The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a complaint charging that Facebook and Dominion Voting Systems had an unconstitutional and unfair effect on the 2020 elections.

Without remark, the court denied the appeal of eight Americans.

The gang was led by Kevin O’Rourke and had lost two prior rounds in court. In May, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Tymkovich denied the claim. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals followed suit, leading to the appeal for the Supreme Court’s involvement, according to The Hill.

In their quest to have the case reviewed, O’Rouke and his fellow plaintiffs outlined their goal.

“To ‘fortify’ the election, Respondent, Facebook, Inc., k/n/a, Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) regulated information that a cadre of progressives thought was misleading to the public,” it wrote.

“Additionally, Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) sought to control the process of local elections across the county under the cover of COVID-19 relief through conditioned grants totaling hundreds of millions of dollars provided by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Facebook, Respondent, Mark Zuckerberg (Zuckerberg), and his wife, Respondent, Priscila Chan (Chan),” the group wrote.

“Extraordinary lengths were taken to ensure the incumbent’s defeat,” the group wrote.

The organization highlighted in its appeal that it had asserted in its lawsuit that Dominion “has played in the creation and perpetuation of concerns regarding ‘vulnerabilities and a lack of transparency in the election technology industry.’”

The complaint includes an allegation that “‘hundreds of thousands of votes’ were switched in the 2020 presidential election ‘as a result of the systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities’ in the software utilized by Dominion’s voting systems.”

The organization also contended in their request for Supreme Court involvement that “Dominion’s voting systems are ‘intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.’”

The group said it was damaged because “illegal votes and unconstitutional procedures dilute the votes of the legally registered voter, persons that create policies and procedures that authorize, encourage, and cover-up unconstitutional behavior are liable for the damages they cause to Plaintiffs with proper standing.”

In its submission with the Supreme Court, the organization attached a judgement from the District Court stating, “Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest or injury sufficient to grant them standing to sue. With Plaintiffs not having standing to sue, there is no case or controversy, a necessary predicate for federal court jurisdiction under Article III.”

More on this story via The Western Journal:

The court called the lawsuit “a generalized grievance about the operation of government, or about the actions of the Defendants on the operation of government, resulting in abstract harm to all registered voting Americans.”

The appellate court did not delve into the merits of the case, only that those suing had shown no individual injury and thus had no standing to sue. CONTINUE READING…