1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se Case Number 1:16-CV-02528

bretvote@gmail.com

Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se

V.

Defendants

Mitch McConnell
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Majority Leader of United States Senate;

Vice President Joseph Biden
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500

The President of U.S. Senate;

Orrin Hatch
104 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

President Pro Tempore of U.S. Senate;

Charles Schumer
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Minority Leader Of U.S. Senate;

1
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Paul Ryan
1233 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Speaker of United States House of Representatives;

Nancy Pelosi,
233 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Minority Leader of
United States House of Representatives;

1st Amended Civil Complaint

A Voting Rights Title 42 U.S.C.A.

1983 Action;

Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

2
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

As a Prevailing Party under 42

U.S.C. 1988

A Title 42 U.S.C.A. 1988 Request for

Attorneys Fees

as Prevailing Party

Under Declaratory Relief or Such

Provision of Law that

this Court Deems Just to

Award Attorneys Fees;

19th, 15th, 13th, 1st

Amendments of U.S. Constitution

Render Original 1787

Electoral College Method of

Electing / Selecting

Electors to cast Electoral Votes,

Which Electoral Votes

then elect the joint ticket of President and

President and Vice

President of the United States

Unconstitutional, and Mandate Switching to the

Popular Vote Method of Electing

the President

3
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

And Vice President of the United

States as

Contained in Senate Joint

Resolution 1 of

December 6, 1977.

Plaintiff Alleges that Donald Trump

President elect Elect

And Mike Pence Vice President

Elect Elect received less

Than the 270 majority of valid

electoral votes under the

Under Electoral college system.

Plaintiff Alleges that

Donald Trump and Mike Pence

received 256

Electoral votes. Fifty [50] and that

of the 306 Electoral votes

received50 Electoral votes by Trump and

Pence were void, ab initio, and were cast

And were cast iIn states by

Electoral Collegeelecto rs

Electors, who were not

4
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

who were not qualified electors,

due to violations of

state violations of state

election law,codes prohibiting dual

emoluments from

emoluments from

government employment, meaning

electors are prohibited from having

part time or full time government

employment.

Requiring valid voting and

and requiring valid

voting registration

within the Congressional

District which

each elector in the Electoral

College represents.within which

Someuch Electoral College electors

were elected as electors, who were

not registered to vote at all, and or

who were not being qualified to

register to vote, and Tthus the

5
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

voter registration of the elector

wasbeing void as a matter of law,

so the Elector’s electoral vote cast

was null and void, ab initio as a

matter of law.

Plaintiff asks this court to invalidate

and decertify these 50 null and

void electoral votes that were

counted by U.S. Senate as valid, by

a writ of mandamus or appropriate

writ directed at U.S. Senate to do

so. Plaintiff asks this Court to order

President Donald Trump and Vice

President Mike Pence removed from

office, and in accordance with Title

3 U.S.C.A. Section 19 ( c ) (1),

replaced by Speaker of the House

of Representatives, Paul Ryan, as

President Pro Tempore of the

United States. Plaintiff asks this

Court to hold an evidence hearing

at which Plaintiff will present

evidence

6
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

As adequate legal proof, that such

50 electoral votes are null and

void. Plaintiff will ask this court to

hold such hearing by an

appropriate motion.

Plaintiff asks this Court to order a

new presidential primary election

and a new presidential general

election to be quickly held to allow

voters to vote

To fill the vacant offices of

president and vice president,

because the U.S. Constitution and

Title 3 Section 1-21 provide no

remedy where no ticket for

president and vice president has

received a sufficient number of

electoral votes. All tickets for

president and vice president of the

United States received less than

the minimum 270 votes needed,

When the U.S. Senate counted

Electoral votes on

7
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

January 6, 2017, or Plaintiff

requests that this court in the

alternative find the electoral

college method of electing the

president unconstitutional, and

switch to the national popular vote

plurality total, method, of electing

the president as specified in Senate

Joint Resolution 1 of December 6,

1977.

In the event that this court decides

that the Electoral College is

unconstitutional under the 13th,

15th,19th, and 1st Amendments to

U.S. Constitution, then his court

must issue a writ of mandamus,

ordering the U.S. Senate and U.S.

House of Representatives, in

accordance with switching to the

popular vote method of electing

the president and vice president of

the United States, to obtain

certified totals for each candidate

8
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

for President and Vice President

from each of the Chief Executives

of Elections in each of the 50 states

and the District of Columbia. The

U.S. Senate and U.S. House of

Representatives must be ordered

to total, nationally, all votes cast

for each ticket of candidates for

president and vice president. The

U.S. Senate and U.S. House of

Representatives then

Must, upon calculating the totals of

popular votes, received by all

candidates, certify such totals and

declare and certify who the winners

are of the plurality of the national

vote total for the ticket of president

and vice president.

This court must issue a writ of

mandamus to order the chief

election official of each state and

the District of Columbia to forward

certified totals of popular votes,

9
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

received by each candidate. for

president and vice president, in

each of the 50 states and the

District of Columbia and to forward

two sets of such documents one to

the National Archives and one to

the President of the United States

Senate as currently is required in

Title 3 U.S.C.A. Sections 1-21 with

respect to sending the state and

District of Columbia totals of

electoral votes.

10
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

11
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

19TH, 15TH, 13TH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION MUST BE

USED AND APPLIED BY THIS COURT TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL

COLLEGE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT DUE TO VARIATIONS

IN MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF CITIZEN’S VOTES IN ALL 50 STATES AND

12
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. BY POLITICAL IDEOLOGY THE

MATHEMATICAL VALUES VARY IN SUCH A WAY AS TO FAVOR

CONSERVATIVE POLITIVAL IDEOLOGY OF CONSERVATIVE VOTERS AND

DISFAVOR LIBERAL/MODERATE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF

LIBERAL/MODERATE VOTERS page 171

TABLE #4 COMPARATIVE VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES IN TERMS OF

ELECTORAL VOTES IN THE 50 STATES AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

2010 ELECTORAL VOTES USED IN THE 2016 ELECTION DIVIDED BY

2010 U.S. CENSUS POPULATION. page

2519

TABLE #5 STATES WHERE HILLARY CLINTON WON THE PLURALITY OF

THE POPULAR VOTE AND VALUE OF POPULAR VOTE IN TERMS OF

ELECTORAL VOTES IN EACH OF THESE STATES.

page 293

TABLE #6 STATES WHERE DONALD TRUMP WON THE PLURALITY

OF THE POPULAR VOTE

AND VALUE OF POPULAR VOTE IN TERMS OF ELECTORAL VOTES IN

EACH OF THESE STATES

Page 3125

13
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

MATHEMATICAL ADVANTAGE OF GREATER VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES

IN VALUES OF ELECTORAL VOTES GIVEN TO SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE

STATES AND FARM/GREAT PLAINS CONSERVATIVE STATE COMPARED TO

LOWER VALUE OF NORTHERN AND WESTERN LIBERAL/MODERATE

STATES page 34

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 13TH AND 15TH SEPARATELY OR

COMBINED GIVE THIS COURT LEGAL AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE THE

ELECTORAL COLLEGE AS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE

13TH AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN TO END SLAVERY, THE 15TH

AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN TO GIVE FORMER SLAVES, THEN CALLED

FREEDMEN, THE RIGHT TO VOTE. ONCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SLAVES WERE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

IN 15TH AMENDMENT, THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE CREATION AND

EXISTENCE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS ABOLISHED. AT THAT

POINT IN TIME THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN

ABOLISHED

Page 4135

19TH AMENDMENT WOMENS RIGHT TO VOTE IS A POWERFUL BASIS ON

WHICH THIS U.S. DISTRICT COURT IS ABLE TO ABOLISH THE

ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE

14
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES, ENTIRELY, AND SWITCH TO THE POPULAR VOTE

PLURALITY METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES WHICH WAS PROPOSED IN SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 OF

DECEMBER 6, 1977 page 4135

PLAINTIFF ALLEGES AND CLAIMS THAT ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD

OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT VIOLATES

PLAINTIFF’S 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

VARIATION IN MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES FROM STATE

TO STATE CAUSED BY ELECTORAL COLLEGE FORMULA CAUSES

HARMFUL DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN VOTERS WHO ARE NON

RELIGIOUS OR BELONG TO LIBERAL RELIGIONS COMPARED TO VOTERS

WHO ARE RELIGIOUSLY FUNDAMENTALIST AND STRICT OBSERVANT OF

THEIR RELIGION. THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF EVERSON V. BOARD OF

EDUCATION page 4438

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RELIGIONS THAT ARE FAVORED

MATHEMATICALLY IN VOTE VALUE OVER OTHER RELIGIONS THAT ARE

DISRAVORED MATHEMATICALLY IN VOTE VALUE IN THE ELCTORAL

COLLEGE SYSTEM. page 5044

TABLE OF CONTENTS

15
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

RELIEF AND REMEDIES PLAINTIFF REQUESTS THIS U.S. DISTRICT COURT

TO GRANT page 5044

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

page 5448

STATUTORY JURISDICTION BY ACT OF CONGRESS, JUSTICIABILITY

UNDER U.S. CONSTITUTION

Page

5448

IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS: ALL SENATORS AND

OFFICERS IN US SENATE INCLUDING U.S. SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL

MAJORITY LEADER OF U.S. SENATE AND VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE

AND ALL REPRESENTATIVES AND OFFICERS IN U.S. HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES INCLUDING SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES PAUL RYAN

Page

5549

STANDING OF PLAINTIFF, UNDER BAKER V. CARR 269 U.S. 186,

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABOINGTON TOWNSHIP PENNSYLVANIA V.

SCHEMPP 374 page 5549

16
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING TO MAKE AND MUST BE GIVEN STANDING TO

REPRESENT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF IMPORTANT 3RD

PARTIES WHO ARE SUBGROUPS OF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE GROUP OF ALL LIBERAL/MODERATE VOTERS IN UNITED STATES

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS UNDER BARROWS V. JACKSON 346 U.S. 249

page 5852

RIPENESS OFISSUES PRESENTED IN PLAINTIFF’S CASE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL

HOW ELECTORS CHOSEN IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM

ALMOSTS NEVER PERFORM IN THE MANNER ANTICIPATED BY AUTHORS

OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS DEBATED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL

CONVENTION AND AS WRITTEN IN FEDERALIST PAPER NUMBER 68.

ELECTORS IN ANY STATE DO NOT ACT INDEPENDENTLY AND CAST

ELECTORAL VOTES FOR DIFFERENT PRESIDENTIAL/VICE PRESIDENTIAL

PAIRS OF CANDIDATES THAN THOSE CANDIDATES THAT THEY HAVE

BEEN PLEDGED TO ON THE POPULAR VOTE BALLOT BY VOTERS. Page

6299% OF ELECTORS SELECTED BY VOTERS IN THE GENERAL

ELECTION DO NOT ENGAGE IN DETAILED AND SERIOUS DEBATE

17
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

THATTHEY SHOULD CAST THEIR ELECTORAL VOTES FOR A

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OTHER THAN THAT CANDIDATE TO WHOM

THEY ARE PLEDGED ON THE GENERAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

BALLOT.

FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL

HOW THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY AS A LEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICE OF

OPERATING PLANTATIONS AND FARMS CREATED THE ELECTORAL

COLLEGE SYSTEM OF CHOOSEING ELECTORS FOR THE OFFICE OF

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AS A COMPROMISE MEASURE AT

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1789 IN PHILADELPHIA, PA

PAGE 62 page 56

FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL

MATHEMATICALLY OUT OF PROPORTION, OVERREPRESENTATION AS

GRANTED TO SMALL POPULATION STATES AND MEDIUM POPULATION

STATES, IN THE ACTUAL COMPARATIVE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES IN THOSE STATES

COMPARED TO LARGE POPULATION STATE UNDER THE UNITED STATES

CENSUS VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO VOTE

18
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

GUARANTEE OF THE IN THE 15TH AND 19TH AMENDMENTS OF THE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Page 660

FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL

ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF CHOOSING ELECTORS FOR

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY FAVORS

CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY OVER LIBERAL IDEOLOGY IN VOIOLATION OF

THE 13TH, 15TH, AND 19TH AMENDMENTS OF U.S. CONSTITUTION AND

CONSEQUENTLY UNFAIRLY FAVORS REPUBLICAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL

NOMINEES OVER DEMOCRAT AND 3RD PARTY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES

IN VIOLATION OF THE 13TH, 15TH, AND 19TH AMENDMENTS OF THE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Page 670

PLAINTIFF ALLEGES PRESIDENT ELECT DONALD TRUMP AND VICE

PRESIDENT ELECT MIKE PENCE DID NOT RECEIVE THE REQUIRED

NUMBER OF MAJORITY OF VALID LEGAL ELECTORAL VOTES 270

MINIMUM ELECTORAL VOTES AND THUS HAVE NOT BEEN LEGALLY

ELECTED AS PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. PLAINTIFF ALLEGES

THAT DONALD TRUMP AND MIKE PENCE RECEIVED 256 ELECTORAL

VOTES EACH FOR THE OFFICES OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

RESPECTIVELY. PLAINTIFF SEEKS DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CONSISTENT WITH

19
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

THESE FACTS, THAT PLAINTIFF ALLEGES, THAT DONALD TRUMP AND

MIKE PENCE BE HELD TO NOT BE THE WINNERS OF THE 2016

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGEGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SYSTEM. PLAINTIFF SEEKS THAT THE POPULAR VOTE BE USED TO

DETERMINE THE WINNER OF THE PRESIDENCY AS CONTAINED IN

PLAINTIFFS DEMANDS FOR RELIEF IN THIS COMPLAINT. PLAINTIFF

SEEKS IN INTERIM THAT UNDER TITLE 3 U.S.C.A. 19 (c) (1) THAT

SPEAKER OF THE

HOUSE PAUL RYAN BE ORDERED TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT PRO TEM OF

THE UNITED STATES UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THIS COURT, THE CIRCUIT

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, AND

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ISSUE FINAL RULINGS ON

MERITS OF PLAINTIFFS CASE, INCLUDING DETERMINING WHO THE

LEGAL WINNER OF THE 1016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS.

Page 681

14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY

STATE ELECTORS AND AND STATE ELECTION, [SECRETARIES OF STATE

OR EQUIVALENTS] AUTHORITIES AND BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE

IN THE INVALID FALSE CERTIFICATION OF NULL AND VOID ELECTORAL

20
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

VOTES

page 7872

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A

PREVAILING PARTY UNDER TITLE 42 U.S.C.A. 1988

REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BY PLAINTIFF AS A PREVAILING PARTY,

UNDER DECLARATORY RELIEF 42 U.S.C. 1988.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

POLITICAL DOCTRINCE CONCEPT DOES NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS IN THIS ELECTORAL COLLEGE COMPLAINT

BAKER V. CARR 369 U.S. 186 page 100

RIPENESS

page 101

TABLE OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

page 10294

21
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

ADDENDUM ON STANDING WESBERRY V. SANDERS

page 105

BEGINNING OF TEXT OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

19TH, 15TH, AND 13TH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION MUST

BE USED TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF ELECTING

THE PRESIDENT DUE TO VARIATION IN MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF

CITIZENS VOTES IN ALL 50 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

MATHEMATICAL VALLUES OF POPULAR VOTES VARY IN SUCH A WAY AS

TO FAVOR CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF CONSERVATIVE

VOTERS AND DISFAVOR LIBERAL/MODERATE IDEOLOGY OF

22
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

LIBERAL/MODERATE VOTERS. THE ONLY WAY TO ELIMANATE THIS

IDEOLOGICAL FAVORITISM/ IDEOLOGICAL DISCRIMINATION IS TO

SWITCH TO THE POPULAR VOTE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT

AS CONTAINED IN SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 OF DECEMBER 6, 1977.

THE MATHEMATICAL VARIATION IN THE VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES

COMBINED WITH WASTE OF EXCESS POPULAR VOTES IN THE

ELECTORAL VOTE WINNER TAKE ALL SYSTEM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

UNDER THE RIGHT TO VOTE GUARANTEES OF BOTH THE 15TH

AMENDMENT U.S.C.A. AND 19TH AMENDMENT U.S. CONSTITUTIONC.A .

Plaintiff is a United States citizen, a registered voter in the state

of Illinois, a resident of Cook County, Illinois. Plaintiff claims that his

vote should be counted with equal value to every other popular vote of

every citizen in every state and the District of Columbia. Plaintiff claims

that under the United States Constitution and the 13th Amendment,

15th Amendment, the 19TH Amendment and the 1st Amendment thereof,

each popular vote of every voter in all 50 states and the District of

Columbia must be valued at 1 unit vote per person. Plaintiff claims that

the national popular vote plurality winner, that is the candidate who

wins the highest total number of popular votes is the only legal

constitutional winner of the presidential election. Plaintiff claims that

the value of his vote cast for Hillary Rodham Clinton and the value of

all votes cast for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the November 8, 2016

presidential election have been illegally devalued by the Electoral

23
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

College system in violation of the 13th Amendment, 15th

Amendmentmendment U.S.C.A., the 19th Amendment U.S.C.A. and the

1st Amendment of the U.S. ConstitutionU.S.C.A. Plaintiff claims that

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the legal winner of the 2016 Presidential

election. Plaintiff claims that Donald John Trump and Mike Pence are

the legal losers of the 2016 Presidential election. Plaintiff asks this U.S.

District Court to make findings of law consistent with plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff asks this court for declaratory relief herein asked for in this

complaint and plaintiff asks for injunctive permanent relief and orders

as well, to implement plaintiff’s claims at law, should plaintiff be the

prevailing party in this lawsuit, and should the court agree with claims

made by plaintiff and adopt and order implemented the remedies

plaintiff asks for.

Plaintiff did apply for a preliminary injunction to be issued by this

court to maintain the status quo which was denied by this court.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief consistent with

plaintiff’s claims in this complaint. Plaintiff realistically expects that this

case will be heard on appeal by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia and ultimately that the United States Supreme

Court will accept the case on certiorari and rule on the issues of this

case on the merits.

24
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff’s vote is unconstitutionally reduced in

mathematical value to .78 or 78% of the average value of votes of

qualified voters who reside in fourteen Southern states. Southern

voters living in thirteen Southern states Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia,

Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Missouri,

Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida, and Texas, have a vote

which is worth on the average 1.27 times greater than an Illinois

voter’s vote in terms of mathematical value. An Illinois voter’s vote is

worth 1.8 X 10 to minus 6 electoral votes. An average Southern

voters vote is worth 2.3 X 10 to minus 6 electoral votes. 1.8

X 10 -6 electoral votes divided by 2.3 X 10-6 electoral votes equals .78

or 78%. So an Illinois voters vote is worth .78 or 78% of a Southern

state voter’s vote. To fully understand the mathematical comparisons

that the plaintiff is making here, the reader must understand that our

mathematical notation in powers of 10 to the minus 6 is expressed in

terms of electoral votes. What the plaintiff is doing here is converting

popular votes into an electoral vote value for each of the 50 states and

the District of Columbia by dividing the number of electoral votes each

state is assigned in a given election year and then dividing that

number of electoral votes by the population census number for that

state. For example, Ohio in 2000 U.S. Census was given 21 electoral

votes. We divide the 21 electoral votes in Ohio for that year by the

25
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Ohio population in the 2000 U.S. Census, which is 11,353,000 which

gives us a value of each Ohio voter’s vote in terms of electoral votes.

The numerical results give a solution of approximately 1.6 X 10 to the

minus 6 power electoral votes, which in decimals is .0000016. On the

table 1, the plaintiff show the value of popular votes expressed in

terms of electoral votes for all 50 states and the District of Columbia

for the 1990 census, the 2000 census, and the 2010 census.

Since presidential elections occur every 4 years, each population

census figures are usually used for 2 elections based on the fact that

House of Representative districts are redistricted every 10 years after a

new census has been taken.

Note that the 2000 election was an election in which the winner

of the popular vote plurality total in the entire United States, Al Gore,

did not win the electoral vote majority of 270 electoral votes. Al Gore

won the national popular vote plurality total by over 500,000 popular

votes. George W. Bush Jr. won the majority of electoral votes because

the United States Supreme Court interfered with the Florida Supreme

Court’s orders for County Boards of Elections to do recounts, if they

wished to do so. The actual real totals for Al Gore Jr. and George W.

26
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Bush Jr. were never found out. This was because the United States

Supreme Court ordered an end to the recounts in Florida and picked

George W. Bush as the winner of the presidential election.

Table #4 gives the value of popular votes in terms of electoral

votes based on the 2010 census figures and the 2010 numbers of

electoral votes given to each state. The 2010 census figures were used

to calculate the number of electoral votes in 2012 and 2016

presidential election. Table #5 shows the value of popular votes in

terms of electoral votes that Hillary Clinton won and that Donald Trump

won for each state in which each candidate won the popular vote

plurality. In the 2016 election Hillary Clinton won the national popular

vote plurality total with a total of 65,432,202 popular votes. In the

2016 election Donald Trump lost the national popular vote plurality

total when Trump won 62,793,872. Donald Trump came in second in

the total number of popular votes received for president. In the 2016

presidential election Donald Trump won 303 electoral votes, far more

than the 270 electoral vote minimum constituting a majority of

electoral votes needed to win the presidency. So Donald Trump came in

second in the number of popular votes won, but won the presidency by

winning more than a majority of electoral votes. Trump won exactly

303 electoral votes. A minimum of 270 electoral votes constitutes the

majority number of electoral votes required to win the presidency.

27
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff claims that a wide variation in mathematical values

exists from the value of popular votes in Northern liberal/moderate

states to Midwestern farming/ great plains states. Such wide variation

in mathematical value of votes runs from. 1.8 X10-6 in New York,

Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Illinois to 2.2 X 10-6 in Kansas, 2.9 x 10-

6 in Nebraska, 6.0 X 10-6 in Wyoming, 3.0 X 10-6 in Idaho and 3.3 X

10-6 in Montana. Easily we can see here that a conservative vote in

farming/great plains states on the average is worth 1.27 times the

value of a vote in the liberal/moderate states block. That is, a

conservative vote in the following states Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming,

Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota is worth

mathematically on the average 1.27 times more than the average

value of a liberal/moderate vote in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware,

Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New

Jersey, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Oregon, Rhode Island, Maine,

Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. In terms of our

Constitution, looking at the content and legislative intent of the 13th,

15th, and 19th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, something is very

wrong with the Electoral College method of electing a president of the

U.S. Something is very wrong with this system that assigns a wide

range of different mathematical values to popular votes of people who

live in different states and have different ideologies. Prior to 1829 state

legislatures decided for whom they wished to cast electoral votes for

28
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

president. By 1836 every state gave the right to vote for electors in the

electoral college to qualified voters, who at that time were only white

males. Examining the value of votes in states where the majority of

voters have conservative ideology, and seeing that the value of votes

in conservative states equals 1.27 times the value of a liberal vote in

liberal/moderate states, a shrewd observer sees that the Electoral

College system give a distinct mathematical advantage to the middle

population Southern states and the low population farm/great plains

states in terms of mathematical values of votes. Voters of conservative

ideology have a substantial built in advantage of winning elections for

the conservative republican candidates for whom they usually vote.

Plaintiff voter claims that this major mathematical inequality that gives

conservative voters in middle population and low population states,

such substantial mathematical advantage in choosing a president is a

major violation of the guarantees of the 19th Amendment, 15th

Amendment and 13th Amendment and 1st Amendment of the United

States Constitution.

A close examination of the 2016 Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump

and the 2000 George W. Bush v. Al Gore Jr. gives us the mathematical

data to clearly see how, when the Southern conservative states vote

with the farm/great plains conservative states, the increased

mathematical values of popular votes, converted to electoral votes,

which are cast for conservative presidential candidates, who

29
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

consistently are Republicans, clearly destroy, diminish, and violate the

19th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment voting rights of

liberal/moderate black and liberal moderate white voters in the high

population liberal/moderate Northern states and Western states. That

is the Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, California,

Connecticut, New Mexico, Hawaii, Oregon, Rhode Island, Maine,

Vermont, Washington, Virginia, and the District of Columbia which is

the block of liberal/moderate states.

There are swing states. Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, North

Carolina

There are two basic voting blocks of states and a third group of swing

states

1. The Northern Liberal/Moderate block of states votes primarily for

liberal democratic presidential candidates. This block consists of

the following states: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois,

Wisconsin, District of Columbia, Michigan, Rhode Island,

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Delaware,

Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, California, New

Mexico, Virginia, and Hawaii.
2. The Conservative block of states, usually vote for the Republican

Conservative candidate for president. This block consists of two

groups of states. The Southern block consisting of West Virginia,

30
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Indiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi,

Texas, New Hampshire, and Alaska. The Great Plains block of

Conservative state consist of North Dakota, South Dakota,

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming Colorado, Utah,

Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona.
3. The following states can go either way, Democratic or

Republican, in presidential races: Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, North

Carolina, and Florida [2000 election was deliberately stolen in

Florida by improper counting, refusal to count ballots clearly

marked in which the intent of the voter to vote for a particular

candidate, Al Gore, Jr. was very clear, Deliberate ballot

destruction and fraudulent marking of ballots was committed by

insider clerks working for the Republican Party and the Bush

campaign. Duval County had 22,000 ballots, most of which were

double punched and ruined deliberately by insider clerks at the

Board of Elections in Jacksonville who were working for the Bush

campaign and the Republican Party of Florida, plaintiff alleges. In

multiple counties of Florida there were approximately 15,000

ballots marked for Gore and had Al Gore’s name written in on the

write in space additionally. Because the name of Al Gore was

written in on the write in space, provided for a write in candidate

to be written in by voters who wished to vote for any write

candidate, in addition to the space for Al Gore being punched or

31
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

marked, these ballots were never counted for Al Gore]. In clear

violation of case law from the Florida Supreme Court these

ballots marked 2 times for Al Gore, Jr. once with the round circle

marked with a pen for Al Gore Jr., and then these ballots had the

name Al Gore written in in ink on the line that said write in name

of candidate, which was actually supposed to be only for write in

candidates. These ballots were set aside as over votes and

these ballots were never counted for Al Gore, Jr. These so called

over votes, were ignored. The intent of the voters who cast these

ballots were never determined by visual inspection, which is

what Florida law commanded clerks at the Boards of Election to

do, and Al Gore wrongly was deprived of about 15,000 votes and

lost the election.

TABLE #4 COMPARATIVE VALUE 2010 CENSUS OF POPULAR VOTES IN

TERMS OF ELECTORAL VOTES IN THE 50 STATES AND DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA, ELECTORAL VOTES ARE DIVIDED BY 2010 U.S. CENSUS

POPULATION IN EACH STATE AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

These 2010 Census population vote values were used in the 2016

Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump election. This chart shows variation in

value of popular votes in all states and D.C.

State Number of Electoral Votes 2010 Census Population Value
of Popular Vote

32
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

In terms of

Electoral Votes

Alabama 9 divided by 4,779,736

=.00000188

Alaska 3 divided by 710,231

=.00000422

Arizona 8 divided by 6,392,017

=.00000172

Arkansas 6 divided by 2,915,918

=.00000205

California 55 divided by 37,253,956

=.00000147

Colorado 9 divided by 5,029,196

=.00000178

Connecticut 7 divided by 3,574,097

=.00000195

Delaware 3 divided by 897,934

=.00000334

District of Columbia 3 divided by 601,723

=.00000498

Florida(Swing State) 29 divided by 18,801,310

=.00000154

33
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Georgia 13 divided by 9,687,653

=.00000165

TABLE #4

STATE Number Of Electoral Votes 2010 Census Population

Value of Popular Votes

In Terms of

Electoral Votes

Hawaii 4 divided by 1,360,301

=.00000294

Idaho 4 divided by 1,567,582

=.00000255

Illinois 20 divided by 12,830,632

=.00000155

Indiana 11 divided by 6,483,802

=.00000169

Iowa [swing state] 6 divided by 3,046,355

=.00000196

34
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Kansas 6 divided by 2,853,118

=.00000210

Kentucky 8 divided by 4,339,367

=.00000176

Louisiana 8 divided by 4,533,372

=.00000176

Maine 4 divided by 1,328,361

=.00000301

Maryland 11 divided by 5,773,552

=.00000190

Massachusetts 11 divided by 6,547,629

=.00000167

Michigan 16 divided by 9,883,640

=.00000161

Minnesota 10 divided by 5,303,925

=.00000188

Mississippi 6 divided by 2,967,297

=.00000202

Missouri 10 divided by 5,988,927

=.00000166

Montana 3 divided by 989,415

=.00000303

35
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Nebraska 5 divided by 1,826,341

=.00000273

TABLE #4

State Number of Electoral Votes 2010 census Population

Value of popular Votes in

Terms of Electoral

Votes

Nevada 6 divided by 2,700,551

=.00000221

New Hampshire 4 divided by 1,316,470

=.00000303

New Jersey 14 divided by 8,791894

=.00000159

New Mexico 5 divided by 2,059,179

=.00000242

New York 29 divided by 19,378,102

=.00000149

North Carolina 15 divided by 9,535,483

=.00000157

North Dakota 3 divided by 672,591

=.00000446

36
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Ohio [Swing State] 18 divided by 11,536,504

=.00000156

Oklahoma 7 divided by 3,751,351

=.00000186

Oregon 7 divided by 3,831074

=.00000182

Pennsylvania 20 divided by 12,702,379

=.00000157

Rhode Island 4 divided by 1,052,567

=.00000380

South Carolina 9 divided by 4,625,364

=.00000194

South Dakota 3 divided by 814,180

=.00000368

Tennessee 11 divided by 6,346,105

=.00000173

Texas 38 divided by 25,145,561

=.00000151

Utah 6 divided by 2,763,885

=.00000217

TABLE #4

37
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

States Number of Electoral Votes 2010 Census Population Value

of Popular Votes in

Terms of Electoral

Votes

Vermont 3 divided by 625,741

=.00000479

Virginia [swing state]13 divided by 8,001,024

=.00000162

Washington 12 divided by 6,724,540

=.00000178

West Virginia 5 divided by 1,852,994

=.00000269

Wisconsin 11 divided by 5,686,986

=.00000175

Wyoming 3 divided by 563,626

=.00000532

38
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

TABLE #5 STATES WON BY HILLARY CLINTON WHERE CLINTON WON A

PLURALITY OF POPULAR VOTES. Hillary Clinton won a total of

65,432,202 popular votes in all 50 states and District of Columbia

listed below here

STATES VALUE OF POPULAR

VOTE

IN ELECTORAL VOTES

BASED ON 2010 CENSUS

California .00000147

Colorado .00000178

Connecticut .00000195

Delaware .00000334

District of Columbia .00000498

Hawaii .00000294

Illinois .00000155

Maine awards electoral votes by Congressional District Clinton won 1

Congressional Districts

39
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Maine .00000300

Maryland .00000190

Massachusetts .00000167

Minnesota .00000188

Nevada .00000221

New Hampshire .00000303

New Jersey .00000159

New Mexico 00000242

TABLE #5

STATES VALUE OF POPULAR

VOTES

IN ELECTORAL VOTES

BASED ON 2010 CENSUS

New York 00000149

Oregon .00000182

Rhode Island .00000380

Vermont .00000479

Virginia .00000162

Washington 00000178

40
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

TABLE #6 STATES WON BY DONALD TRUMP WHERE TRUMP WON A

PLURALITY OF POPULAR VOTES. Donald Trump won a total of

62,793,872 popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia

STATES VALUE OF POPULAR

VOTES

IN ELECTORAL VOTES

BASED ON 2010 CENSUS

Alabama .0000020

Alaska .00000422

Arizona .00000172

Arkansas .00000205

Florida [swing state] .00000154

Georgia .00000165

Idaho .00000255

Indiana .00000169

41
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Iowa [swing state] .00000196

Kansas .00000210

Kentucky .00000176

Louisiana .00000176

Maine Maine awards electoral votes by Congressional District

Trump won 3 electoral votes in 3 congressional districts .00000300

Maine .00000301

TABLE #6 STATES WON BY DONALD TRUMP WHERE TRUMP WON A

PLURALITY OF POPULAR VOTES

STATES VALUE OF POPULAR

VOTES

IN ELECTORAL VOTES

BASED ON 2010 CENSUS

Michigan .00000161

Mississippi .00000202

Missouri .00000166

Montana .00000303

Nebraska awards electoral votes by Congressional District and Trump

won all of those

Nebraska .00000273

North Carolina .00000157

North Dakota .00000446

Ohio [Swing State] .00000156

42
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Oklahoma .00000186

Pennsylvania .00000157

South Carolina .00000194

South Dakota .00000368

Tennessee .00000173

Texas .00000151

Utah .00000217

West Virginia .000002

TABLE#6 STATES WON BY DONALD TRUMP WHERE TRUMP WON A

PLURALITY OF POPULAR VOTES

STATES VALUE OF POPULAR

VOTES IN

IN ELECTORAL VOTES

BASED ON 2010 CENSUS

Wisconsin .00000175

Wyoming .00000532

43
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

MATHEMATICAL ADVANTAGE OF GREATER VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES

IN VALUES OF ELECTORAL VOTES GIVEN TO SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE

STATES AND FARMS/GREAT PLAINS CONSERVATIVE STATES COMPADRED

TO LOWER VALUE OF NORTHERN WESTERN LIBERAL/MODERATE STATES

The mathematical advantage of the ratio of Southern conservative

votes value 2.0 X 10 -6 electoral votes to North/Western

liberal/moderate states vote value 1.7 X 10 -6 electoral votes gives on

the average to Southern conservative voters a leveraged advantage of

mathematical value of 1.17 to 1.

2.0 X 10 -6 electoral votes Divided by 1.7 X 10 -6 electoral

votes=1.17

The mathematical advantage of the ratio of the Farm/Great Plains

states 2.4 X 10 -6 to Northern Western liberal/moderate states vote

value 1.7 X 10 -6 gives on the average to Farm/Great Plains

conservative states voters a leveraged advantage of 1.41 to 1.

44
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

2.4 X 10 -6 divided by 1.7 X 10 -6 =1.41

Voters in Southern states and Great Plains States are primarily

conservative in political ideology and those voters are now solidly

registered as Republican majorities in 14 Southern states and all the

Great Plains states and the combination of these two voting blocks are

given an extraordinary mathematical leveraged advantage of a factor

of approximately 1.29 to 1. over the liberal/moderate voters in the

Northern Western liberal/moderate block of states. Voter citizens of

liberal/moderate political ideology in Northern Western

liberal/moderate states are predominantly registered Democrats and

the total population in those states in 2000 was 146,961,000.

This built in mathematical advantage in the Electoral College system

gives Southern states voters plus Great Plains states voters the ability

to control who is elected president even though they are less voters in

numbers, in the 2000 census exactly 131,094,000 voters, than

Northern Western liberal/moderate voters 146,961,000 total in

numbers. This is how, of course, a popular candidate like Al Gore could

win the popular vote, receiving 49,500,000 votes to George W. Bush Jr.,

who received 49,000,000 votes, but Al Gore Jr. lost the Electoral

College majority and George W. Bush Jr. won the Electoral College

majority. The Electoral College system gives the Southern states block

combined with the Farm/Great Plains state block control over the

45
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

political system of the United States by controlling the choice of

president, vice president, and the choice of U.S. Supreme Court

Justices, U.S. Judges of the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and Judges of the

U.S. District Courts. In violation of the 13th Amendment U.S.C.A., 15th

Amendment U.S.C.A., and 19th Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution.S.C.A., all liberal/moderate block voters’ votes whether

black, or white are counted as substantially less mathematically, than

conservative voters’ votes in the Electoral College system of vote

tabulation. To review how this Electoral College system works, each

state under the Electoral College system gets one electoral vote for

each Representative in Congress and one electoral vote for each

Senator in the U.S. Senate. The total number of U.S. Senators plus the

total number of U.S. Representatives gives the number of electoral

votes each state is allotted under the Electoral College system. Each

state is guaranteed at least one Representative in the U.S. House of

Representatives regardless of population. The fact that each state no

matter how small the population in numbers of voters gets 2 electoral

votes for each of the 2 U.S. Senators disproportionately give medium

population and small population state a much greater mathematical

value to each individual voter’s popular vote. See Table #4. The 2000

census figures were used for the 2004 election John Kerry v. George W.

Bush Jr. and the 2008 election Barack Obama v. John McCain.

46
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

The Electoral College system was deliberately and purposefully

designed in 1787 by the Committee of Eleven, at the Constitutional

Convention to give Southern states absolute control over the picking of

the President and the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, referred to in the

U.S. Constitution. merely as “Judges of the U.S. Supreme Court” in the

U.S. Constitution., who would protect the legality of slavery both in the

U.S. Constitution and in statutes passed by Congress in the United

States Code from the time of the ratification of the new U.S.

Constitution in 1789. The Constitutional Convention of 1787,

Committee of Eleven, who created the idea of the Electoral college

system of electors, did so as a method of accommodating or giving in

to Southern delegates at that constitutional convention in the summer

of 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, so that those Southern delegates

would be persuaded that slavery would be protected as a legal

institution by frequently choosing Southern born and South bred

Presidents. Such Southern born and Southern bred presidents would

insure that slavery would be a protected legal institution that would

provide almost all of the farm labor of Southern plantations and farms,

both under the U.S. Constitution and the statutory Law in the United

States Code. Thus, southern presidents were elected to serve 50 out of

80 years of presidential terms from 1787 at the beginning of the new

nation, and the first 80 years onward.

47
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787

realized that they got quite a bargain in terms of leveraging control of

future presidential elections and future appointees to the U.S. Supreme

Court and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Clearly Chief Justice Roger

Taney, who authored the notorious Dred Scott decision, was one of a

number of pro slavery, pro southern Justices, who fulfilled this

prophecy. Taney ruled that slave were not humans with human rights

and legal rights, but rather slaves who were the property of their slave

owners, to be bought and sold and returned across state lines, should

the slaves run away and escape from their owners. At the time of the

Constitutional Convention in 1787 40% or .40 of the population of the

Southern states were black slaves owned by Plantation and farm

owners.

The Southern states had a much lower population of white men and

white women than did the northern states.

As an example of the absurd unfairness of the Electoral College

assignment of values of popular votes, let us imagine a World Series

Championship baseball game, between two separate baseball leagues.

The Northern baseball league consists of the liberal baseball players,

whose home runs and base runs count mathematically as 1.0 points for

each run. The Southern baseball league consists of conservative

players, who home runs and base runs count mathematically as 1.5

points for each run. Clearly, in order for the Northern baseball league

48
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

to win the World Series against the Southern baseball league, the

Northern baseball league is going to have to make up greater than 1.5

times the number of runs that the Southern baseball league scores.

And, in fact, in order for the Northern baseball league to win the World

Series against the Southern baseball league, the Northern baseball

league is going to have to score about 1.6 times the number of total

runs that the Southern baseball league scores. Every baseball fan

would realize this is an absurd, unfair, idiotic scoring system. Yet this is

exactly how we elect the President of the United States. Would the

Baseball Commission of the Northern liberal team allow such an unfair

tabulating system of computing baseball scores on the playing field?

Obviously this is fundamentally unfair. The only solution is for the

governing body of baseball to change the scoring rules, so that each

team’s homeruns or runs generate an equal number of point as 1 unit

run mathematically for both the Northern and Southern league

baseball teams.

This Court has the power, under the 13th, 15th, and 19th

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, to implement the one unit vote

per person nation popular vote formula, as presented in Senate Joint

Resolution 1 [Exhibit 1] to elect the president of the United States.

Plaintiff voter claims the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments U.S.C.A.

mandate the use of the 1 unit vote per qualified voter, nationally, in

the presidential general election and the presidential run off election.

49
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

[Note: see Exhibit 1 Senate Joint Resolution 1] The 1 unit vote per

person presidential election formula abolishes the following sections of

the original Constitution of 1787 article II Section 1 Clauses 2,3,4.

1.Electoral vote tie, instance where there is an exact tie of

electoral votes between the two presidential candidates, the election

goes to the U.S. House of Representatives where each state has a

delegation which in the entirety is worth 1 vote. Each state delegation

can cast 1 unite vote for president.

2.No electoral College vote majority received by any presidential

general election candidate. In such occurrence the election goes to the

U.S. House of Representatives to decide. Each state delegation in the

House of Representatives gets 1 vote, regardless of population.

Certainly using the national popular vote majority or plurality

totals will render moot situations 1. And 2. above. There has never

been an election in which the popular vote was a ties, that is an exact

mathematical tie. In case Number 2, Senate Joint Resolution 1

mandates that any presidential general election candidate, who wins

the national plurality total of votes, who receives at least 40% of or .40

of the general election popular vote or the general election runoff

popular vote, is elected the President of the United States. This,

situation 2 above is rendered moot, when this District Court rules in

Plaintiff’s favor, that the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments of the United

States Constitution mandate a switch to the Popular Vote method of

50
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

choosing a president, as contained in the Amendment written in

Senate Joint Resolution 1, at pp. 1 and 2, Exhibit 1. Therefore, the U.S.

Senate will never be needed to choose a vice president either, since

the president and vice president are elected as a team. See Article 2,

Section 1, Clauses 1,2,3, and 4.

Title 3 U.S.C.A. Sections

1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,4,15,16,17,18, 20,21 are rendered moot

when this District court grants Plaintiff’s demands to switch to the

National Popular Vote Method of choosing the President.

Title 3, U.S.C.A., Section 2, set a safe harbor date, by which

electoral votes are to be submitted from each of the 50 states’ Chief

Election Officials, or Chief Legislative Officials. A switch to the national

popular vote total moots the electoral vote safe harbor date. When the

Court institutes Plaintiff’s request to switch to the National Popular vote

Method of electing the President, section 2 is moot, and this court will

temporarily set a date by which the Chief state Elections Officials shall

send certified statewide Popular Vote totals to the President of the U.S.

Senate.

Title 3, U.S.C.A. Section 5 describes the procedures for accepting

electoral votes as regularly given, or rejecting electoral votes as not

regularly given, by the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.

51
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

When the Court institutes Plaintiff’s request to switch to the National

Popular Vote Method of electing the President, Section 5 is moot.

Title 3, U.S.C.A. Section 15 gives the procedure for the U.S.

Senate and U.S. House of Representatives to meet in closed session to

determine whether electoral votes are accepted as “regularly given”

or rejected as “not regularly given”. Section 15 mandates that only

Senators can initiate the rejection of electoral votes. Then

representatives may second such motion of rejection of electoral votes

and attempt to get a majority of representatives in the U.S. House, to

vote to reject such electoral votes. Senators voicing objections by

motion to reject electoral votes, attempt in closed session, or in open

session to get a majority of Senate votes, to reject electoral votes on

their motion, as “not regularly given”. When the Court grants Plaintiff’s

request to institute the Popular vote Method of selecting the President,

Section 15 is moot as well, because there will be no electors and no

electoral votes for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of

Representatives to count.

Plaintiff requests that that this Honorable Judge will issue an

appropriate schedule under the application of provisions of Senate

Joint Resolution 1 of December 6, 1977 [Exhibit 1 herein] for

Secretaries of States or the Chief Elections Official in the 50 states and

the District of Columbia to send certified popular vote totals of all

presidential candidates on the ballot in each of the 50 states and the

52
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

District of Columbia, to the President of the U.S. Senate, Vice President

Joseph Biden. The President of the Senate shall then in a joint session

of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives add up all the

popular vote totals of all candidates on the ballots of all 50 states and

the District of Columbia and announce the totals. Then the Vice

President, who is the presiding officer of the Senate, announces the

nationwide totals received by each candidate for president in the 50

states and the District of Columbia. The candidate with the highest

plurality vote total of the popular vote, that receives at least 40% of

the popular vote shall be announced to be the winner of the

presidential election. In the event that no candidate for president of

the United states receives the 40% minimum plurality total nationally

of the popular vote, then the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice

President of the United States shall declare that there will be a runoff

election in 30 days, on the first Tuesday after 30 days in all 50 states

and the District of Columbia.

THE 15TH AMENDMENT TO U.S. CONSTITUTION SEPARATELY GIVES THIS

COURT THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE THE ELECTORAL

COLLEGE, AS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

AS APPLIED, BECAUSE THE 15TH AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN TO GIVE

FORMER SLAVES, THEN CALLED FREEDMEN, THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

SLAVERY WAS ABOLISHED BY THE 13TH AMENDMENT. ONCE SLAVES

WERE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IN THE

53
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

15TH AMENDMENT, THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE CREATION AND

EXISTENCE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS ABOLISHED. AT THAT

POINT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED.

THE 19TH AMENDMENT WHICH GAVE WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS A

POWERFUL BASIS ON WHICH THIS U.S. DISTRICT COURT IS ABLE TO

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF ELECTING THE

PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. ENTIRELY, AND SWITCHING TO THE POPULAR

VOTE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

AS SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 OF

DECEMBER 6, 1977.

The 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a complete basis

for this Court to abolish the Electoral College method of the choosing

U.S. President and switching to the popular vote method of one unit

vote per person to elect the President of the United States as detailed

in Senate Joint Resolution 1, Proposed Constitutional Amendment pp.

1,2. Reasons for this are that women in Northern Liberal/Moderate

block of states, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, District of

Columbia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Rhode Island, Connecticut,

Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota,

Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii vote approximately as

follows: 60% for a Democratic Presidential candidate to 40% for a

Republican Presidential candidate. A Liberal/Moderate woman’s vote is

54
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

reduced in value by the Electoral College to .78 or 78% of the value of

a Southern and Farm/Great Plains conservative woman’s vote. A

woman’s vote in the Northern liberal/moderate block of states is

worth .78 of the average value of a woman’s vote in the Southern and

Farm/Great Plains conservative vote.

Value of Southern women’s conservative Popular Vote=1.8 X 10 -6

Electoral Votes

Value of Farm/Great Plains women’s conservative Popular Vote=1.97 X

10 -6 Electoral Votes

Average Mathematical Value of Conservative Women’s Vote +1.88 X

10 -6 Electoral Votes

Compare to Average mathematical Value of Liberal Women’s Vote =

1.70 X 10 -6

We can see here that the mathematical value of a conservative

woman’s vote at 1.88 X 10 -6 is substantially greater than the value of

a liberal woman’s vote at 1.70 X 10 -6

The difference in value between the two is 1.88-1.70=0000018.

The average value of a conservative woman’s vote is 1.27 times

greater than a liberal/moderate woman’s vote. The purpose of the 19th

Amendment was to give women the right to vote so that women could

and would exercise political self determinism. The mathematical

presentation above proves by a preponderance of the evidence that

55
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

the Electoral College method of electing the president interferes with

women’s participation in the voting system by lowering the value of

the votes of liberal/moderate women and increasing the values of the

votes of conservative women. This is a really insidious effect. Women

have unique rights that they need to protect in the legal system.

Women possess unique biological, physiological, emotional

characteristics. Plaintiff claims that women are guaranteed by the 19th

Amendment U.S.C.A. to have a vote which is equal in value to the

votes of all other voter citizens, male or female in every state in the

United States AND THE District of Columbia. In order for women to be

able to exercise their own self determinism, all votes of all United

States citizens, male or female most be valued at one unit vote per

person. Each vote of every voter in every state must have the same

mathematical value as the vote of every other voter. Plaintiff claims

that on the basis of the 19th Amendment right of women to vote, and

for women to be able to exercise self-determinism through the vote,

that this Court abolish the Electoral College method of electing the

president and replace the Electoral College with the national popular

vote plan specified in Senate Joint Resolution 1 of December 6, 1977.

The 19th Amendment U.S.C.A. was ratified in 1920 some 130 years

after the original constitution was ratified and 55 years after slavery

was abolished in 1865 through ratification of the 13th Amendment

U.S.C.A.

56
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff points out that black women only got the right to vote in

1920 55 years after slavery was abolished in 1865. This was a 3rd step

for the United States government to expand voting rights which gave

female black citizens the rights of free citizens to vote.

PLAINTIFF ALLEGES AND CLAIMS THAT ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD

OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT VIOLATES

PLAINTIFF’S 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

VARIATION IN MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES FROM STATE

TO STATE CAUSED BY ELECTORAL COLLEGE FORMULA CAUSES

HARMFUL DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN VOTERS WHO ARE NON

RELIGIOUS, OR BELONG TO LIBERAL RELIGIONS, OR WHO ARE

ATHEISTS, OR WHO ARE AGNOSTICS COMPARED TO VOTERS WHO ARE

RELIGIOUSLY FUNDAMENTALIST AND STRICTLY OBSERVANT OF THEIR

RELIGION. SUCH VARIATION IN MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF VOTES IN

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM CREATES ESTABLISHMENT OF A

STATE CHURCH OR A GROUP OF STATE CHURCHES, THAT IS RELIGIONS

OR RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS THAT ARE FAVORED WITH VOTES OF

GREATER MATHEMATICAL VALUE OVER OTHER CHURCHES, JEWISH

TEMPLES, ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS, BUDDHISTS AND HINDUS.

EXAMINATION OF THE RELIGIONS AND RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS

PREDOMINANT IN THE SOUTHERN STATES AND PREDOMINANT IN THE

NORTHERN STATES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND

57
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

COMPARISON OF THE MATHEMATICAL VALUES QUANTITATIVELY OF

THEIR VOTES IN TERMS OF ELECTORAL VOTES.

Plaintiff alleges that the electoral college gives greater mathematical

value to popular votes of voters who have very fundamentalist

Christian religious views. The Southern states and the Farm/Great

Plains states referred to above in this complaint have a much greater

concentration of fundamentalist Catholics, fundamentalist Southern

Baptists, fundamentalist Methodists, fundamentalist Assembly of God,

fundamentalist Presbyterian, fundamentalist non denominational

[including those who call themselves born again Christians] Christians,

Conservative Protestants than the Northern and Western

Liberal/Moderate states. The Northern/Western Liberal/Moderate states

have the highest concentration of liberal Catholics, liberal

Episcopalians, liberal Protestants including several sects of

Protestantism , liberal Unitarians, liberal Jews, liberal agnostics, liberal

atheists. The average value of a popular vote in the Southern and

Great Plains states, see discussion page 28 above, averaging

2.0 X 10 -6 Southern states vote value and the 2.4 X 10 -6 Farm/Great

Plains states vote value equals 2.2 X 10 -6 vote value for a

conservative vote nationwide in all conservative states. The average

value of a conservative vote is 2.2 X 10 -6 electoral votes. The

Southern states plus the Farm/Great Plains states constitute the

conservative states. The Northern/Western states constitute the

58
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

liberal/moderate states. The average value of a Northern/Western

liberal/moderate states vote is 1.7 X 10 -6

2.2 X 10 -6 electoral votes value of conservative popular vote

divided by 1.7 X 10 -6 electoral votes value of liberal/moderate popular

vote equals 1.29

The average value of a conservative vote 2.2 X 10 -6 is 1.29 times

greater under the electoral college system than the average value of a

liberal/moderate vote worth 1.7 X 10 -6 under the electoral college

system in terms of popular votes. 1.29 times greater is a large amount

of difference quantitatively in the value of a popular vote.

We can clearly see here how Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton

even though Hillary Clinton received 2,700,000 more popular votes

than Donald Trump. We can see clearly how Al Gore, Jr in 2000 received

500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush Jr. did in the 2000

presidential election and Gore still lost the electoral vote majority and

George W. Bush Jr. won the electoral vote majority.

What we can see, that is even more shocking, is how the

Southern/Farms, Great Plains states voters contain a large number, the

highest concentration of what the plaintiff calls fundamentalist

Christians, who often call themselves evangelical Christians, born

again Christians. Evangelicals constitute a large percentage of the

electorate in the Southern/Farms, Great Plains states. The percentage

that they constitute of the total voting age population is so large that

59
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

pollsters who take political polls during the primary election and a

general election period actually list these Evangelicals as a category

for political polling questions. The part of the United States that

contains the largest concentration of these fundamentalism Christians,

who call themselves Evangelicals are the Southern/Great Plains states.

Now the Southern/Great Plains states just happen to be the parts of the

United States that have popular votes with an average value of 2.2 X

10-6 that on the average are worth 1.29 times the value of the popular

votes in the Northern/Liberal states which are worth 1.7 X 10 -6. This of

course is because the Southern and Great Plains states are mostly

medium population and low population states.

The part of the United States which constitute the largest numbers

of Conservative voters also contain the largest percentage of voters in

the class of all registered voters who call themselves Evangelical

Christians, whom plaintiff Sablosky calls fundamentalist Christians.

Fundamentalist Christians and Evangelical Christians are for the

purposes of plaintiff’s discussion and plaintiff’s claims in this civil

complaint the same group of fundamentalist religious people. The

electoral college gives a much higher mathematical value

quantitatively to these fundamentalist Christians, a vote worth 2.2 X

10-6 electoral votes which is much higher quantitatively in value than

the value of the vote worth 1.7 X 10 -6 of voters with liberal religious

60
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

views, agnostic views, atheist views in the Northern/Western

Liberal/Moderate states.

The significant difference in the mathematical value of votes

between the 2.2 X 10 -6 and the 1.7 X 10-6 is so great that this

difference quantitatively when combined with the winner take all

provision of assigning electoral votes from individual electors, causes

invidious religious discrimination against the group of voters with

liberal religious views, agnostic views, atheist views. What we actually

have here plaintiff Sablosky alleges is invidious, harmful, religious

discrimination in violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States

Constitution. The invidious religious discrimination which Sablosky

complains of was not of course deliberately intended, the pattern

which evolved of what religions came to predominate in certain regions

of the United States came about by accident. However the effect is

real, causes injury to the plaintiff Sablosky, violates Sablosky’s rights of

religious freedom, has the effect of establishing a state church, which

is of course forbidden by the 1st Amendment of the United States

Constitution, see Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1, infra. The

clear difference in mathematical value quantitatively of a vote from the

Northern/Western Liberal/Moderate states compared to the

mathematical value quantitatively from the Southern/Farm, Great

Plains states clearly violates the freedom of religion guarantees of the

1st Amendment. Conservative voters with fundamentalist religious

61
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

ideology are clearly not entitled to have popular votes worth 1.29

times more than the values of Liberal/Moderate voters who possess

liberal religious views, agnostic views, atheist views. This is clearly a

violation of plaintiff Sablosky’s constitutional guarantee of religious

freedom of the most serious level. The harm and the injury are severe,

in that the lower value of the popular vote which Sablosky cast, results

in those with fundamentalist religious viewpoint being able to out vote

Sablosky and those who voted for the candidates he voted for, Hillary

Clinton, even though the total number of votes cast by the

conservative voters in the conservative states, which included the

highest concentration of fundamentalism Christians, also called

Evangelical Christians are 2.7 million less, than those votes cast for the

Liberal/Moderate candidate Hillary Clinton. In the 2000 election Al

Gore, Jr. won 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush, but Al Gore

lost the electoral vote majority and George W. Bush Jr. won the

electoral vote majority of 270 electoral votes, after a legal battle that

went all the way from the Florida Circuit Courts, in multiple Florida

counties, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The fact is that the invidious pattern of the reduction of value of

citizens’ votes was not intentional, but the invidious discrimination has

occurred through the accident of the growth of certain Evangelical

religious denominations in certain states and certain geographic

regions of the United States. The fact that such invidious discrimination

62
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

occurs through the mathematical variation in the value of votes in the

electoral college system makes such religious discrimination just as

bad as if the discrimination was done intentionally to discriminate

against certain voters of certain liberal religious beliefs or no religious

beliefs at all, atheists and agnostics.

Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 [1947] at page 15 says

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means
at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions,
or prefer one religion over another…………………………………
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between
church and State. Reynolds v. United States, supra. At 98 U.S. 164.

Plaintiff suffers the harm that President Trump has declared

himself to establish a United States government that favors the

religious doctrine of Evangelical Christians through rulings on the U.S.

Supreme Court on all types of civil statutes and criminal statutes both

in state and United States law in violation of the 1st Amendment rights

of Sablosky. President Trump has already nominated a Supreme Court

appointee who has pledged to Trump to apply Evangelical Christian

doctrines when he writes opinions of law in cases determining what

Constitutional rights citizens of the U.S. are guaranteed including

eliminating abortion rights under Roe v. Wade., birth control rights

under Baird v. Belloti, privacy rights and right of private sexual

behavior.

63
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

The Electoral College, when first implemented in 1791, did not

establish a federal official church. Now the Electoral College VIOLATES

the prohibited establishment of a state church. A state church of the

U.S. government favoring some religions over other religions, secular

people, and atheists and agnostics. A state church has been created in

this scheme of the Electoral College which constitutes all the

Evangelical Christian religions, which are also called fundamentalist

Christian religions. Under the electoral college, these Evangelicals or

Fundamentalists have much higher valued popular votes than people

who constitute the non evangelical or non fundamentalist Christian

religions along with Jews, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and Hindus.

The Electoral College gives great aid to promoting Evangelical or

fundamentalist Christian religions in the Southern and Great

Plains/Farm states over non Evangelical religions, the Jewish religion,

secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and Hindus who are

in great numbers in the Northern and Western Liberal/Moderate states.

The Electoral College has now created a state church in violation

of Everson v. Board of Education, supra. The Electoral College has now

favored some religions, some religious Christian denominations, over

other Christian denomination, Jewish denominations, atheists, and

agnostics all in violation of Everson, supra.

64
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RELIGIONS THAT ARE FAVORED

MATHEMATICALLY IN VOTE VALUE OVER OTHER RELIGIONS THAT ARE

DISFAVORED MATHEMATICALLY IN VOTE VALUE IN THE ELECTORAL

COLLEGE SYSTEM.

Evangelical Christians, also called Fundamentalist Christians

believe in a literal reading of the text and stories in the New

Testament. Liberal Christians do not believe in a literal reading of the

text and stories of the New Testament. That is the primary difference

between the two groups of Christian religions. Jewish people only

believe in the Old Testament and Jewish people do not believe in the

New Testament. Atheists and agnostics do not believe in either the Old

Testament or the New Testament or in a supreme being. Buddhists

believe in their own holy books. Hindus believe in the Mahabarata, the

Hindu story of creation.

RELIEF AND REMEDIES PLAINTIFF REQUESTS THIS U.S. DISTRICT COURT

TO GRANT

Plaintiff requests this U.S. District Court to order the Electoral

College abolished completely, as contained in the Constitutional

Amendment in Senate Joint Resolution 1 of December 6, 1977, see

Exhibit 1, pp. 1-2, beginning with the word

65
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

“Joint Resolution, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution to

provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice

President of the United States.”

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each

House Concurring therein), That the following article is proposed an

amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be

valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within

seven years from the date of its submission by Congress:”

“Section 1. The people of the several states and the district

constituting the seat of government of the United States shall elect the

President and Vice-President. Each elector shall cast a single vote for

two persons who shall have consented to the joining of their names as

candidates for the offices of President and Vice President. No candidate

shall consent to the joinder of his name with that of more than one

other person.”

“Sec. 2. The electors of Presidents and Vice Presidents in each

state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most

numerous branch of the State Legislature, except that for electors of

66
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

President and Vice Presidents, the Legislature of any State may

prescribe less restrictive residence qualifications and for electors of

President and Vice President, the Congress may establish uniform

residence qualifications.”

“Sec. 3. The person joined as candidates for President and Vice

President having the greatest number of votes shall be elected

“President and Vice President”, if such number be at least 40 per

centum of the whole number of votes cast.”

“If, after any such election, none of the persons joined as

candidates for President and Vice President, is elected pursuant to the

preceding paragraph, a runoff election shall be held in which the

choice of President and Vice President shall be made from the two pairs

of person joined as candidates for President and Vice President who

received the highest numbers of votes cast in the election. The pair of

persons joined as candidates for President and Vice President receiving

the greatest number of votes in such runoff election shall be elected

President and Vice President.:

“Sec. 4. The times, places, and manner of holding such

elections and entitlement to inclusion on the ballot shall be prescribed

in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any

67
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

time by law make or alter such regulations. The days for such elections

shall be determined by Congress and shall be uniform throughout the

United States. The Congress shall prescribe by law the times, places,

and manner in which the results of such elections shall be ascertained

and declared. No such election, other than a runoff election shall be

held later than the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November,

and the results thereof shall be declared no later than the thirtieth day

after the date on which the election occurs.”

“Sec. 5. The Congress may be law provide for the case of the

death, inability, or withdrawal of any candidate for President or Vice

President, before a President and Vice President have been elected,

and for the case of the death of both the President-elect and Vice

President-elect.”

“Sec. 6. Sections 1 through 4 of this article shall take effect one

year after the ratification of this article.”

“Sec. 7. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by

appropriate legislation.”

END TEXT OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

68
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff requests that consistent with the abolition of the

Electoral College the election position of Presidential electors shall be

abolished in all the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The practice

of electors in the Electoral College casting electoral votes in the States

capital or designated state location pursuant to state law under Article

2, Section 1, Clauses 1,2,3,4 shall be abolished. Instead the head of

the Department of Elections in each state shall be ordered to send the

certified totals of the popular vote for each presidential candidate and

running mate for vice president, who was on the ballot in their

respective state, by certified mail to the Vice President of the United

States, who is the presiding officer in the United States Senate.

Logically this Court must strike down as unconstitutional Title 3

U.S.C.A. Sections 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20, 21 in

their entirety. The President of the United States Senate, who is the

69
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Vice President of the United States, shall announce who the elected

winners of the Presidency and Vice Presidency are, based on the

certified National Popular Vote totals, submitted by the Chief Election

Officials of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

This U.S. District Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this

case. This case is a case or controversy involving provisions of the

United States Constitution and various sections of Title 3 of the United

States Code, the statutory law, according to Marbury v. Madison

STATUTORY JURISDICTION BY ACT OF CONGRESS, JUSTICIABILITY

UNDER U.S. CONSTITUITON

This United States District Court has jurisdiction by statute of

Congress Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1343 to decide matters of

controversy involving the U.S. Constitution and Federal Law.

The issues presented in this case are issues that are justiciable, that is

these issues can be decided by this Court.

IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS: ALL SENATORs AND

OFFICERS IN UNITED STATES SENATE INCLUDING VICE PRESIDENT

JOSEPH BIDEN, NOW MIKE PENCE AND MAJORITY LEADER MITCH

MCCONELL, ALL REPRESENTATIVES IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF

70
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

REPRESENTATIVES INCLUDING SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PAUL RYAN,

MINORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI

This United States District Court has in personam jurisdiction

over defendants United States Senate, all Senators, and officers of the

United States Senate including President of the Senate [was Joseph

Biden] now Mike Pence, Majority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell,

defendants United States House of Representative, all Representatives

and their officers including Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Paul Ryan, and minority leader of the House Representative, Nancy

Pelosi. This U.S. District Court has in personam jurisdiction over official

acts and conduct of these defendants. This is a matter of protection of

Plaintiff’s voting rights, under U.S. Constitution 13th,15th, and 19th and

1st Amendments. There are no issues of property rights in this case.

STANDING OF PLAINTIFF UNDER BAKER V. CARR 269 U.S. 186, SCHOOL

DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP, 374

U.S. 203

Plaintiff has standing as a United States citizen, a resident of

Cook County, Illinois who voted for Hillary Clinton in the general

election on November 8, 2016.

Hillary Clinton won the plurality of the popular vote, the nationwide

total of popular votes in the November 8, 2000 presidential election.

71
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Sablosky has 1st party standing and 3rd party standing as

well under Baker v. Carr 269 U.S. 186 [1962] and

Wesberry v. Sanders 376 U.S. 1 [1964 ]

In Baker v. Carr, supra, 4 voters who were residents of Fulton County

Georgia sued who made allegations of the same injury-in-fact. There

were about 400,000 voters who were residents of Fulton County,

Georgia who shared the exact same injury-in-fact, which was that their

rights of representation in the Georgia state Senate were diluted to 1/6

of the amount of representation that they should have received from

Senators in the Georgia Senate based on the population of Fulton

County compared to the amount of representation given to rural farm

counties in the state of Georgia in the Georgia Senate. The only voters

who sued were the 4 voters who filed the lawsuit alleging violations of

the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court

granted them standing and reversed both the U.S. Court of Appeals

and the Federal District Court in Georgia which had wrongfully denied

the plaintiff voters who were U.S. citizens standing. Sharing the same

injury-in-fact according to the U.S. Supreme Court is not a reason to

deny plaintiff, Sablosky, standing in a voting rights matter. There were

Hundreds of thousands of voters in Georgia and another state all

shared the same injury complained of by plaintiff voters in both Baker

v. Carr and Wesberry v. Sanders. These cases made claims under the

14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff makes no 14th

72
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Amendment claims in his complaints. However, the nature of plaintiff

Sablosky’s standing is similar in relation to other citizen voter victims

of the alleged unconstitutional provisions of Article II, Sec. 1 U.S.

Constitution. See ADDENDUM ON STANDING AT p.105 citing Wesberry,

supra. On standing.

In School District of Abington Township Pennsylvania v. Schempp

374 U.S. 203, the children of the Schempp family suffered an injury-in-

fact that was the same injury that was shared with a 100,000 students

who were Christian and Jewish who did not want to hear bible reading

in the public schools of Pennsylvania throughout the entire state of

Pennsylvania, because they preferred to practice religion under the

sponsorship of their family or members of the clergy of their own

churches or synagogue. Did the U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania grant them standing. Yes, the Schempp family

was granted standing for their alleged constitutional injury-in-fact even

though their were probably 100,000 other students who themselves

and or their family disagreed with having compulsory bible reading in

public school from both the Old Testament and the New Testament

from the King James version of the bible. Plaintiff Sablosky makes

claims of violation of his 1st Amendment rights by the Electoral College

method of electing the president and vice president of the United

States and the injury-in-fact, which he alleges is also shared by

65,432,000 other voter citizens who did not sue. Plaintiff Sablosky is

73
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

currently the only voter suing alleging the Electoral College to be

unconstitutional via the severe injury that Plaintiff suffered by having

his vote valued mathematically at .78 or 78% of them votes of

conservative voters in medium population to low population states and

a consequence having the wrong persons Donald Trump chosen to be

President of the United States and the wrong person Mike Pence

chosen to be Vice President by the U.S. Senate and sworn in to be

president.

Standing Exists for Plaintiffs Even when the Injury-in-fact is Shared with

Many People

First of all the fact that many people have suffered the same

injury-in-fact does not prevent people from having standing to sue. In

jet airplane crashes where 100 to 200 or more passengers were killed

in the impact and or destruction of the jet plane in the crash that

occurred, the relatives and spouses of persons who died in the crash

have never had their cases dismissed on standing and have never

been denied standing to sue for the wrongful death tort claims against

the airline corporation for the loss of life of their loved ones. The fact of

a common injury-in-fact that occurs to many persons is not a ground to

deny standing.

74
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is very specific about the exact and severe injury in fact that

occurred.

Plaintiff mathematically calculates the dilution or devaluation of

the quantitative value of his popular vote caused by the Electoral

College formula. The specificity of plaintiff’s claim make plaintiff’s

claim worthy of granting standing to such allegation.

Plaintiff has third party standing as follows:

PLAINTIFF MUST BE GIVEN STANDING TO REPRESENT IMPORTANT

THIRD PARTIES, WHO ARE SUBGROUPS OF THE GROUP OF ALL

LIBERAL/MODERATE VOTERS IN UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL

ELECTIONS. These subgroups include white women liberal/moderate

voters black women liberal/moderate voters, black me

liberal/moderate voters, and white men liberal/moderate voters of

which the plaintiff is one.

The Plaintiff will explain valid theories of why he should be

granted standing on cases that grant him standing to litigate voting

rights and represent voting rights for these, above, third parties. The

third parties include black male voters, black female voters, white

female voters, and white male voters.

Barrows v. Jackson 346 U.S. 249, 73 S. Ct. 1031, and Pierce v.

Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 give Plaintiff the right to act to protect

75
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

the rights of third party black voters, both male and female, under the

15th Amendment U.S.C.A. black male voters, under the 19th

Amendment U.S.C.A. black women voters and white women voters and

white male voters.

The case most similar to Plaintiff’s 13th Amendment, 15th

Amendment, and 19th Amendment claims on behalf of black male

liberal/moderate voters, and black female liberal/moderate voters is

Barrows v. Jackson, infra, where a white woman was sued for violating

a racially restrictive covenant that prohibited sale of her home property

to black persons. The white woman was sued by a white person that

previously owned the property and had sold the property to her. The

white woman in her own defense invoked the 14th Amendment right of

Negroes, to purchase residential property.

See Barrows v. Jackson at pages 257, 259 pages 1035-1036.

“Other unique situations which have arisen in the past, broad policy
has led the U.S. Supreme Court to proceed without regard to its usual
rule. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268U.S. 510, 45 S. Ct. 571, a state
statute required all parent to send their children to public schools. A
private and a parochial school brought suit to enjoin enforcement of an
act on the grounds that the act violated the constitutional rights of
parents and guardians. No parent or guardian to whom the act applied
was a part or before the court. The court held the act was
unconstitutional, because the act ‘unreasonably interferes with the
liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education
of children under parents and guardians control’. Pierce, supra 268 U.S.
at pp 534-535, 45 S. Ct. at page 573. In short, schools were permitted
to assert in defense of school property rights and constitutional right of
parents and guardians.

76
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

See Barrows v. Jackson at page 259, page 1036

“Consistency in application of rules of practice in this court does not
require us in this unique set of circumstances to put the state,
[California], in such an equivocal position simply because the person
against whom injury is directed is not before the court to speak for
himself. The law will permit respondent to resist any effort to compel
her to observe such a covenant, so widely condemned by courts since
she is the one in whose charge and keeping reposes the Power to
continue to use her property to discriminate or to discontinue such use.
The relation between coercion exerted and respondent and her
possible pecuniary loss thereby is so close to the purpose of the
restrictive convenant, to violate the constitutional rights of those
discriminate against, that respondent is the only effective adversary of
the unworthy covenant in its last stand. She will be permitted to
defend herself and by so doing, close the gap to the use of this
covenant so universally condemned by these courts.”

See Barrows v. Jackson at page 259, page 1035

“Petitioners argue that the right to equal protection of the laws is a
personal right, guaranteed to individuals rather than to groups or
classes. For instance, discriminatory denial of sleeping and ding car
facilities to an individual Negro cannot be justified on the bound that
there is little demand for facilities by Negroes as a group.” McCabe v.
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co. 234 U.S. 151, 161-162, 35 S. Ct.
69, 71

This description of the right as ‘personal’, when considered in the
context in which it has been used, obviously has no bearing on the
question of standing, nor do we violate this principle by protecting
rights of person not identified in this record. For instance, in the Pierce
case, persons whose rights invoked were identified only as
Present’ and ‘prospective’ patrons of 2 schools. Pierce v. Society of
Sisters, supra, 268 U.S. at page 535, 45 S. Ct. at page 573. In the
present case it is not non Caucasians as a group whose rights are
asserted by respondent but the rights of particular non Caucasians
would be users of restricted land”

77
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

What plaintiff has in common with all members of the group of

all liberal/ moderate voters is liberal /moderate political ideology and

liberal/moderate humanitarian philosophy. The fact is, that all members

of the group of all liberal/moderate voters want liberal or moderate

presidential candidates that they cast their votes for, to win the

presidential election.

Justice Brennan in U.S. v. Raines, 362 U.S. 117, 22 (1960) explains that:

“Where as a result of the very litigation in question, the constitutional
rights of one not a party would be impaired, and where he has no
effective way to preserve them himself, the Court may consider those
rights as before the Court.” So too, Justice Harlan in N.A.A.C.P. v.
Alabama 357 U.S. 49 (1958):
“To limit the breath of issues which must be dealt with in particular
litigation this Court has generally insisted that parties rely only on
constitutional rights which are personal to themselves. The principle is
not disrespected. Their constitutional rights of the person who are not
immediately before the Court could not be effectively vindicated
except through an appropriate representative before the Court.

Plaintiff asserts that there is a significant link between the black

liberal/moderate male voters, whose constitutional right to vote is

damaged and interfered with by the electoral college method of

electing the President of the United States and the white liberal

moderate male voters whose constitutional right to vote is damaged

and interfered with by the electoral college. Plaintiff alleges that the

Electoral College method of electing the President should have been

abolished as of the time that when slavery was abolished by the 13th

Amendment U.S.Constitution, and the time that black males were

78
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

given the right to vote under the power of the 15th Amendment U.S.

Constitution.

Plaintiff on the basis of 3rd party standing stated above citing

Barrows v. Jackson, supra, claims that he has standing to represent

black women voters who received their guarantee of the right to vote

through the 19th Amendment and he has standing to represent all

women voters including white women voters on the basis of the voting

rights granted them under the 19th Amendment. Under U.S. v. Raines,

supra, plaintiff can appropriately represent the interests of all women

voters under the 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL

HOW THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY AS A LEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICE OF

OPERATING PLANTATIONS AND FARMS CREATED THE ELCTORAL

COLLEGE SYSTEM OF CHOOSING ELECTORS FOR THE OFFICE OF

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AS A COMPROMISE MEASURE AT THE

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1789 IN PHILADELPHIA, PA.

The basic purpose of the electoral College method of creating

electors to choose the president and vice president, was the

preservation of slavery as a legal institution and a method of keeping

slave labor as a legal business practice on plantations or farms in the

southern farming economy. The method of doing this was to create

79
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

overrepresentation in electors to choose Southern born presidents who

were to be pro slavery to maintain the legality of slavery in the federal

system of government as a matter of being constitutionally sustainable

within the United States government legal system. The United States

legal system was based on strong states’ rights in which every state

would create their own system of laws independent of the national or

federal government. States’ rights was part of the doctrine of

federalism. The best method of preserving slavery, was to create

overrepresentation in the U.S. House of Representatives by allowing

representation for slaves owned by slave owners, who owned the

plantations and farms that constituted the major industry of the

Southern states, farming. The entire southern economy was an

economy based on farming. Southern delegate to the constitutional

convention in 1787 also created overrepresentation in the House of

Representative though counting slaves as 3/5 [three fifths of a person]

for purposes of enumeration of population 1 conducted every 10 years

in every state in the United States to determine the amount of

representation that each state would receive in the U.S. House of

Representatives. This enumeration is what we call the United States

Census today. Originally delegates from slave owning southern states

wanted slaves counted as 1 whole person so that slave owners, the

wealthy people of the south could exercise the power of their vote,

many times magnified, by the number of slaves that these wealthy
1
Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3

80
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

slave owners owned. Southern delegate to the Constitutional

Convention in 1787 wanted to maintain their economic plantation

system of farms based on slavery in the about to be formed nation, to

be called the United States, being established through a new

constitution, with a strong federal government. Southern delegates

decided that the only logical way to insure the survival of slavery as a

legally protected institution was to get representation for each slave in

the United States House of Representatives as extra

overrepresentation for slave owners, to over represent the legal rights

and political viewpoints of slave owners. This was a demand at the

constitutional convention by delegates to the constitutional convention

who represented the southern states to multiply slave owners vote

strength in the U.S. House of Representatives by 1 X the number of

slaves owned by the slave owners in the entire state, added to the

population of the slave owners. A slave owner’s vote strength was

multiplied times the number of slaves that that slave owner owned on

his plantations, plus the numbers of himself and his own family. Each

slave owner ultimately received 3/5 [three/fifths] of a person in the

census enumeration and ultimate representation in the U.S. House of

Representatives for each slave owned by that slave owner in a

compromise reached between northern delegates and southern

delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Approximately .40

or 40% of the human population of the Southern states, were slaves at

81
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

the time of the constitutional convention in 1787. Southern slave

owners gained an 40% extra representation they normally would have

had, had slaves, who were not citizens, not been counted in the census

enumeration for purposes of legal representation in the U.S. House of

Representatives Remember, that at this time, slaves were not citizens,

could not vote, could not own property, and were mostly illiterate.

Slave owner’ votes were mathematically increased in value by

multiplying the number of slaves owned times 3/5 in the U.S. House of

Representatives. The number of slaves times 3/5 equaled the

increased numbers by which slave owners were represented by extra

representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. This was done

deliberately by the slave owners so that Southern states could

dominate legally in Representatives’ votes in the U.S. House of

Representatives and keep slavery legal as a business practice in the

foreseeable future to sustain slave owners’ multibillion dollar farming

industry. It was difficult to see any way that the Northern states would

be able to outlaw slavery with the Southern slave states maintaining all

this extra over representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Since the scheme of the Electoral College of using electors from

each state being equal in number to the number of representatives in

the U.S. House of Representative plus the 2 U.S. Senators, slave

owners achieved a very large bonus in terms of representation that

slave owners should not have been entitled to. Why should slaves who

82
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

were not citizens, who were illiterate and could not vote, have their

votes to choose the president and vice president cast for them by their

owners? The current absurd, archaic, unreasonable, stupid electoral

college system, of a separate layer of presidential electors, is the direct

product of the creation of a system that southerners saw as an out

proportion system of over representation for slave owners who could

perpetuate their control of the presidency by electing southern born,

southern bred presidents, who would do their best to keep slavery a

legally protected business practice, to maintain the Southern economic

way of life 2. In 1787 the tractor, internal combustion engines, modern

farm machinery, cotton picking machines, ever the cotton gin did not

exist. The path to wealth in the south was to be a plantation owner

with plenty of slaves to perform the labor of growing and harvesting

agricultural crops. If Northerners could win the presidency frequently,

the possibility existed that slavery could be outlawed by Congress and

a northern anti-slavery president. The creation of the electoral College

was a direct result of efforts of Constitutional Convention delegates

from southern states to protect the billion dollar Southern economic

way of life with billion dollar amount of slave labor. Southern delegates

knew exactly what they were negotiating for in terms of economic

strength. The southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention

knew that they were creating the very protection of the survival of

2
This Mighty Scourge, pp 7,8,9,10

83
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

slavery under federal law3. There were Northern delegates at the time

who did not want slavery to be allowed as a legal institution in the in

the new nation in the process of being created which would be called

the United States, but they were not able to outlaw slavery as an

institution at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 because they did

not have the delegate votes and the southern states would never have

ratified the original constitution of 1787. Southern delegate knew that

many northerners did not want to allow slavery to be a legal practice of

exploitation protected under the Constitution of the United states.

Southern delegates were smart enough to engineer a scheme of over

representation called the Electoral College method of electing the

president and vice president, that was clearly based on the idea of

over representation of southern white slave owners in the U.S. House

of Representatives, that southern delegate felt was a plan, that would

insure that slavery would be protected as a legal business practice,

from being outlawed by the northern antislavery states in future years

MATHEMATICALLY OUT OF PROPORTION, OVERREPRESENTATION AS

GRANTED TO SMALL POPULATION STATES AND MEDIUM POPULATION

STATES, IN THE ACTUAL COMPARATIVE MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF

POPULAR VOTES AS COMPARED TO LARGE POPULATION STATES UNDER

THE UNITED STATES CENSUS VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO VOTE

GUARANTEES OF THE 15TH AND 19TH AMENDMENTS IN THE U.S.

CONSTITUTION.
3
This Mighty Scourge, pp. 11, 12, 13

84
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff will prove that the wide range of values of popular votes

expressed exactly in terms of electoral vote values, violate the

principle of the guaranteed right to vote in the U.S. Constitution 15th

and 19th amendment. The range of mathematical values of popular

votes per state individual voter from the small population states to the

large population states run from high as 4.0 X 10 -6 electoral votes [4.0

X 10 to the minus 6th power] in Montana, the nation’s least populous

state to as low as 1.5 X 10 -6 [1.5 X 10 to the minus 6th power] in

California, the nation’s most populous state. This irregularity in value of

popular votes occurs because under the Electoral College system each

state gets 2 electoral votes for the state’s 2 Senators and one electoral

vote for each Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives.

FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL

ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF CHOOSING ELECTORS FOR

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY FAVORS

CANDIDATES OF CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY OVER LIBERAL/MODERATE

IDEOLOGY IN VIOLATION OF THE 15TH AND 19TH AMENDMENTS THAT

GUARANTEE A RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THE

UNFAIR UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCE OF THIS IS THAT THE

ELECTORAL COLLEGE FAVORS CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES OVER LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL

CANDIDATES DUE TO THE FACTS THAT VOTERS IN CONSERVATIVE

85
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

STATES HAVE POPULAR VOTES THAT HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER

VALUE THAN VOTERS IN LIBERAL STATES.

The unfair consequence is that the Electoral College gives an unfair

mathematical advantage to Republican Presidential candidates who

are all conservative in philosophy over Democratic Presidential

candidates who are all liberal in philosophy, due to the fact, that voters

in conservative states have popular votes that have a significantly

higher mathematical value than voters in liberal states. In addition to

this the winner of the popular vote plurality or majority under “the

winner take all” method of giving all electoral votes to the plurality

winner results in giving Conservative candidates who are Republicans

an unfair advantage in winning presidential elections. Hillary Clinton

received huge 2-1 margin of votes in California over Donald Trump, yet

the 2.5 million extra votes given to Hillary Clinton were wasted

because the popular vote totals of all popular votes in the 50 states

and the District of Columbia do not count in national popular vote

totals in determining who the winner of the election is. In a system

based on the popular vote, as specified in Senate Joint Resolution 1 of

December 6, 1977, popular vote totals carry across state borders and

contribute to the national popular vote total for each president.

PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT PRESIDENT ELECT DONALD TRUMP AND VICE

PRESIDENT ELECT MIKE PENCE AB INITIO RECEIVED LESS THAN THE

86
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

MINIMUM 270 ELECTORAL VOTES REQUIRED TO BE ELECTED

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

SYSTEM OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. PLAINTIFF

ALLEGES THAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP AND VICE

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MIKE PENCE HAVE ONLY RECEIVED 256

ELECTORAL VOTES EACH FOR PREESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. THUS

DONALD TRUMP AND MIKE PENCE HAVE NOT BEEN LEGALLY ELECTED

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT RESPECTIVELY. PLAINTIFF REQUESTS

THIS COURT TO INVALIDATE AND , DECERTIFY THE ELECTORAL VOTES

SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED TO BE VOID AND FRAUDULENT AB INITIO AT

THE TIME OF THEIR CASTING IN SPECIFIED STATES BY SPECIFIED

UNQUALIFIED ELECTORS. PLAINTIFF ALLEGES BELOW THE SPECIFIC

ELECTORS IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES

WHOSE ELECTORAL VOTES CAST WERE NULL, VOID, AND FRAUDULENT.

SUCH VOTES PLAINTIFF ALLEGES WERE CAST IN VIOLATION OF OF

REPUBLICAN PARTY RULES, STATE LAW, AND OR FEDERAL LAW., AND

OR REPUBLICAN PARTY RULES AND REGULATIONS.

Plaintiff alleges that Presidential elect Donald Trump and Vice

President elect Mike Pence ab initio received less than the minimum

270 Electoral votes each from qualified Electors selected by voters as

electors in the electoral college. Plaintiff alleges that presidential

candidate Donald Trump and Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence

have only received 256 electoral votes each for president and vice

87
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

president. Plaintiff alleges 50 of Donald Trump’s electoral college

electors and 50 of Mike Pence’s electoral college electors under either

federal law and or state law and or Republican Party Rules were

unqualified under such law and Rules to cast electoral votes for the

office of President and Vice President. Plaintiff alleges said electors’

electoral votes were void ab initio and of no force and effect. Plaintiff

asks this court for declaratory and injunctive relief to void and decertify

such invalid electoral votes, and hold that Donald Trump and Mike

Pence were not elected President and Vice President of the United

States. Plaintiff, Sablosky, asks that this court order Donald Trump and

Mike Pence removed from the offices of president and vice president

and replaced under authority of 3 U.S.C.A. 19 ( c ) (1) , where no

candidate has qualified for the office of President of the United States,

after this court holds a hearing on that subject to examine the

evidence presented by plaintiff on the subject. Plaintiff asks that this

court in compliance with 3 U.S.C.A. 19 ( c ) ( 1 ) order that

Representative Paul Ryan be ordered to take the position of President

Pro Tempore of the United States, temporarily until such ,time as this

court, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit and the United States Supreme Court decide the issues on the

merits of plaintiff’s case, including deciding how the winner of this

election of November 8, 2016, should be legally chosen, under the

provisions of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff asks that this

88
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

court resolve that question, on the relief that plaintiff requested herein,

that the winning ticket of president and vice president of the national

popular vote plurality total be held to be the legally elected president

and vice president of the United States and that the U.S. Senate

conduct a special session to determine and certify the national vote

totals for each candidate for president to determine who the winner of

the national vote popular vote plurality was and that the U.S. Senate

certify such winner in accordance with an order from this court or the

appellate courts on review.

Plaintiff starting on page 8074 through page 972 presents his

specific allegations naming the unqualified electors in many states who

cast null and void electoral votes for Presidential Candidate Donald

Trump and vice presidential candidate Mike Pence. Each unqualified

elector is named and identified by state and or congressional district

therein, or by an at large designation, and the reason or reasons for

that elector’s disqualifications are made known. The reasons that the

alleged electors who are named are unqualified and the reasons the

electoral votes cast by such electors are unqualified are the following:

1. Certain of these electors were put on the ballot by the

Republican Party and or themselves in a Congressional District

other than the Congressional District in which they were lawfully

registered to vote and in which they were a resident.

89
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

2. Certain of these electors were employed as state elected

officials, as state employees or as an employee of a government

body that was a subdivision of the state.
3. Certain of these electors were not legally registered voters in the

state in which they ran as an elector in the electoral college.
4. Certain of these electors were fraudulently registered in the state

where they ran as an elector and were not residents or

domiciliary of that state and the Congressional District in which

they ran as an elector.
5. Any combination of the above factual conditions which would

cause any elector in the Electoral College to be in violation of the

qualifications set by state Constitutions, state statutory law, the

U.S. Constitution or U.S. statutory law.

Certain of these electors were in violation of one or moreboth of the

above conditions.

In the alternative, if this Court, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court decide

that the Electoral College is constitutional facially and as applied, then

Plaintiff Sablosky asks that this Court order a new presidential primary

election and new presidential general election to be held, at such dates

as soon as possible by giving court orders with such specific content to

give the dates of such new primary election and general election or

under the doctrine of separation of powers by issuing a writ of

mandamus or other extraordinary writ that, the Congress pass

emergency legislation to schedule such new presidential primary

90
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

election and presidential general election as quickly as possible within

the next 6 months to fill and serve in the remainder of the vacant

unfinished term of Donald Trump and Mike Pence. In order to fulfill the

need of a new primary election and new general election, to be

conducted on an accelerated time schedule, the court order would

need to offer the political parties the option of choosing candidates

under their party rules without political conventions and finding the

quickest way for the parties within their own party rules, to choose the

candidates for president and vice president. Sablosky makes that

demand for a new primary and new general election for the office of

president and vice president of the United States on the basis that

neither the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 1, nor does Title 3

Sections 1-21 make any provision for the remedy and procedure to

hold a new election, when an election was conducted defectively,

including the counting of electoral votes by the U.S. Senate, where the

quantity of electoral votes counted turned out to be in error, and such

quantity of electoral votes was deficient, totaling less than the required

number of 270 electoral votes, to constitute a majority of electoral

votes. In the situation alleged by plaintiff Sablosky, which he believes

to be true, candidates Donald Trump and Mike Pence received 256

electoral votes, which is 14 votes short of a majority, of electoral votes.

Article II, Sections 1 does not provide for any remedy where no ticket of

president and vice president has qualified for the office, the word

91
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

“qualified” meaning having received the required minimum of at least

270 electoral votes, after the final electoral vote totals have been

counted and tabulated, on January 6, of the January immediately

following the November election. Article II, Section 1 does not provide

any procedure where some time, a relatively short time, after the

Senate has certified a ticket of presidential candidate and vice

presidential candidate, as the winners of the 270 electoral vote

majority, that new facts are revealed, that show, that in fact, a number

of the electoral votes cast for the candidates, who were certified to be

the winning team were fraudulent, void electoral votes, ab initio, which

were cast by unqualified electors who were unqualified either under

state constitutions, the state law, or the U.S. Constitution or any

combination of the three. Sablosky claims that the procedures for

counting electoral votes as regularly given under Title 3 Sections 1-21

are not written to apply to a situation where once the electoral votes

are counted by the U.S. Senate, the electoral votes turn out to be null

and void, within a few months of the election, based on proof

presented to a trial judge in a state court and or in a federal court, as

plaintiff intends to present in this civil case, in this U.S. District Court.

Title 3 Sections 1-21 are the procedures mandated by statutory law, for

Congress to count electoral votes. Once those procedures are followed,

on or about January 6, and are completed, the Senate and House have

chosen a President elect and a Vice President elect, who will be sworn

92
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

in on January 20 of that same month of January. Now Sablosky has

found out that, and alleges in good faith that Donald Trump and Mike

Pence did not receive the required 270, minimum number, of electoral

votes to be elected President and Vice President. The procedures in

Title 3 Sections 1-21 do not apply to a situation where the U.S. Senate

and U.S. House in error, through negligence, or failure to do their

appointed work thoroughly, certified null and void electoral votes, that

were cast by unqualified electors, that should not have been counted.

Plaintiff, Sablosky, claims that had the Senate on the day of debate,

January 6, 2017 realized that 50 electoral votes or some number of

electoral votes were null and void cast by unqualified electors, and that

as a consequence, that the total number of valid electoral votes

received by Trump and Pence were less than a majority of 270 needed

to win election, then the Senate would have followed the required

procedure dictated by the Constitution, to allow the House of

Representatives to decide who the next winning team of president and

vice president would be, see U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1. The

House of Representatives would choose president and vice president

from one of the candidate teams who received the 3 highest numbers

of electoral votes. Members of U.S. Senate never became aware of the

alleged fact that 50 Trump/Pence electors were unqualified and cast

null and void electoral votes.

93
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Now Sablosky brings such matter before the jurisdiction of this

Article 3 Court which is a controversy of the provisions of the U.S.

Constitution which provide for the election of the president and vice

president of the United States. This court has authority under Marbury

v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 to decide the

constitutional issues presented by Sablosky in his complaint. Sablosky

claims that this court can decertify electoral votes counted by the U.S.

Senate and U.S. House of Representatives in their legislative capacity

as the legislative branch, by issuing final judgment and an order after

holding a hearing and examining the evidence in camera, before the

court presented in a court hearing. If this court finds that the ticket of

Donald Trump and Mike Pence received an insufficient number of valid

electoral votes, Sablosky claims, then such finding would, at this point

in time, necessitate a new primary election and a new general election

to be scheduled as quickly as possible on an accelerated schedule to

fill the vacancy caused by the court ordered removal of President

Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. Sablosky claims then

that this court would have the power and must upon such finding, that

Donald Trump and Mike Pence received a number of electoral votes

less than the minimum of 270 needed, order that Donald Trump and

Mike Pence vacate their offices as President and Vice President, and

that in accordance with Title 3 U.S.C.A. Section 19 ( c ) (1) they must

be replaced temporarily with the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. This

94
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

court has the authority, power, and jurisdiction over constitutional

controversy presented, such that the court can order such new primary

presidential election and such new general presidential election as a

remedy to fill the remainder of the presidential term started by Donald

Trump and Mike Pence. Due to separation of powers doctrine, the Court

would probably have to order that the U.S. Congress would schedule

the new special presidential and vice presidential elections by statute,

as soon as possible, by passing special legislation scheduling such

elections allowing 3 months for a primary election, and then a general

election 2 months after that primary election, since the scheduling of

elections is usually a legislative function. The terms of office of the

replacement president and vice president would end in January 20,

2021. The next presidential general election would be held on schedule

in November 2020 as set by U.S. Constitution.

BUSH V. GORE 531 U.S. 98 (2000), GIVES THIS COURT, THE UNITED

STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIRCUIT, AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION AND

AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THIS CASE AND ORDER APPROPRIATE

REMEDIES REQUESTED BY SABLOSKY

In Bush v. Gore, supra, for the first time in history, U.S. Supreme Court

decided the issue of a presidential election, that clearly decided

deliberately, ahead of the time, when unknown real results would have

been determined by full statewide recounts in all counties of Florida,

95
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

who the winner of the presidential election was. Bush v. Gore gives

federal courts complete authority to decide any and all issues of the

conduct of a presidential election by state officials as well as by federal

officials, including overseeing legislative functions performed by those

legislators in the legislative branch of the state or U.S. Government,

and whether those legislative functions are performed constitutionally

and properly, within the range of legislative authority under powers

granted by the U.S. Constitution to resolve controversies, under the

U.S. Constitution. Recount authority is an executive function performed

by county and municipal [town and city] boards of election and the

secretary of state or such other delegated election authority of the

states, such as is specifically allowed or required by state statutes

passed by the legislature of each state. In Bush v. Gore, supra in

Florida, the question of law was the recount authority, that was

authorized and controlled by statutes, passed by the Florida

legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court clearly usurped the authority of

the Florida legislature and the Florida Supreme Court interpreting

statutes passed by the Florida legislature, to determine under what

circumstances and how the Florida Constitution Right to Vote

guarantee, Article VI Sections 1-7 and the Florida Election Code applied

in the presidential election, statewide in the state of Florida. The U.S.

Supreme Court, ignoring and bypassing 100 years of federal rulings,

that clearly mandated that a state’s highest appellate court make the

96
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

final interpretation of a state’s election code, and provisions of that

state’s state constitution, in this case the Florida Constitution, the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the U. S.

Constitution, the 14th Amendment eviscerated and superceded the

entire Election Code of Florida, the Right to Vote Article in the Florida

Constitution, and the relevant Florida Supreme Court case law and

remedies applying clearly to corrupted, defectively conducted

elections.

The U.S. Supreme Court completely ignored established, clearly

applicable Florida case law, written by Florida Supreme Court, which

was based on Florida Constitution Right to Vote, Article VI Sections 1-7,

and the Florida Election Code. The U.S. Supreme Court substituted the

Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution instead, with no prior

case law. In this instant case, Sablosky claims that 50 Electoral Votes

were null and void and cast by unqualified fraudulent electors and

were wrongly credited to Trump and Pence by the U.S. Senate in

January 6, 2017. See pages 80-9774-91 in this complaint. The

legislative function of counting electoral votes was defectively

conducted by the U.S. Senate. This federal court has authority to

correct the electoral vote count by decertifying and subtracting the null

and void electoral votes cast by unqualified electors from the total

number of electoral votes counted and totaled for Trump and Pence,

just as the U.S. Supreme Court usurped and preempted the Florida

97
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Supreme Court rulings in Bush v. Gore, supra, as to how the Florida

Constitution and Florida legislative statutes controlling procedures for

recounts were to be interpreted. In Bush v. Gore, supra, the U.S.

Supreme Court prohibited any recounts authorized under the authority

of the state legislature, authorized and or required by the state

statutes, in the Florida Election Code. The function of vote counting

was done by individual Boards of Elections in each county. The Florida

Supreme Court ordered recounting by hand, using visual examination

of paper ballots individually, which included optical scan paper ballots

and punch hole paper ballots.

Under Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Senate

performs the work of counting electoral votes. In Bush v. Gore, supra,

the work of counting popular votes in order to determine what slate of

electors would be chosen to cast electoral votes to choose the

President and Vice President was performed by the County Board of

Elections in each individual county of Florida. The U.S. Supreme Court

could and did in fact control the entire vote counting process of

counting popular votes, in order to decide what slate of electors, in

that case the George W. Bush electors, would be legally chosen. The

U.S. Supreme Court did that in order that the result would absolutely

choose one candidate, George W. Bush Jr., in December 2000. This

means clearly that the federal courts have final authority to control the

vote counting process engaged in, by the U.S. Senate, which is the

98
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

legislative branch of the U.S. government, as a controversy under the

U.S. Constitution. The county boards of election in Florida are part of

the executive branch of government of the counties, which are

subdivisions of the Florida state government. The election code of the

state of Florida controlled and directed how the county boards of

elections count votes, in federal elections for president and vice

president. Title 3 U.S.C.A Sections 1-21 statutorily controls how the

U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives count electoral votes

under the authority of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The

U. S. Supreme Court and inferior federal courts clearly can modify,

suspend, interpret, and or eviscerate, the statutory procedures for

counting electoral votes in those courts interpretation of applicable

provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including but not limited to Article II

Section 1 paragraph 2 and Amendment XII, Amendment XIII,

Amendment XV, Amendment XIX, and Amendment I. Decertifying or

finding that certain quantities of electoral votes cast by specifically

named electors in specific states were/are null and void ab initio at the

time initially counted, in the individual states cast, is easily within the

power, jurisdiction, and authority of this court, the U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the United States

Supreme Court. This court can find that Donald Trump and Mike Pence

did not receive the required majority of 270 electoral votes and were

never elected legally to the offices of president and vice president, that

99
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

is Trump and Pence were never “qualified” for those offices. The U.S.

Senate acted illegally in violation of the U.S. Constitution to certify that

Trump and Pence had the required totals needed for each of their

offices to be chosen as President and Vice President. This court has

the authority and jurisdiction both in personam and subject matter

jurisdiction to correct the illegal wrongful actions of the U.S. Senate

and determine the exact number of valid electoral votes were received

by Trump and Pence. If this court finds that the number of electoral

votes received by Trump and Pence is less than 270 and that Trump

and Pence, as a consequence, are not “qualified”, then this court has

the power to order proper Constitutional remedies to protect the rights

of plaintiff as a U.S. citizen voter in the election process.

14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY

STATE AUTHORITIES AND BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE FALSE

CERTIFICATION OF NULL AND VOID ELECTORAL VOTES

The casting and counting of electoral votes that were ab initio,

null and void, before ever being cast or counted, were serious

violations of the STATE CONSTITUTIONS’ REQUIREMENT OF

QUALIFICATIONS TO BE AN ELECTOR IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, of

the due process clauses of the state constitutions and state statutory

requirements of law, on the qualifications of electors in the electoral

college. When the United States Senate counted electoral votes, that

were ab initio null and void, because those electoral votes were cast by

100
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

unqualified electors, the United States Senate violated the Due Process

clause of 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which was

incorporated against the legal process and legal requirements of the

state’s own constitutions and state’s won statutory law, which law was

applicable to qualifications of electors in the electoral college. The

process that was due and required by state Constitutions and state law

was never obeyed, as a consequence such violation of state

Constitutional requirements and state statutory law,that is also a

violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process clause of the U.S.

Constitution. This violation of 14th Amendment Due Process clause

gives full jurisdiction to the federal courts to take corrective action and

order remedies appropriate to protect the rights of voters who voted in

the election for president and vice president on November 8, 2016

According to U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 paragraph 2

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof

may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of

Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the

Congress:……”

On the following 18 pages from page 80 onward through page 97

is a summary of the allegations against 50 of the electors who plaintiff

alleges were unqualified as electors to cast electoral votes and whose

electoral votes were null and void ab initio. Each of the electors listed,

101
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

who were unqualified electors, cast electoral votes for Donald J. Trump

as President and Mike Pence as Vice President.

102
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

103
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

104
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

105
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

106
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

107
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

108
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

109
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

110
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

111
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

112
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

113
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

114
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

115
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

116
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

117
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

118
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

119
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

120
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A PREVAILING

PARTY

UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1988

Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se notices this court of motion for

attorney’s fees and moves this court for attorney’s fees under

provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1988 in the event that plaintiff is the prevailing

party in this civil lawsuit. In support of this motion plaintiff

incorporate’s Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint, and any other requests for

declaratory or injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff in the instant

case.

Respectfully Submitted

_________________________________dated________________

Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se

121
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C.A. 1988 AS

PREVAILING PARTY IN THIS CASE

Plaintiff requests that this court grant attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C.A.

1988 as a prevailing party in this civil lawsuit, or under any other

provision of law that this court considers just, to provide attorney’s

fees to plaintiff as a prevailing party.

_____________________________________________

Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se Date , 2017

122
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

POLITICAL DOCTRINCE CONCEPT DOES NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS IN THIS ELECTORAL COLLEGE COMPLAINT

BAKER V. CARR 369 U.S. 186

A careful reading of Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186 at page 198

provides the necessary insight that claims by Judge Walton and the

Asst. U.S. Attorney are wrong where both claim that the political

doctrine applies to the issues claimed in the instant 1st Amended

Complaint and the earlier original Complaint.

“Jurisdiction of the subject matter the District Court was uncertain

whether our cases withholding federal judicial relief rested upon a lack

of federal jurisdiction or upon the inappropriateness of the subject

matter for judicial consideration. What we have designated non

“justiciability”. The distinction between the two grounds is significant.

In the instance of non justiciability, consideration of the cause is not

wholly and immediately foreclosed; rather the court’s inquiry

necessarily proceeds to the point of deciding whether the duty

asserted can be judicially molded. In the instance oF lack of

123
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

jurisdiction, the cause either does not “arise under” the federal

constitution, laws or treaties [or fall within one of the other

enumerated subcategories of Article II, Section2] or is not a “case or

controversy” within the meaning of that section or the cause is not one

described by any jurisdictional statute. Our conclusion see page 369

U.S. 208-237 infra, that this cause present no non justiciable “political

question” settles the only possible doubt that it is a case or

controversy.

RIPENESS OF ALLEGED CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY IN THE

INSTANT CASE

In order for the controversy which is the subject of this complaint

to be ripe, the controversy had to occur. This is only the 3rd time in the

history of the United States since 1787 that the winner of the popular

vote was the loser of the electoral college majority [now greater than

124
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

270 electoral votes] and the winner of the electoral college majority of

greater than 270 votes is the loser of the popular vote. These

circumstances have only occurred in the Presidential election of 1888,

Grover Cleveland v. Harrison, the Presidential election of 2000, Albert

Gore, Jr. v. George W Bush, Jr. and the current Presidential election of

2016, Hillary Rodham Clinton v. Donald J. Trump. The shortness of time

normally between the date of the election November 8, 2016, and the

date Presidential electors cast their votes in the electoral college in the

state capitals, December 19, 2016, and the date that the U.S. Senate

and U.S. House of Representatives meet to count electoral votes on

January 6, 2017 is a very short amount of time, not enough time for

trials challenging the constitutionality of the electoral college. The

reality now is that the controversy under the U.S. Constitution now

exists and the controversy is ripe for trial.

TABLE OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

QUOTATIONS FROM BOOKS

125
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

This Great Scourge by Professor James M. Mc Pherson, PH.D., Copyright

2000 Published by Oxford University Press, 198 Madison Ave., New

York, NY 10016 pp 1-19

The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United

States by Professor Alexander Keyssar, PH.D., copyright 2000 Published

by Basic Books, 387 Park Ave. South, New York, NY 10016 pp.104-116

Federalist Paper Number 68 contained in The Federalist Papers, by

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, Copyright 2004,

Simon and Shuster, Inc. New York, NY

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES

United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clauses 1,2,3,4

[Choosing Electors] pp.38,76,63,77,79.48, 56, 73

United States Constitution Amendment 1 pp.

17,18,44,47,55,7738, 43

United States Constitution Amendment 10 PP.

United States Constitution Amendment 12, [President and Vice

President run in pairs]

United States Constitution Amendment 13 Abolition of Slavery

17,18,28,3539,4143,55,7729, 32, 53

United States Constitution Amendment 14 56,75,78,79

126
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

United States Constitution Amendment 15 Section 1,2

PP.17,18,2235,38,3941,55,67,77 29.32. 53

United States Constitution Amendment 19

pp.17,18,22,35,38,39,41,42,43,55,67,7729, 32 , 53

TABLE OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Title 3 U.S.C.A. Sections

2,3,5,6,7.8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,21

pp.39,54,72,77

Title 3 U.S.C.A. Section 2

Title 3 U.S.C.A. Section 5 p.4033,48,62,63,66,67,68,71

Title 3 U.S.C.A. 19 ( c ) (1) pp.74

Title 3 U.S.C.A. 15

Title 42 U.S.C. 1988

CASE LAW

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 187 pp.54,7348, 67

Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186 pp.55,56,100,10549,

50

Wesberry v. Sanders 376 U.S. 1 p.56,10550

School District of Abington Township v. Schempp 374 U.S.

203 pp.55,57

127
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

Barrows v. Jackson 346 U.S. 249 pp.59,60,6152, 53, 54

Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 pp. 7468, 70

Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 pp.47,4841, 42

U.S. v. Raines 362 U.S. 117 [1960] pp.54,55 54, 55

Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 [1857] p.3630

MISCELLANEOUS

Senate Joint Resolution 1 of December 6, 1977 A Proposed

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to switch to the popular vote

method to elect the president and vice president of the United States

pp.38,39,40,42,60, exact text of is on pages 50-5331,34,44

128
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

ADDENDUM ON STANDING CONTINUED FROM PAGE 55

In Wesberry v. Sanders 376 U.S. 1 [1964] One person Wesberry

sued where there were 125,000 voters in the Congressional district

who shared exactly the same injury. The Judge in the U.S. District Court

wrongly dismissed the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court said at 376 U.S. 802

“We agree with Judge Tuttle that debasing weight of appellants votes

the state has abridged the right to vote for members of Congress

guaranteed them by U.S. Constitution, that the District Court should

have entered a declaratory judgment to that effect and that it was

therefore error to dismiss this suit.”

376 U.S. 5 “After full consideration in Colegrove, the Court, in Baker

held (1) that the District Court had jurisdiction of subject matter (2)

that the qualified Tennessee voters there had standing to sue, and 376

U.S. 6 (3) that the plaintiffs had stated a justiciable cause of action on

129
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

which relief could be granted. The reason which led to these

conclusions in Baker are equally persuasive here.”

The U.S. Supreme Court states above that plaintiff Wesberry has a right

to sue and standing to sue as did the plaintiffs in Baker v. Carr, supra.

Plaintiff Sablosky clearly has a right to sue on an injury shared with

millions of other voters who voted for Hillary Clinton on November 8,

2016 and who voted for Al Gore, Jr. in November 2000. This court has

indicated that the court has no interest in trying this case and in fact

that Judge Walton has stated when denying Plaintiff’s injunction that

the plaintiff does not have a chance of winning on the merits of the

case. Plaintiff’s case and claims are quite different than claims in cases

that were cited as dismissed under 14th Amendment claims under

Gray v. Sanders 372 U.S. 368.

130
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

__________________________________________at Washington, D.C.

Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se Date

131
1ST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Undersigned in Pro Se hereby certifies that on this day of

February _____ 2017

Plaintiff’s 1st Amended Complaint was served upon Defendants

attorneys by mailing it postage prepaid to the following address

Department of Justice

Assistant United States Attorney

Johnny Walker

555 4th St. NW 4th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20001

Acting Attorney General

Dana Boente

950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

________________________________date_____________

Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se

132