Replies

Please ping this post to your lists.

From the Template link in the bottom of #46 above:

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.

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.

Let’s take them one at a time and remember that the plaintiff need only establish facts of concerns that are to be sorted out later, i.e. a Motion of Preliminary Injunction need not argue the larger case but serve only to stop a process from proceeding that may otherwise have serious consequences until its legality and material impact are sorted out in Court (the larger case).

Note also that a Federal Preliminary Injunction is a Federal Court Order similar to a Temporary Restraining Order and is needed to GAIN TIME for the purpose of the party bringing it to be better organized and positioned for the larger case filing. It can gain as much as a year and possibly two. It can become permanent if not contested or until overridden by Congressional action.

Lastly note that a Federal Court Order applies to federal officers, federal officials and federal contractors where violation of the court order can lead to charges of contempt, incarceration and fines. Federal Judges have US Marshals at their disposal who are capable of indefinitely detaining violators of federal court orders.

With respect to (1) of the Legal Standard:

There is a reasonable substantial likelihood of success on the merits based on previous cases in which the Executive Branch overreached its authority and its constitutional bounds. (Attorneys for a Governor or State AG will fill this item out in the pleading with recent multiple examples of case law)

The idea is specific to facts that an unauthorized solicitation for CARDS above and beyond what the US Congress has authorized is a clear overreach of Executive Authority. (Must be careful here not to give the judge a reason to rule that Congress should therefore deal with it). Congress has recessed without addressing the matter and has not indicated any inclination to take measures to stop a ‘surge’ of manufacturing of the CARDS. Congress’ inaction and the uncertainty of Congressional action on this matter places the State of ___________ in peril as described in (2) of this legal standard.

With respect to (2) of the Legal Standard:

The State of ___________ will suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction in the estimated amount of $$$ as itemized in Exhibit X, noting the facts herein described how the the proposed CARDS and attendant Work Permits are access devices to SSNs, State IDs and State Drivers Licenses with particular attention drawn to the evidence as to eligibility for public benefits, to the general welfare, tax burdens and economic prospects of the Public, to a broader issue who is and who is not a US citizen or US permanent resident as relates to eligibility for state benefits and services, to be licensed or who and who is not a United States citizen registered to vote, all of which above hereto are in violation of the Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 (recitals; sectional references etc.)

(Here the argument must emphasize that time is of the essence, that the State of ___________ cannot rely on action of Congress before irreparable harm is done, etc. )

Importantly, the State of ___________ requests the Court enjoin all other States, the District of Columbia, the Federal Government of the Unites States of America and all US and Non-US manufactures of said CARDS for the following reason. Issuance of any of these CARDS outside the State of ___________ can and will (cite evidence of DACA histories) lead to the issuance of State IDs and State Driver Licenses in those jurisdictions which under (cite federal and state laws) require the State of ___________ to recognize and reciprocate such documents with new documents to be issued by the State of ___________ upon proof of residency. In other words, the illegal person’s documents are laundered masking evidence of the illegal person’s origin and status.

Following on the previous paragraph, the other jurisdictions must be enjoined in the interest of National Security (here pleads irreparable harm ensues by the peril of free movement of persons associated with enemies of the United States).

With respect to (3) of the Legal Standard:

An injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties as those parties are defined as a class of foreign persons that are illegally in the United States by premeditated deliberate action (hereinafter referred to as illegal aliens, illegal persons or illegal class), that such illegal persons are not entitled to the welfare, benefits, opportunities and privileges afforded to legal residents of the State of ___________, that an injunction denying manufacture and issuance of the CARDS to such illegal persons will not further endanger or hazard their current condition as exists now in absence of the CARDS acknowledging the CARDS will be enabling of such illegal persons to improve their conditions but such enabling is prospective and irrelevant to the existing state of conditions characterizing this illegal class and to the fact that denying these CARDS will not impact their existing conditions. On the contrary the issuance of these CARDS will hazard the legal residents of the State of ___________ as described in detail in Exhibit Y (case recitals, etc.).

With respect to (4) of the Legal Standard:

The injunction requested would further public interest and in fact is vital to the continuation of good governing practices and to the effective execution of law enforcement function and to the broad stability of the public at large.

(Here is written a persuasive argument and summary for the consequences that are in evidence of the burdens to society and governance; for example the tens of thousands of illegal voter registrations found in North Carolina of recently similarly documented DACA persons, the entrainment of hundreds of thousands more of illegal persons crossing the border where the CARDS provide direct impetus to such newly arrived persons, etc.)

Remarks may also be made that neighboring countries have border and immigration controls that serve to check disruptive waves of a free-for-all rush to a failed border, etc.

_______________________

THE ABOVE will need to be written by a team of experienced attorneys at the disposal of a State Governor or a State AG with careful annotation and recitals. It is not necessary AT THIS STAGE to write a full case pleading. It is only necessary to adequately cover the Legal Standard above to allow the judge to draw a benefit of the doubt in favor of the State.

Further tactics may be considered. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction may be filed in federal court in the DC Circuit. This will apply the federal injunctive order to all the States, the District of Columbia and to Contractors based outside the US, thereby preventing manufacture and issuance of these CARDS from any source and from any geographic area.

IN SUM, this motion asks for a federal judge to put a hold on the CARDS until all of its ramifications can be ascertained and measured.

Freepers should seek to find an attorney who is experienced in government matters and ask them to write a more polished draft motion according to this Legal Standard and possibly incorporating points similar to the above suggestions. It should be written as soon as possible (2 weeks max) and then presented to the State Governor’s Office or their State Attorney General’s Office.

Here again is the link to a template that was adopted from a successful federal injunction against the Obama Administration:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3217959/posts