What does that have to do with anything? With all due respect, there is no point in continuing this conversation if you cannot accept the basics. Why did this case fail? Simple - his claims were worthless.

Claims:

1. Promissory estoppel - he attempts to apply contract law principles to people he has never met, let alone made agreements with.

2. Same claim, slightly different basis. Still trying to apply contract law principles to people he has never met or made agreements with

3. Breach of duty - thinks that a duty (like fiduciary duty, or duty of care in negligence case) somehow arises out of members of government taking an oath. No. No "duty" comes out of this.

4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress - uh...what a joke...

5. fraud - not election fraud. Fraud in the inducement. Like every person he sued personally duped him into casting a ballot under false pretenses; without which, he would never have voted....

6. civil conspiracy - need underlying tortious behavior to allege conspiracy. claims 1-5 fail. so accordingly, this one does too.

Standing was one part of him being dismissed. The bulk of each lower court's rulings mentioned standing in passing and focused on the non-viability of the claims alleged. As in "even if true, the facts alleged could not support the claims for relief contained herein." Or something to that effect.

No court cares about "treason" and "aid and comfort" or whatever other buzz words you want to throw in, when you are asking them to apply contract law principles to people you have never met or negotiated with. Or "breach of duty" when the basis for claiming said duty exists is bunk. Or that you are trying to claim that you would not have voted if each party you are suing didn't personally fraudulently induce you into doing so.

Do you not see how retarded this lawsuit is? Or are you still stuck on the editorialized pages of the complaint prior to the claims for relief?