Whether fraud in the 2022 Oregon Primary Elections invalidates the election results and judicial rulings despite defendants' claims of sovereign immunity and election integrity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1) This petition presents related issues of Exceptional Importance to the American Public, due process, election integrity, discrimination, and the integrity of the Judicial system. In this matter, Respondents’ (Defendants’) counsel made , select statements in their joint Motion to Dismiss, such as “Mere fraud will not render an election invalid’, and “In general, garden variety election irregularities do not violate the Due Process Clause, even if they control the outcome of the vote or election.” This was a direct reference to Petitioner's (Plaintiffs) accusation(s) with evidence, of the misprint of over 60% of the ballots, and vote tallies going down by thousands. UNITED STATES v THROCKMORTON, via Mr. Wells’ work on Res Judicata, stated in sect. 499, ‘Fraud vitiates every thing, and a judgment equally with a contract; that is, a judgment obtained directly by fraud, and not merely a judgment founded on a fraudulent instrument; for, in general, the court will not go again into the merits of an action for the purpose of detecting and annulling the fraud...”. Based upon the abovestated, and upon proof and evidence presented by _ Petitioners, if there were “fraud” and/or “fraudulent activity” in the 2022 Oregon Primary Elections, does the opinion and ruling of Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman, and i accordant ruling of Chief District Judge Marco A. Hernandez, then the judgment of the court of appeals, in adjudicating and therein directly or indirectly vindicating the Defendants still lawfully stand with merit, while at the same time, upholding the Constitution of the United States, The Constitution of Oregon, The Laws of the United States, The Laws of Oregon, The Statutes and Codes of the United States of America, The , Statutes and Codes of Oregon, in general, preserving the integrity of the election process for . the benefit of the People of the State of Oregon and the People of the United States of America? 2) Another question arises whether a magistrate judge can only resolve a limited scope of disputes (Huber Engineered Woods LLC v LouisianaPacific Corporation, C.A. No. 19-342-VAC-SRF (D.Del.)) where said Court held that a motion to strike infringement contentions is outside the scope of the magistrate judge referral. On April 5, 2023, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman struck a Judicial Notice submitted by the Plaintiffs. The Petitioners therefore ask: Should the Judicial Notice be addressed only after the assignment of an Article III Judge? 3) It is a maxim of law, “When the will of the people . is circumvented or abrogated, the delegation of authority granted by the people, is null and void ab initio.” The Defendants are fiduciaries ii (trustees) of the public trust, in this case, holding office-in-charge over the electoral process to see : that said process is fair, just, integral, and fully transparent to the voters In John Gomez v. Charles Clemons, Jr. the Court orders a new primary ‘ and agrees with plaintiffs: “Rather, the plaintiff submits that the court should accept the totality of the evidence to support such a scale of violations that call the result of the primary election into , substantial doubt.” Therefore, if the Defendants, while active in their appointed/elected offices, ; participate and/or engage in actions. that ; compromise the integrity of a fair, just and open election process, or in the alternative, are briefed with evidence, by one of the People or a running candidate, of fraudulent and/or negligent activity in an election process, and said fiduciaries refuse . and/or neglect to address and fix the issue(s), does the authority, and resulting decisions of said fiduciaries (Defendants), still stand and thus ; certify the results of an election as valid? 4) In Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss, counsel claimed “sovereign immunity” under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in response to Petitioners’ accusation(s). Warnock v. Pecos C