Amir H Ali
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Alter v DOGE/Musk/Trump : Appoint special prosecutor / Humphrey’s Executor / Loper
Bright v Raimondo - APA violations bypassing congress - trump related
status: initiated en banc appeal

assigned case number 25-5172, appellate brief filed and served

Here are things about some of the cases I rely upon for Authority :
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-is-humphreys-executor-and-why-should-you-care-about-it/
A president cannot just fire people in agencies willy nilly, the court can appoint a special prosecutor to investigate corrupt motives

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
14 sec 3, if you have sworn an oath of office, you can’t even remotely support insurrection, or you can be thrown out of office for it and banned from serving. Other than impeachment, there is not much you can do to remove a president from office; they can even serve their term from jail if they have to. This can remove them

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo was a 2024 supreme court case that ended “Chevron Deference”. Chevron deference was a long-standing court doctrine that instructed judges to give agencies broad deference in the way they interpret statutes. In the Loper Bright case, in November 2024, the court instructed judges to use their own “common sense” to determine if the agency is interpreting the statute correctly.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-10-2-3/ALDE_00000686/
”The Good Behavior Clause” is a part of Article III/Sec 1 that gives the courts their power to rule. A provision of that qualification is “good behavior”, nobody’s ever really litigated what that means (crazy, huh? How has nobody litigated this? I guess they never had to).

https://halanbrickleylaw.com/news/everything-you-need-know-pro-se-representation/
Self-representation authority (one filing a case without a lawyer) is derived from Due Process and the 4th amendment