DOCSLIB.ORG

United States District Court for the District of Colulmpia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States District Court for the District of Colulmpia Case 1:17-cv-00793-CKK-CP-RDM Document 135-1 Filed 09/20/18 Page 1 of 44 Scott Stafne (Pro Hac Vice) Sara S. Hemphill STAFNE LAW ADVOCACY & CONSULTING 239 N Olympic Avenue Arlington, WA 98223 (360) 403-8700 [email protected] - and - Alexander Penley GLOBAL PENLEY LAW 4111 Crittenden Street Hyattsville, MD 20781 (917) 582-8172 [email protected] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLULMPIA Frederick John LaVergne, et als., Case No. 1:17-cfv-00793 CKK-CP-RDM Plaintiffs, Three Judge Court Hon. Cornelia T.L. Pillard, C.J. Vs. (Presiding) Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, U.S.D.J. U.S. House of Representatives, a body Hon. Randolph Moss, U.S.D.J. politic created and constituted by Article I of the United States Civil Action Constitution, as amended; et als., Defendants, And Michael Pence, Vice President of the United States and President of the United States Senate, et als., Interested Parties. Plaintiff’s Frederick John LaVergne, Leonard P. Marshall, and Allen J. Cannon’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief and immediately thereafter, Summary Judgment and Permanent Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 1 - Case 1:17-cv-00793-CKK-CP-RDM Document 135-1 Filed 09/20/18 Page 2 of 44 Introduction: On January 3, 2017 the One Hundred and Fifteenth Congress convened in Washington D.C. and the 435 newly elected Members of the United States House of Representatives from among the 50 States each appeared and presented their credentials, were sworn, and took their seats. That same day Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin was purportedly elected as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives in accordance with the United States Constitution’s Article I. On March 28, 2017 the 435 Members of the United States House of Representatives, presided over by Defendant Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, voted by majority of the 435 Members to approve legislation that had previously been approved by the full Article I United States Senate, which was then identified as “S.J. Res. 34”. On April 3, 2017 that same legislation, after presentation, was officially signed into law by President Donald J. Trump and is now identified as Public Law No. 115-22 (04/03/2017). On April 28, 2017 the collective Plaintiffs, including Eugene Martin LaVergne1 and Scott Neuman2 filed their initial four Count Complaint and other required documents with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the validity of Public 1 Eugene Martin LaVergne was dismissed as a plaintiff from this lawsuit (Dkt. 127) on res judicata grounds related to his standing. Eugene has filed a motion for reconsideration of this order based on this court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider his claims after its dismissal has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Dkt. 133. 2 Scott Neuman has filed a motion to amend his complaint to allege causes of action consistent with those asserted by interveners. See Dkt. 101, 129. - 2 - Case 1:17-cv-00793-CKK-CP-RDM Document 135-1 Filed 09/20/18 Page 3 of 44 Law No. 115-22 (04/03/2017). In the initial Complaint the Plaintiffs contend that Article the First, the first ever proposed amendment to the United States Constitution proposed by Resolution of Congress in 1789 to the then eleven State Legislatures, was in fact fully ratified and automatically consummated into positive Constitutional Law by the Federal Constitution’s Article V’s standards at the latest on or about June 24, 1792 (if not earlier), and that this fact was lost or otherwise intentionally hidden in history. In support of this claim Plaintiffs cite to and proffered their intention to at time of trial or other proceedings rely heavily upon the extensive research and documents that have been compiled in former Plaintiff Eugene Martin LaVergne’s commercially published book titled How “Less” is “More”: The Story of the Real First Amendment to the United States Constitution published by First Amendment Free Press, Inc., New York, New York (2016). Directly, the moving Plaintiffs (Frederick John LaVergne, Leonard P. Marshall and Allen J. Cannon), contend that Article the First is binding Federal Constitutional law, that Article the First means and operates exactly as they contend in their Complaint, and that when the automatic mandatory non-discretionary standards of Article the First are applied to the 2010 Decennial Census of each State, that the Article I apportionment of the United States House of Representatives is actually required to have a minimum of 6,230 Representatives apportioned among the 50 States. - 3 - Case 1:17-cv-00793-CKK-CP-RDM Document 135-1 Filed 09/20/18 Page 4 of 44 At present the United States House of Representatives at the One Hundred and Fifteenth Congress has only 435 Representatives apportioned among the now 50 States in the Union. The 435 Representatives were apportioned among the 50 States in the Union after the 2010 Census in accordance with the so called “Automatic Apportionment Act of 1929”, as amended, using the base number of 435, the Census Population of each State, and the math formula known as the “Method of Equal Proportions”. See 2 U.S.C. §2. If Plaintiffs are indeed historically, factually and legally correct, then this means that there is a minimum of 3,116 Representatives that must be elected in the various States, appear at the seat of Federal Government, present credentials, be sworn, and be seated in the United States House of Representatives before there is the required Article I, Section 5’s mandatory “Quorum” (50% + 1 of the Membership of the Body) present to conduct any legislative business. More specifically in this case, as noted, the collective Plaintiffs directly challenged the constitutionality of Public Law No. 115-22 (04/03/2017), signed into law by President Donald J. Trump on April 3, 2017, because - they claim - that the affirmative legislative vote in the United States House of Representatives on March 28, 2017 (when the legislation was identified as “S.J. Res. 34”) is invalid and a nullity as the constitutionally required Article I, Section 5 Quorum of at least 3,116 Representatives was not present then and there. The Plaintiffs argument is that as that specific March 28, 2017 vote in the House of Representatives failed to satisfy and comply with the Constitution’s Article - 4 - Case 1:17-cv-00793-CKK-CP-RDM Document 135-1 Filed 09/20/18 Page 5 of 44 I, Section 5’s mandatory “Quorum’s Clause”, that the March 28, 2017 vote by the United States House of Representatives was invalid and a nullity and may not be counted as legal for Article I law making purposes. This is because Public Law No. 115-22 (04/03/2017) failed to satisfy the vesting and bicameralism requirements of the United States Constitution’s Article I and Article II and therefore is not valid Federal Law. See I.N.S. v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) and Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1996). This also means that Defendant Ryan is not legally the Speaker nor legally in the line of Presidential succession. Moving Plaintiffs assert these injuries to the people are not general grievances which can be ignored by a government intended to respect the organic law of this nation. On May 9, 2017, and in contemplation of then expected impending legislative approval in the full United States Senate, the collective Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint where they added one additional named Plaintiff and added a new Fifth Count. That FIFTH COUNT of the First Amended Complaint is hereby withdrawn because it is moot. Thereafter, Plaintiff Neuman moved to file a Second Amended Complaint, which this court has now granted and established a briefing schedule for. Dkt 129. The collective Plaintiff’s moved for the convening of a 3 Judge Court in accordance with the authority and procedures established in 28 U.S.C. §2284(a) and L.Civ.R. 9.1. Plaintiffs claimed that with factual, equitable and legal claims as asserted in the original Complaint and as asserted in the First Amended Complaint, - 5 - Case 1:17-cv-00793-CKK-CP-RDM Document 135-1 Filed 09/20/18 Page 6 of 44 that they were in fact, albeit indirectly, “… challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts …” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2284(a). Thereafter, the Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, U.S.D.J. found such motion to have merit and referred the case to the Honorable Merrick B. Garland, Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. On May 18, 2017, Judge Garland formally appointed and convened a three judge court to hear the claims in this case, appointing the Honorable Cornelia T. L. Pillard, Circuit Judge from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Honorable Randolph D. Moss, U.S.D.J. of the District of Columbia District Court to serve along with Judge Kollar-Kotelly. Dkt. 7. Circuit Judge Pillard was appointed the Presiding Judge of the panel. Id. On October 20, 2017 former lead Plaintiff Eugene Martin LaVergne filed a motion somewhat similar to the instant motion moving for summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief. Also on October 20, 2017 the Three Judge Court held a telephonic status and case management conference. Ultimately, the Three Judge Court took no further action for the next 8 months, and as such, after refusing to even hear LaVergne' s application for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunctive Relief, the "denial" was appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court on June 11, 2018.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EPIC's Amicus Brief
    13-0422-cv(L), 13-0445-cv(CON) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, CHARLIE SAVAGE, SCOTT SHANE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendants-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER AND SEVEN OPEN GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND URGING REVERSAL Marc Rotenberg Counsel of Record Alan Butler Ginger McCall David Brody Julia Horwitz Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 483-1140 [email protected] April 22, 2013 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and 29(c) for Case No. 13-422 amicus curiae Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) states that it is a District of Columbia corporation with no parent corporation or publicly-held company with a 10 percent or greater ownership interest. EPIC is a non-profit, non-partisan corporation, organized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law (“Brennan Center”) does not have a parent company, and is not a publicly-held company with a 10 percent or greater ownership interest. The Brennan Center is a non-profit, non-partisan corporation, organized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) does not have a parent company, and is not a publicly-held company with a 10 percent or greater ownership interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Information Act Activity for the Weeks of December 29, 2016-January 4, 2017 Privacy Office January 10, 2017 Weekly Freedom of Information Act Report
    Freedom of Information Act Activity for the Weeks of December 29, 2016-January 4, 2017 Privacy Office January 10, 2017 Weekly Freedom of Information Act Report I. Efficiency and Transparency—Steps taken to increase transparency and make forms and processes used by the general public more user-friendly, particularly web- based and Freedom of Information Act related items: • NSTR II. On Freedom of Information Act Requests • On December 30, 2016, Bradley Moss, a representative with the James Madison Project in Washington D.C, requested from Department of Homeland Security (DI-IS) Secret Service records, including cross-references, memorializing written communications — including USSS documentation summarizing verbal communications —between USSS and the transition campaign staff, corporate staff, or private staff of President-Elect Donald J. Trump. (Case Number HQ 2017-HQF0-00202.) • On December 30, 2016, Justin McCarthy, a representative with Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C., requested from United States Secret Service (USSS) records concerning the use of U.S. Government funds to provide security for President Obama's November 2016 trip to Florida. (Case Number USSS 20170407.) • On January 3,2017, Justin McCarthy, a representative with Judicial Watch in Washington, DE, requested from United States Secret Service (USSS) records concerning, regarding, or relating to security expenses for President Barack °ham's residence in Chicago, Illinois from January 20, 2009 to January 3,2017. (Case Number USSS 20170417.) • On January 3,2017, Justin McCarthy, a representative with Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C., requested from United States Secret Service (USSS) records concerning, regarding. or relating to security expenses for President-Elect Donald Trump and Trump Tower in New York, New York from November 9,2016 to January 3,2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Bruce Ackerman
    BOOK REVIEW CONSTITUTIONAL ALARMISM THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC. By Bruce Ackerman. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2010. Pp. 270. $25.95. Reviewed by Trevor W. Morrison∗ INTRODUCTION The Decline and Fall of the American Republic is a call to action. Professor Bruce Ackerman opens the book with the claim that “some- thing is seriously wrong — very seriously wrong — with the tradition of government that we have inherited” (p. 3). The problem, he says, is the modern American presidency, which he portrays as recently trans- formed into “an especially dangerous office” (p. 189 n.1) posing “a se- rious threat to our constitutional tradition” (p. 4). Ackerman urges us to confront this “potential for catastrophic decline — and act before it is too late” (p. 11). Concerns of this kind are not new. Indeed, in some respects De- cline and Fall reads as a sequel to Professor Arthur Schlesinger’s 1973 classic, The Imperial Presidency.1 Ackerman writes consciously in that tradition, but with a sense of renewed urgency driven by a convic- tion that “the presidency has become far more dangerous today” than in Schlesinger’s time (p. 188). The sources and mechanisms of that purported danger are numerous; Decline and Fall sweeps across jour- nalism, national opinion polls, the Electoral College, civilian-military relations, presidential control of the bureaucracy, and executive branch lawyering to contend that “the foundations of our own republic are eroding before our very eyes” (p. 188). ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ Professor of Law, Columbia University. For helpful comments on earlier drafts, I thank Akhil Amar, David Barron, Ariela Dubler, Jack Goldsmith, Marty Lederman, Peter Margulies, Gillian Metzger, Henry Monaghan, Rick Pildes, Jeff Powell, John Witt, and participants in faculty workshops at Vanderbilt University and the University of Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee
    Stanford Law Review Volume 73 June 2021 NOTE Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee William S. Janover* Abstract. As arbiter of the constitutionality of executive actions, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) possesses vast authority over the operation of the federal government and is one of the primary vessels for the articulation of executive power. It therefore is not surprising that the OLC has found itself at the center of controversy across Democratic and Republican administrations. OLC opinions have justified the obstruction of valid congressional investigations, the targeted killing of an American citizen overseas, repeated military incursions without congressional approval, and, most infamously, torture. These episodes have generated a significant body of proposals to reform, constrain, or altogether eliminate the OLC. All of these proposals can be categorized as either direct or indirect constraints on how the OLC operates. Direct constraints target how the OLC actually creates its legal work product. Indirect constraints instead focus on the OLC’s personnel or the public scrutiny the Office’s opinions will face. This Note expands on this existing body of research, focusing on how one institution unstudied in this context, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, can operationalize meaningful indirect constraints on the OLC. Unlike the other actors that scholars have examined, the Committee’s position outside the executive branch allows it to sidestep the President’s ever-expanding reach within the federal bureaucracy. At the same time, the Committee’s oversight powers and its central role in the nomination of both the OLC’s leader and Article III judges give it important constitutional and statutory authority to constrain the Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Judicial Review
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2003 Non-Judicial Review Mark V. Tushnet Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/235 40 Harv. J. on Legis. 453-492 (2003) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications February 2010 Non-Judicial Review 40 Harv. J. on Legis. 453-492 (2003) Mark V. Tushnet Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/235/ Posted with permission of the author ESSAY NON-JUDICIAL REVIEW MARK TuSHNET* Professor Mark Tushnet challenges the view that democratic constitutional­ ism requires courts to dominate constitutional review. He provides three di­ verse examples of non-judicial institutions involved in constitutional review and examines the institutional incentives to get the analysis" right." Through these examples, Professor Tushnet argues that non-judicial actors may per­ form constitutional review that is accurate, effective, and capable of gaining public acceptance. Professor Tushnet recommends that scholars conduct further research into non-judicial review to determine whether ultimately more or less judicial review is necessary in constitutional democracies. If nothing else, familiarity leads us to assume that constitutional re­ view must occur in courts and that non-judicial actors-politicians, said in a disparaging tone of voice-would fail to do a decent job of constitu­ tional review were they given the chance.' Courts are said to be distinc­ tively the forum of principle,2 the legislature and executive the forum of politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Comments on Georgia Waiver from September 12, 2020 Through
    #634 9/12/20 To Whom It May Concern I do not support the move from healthcare.gov to a privatized enrollment system that relies on for-profit insurance companies who will not act in my best interest. I support a Georgia reinsurance program because it will help lower premiums. Thank you very much. JD Sincerely, JD Atlanta, GA 30305 #635 9/12/20 To Whom It May Concern I do not support the move from healthcare.gov to a privatized enrollment system that relies on for-profit insurance companies who will not act in my best interest. Health care should be a right, and not be treated like a commodity dictated by the free market. The proposed system will perpetuate existing racist systems designed to keep people of color uninsured. I support a Georgia reinsurance program because it will help lower premiums. Thank you very much. Sincerely, AT Atlanta, GA 30317 1 #636 9/12/20 To Whom It May Concern I do not support the move from healthcare.gov to a privatized enrollment system that relies on for-profit insurance companies who will not act in my best interest. I support a Georgia reinsurance program because it will help lower premiums. Thank you very much. Sincerely, MC Atlanta, GA 30312 #637 (submitted comments 2 times) 9/12/20 Does this email address work now? Thanks, NB 9/12/20 I am resending this email as it did not go throught the first time. I am a physician. My family has had health insurance through ACA since 2017. When we researched other options we only found offers for less comprehensive insurance masquerading as full coverage.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Hosts for June 2009 Chinese Student Program In
    US-ASIA INSTITUTE SZYMANSKI RULE OF LAW PROGRAM FOR CHINESE LAW STUDENTS Host List for Summer 2020 Program (June 29 – July 24, 2020) Washington, D.C. Participating Students: Ms. Xuan (Beth) Zhang, Mr. Lei Xiong, Ms. Qianru Guo, Mr. Yumo (Hunter) Li, Ms. Yuchen Mao, Ms. Jiaqi (Octavia) Wang & Mr. Ye Yuan (The following list was prepared for their benefit.) Notes: (1) The notation “US-China IPE” herein means participation in the Speaker’s US-China Interparliamentary Exchange between 2002-2006, the period chaired by Rep. Don Manzullo and managed by Matthew Szymanski. During this period, the Senate- NPC Interparliamentary Group was co-chaired by Sen. Daniel Inouye and Sen. Ted Stevens. (2) For some of the below hosts, esp. from the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, and Private Sector, relevant biographical information is noted, where known. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (CONGRESS) – THE SENATE Staff: • Ms. Manpreet Kaur Teji, Counsel, Office of Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois (#2 Democratic leader); • Mr. Michael Schiffer, Min. Senior Advisor/Counselor, Foreign Relations Committee (Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland); • Mr. Conroy Stout, Legislative Assistant (Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming); • Ms. Laura Swanson, Minority Staff Director, Banking Committee (Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio); • Mr. Jeff Wrase, Majority Deputy Staff Director, Finance Committee (Sen. Chuck Grassley, #1 Senator as Pres. Pro Tem); • Mr. Nick Wyatt, Policy Advisor on Tax & Nominations, Finance Committee (Sen. Grassley, Pres. Pro Tem). LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (CONGRESS) – THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES • Rep. Ami Bera of California, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, & Nonproliferation (he also serves as the Vice Chair on the Committee on Science, Space, & Technology; a physician and former medical school associated dean, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 22 Includes Office of Legal Counsel Opinions That the Department of Justice Has Determined Are Appropriate for Publication
    OPINIONS OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONSISTING OF SELECTED MEMORANDUM OPINIONS ADVISING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN RELATION TO THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES VOLUM E 22 1998 WASHINGTON 2005 Attorney General Janet Reno Acting Assistant Attorneys General Office o f Legal Counsel Dawn E. Johnsen Randolph D. Moss Deputy Assistant Attorneys General Office o f Legal Counsel Daniel L. Koffsky (Acting) Randolph D. Moss Beth Nolan Todd David Peterson William M. Treanor OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL Attorney-Advisers (1998) David J. Barron Martin S. Lederman Lisa Schultz Bressman Robin A. Lenhardt Paul P. Colbom Herman Marcuse Robert J. Delahunty Rosemary Nidiry Sarah E. Freitas J. Paul Oetken Eric Dodson Greenberg James Orenstein Daniel H. Halberstam Jeffrey P. Singdahlsen Rosemary A. Hart Patricia L. Small Jeffrey P. Kehne George C. Smith Daniel L. Koffsky Karen L. Stevens Caroline D. Krass Ursula Werner FOREWORD The Attorney General has directed the Office of Legal Counsel to publish selected opinions on an annual basis for the convenience of the executive, legisla- tive, and judicial branches of the government, and of the professional bar and the general public. The first twenty-one volumes of opinions published covered the years 1977 through 1997; the present volume covers 1998. Volume 22 includes Office of Legal Counsel opinions that the Department of Justice has determined are appropriate for publication. A substantial number of Office of Legal Counsel opinions issued during 1998 are not included. The authority of the Office of Legal Counsel to render legal opinions is derived from the authority of the Attorney General.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Legal Counsel
    OPINIONS OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONSISTING OF SELECTED MEMORANDUM OPINIONS ADVISING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN RELATION TO THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES VOLUME 19 1995 WASHINGTON 2002 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo gov Phone. (202) 512-1800 Fax. (202) 512-2250 Mail- Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 ISBN 0-16-050772-3 Attorney General Janet Reno Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger Deputy Assistant Attorneys General Office o f Legal Counsel Dawn E. Johnsen Randolph Moss H. Jefferson Powell Christopher H. Schroeder Richard L. Shiffrin OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL Attorney-Advisers (1995) Rebecca A. Arbogast Martin S. Lederman Stuart M. Benjamin Herman Marcuse Elizabeth A. Cavendish Karen A. Popp Paul P. Colbom Ann K. Reed Robert J. Delahunty Michael C. Small Ari Q. Fitzgerald George C. Smith Todd F. Gaziano Karen L. Stevens Pamela A. Harris Emily S. Uhrig Rosemary A. Hart Geovette E. Washington Neil J. Kinkopf Ursula Wemer Daniel L. Koffsky iv Foreword The Attorney General has directed the Office of Legal Counsel to publish selected opinions on an annual basis for the convenience of the executive, legisla­ tive, and judicial branches of the government, and of the professional bar and the general public. The first eighteen volumes of opinions published covered the years 1977 through 1994; the present volume covers 1995. The opinions included in Volume 19 include some that have previously been released to the public, addi­ tional opinions as to which the addressee has agreed to publication, and opinions to Department of Justice officials that the Office of Legal Counsel has determined may be released.
    [Show full text]
  • Stare Decisis in the Office of Legal Counsel
    \\server05\productn\C\COL\110-6\COL602.txt unknown Seq: 1 8-OCT-10 14:23 STARE DECISIS IN THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL Trevor W. Morrison* Legal interpretation within the Executive Branch has attracted in- creased interest in recent years, much of it focused on the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The most significant centralized source of legal advice within the Executive Branch, OLC has also been plagued by charges of undue politicization—especially in connection with various issues relating to the “war on terror.” Yet there has been little consideration of the role in OLC of one of the main devices thought to constrain political and ideological preferences within the Judicial Branch—stare decisis. This Article provides the first sustained descriptive and normative ex- amination of the role of stare decisis in OLC. Descriptively, it analyzes all of OLC’s publicly available legal opinions from the beginning of the Carter Administration through the end of the first year of the Obama Administration. The data show that OLC rarely openly departs from its prior opinions, but that an express request for overruling from the executive entity most affected by the opinion is a good predictor of such a departure. Normatively, the Article considers whether OLC should employ something like a rule of stare decisis with respect to its prior opinions, and, if so, in what circumstances it is justified in departing from those precedents. It argues that stare decisis has a legitimate place in OLC, but that OLC’s location within the Executive Branch affects both the weight it should accord its prece- dents and the circumstances in which it should depart from them.
    [Show full text]
  • Ensuring the Continuity of the Surpeme Court
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 53 Issue 4 Summer 2004 Article 6 2004 The Least Vulnerable Branch: Ensuring the Continuity of the Surpeme Court Randolph Moss Edward Siskel Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Randolph Moss & Edward Siskel, The Least Vulnerable Branch: Ensuring the Continuity of the Surpeme Court, 53 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1015 (2004). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol53/iss4/6 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LEAST VULNERABLE BRANCH: ENSURING THE CONTINUITY OF THE SUPREME COURT Randolph Moss' and Edward Siskel++ On March 13, 2002, just six months after the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., Justice Anthony Kennedy testified at a House subcommittee hearing on contingency planning for the federal government in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.' In assessing whether members of the judiciary should be sequestered in an undisclosed location as part of the "shadow government" along with representatives of the other branches, Justice Kennedy stated: "We wonder about the necessity [of being part of the shadow government]. All . district and circuit judges are courts of general jurisdiction and can issue writs under the All Writs Act. So we are already dispersed nationwide.",
    [Show full text]
  • Communications Regarding Judicial Nominations
    Holland, James From: Holland, James Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 2:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Att achments: (b) (6) Resume.pdf Ryan, I've heard thatyou've moved over to DoJ. Congratulations! I was wondering if you had any time for a chat/coffee/lunch/drinks in the nearfuture? We're interested in recommending good District and Circuit judges as well as getting conservative pro-2nd Amendment US Attorneys placed throughout the country that will focus on prosecuting gun crimes. In that vein, I've attached the resume and some supporting documents for who- to the best of my knowledge , Hopefully I'm not wasting your time and you' re the right guy to send this stuffto. All the best, James P. Holland Federal Liaison -National Rifle Association 0001 Document ID: 0.7.420.581913 Holland, James From: Holland, James Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 11:37 AM To: Newman, Ryan (OLP) Subject: RE: Reconnecting and (b) (6) A little birdie told me that you may not be at this same email address forvery long. Whateverthe truth, we should meet up for a drink at your convenience sometime soon. Best, James from: Newman, Ryan {OlP) (mallto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 7:42 PM To: Holland, James <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Reconnecting and (b)(6) James, great to hear from you. Feel free to pass along recommendations. We should definitely catch up soon. Let me know when you have some free time. Take care, Ryan Ryan Newman Acting Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Policy U.S.
    [Show full text]