Our Request For Amicus
In McConnell v. FEC
April 27, 2002
Today a letter requesting permission to file an amicus curiae brief describing the effect of Walker v. United States was mailed to the various legal representatives in the case of McConnell et al v. FEC et al. McConnell is a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the recently passed Campaign Finance Reform law. You can examine all legal documents in the McConnell case by use of this link.
MCCONNELL ATTORNEYS IGNORE AMICUS REQUEST
It came as no surprise that our request to file an amicus brief in McConnell et al. v. FEC et al. was ignored by all the plaintiffs in the case. As Walker v. United States creates a perfect defense for the United States in this matter, it is no wonder that none of the plaintiffs wanted the court to consider the case.
Further, it is no surprise the United States Government did not respond to the request for permission to file an amicus brief. For obvious reasons the Government cannot assert publicly their claim made in Walker in a public forum which upset their plans. It is one thing to assert the Government is not bound to obey the Constitution in a district court case in the judicial backwaters and quite another to assert the same where every politician and political group is watching every single move of the Government.
AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN MCCONNELL CASE
JULY 18, 2003
The fact the plaintiffs did not grant permission for an amicus brief does not necessarily prevent the filing of such a brief in the Supreme Court. Under the Court's rules, a brief may be filed without such permission if the Court agrees to its filing. Therefore today, July 18, 2003 an amicus brief in McConnell et al. v. FEC et al., was filled in the Supreme Court of the United States. This brief was filed primarily to let the politicians and other Government officials realize there are consequences to every action, even if you win a court case such as the Government did in Walker v. United States. Walker also effects the Court itself and this fact was discussed in the brief.
We will not attempt to repeat all the points of our amicus brief here except to state the brief places the Government in the horns of a dilemma. In sum, if the Government maintains Walker was a dismissed case having no effect whatsoever, then it follows the original intent of the Constitution must be obeyed or the Government faces criminal sanctions. If on the other hand, if it claims Walker was a valid ruling then it follows the Government supports a dictatorship. In either case, Walker has a major effect on McConnell as the brief explains.
We await the wisdom of the Supreme Court and the Government in addressing this issue.
You can read our amicus brief using this link.
ELITIST ATTORNEYS BLOCK SUPREME COURT AMICUS FILING
AUGUST 8, 2003
Our filing of a Supreme Court Amicus Brief in the matter of McConnell v. United States was prevented by elitist Washington D.C. attorneys, none of whom were connected with the McConnell case. Despite repeated attempts to find a "counsel of record" as required by Supreme Court rules in order to permit the filing of an amicus brief, no Washington D.C. attorney contacted by us was willing to do so.
The "counsel of record" requirement of the Supreme Court in the case of an amicus brief is nothing more than a formality. Once an amicus brief is submitted to the Supreme Court, there is no further action on the matter. Our request was not made pro bono. In other words, it was made clear we were willing to pay for the service which involved no more than an attorney who is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court placing a sticker on the front cover of our brief with his name, address and phone number on it. This action does not imply the attorney agrees with the contents of the brief nor in any way was obligated to defend its assertions. This fact was acknowledged by the various attorneys contacted.
Obviously, based on the comments of the attorneys, it is clear the subject matter and its conclusions disturbed them. THERE CAN BE ONLY TWO INFERENCES DRAWN FROM THE REFUSAL OF THE ATTORNEYS TO ALLOW THE AMICUS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT:
1. The attorneys desired the Supreme Court justices face criminal prosecution for contempt charges rather than deal with the subject matter of Walker v. United States in a judicial capacity.
2. THE ATTORNEYS REALIZED WHAT WAS ASSERTED IN OUR AMICUS BRIEF MUST BE TRUE AND WERE AFRAID TO DEAL WITH IT. THIS WAS QUITE EVIDENT FROM THE TENOR OF THEIR VOICES OVER THE PHONE. Most were obviously shocked to learn about the defacto dictatorship that now exists and tried to deny it. When pressed to describe the situation other than as a dictatorship or tyranny, none of the attorneys could do so.
WHETHER OR NOT OUR AMICUS WAS FILED IS ACTUALLY SECONDARY. NOW, THANKS TO ACTIONS OF SEVERAL PROMINENT ATTORNEYS ALL OF WHOM ARE SKILLED IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT WHAT WAS AND IS ASSERTED IN OUR BRIEFS IS THE TRUTH.
We are providing the following link naming the attorneys contacted and their phone numbers should anyone wish to pursue the matter further with them. We will not pursue the amicus brief any further. It has done its work whether or not it was actually filed. Now those in Washington know about Walker and its effects. Their actions have only served to enforce and cement the ruling into place.
We must in all fairness however give credit to the Government where due. While the Supreme Court clerical staff would not allow our brief to be filed without a "counsel of record" the Solicitor General of the United States did recognize our amicus filing as satisfying "counsel of record." Therefore, insofar as the Government was concerned, it was willing to present the matter to the Supreme Court as written. As the Solicitor General assumed one position and the Supreme Court another regarding "counsel of record" requirements, it is unclear at this time whether or not our amicus will be read by the justices of the Supreme Court in the McConnell case. We will post further information on this as it becomes available.
We will undertake other legal remedies to be announced at a later date.
First District Court Case
Letters to the Government
Letter to the Supreme Court
Lois Capps Letter
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Page
Second Court Case
Supreme Court Letter
Supreme Court Page
What The Court Decision Means