Can a federal court dismiss a case based on lack of jurisdiction over relief that wasn't requested, despite it being empowered to order POTUS to correct a ministerial error that blocks the guarantee of representation which is the foundation of United States government?

QUESTION PRESENTED ; The Question: Can a federal court dismiss a case based on lack of jurisdiction over relief that wasn’t requested, despite it being empowered to order POTUS to correct a ministerial error that blocks the guarantee of representation which is the foundation of United States government? For context, this court already affirmed in Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000) that it is im: possible for the Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 District of Columbia to be Columbia’s State for the purposes of representation in Congress! and the constitutionally guaranteed State representation rights of Columbia persons survived its cession in 1801.? Petitioner asked for the correction of the list of States, he has not asked for apportionment. 1 Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000) affirmed (emphasis added): “As originally provided under Article I, section 3, the Senate was to be “composed of two Senators from each State,” chosen not “by the People of the several States,” as in the case of the House, but rather “by the Legislature thereof.” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 1 (emphasis added). The impossibility of treating Congress as the legislature under that clause is manifest, as doing so would mean that Congress would itself choose the District’s senators.” . 2 Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000) affirmed, section B, emphasis added: “From the foregoing, it is apparent that the cession transaction could not lawfully terminate or effectively waive the right of “persons” ceded, particularly ; the 1790-1800 voters, to voting representation in the House of Representatives. Nor could the cession preclude voting representation of the “persons to be” in the ceded area.” } , | | | ii QUESTION PRESENTED — Continued In the instant complaint, Respondent does not dispute: a) Columbia’s State rights of representation ; are reserved to it by U.S. Const. Amendment X. b) The 1801 cession explicitly preserved Columbia’s State law rights including for State Legislature elections,? which were held in November 2020. c) Columbia had sufficient population by 1860 to justify minimal State representation of two U.S. Senators and one U.S. ; House Representative. “Under established constitutional principles, neither the then-People of the District nor their Posterity forfeited that constitutional right when the District became the Seat of Government, and neither Maryland, nor the United States or its officers, had the constitutional authority to forfeit that right for them.” : N.B. in the above the “District” necessarily means “Columbia” since the Federal District did not exist before cession. 3 From Columbia State law (see Maryland State Constitution) at cession: “J. THAT the Legislature consist of two distinct branches, a Senate and House of Delegates, which shall be styled, The General Assembly” “XXVII. That the Delegates to Congress, from this State, shall be chosen annually, or superseded in the mean time by the joint ballot of both Houses of Assembly;.” iii . QUESTION PRESENTED Continued ; d) The President of the United States (“POTUS” or “Respondent”) is by oath bound to follow the law and has a ministerial, non-discretionary duty to send a . list of States to Congress.’ , e) The Petitioner has suffered harm and there is no harm to Congress’ U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17 exclusive rights in the District. The issuance of a list of States and their population is , a ministerial duty required under 2 U.S.C. § 2a(a), but the District Court’s Memorandum Opinion at App 6 hereto states “Mr. Page seeks an injunction requiring the President to include Columbia’s residents in the , congressional apportionment calculation following the decennial census.” This false statement about the relief requested was subsequently used to conclude that relief is not simple and definite and thus the court lacked jurisdiction. Petitioner showed this clear error in a motion for reconsideration but the District Court decided not to respond. ; 4