Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Reasons why I cannot bring this before the Federal Courts

I want to thank those who held my head up during this time.
This letter came to me from a friend.
I know, I know. They tried all this stuff back in the thirties. It didn't go over because everyone still knew how the Constitution operated on the government. Today people assume that the constitution operates on the people. It operates on the people in government first. 

You lose several ways. Yes, they purview your rights through the "14th amendment."  But the initial hurdle is YOUR standing before the "Court." You have to characterize yourself as an heir to the founders of the Constitution. Since the Federal Constitution was "written" by the "representatives" of the "states," your standing has to be as an heir to the people of one of the states. A challenge such as this is called a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court. It amounts to recusal of the judge. They won't like you. 

 Everything is very convoluted. If they challenge your claim that you have standing "that you are one of the people of one of the states," then you challenge their claim that they can hold office, since they haven't proven that they have standing to hold the office! (They are just as much a 14th amendment "person" as anyone else.) 

(Person) is defined in the 14th amendment. The original Constitution assumed the "people" to be constituted of Men, as in "mankind," which would include man and woman. The new definition includes a new being that is possibly, a former slave, a current slave, or a corporation. All corporations are fictions of the "government:" that is, "given permission to exist" by the government. Therefore, they are "dead" to their rights. They have none. The government treats you as a corporation. They address you in all caps, "JOE BLOW," whereas your proper noun name is "Joe Blow."

So I lose and become moot. Sad

Tuesday, January 18, 2011


As a Citizen of the United States of America, I cannot bring a Constitutionality argument before the court. I lack the standing. The Court dismissed the case without reading the argument.

From this point, I am going to study what can do to rectify this disaster. We have the tools and talent to create what was originally written but never utilized.

This is not a difficult problem. The benefits will all stem from the fact we would have more people in the House. By nature those people will be trained in all the topics necessary to run our country. They will have gone to school to be ... Each of those skills will be of benefit to every citizen.

And I lack the standing.

And this topic is ripe for discussion.


The 14th Amendment to the Constitution
Section 2
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. "

That word has doomed us to an aristocratic society. After this statement in the 14th amendment, our government's power stems from the number of rooms in the Capital Building. We have 435 room, and that is all the representatives we are going to get. Divide them amongst the states based on the number of persons.

I understand why this was done. It was done to reduce administrative costs. But, we have no need for those antiquated paper systems.

As our population increases and transparency forces its way into our society, this will be our downfall. Too much power in too few hands. And this will happen fast.

I love this country. I have taken oaths to protect and defend our Constitution. And Apportionment is the biggest threat to our nation. That word changed us from a democratic-republic to an aristocratic-republic.

Aaron Guerami

Monday, January 10, 2011

Order Dismissing Case - Yet, still I will continue

This order of dismissal was issued on 01/05/11, the same day I presented the case to the court in West Palm Beach.



THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon filing the Complaint. The instant Complaint was filed herein January 5, 2011 [DE 1].1 Plaintiff Guerami, proceeding pro se, brings an action seeking the Court to declare 2 U.S.C. 2a, 2b, and 2c as unconstitutional. See [DE 1].1 Plaintiff's Complaint, in its entirety, states as follows:

  • I, Aaron Guerami, plaintiff, in the above styled cause, sues defendant(s) John Boenher
  • This action is filed Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
  • 2 U.S.C 2a, 2b, 2c change the process of representation under Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 without an Article V amendment. 
  • Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3: The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30000, but each State shall have at least one Representative. 
  • 2 U.S.C. 2a (a) ... and the number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled under apportionment of then existing number of Representatives by the method known as equal proportions, no State to receive less than one member.
  • Wherefore, I demand the Courts to declare 2 U.S.C.2a, 2b,2c as unconstitutional.
[DE 1]
1 Plaintiff sees leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [DE-2]

After careful review, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The more serious defects, however, are standing and ripeness.Because standing is jurisdictional, it must be considered by the Court sua sponte. AT&T Mobility,LLC v. National Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 494F.3d 1356,1360 (11th Cir. 2007). "Standing and ripeness present the threshold jurisdictional question of whether a court may consider the merits of a dispute." Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d1199,1024 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). "Both standing and ripeness originate from the Constitution's Article III requirement that the jurisdiction of federal courts be limited to actual cases and controversies." Id. at 1204-1205 (citation omitted)."It is now axiomatic that standing requires the plaintiff to demonstrate injury in fact, causation, and redressability." Id., at 1205 (citation omitted). Here, where Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege any facts which establish an actual case and controversy, the Court is not permitted to opine on the constitutionality of the section of the United States Constitution about which the Plaintiff complains.

     Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

  1.   Plaintiff's Complain [DE 1] is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to file an amended complaint on or before January 20, 2011. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY any pending motions as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 5th day of January, 2011.
From what I understand of this dismissal is, I have not described the standing of the complaint.

Standing requirements

There are three standing requirements:
  1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
  2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[14]
  3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury
Injury: I do not have representation under Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 as compared to populations created by in other districts through out the districts in the United States of America. By using 2U.S.C. 2a, 2b, 2c, the defendant has shown gross negligence, willful misconduct and other claims in the method of equal appropriation, construction and operation of misrepresentation as dictated by Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3

Ripeness: Ripeness represents the other side of the coin of standing, and deals with whether the defendant in a case has gone so far in his/her abusive behavior that the court has a right to hear the case.

In this case The argument is ripe for action

Saturday, January 8, 2011


I filed case : 9:11-cv-80012-wpd #4
5 pages
Thu Jan 6 0:14:09 2011

Allegation of jurisdiction:
This actions is filed under: Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

Statement of Facts:
1) 2 U.S.C. 2a, 2b,2c change the process of representation under Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 without an Article V amendment.
2) Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3: ... The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative.
3) 2 U.S.C. 2a (a) ... and the number of Representatives to which each state would be entitled under an apportionment of the then existing number of Representatives by the method known as equal proportions, no State to receive less than one member.

Relief Request:
I demand the Courts to declare 2 U.S.C. 2a, 2b, 2c as unconstitutional.

Sunday, January 2, 2011