|
Lois E. Adams, et al, | Plaintiffs, | | versus | Civil Action No: 98-1665 (LFO) | William Jefferson Clinton, et al, | Defendants | | MOTION BY THE PLAINTIFFS, TWENTY CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FOR IMMEDIATE ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN PLAINTIFFS' FAVOR ON THEIR REMAINING CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CLINTON Come now the Plaintiffs in the case, Adams, et al, v. Clinton, et al, Civ. No. 98-1665, (1) through undersigned counsel, to ask this honorable Court to enter summary judgement in Plaintiffs' favor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on their remaining claim in this case against the remaining Defendant, William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as President of the United States. In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs state: 1. This case was filed on June 30, 1998, bringing claims against William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as President of the United States and other Defendants now dismissed from the case, charging violations of the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws. (2) 2. On or about September 18, 1998, Defendant Clinton filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims against him. 3. November 3, 1998, the Court consolidated this case with another case, Alexander, et al v. Daley, et al, Civ. No. 98-2187, which had been filed several months after this case was filed by an unrelated group of Plaintiffs on unique and venerable principles nevertheless unrelated to those at issue in this case. 4. On November 6, 1998, the Court granted an Application the Plaintiffs had filed to set this case before a Three-Judge District Court. 5. On December 22, 1998, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. 6. These Motions, along with others in this case and in the case then consolidated with it, were heard in oral argument on April 19, 1999 by the Three-judge District Court. 7. On March 20, 2000, the Three-Judge District Court entered a Memorandum Opinion addressing "only those claims that challenge the constitutionality of an apportionment of congressional districts . . . ." Adams v. Clinton, Nos. 98-1665, 98-2187 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2000) (Three-judge District Court), slip op. at 7. In its Memorandum, the Three-judge District Court did not address any of the claims or arguments presented by the Plaintiffs in Adams v. Clinton, reserving its attention for the claims and arguments presented in Alexander v. Daley, which claims and arguments are not only different from those presented in Adams but are contrary or adverse to the claims and arguments presented in Adams, so addressing the claims and arguments in Alexander does not address the claims and arguments presented in Adams. 8. The Three-judge District Court dismissed what amounts to all the Plaintiffs' claims against the former Defendants Clerk of the House of Representatives and Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives and the Three-judge District Court dismissed those of the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Clinton which concerned Defendant Clinton's failure to include the Plaintiffs in apportionments of representation in Congress. 9. The Three-Judge District Court also remanded the remaining claims "for determination by the single district judge before whom they were originally filed." Adams v. Clinton, Nos. 98-1665, 98-2187 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2000) (Three-judge District Court), slip op. at 7. 10. Among the claims remanded were the Plaintiffs' claims that Defendant Clinton and former Defendant District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority ("Control Board") violate the Plaintiffs' rights because (generally speaking, for the purposes of the instant Motion) they are unique applications of legislative power over the District of Columbia which Congress does not impose or exercise over other places over which Congress has or has had identical powers under the same paragraph of the Constitution or under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. See March 20, 2000 Three-judge District Court slip op. at 68 n.63. 11. In particular, as concerns Defendant Clinton, it is charged that he approves, ratifies, implements, and enforces all Acts, Resolutions, and mandates of Congress (1) which apply to the District of Columbia and (2) which do not immediately apply in real terms (determined by whether any action, behavior, or expenditure of money is changed or affected) to the entire United States and that this constitutes violations of the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws because Congress does not continue to exercise such discriminatory legislation over the federal enclaves, over which Congress still holds exactly the same kind and degree of power under the same paragraph of the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, ¶ 17, much less has Congress perpetuated it power to exercise such discriminatory legislation over the former portion of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac River or the former continental territories, over which Congress once had identical power as that it holds over the District of Columbia today (see Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Twenty Citizens' Motion for Summary Judgment filed December 22, 1998). 12. On remand from the Three-judge District Court, this Court dismissed what amounted to all Plaintiffs' claims against the Control Board, leaving intact the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Clinton concerning or arising from (generally speaking) unique applications of legislative power over the District of Columbia which Congress does not impose or exercise over other places over which Congress has not or has had identical powers under the same paragraph of the Constitution or the Territories Clause, Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. 14. As to these claims, the Plaintiffs have previously presented copious documentary evidence that there is no reason for Congress to have singled out the District of Columbia to continue to exercise plenary legislative power here, while it has either consolidated other places over which it has identical powers under the same clause and paragraph of the Constitution with the various states or has admitted places over which it has identical powers under another clause of the Constitution, such that it does not now exercise such unique legislative powers there directly or through the Defendant as President of the United States, charged by Congress with enforcing laws Congress imposes on the District of Columbia. 15. The Defendant has presented no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that there is any reason, much less a compelling governmental reason, to so segregate the District of Columbia from the remainder of the United States and continue to exercise plenary power here without exercising its constitutionally identical plenary power elsewhere, with the result that the Plaintiffs, residents of the District of Columbia, are denied a number of fundamental rights protected under the Constitution. 16. Therefore, there is no genuine dispute as to the facts material to the Plaintiffs' claims (see Statement of Twenty Citizens of the District of Columbia, Plaintiffs in Adams v. Clinton, of Material Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Dispute, in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Remaining Claims Against Defendant Clinton, filed simultaneously with this Motion). 17. The law governing the Plaintiffs' claims supports entry of judgment in favor these Twenty Citizens of the District of Columbia (see Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Twenty Citizens' Motion for Summary Judgment filed December 22, 1998). 18. Insofar as there are any issues in dispute, the Court may enter partial summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) and test the remaining disputed issues in an appropriate fact-finding hearing. Therefore, the Plaintiffs ask this honorable Court to enter summary judgment on their remaining claims against Defendant Clinton in his official capacity as President of the United States and grant them relief in the form of the declaratory judgments demanded on pages 22-24 of their Complaint and in the form of the mandatory and perpetual injunction demanded in paragraph C.1a on page 25 of their Complaint. Respectfully submitted,
George S. LaRoche, D.C. Bar number 421991 301-891-3857 (voice & fax) 1 Valley View Avenue Takoma Park, MD 20912 Lois E. Adams, et al, | Plaintiffs, | | versus | Civil Action No: 98-1665 (LFO) | William Jefferson Clinton, et al, | Defendants | | This case having come before the Court on the Motion by the Plaintiffs, Twenty Citizens of the District of Columbia, for Immediate Entry of Summary Judgement in Plaintiffs' Favor on their Remaining Claims Against Defendant Clinton and, upon consideration of the facts and arguments presented by the Plaintiffs in their Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which the Court finds are not controverted, the Court hereby enters the following conclusions of law: 1. The Plaintiffs and all citizens of the District of Columbia have the right to the equal protection of the laws, also expressed as the right to stand on an equal footing with all other citizens of the United States, and 2. Imposition by the Congress of the United States and enforcement by Defendant Clinton of laws, mandates, and actions uniquely concerning the District of Columbia violates the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the United States Constitution by treating the residents of the District of Columbia differently than the residents of the federal enclaves are treated, by treating the residents of the District of Columbia differently than the residents of the former portion of the District south-west of the Potomac River and now in Virginia are treated, and by treating the residents of the District of Columbia differently than the residents of the United States outside the District of Columbia are treated. Therefore, on these findings, it is hereby: ORDERED that Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as The President of the United States and his successors and assigns shall not approve, ratify, implement, or enforce any Act, Resolution, or mandate of Congress (1) which applies to the District of Columbia and (2) which does not immediately apply in real terms (determined by whether any action, behavior, or expenditure of money is changed or affected) to the entire United States, and (3) which has not been previously ratified by the citizens of the District of Columbia by direct vote or by vote of their then elected representatives in the interim home rule government, effective until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in the United States Code on the date this suite was filed) is admitted as a sovereign State on equal footing with all other sovereign States of the United States of America or until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in federal law on the date this suite was filed) is unified with a previously-existing sovereign State of the United States of America, on an equal footing with all other jurisdictions of that State, the choice among these alternatives to be solely decided by the citizens of the District of Columbia. SO ORDERED ENTER:
Louis F. Oberdorfer, District Judge Serve:
Lois E. Adams, et al, | Plaintiffs, | | versus | Civil Case No: 98-1665 (LFO) | William Jefferson Clinton, et al, | Defendants | Undersigned counsel for the Plaintiffs in the case Adams v. Clinton hereby certifies that, on the same day that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate Entry of Summary Judgement in Plaintiffs' Favor on their Remaining Claims Against Defendant Clinton and accompanying documents were filed with the Clerk of the Court, copies were delivered as indicated to counsel of record for the Defendant. Courtesy copies were also sent, by first class mail, to counsel for the former Defendants in this case and to counsel in the formerly consolidated case, Alexander v. Daley. John R. Tyler, attorney at law for Defendant Clinton Civil Division, U.S. D.O.J. by hand 901 E Street, N.W. Room 1074 Washington, D.C. 20004 courtesy copies also to:
Respectfully submitted,
George S. LaRoche 1. This Motion concerns only Civil Action No. 98-1665, because it appears that no claims or issues from the case formerly consolidated with it, Alexander, et al v. Daley, et al, Civ. No. 98-2187, remain before the Court. Copies of the instant Motion will be served on all original parties in Alexander, however, as a courtesy to them. Copies will also be served on the former co-defendants in Adams, the "House Officers" and the "Control Board." 2. Plaintiffs also charged violations of their rights to republican forms of government, but since the Court addressed similar claims against the former defendant "Control Board" on March 20, 2000 and since the instant Motion is not a request to reconsider those judgments, Plaintiffs do not present their Guarantee Clause claims in the instant Motion, though they reserve any question as to whether the claims might remain valid under the law. |
|