UPDATE: There is now a definitive answer.
There Is No Binding Judicial Precedent Adjudicating The Key Standing Issues Raised That Are Factually Squarely On Point
This is a novel argument.
To my knowledge, this is the first time that any state has ever sought judicial relief arising from another state's election administration, so it is a case of first ...
No. The true accuser is the state and the state always has standing to enforce its laws. This is an injury in fact. The judge would laugh at you and probably then double the fine for your insolence. This defense would be considered frivolous.
I doubt a court would find you have standing to pre-emptively sue to enforce a policy which has not resulted in any harm to you.
I recommend you write an open letter to the president of the university advising them of the situation. Publish the letter in the campus newspaper.
In the letter, include language like, "I am hereby, ...
The Court of Appeals made Judge Sullivan the respondent.
Flynn petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to order the inferior court to dismiss the criminal proceedings against Flynn.
Normally the adversary in the 'parent' proceedings would oppose such a petition but in this case the adversary, the Department of Justice, supported Flynn's ...
The complaint asserts thst:
This Court has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over this action because it is a
“controvers[y] between two or more States” under
Article III, § 2, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution and 28
U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2018).
In a presidential election, “the impact of
the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes
cast for the ...
Ohwilleke's answer covers why the state would have standing. However, your question is also wrong to assume that standing and injury-in-fact is a federal mandate; federal rules about standing are irrelevant in state court. Federal standing doctrine is conceptually fairly simple: the federal courts only have judicial power because Article III of the federal ...
In the US, private prosecutions are heavily disfavored, and are not allowed in most jurisdictions. Where they are allowed, they tend to be limited in nature and subject to the ultimate control of a government officer.
Federal court is one of the places where private prosecutions are not allowed. However, in two cases, Congress has decided that private ...
Attorneys are not delegates
Keeping things very simple:
Judge Sulivan has standing because he is the person named in the writ. Everyone has standing to challenge an order made on them personally.
Judge Sullivan’s lawyer does not have standing. They are acting on behalf of the Judge as the Judge’s representative or agent - they are not acting on their own ...
If a random attorney at the direction of a judge has standing to challenge actions within executive branch jurisdiction, why didn’t a judge prosecute the banks guilty of criminal fraud leading to the 2008 financial crisis when Obama ordered the DOJ to not prosecute?
This is a misunderstanding of the issue.
Judge Sullivan is not "prosecuting" Mr. ...
But they aren’t suing over defamation against Trump; the are suing over (alleged) defamation of the campaign:
the Campaign "assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia's help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table."
What you are referring to is a Rule 68 (FED. R. Civ. P. 68) offer of judgment (OOJ). Thus far, nearly every jurisdiction's court of appeals has refused to construe these as being binding on the Plaintiff if the offer is denied, even if it offers complete remuneration, especially in a putative class action. The underlying reasons when applied to a certified ...
Article III only describes the federal judiciary. It begins, "The judicial Power of the United States...". Any standing analysis dependent on the text of Article III is restricted in scope to the federal judiciary.
Criminal prosecution is within the jurisdiction of federal courts:
Although pro se defendant has latched on to the notion that to have ...
This is one of the arguments made by Flynn in his opposition to the appeal (p. 8).
No rule or precedent authorizes a district judge to seek rehearing of
a mandamus order. A district court ordered to respond to a petition
for a writ of mandamus is not thereby endowed with the rights of a
party. The resulting mandamus from this Court to Judge Sullivan—just
Nobody can take action against A. In order for anybody to obligate A, they must give something to A, which is not the case here (there has to be "consideration"). In this case, we don't even know if B is alive or A and B speak the same language. You can make a promise to a tree, or to a person who doesn't understand you. Only an agreement can be binding, and ...
Expanding on cpast's answer, the right of private prosecution has been denied by SCOTUS. Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 held that "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another", and this is affirmed in Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, which held that
The decision to prosecute is solely ...
If you want to have some fun and increase the likelihood that you will go to trial soon, you can file a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the Speedy Trial Act. If you have co-defendants they may be the reason for delay. You could then move for a severance.
On a slightly different note, since 95% of federal criminal cases result in the imposition ...
It depends upon the relief sought.
If the relief sought is an injunction seeking to prevent the violator from continuing to engage in an emolument generating activity going forward, it would be moot and dismissed when the violator left office.
If the relief sought is, for example, an award of money damages related to emoluments already received by the ...
Either the power is delegated and this is a member of the judicial branch challenging the executive branch’s use of its authority or it is not a delegation, in which case it is a random attorney with a general grievance.
The member of the judicial branch is just challenging an order from another judicial officer. This is part of how the judicial branch ...
The appeals court decision only stated that the members of congress suing the President didn't have standing as individual members of congress because "Only an institution can assert an institutional injury". It didn't say that violating the Emoluments Clause was institutional wrong that must be addressed by institutions, it said that a claim that an ...
Your scenario is skirting fraud, which is a criminal issue; I'm assuming that was unintentional and that criminal questions were beyond the scope of what you intended.
A person could claim standing by demonstrating:
They voted successfully, but at a precinct affected where their vote may have been discarded based on the policy in question.
They voted ...