Posted on 10/21/2014 2:59:34 PM PDT by Hostage
In response to the backdoor Executive Amnesty presently in progress (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3217287/posts), the following template is provided:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF [INSERT DISTRICT HERE]
__________________________________________)
[NAMES OF PLAINTIFFS], et al., )
Plaintiffs, )
v. ) _____________ Civ. No. [CASE NUMBER HERE]
LEON RODRIGUEZ, et al.,(Director of USCIS) )
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion [3] for a Preliminary Injunction.
[Insert short description of any prior litigation]
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT plaintiffs’ motion and issue a preliminary injunction
II. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
[Summarize prior motions, rulings, appeals etc.]
B. [Issues Before The Court]
[Discuss the issues pertinent to the court including citations, references, related cases, etc.]
C. Regulatory Background
In [Year], Congress enacted ...
[Discuss all Congressional Mandates that presently prohibit contested Executive Actions ]
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only when the party seeking the relief, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion. Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d (251, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2004). A party carries this burden of persuasion by establishing: (1) that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) that an injunction would further public interest. Mova Pharm. Corp. v. Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).
The Court evaluates these factors on a “sliding scale.” Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Under this approach, the Court balances the factors against each other to determine whether the plaintiff has shown that “all four factors, taken together, weigh in favor of the injunction.” Id. at 1292. Thus, a particularly strong showing on one factor may offset a weaker showing on another factor. See id. at 1291-92 (“If the movant makes an unusually strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor.”). The plaintiff, however, must show at least some injury to warrant the preliminary injunction because “the basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable harm.” CityFed Fin. Corp., 58 F.3d at 747.
IV. ANALYSIS
The Court finds that the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to plaintiffs, the balance of hardships, and public interest considerations each weigh in favor of a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Counsel, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT plaintiffs’ motion and issue the preliminary injunction.
A. Likelihood of Success
[Describe the arguments asserted by plaintiffs; note that the Court need only rule a strong likelihood of success and therefore does not need to find defendents in violation.]
1. [List the clarity and meaning of present federal laws that have jurisdiction]
2. [List how the present action of the defendents violate the meaning and intent of the law] ...
B. Irreparable Injury
This Circuit has established a high standard for irreparable injury . Chapliancy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006). First, a plaintiff must allege an injury that is “both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical.” Id. (quoting Wisc. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The alleged injury must be “of such imminence that there is a ‘clear and present’ need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm.” Id. (citation omitted). Second, the plaintiff’s alleged injury “must be beyond remediation.” Id. Plaintiffs Sherley and Deisher have met this high burden.
[Summarize here how accordingly to the narrative of the issues, plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury in the absence the injunction]
C. Balance of Hardships
The balance of hardships weighs in favor of an injunction.
[Summarize here both plaintiff and defendant hardships, then why the plaintiff's injuries are not speculative and are actual and imminent]
D. Public Interest
Finally, the public interest weighs in favor of a preliminary injunction. “It is in the public interest for courts to carry out the will of Congress and for an agency to implement properly the statute it administers.” Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Shalala, 81 F. Supp. 2d 30, 45 (D.D.C. 2000).
[Summarize here the meaning and intent of the law and how the current actions of the defendents must be enjoined from implementing their present activity in violation of the law]
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have established that the preliminary injunction factors—the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, the balance of hardships, and the public interest—weigh in favor of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT plaintiffs’ motion [3] for a preliminary injunction. A separate order shall issue this date.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1575-44
One Freeper has already very briefly met with the TX AG and we are waiting on a followup
Please take the above template to any attorney with requisite experience or willingness and have them work a draft. A draft motion can be very helpful in presenting to a party with standing such as a State AG or a Governor's Office.
Federal Preliminary Injunction Orders are not so difficult to achieve if the underlying pleading is a good one and this is a good one. The question of how long the federal injunctive order can be left in place is open. But at least a year can be gained and very likely more than a year can be gained with such an injunctive order in place.
The Obama Administration violates laws seemingly at will and more brazenly as time progresses. But violating a federal judge's order is whole other deal. Because a federal judge has the power to arrest violators of such orders and ultimately such an order against the Executive Branch pits two equal branches of government against each other with the federal court having authority to arrest and detain in this case any federal official, officer or federal contractor that attempts to violate the federal orders.
See below for more links and references.
Here’s the government (pre)solicitation link:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?id=a432eb7928319f1e3c020b40ee924ce3
You can download the Draft RFP and yellow highlight Page 5 and Page 28 in the last sentence under section 4.
Note this is a draft and is subject to change. Need to act quick before the other side scrubs the damning verbiage to avoid a lawsuit.
Take the above to attorneys or political officials or activists that are sympathetic and get them to volunteer to write a draft motion pleading for the federal injunctive order.
Any Freepers in Alabama should get this to Senator Sessions IMMEDIATELY. We can be sure his staff will interactive with the Alabama State Government to blaze a trail to the federal courts on this.
Other state government offices should also be pursued. State governments including governor offices and state AG offices have standing to bring this.
BUMP
Best thing you’ve ever posted.
Thank you. It should have legs.
*
Have you sent it to Mark Levin?
No haven’t because I have the sense perhaps wrongly that it will be lost in the thousands of emails he receives daily. It would be fantastic if a Freeper can get his attention.
Rush also.
Yes I agree that is hardship and harm on the state. Such consequences will burden state health and judicial agencies and importantly burden citizens in the current employment and economic environment.
I hope it will work, on the surface it “seems/feels” as empty as Bohner “Lawsuit” against obama that surprise, surprise, has gone exactly NOWHERE...
I reviewed Boehnor’s lawsuit and he was not asking for a federal injunction. His approach was much more problematic.
This is a temporary ‘Preliminary Injunction’ and with a good pleading argument can be attained. It is similar to a Temporary Restraining Order which are also easy to attain with good argument.
And the argument does not have to be a full blown case presentation. It can be short and to the point and the judge will grant the preliminary injunction if all the points are met in some sense.
So it BUYS TIME which is what we need.
You can bet that the present Congress and the one coming in will not stop Executive Amnesty.
But the States via federal court filings have a chance to put it on hold until we get better organized and better positioned to make it stick.
It is my prediction that federal injunctions will be issue within 2 hours and any one that violates that injunction in any way — including ICE or HLS will be subject to contempt enforceable by the United States Marshal. To hell with the Justice department. Not only acts in furtherance of the dictators unconstitutional treason but all funding can be enjoined. This will fast track to the Supreme court where they will uphold the injunction and stop the dictator cold. Im sure it will be at least 5 to 4 and maybe 6 to 3. This is a constitutional crises unseen in our nation before. I fear great violence. God Bless America.
To incur also involuntarily and by means other than natural law, the obligations of citizenship are also potentially a harm and hardship placed upon the alien child, for example, the responsibility for the national debt or for military service if need be.
Great work!
What do you think of this idea?
Wake up people.
Obama can do anything he damn well please until/unless he is impeached and removed from office. Or, Congress by veto-proof majority precludes the use of the peoples money for some specific act.
That's the way our system is set up.
Do you people not know history?
Look up how Andrew Jackson handled the USSC. He SHAMED them.
Obama pays no attention to laws or the Constitution. What makes them think that he would listen to a federal judge?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.