www.archive-com-2014.com » COM » L » LAWANDFREEDOM

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".

    Archived pages: 72 . Archive date: 2014-08.

  • Title: William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at Law
    Descriptive info: .. Sign up for our.. Newsletter.. William J.. Olson P.. C.. Files 50th Supreme Court Brief.. On May 13, 2011, with our.. amicus curiae brief in the Daniel Chapter One case.. , our firm had the privilege of making its 50th filing with the U.. S.. Supreme Court.. This includes various types of filings: Petition for Certiorari, Jurisdictional Statement, Appellants' Brief, Reply Brief, Brief for Intervenor-Respondents, Amicus Brief at the Petition Stage, and Amicus Brief on the Merits.. Of course, most of these briefs have been.. amicus curiae.. (friend of the court) briefs, and many have addressed a wide variety of Constitutional issues --.. Article I Section 1 (Delegation Doctrine).. Article I Section 2 (Census, Apportionment Clause).. Article I Section 4 (Time, Places and Manners of Elections).. Article I Section 6 (Speech Debate Clause).. Article I Section 8 (Commerce Clause, Naturalization Clause, General Welfare Clause, Necessary Proper Clause).. Article II Section 1 (Delegation Doctrine).. Article II Section 2 (Invasion).. Article II (Appointments Clause, Commander-in-Chief).. Article III, Section 2 (Case and Controversy, Standing, Political Question).. Article III Section 1 (Judicial Power).. Article IV Section IV (Republican Form of Government, Invasion)Article VI (Preemption).. First Amendment (Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, Right to Assemble, Right to Petition Government).. Second Amendment.. Fourth Amendment.. Fifth Amendment (Due Process, Equal Protection Component).. Tenth Amendment.. Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process, Equal Protection, Privileges Immunities).. Other briefs have addressed important statutory issues (U.. N.. Participation Act, Gun Control Act, National Firearms Act, Firearms Owners Protection Act, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Federal Election Campaign Act, etc.. ).. Our first Supreme Court filing was October 16, 1981, supporting the legality of President Reagan's action against striking air traffic controllers, which translates into 50 briefs in 30 years -- but we have been picking up the pace lately.. Of course, we have also filed many other briefs in various U.. District Court, U.. Courts of Appeals, State Supreme Courts, etc.. (All of these filings since the late 1990's and some earlier briefs are available on this website, and we are working to post the older filings as well.. ).. previous | 2014 |.. 2013.. |.. 2012.. 2011.. 2010.. 2009.. 2008.. 2007.. 2006.. 2005.. 2004.. 2003.. 2002.. 2001.. 2000.. 1999.. Pre-1999.. next.. Comments filed with Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives opposing Multiple Rifle Sale Reporting (take two).. July 23, 2014.. For the second time in as many months, our firm filed comments on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc.. and Gun Owners Foundation, expressing opposition to the ATF’s continuing effort to require federally licensed firearms dealers (FFL’s) to report to ATF information regarding the sale of multiple rifles.. Purportedly concerned about firearms being trafficked to Mexican drug cartels, three years ago ATF snuck past the courts a requirement that all FFLs located in the four southwest border states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) must report to the ATF any sale to a single person of two or more rifles within a five day period.. Then, in April, in a brazen move under cover of the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, ATF announced that it would extend its multiple rifle reporting requirement to every FFL in the country, and to all multiple sales regardless of whether they were sold to the same person.. Our firm filed.. comments.. with ATF on behalf of GOA and GOF, contending that there was absolutely no justification for such a universal requirement.. ATF has never alleged that its claim concerning arms trafficking involves virtually every FFL in the country.. Indeed, our comments charge that ATF’s expansion of the multiple rifle sales reporting requirement is a significant step towards the creation of a national gun registry prohibited by federal law.. Within days of our initial comments, ATF backed off, withdrawing its initial notice and replacing it with an amended notice, limiting its requirement to the same four border states and sales made to the same person.. An.. article.. by GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt in the American Thinker explains what happened.. In response, our firm filed a.. second set of comments.. with ATF, this time pointing out the illegality of ATF’s action under the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 which expressly limited the reporting of multiple firearm sales only to handguns.. Additionally, our comments pointed out that, in 1986, ATF acknowledged the handgun limitation in a letter, submitted to the Senate Judiciary, opposing the Act.. Finally, we recited Congress’s list of findings, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, upon which the Senate and the House were basing the Act’s design — in order to impose significant limits on ATF’s law enforcement powers.. Whether this second effort will pay dividends, as did the first, we don’t know yet.. In any event we will continue to combat the ATF and the Obama administration’s persistent efforts to undermine our Second Amendment rights.. Jackson v.. City & County of San Francisco.. July 3, 2014.. Today, our firm filed a brief to uphold gun rights in the U.. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in support of a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, in the case Jackson v.. San Francisco, No.. 12-17803.. San Francisco ordinances prohibit the possession of a handgun within the home unless it is (i) being worn on the person or (ii) locked away.. San Francisco also prohibits the purchase of hollowpoint ammunition within city limits.. A panel of three judges from the Ninth Circuit had upheld the ordinances on the ground that they “limit but do not destroy Second Amendment rights,” standing in stark contrast to the text of the Second Amendment which states clearly that the right “shall not be infringed.. ”.. The panel defended the ordinances relying on First Amendment case law that permits government to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of certain speech.. Our brief argued that First Amendment precedents have no application in Second Amendment cases, and in any event, “time, place, and manner” cases apply to speech in public places, while the San Francisco ordinances regulate conduct inside the home.. Then, our brief explained why the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald did not sanction judicial use of First Amendment balancing tests, but indeed rejected their use in Second Amendment cases.. Next, our brief explained the proper judicial review in Second Amendment cases.. If (i) a person is part of “the People,” (ii) his weapon is a protected “arm” and (iii) the activity is to “keep” or “bear,” then his right is absolute — not subject to any judicial balancing in light of the government’s desire to infringe the right.. It is not up to the government to decide the permitted ways of “keeping” arms, or the types of ammunition that a person may use any more than it is up to the government to decide what types of books can be read.. The Second Amendment prohibits all infringements — not just ones that Courts believe go too far.. The Ninth Circuit panel, in upholding the San Francisco ordinances, treated the Heller decision as if the right to keep and bear arms protects only a limited right to possess a handgun for self-defense in the home.. The panel, which ruled in favor of San Francisco, was forced to admit that San Francisco’s regulations on handguns within the home burden “core” Second Amendment rights.. Yet, in disregard for the text of the Second Amendment, the panel applied a “standard of review” so absurdly deferential that its decision amounts to little less than a judicial rubber stamp.. The panel blindly adopted the City’s baseless assertions that the burden was “indirect” and thus insubstantial.. The panel next blindly adopted the City’s baseless assertions that it had an important governmental interest in “public safety” which permitted it to regulate firearms and ammunition.. In short, while claiming to exercise judicial review, the panel left it entirely up to the City of San Francisco to decide the outcome of the challenge to its ordinance.. All the City was required to do was make the assertions the court wanted — and if it did, then there would be no way it could lose.. That is clearly not what the Second Amendment requires.. Our brief was filed on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc.. , Gun Owners Foundation, U.. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, The Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Policy Analysis Center.. Nevertheless, yesterday, on July 17, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing.. The only silver lining is that the Ninth Circuit is also considering a petition for rehearing in another case -- Peruta v.. San Diego -- where the Ninth Circuit sided with the challengers to an anti-gun law, and it may be that the Peruta case would be a good vehicle for the en banc Ninth Circuit to rule on gun rights.. Johnson v.. United States.. Bureau of National Affairs Criminal Law Reporter.. Abramski v.. June 17, 2014.. The BNA Criminal Law Reporter's article on the Abramski decision,.. "Straw Man for Lawful Firearm Purchaser Made Material False Statement on ATF Form,".. by Alisa Johnson, used some of our comments on the decision:.. Olson, Vienna, Va.. , who also participated in amicus briefs, characterized.. “the essence of the majority opinion” as, “if the Supreme Court thinks that interpreting federal law the way it is actually written would defeat Congress' intent, the court may usurp the legislative power to edit the statute to fulfill its true intent.. Olson also accused Kagan of adopting a statutory meaning “that was fully consistent with her anti-gun ideology.. GOA/GOF Comments to BATFE on Report of Multiple Sales of Rifles.. June 16, 2014.. See note above on "Comments filed with Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives opposing Multiple Rifle Sales Reporting (take two)" filed on July 23.. Heien v.. North Carolina.. Today, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.. Supreme Court in support of a North Carolina man who challenged the constitutionality of his traffic stop.. A police officer pulled Heien over because his car’s right rear brake light was not functioning properly.. However, North Carolina law requires only one working rear “lamp.. The Supreme Court of North Carolina had ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires only that the police act “reasonably,” based on a judicial evaluation of the “totality of the circumstances.. ” Applying a type of freestanding balancing test derived from past Supreme Court cases, the court decided that it believed the police officer’s alleged mistake of law was a reasonable one.. Thus, the old maxim has been revised to “ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you are the one enforcing the law.. According to this view of the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution protects only a “right to privacy,” which is balanced against the government’s interest in violating the right.. Ordinarily, the privacy intrusion is deemed insignificant, and the governmental interests are deemed “compelling.. ” Here, the government’s interest was “traffic safety.. However, in two recent cases, U.. v.. Jones and Florida v.. Jardines, the Supreme Court has begun to return Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to its original property basis, and our brief urges the Court to continue that trend in this case.. Our brief argues that the Fourth Amendment be understood to protect property rights, not some judge’s view of a “reasonable expectation of privacy.. ” Applying this property basis, if the government does not have a superior property right to the person or thing to be searched or seized, then the search or seizure is per se unreasonable.. Judges do not have the authority to decide that traffic safety is more important than property rights.. Since Heien was violating no law when he was stopped, the state objectively had no property interest in his person or in his car.. For that reason alone, the stop violated the Fourth Amendment, regardless of how “reasonable” some North Carolina judges subjectively believed the police had acted.. World Net Daily Article on Mt.. Soledad Cross brief.. June 5, 2014.. An article in World Net Daily discusses the amicus brief we filed earlier this week in the Mt.. Soledad Cross case.. Mount Soledad v.. Trunk.. June 4, 2014.. Shew v.. Malloy.. May 23, 2014.. Our firm filed in the U.. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit an.. amicus.. brief in support of Connecticut gun owners who challenged Connecticut’s ban of so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.. The law being challenged was passed by anti-gun Connecticut legislators and signed by an anti-gun Governor, riding a wave of hysteria following the December 2012 mass murder of elementary school children in Newtown, Connecticut.. Those supporting the law claimed that to stop the violence “military style” weapons must be banned.. On the same day that we filed our brief, in Santa Barbara, California — the state which proudly claims to have the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation — another mentally deranged young male demonstrated that the problem is not guns.. Indeed, in Santa Barbara, the shootings took place over a 10-minute period, during which there were no armed civilians who could take action to stop the shooter.. The only gun problem is laws keeping guns from law abiding citizens.. In court, Connecticut made the old, tired arguments that the ban is necessary to protect the police and further public safety.. The district judge agreed.. Despite finding that the ban “substantially burdened” the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, he felt the burden was not unreasonable in light of the competing public interest.. Even though rejected by the U.. Supreme Court in the.. Heller.. case, the district court used a judge-empowering “balancing test” to justify the ban.. Under this “test” barred access to semiautomatic weapons that even the trial judge admitted were constitutionally protected arms.. Our brief argued that the judicial standard of review for Second Amendment cases is the amendment’s text itself — “shall not be infringed.. ” If (i) a person is part of “the people,” (ii) a firearm is an “arm,” and (iii) the activity involves “keeping” or “bearing” — then the right is absolute, not subject to balancing against the interests the government has in violating the right.. Since it is abundantly clear that these requirements are met in this case, the Connecticut ban must be struck down.. It does not matter if the state provides “alternate access to similar firearms.. ” It is up to the American people, not the government, to choose which weapons "secure" a "free state" against tyrants the stated purpose of the Second Amendment.. Our brief also argued that the Connecticut ban, by exempting favored government employees and those “persons” who submitted to the state’s registration system, creates unconstitutional “titles of nobility” for the state’s favored few.. The Supreme Court has said that the Second Amendment is a right that belongs to “all Americans,” not just “an unspecified subset.. Our brief was filed on behalf of: Gun Owners of America, Inc.. Justice Foundation, Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, The Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Policy Analysis Center.. DeBoer v.. Snyder.. May 14, 2014.. Federal Government Seldom Able to Police Itself.. May 9, 2014.. Pastor Chuck Baldwin covers the U.. Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Hedges case, and our amicus brief.. Bill Olson on NewsmaxTV.. com.. May 2, 2014.. Bill Olson was interviewed by Steve Malzberg today on NewsmaxTV about the U.. Supreme Court's denial of the petition for certiorari filed in Hedges v.. Obama.. Our firm filed three amicus briefs in the Hedges case, one in district court, one in the court of appeals, and one in the U.. The Supreme Court's refusal to review the Second Circuit's opinion leaves standing Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 authorizing the U.. Military to arrest and indefinitely detain American Citizens without charges, without an attorney, and without trial.. (Note: Newsmax used the wrong photo on screen for the interview.. Interestingly, this critical "non-decision" by the U.. Supreme Court received almost no attention from the mainstream media.. This tragic court order denying review is not neutral, leaving in place much of the groundwork for a totalitarian state.. This important story was better covered by.. RT (formerly, Russia Today).. From the opposite side of the political spectrum, we stand with Chris Hedges who, anticipating this denial of the petition, declared: “If we fail, if this law stands, if in the years ahead the military starts to randomly seize and disappear people, if dissidents and activists become subject to indefinite and secret detention in military gulags, we will at least be able to look back on this moment and know we fought back.. ”.. Herb Titus speaks on Search and Seizure Law.. Herb Titus was a featured speaker on May 2, 2014 at the 8th Annual Conference on Eminent Domain held at Tides Inn, Irvington, Virginia on May 1 and 2.. Consistent with the theme of this year's conference – Charting New Territory -- Herb's topic was "Can a 4th Amendment Search and Seizure Become a 5th Amendment Taking?".. Drawing on the work of the firm featuring its.. amicus brief.. in.. Jones.. decided by the Supreme Court in 2012 Titus called attention to the recent resurgence of the original property principles undergirding the 4th Amendment.. Since Jones, the Supreme Court has given notice that Fourth Amendment claims are no longer to be balanced away by judges under the relativistic test of a reasonable expectation of privacy.. Rather, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures will be governed by fixed principles of property, the government being required to demonstrate a superior interest in the property at stake.. Reviewing two recent cases in which innocent persons were being deprived of exclusive possession of their property, Titus charted a path whereby property owners would receive more complete protection of their property rights only by invocation of both a property-based 4th Amendment and the private property takings clause of the 5th Amendment.. WorldNetDaily Covers Our Amicus Brief in Chris Hedges Challenge to NDAA.. April 30, 2014.. Bob Unruh's article discusses the tragedy of the U.. Supreme Court denial of Chris Hedges' petition for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.. NDAA 2012 allows the U.. military to arrest and detain, without charges, counsel, or trial, anyone thought by the government to  ...   former government law enforcement, purportedly to ensure a.. safe.. We hope that the Supreme Court will grant the petition for certiorari in this case in order to restore the Second Amendment right to carry a firearm for self defense.. Our brief was filed on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc.. Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Policy Analysis Center.. Herb Titus Addresses Virginia House of Delegates Republican Caucus.. February 4, 2014.. Herb Titus was invited to address the Republican Caucus of the Virginia House of Delegates on.. HJR 9 a call for a national constitutional convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.. Herb explained that while the concept of using Article VI to address erroneous judicial decisions might seem tempting, it was fraught with risk.. Unlike the process by which Congress may submit to the State legislatures specific written amendments, the convention process for proposing amendments is open-ended with no control of the number, scope, or subject matters of the amendments and no rules governing the number or selection of the delegates.. On January 31, 2014, the House Committee on Rules recommended that.. HJR 9 be adopted by the full House, by a vote of 9 yes - 6 no.. On February 6, 2014, two days after Herb s presentation,.. the House defeated the resolution by a vote of 29 yes - 67 no.. A story discussing the important role played by Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) in explaining to the Delegates the problems associated with the problems appeared in the.. Richmond Times Dispatch.. Obamacare Contraception/Abortion Services Mandate.. Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp.. Sebelius.. Supreme Court Amicus Brief.. January 28, 2014.. The story is told of a grizzled Master Sargent who, reflecting on his years of service, said: When I joined up, homosexuality was prohibited; now it s tolerated; and I darn sure am getting out before it s mandatory.. So it is with respect to homosexual and abortion rights.. First, the goal is said to be tolerance.. Then, governmental approval and support.. Lastly, any pretense of tolerance disappears, and the coercive force of government is used to eliminate any vestige of opposition.. The Obamacare contraception/abortion mandate demonstrates that our nation is at the end of phase two, moving into phase three.. On January 28, 2014, our firm filed in the U.. Supreme Court an amicus brief in support of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp.. , a Mennonite family-owned business located in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.. The company has been ordered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to purchase health insurance to cover their employees that pays for contraceptive services, including the full-range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.. While Obamacare uses the term contraceptive, that term has undergone a dramatic shift in meaning over the past 50 years.. In the array of what are called contraceptives are true abortifacients drugs and devices that induce a miscarriage or an abortion, and the death of an embryo.. Objecting on the ground that the mandate forces them to buy insurance that permits and facilitates abortion to which they object on religious grounds, the Hahn family who own Conestoga, sought injunctive relief in a federal district court, claiming that the mandate violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ) and the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion.. The district court denied relief, and the court of appeals affirmed.. The Supreme Court granted the Hahn family s petition for review, and the case is pending with a decision expected by the end of June, 2014.. In an introductory Statement our brief reminds the Court that the contraceptive mandate does not appear in the Affordable Care Act enacted by Congress and signed by the President.. The mandate was not even developed by the Department of Heath and Human Services, or any other agency responsible to he President.. Instead, it is the product of a Committee of 16 experts appointed by the Institute of Medicine, a nongovernment agency that is not accountable to the people or their elected representatives.. In the opinion of this Committee of experts, the contraceptive mandate is required because a woman s well-being consists of a life of recreational sexual activity without risk of an unplanned pregnancy, and it is this opinion that HHS has made into law.. Our brief supports the Hahn family claim that the mandate violates their rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.. Unlike the Hahn family brief which relies upon court precedents supporting religious tolerance, our brief rests upon the original First Amendment text that secures freedom of religion.. According to the cases that apply the religious tolerance doctrine, a person s conscience may be overridden by laws that serve a compelling government interest.. Under the First Amendment freedom of religion a person s conscience cannot be violated no matter how compelling the government s interest may be.. The original understanding of religion, as it appears in the First Amendment, appeared earlier in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights.. Unlike the First Amendment the Virginia Declaration expressly defines religion as a duty owed to the Creator which is enforceable only by reason, not by force.. In a statute passed in 1785 by the Virginia General Assembly, the preamble declared that it would be a violation of the free exercise of religion if a law compelled a person to promote an opinion with which he disagreed.. Our brief applies this principle to the contraceptive services mandate which compels the Hahn family business to promote a government program of education and counseling encouraging women to use abortion-inducing contraceptives to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancies.. The Obamacare law is based upon an unproved presumption that a woman s well-being depends upon having as wide an array of contraceptive methods, including abortifacients, as is made available by the FDA, so that she can be sexually active without risking an unplanned pregnancy.. The Hahn family, however, does not share the Government s materialistic view of womanhood, and that the Government has no jurisdiction to define what it means to be a healthy woman.. Finally our brief reminds the Court that forbearance is a Christian virtue and that the contraceptive services mandate prevents the Hahn family from practicing that virtue by mandating complicity in what they believe to be the sin of abortion in violation of the Hahn family s statement of faith in the sanctity of human life, supporting that position with quotations from the Holy Bible.. In summary our brief maintains that according to the original meaning of the free exercise of religion, the federal government is prohibited from enforce the contraceptive mandate because it prohibits the Hahn family from performing their duties to their Creator according to the dictates of conscience.. This amicus brief was our fourth amicus curiae brief filed thus far against Obamacare in its various manifestations.. Our brief was filed on behalf of Eberle Communications Group, Inc.. , D D Unlimited Inc.. , Joyce Meyer Ministries, Southwest Radio Bible Ministry, Daniel Chapter One, U.. Justice Foundation, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Institute on the Constitution, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Policy Analysis Center.. Quinn v.. Texas.. Brief Filed Opposing No-Knock Home Raids.. January 27, 2014.. Every day we read about SWAT teams serving arrest warrants or search warrants at people s homes, using no-knock raids in the middle of the night.. Many of these police home invasions go wrong, with innocent people being shot, and sometimes killed, just because they were trying to defend themselves.. Even criminals have learned to claim that they are the police while breaking into homes, to discourage resistance.. An important case now presents the significant legal issue of whether police are justified in using no-knock home invasions simply because they know the occupants own a firearm.. On January 27, 2014, our firm filed an.. Supreme Court in.. Quinn.. , in support of the grant of a petition for certiorari, to obtain a review of this issue.. http://www.. supremecourt.. gov/Search.. aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-765.. htm.. John Quinn was asleep in his bed when Texas police broke down his door in the middle of the night, and shot him when he reached for a weapon, thinking his home was being invaded.. The police were there to serve a search warrant for his son, Brian, who they suspected of dealing drugs.. The only justification for the no-knock raid that police gave was that John Quinn owned a firearm.. The police claimed that firearms ownership was enough to present a danger to law enforcement, even though they knew John Quinn had a concealed carry permit meaning the state of Texas had pronounced him to be a safe, law-abiding citizen.. It is a foundational Fourth Amendment principle that, when executing a warrant, the police must knock and announce their presence and purpose, and allow a homeowner the time to let them in.. This principle is designed to preserve a person s life (so he is not accidentally shot), his property (his front door), and his dignity (if, for example, he is in the shower).. Only if the police have exigent circumstances has the Supreme Court permitted entry without knocking.. Our amicus brief pointed out that the police dispensed with the Fourth Amendment and executed a no-knock raid for the sole reason that Quinn had chosen to exercise his Second Amendment rights to keep a firearm in his home for self defense.. The Texas court held that it did not matter if the police violated Quinn s rights with the no knock raid, since they would have searched his home and found drugs anyway.. Our brief answers that in doing so, the Texas court essentially created a per se rule that, any time the police have a warrant, they can dispense with the Fourth Amendment, knowing that a court will later rule they would have found it anyway.. Finally, our brief noted the Court s recent holding in.. (a 2012 Supreme Court case in which we filed two briefs), where the Court returned to the private property roots of the Fourth Amendment, instead of the atextual reasonable expectation of privacy tests that had been invented in the 1960 s.. The brief argued that, after Jones, the Court needs to re-examine no-knock raids from a property rather than a privacy perspective.. Our society is one where no-knock raids supposedly the exception have become the rule, due to aggressive, militaristic policing, and permissive courts.. Often, innocent people, and even family pets defending their homes are caught up in the crossfire when police make mistakes.. Having a rule where the police can break down a person s front door simply because he may keep a firearm inside is simply intolerable.. Our brief was filed on behalf of: U.. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc.. , Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.. Border Control Foundation, Policy Analysis Center, Downsize DC Foundation, and DownsizeDC.. org.. Chris Hedges v.. Barack Obama.. Amicus Brief urges Supreme Court to bar NDAA Military Detentions of Citizens.. January 23, 2014.. Today our firm has filed our third amicus brief in support of Chris Hedges and the other journalists and political activists who are challenging Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (.. gpo.. gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.. pdf.. ), and its authorization of the military detention of civilians based on vague standards of providing support for an adversary of the United States.. These NDAA standards were so vague that when asked, the U.. Justice Department refused to say that Chris Hedges and the other plaintiffs could not be arrested by the military, e.. g.. , for their reporting on middle eastern affairs, which includes interviews with, and even embeds with, foreign organizations.. This brief was filed in the U.. Supreme Court, urging that it grant certiorari and review the decision of the U.. The Second Circuit determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge detention, as the NDAA statute did not really say what it appeared to say, and that it was a nullity as to American Citizens.. The Second Circuit left unaddressed whether American citizens could be detained by the military under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (.. https://www.. govtrack.. us/congress/bills/107/sjres23.. ) passed hurriedly after the events of September 11, 2001.. Our brief explained why the Court needs to address the issue of military detention of civilians.. It explained that NDAA 2012 was fundamentally different from the AUMF.. It explains that laws are often written in an ambiguous manner to give politicians deniability when called to account by their constituents.. And it discussed how why NDAA 2012 eliminated the protections of the U.. Constitution's treason clause.. Our brief states:.. If this Court does not grant the petition, there is no reason to believe that U.. Presidents would cease to assert the right to place certain individuals [including American citizens] in military detention, without trial.. Id.. There would continue to be no statutory constraint on an arrest being authorized by a military officer of unspecified rank.. There would be no protection provided by the requirement of a Grand Jury indictment.. There would be no requirement of an arrest warrant issued by an Article III judge, supported by a sworn affidavit showing probable cause of the commission of a specific crime.. Neither would there be any protection against use of compelled testimony, or against any violation of due process of law.. There would be no civilian proceedings whatsoever against the person detained.. Indeed, there is no requirement that the individual being detained has committed any federal crime, and military detentions could be used to circumvent the protections afforded American citizens by the Treason Clause of the U.. Constitution.. Our brief concluded:.. Ninety years ago, Franz Kafka gave the world a glimpse into the terror faced by individuals required to prove their innocence against unspecified charges in a world devoid of the rule of law.. See F.. Kafka, The Trial (1925).. No American citizen should be subject to secret arrest and indefinite detention by the military, exempt from the protections of the Bill of Rights, and made even more terrifying by the threat of rendition to a foreign country for purposes that could include torture that is illegal in the United States.. We began working against this dangerous bill with organizations such as DownsizeDC.. org and Gun Owners of America as soon as word circulated about its detention provisions during Thanksgiving weekend 2011.. Then, on April 16, 2012, we filed an amicus brief in the U.. District Court for the Southern District of New York -- the only amicus brief filed in that case supporting the granting of an injunction against the federal government.. http://lawandfreedom.. com/site/constitutional/Hedges_Amicus.. District Judge Kathleen Forrest issued first a preliminary, then a permanent injunction against NDAA detentions.. On December 17, 2012, we filed another amicus brief in the U.. com/site/constitutional/Hedges_Amicus_2ndCir.. Our brief was filed on behalf of the following individuals and organizations:.. Congressman Steve Stockman.. Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall.. Virginia Senator Dick Black.. Justice Foundation.. Gun Owners Foundation.. Gun Owners of America, Inc.. Center for Media and Democracy.. Downsize DC Foundation.. DownsizeDC.. Free Speech Defense and Education Fund.. Free Speech Coalition.. Western Journalism Center.. The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education.. Institute on the Constitution.. Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc.. Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.. Tenth Amendment Center.. Restoring Liberty Action Committee.. Border Control Foundation.. Policy Analysis Center.. Constitution Party National Committee.. Pastor Chuck Baldwin.. Professor Jerome Aumente.. New York Times covers our 2013 brief in NLRB v.. Canning and Bill Olson's 1981 Recess Appointment by President Reagan.. January 10, 2014.. Today the New York Times ran an article by its Chief Washington Correspondent Carl Hulse which discussed our brief in the NLRB v.. Canning case being argued Monday.. The article, entitled Role Reversals Emerge in Dispute Over Obama's Recess Appointments, discussed Bill Olson's recess appointment by President Reagan in 1981 to be Chairman of the Board of the Legal Services Corporation.. The article does not mention that President Reagan's appointments of Bill and the other directors were challenged in U.. District Court for the District of Columbia by the board members appointed by President Carter, including one of Bill's predecessor as Board Chairman -- Hillary Rodham, then First Lady of Arkansas.. There, the 1982 challenge was on a different basis than the Canning case.. In 1982, the contention was that LSC Board Members were not Officers of the United States within the meaning of Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the U.. The Rodham challenge was rejected by District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who pointed out the irony that four of the former directors filing the challenge had been appointed by President Carter, using the same recess appointment power which those plaintiffs were challenging.. com/site/special/LegalServCorpvOlson_MemOpin.. PDF.. Article about Utah polygamy ruling commented on by Herb Titus.. January 9, 2014.. Herb Titus was quoted in John Aman s article Gays Move Over -- Here Come Polygamists in WorldNet Daily.. The article discusses Judge Clark Waddoups.. Memorandum Decision and Order.. approving of polygamy, applying the U.. Supreme Court s decision in Lawrence v.. Constitutional Law.. Nonprofit Law.. Postal Law.. Health Law.. Firearms Law.. Election Law.. Litigation.. Biblical Wisdom.. Press Coverage.. Publications.. Historical Documents.. Martial Law.. Executive Orders.. About Us.. Office Location.. Contact Us.. Favorite Links.. Copyright 2013 William J.. Olson, P.. All rights reserved.. Site maintained by:.. M.. L.. Harless.. This William J.. Web site, including all information and material appearing herein, is for general informational purposes only, and is not intended to -- and does not -- constitute legal advice, advertising, or solicitation.. No one should rely or act on any information contained on this Web site, including other sites that may be referenced herein, without seeking professional advice or counsel.. No advice or counsel is provided in or by this Web site.. Furthermore, no attorney-client relationship is created, or established, between William J.. or any of its attorneys and anyone by virtue of anyone accessing or using this Web site, transmitting information to the Web site or receiving information from the Web site.. does not recommend use of the Internet, including e-mail, for the transmission of confidential, proprietary, and/or otherwise sensitive information..

    Original link path: /
    Open archive

  • Title: About William J. Olson, P.C.
    Descriptive info: ATTORNEYS.. Olson.. John S.. Miles.. Herbert W.. Titus.. Jeremiah L.. Morgan.. Robert J.. AREAS OF PRACTICE.. LITIGATION.. CONSTITUTIONAL -- federal and state constitutional law, including First Amendment speech, petition, press and religion issues.. CIVIL -- civil litigation (trials and appeals) of all types, including commercial, contract, business torts, and public policy.. TAX -- U.. Tax Court, federal district court, and state court litigation, involving individual and corporate income tax, estate gift tax, and other tax matters.. BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPORATE LAW.. ENTITY FORMATION -- evaluation of choice of entity; advice regarding federal, state and local regulatory compliance; drafting organizational documents (corporations, LLCs, partnerships); incorporations and other filings.. GENERAL CORPORATE -- buy-sell agreements; representation of closely held corporations; organizational, personnel, and tax questions; and general representation.. COMMERCIAL -- contract negotiation and business agreements; contract disputes, arbitration, and litigation; and other commercial matters.. NONPROFIT  ...   state regulatory agencies; and litigation on behalf of nonprofit organizations in federal and state courts.. TRADE ASSOCIATIONS -- legal counsel to trade associations regarding lobbying, membership, ethics, and other organizational and operational matters.. FUND RAISING -- negotiation of fund raising agreements; review of fund raising solicitations; compliance with federal, state and local charitable solicitation laws; participation in the federal government's Combined Federal Campaign.. LOBBYING REGULATION -- federal and state lobbying law compliance and enforcement.. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.. POSTAL LAW -- classification issues, mailability issues, deficiency assessments, refund actions with U.. Postal Service; litigation of rate, mail classification and rule making dockets before Postal Rate Commission; nonprofit mail authorizations.. FEDERAL ELECTION LAW -- organizational and compliance advice; representation of political organizations in compliance matters and enforcement actions (MURs); advisory opinion requests.. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW -- requests for government information, Privacy Act, Reverse-FOIA matters, litigation..

    Original link path: /site/aboutus/index.html
    Open archive

  • Title: Office Location
    Descriptive info: Our Virginia offices are located in Vienna and Winchester.. Vienna.. Our Vienna office is located in an office condo complex directly across from the Amphora Restaurant, at 370 Maple Avenue W, Ste 4, Vienna, VA 22180-5615.. Click.. here.. for an interactive map showing the location of our Vienna office.. Winchester.. Our Winchester office is located at Creekside Village off Route 11/Valley Avenue at 114 Creekside Lane, Winchester, VA 22602-2429.. for an interactive map showing the location of our Winchester office..

    Original link path: /site/location/index.html
    Open archive

  • Title: Contact Us
    Descriptive info: , Attorneys at Law.. 370 Maple Ave.. , W, Suite 4.. Vienna, VA 22180-5615.. (Fairfax County).. 703.. 356.. 5070.. tel.. 5085.. fax.. and.. 114 Creekside Lane.. Winchester, VA 22602-2429.. (Frederick County).. 540-450-8777.. 540-450-8771.. wjo@wjopc.. WARNING: Sending e-mail to our firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.. Persons sending e-mail to our firm should have no expectation of confidentiality (except for those who are already clients of our firm).. Moreover, unencrypted e-mail is vulnerable to being intercepted by third parties..

    Original link path: /site/contactus/index.html
    Open archive

  • Title: Constitutional Law
    Descriptive info: , Attorneys At Law.. Nicholas Brady Heien v.. (North Carolina Supreme Court, June 16, 2014).. Mount Soledad Memorial Association v.. Steve Trunk.. et al.. (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, June 4, 2014).. April DeBoer.. Richard Snyder.. (United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, May 14, 2014).. United States of America v.. Brima Wurie (United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, April 9, 2014).. National Labor Relations Board v.. Noel Canning Amicus Brief for Citizens United (United States Supreme Court, November 23, 2013).. Howard Wesley Cotterman v.. United States, A.. micus Brief for U.. Border Control Foundation (U.. Supreme Court, September 9, 2013).. Tim Moose v.. William Scott MacDonald, Amicus Brief for Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall,.. (U.. Supreme Court, August 26, 2013).. Kerri L.. Kaley v.. United States,.. Amicus Brief for Gun Owners Foundation,.. (.. Supreme Court, July 8, 2013).. Bond v.. United States (Bond II), Amicus Brief for U.. Congressman Steve Stockman,.. Supreme Court, May 15, 2013).. Edith Schlain Windsor and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, Amicus Brief.. on Jurisdiction and Standing Questions.. for Citizens United s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer,.. Supreme Court, March 1, 2013).. Edith Schlain Windsor and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, Amicus Brief for Citizens United s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer,.. Supreme Court, January 29, 2013).. Dennis Hollingsworth,.. Kristin M.. Perry,.. , Amicus Brief for Citizens United s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer,.. Michael G.. New v.. United States of America, Petition for Writ of Certiorari (U.. Supreme Court, January 18, 2013).. Christopher Hedges v.. Barack Obama,.. ,.. Amicus Brief for U.. (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, December 17, 2012).. United States, Petition for Reconsideration (United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, September 20, 2012).. ,.. Amicus Brief for Public Advocate of the United States,.. Supreme Court, August 31, 2012).. Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives v.. Nancy Gill,.. , Amicus Brief for Capitol Hill Prayer Alert Foundation.. ,.. Supreme Court, August 2, 2012).. , Amicus Brief.. for Gun Owners Foundation.. Supreme Court, December 10, 2010).. Committee to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.. Senator v.. Nina Mitchell Wells, Esq.. , Amicus Brief for Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund,.. (Supreme Court of New Jersey, May 10, 2010).. Amicus Brief for Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall,.. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, April 16, 2012).. Montana Shooting Sports Association, Inc.. , et al.. Eric H.. Holder, Jr.. Amicus Brief for Gun Owners Foundation (U.. District Court for the District of Montana Missoula Division, April 12, 2010).. Doe v.. Reed, Amicus Brief for the Free Speech Defense and Education Fund et.. al.. Supreme Court, March 4, 2010).. David R.. Olofson,.. Reply Brief in Support of Appellant Olofson, Docket No.. 08-2294 (U.. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, November 7, 2008).. Brief in Support of Appellant Olofson, Docket No.. Court of Appeals for  ...   Columbia Circuit, November 23, 2005).. Amicus Brief in Wisconsin Right to Life Case (U.. Supreme Court, November 14, 2005).. Amicus Brief in United Seniors Association v.. Social Security Administration (U.. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, October 18, 2005).. Donald Rumsfeld, Initial Brief (U.. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, September 6, 2005).. McCreary Case (Ten Commandments) (U.. Supreme Court, December 8, 2004).. Donald Rumsfeld, Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, (U.. District Court for the District of Columbia, June 15, 2003).. Reply Brief for Appellants Filed in the Case of Paul,.. FEC.. Supreme Court, August 21, 2003).. Brief for Appellants Filed in the Case of Paul,.. Supreme Court, July 8, 2003).. Jurisdictional Statement Filed in the Case of Paul,.. Supreme Court, May 30, 2003).. John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v.. State of Texas (U.. Supreme Court, February 18, 2003).. Federal Election Commission v.. Christine Beaumont,.. Supreme Court, February 10, 2003).. James E.. Ryan, Attorney General of Illinois v.. Telemarketing Associates, Inc,.. Supreme Court, January 23, 2003).. Reply Brief Filed in the Case of.. Paul,.. FEC,.. District Court for the District of Columbia, November 27, 2002).. Opposition Brief Filed in the Case of.. District Court for the District of Columbia, November 20, 2002).. Initial Brief Filed in the Case of.. District Court for the District of Columbia, November 6, 2002).. David M.. Walker v.. Richard B.. Cheney Amicus Brief (U.. District Court for the District of Columbia, May 21, 2002).. Michael New Case, Memorandum in Support of Amended and Supplemental Habeas Corpus Petition (U.. District Court for the District of Columbia, May 8, 2002).. Amended Complaint Filed in the Case of Paul,.. District Court for the District District of Columbia, May 7, 2002).. Lawsuit Filed To Challenge Legitimacy of FEC, Paul,.. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 23, 2002).. Census 2000 Case, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (U.. Supreme Court, January 8, 2002).. Watchtower Case (U.. Supreme Court, November 29, 2001).. Michael New Case, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (U.. Supreme Court, September 10, 2001).. J.. Barrett Hyman, M.. D.. The City of Louisville,.. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, July 9, 2001).. American Trucking Association Case (U.. Supreme Court, September 11, 2000).. Boy Scouts Case, on the Merits (U.. Supreme Court , February 28, 2000).. Chenoweth Case (U.. Supreme Court, December 30, 1999).. Boy Scouts Case, Petition for Writ of Certiorari (U.. Supreme Court, November 26, 1999).. Census Case (U.. Supreme Court, November 3, 1998).. Michael New Case (U.. Supreme Court, March 23, 1998).. Clinton Depostition Video Tape, Petition for Writ of Certiorari (U.. Supreme Court, May 9, 1997).. Term Limits Case (U.. Supreme Court, August 16, 1994).. Illegal and Unconstitutional Exercise of Legislative Power Article I, Michel v.. Anderson Amicus Brief (U.. District Court for the District of Columbia, February 5, 1993).. Sandidge v.. United States -- We filed an amicus curiae brief for The Center for Judicial Studies and Gun Owners Foundation in this Second Amendment case (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1986)..

    Original link path: /site/constitutional/index.html
    Open archive

  • Title: Nonprofit Law
    Descriptive info: Amicus Brief in National Taxpayers Union v.. Supreme Court, May 11, 2009).. Free Speech Coalition Reply Comments to the Postal Regulatory Commission in Docket No.. PI2008 4 on the Cooperative Mail Rule (July 24, 2008).. Free Speech Coalition Initial Comments to the Postal Regulatory Commission in Docket No.. PI2008 4 on the Cooperative Mail Rule (June 24, 2008).. Amicus Brief in Federal Election Commission v.. (February 10, 2003).. Statement Presented on Charitable Solicitation to New York State Senate Committee on Consumer Protection on Behalf of Free Speech Coalition, Inc.. (January 30, 2003).. Amicus Brief in James E.. (January 23, 2003).. Amicus Brief in Aid Association for Lutherans v.. United States Postal Service (November 15, 2002).. Comments of Free Speech Coalition, Inc.. Regarding Temporary Regulations of  ...   (Statements of the Issues, May, 2000).. With Respect to the Study of Disclosure Provisions Relating to Tax-Exempt Organizations (Committee on Ways and Means, U.. House of Representatives) (March 15, 2000).. (February 22, 2000).. End of the Millennium Top Ten Nonprofit Tax Updates.. (A Continuing Professional Education Course Taught, November 30, 1999).. Virginia Regulation of Nonprofits.. (Outline for Continuing Legal Education Course Taught, November 1998).. IRS Considerations For Nonprofit Organizations.. Payment of Virginia Taxes and Available Exceptions.. Giani (November 10, 1998).. Comments of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc.. ,.. Excise Taxes On Excess Benefit Transactions (IRS) (November 2, 1998).. Excise Taxes On Excess Benefit Transactions (Dept.. of Treasury) (October 5, 1998).. Amicus Brief in National Awareness Foundation v.. State of New York (1994).. Free Speech Coalition Website..

    Original link path: /site/nonprofit/index.html
    Open archive

  • Title: Postal Law
    Descriptive info: Postal Policy Papers by John Haldi William J.. Evaluating Negotiated Services Agreements for Market Dominant Products Under PAEA.. (Presented at the 27th Annual Eastern Conference, Advanced Workshop in Regulation and Competition, Skytop, Pennsylvania, May 15, 2008).. Enhancing Competition By Unbundling the Postal Administration.. (Presented at the Thirteenth Conference on Postal Delivery Economics, Antwerp, Belgium, June 1 - 4, 2005).. Published in Crew Kleindorfer,.. Progress Toward Liberalization of the Postal and Delivery Sector.. , Springer Science+ Business Media, Inc.. , 2006.. Draft Paper on Postal Pricing: Top Down Discounts Versus Bottom Up Surcharges (March 24, 2004).. Please e-mail suggestions to.. Haldi.. An Evaluation of USPS Worksharing: Postal Revenues and Costs from Workshared Activities.. (Presented in Toledo, Spain in June 4-7, 2003, at the Eleventh Conference on Postal and Delivery Economics of the Center for Research in Regulated Industries at Rutgers University).. Competitive Transformation of the Postal and Delivery Sector.. , Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.. Postal Revenues Earned from Workshared Activities (May 13, 2003).. Postal Costs of Workshared Activities (May 13, 2003).. Michael A.. Crew and Paul R.. Kleindorfer, of the.. Center for Research in Regulated Industries.. , Rutgers University, host an annual, international.. Conference on Postal Delivery and Economics.. Other.. Brief of Intervenors L.. L.. Bean, Inc.. , Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc.. , and Valpak Dealers' Association, Inc.. in USPS v.. PRC, No.. 11-1117, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (December 7, 2011).. Gun Owners  ...   Security Administration Amicus Brief Filed to Attack Federal Statute Censoring 15 Political Words (February 24, 2006).. Free Speech Coaltion Comments to the President's Commission on the U.. Postal Service (February 12, 2003).. Association of Priority Mail Users Comments to the President's Commission on the U.. Comments on Proposed Settlement in Postal Rate Commission Docket No.. MC2002-3 (December 10, 2002).. Aid Association for Lutherans v.. Bill Olson and John Haldi submitted.. Issues for Discussion.. at the Postal Ratemaking Summit in Potomac, Maryland sponsored by the U.. Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission (May 28, 2002).. USPS Governors' Usurpation of Ratemaking Process Denies Due Process to Mailers.. New Postmaster General: Bill Olson was quoted today on trafficworld.. com discussing the Postal Service's new Postmaster General.. (May 24, 2001).. Reply Brief of the Association of Priority Mail Users, Inc.. , Postal Rate Commission Docket No.. R2000-1 (September 22, 2000).. Initial Brief of the Association of Priority Mail Users, Inc.. R2000-1 (September 13, 2000).. Postal Service Subpoena Case Reply Brief, United States of America v.. American Target Advertising, Inc.. et.. , U.. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (August 18, 2000).. Postal Service Subpoena Case, United States of America v.. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (June 29, 2000).. Free Speech Coalition Testimony on S.. 335, Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act (May 19, 1999).. The counter-culture appears to take over the stamp selection process at the Post Office.. Association of Priorty Mail Users..

    Original link path: /site/postal/index.html
    Open archive

  • Title: Health Law
    Descriptive info: Daniel Chapter One v.. Federal Trade Commission, Amicus Brief (U.. Supreme Court, May 13, 2011).. Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of.. Daniel Chapter One,.. Federal Trade Commission.. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners' petition for writ of certiorari.. Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of.. Justice Foundation.. Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.. Our brief argues that the Court of Appeals erroneously allowed the FTC to assert jurisdiction over Daniel Chapter One and that requiring Daniel Chapter One to substantiate its product claims by “controlled clinical studies” is outside FTC’s statutory authority.. Further our brief argues that no government has authority to dictate the health care choices of competent individuals.. Lastly, parts of the FTC’s order substantially burden Daniel Chapter One’s exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and contravene the First Amendment principle of speaker autonomy.. Virginia v.. Sebelius, Amicus Brief.. for Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall.. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, April 4, 2011).. Commonwealth of Virginia.. Kathleen Sebelius.. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on behalf of Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Gun Owners of America, Inc.. , Gun Owners Foundation, American Life League, Inc.. , Institute on the Constitution, the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Public Advocate of the United States, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Liberty Committee, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.. org, and Policy Analysis Center.. Our amicus brief supports the Commonwealth of Virginia s challenge to the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( PPACA ) arguing 1) Virginia has standing to bring this action, 2) the individual mandate cannot be justified as a constitutional exercise of Congress s power to regulate interstate commerce, and 3) PPACA constitutes federal take-over of health and medicine in violation of the power of the states and of the people secured by the Tenth Amendment.. Federal Trade Commission v.. Daniel Chapter One, A Story of Government Suppression of Alternative Medicine.. March 2011).. Bill Olson and Herb Titus wrote.. Daniel Chapter One.. , A Story of Government Suppression of Alternative Medicine which covers our firms representation of Daniel Chapter One, a historical perspective of the attack on alternative medicine, the federal assault on dietary supplements and alternative medicine, the story of Daniel Chapter One, and the litigation proceedings of the FTC s abusive campaign against Daniel Chapter One.. Daniel Chapter One Reply Brief of Petitioners.. October 1, 2010).. On behalf of Daniel Chapter One ( DCO ), today we filed with the U.. Court of Appeals for the D.. Circuit the reply brief of petitioners.. The DCO reply brief argues that the FTC brief unjustifiedly disparages DCO and the Feijos' relationship to it in an erroneous effort to assert jurisdiction over a ministry.. Further, the FTC brief's claim that DCO's ads created the overall net impression that its products claims were based upon controlled clinical studies is not supported in fact or by law.. Finally, the FTC brief is mistaken about DCO's constitutional and Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims.. Daniel Chapter One -- District Court Order.. September 14, 2010).. The U.. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Daniel Chapter One ( DCO ) motion to dismiss, denied the government s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from violating the FTC's order, and stayed the case pending resolution of DCO s appeal before the U.. Circuit.. Daniel Chapter One Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Government's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.. September 1, 2010).. On behalf of Daniel Chapter One ( DCO ), today we filed a.. motion to dismiss the goverment's complaint and a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion to dismiss.. with the U.. District Court for the District of Columbia.. On behalf of DCO, today we also filed with the U.. District Court for the District of Columbia a.. memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the government's revised motion for preliminary injunction.. The memorandum was supported by the following declarations:.. Declaration of James Feijo.. Declaration of Patricia Feijo.. Declaration of Tedd Koren.. Declaration of Sally Lamont.. Declaration of James A.. Duke.. Declaration of Karen S.. Orr, D.. Declaration of Deane Mink, D.. Daniel Chapter One Brief of Petitioners.. August 18, 2010).. Circuit the brief of petitioners.. The DCO brief argues that the FTC failed to establish jurisdiction over DCO and exceeded its statutory authority by misuse of its reasonable basis theory and test.. Further, the FTC order is arbitrary and capricious, being the product of a blind adherence to the religion of scientism.. Finally, the FTC action and order unconstitutionally abridged DCO's freedom of speech, and the FTC erroneously dismissed DCO's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and First Amendment speaker autonomy claims.. Daniel Chapter One -- Court Order Denying Hearing on RFRA Claim.. July 6, 2010).. Circuit denied the Daniel Chapter One ( DCO ) motion requesting a hearing on the DCO claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ).. Daniel Chapter One Reply to FTC Opposition to Motion for Hearing on RFRA Claim (May 17, 2010).. Circuit a reply to the FTC's opposition to the DCO motion requesting a hearing on DCO's claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ).. Daniel Chapter One Motion for Hearing on RFRA Claim.. April 22, 2010).. Circuit  ...   the framers' authorial intent.. Of course, life and liberty in the Fifth Amendment followed the framers use in the Declaration of Independence, where they are identified as being sourced in our Creator.. The brief explains how the Commentaries of William Blackstone are the best evidence to explain what the framers meant by these terms, and that Blackstone views these rights as being best described in Holy Scriptures.. Our brief then examines the Holy Scriptures to understand the type of God-given life and liberty rights that the framers intended to protect.. Lastly, the brief explains that common law procedural guarantees were individualized and judicial, completely unlike the FDA procedures, which apply to the populace generally, and are merely administrative.. TSCL Comments on FDA Draft Guidance for Industry on Evidence-Based Review System for the Scientific Evaluation of Health Claims (September 7, 2007).. On behalf of TREA Senior Citizens League ( TSCL ), we filed comments with the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) in opposition to the FDA s Draft Guidance for Industry on Evidence-Based Review System for the Scientific Evaluation of Health Claims.. fda.. gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm053850.. The FDA Draft Guidance asserts that the FDA is authorized by the NLEA to treat health claims for both conventional food and health claims for dietary supplements in virtually the same manner.. In 1990, Congress adopted a significant scientific agreement standard applicable to conventional food health claims and the FDA subsequently purported, by regulation, to extend that same standard to dietary supplements health claims, even though the statute provided that this standard did not apply to dietary supplements.. Moreover, the Draft Guidance would adopt an evidence-based scientific model more suitable to tracing the cause and effect between a single, potentially-toxic pharmaceutical and a disease, rather than to the identification of the complex manner in which foods and dietary supplements are used by the body in achieving overall health wellness.. Instead of submitting such claims to a review process that would assess the series of interconnections, cross-connections, and recombinations of nutrition in order to assess the effectiveness of appropriate combinations to achieve health wellness, health claims for foods and dietary supplements are assessed by studies that evaluate the relationship between a substance and a disease.. If the Draft Guidance were adopted, TSCL submits that the FDA will have exceeded its statutory authority, and violated senior citizens constitutional right to have important information about dietary supplements on the label of the product.. While appearing to comply with the instructions given in a 1999 D.. Circuit decision (.. Pearson.. Shalala.. ), designed to make it easier to obtain health claim approval, the FDA instead is attempting to tighten its grasp on health claims.. Our comments urged the FDA to withdraw its Draft Guidance on the grounds that its proposal to regulate dietary supplement health claims as food health claims not only has not been authorized by Congress, but also appears to contradict the legislative authorization for an FDA standard in this area.. FDA Draft Guidance for Industry on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (May 29, 2007).. On May 29, 2007, on behalf of TREA Senior Citizens League ( TSCL ), we filed comments with the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) in opposition to the FDA s Draft Guidance for Industry on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation.. lawandfreedom.. com/site/health/ucm145405_draft_guidance_cam.. According to the Draft Guidance, the FDA asserted that it had authority to regulate products utilized by practitioners of Complementary and Alternative Medicine ( CAM ), with special emphasis upon its power to regulate vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements.. as drugs.. , if those products were intended to be used by a CAM practitioners as part of a disease treatment program.. Additionally, the FDA stated in its Draft Guidance that it had the right to regulate products used in chiropractic and massage as.. medical devices.. If the Draft Guidance is adopted by the FDA, it could mean that ordinary foods such as raw vegetable juice would be subject to FDA premarket review just as is the case now for prescription drugs used in conventional allopathic medicine.. Further, if the Guidance were adopted, the FDA presumably would make substantial intrusions into the regulation of alternative medicinal practices traditionally left to the states.. In our Comments submitted on behalf of TSCL, we urged the FDA to withdraw its Draft Guidance on the grounds that its proposal to regulate ordinary foods as drugs was both unauthorized and unworkable.. Additionally, the Comments raised serious questions about the fairness of the Draft Guidance procedure, confusing to the public and prejudicing the rights of seniors by depriving them of adequate time to respond to the FDA s far-reaching proposal.. Finally, our comments pointed out the likely adverse effects of the Draft Guidance: (a) on the financial health of Medicare; (b) on Congressional policy encouraging CAM; (c) on the traditional role of state regulation of the practice of medicine; and (d) the constitutional rights of the free exercise of religion and of self-preservation.. FDA Draft Guidance for Industry on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (April 26, 2007).. Today, on behalf of TREA Senior Citizens League, we filed with the FDA for both Clarification of, and Extension of, the deadline for comments in response to the FDA's rulemaking in Docket No.. R2006D-0480, entitled Draft Guidance for Industry on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by Food and Drug Administration..

    Original link path: /site/health/index.html
    Open archive

  • Title: Firearms Law
    Descriptive info: Comments filed with Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives opposing Multiple Rifle Sale Reporting (take two) (July 23, 2014).. City & County of San Francisco (July 3, 2014).. United States (July 3, 2014).. Malloy (May 23, 2014).. Gun Owners of America Gun Owners Foundation comments to ATF on “Adjudicated as a Mental Defective” (April 7, 2014).. Herb Titus Quoted in BNA Article “Aiding and Abetting Use of Firearm Requires Advance Knowledge of Gun” (March 14, 2014).. Justice Foundation Comments to HHS on HIPAA Privacy Rule and the NICS System (March 10, 2014).. Gun Owners Foundation Comments to HHS on HIPAA Privacy Rule and the NICS System (March 10, 2014).. Amicus brief challenging New Jersey s Concealed Carry Laws.. (February 12, 2014).. free State.. United States v.. James Alvin Castleman.. Amicus Brief in the United States Supreme Court (December 23, 2013).. On December 23, 2013, our firm filed an.. brief in the U.. Supreme Court in U.. Castleman, in support of the grant of a petition for certiorari.. This case involves the meaning of the term physical force contained in the federal law defining misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence ( MCDV ), popularly known as the Lautenberg Amendment.. Passed in 1996, the Lautenberg Amendment makes it a federal crime for a person to acquire or possess a firearm after he has been convicted of a MCDV.. An MCDV is defined as a crime that has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.. In this case, the government argued that physical force should be read as simply requiring force, of any sort.. Once the statute is watered down in that way, the government argued that the statute should be read as invoking the common law meaning of assault and battery, which includes any nonconsensual, minor, slight offensive touching.. But Congress expressed its desire to penalize violent men who beat their wives not anyone who might push, touch or spit on a family member.. brief points out that the word physical cannot be read out of the statute, based on the principle that each word in a statute must have its ordinary meaning.. The government argued that, if the statute was read the way it was actually written, then few if any state statutes would meet the federal definition at the time it was passed, since few require violent physical force as an element, and thus the MCDV ban would be a practical nullity.. But, as our brief points out, it is not up to ATF or the courts to give the statute a different meaning to language chosen by Congress in order to give a statute wider effect.. Moreover, after the Lautenberg Amendment was enacted, states were free to amend their laws, or enact new ones, in order to be covered by the federal law.. Finally, our brief argued that if the Court adopted the government s broad understanding of what constitutes a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, serious constitutional implications would arise with respect to the Second Amendment and defense of hearth and home.. Our firm s brief was filed on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc.. Justice Foundation, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.. Supreme Court Docket:.. aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-1371.. Bruce James Abramski v.. United States Amicus Brief in the United States Supreme Court (on the Merits) (December 3, 2013).. On December 3, 2013, our firm filed an.. Supreme Court in Abramski v.. United States, in a case challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) definition of what constitutes an illegal straw purchase of a firearm.. This case involves one of the greatest instances of regulatory and prosecutorial abuse that we have ever seen.. The concept of a straw purchase is a doctrine created by ATF and the courts, rather than a crime enacted by Congress.. Indeed, as pointed out in our brief, in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings, Senators Leahy and Schumer introduced a bill (that was not enacted) to outlaw straw purchases.. If straw purchases were already illegal, then there would have been no need for such a bill to be introduced.. In this case, Petitioner Abramski, a former police officer who was eligible to own firearms, bought a handgun for his elderly uncle who was also eligible to own firearms.. Both men passed a NICS background check, yet ATF claimed that Abramski lied on his Form 4473 when he claimed he was the actual buyer of the firearm.. ATF argued that Abramski s statement was intended or likely to deceive the Federal Firearms Licensee ( FFL ), even though he specifically asked two FFLs who both told him that he was following the law.. Our brief pointed out that federal law never uses the term actual buyer whatever that may mean.. Rather, the statute refers to the transferee, the person physically present, standing in the gun store.. Federal law only prohibits transferring a gun to someone who you know or have reason to believe is not eligible to possess it.. Federal law does not, as ATF argues, prohibit an eligible person from buying a gun simply because he may later transfer it to another person eligible to possess it.. ATF claims that the FFL is required by law to keep information about the actual buyer, but the law only requires a record of the transferee.. The government has claimed that, unless the Supreme Court adopts its position, the law will be easily avoided.. But, as our brief points out, is not up to ATF or the Supreme Court to write, or rewrite, the statute.. Finally, our brief argues that ATF s definition of a straw purchase is arbitrary and unworkable, since it exempts gifts bought with the transferee s money, but not purchases made with the alleged actual buyer s money.. Our brief has already been attacked in an.. brief filed by the City of New York, which criticizes our brief for arguing to the Court that the straw purchase doctrine encroaches on Congress legislative powers, claiming that our brief misrepresents that it is illegal for any person to buy a firearm on behalf of another person eligible to own it.. Predictably, the virulently anti-gun City of New York accepts the anti-gun position of ATF as deciding the issue of what is legal and what is not, disregarding the actual statutory language.. Our brief on the merits was actually the second brief that we filed in the U.. Supreme Court in this case.. On July 25, 2013, we filed an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court granting certiorari in this case one of only two filed in support of granting Mr.. Abramski s petition.. Our firm s.. brief was filed on behalf of Congressman Steve Stockman, Former ATF Assistant Director Robert E.. Sanders, Gun Owners Foundation, U.. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc.. , Institute on the Constitution, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, DownsizeDC Foundation, Downsize DC.. org, Policy Analysis Center, Oregon Firearms Federation, and Virginia Citizens Defense League.. aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-1493.. SCOTUSBlog:.. scotusblog.. com/case-files/cases/abramski-v-united-states/?wpmp_switcher=desktop.. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.. John C.. Hickenlooper, Complaint in the District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado (September 4, 2013).. Today a complaint was filed in the case of.. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners,.. Hickenlooper.. in the District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado on behalf of plaintiffs Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, National Association for Gun Rights, Inc.. , John A.. Sternberg, and DV-S,LLC, d/b/a Alpine Arms.. This case is a constitutional challenge of two Colorado firearm laws, HB 1229 and HB 1224.. Our firm is serving as of counsel to the plaintiffs.. With certain limited exceptions, HB 1229 makes unlawful the transfer of a firearm between private individuals unless the Colorado Bureau of Investigation ( CBI ) first conducts a background check and confirms that the transferee is eligible to possess the firearm.. HB 1229 does not, however, allow either a willing transferor nor a willing transferee of a covered firearm transfer to obtain a CBI background check.. Rather, it requires the transferor to locate and persuade a federally-licensed firearms dealer to obtain the CBI background check, complying with all federal and state laws, and using the same procedure as if the proposed transfer were of a firearm sold out of the FFL s own firearms inventory.. HB 1224 bans outright all ammunition magazines sold or acquired after July 1, 2013 that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition.. HB 1224 also bans most other magazines of any size because it prohibits smaller magazines that are designed to be readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition, and imposes a condition of continuous possession that makes it impossible to lawfully possess a magazine of any capacity.. HB 1224, also, effectively operates as a ban on having a functional, operating unit for most handguns and a very large fraction of rifles.. Our complaint alleges that HB 1229 violates the due process and equal protection provisions of Article II, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution.. Further HB 1229 is an unconstitutional delegation of executive authority and legislative power.. Finally HB 1229 and HB 1224 violate the right to keep and bear arms secured by Article II, Section 13 of the Colorado Constitution.. National Rifle Association,.. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,.. Amicus Brief for The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education,.. in the United States Supreme Court (August 30, 2013).. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners.. Our brief was filed on behalf of The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, The Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc.. Justice Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.. org, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Policy Analysis Center, and Gun Owners of California.. Raymond Woollard,.. Denis Gallagher,.. , Amicus Brief for Gun Owners Foundation,.. in the United States Supreme Court (August 12, 2013).. Our brief was filed on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, Citizens United, U.. , Institute on the Constitution, The Lincoln Institute, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Policy Analysis Center, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.. org, Virginia Gun Owners Coalition, and Gun Owners of California.. Rosemond v.. United States, Amicus Brief for Gun Owners Foundation,.. in the United States Supreme Court (August 9, 2013).. Justus Cornelius Rosemond.. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner.. Our amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to examine the question raised in this case in light of the recently decided case of.. Alleyne.. United States'.. new interpretation of Section 924(c)(1)(A), defining three firearms offenses instead of only one.. If the Government s theory of aiding and abetting is affirmed in this case, it will unwisely and unnecessarily expand prosecutorial discretion in the administration of the mandatory minimum sentence structure of Section 924(c)(1)(A) and undermine the role of the jury envisioned in.. Our brief was filed on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, U.. , Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Policy Analysis Center.. United States, Amicus Brief for Congressman Steve Stockman,.. in the United States Supreme Court (July 25, 2013).. Bruce James Abramski, Jr.. Our amicus brief argues that the petition should be granted because it raises compelling concerns about the administration of the national instant background check system that have not been, but should be, settled by the Supreme Court.. The ATF straw purchase doctrine upon which Abramski s conviction rests conflicts with both statute and regulation.. The ATF Form 4473 s question 11.. a.. and instructions are misleading and confusing, creating a trap for the unwary.. The Form 4473 distinction between a third party gift and a third party purchase is arbitrary and capricious.. Finally, Congress has not enacted any law authorizing the prevention of straw purchases of firearms from licensed firearm dealers and has thus far declined to enact the ATF straw purchase doctrine into law.. Our brief was filed on behalf of Congressman Steve Stockman, Former ATF Assistant Director Robert E.. , Institute on the Constitution, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, DownsizeDC.. org, Downsize DC Foundation, Policy Analysis Center, Oregon Firearms Federation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Wisconsin Gun Owners.. Reese, Brief of Appellees in the U.. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (July 11, 2013).. On July 11, 2013, our firm filed an appellees' brief in the U.. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on behalf of three individuals in a family-owned Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) located in Deming, New Mexico.. Four members of the Reese family had been acquitted by the jury of all but four counts of a 30-count indictment.. Then, nearly four months after the trial was over, the Government filed a sealed ex parte motion revealing to the court that, after trial, the government lawyers who tried the case were made aware of evidence that was potentially favorable to the defendants to impeach the credibility of one of the government's key witnesses.. By this motion, the Government asked for a ruling, without an adversarial hearing, that it had not violated its constitutional duty to disclose potential impeachment evidence.. The trial judge refused, ordering the Government to turn the evidence over to the defense.. After two hearings, the court discovered that the impeachment evidence had been in the hands of the Government for over a decade and that the government attorneys suppressed evidence from which the jury could infer that the government witness lied.. After finding that the unimpeached testimony of government agent was material, the trial judge ordered a new trial on the four counts of conviction.. The government appealed the order granting a new trial.. Having exhausted their funds, the Reeses contacted the U.. Justice Foundation and Gun Owners of America for assistance on their appeal, who engaged our firm to handle the appeal.. Our appellees' brief documents how the Federal Government denied the Reeses their liberty, without due process of law, and in violation of their right to confront witnesses against them.. and Gun Owners Foundation Comments to ATF on Requests to Exempt Certain Projectiles from Regulation as 'Armor Piercing' Ammunition (December 31, 2012).. Today our firm filed comments with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ( ATF ) on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc.. and Gun Owners Foundation pursuant to the ATF request for comments on the use of the sporting purposes exemption for certain projectiles from regulation as armor piercing ammunition.. These comments were filed because GOA and GOF believe that ATF s past interpretations of Section 921(a)(17) have been erroneous, and are contrary to the clear intent of Congress.. Thus, ATF s understanding of what constitutes AP ammunition should be revised.. The comments expound upon the following points:.. ATF Would Add Its Own Language to the Statute, in an Effort to Further Restrict Armor Piercing Ammunition.. ATF Has Misinterpreted the Language of Section 921(a)(17) in an Overly-.. Restrictive Manner.. Many Typical Rifle Calibers Are Capable of Defeating the Soft Body Armor,.. Regardless of Whether They Are Armor Piercing.. and Gun Owners Foundation Comments on Administrative Disposition of Weapons Amendment Act of 2012 (October 9, 2012).. Today our firm filed comments to the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on the Judiciary on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc.. and Gun Owners Foundation on the proposed Administrative Disposition of Weapons Amendment Act of 2012.. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (August 6, 2008).. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in support of plaintiffs-appellees and affirmance.. This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the State of Maryland s handgun permit statute and regulatory scheme.. Maryland requires an applicant for a license to carry a handgun to demonstrate that he has good and substantial reason to carry a handgun.. Plaintiff Woollard previously had been granted a handgun carry permit.. Unable to produce evidence of a current threat, Woollard s request for a renewal of the permit was denied.. Woollard and an association of gun owners, Second Amendment Foundation, challenged the Maryland license requirement, arguing that the good and substantial reason requirement violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.. The district court found Maryland s requirement.. is insufficiently tailored to the State s interest in public safety and crime prevention and impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment.. Our amicus brief urges the court of appeals to affirm the decision of the district court to overturn the Maryland statutory scheme but without reference to any judicial balancing or standard of review and based on the text of the Second Amendment.. Our amicus brief argues that Maryland provides no analysis of the text of the Second Amendment and misrepresents the applicability of English historical antecedents.. Further, Maryland's argument rests on a misleading overview of the Supreme Court's decision in.. Our brief shows that the Supreme Court decisions in.. preclude lower courts from using judicial balancing.. actually requires that reviewing courts identify and apply the Second Amendment with the scope intended by the founders.. Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of:.. Gun Owners Foundation (.. gunowners.. com/.. ).. www.. Virginia Gun Owners Coalition (.. vgoc.. org/.. Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.. vcdl.. Justice Foundation (.. http://usjf.. net/.. Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund (.. cldef.. Delroy Fischer v.. United States of America,.. Reply Brief for Petitioner in the U.. Supreme Court (March 8, 2012).. Today our firm filed reply brief for petitioner in the case of.. Delroy Fischer.. United States of America.. in the United States Supreme Court.. In this case, petitioner Fischer is asking the Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split over the question whether the use of force element of the predicate misdemeanor in a section 922(g)(9) prosecution is determined by factual findings found in the state court record, or by the text of the relevant misdemeanor statute.. Fischer was indicted for violation of 18 U.. section 922(g)(9).. Prior to trial, Fischer moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the predicate misdemeanor under which he was convicted Nebraska Revised Statute ( Neb.. Rev.. Stat.. ) section 28-310(1) was not a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence ( MCDV ), as defined in 18 U.. section 921(a)(33)(A)(ii).. Fischer reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.. Our reply brief makes the following arguments.. First, the government admits that the court below relied solely on the factual record  ...   a patented replacement stock of a semiautomatic firearm that through controlled bump firing increases the rate of fire, after an initial trigger pull, by multiple functions of the trigger controlled by the shooter s well-placed trigger finger.. In a 2006 ruling, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) concluded that Mr.. Akins accelerator.. was a machinegun.. , because it fired repeatedly upon only one pull of the trigger and, thus, converted a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic one.. Prior to the 2006 ruling, however, ATF twice had notified Mr.. Akins that, after testing the accelerator, ATF determined that it was.. not a machinegun.. ; rather the accelerator simply enabled a semiautomatic rifle to shoot at an increased rate of fire, not with a single pull of the trigger, but by a series of multiple functions of the trigger pressing against the shooter s well-placed trigger finger.. Thus, the accelerator did not fit within the statutory definition of a machinegun because the firearm did not shoot automatically at the single.. function.. of the trigger.. In order to reach the opposite conclusion in 2006, ATF.. changed its interpretation.. of the statutory definition of a machinegun, construing single.. of the trigger to mean the same thing as single.. pull.. Since the ATF accelerator required only one pull of the trigger, in order for a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot, the ATF dismissed as irrelevant the fact that the firearm would not continue to shoot repeatedly unless the trigger continued to function by pushing against the shooter s well-placed trigger finger.. The GOF/GOA amicus brief emphasized that the 2006 ruling was made in flagrant disregard of the plain language of the statutory definition of a machinegun and challenged ATF s claim that it acted within its authority to protect the public safety from dangerous weapons, noting that Congress had enacted no statutory provision prohibiting dangerous weapons, and that, in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, Congress had amended ATF s powers to enact rules and regulations.. only.. as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.. Reply Brief in Support of Appellant Olofson in the U.. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Docket No.. 08-2294).. November 7, 2008.. We filed our reply brief, responding to the government s opposition which maintained that a malfunctioning AR-15 rifle is a machinegun.. Hayes, Amicus Brief for Gun Owners Foundation in the U.. Supreme Court (September 26, 2008).. On September 26, 2008, we filed on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation an amicus brief in.. The GOF brief urged the Supreme Court to affirm a Fourth Circuit court of appeals ruling that, as a matter of.. statutory.. interpretation, an individual does not lose the right to own a gun unless the prosecutor in the misdemeanor case proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the misdemeanor event was, in fact, a.. domestic.. one.. Prior to the Fourth Circuit s decision in.. , all the other courts of appeals (which had addressed the question) had decided the case the other way: that the.. aspect of the misdemeanor need not be proved in court, but need only appear somewhere, such as on a police report.. Thus, for a dozen years, hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been deprived of their right to purchase or possess a firearm, not on the basis of a proven fact, but on the basis of an.. uncontested accusation.. The statute being contested was enacted in 1996 as part of a omnibus appropriations bill the now infamous.. Lautenberg Amendment.. , named after its sponsor, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).. This stealth provision prohibited, for the first time in the history of federal firearms regulation, a person from possessing a firearm if he had been convicted of a misdemeanor, specifically a.. misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.. One of the defining differences between felonies and misdemeanors is that felons lose civil liberties.. (e.. voting, serving on a jury, holding public office, gun ownership), while those who commit misdemeanors do not.. The Lautenberg amendment is a notable exception to this rule.. The GOF brief charges that, by its disregard for the language of the statute and its unjustified reliance upon Senator Lautenberg s personal opinions, the Government unlawfully jeopardizes firearm ownership, by encouraging inaccurate and incomplete reporting of information on the.. National Instant Criminal Background Check System.. , and by creating an impermissible risk of self-incrimination on.. ATF Form 4473.. , completion of which is required of all purchasers of firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer.. Olofson.. , Brief in Support of Appellant Olofson in the U.. August 25, 2008.. We filed a brief on behalf of David R.. Olfoson, who was convicted and is serving a sentence for transferring a machinegun, which actually was a legal but malfunctioning AR-15 rifle.. Ramos/Compean Amicus Brief in Support of Petition for Rehearing in the U.. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (August 18, 2008).. We filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of two former Border Patrol agents Petitions for Rehearing.. This brief emphasized areas where the Fifth Circuit panel s decision was inconsistent with the law as set forth in our earlier brief filed with the court on May 25, 2007.. Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of Congressmen Walter B.. Jones (R-NC), Virgil H.. Goode, Jr.. (R-VA), and Ted Poe (R-TX), Gun Owners Foundation, U.. Border Control Foundation, U.. Border Control, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.. District of Columbia, et.. February 11, 2008.. Today, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court supporting the respondent in the D.. gun ban case,.. , v.. Dick Anthony Heller.. , No.. 07-290.. The brief was filed on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc.. , Gun Owners Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc.. , Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of California, Inc.. , Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.. The issue in the case is whether three D.. Code provisions violate a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for private use in one s home.. We argued that, under long-standing rules limiting its jurisdiction, the Court should not entertain the Solicitor General s invitation to assess the constitutionality of the whole array of the current federal firearms statutes.. Nor, in response to petitioners and the Solicitor General, should the Court craft a standard of review not supported by the text to permit reasonable gun control.. Rather, the Court should apply a standard of review dictated by the words and principles embodied in the Second Amendment, as directed by America s founders.. According to its text, context, and historic setting, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to private possession and use of handguns in one s own home.. The individual right to keep and bear arms is essential to a well regulated militia a self-bodying, self-governing association of people privately trained to arms, modeled after the colonial militia that took up their privately-owned firearms to defeat a tyrannical effort to confiscate their arms.. In turn, a well regulated militia ensures the preservation of a free state by allowing all members of the American polity to exercise, if necessary, the sovereign right of the people to reconstitute their government.. In order to ensure its purpose to preserve the people s liberties, the Second Amendment bans discriminatory legislation against classes of persons that, by nature, are rightful members of the people.. In order to ensure its means to defeat tyranny, the Second Amendment bans discriminatory legislation against firearms that are essential to preserve those liberties.. By discriminating against law-abiding D.. citizens and against handguns, the D.. Code provisions violate both of these standards and, therefore, unconstitutionally infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.. State of Wyoming v.. United States, Amicus Brief for Gun Owners Foundation in the U.. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 18 U.. 822(t)(3) (August 21, 2007).. Today we filed a Brief Amicus Curiae for Gun Owners Foundation in the U.. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in support of the State of Wyoming and Wyoming Attorney General Patrick J.. Crank.. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms ( BATF ) argued that Wyoming Stat.. Ann.. 7-13-1502(k), which provides for the expungement with regards to restoring firearms rights to a person convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence ( MCDV ), (a) is insufficient as an exemption from the NICS background check and (b) does not authorize the person eligible to purchase a firearm.. In a letter dated August 6, 2004, BATF advised the Wyoming AG that, after review of the Wyoming MCDV expungement statute, it had concluded that Wyoming law did not meet the federal complete expungement standard governing MCDV convictions, as set forth in 18 U.. 921(a)(33).. In response to BATF s final ruling against Wyoming s statute, Wyoming s AG filed a complaint against BATF in U.. District Court for the District of Wyoming as being arbitrary and capricious, and in direct violation of federal law and, therefore, in violation of 5 U.. 706(2)(A).. The district court ruled against the State, adopting BATF s interpretation of the disputed firearms statutes.. Our brief argued that the district court, contrary to relevant and controlling case law precedent, erroneously upheld BATF s ruling, because Congress has directly and unambiguously established that expungements of state criminal convictions are to be determined by state law, not by an overriding federal standard, and that BATF s ruling violates 5 U.. BATF Firearm Civil Forfeiture Procedures and Policies: An.. Attorney's Guide (July 4, 2007).. On behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, our firm authored BATF Firearm Civil Forfeiture Procedures and Policies: An Attorney's Guide.. The guide is intended to provide a procedural overview for attorneys unfamiliar with civil forfeiture law as it applies to firearms, including what to expect from the BATF, and how to go about recovering seized assets.. This manual has been revised as of January 30, 2009.. USA v.. , 18 U.. section 924(c) (.. May 25, 2007).. Today we filed a Brief Amicus Curiae in the U.. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting the appeal of Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean.. Counts four and five of the indictment charge the two with Discharge of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence, under 18 U.. section 924(c), which the Supreme Court has ruled is only a sentencing factor, not one of the three elements using, carrying, or possessing a firearm.. Harris.. , 536 U.. 545 (2002).. Thus, the amicus brief asks the court to overturn the convictions of Ramos and Compean in the U.. District Court for the Western District of Texas, on the ground that these two Border Patrol agents were each sentenced to 10 years in prison for committing a federal crime which does not exist.. The amicus brief was filed on behalf of.. Congressman Walter B.. Congressman Virgil H.. Congressman Ted Poe.. Border Control.. Border Control Foundation, and.. , Amicus Brief in the.. Supreme Court, Strict Construction of Federal Criminal Laws (May 4, 2007).. On behalf of Gun Owners Foundation and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, we filed an amicus brief in the U.. Supreme Court in the case of.. This brief asks the Court to overturn the decision of the U.. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and to re-establish the common law rule of strict construction of criminal statutes.. In this case, an undercover agent sought to buy drugs from Watson, and offered a firearm as part of the purchase price.. The federal government indicted Watson for not only the drug sale, but also for the use of a firearm in connection with a federal drug trafficking crime, which would greatly increase the sentence if convicted.. Clearly, in the normal sense of the word, receiving a gun is not using a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime, but the Fifth Circuit interpreted the word use broadly to encompass receipt.. Had the rule of strict construction been applied to this case, and use interpreted in its normal sense, Mr.. Watson would not be faced with a mandatory additional minimum prison sentence of five years under 18 U.. section 924(c).. Our amicus brief also asks the Court to reject the modern rule of lenity that has proved to be no substitute for strict construction.. Strict construction of federal criminal law is necessary to preserve constitutional separation of powers, as well as principles of federalism.. Our amicus brief illustrates how allowing police and prosecutors to go beyond the words of the statute to define a crime opens up opportunities for abuse.. The firm's amicus brief in.. was discussed by former Assistant Secretary of the U.. Department of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, in his excellent book.. The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.. , published March 25, 2008, by Three Rivers Press.. The Right of the People of Maryland to Keep and Bear Arms (February 27, 2007).. commissioned our firm to prepare an analysis of a 13-year-old Opinion of the Maryland Attorney General currently being used in the Maryland General Assembly to support SB 43, the so-called assault weapons ban.. Our analysis -- The Right of the People of Maryland to Keep and Bear Arms: A Refutation of a 1994 Opinion of the Maryland Attorney General -- was presented to the Maryland General Assembly at a hearing on February 27, 2007.. The views presented in our paper are consistent with the subsequently-issued opinion of the U.. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of.. Parker.. District of Columbia,.. issued March 9, 2007.. Stanko, Amicus Brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for Gun Owners Foundation (November 2, 2006).. Mr.. Rudolph Stanko was convicted of possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.. Section 922(g)(1), which prohibits any person from possessing a firearm or ammunition if that person has been convicted of certain types of crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.. According to the statutory definition, the predicate crime cannot be any federal or state offense pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices.. The indictment against Mr.. Stanko charged a violation of Section 922(g)(1) based upon a prior conviction of conspiracy of violating the Federal Meat Inspection Act.. Prior to trial, defendant's attorneys moved to dismiss the indictment on several grounds, including that the crime of which Mr.. Stanko was convicted fell within the category of.. excluded business offenses.. The motion was denied, and the case was submitted to the jury without any mention of the business exclusion or any evidence that the crime of which Mr.. Stanko had been convicted fit within the exclusion.. On November 2, 2006, attorneys for Gun Owners Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of Mr.. Stanko's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, contending: (a) that the indictment was legally defective because it failed to allege that the predicate crime did not fit within the business exclusion; and (b) that the jury instructions were invalid because they did not submit the business exclusion issue to the jury.. Since the business exclusion is part of the statutory definition of the predicate crime, it is an.. element of the offense.. , and thus, must be alleged in the indictment and submitted to the jury.. Failure to do so deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.. United States,.. Amicus Curiae Brief in the U.. District Court, Against BATF and For.. On August 18, 2006, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief for Gun Owners Foundation in the U.. on behalf of the State of.. , and the Wyoming Attorney General, Patrick J.. The brief was submitted in opposition to a BATF ruling that a.. concealed carry permit based on a.. Montana.. criminal background check is not sufficient to allow an FFL dealer to transfer a firearm without obtaining a current federal National Instant Criminal Background Check.. BATF objected to a provision in Wyoming law that permits an expungement of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence so that it cannot be reviewed by the Wyoming Attorney General in conducting a criminal background check before issuing a concealed carry permit, while allowing the record to be maintained for use for other purposes.. At stake in this case is the federalist principle that the states, not the federal government, have the primary responsibility to govern firearms use and ownership.. Paper Demonstrates Threat to Second Amendment Rights Posed by Recent Supreme Court Reliance on International Law (July 2006).. I.. n July, 2006, our firm prepared a paper entitled Assessing the Threat to Second Amendment Rights Posed by the U.. Supreme Court's Use of Foreign Law In Constitutional Interpretation which was published by Gun Owners Foundation.. The paper critically analyzes two recent Supreme Court cases (.. Roper.. Simmons.. , and.. Lawrence.. ) in which the Court has relied on international law to sustain constitutional challenges.. In.. , the Court overturned a Missouri law permitting capital punishment for 16 and 17 year olds, and in.. , the Court overturned a Texas law prohibiting certain homosexual acts primarily because of foreign authorities.. Additionally, the paper reviews the pros and cons of relying on such foreign sources in other areas.. Recently, the United Nations has been pursuing a goal of eliminating all private ownership of firearms world-wide.. If the Court continues to base its constitutional decisions on foreign law, the American people may find their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms seriously undermined because of trends in countries which have had historic hostility to private firearms ownership and because of the U.. s penchant to restrict firearms possession and use to government officials.. Memorandum for the President: Presidential Powers To Use the U.. Armed Forces To Control Potential Civilian Disturbances (May 1, 1999).. This memorandum is fictional but accurately depicts the broad powers enjoyed by presidents to utilize U.. military forces to address domestic disturbances.. United States, Amicus Brief for The Center for Judicial Studies and Gun Owners Foundation in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (1986).. We filed an amicus brief on behalf of The Center for Judicial Studies and Gun Owners Foundation in this Second Amendment case.. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals.. was issued on February 11, 1987..

    Original link path: /site/firearms/index.html
    Open archive

  • Title: Election Law
    Descriptive info: Brief Filed Opposing Ohio’s “Ministry of Truth” (March 3, 2014).. FEC Issues Advisory Opinion Sought by Citizens for Joseph Miller (October 31, 2013).. Representing Alaska Senate candidate Joseph Miller's campaign committee, Bill Olson appeared before the Federal Election Commission today to answer questions about the facts underlying Advisory Opinion Request No.. 13-11 filed by the firm on the campaign's behalf.. After a lengthy discussion, the FEC approved the Advisory Opinion on a 5-1 vote.. The Commission ruled that the Committee's use of campaign funds with respect to an appeal of a judgment to the Alaska Supreme Court relating to his 2010 campaign for the U.. Senate was fully permissible, and not a personal use.. Shaun McCutcheon v.. FEC, Amicus Brief for Downsize DC Foundation,.. (United States Supreme Court, May 13, 2013).. Incumbent Congressmen must not be allowed to make it extremely difficult to challenge them for re-election, as they have done since 1971 by use of campaign finance laws.. Today we filed an amicus brief on behalf of Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.. org, Free Speech Coalition, Inc.. , Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, U.. , English First, English First Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Western Center for Journalism, Policy Analysis Center, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Libertarian National Committee, Inc.. and Constitution Party National Committee in Support of Appellants.. Shelby County, Alabama v.. , Amicus Brief for Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc.. (United States Supreme Court, January 2, 2013).. Shelby County, Alabama.. Our amicus brief argues that Section 5 of The Voting Rights Act ( VRA ) of 1965, as amended in 2006, exceeds the powers vested in Congress by either the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment.. Further, Sections 4(b) and 5 of the VRA of 1965, as amended in 2006, put Alabama on an unequal footing, in violation of the statute admitting Alabama to the union, and the Tenth Amendment.. Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc.. , America s Prayer Network, Christians Reviving America s Values, U.. William P.. Danielczyk, Jr.. United States, Amicus Brief for Citizens United,.. (United States Supreme Court, December 10, 2012).. and Eugene R.. Biagi.. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari.. Our brief argues that the petition should be granted because the court below failed to apply the categorical First Amendment right of corporate entities to engage in political speech established by the U.. Constitution and reaffirmed in.. Citizens United.. FEC.. Further, the questions presented should be extended to include whether campaign finance restrictions on speech and press should ever be permitted based on overriding governmental interests.. Finally, our brief argues that the various standards of review which enable the government to override the speech and press guarantees of the First Amendment, are illegitimate encroachments upon the sovereign power of the people to constitute and, when necessary reconstitute their government.. Our brief urges the Supreme Court that it is time to cut completely the Gordian Knot by which constitutional rights have been sacrificed based on atextual judicial balancing tests.. Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of:.. Citizens United (.. citizensunited.. Free Speech Coalition, Inc.. freespeechcoalition.. https://usjf.. Downsize DC Foundation (.. downsizedcfoundation.. org (.. downsizedc.. Center for Individual Freedom,.. Chris Van Hollen,.. Amicus Brief for Free Speech Coalition, Inc.. (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, June 27, 2012).. in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.. in support of appellants and reversal.. Our brief argues that the BCRA section 201 provision requiring disclosure of the names and addresses of all contributors who contributed an aggregate of $1,000 or more is subject to the rule of statutory construction to avoid serious constitutional problems.. The Supreme Court did not address or resolve in Citizens United the constitutionality of whether the disclosure requirement applied to any donor who gave money generally to the publisher of an electioneering communication without direction as to how the funds should be used.. Forced disclosures are subject to exacting scrutiny requiring proof of a strong governmental interest in the prevention of corruption or the appearance of corruption.. The government interest in a better informed public, standing by itself, is not sufficient to override the well-established anonymity principle undergirding the freedoms of speech and the press.. To avoid compromising that principle, BCRA s disclosure provision should be construed to require proof that the contributor who contributed did so with the specific purpose of supporting an electioneering communication.. Moreover, there is no constitutionally legitimate basis to require any reporting and disclosure for any communication merely because it mentions the name of a candidate for federal office.. To label such communications as anything more than issue advocacy is to apply a misnomer.. Additionally, to justify such disclosure requirements as furthering the interest of the government in a better informed public camouflages the real purpose to protect incumbent office holders at the expense of their challengers.. Forced disclosure is anathema to this nation s founding commitment to a self-governing people s marketplace of ideas free from licensure and censorship by the government.. The Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc.. Institute on the Constitution (.. theamericanview.. American Civil  ...   Gun Owners of America, Inc.. ; Vision to America; The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education; Public Advocate; U.. Border Control; U.. Border Control Foundation; American Coalition for Competitive Trade; and The Constitution Party national Committee.. On May 12, 2010, a.. brief on behalf of Senator Robert Menendez.. was filed in opposition to our motion.. On May 19, 2010, a.. New Jersey Supreme Court Order.. granted the motion and accepted the amicus brief on behalf of Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund,.. Oral argument was held on May 25, 2010.. Citizens United v.. Federal Election Commission Amicus Brief (U.. Supreme Court, July 31, 2009).. Testimony of Jeremiah Morgan, on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc.. and the Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc.. , before the Federal Election Commission at its Hearings on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Definition of Electioneering Communications.. (October 18, 2007).. Comments to the Federal Election Commission Regarding the.. Proposed Regulations on Electioneering Communications (72 Fr 50261).. on Behalf of the Free Speech Coalition.. , Inc.. and Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc.. (October 3, 2007).. Comments to the Federal Election Commission Regarding the Consideration of Regulations with Respect to the Definition of Electioneering Communication on Behalf of the Free Speech Coalition (September 30, 2005).. Comments to the Federal Election Commission Regarding Proposed Internet Regulations on Behalf of the Free Speech Coalition (June 3, 2005).. Comments to the Federal Election Commission Regarding the Proposed Redefinition of Political Committee on Behalf of the Free Speech Coalition (April 9, 2004).. Federal Election Commission Public Hearing on Enforcement Procedures Transcript -- Bill Olson spoke and filed a statement (June 11, 2003).. Proposed Findings of Fact Filed in the Case of.. District Court for the District of Columbia, November 26, 2002).. District Court for the District of Columbia) November 20, 2002).. Fact Witness Testimony Filed in the Case of.. District Court for the District of Columbia, October 4, 2002).. James H.. Babka, Jr.. Michael Boos.. David N.. Bossie.. Michael Cloud.. Mark Elam.. Carla Howell.. Thomas Lizardo.. Congressman Ron Paul.. Lawrence D.. Pratt.. Anonymous Witness No.. 1.. 2.. Expert Witness Reports Filed in the Case of.. District Court for the District of Columbia, September 23, 2002).. James C.. Miller, III.. Walter J.. Perry Willis.. Comments to the Federal Election Commission in Response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Electioneering Communications (August 29, 2002).. Amended Complaint Filed in the Case of.. District Court for the District of Columbia, May 7, 2002).. Lawsuit Filed To Challenge Legitimacy of FEC (U.. Our firm filed a lawsuit in the U.. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on behalf of Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), Gun Owners of America, Inc.. , Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund, Real Campaign Reform.. , Citizens United, Citizens United Political Victory Fund, Carla Howell, Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Massachusetts, and Michael Cloud, Libertarian Party candidate for U.. Senate from Massachusetts.. This lawsuit charges that both the new Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) and the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) violate the First Amendment protection of Freedom of the Press today.. Other lawsuits filed after President Bush signed the BCRA in March challenged the new law on grounds that it violates the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech.. But today's suit is the first to argue that BCRA violates Freedom of the Press, which the complaint says belongs to the American people, and not just to the institutional corporate press, such as The Washington Post or CNN.. A Gun Owners of America press release is available,.. New and Existing Campaign Finance Laws Violate Freedom Of The Press -- Lawsuit Filed Today Is Fundamental Challenge To Election Laws.. More information about the lawsuit is available at.. realcampaignreform.. Campaign Finance Reform: A Constitutional Analysis (February 13, 2002).. A paper by Herb Titus regarding the unconstitutionality of campaign finance reform legislation was inserted into the Congressional Record by Congressman Ron Paul, who described Herb Titus as one of America's leading constitutional scholars.. Will Illegal Aliens Decide Who Will Be America's Next President (November 9, 2000).. This U.. Border Controll Press Release discusses the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the Motor Voter law, and the upcoming election.. Campaign Finance Limitations Case, (U.. Supreme Court, June 7, 1999).. amicus curiae brief.. , challenges the entire scheme of campaign finance regulation as an impermissible restraint on free speech, designed to protect incumbents from challenges and to preserve the media's powerful voice as the only entities able to spend an unlimited amount of money on elections.. Supreme Court disagreed.. Testimony Before Federal Election Commission on Proposed Membership Regulations (March 17, 1999).. This testimony, presented before the six-member Federal Election Commission, opposes efforts designed to restrict the definition of membership so that PACs associated with nonprofit advocacy groups would be curtailed in their campaign involvement.. The positions advanced were largely successful.. The FEC's final regulations were issued July 30, 1999.. Comments to the Federal Election Commission on Membership on Behalf of the Free Speech Coalition (February 1, 1999).. Testimony of William J.. Olson Before House Subcommittee (March 8, 1994).. Hearings on the FY 1995 Budget Authorization of the Federal Election Commission Before the U.. House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections..

    Original link path: /site/election/index.html
    Open archive

  • Title: Litigation
    Descriptive info: Order Granting TSCL Motion in Part in FOIA Case Seeking Documents on US/Mexico Totalization Agreement (October 30, 2013).. On October 30, 2013, the U.. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the disclosure of certain records relating to the U.. /Mexico Social Security Toatalization Agreement that we have been seeking for our client, The Senior Citizens League.. Here is the.. Order.. Opinion.. A story about this decision appeared in Courthouse News Service entitled Mexican Social Security Deal Files Face Release on November 1, 2013.. courthousenews.. com/2013/11/01/62575.. GOF.. ATF.. Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for.. Open America.. Stay.. in the.. United States District Court for the District of Columbia (April 1, 2013).. Today our firm filed Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for.. Stay in the case of.. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.. on behalf of plaintiff Gun Owners Foundation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.. ATF, Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the.. United States District Court for the District of Columbia (August 14, 2012).. Today our firm filed Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the case of.. Our reply responds to the following ATF opposition and exhibits filed on August 9, 2012:.. Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings.. Exhibit A.. Exhibit B.. ATF,.. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings.. United States District Court for the District of Columbia.. (July 24, 2012).. Today our firm filed Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the case of.. We filed the motion because the Government failed to respond to GOF's.. FOIA request for 15 months, until this suit was filed, and then admitted it had asserted no specific exemptions.. Along with the motion for partial judgment, we also filed a.. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings.. and a.. Proposed Order.. Gun Owners Foundation Files Suit to Obtain ATF Fast Furious Records (June 6, 2011).. On June 6, 2012, on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, our firm filed a lawsuit in the U.. The suit stemmed from an April, 2011 Freedom of Information Act request in which GOF sought records pertaining to the infamous Fast and Furious and program where ATF federal agents deliberately and incomprehensibly put firearms directly into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.. ATF s response to our request was much the same as its response to Congressman Darrel Issa and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is currently holding hearings into the agency's activities.. ATF at first refused to even acknowledge receiving GOF s request, and then failed to respond substantively for well over a year, all the while claiming that a response would be forthcoming.. The complaint asks the district court for injunctive relief to order ATF to produce relevant, non exempt documents documents that ATF has already acknowledged that it possesses, but will not give to GOF.. Exhibit 1, the April 2011 Freedom of Information Act request, is available here.. Exhibit 2, the June 2011 ATF response to the FOIA request, is available here.. Sergeant Gary A.. Stein v.. Colonel C.. Dowling,.. , Additional Pleadings Filed  ...   attendant stigma, solely because he has exercised his First Amendment right to speak on matters of public concern in ways that his superiors do not approve, particularly a Facebook page.. The temporary restraining order was requested to stop and enjoin defendants from proceeding with administrative separation proceedings on April 5, 2012.. order denying plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order without prejudice.. was issued on April 4, 2012 by the district court judge.. We are working in this case as co-counsel with.. Gary Kreep and Nathan Oleson of the.. Mark Brewer of.. Brewer Pritchard,.. Stewart Rhodes of.. Oath Keepers.. , and.. David Loy of the.. San Diego ACLU.. Surprising Coalition of Free Speech Advocates Join to Protect Marine s Rights.. (San Diego ACLU article disscusing the Stein case).. FED Transmits Document Ordered Disclosed by District Judge Huvelle in FOIA Lawsuit.. February 18, 2011.. Today, our firm received the April 1997 minutes of a private meeting of the G-10 Gold and Foreign Exchange Committee.. The significance of this document is discussed by our client GATA here --.. gata.. org/node/9624.. Documents Filed in Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc.. 's Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit.. September 27, 2010.. On September 27, 2010, our firm filed the following documents in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc.. ( GATA ) in this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit arising from requests for records beginning in 2007 from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System relating to gold swaps :.. Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.. Proposed.. Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.. Declaration of William J.. , GATA Attorney.. Declaration of Chris Powell.. , GATA Secretary-Treasurer.. Declaration of Adrian Douglas.. , GATA Board Member.. Declaration of James Turk.. , GATA Consultant.. Plaintiff's Motion for In Camera Review and Limited Discovery.. Granting Plaintiff's Request for In Camera Review and Limited Discovery.. Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc.. 's Freedom of Information Act Complaints Filed (December 30, 2009).. On December 30, 2009, we filed a Freedom of Information Act complaint against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, also known as the Federal Reserve Board, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.. The complaints arise from requests for records made by Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc.. ( GATA ) beginning in 2007 relating to gold swaps.. Listen to more information.. about this lawsuit from a GATA roundtable on kingworldnews.. Watch a video about GATA.. as Al Korelin of Korelin Economics Report speaks with GATA Board of Directors at the Cambridge House Vancouver Resource Investment Conference on January 17-18, 2010.. Social Security Totalization Agreement: TSCL's Freedom of Information Act Complaints Filed (June 29, 2006).. On June 29, 2006, we filed Freedom of Information Act complaints against both the United States Department of State and the Social Security Administration in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.. The complaints arise from requests for records made by TSCL beginning in 2003 relating to the Social Security Totalization Agreement which the United States Government has negotiated and signed with the government of Mexico, but which has not been presented to Congress or released publicly.. Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against the United States Department of State.. Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against the Social Security Administration..

    Original link path: /site/litigation/index.html
    Open archive


  • Archived pages: 72