![”Image](http://i44.tinypic.com/9ulyxd.jpg";)
.
Back to the thread.
Link in Post #2 doesn't work, but it is working in Post #28. Check it out.
Thanks Hostage, for letting us know.
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.
Ask Freeper Holdonnow to attempt to get Marks attention.
You couldn’t be more wrong and it’s surprising how unaware you are of a judge’s power.
A judge has bailiffs and armed court agents that can cuff and lead parties appearing in court to a jail processing center and such jails are usually connected to the courthouse.
For parties in violation of a court order, a judge has the power to issue a bench warrant for LEOs to carry out. For a federal judge those LEOs could be US Marshals.
Will do, thanks.
Only if Obama so orders.
Wake up.
The office of POTUS was not designed for the corrupt. It waa always assumed, originally assumed that the only person able to gain a majority of the Electoral College would be an honest, decent man.
There is no protection built in, other then the Purse and Impeachment, to rein in a corrupt POTUS.
Study. That way you will not be subject to this criticism.
Delusional.
And beyond ignorant.
Every Federal Agent/Law Enforcement officer, EVERY Federal Attorney, EVERY FEDERAL Judge, excepting the USSC works at the pleasure of POTUS. They will do as he orders.
As for LEO, send them after POTUS and see how long they live.
Delusional fantasy, nothing more.
.
Back to the thread.
Link in Post #2 doesn't work, but it is working in Post #28. Check it out.
Thanks Hostage, for letting us know.
Again you couldn’t be more wrong.
http://www.justice.gov/marshals
As the nation’s oldest and most versatile federal law enforcement agency, the Marshals Service occupies a uniquely ***central position*** in the federal justice system. It is ***the enforcement arm of the federal courts***, involved in virtually every federal law enforcement initiative.
A US Marshal is going to carry out and enforce a Federal Judge’s Order period.
If Holder tells them to stand down, they will not obey and a Constitutional Crisis will emerge. I say BRING IT.
Bump
> “...EVERY FEDERAL Judge, excepting the USSC works at the pleasure of POTUS. They will do as he orders.”
Federal Judges work for Obama? And you call me delusional?
Let me guess....you are an Obama troll and you’re scared that Freepers have a viable approach to shut your messiah down?
Just everyone with a gun or a jail or a vehicle for transport.
Everyone who has the means to investigate a crime, the authority to charge a crime, or who owns a prison to punish a crime, works for POTUS.
Except Congress is Constitutionally Authorized to withhold funds, and impeach/convict/remove.
Any/every POTUS who chooses to ignore a Federal Court order can do so with impunity absent impeachment.
> “Just everyone with a gun or a jail or a vehicle for transport.”
Nope. Courts have jails connected to them that they control.
A portion of US Marshals are assigned to and work for federal courts and act on orders of federal judges.
It would be great for someone to get this to Mark Levin, but an even more effective recipient would be Senator Ted Cruz.
In fact, I’d be surprised if he’s not already working on something exactly like this. The man is a brilliant legal tactician who’s argued before the Supreme Court nine times.
He was also the Solicitor General of Texas before being elected to national office.
Bump that.
They're about the only two that I have any confidence in, at this point. I'm willing to bet they're both working on some sort of legal challenge as we speak.
aka, Mark Levin.
Yes, trying to get this to Mark Levin through some Freepers that may have his ear.
Cruz is my favorite but I am not one of his constituents. If you are in TX, then you have standing to call his office and ask around. Perhaps you can pick up the ball for TX and find willing parties to move ahead on this.
Cruz himself would not be able to get Congress to take the matter up because impeachment trial and power of the purse are their remedies and Congress won’t use those powers.
But Cruz has enormous influence and a brilliant mind as well as deep knowledge of the US Constitution as well as the laws. His office could interact with the State of Texas to get this done.
Bfl
Isn’t the RFP just the introduction to the new green cards with more security features (holographic images, RFID chips)? They talked about the changes back in 2010?
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=31962
“USCIS will replace Green Cards already in circulation as individuals apply for renewal or replacement.”
Also what is the template? It looks like a court opinion. Aren’t they normally written by the judge at the end of the procedure after all the motions are filed? Is it going to be submitted along with the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as a suggestion for the judge?
First look at post #2 where it says to highlight in yellow (after downloading except the link in #2 no longer works, a working link is in #28) page 5 and page 28 under Section 4 last sentence. The RFP is clearly written for immigration reform and there is no law yet for immigration reform. This RFP solicitation is for Executive Amnesty and therefore is an unlawful act in and of itself as there is no basis in current law for its creation.
To your second point, yes this is a memo of opinion that explains the federal injunction order to follow. A motion draft should be patterned on lines following this memorandum. I could not find handily the original motion, it may be out there but it is not necessary. The Judge’s ruling is what carries weight and any lawyer or office with standing can use this ruling opinion template to draft a motion that leads to such an opinion. Lawyers do it all the time and work backwards.
It is best to work backward from a judge’s ruling opinion than to craft a motion de novo. There can be additions that a lawyer feels are important that were left out of a particular judge’s ruling, but the process is a back and forth one that results in a motion that is as bulletproof as possible.
One of the big pluses of this approach is that it does not require a full blown case presentation. It can be short and to the point. A federal judge can grant an injunction as long as the basis and analysis is covered sufficiently and you can find some of those elements in this template.
This approach is designed to BUY TIME and not to win outright. It can buy as much as a year or more and that is essential to allow states to get organized and better positioned.
It is also an oppotune time to introduce this as the public is getting ready to vote and they are in a very nasty anti-amnesty mood. So this effort helps political incumbents and candidates who benefit from the anti-amnesty sentiment. For example, Abbott in Texas could file a motion this week and gain a lot of positive attention that he is doing something about Obama’s back door amnesty which is stealthily moving with an RFP to manufacture millions upon millions of green card like IDs for the purpose of future immigration reform. It’s illegal to spend anything on issues that are politically contested and which are not yet law.
The current annual work ID and green card production is less than a million. Anything more than that is for the purpose of Executive Amnesty. If the proposal manager scrubs the RFP so that it appears to be benign, the evidence is already out there that it is not.
A Motion For Preliminary Injunction should not only seek to shutdown this card production solicitation but also leave open any activity the court deems unlawful in connection with Obama’s announced bypassing of Congress for Executive Amnesty. So if there be more discoveries of attempts to bypass Congress on immigration law, then it will be stopped by general restrictions of the preliminary injunction.
(LucyT you might this to be informative)
Later
Thats’s why state legislatures need to start putting their states first, and the Feds second on EVERYTHING!!!
Cancel them out...Start taking the hits on Federal funding reductions, and stop letting those influences keep the states inline with the Feds...This is what has been the crutch we need to shed...Period...
It will be so interesting, and entertaining, to watch the Feds go take a long walk off a short pier when all is said and done...
Until that time, the wheel of feckless wanderings of our elected caste of schmups will continue to screw YOU and the rest of us till they are taught a new word...
“Unemployment”...
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.