We are not at war with Venezuela, President Trump is at war with Our Constitution
25-cv-00480 Alter v President Trump
5/10/2
As some of you may or may not know, I have a Federal Case filed in Judge Ana C. Reyes’ court to disqualify President Trump (and co-conspirators) under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
President Trump has yet to reply to the complaint or register with the court. Given that he didn’t do that in Colorado state court, dispute facts in his second impeachment, or answer as to the pardons he proclaimed for J6ers, it is pretty unlikely for him to answer in my case either. So, I have put in a request to apply early for a Clerk’s Entry of Default, as his time to reply and present a defense will expire in 20 days.
Here is that document, which outlines the authorities under which I apply to the court - one needn't be a lawyer to seek a remedy (I am not a lawyer) from the court :
EARLY APPLICATION TO THE CLERK FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT on or shortly after May 31, 2025
LEAVE TO FILE
I am not certain, but I think that given the fact that this is not an application for adjudication, but for review of the court’s clerk, I believe I am not required to ask for leave to file in this case, if that is not the case, please accept my apologies.
I attempted to bring a motion for Partial Summary Judgement before the Defendant’s time to dispute the facts in a reply to my complaint (and that motion) had expired, but the court decided in its order denying leave to file, that the facts could not be construed as to be undisputed until that time, certainly I would have preferred that in the interest of justice that such allegations would not simply default to be true, but that was the decision of this court, and of the Defense (in their decision not to reply before the ordered date, I am presuming), who is not without considerable resources at his disposal to have put in such a defense and simply chose not to (I presume) by the date set by the court.
I enter this application for a Clerk’s Entry of Default in advance of that date, so that the Clerk may evaluate this application in advance of that date and be ready to provide relief without further delay once that time has elapsed, presuming of course, that the defense has not entered a reply brief before that time.
Due to the nature of the ongoing assault on The Constitution this suit alleges, I think any delay of justice would be harmful in the extreme.
IN BRIEF
The US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, section 3, disqualifies President Trump from serving, simply as a matter of law, and it is the court’s duty to opine if such facts lie within the scope of the Amendment such that a banishment from power will protect and defend the constitution from harms. It is not a referendum on an election, it is not a shortcut around democracy, it is the exercise of a lawful prohibition detailed in the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The intention behind this could not be more clearly defined, or have more factual historical facts in its favor, because it is fundamental to the establishment of our Republic and has been tested time and again, with those who have bled for the freedoms we enjoy.
HISTORICAL NOTES
To be clear, the Declaration of independence is our founding document, including a list of grievances against King George, and its rejection of the notion of his (or anyone’s) sovereignty over us. The US Constitution is our governing document, and the bill of rights carves out our rights to redress such future grievances against the ruling bodies.
The Declaration and the Constitution differ largely because one document sets out what kind of country we’d like to be (that people fought a revolution for), and the constitution is the big tent compromise that seeks to govern in that style.
The 14th Amendment, which came after both, and a civil war, does not ask for anything that isn’t already promised in the Declaration of Independence, and that wasn’t at least implicit in the US Constitution after the sausage got made at the Constitutional Convention. But many of those things that were explicit in the Declaration, that were Implicit in the Constitution, were the result of compromise with slave holding states to permit some wiggle room to keep the peace, however with the declaration of the civil war, those states were not just content with ‘wiggle room’ and had a different view of the country’s future entirely than the Union. When they lost the Civil war, the 14th Amendment was written to make it clear that the implicit must be made explicit, and as far as slavery goes, everything it stands for, must be wiped from the face of civil government, forever, because you cannot compromise with such people and have a unified vision of the Republic, they are not compatible.
Much like you can’t wave Nazi flags in Germany, as far as Government and law at least, was concerned, post reconstruction the authoritarian movement of The Confederacy were banished forever from Governance, and they meant it to stay that way, which they could not have done without 2/3rds of Congress to pass an Amendment, so it was not meant to be just a reflection of the Confederacy’s surrender, it was an explicit statement that those things are explicitly excluded from the American Experiment and banished from governance forever, and is forever binding on our government to enforce.
To be sure this new reconstructed understanding was explicitly to be understood by people serving, the Oaths of Office were all re-written, emphasizing fealty to no man, but to the constitution of the United States, and Section 3 was written to give those Oaths some teeth, and a sharp cutting edge to remove violators. It was a forward-looking amendment and was not written simply as a remedy to the Civil War, that had already been secured in their surrender.
The Constitution is not permitted to levy punishment, or retribution, instead we pass criminal laws to levy criminal punishment, and have the courts to issue civil remedies. Section 3 is an enforcement clause, there is no question, it is there to enforce the oaths, but it is not a punitive enforcement, it is simply a banishment from people who will insist that autocracy is a valid prescription proposal for use of government power, and (with emphasis) is henceforth disqualifying. That disqualification is earned, by deeds done from the seat of government trying to re-establish this dominion of dominance over The People.
For judges, the Oaths are a written contract which they sign after swearing those oaths. They are not permitted to use their powers without that oath. Judge Reyes has signed that contract.
It doesn’t say anything about The Confederacy, or anything about slavery, it’s about loyalty – not to a person or even a thing, but to everyone, that preserving those goals in the use of The State’s authority, is in service of those concepts, it is written in stone and not mutable as an afterthought or an election.
Self-Executing is the shorthand term for Amendments which contain a remedy that need no additional laws to be passed by congress because they are not punitive, they are steps we must take to preserve and protect our core values from those who do not accept them. You can go ahead and be a bigot in your private life or even follow a tyrant in a cult of personality, in your private life, but try to do that in public life under the guise of public service, and you are gone – you cannot serve. It is a broad and explicit prohibition.
None of this is contrary to any Supreme Court finding, recent or since, though there are findings which seem to question whether it’s relevant anymore. These questions are not valid legal questions, because it’s relevant until Congress finds another 2/3 majority to contradict or remove those limitations.
So strictly as a matter of law, and as a matter of your judicial oath, there is not a lot of wiggle room, not any really. The 14th Amendment does not even permit you, as a public servant, to lend aid or comfort to such a person (even making a conciliatory statement), from the seat of power, no matter how much sympathy you might feel for them, or how much and to what extent you may even agree with them. It is intended to marginalize such views, to be practiced only in private life, and dark corners, because they deserve only scorn from our governing bodies.
If you’re not OK with that, the Amendment says, then there’s the door, fare well.
NON-PUNITIVE REMEDY IS SOUGHT and PROVIDED
The Judgement ultimately sought from the court on the available facts and plain language of the Constitution to decide this dis-qualification. It is not to remedy past acts, but to prevent future ones, because it is not punitive, and for the remedy of past acts, we would require criminal law enforcement to be pursued by The State to punish them, or further proceedings in the Article III court to apply them to others (and their facts).
STANDING and CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
The Bill of Rights limits the use of public power; it is to protect the private persons from the abuse of State Power. By invoking the civil use of the Bill of Rights, any private person may confront those who wish to use State Power improperly. Because such an invocation is forward looking, in terms of preventing irreparable harm, anyone can invoke them and bring them to the court for adjudication.
This right of adjudication is fundamental to our country’s founding, all the way back to the declaration of independence, and our list of grievances against Kind George. Because in THIS government, we don’t need to violently overthrow the King to redress our grievances and be provided protection against those would like to hold such Kingly dominion over us.
Any such restrictions on standing are merely doctrinal, and unlawful according to Marbury v Madison which instructs the courts that those things which are repugnant to the constitution may and must be extinguished by the courts.
It does not matter whether I (the plaintiff) am an Attorney General, or even a licensed lawyer, because it is the court’s adjudication of these facts and Constitutional meaning that matters.
My standing is truly not relevant here, only the facts I bring to the court. If someone wishes to bring a case for the same remedy with a different set of facts, then they have standing as well. I don’t need to certify a whole class of people to bring such a case, because regardless of the size of the class, or the prestige they might bring to the case, the facts will remain the same, and it is the facts therefore, which give me standing.
None of my facts, facts about me (the plaintiff), are relevant to this proceeding, only that I bring them in good faith, it is only those facts about the Defendant and his conspirators that matter to this court.
It is they who are banished from government, not me. I am not even a part of government, government exists to serve my needs, not the other way around.
I am a US citizen, and I vote and pay taxes, and have committed no crimes, but not even any of that is relevant, the US Constitution serves all who approach the court. The degree of my wealth, the level of my educational attainment, the property I own, irrelevant. That of the Defendant, also irrelevant, in fact his status as an office holder, cuts against him, because these prohibitions specifically only apply to office holders. So, the fact that he is President of the United States does not help his case, it helps only mine.
The facts and the Constitution are all the authority I need to bring this case to the court, and all the authority that this court needs to preside over it, as enabled by Article III, and the plain language of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, which provides remedy and only requires facts.
Section 5, which is discussed in Trump v Anderson, also irrelevant, because this is not a State Court, and this is not a punitive action.
Facts A, B and C exist, and have not been disputed, therefore his qualification is C.
We hold these truths self-evident, but just in case, we have the Fourteenth Amendment granting your Article III authority to do your civic duty to opine, inconvenient as that may be.
I do not have such a duty, but I do have an obligation as a citizen to see to it, I made that pledge every day of grammar school. There is a vast difference between duty and obligation, and that difference is plainly outlined in the plain language of the 14th Amendment, Section 3. It is not binding on me, it is binding on you, and on President Trump. It is binding on the Supreme Court. It is binding on Congress. It is binding on our armed forces – I don’t even need a gun to challenge them. It is binding on everyone that swears those oaths to serve, it does not turn on who brings such a challenge to the court whatsoever.
“If the glove fits, you cannot acquit” (a turn on the famous phrase used by Jonnie Cochran in the murder trial of OJ Simpson). It is Supreme Law. I am just the messenger, no fact of me exonerates him. Only a 2/3rd majority of Congress, despite the facts, may acquit, this remedy is also provided by the 14th Amendment, and is also not relevant until after this court has already decided him disqualified.
The Defendant may certainly appeal; however, the undisputed facts will not change[1], nor will the plain language of the Constitution, which even the Supreme Court is legally bound to, the only finding of “law” which can intervene, is such a finding of 2/3rds of Congress or a Constitutional Amendment. There is no immunity that can be conferred on any office, from this prohibition, since it applies only to ‘office holders’ that restriction would undercut any such argument.
“Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
“
If there is a dispute to be had here, it is restricted to the four corners of the above plain language. Could there have been a better advocate for this case, almost certainly, but I’m the advocate that you’ve got, and the law speaks plainly for itself.
Dated: May 10, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Alter, Pro Se Plaintiff
Cc: Attorney General Pamela Bondi (via email)
[1] The Defendant had his chance to challenge these facts – here, and in Anderson, and in his 2nd impeachment proceedings, in the 60 cases he brought to federal court challenging the 2020 election, and other lawsuits – at no time did the Defendant challenge the facts in the Constitutional forums made available to him.