Whether the petitioners have presented sufficient evidence to support three claims pursuant to 42 USC§ 1983: (Count I) violation of the Elections and Electors Clauses; (Count IT) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and (Count IIT) denial of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and a violation of the Michigan Election Code?

ISSUES PRESENTED I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE PETITIONERS’ EMERGENCY MOTION WITOUT EVEN A HEARING OR ORAL ARGUMENT FOR DECLARATORY, EMERGENCY, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WHEN THE PETITIONERS HAD PRESENTED A PRIMA FACIE CASE SETTING FORTH CLAIMS OF WIDESPREAD VOTER IRREGULARITIES AND FRAUD IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE PROCESSING AND TABULATION OF VOTES AND ABSENTEE BALLOT. THE TRIAL COURT COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IGNORGED THE DOZENS OF AFFIDAVITS, TESTIMONIALS, EXPERT OPINIONS, DIAGRAMS AND PHOTOS THAT SUPPORTED THE PETITIONERS’ CLAIM SEEKING AN INJUNCTION OF THE VOTING PROCESS. A. WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THREE CLAIMS PURSUANT TO 42 USC§ 1983: (Count I) VIOLATION OF THE ELECTIONS AND ELECTORS CLAUSES; (Count IT) VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND (Count IIT) DENIAL OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND A VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN ELECTION CODE? B. WHETHER THE PETITIONERS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WHICH WAS IGNORED BY THE DISTRICT TO WARRANT A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WHERE THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE ESTALBLISHED LIKEHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS, THAT THE PETITIONERS WOULD SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IN THE ABSENCE OF PRELIMINARY RELIEF AND THAT THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES TIPS IN THIE FAVOR AND THAT AN INJUNCTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? Il. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITIONERS EMERGENCY MOTION AND REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WHEN THE COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONERS STATE LAW CLAIMS AGAINST RESPONDENTS WERE BARRED BY ELEMENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY? Il. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERREONEOUSLY HELD THAT THE PETITIONERS CLAIMS SEEKING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WERE BARRED AS BEING MOOT WHEN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS YET TO CERTIFY THE NATIONAL ELECTION AND AS SUCH THE RELIEF REQUESTED IS TIMELY? 1 IV. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE PETITIONERS CLAIMS WERE BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES WHEN THE CLAIMS WERE IN FACT TIMELY MADE AND ARE ADDRESSING HARM THAT IS CONTINUING AND FORTHCOMING AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT PREJUDICIED BY ANY DELAYS IN THE FILING BY THE PETITIONERS? V. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITIONERS CLAIMS BASED ON THE ABSTENTION DOCTRINE IDENTIFIED IN THE US SUPREME COURT CASE OF COLORADO RIVER WITHOUT ANY SHOWING OF PARALLEL STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS THAT ADDRESS THE IDENTICAL RELIEF SOUGHT? VI. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THEIR INJURY CAN BE REDRESSED BY THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND HELD THAT THE PETITIONERS POSSESS NO STANDING TO PURSUE THEIR EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM WHEN GIVEN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT, THE ISSUE OF VOTER FRAUD AND VALIDATION OF ELECTION IS THE VERY RELIEF THAT A COURT CAN REDRESS PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND THE PETITIONERS CLEARLY HAVE STANDING? VII. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT PETITIONERS CLAIMS WERE BARRED BECAUSE THE COURT DETERMINED THE PETITIONERS “ASSERT NO PARTICULARIZED STAKE IN THE LITIGATION” AND FAILED TO ESTABLISH AN INJURYIN-FACT AND THUS LACK STANDING TO BRING THEIR ELECTIONS CLAUSE AND ELECTORS CLAUSE CLAIMS WHEN THE PETITIONERS ARE THE VERY INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN ASSERT THIS CLAIM AND HAVE PRO