Understanding super PAC law suit

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by pbmaise, Mar 19, 2012.

  1. pbmaise

    pbmaise New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The lawsuit against super PACs was launched based upon a provision within the Federal Election Campaign Act that allowed any one of voter age to step forward and enforce the Act.

    Enforcement of the Act is done by having the Court approve a request to be citizen attorney general for the United States acting on the behalf of the Federal Election Commission.

    To obtain standing harm must be shown and threat of new harm.

    Further one must demonstrate the FEC failed to enforce the Act.

    Once standing is established...you now present the legal argument.

    That is the easy part.


    On January 31, 2012 the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (2nd highest court in US) already said reasonable person test applies to campaign contributions.

    This means if reasonable person understands their money will to toward promoting a specific candidate..then legally the money was as if given to that candidate directly.

    There is no such thing in law as separation and non-connected.

    See Facebook for more details and links to documents filed.

    Suit is now in hands of 3 judges of Ninth Circuit Court.

    http://www.facebook.com/SuperPacFederalLawsuit
     
  2. pbmaise

    pbmaise New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Those that wish to comment before 3 judge panel in Ninth Circuit Court rules upon preliminary injunction request are encouraged to do so as soon as possible. The Plaintiff has requested a ruling on an expedited basis owing to reports of senior citizens being pressured into exceeding individual campaign contribution limits at group meetings.

    This notice does not indicate you or your organization will be effected by the case. The Plaintiff is unable to publicly disclose who is effected.

    Case information is now available on PACER.

    1:12-cv-00004 Maise v. Political Action Committees-Class I et al
    Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood, presiding
    Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr, referral
    Date filed: 03/19/2012
    Date of last filing: 03/19/2012

    Parties
    Philip B. Maise
    Proposed Plaintiff and Citizen Attorney General of the United States Acting on the Behalf of the U.S. Federal Election Commission

    CO Sarawak Land (Kemena Park)
    Miri Bay Marina - S.V. Hot Buoys
    Lot 271 Brighton, Jalan Temenggong Datuk Oyong Lawai Jau
    Miri, Sarawalk
    MY
    69-019-879-5673
    pbmaise@yahoo.com
    Added: 03/19/2012
    (Plaintiff)
    PRO SE


    Defendants
    Political Action Committees-Class I
    Added: 03/19/2012
    (Defendant)
    Individual Defendants-Class IIa, Class II-b, Class II-c
    Added: 03/19/2012
    (Defendant)
    Non-Individual Defendants-Class II-d
    Added: 03/19/2012
    (Defendant)
    Organization Defendants-Class II-e
    Added: 03/19/2012
    (Defendant)
    Other Defendants-Class III-a, Class III-b, Class III-c
    Added: 03/19/2012
    (Defendant)


    For those without access to PACER documents have been posted on Google Docs and may be viewed free of charge.

    Supplemental Brief 9 pages (Not yet filed)
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNVXVSOURqSldRU0NFVXctd3RFVkpoUQ

    Complaint - and Brief 105 Pages
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNRXdhUV9PeFpURVdsNHN6Q2hsdVNuQQ


    Exhibit 1
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNMGVZQy0za1RUNldsUWQtYUV5NDlWZw

    Exhibit 2
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNZTFCMzhIWlFSVDI4bWN5M0hfaEl4QQ

    Exhibit 3
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNN3hsYVA3amVTN3VpRXg3NlJ2M29hQQ

    Exhibit 4
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNSjdUYzdYNFRSaXlFdlRiQjNLX3Nxdw
     

Share This Page