Todd C Bank Amicus brief in Timothy King et al v Gretchen Whitmer et al US Supreme Court Dec 18, “person who sustains personal harm” “has Article III standing”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity
expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”…Marbury vs Madison
“We are calling upon the elections officials to engage the GBI to investigate any and all fraudulent activities, including those which were brought to light during Senate committee hearings on December 3, 2020.”…Georgia Senate Republicans December 8, 2020.
“Attorney Sidney Powell recently stated her cases were being “slow walked” by the SCOTUS. Justice Roberts should be recused.”...Citizen Wells
Timothy King et al v Gretchen Whitmer et a
US Supreme Court
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF TODD C. BANK
Filed December 18, 2020.
“SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The District Court did not recognize that a person who sustains personal harm
within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution has Article III standing regardless of how many other persons suffered the same type and degree of harm.
The District Court, in finding that de-certification would be improper because
it would result in the denial of the right to vote to those persons who voted for
candidate Biden (“Biden”), overlooked the fact that the denial of de-certification would, in the event that candidate Trump (“Trump”) had received more lawful votes than had Biden, deny the right to vote of those persons who had lawfully voted for Trump.
The District Court overlooked the fact that the diluting of one’s vote is distinctly
harmful to a person who voted for a candidate who would have prevailed absent