![”Image](http://i37.tinypic.com/xqf1br.jpg";)
Article, then # 1 and # 2.
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.
Bttt
Good Mercy......stop the negative....
Give Hostage kudos for trying to do something!!!!!!!!
Since the new Leg will be sworn in and seated in January, It might be nice to get a few of the less challenged (and Joe Strauss free) now to weigh in on this as well...
I can think of a few key people, here...
Brian Hughes
Robert Talton
Dennis Paul (rookie, and very accessible to me)
I’m sure a few other Texas FReepers have a few accessibles in their rolodex...
This is a good thing to see how far we can kick it up a notch...At least from a State’s rights perspective...We gonna need a few of these folks in Austin (however weird we keep it) in on this as well...
Especially with the “team” that could be potentially put into place next month...
Abbott, Patrick, Ken Paxton (TexAG), and even Glenn Hagar as the throttle on the budget as Controller...
We also have Nandita Berry in as Secretary of State...She could get all over this real fast, and she’d be very effective getting a lot of the outlying areas in the state behind this...
These are some of the “legs” we will need to make this work...
Just my opinion...
It would help if you had read the post and at least scanned the comments and responses before posting.
A Federal Judge’s Order applies to EVERYONE not just Obama.
Obama can not manufacture 4 million or 34 million green card like IDs which he needs in order to confer his brand of amnesty on illegals.
If a manufacturer of these IDs attempts to violate the Federal Court Order, that manufacturer and its employees will be arrested and incarcerated until Obama’s lawyers appear in the Judges Courtroom and explain their violation of the Court’s Order.
So it is different in this sense, a Federal Judge has guns and jails at his disposal. Congress does not. The small Sargent-At-Arms capability that Congress does possess is never used and the willingness to use it is ever lacking.
So this approach through the federal courts stops Obama cold FOR A TIME.
And for trolls and other detractors to this approach, answer how it is that Obama respected Judge Lamberth’s Preliminary Injunction from which this template is derived?
So enough of this nonsense that Obama will flout a federal court order. He can’t because he has to have people carry out his directives and they can’t because they will be cuffed, booked and locked up in jail.
Very promising input. Please keep the thread posted.
Amnesty in any form is truly checkmate for America the we have known.
obozo is lawless so the rulings of any single or multiple judges’ mean squat to the obozo and his band of criminals.
I just noticed the link in Post #2 does not work. Here’s a link I just checked. The draft RFP link is to the upper right.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=20bc202b0a49bbe9f2a705782dba0090
Make sure everyone shares this story with friends, family and neighbors. This move will turn the country into a third world hell hole.
You think it’s bad now? When this passes Barry will try and become President for life and start making his opponents disappear like Stalinist Russia.
The jail in the Capitol building was closed in 1934. Interestingly, this was immediately after "the President" was named executor of the bankruptcy of 1933.
Article, then # 1 and # 2.
Sounds interesting. Maybe our conservative Congress Critters would be interested.
ping
Burn the phones and email to senators dem and republican tomorrow. Tell them you won’t vote for them unless they expose this plan NOW. Haven’t heard a peep from anyone in Congress about this.
BTTT
Between Cruz and Abbott, anything is possible.
BTTT
Ping!
Thanks but please ping to #28 as well as it has a working link to the RFP. The link in #2 no longer works.
I downloaded the RFP but don’t know how to put in on a site where others can see it. But it can be downloaded.
Whose guns and whose jails?
Who is going to enforce that ruling? Hector B. Billbob?
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
The only reason any POTUS has acceded to any court is because he chose to.
Read.
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.