Usa District Court District Of Columbia Public Record ?????????????

[Jeraldo]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Abdul Karim Hassan, Plaintiff, -v- Federal Election Commission, Offender. Civil Action #: 11-resume-2189(EGS) OTHER MEMORANDUM PLAINTIFF?S MEMORANDUM OF LAW TOWARDS OFFENDER?S MOTION TO DISMISS Abdul E. Hassan, Esq. Plaintiff, Pro-Se 215-28 Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: 718-740-1000 Situation 1:11-resume-02189-EGS Record 12 Submitted 03/23/12 Page-1 of 33 i STAND OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF SPECIALISTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- two I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1 two. DEBATE-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-1. PLAINTIFF?S CLAIMS ARE JUSTICIABLE ------------------------------------ 2 2. THE INVIDIOUS NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN THE NATURAL CREATED TERM IS TRUMPED, ABROGATED AND IMPLICITLY REPEALED FROM THE EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEE OF THE FIFTH CHANGE--------------------------------------------------------------- 13 3. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT?S CITIZENSHIP TERM BEATS, ABROGATES AND IMPLICITLY REPEALS THE NATURAL BORN RESIDENT TERM-------------------------------------------------- 19 4. THE NATURAL BORN SUPPLY IS INVALID UNDER THE ABSURDITY DOCTRINE AND IN LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTION?S LIBERTY AND JUSTICE AIMS AND THE PRESENT PUBLIC POLICY OF THE COUNTRY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 5. OFFENDER?S REASONS crash THE DRED SCOTT CHECK ------------ 23 III. SUMMARY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 Situation 1:11-resume-02189-EGS Record 12 Submitted 03/23/12 Page 2 of 33 two TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 213(1995) -------------------------------------------------------------- 6, 13 Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253(1967) ---------------------------------------------------------- 16, 17, 19, 20 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672(2009) ------------------------------------------------------------ 15, 23 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 165(1997) -------------------------------------------------------------- 4, 11 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497(1954) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 22, 23 Department v. Cruz, 538 U.S. 254, 285(2003) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Brown v. Panel of Training, 347 U.S. 483, 489(1954) -------------------------------------------------------------- 9, 19 Town of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439(1985) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Dred Scott v. Sandford, sixty U.S. 393(1857) -------------------------------------------------- 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 FEC v. Akins et al, 524 U.S. 11, 22(1998) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3, 4 Federal Election Com'n v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480(1985)---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 3 Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445(1976) -------------------------------------------------------------------17, 18 Griffin v. Oceanic Companies, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 575(1982) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Hassan v. US, Situation 1:11-cv-02189-EGS Record 12 Submitted 03/23/12 Page 3 of 33 iii EDNY ECF: 08-cv-00938-NG-POUND ----------------- 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24 La Mar v. H & W Uniqueness & Mortgage Co., 489 F.2d 461, 469(9th Cir. 1973) ------------------------------------------------------- 13 McDonald v. Town of Chicago, Ill., 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3059 -3060(U.S., 2010) ------------------------------------------ 15, 16 National Conservative Political Action Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 626 F.2d 953(D.C. Cir. 1980) ----------------------------------------------------------- 12 Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44(1957) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17 Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 168(1964) --------------------------------------------------- 16, 17, 20, 22 Sc v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, 412(1984) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Steel Co. v. People to get a Greater Atmosphere, 523 U.S. 83, 94(1998) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 Usa v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 532 d. 6,(1996) ----------------------------------------------------------- 22 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501(1975) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 12 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. Artwork. two, Sec. 1, Cl. 5(?Natural-Born Supply?) --------------------------- passim U.S. Const. Modify. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ passim U.S. Const. Modify. 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- passim LAWS Presidential Election Campaign Finance Work(?Fund Work?) 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013 ------------------------------------------------------------ passim Situation 1:11-resume-02189-EGS Record 12 Submitted 03/23/12 Page 4 of 33 1 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff respectfully submits the minute memorandum towards offender?s movement to ignore. The reality as alleged within the criticism should be obtained as accurate and therefore are included herein. Essentially nevertheless, plaintiff is just a civil rights and work lawyer by occupation who's an applicant for that Presidency of America in 2012 of course if not effective, plaintiff expects to carry on his strategy without disruption before 2016 Presidential elections. Plaintiff is operating for and expects to find the nomination of the Democratic Party in 2012 as well as in 2016. The Presidential Election Campaign Finance Work(?Finance Work?), 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013, offers hundreds of huge amount of money in public financing towards the nominee of main parties, which usually includes the Democratic and Republican parties. Nevertheless, the Federal Election Commission(?FEC?) dominated on September 2, 20111 that since plaintiff is just a naturalized citizen and never an all natural born resident, he's not permitted obtain public financing. Due to the FEC?s thinking and meaning, plaintiff began the minute motion to: 1) state the Deposit Work?s discrimination against plaintiff due to his national origin and standing like a natural-born resident, violates the equivalent security promise of the Sixth Amendment and also the Citizenship Term of the Fourteenth Amendment; and 2) state the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments trump, abrogate and implicitly repeal the invidious national origin discrimination within the natural-born supply of the Structure(View Article II, Part 1, Term 5)? the elegance within the Deposit Work is allegedly premised about the natural-born supply according to the FEC?s meaning. Since the national origin discrimination within the Deposit Work, standing individually, will without real challenge, break the equivalent security promise of the Sixth Amendment, such elegance may drop when the national origin discrimination within the natural-born supply likewise drops underneath the Absurdity Doctrine and also the doctrine of implicit repeal. Additionally, the Citizenship Term that was used to repeal citizenship discrimination within the 1 http://saos.nictusa.com/saos/searchao?SUBMIT=continue&PAGE_NO=-1 Situation 1:11-resume-02189-EGS Record 12 Submitted 03/23/12 Page 5 of 33 2 Structure, as translated, shields naturalized citizenship in the kind of elegance, damage and diminution, brought on by the Deposit Work as well as the natural-born supply. Regarding whether plaintiff endured the prerequisite?damage actually? under Article III, the main issue is if the national origin discrimination within the Deposit Work causes plaintiff to contend on an irregular ground with additional Presidential individuals who're natural-born people. The clear answer is apparent? plaintiff has been compelled to contend on an irregular ground since he's compelled to contend with no to obtain hundreds of thousands in public places funding if selected. Furthermore, as defined below, the Supreme Court cases handling position underneath the Deposit Work and also the national election regulations, firmly support plaintiff?s placement that his statements are justiciable. two. DISCUSSION 1. PLAINTIFF?S CLAIMS ARE JUSTICIABLE In its resistance to plaintiff?s movement to get a three-judge panel, the FEC counted heavily about the Supreme Court?s choice in Federal Election Com'n v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480(1985),(?NCPAC?), to claim this Judge lacks material jurisdiction over this step. Nevertheless, after plaintiff in response noticed that the FEC?s utilization of NCPAC was deceptive, fake and perhaps worse, the FEC in its present movement to ignore, while also fighting that plaintiff?s statements aren't justiciable, doesn't actually note NCPAC even though it may be the top Supreme Court case coping with position underneath the Account Act.(Def. Memo. 6-9). The reason behind the FEC?s preceding misuse and its own present omission of NCPAC is apparent? under NCPAC offender?s reasons are without value and plaintiff has position which Judge has material jurisdiction over this situation. In NCPAC, the Supreme Court present in related component the FEC had legal and Report III standing to create a declaratory judgment motion such as this someone to decide the constitutionality of the Fund Work. The Supreme Court started its evaluation with 26 USC § 9011(w) which particularly Situation 1:11-resume-02189-EGS Record 12 Submitted 03/23/12 Page 6 of 33 3 allows the FEC exactly the same right being an individual voter like plaintiff to create an activity to construe or apply the Fund Work. The Supreme Court specifically mentioned that,?a person voter might prosecute the FEC under 26 U.S.C. § 9011(w) to apply or construe the Act.? This really is just what plaintiff thus has been doing? an activity that's particularly justified in lighting of the FEC?s ruling the public financing regulation for primaries, and by expansion the Deposit Work, limits naturalized citizens like plaintiff. The evaluation is created more persuasive from the proven fact that plaintiff isn't simply an eligible voter - he's also a Presidential candidate whom the FEC has dominated should adhere to the responsibilities of the campaign financing regulations like every additional Presidential choice but isn't eligible for their advantages. When it comes to the Content III needs, the Supreme Court in NCPAC unearthed that the FEC pleased them-and the prerequisite?damage-in fact? existed which the match was fresh despite the fact that the FEC hadn't yet actually obtained any motion fond of NCPAC? As an eligible voter, the FEC should also fulfill the legal and Article III needs. Below, plaintiff?s injury-in fact is a lot more serious here compared to injury-in fact the Supreme Court in NCPAC discovered was adequate under Article III? standing and ripeness are a lot more existing below than in NCPAC. Legislation, including position and ripeness also occur in this instance underneath the Supreme Court?s choice in FEC v. Akins et al, 524 U.S. 11, 22(1998). In Akins, the FEC contended because it does below, that damage-in fact, along side causation and redressibility didn't occur. The FEC?s reasons were declined from the Supreme Court which unearthed that,?The?damage actually? that participants have endured includes their failure to acquire information.? View FEC v. Akins et al, 524 U.S. 11, 22(1998). Below, plaintiff?s?damage actually? Contains his failure and also the denial-of the best to acquire hundreds of thousands in public financing, if selected, due to the FEC?s meaning that plaintiff can't obtain public funding like a naturalized citizen. As a result of this, and also the some other types of damage defined below, plaintiff?s situation listed here is a much more persuasive than that of the plaintiffs in