top of page
Image by Tingey Injury Law Firm

THE CASE

On November 4, 2022, We submitted our initial filing in US District Court in Portland Pro Se (Self Represented).

Court Filing

2022-12-06_Filing.jpg

Help With Court Costs

Defendants Reply And 
Motion

Defendants requested an extension and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on January 17, 2023. 

USING STATEMENTS SUCH AS "MERE FRAUD DOES NOT RENDER THE ELECTION INVALID."

AND "GARDEN VARIETY IRREGULARITIES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, EVEN IF IT CONTROLS THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION."

Justice Scale

Plaintiffs Response and Objection 

On January 31, 2023, We submitted our response and objection to defendants' motion.

Defendants Filed Another Motion to Dismiss
On February 14, 2023

STATING PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO STANDING AS WE WILL NOT RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN. WHO ARE THEY TO SAY WE WILL NOT RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN?

Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order to Strike

On March 29, 2023, we submitted a Judicial Notice. Then on April 5, 2023, the magistrate judge moved to strike the Judicial Notice. On April 11, 2023, we submitted our objection to the strike. There must be consent of all parties to proceed before a US magistrate judge in this case. She can only make recommendations without full consent. 

Screenshot 2023-05-02 at 6.31.35 PM (002).png

The Magistrate Judge Submitted a Recommendation
and Findings On June 30, 2023 

Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman concludes, “The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,” because they cannot satisfy the injury in fact and redressability requirements. (Def.’ Mot. At 9.) The Court disagrees. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ alleged discrimination and equal protection claims are sufficiently particularized and concrete to plead an injury in fact. Defendants separately argue that Plaintiffs’ claims for damages and injunctive relief do not satisfy the redressability requirement. (Defs.’ Mot. At 11-16.) The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the Defendants’ alleged discrimination, denial of equal protection, and conspiracy to violate their rights, and in part on Wong’s status as a minority candidate. Defendants’ mootness arguments fail adequately to address all of Plaintiffs’ allegations, including those pertaining to alleged discrimination of a minority candidate. In summary, Defendants have not carried their heavy burden of demonstrating that Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot, and therefore the Court finds that those claims satisfy the redressability requirement. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs satisfy the redressability requirement, and Plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring their claims in federal court.”

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WAS CONFLICTING, RECOMMENDING TO DISMISS OUR CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Justice Scale

PLAINTIFFS OBJECTED TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ON JULY 14, 2023, 

OBJECTION TO THE OBJECTION

ON JULY 28, 2023 THE DEFENDANTS ADDED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO OUR CASE AND FILED AN OBJECTION TO OUR OBJECTION

Light on the Stairs

The Article III Judge Ordered and Adjudged That This Action Is Dismissed With Prejudice On September 4, 2023. Pending Motions, If Any, Are Denied As Moot.

A Petition For Writ of Certiorari Was Submitted and Received By The Supreme Court of the United States on November 20, 2023

JUSTICE LEAGUE OF OREGON

bottom of page