Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court attacking the notion that once a treaty has been ratified by the U.S. Senate it vests in Congress new powers not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution to implement that treaty. Specifically, we ask the Supreme Court to overrule Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 542 (1920), the infamous case involving the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which disregarded the limited nature of the federal government, and the text of the Tenth Amendment.

Our brief was filed on behalf of Steve Stockman, who is a Member of the United States Congress representing Texas' 36th Congressional District. Of particular relevance to the constitutional treaty power at issue in this case, Congressman Stockman serves as a Member of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Other amici on the case were: Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Citizens United's American Sovereignty Action Project, U.S. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, The Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, Policy Analysis Center, Conservative Legal Defense And Education Fund, and Tenth Amendment Center.

This is the second time this case has come to the Supreme Court. On December 10, 2010, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in support of the petitioner in that case: Bond v. United States, 546 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2355 (2011).

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.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., 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.

The WND.com article "Stonewalling on Fast and Furious Challenged" by Bob Unruh discusses Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Open America Stay we filed in the case of Gun Owners Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on behalf of plaintiff Gun Owners Foundation.

Today our firm filed Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Open America Stay in the case of Gun Owners Foundation v. 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.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief on jurisdiction and standing questions in the case of United States of America v. Edith Schlain Windsor and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in the United States Supreme Court in support of resp. Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, Citizens United Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, The Lincoln Institute, Public Advocate of the U.S., Declaration Alliance, Western Center for Journalism, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, English First, English First Foundation., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Protect Marriage Maryland PAC, Delegate Bob Marshall, and Senator Dick Black.

This morning, the American Thinker published an article by Herb Titus and Bill Olson refuting the President's claims of authority to kill American citizens off the battlefield.

Our article is a legal rebuttal of the U.S. Department of Justice's White Paper purporting to defend President Obama's position. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_
White_Paper.pdf

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of United States of America v. Edith Schlain Windsor and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in the United States Supreme Court in support of resp. Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, Citizens United Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, The Lincoln Institute, Public Advocate of the U.S., Declaration Alliance, Western Center for Journalism, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, English First, Protect Marriage Maryland PAC, Delegate Bob Marshall, and Senator Dick Black.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. v. Kristin M. Perry, et al. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, Citizens United Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Public Advocate of the United States, Declaration Alliance, Western Center for Journalism, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, English First, and Protect Marriage Maryland PAC.

Today we filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case of Michael G. New v. United States of America in the United States Supreme Court.

The petition urges the Supreme Court to grant the petition for the following reasons. First, the perfunctory disposition of petitioner's coram nobis petition by the military courts conflicts with United States v. Denedo (Denedo II). Further, subject matter jurisdiction of this writ under 28 U.S.C. Section 1259(3) is an important federal question that has not been, but should be, decided by the Supreme Court. Finally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces wrongfully denied New coram nobis relief from a fundamentally flawed court-martial by its failure to address the government's misapplication of the Supreme Court's political question doctrine.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner.

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.S. Justice Foundation, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

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.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Christopher Hedges v. Barack Obama, et al. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in support of appellees and affirmance. This lawsuit challenges the National Defense Authorization Act ("NDAA") of 2012's illegal detention provision. Our firm also filed an amicus brief earlier in this case with the district court.

Our amicus brief shows that the NDAA detention sections were written to be subject to various interpretations. Next, it argues for the rejection of the government's argument, that plaintiffs have no standing to challenge NDAA Section 1021(b)(2) on its face because the section is not a regulation of "primary conduct." Further, our amicus brief argues that the unconstitutionality of NDAA Section 1021(b)(2) under the First and Fifth Amendments is not foreclosed by the law of war. Last, it urges the court of appeals that as a member of the third branch of the federal government, it has a duty to address the constitutional issues in this case as repeatedly asserted by the several states.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Congressman Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Senator Dick Black, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., U.S. Justice Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, The Western Center for Journalism, Tenth Amendment Center, Center for Media and Democracy, Restoring Liberty Action Committee, U.S. Border Control, Policy Analysis Center, Constitution Party National Committee, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, and Professor Jerome Aumente.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of William P. Danielczyk, Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi v. United States 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.S. Constitution and reaffirmed in Citizens United v. 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 (http://www.citizensunited.org/)
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. (http://www.freespeechcoalition.org/)
Free Speech Defense and Education Fund
U.S. Justice Foundation (https://usjf.net/)
Downsize DC Foundation (http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/)
DownsizeDC.org (http://www.downsizedc.org/)
Gun Owners Foundation (http://www.gunowners.com/)
Gun Owners of America, Inc. (www.gunowners.org)
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund (http://www.cldef.org/)

Today both the U.S. Justice Foundation and the Western Center for Journalism published an article by Bill Olson & Herb Titus on the implications of Clapper v. Amnesty International which was argued this morning in the U.S. Supreme Court. On September 24, 2012, our firm filed an amicus brief in the case, which involves the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

Our firm has been focused for some time on the critical need to return to the historic meaning of the Fourth Amendment as a means to re-establish the authority of the people over their government. This article explains how the Clapper case could build on the property principles argued in another amicus brief we filed, which were articulated on January 23, 2012 by the Supreme Court in its decision in U.S. v. Antoine Jones.

The article appeared under two different titles:

"Supreme Court To Decide If President Can Watch Americans’ Every Move"

"SCOTUS to Decide if POTUS Can Cow Americans, Crush Their Spirit, and Put Terror in Every Heart"

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."

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, et al. v. Amnesty International USA, et al. in the United States Supreme Court in support of respondents.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of:
Gun Owners Foundation (http://www.gunowners.com/)
Gun Owners of America, Inc. (www.gunowners.org)
U.S. Justice Foundation (https://usjf.net/)
Downsize DC Foundation (http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/)
DownsizeDC.org (http://www.downsizedc.org/)
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund (http://www.cldef.org/)

Today we filed a Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Michael G. New v. United States in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

By this petition, we seek reconsideration of Michael New's writ-appeal petition on the ground that both the Army Court of Criminal Appeals and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces orders violate: (i) the two-tiered legal standard governing the exercise of discretion respecting Mr. New’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis established by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in Denedo v. United States and (ii) the Fifth Amendment Due Process guarantee of “full and fair consideration,” as established by the Supreme Court in Burns v. Wilson.

Bill Olson was quoted extensively regarding the definition of marriage on pages 4-6 of The United States Law Week Supreme Court Today article "Supreme Court’s Social Calendar Wide Open But Same-Sex Marriage, VRA May Join Party" by Bernard J. Pazanowski. Our firm filed amicus briefs in two of the cases mentioned in the article, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. v. Kristin M. Perry, et al. and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives v. Nancy Gill, et al.

Reproduced with permission from The United States Law Week, 81 U.S.L.W. 3099 (Sep. 18, 2012). Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) <http://www.bna.com>

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Young America's Foundation v. Alice M. Wood in the Appellate Court of Illinois Second District in support of appellant.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Free Speech Coalition, Inc., U.S. Justice Foundation and 51 other amici curiae.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Personhood Oklahoma v. Brittany Mays Barber, et al. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari.

By striking the proposed initiative amending the Oklahoma constitution by defining “person” as it appears in the state constitution, the court below misused Planned Parenthood v. Casey to deprive the people of Oklahoma of a power reserved them by the Tenth Amendment. Our amicus brief argues that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted because the petition presents a question of momentous significance to the powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the people. The definition of “person” in the proposed amendment is not repugnant to any provision in the U.S. Constitution, and therefore, the initiative is not outside the powers of the people reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment.

Our amicus brief also argues that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted because it presents an important question concerning the exercise of judicial review that cannot be settled except by the Supreme Court. The decision of the court below is based squarely upon the mistaken doctrine of judicial supremacy — that the Supreme Court’s Casey decision is the supreme law of the land, and thus, legally binding upon the people of Oklahoma in the exercise of their inherent power to amend the State constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is not the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution, in the way that the court below ruled. Rather, its decisions bind only the parties to a case. The people who constitute the government of Oklahoma remain supreme, possessing the inalienable right to propose, ratify, and amend the State constitution as they see fit, so long as the changes are not repugnant to the U.S. Constitution, as it is written, not as it is interpreted and applied in specific cases by the Supreme Court.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of:
Joyce Meyer Ministries (http://www.joycemeyer.org/)
Personhood Education (http://personhoodeducation.org/)
U.S. Justice Foundation (https://usjf.net/)
Institute on the Constitution (http://www.theamericanview.com/)
The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education (http://www.lincolnreview.com/)
Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc.
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund (http://www.cldef.org/)
Congressman Steve Stockman
Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall
Oklahoma Representatives Charles Key and Mike Reynolds

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. v. Kristin M. Perry, et al. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari.

Brought as a challenge to California Proposition 8, this case concerns whether homosexuals desiring the benefits of marriage have a constitutional right to compel that marriage be redefined to accommodate their sexual preferences. Our amicus brief urges that the petition for a writ of certiorari be granted to correct the badly flawed opinions below, and to reconsider the Supreme Court’s decision in Romer.

Our amicus brief argues that the opinion of the court below demonstrates the confusion that has been wrought by the Supreme Court's jurisprudence granting special status to homosexuals. Further, the circuit court's opinion is based on a false and illegitimate inquiry into the motivations of the people. Finally, the Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans has departed from the constitutional text, has sown confusion, and should be reconsidered and overturned.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of:
Public Advocate of the United States (http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/)
Joyce Meyer Ministries (http://www.joycemeyer.org/)
The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education (http://www.lincolnreview.com/)
Institute on the Constitution (http://www.theamericanview.com/)
Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc.
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund (http://www.cldef.org/)

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 Gun Owners Foundation v. 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.

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

In July, we filed our motion for partial judgment on the pleadings 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.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Raymond Woollard, et al. v. Denis Gallagher, et al. 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 Heller. Our brief shows that the Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald preclude lower courts from using judicial balancing. Heller 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 (http://www.gunowners.com/)
Gun Owners of America, Inc. (www.gunowners.org)
Virginia Gun Owners Coalition (http://www.vgoc.org/)
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (http://www.vcdl.org/)
U.S. Justice Foundation (http://usjf.net/)
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund (www.cldef.org)

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives v. Nancy Gill, et al. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari.

Our amicus brief argues that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted, but not limited to petitioner's two questions, both of which rest upon the assumption that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause imposes an “equal protection” limit on the exercise of Congress’s Taxing and Spending Powers. Our amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to add to the questions to be addressed whether section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process guarantee as it is written, not as it has been construed by the Supreme Court.

Additionally our brief urges the Supreme Court if not persuaded by the textual argument, that it grant the petition to review whether its various balancing tests, including strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis, are wholly unsuitable to the task of objective judicial review, as demonstrated by an illustrative review of the Supreme Court’s decisions and the decision of the court below. Unmoored from the constitutional text, the Supreme Court’s tests have been, and if not abandoned will continue to be, used inconsistently by unelected judges in the unchecked exercise of raw legislative power.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of Capitol Hill Prayer Alert Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Young America’s Foundation, Public Advocate of the U.S., Institute on the Constitution, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Gun Owners Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Senator Dick Black, Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc., Protect Marriage Maryland PAC, and Declaration Alliance.

Today our firm filed Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the case of Gun Owners Foundation v. 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. 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.

On July 16, 2012, we filed Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Answer to Petitioner's Writ-Appeal Petition for Review of Army Court of Criminal Appeals Deceision on Application for Extraordinary Relief in the Form of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

The Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis and more information about the case is available here.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Center for Individual Freedom, et al. v. Chris Van Hollen, et al. 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.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of:
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. (www.freespeechcoalition.org)
The Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
U.S. Justice Foundation (http://usjf.net/)
Institute on the Constitution (http://www.theamericanview.com/)
American Civil Rights Union (http://www.theacru.org/)
Citizens United (http://www.citizensunited.org/)
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund (www.cldef.org)
Downsize DC Foundation (http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/)
DownsizeDC.org (http://www.downsizedc.org/)
Gun Owners of America, Inc. (www.gunowners.org)
Gun Owners Foundation (http://www.gunowners.com/)
Let Freedom Ring USA (http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/)
The National Right to Work Committee (http://www.nrtwc.org/)
Public Advocate of the U.S. (http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/)
U.S. Border Control (http://www.usbc.org/)
The U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
Base Connect, Inc. (http://www.base-connect.com/)

Herb Titus was quoted in the WND.com article "Judge to Feds on Citizen Detention: I Said No!" by Bob Unruh regarding the case of Christopher Hedges v. Barack Obama, et al., in which we filed an amicus brief.

On June 6, 2012, on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, our firm filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 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.

On May 22, 2012, we submitted a challenge to the Oklahoma Republican Party's election of delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention in violation of party rules.

We are representing four individuals, each of whom represents the interests of large groups of other Oklahoma Republicans:
Steve Dickson, as a duly-credentialed delegate to the Oklahoma State Republican Convention held in Norman on May 12, 2012;
Lukus Collins, as a duly-credentialed delegate from Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District to the Republican National Convention to be held in Tampa,August 27-30, 2012;
Jerry Essary, Jr., as Chairman of the Beckham County Republican Party; and
Jake Peters, as one of the at-large delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention elected in Norman.

The WND.com article "U.S. Soldiers Forced To Wear U.N. Logo?" by Bob Unruh discusses our Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis in the case of Michael G. New v. United States.

The Michael New case is back.

On May 16, 2012, we filed a Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis based on the Army's withholding of exculpatory evidence contained in two classified Executive Orders, access to which was unlawfully denied to Mr. New at his 1995 court-martial, at which he was charged and convicted of disobeying a lawful order for refusing to wear the U.N. uniform to serve in a U.N. peace operation in Macedonia.

Uncovered by Mr. New in 2009 by a Mandatory Declassification Review process not available to Mr. New at the time of his court-martial, the petition identifies two classified executive orders — Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD 25) and Presidential Review Directive (PRD 13) — as documents containing material and favorable evidence that, had the two documents been produced as Mr. New had requested, would have supported Mr. New's effort to overcome the presumption that the order that he disobeyed was lawful.

At the heart of Mr. New's petition is the claim that the court-martial prosecutor represented to the military judge that the classified version of PDD 25 was a document of "eight to 10" pages in length when, in fact, the classified PDD 25 document, as later produced by the Clinton presidential library, was almost three times as long.

Based on this new evidence, Mr. New asserts that the failure of the Army prosecutor to produce the actual PDD 25 rendered the court-martial proceeding fundamentally flawed, depriving Mr. New of his liberty and property without due process of law and of his right of to a complete defense secured by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The 35-page petition is available here.
The 48-page brief in support of that petition is available here.
The declassified Presidential Decision Directive 25 and Presidential Review Directive 13 are available here.

Herb Titus and Bill Olson wrote the article "Arizona v. United States: Reading the Tea Leaves of Oral Argument" published on AmericanThinker.com today. An excerpt from the article follows:

"Justices Scalia and Kennedy's questions seemed to track our brief's line of reasoning, asking whether Arizona had the power to exclude aliens who are not legally in the country. If so, then Arizona's policy of enforcement by attrition is perfectly permissible, General Verrilli's claims to the contrary notwithstanding. If Arizona has retained its inherent sovereign authority to defend its internal borders, except as specifically limited by the Constitution, then not one of the four contested provisions of the state's immigration law is preempted by federal law."

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Christopher Hedges v. Barack Obama, et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in support of plaintiffs. This lawsuit challenges the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012's illegal detention provision. A notice of motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief and supporting documents were filed with the amicus brief.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia State Senator Dick Black, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, Inc., U.S. Justice Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, the Western Center for Journalism, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control, Restoring Liberty Action Committee, Tenth Amendment Center, Center for Media and Democracy, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, Professor Jerome Aumente, and the Constitution Party National Committee.

On the same day we filed our amicus brief, April 16, the Hedges plaintiffs filed their Post Hearing Memorandum.

Today our firm joined with other co-counsel to file the following additional pleadings in the case of Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling, et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of plaintiff Sergeant Gary A. Stein:

Plaintiff's Renewed Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Renewed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Declaration of Gary Kreep

Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief as Requested by the Court

Proof of Service

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge denied the temporary restraining order, but scheduled a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction for Friday, January 13.

The San Diego Union-Tribune article "Tea Party Marine sues to stop dismissal" by Gretel C. Kovach discusses our complaint in the case of Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling, et al.

Today our firm joined with other co-counsel to file the following documents in the case of Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling, et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of plaintiff Sergeant Gary A. Stein:

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff Stein's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order

Declaration of Sergeant Gary A. Stein in Support of Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

This is a case about protecting a U.S. Marine against unconstitutional discharge in retaliation for protected speech. Sergeant Gary Stein has served with honor in the Marine Corps for almost nine years, yet he faces the imminent prospect of unfairly expedited proceedings to give him an “Other Than Honorable” discharge, with all its 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.

An 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 U.S. Justice Foundation
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)

Herb Titus wrote a memorandum for Delegate Bob Marshall on H.B. 1160 — A bill to Prevent Virginia from Aiding the U.S. Military in the Detention of Virginians under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. The memorandum discusses the interplay between Virginia H.B. 1160 and the federal law that it addresses, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

Delegate Bob Marshall sent this legal analysis of H.B. 1160 to Govenor Bob McDonnell, as discussed in this Washington Post blog article "Del. Marshall, again, urges McDonnell to sign detention bill" by Anita Kumar.

Today our firm filed reply brief for petitioner in the case of Delroy Fischer v. 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.S.C. 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.S.C. 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 to determine that the state statute has the use of physical force as an element. Next, the Fischer decision is not consistent with the "modified categorical approach." Further, the government would create a federal standard to determine the elements of the state statute. The government has also erroneously assumed that "physical force" as stated in the federal statute includes "subtle and indirect force," and the government erroneously shifts to Fischer the burden to prove that use of physical force is not an element of the state statute. Finally, the government has provided additional reasons to grant Fischer's petition.

On November 21, 2011 our firm filed the petition for writ of certiorari in this case.

The WND.com article "Obamacare Challenged as 'Forcible Economic Rape'" by Bob Unruh discusses our amicus brief in the case of Dept. of Health and Human Services, et al. v. State of Florida, et al.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Dept. of Health and Human Services, et al. v. State of Florida, et al. (Obamacare) in the United States Supreme Court in support of respondents (minimum coverage provision). The brief asked the Court to overturn two of its most extreme, and controversial, Commerce Clause holdings:

"The Government believes that this law is fully justified under this Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence, particularly relying on United States v. Darby and Wickard v. Filburn. These revolutionary Supreme Court decisions cast aside settled constitutional doctrine for reasons of political expediency in the wake of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s threat to pack the Court. The time has come that they should be re-examined and overturned, lest Congress conclude that it can compel whatever behavior it believes would make us a more healthy People — leading us to a totalitarian state where everything not prohibited is mandated."

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of:
Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall
Virginia Senator Dick Black
Oklahoma Representative Charles Key
Institute on the Constitution
U.S. Justice Foundation
Gun Owners Foundation
The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education
The United States Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund
Policy Analysis Center
Downsize DC Foundation
Gun Owners of America, Inc.
The Liberty Committee
Public Advocate of the United States
American Life League, Inc.
DownsizeDC.org.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of State of Arizona et al. v. United States in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners.

Our amicus brief argues that S.B. 1070 is a constitutional exercise of Arizona’s inherent power of self-preservation, the purpose of which is “attrition” of the numbers of illegal aliens living in Arizona. As an exercise of the State's concurrent power over immigration, Arizona's S.B. 1070 is not preempted by federal law. Arizona's S.B. 1070 is an exercise of its constitutional power to engage in war against an actual invasion. The current illegal immigration into Arizona constitutes an “actual invasion,” and Arizona’s “policy of attrition by enforcement” is a proper exercise of its express power to defend against an actual invasion. Instead of performing its constitutional duty to protect Arizona against invasion, the federal government has undermined the State, placing upon it unfunded mandates that attract illegal aliens into the State, and bestowing benefits upon illegal aliens for political reasons.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of:
U.S. Border Control
U.S. Border Control Foundation
Policy Analysis Center
Institute on the Constitution
The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund
Gun Owners of America, Inc.
Gun Owners Foundation
English First
English First Foundation
Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall
Oklahoma Representative Charles Key
Wyoming Senator Kit Jennings

Bill Olson and Herb Titus wrote the article "United States v. Jones Is Rebuilding The Property Foundation Of The Fourth Amendment" published by the Western Center for Journalism today. The article discusses today's Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Antoine Jones, which re-examined the foundations of the Fourth Amendment, and did much to reverse several decades of erosion of the people's protection against unlawful searches and seizures. Our firm filed two Supreme Court amicus briefs in this case, an amicus brief on the petition for writ of certiorari and an amicus brief on the merits.

Herb Titus and Bill Olson wrote the article "The Proposed Enemy Expatriation Act: Sending American Citizens into Exile" published on AmericanThinker.com today. An excerpt from the article follows:

"Introduced as S. 1698 in the Senate and as H.R. 3166 in the House of Representatives, the Enemy Expatriation Act is expressly designed to 'add engaging or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.' These bills are inconsistent with current law and Supreme Court precedent. They appear to be tailored to cow the American people, without regard for the 14th-Amendment guarantee prohibiting Congress from divesting an American citizen of his citizenship."

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Louisiana v. John Bryson in the United States Supreme Court in support of plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, challenging the constitutionality of the 2010 Census.

The United States Census Bureau maintains that it “is required by the U.S. Constitution to count everyone living in this country, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.” Our amicus brief argues that the Census Bureau claim is demonstrably untrue.

First, the United States Constitution did not create the Census Bureau, or even the Department of Commerce, of which the Census Bureau is a part. Thus, the Constitution vests no power directly in the Census Bureau. Rather, the Census Bureau is a creature of the United States Congress. As such, its powers and duties are determined by statute, not by the Constitution. Even then, the law establishing the Census Bureau must itself be “made in pursuance” of the Constitution in order for it to be the law of the land. See U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, Cl. 2.

Further, the Constitution does not require, or even authorize, a census “count [of] everyone living in this country.” Rather, Article I, Section 1, Clause 3, as amended by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, authorizes a targeted decennial census of the “respective numbers” of the People of the several States, not a wholesale count of the numbers of persons found “living” in the United States. Only by such a tailored count can the constitutionally authorized decennial census serve the purpose for which that census has been required — the apportionment of representation of the people of the several states in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Lastly, it is manifestly untrue that the decennial census ordained by the Constitution is to be taken without regard to a person’s “immigration or citizenship status.” The decennial census is conducted for the apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives, the members of which are “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” The first sentence of the 14th Amendment establishes a symbiotic relationship between a person’s United States citizenship and that person’s State citizenship. Thus, whether a person is part of the
People of a State is largely, if not exclusively, dictated by a person’s “immigration or citizenship status.” Any census that ignores that connection is fatally flawed.

Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of:
U.S. Border Control (www.usbc.org)
U.S. Border Control Foundation (www.usbcf.org)
U.S. Justice Foundation (www.usjf.net)
Institute on the Constitution (www.iotconline.com)
Gun Owners of America, Inc. (www.gunowners.org)
Gun Owners Foundation (www.gunowners.com)
English First, (www.englishfirst.org)
English First Foundation (www.englishfirstfoundation.org)
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund (www.cldef.org)
The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education (www.lincolnreview.com)
Public Advocate of the United States (www.publicadvocateusa.org)
Policy Analysis Center
Del. Bob Marshall (www.delegatebob.com)
Rep. Charles Key (www.charleskey.com)
Del. Don Dwyer (delegatedwyer.com)
Rep. Matt Shea (www.voteshea.com)
Sen. Kit Jennings
Bob Fanning (fanning-baldwin.com)
Chuck Baldwin (fanning-baldwin.com)