Larry Eugene Clark v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al.

A conflict exists between decisions recently ren­ dered by two State Supreme Courts which affirm injured voters have standing to be heard, and the decisions rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in this matter, and this must be resolved as this decision is of National Importance as it prohibits not only Petitioner’s right to vote, but every U.S. Citizen’s right to vote.

A conflict exists between State and Federal Law involving Petitioner’s Constitutional right to vote and machines used in the United States not certi­ fied per Federal HAVA law, which are stealing the right of suffrage from not only the Petitioner, but every U.S. Citizen, and Petitioner motions this Court to settle the many conflicts which exist with the States’ use of these uncertified, compromised machines, including a) Should Petitioner and all U.S. Citizens continue to be denied their Constitu­ tional right to vote by being forced to use elec­ tronic voting machines that have been and still can be accessed and votes flipped, and b) should Americans be forced to further endure the America-harming policies of a President and Vice Pres­ ident treasonously and fraudulently installed with a flip of these machines’ vote tallies in many States in the 2020 election?

A conflict exists between law as issued by this Court and in our Constitution and the failure of Judges in the two lower courts in this matter to act upon this law and their Oaths to uphold the