Layman's Notes
Plain Language of 20 Citizens' Court Documents
|
| 1 Complaint |
|
The COMPLAINT defines the case. The Complaint identifies all the
people who are involved in the case, tells all the facts about the case, explains who did
what to whom and what's wrong because of it. The Complaint asks the court to do
something about the injuries described in the Complaint. The Complaint not only
starts the case; it will be at the center of the case until the very end. The
Complaint in this case has five sections. First is the caption of the Complaint;
this tells you which court the case is in, who the Plaintiffs and Defendants are, what the
case number is, and who the judge is. Second are general, background facts about the
Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the circumstances which tied the Plaintiffs to the
Defendants. Third is the first "Count" or legal claim by the Plaintiffs
against the Defendants for an injury. This "Count" sets out the facts
which describe how the Defendants in this case have infringed the Plaintiffs' right to
"the
equal protection of the laws" (also called "equal treatment under law").
In later documents of the case, the meaning of these legal phrases will be made
clearer. For now, let's just say it means that the Defendants discriminated against
the Plaintiffs in a way which results in loss of a variety of other, basic
rights. Fourth is the second "Count" brought by the Plaintiffs against the
Defendants. This Count sets out the facts which describe how the Defendants have
infringed the Plaintiffs' rights to "republican forms of government." This
phrase comes from the Constitution. It doesn't have anything to do with the
Republican Party. It can be translated into "democratic government," and
means government which the people have elected. Finally, there's the section where
the Plaintiffs ask the court to do something about these injuries. The Plaintiffs
ask the court for three specific categories of "relief" from the Defendants'
actions. First, they ask the court to declare that they have the rights described
and that the Defendants violate those rights. Second, they ask the court to declare
that certain more specific things the Defendants do violate the Plaintiffs rights.
These declarations are the heart and core of what the Plaintiffs want from the
court. But, in anticipation of the fact that the Defendants might not be willing to
heed the court's declarations, the Plaintiffs then ask the court for injunctions.
Some of these injunctions reach pretty far, but the court would only use them if the rest
of what the Plaintiffs ask for didn't bring the Defendants around. |
| 2 Three Judge Application |
|
At the same time they filed the Complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a request
that the court convene a special sort of court to hear the case: a United States District
Court comprised of three judges, sitting together. This sort of court is fairly
rare, but they are specially provided to hear cases involving apportionment of
representation in state and federal legislatures. Since this case involves inclusion of
the citizens of the District of
Columbia in apportionments of representation in Congress, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a
three-judge district court. |
| 3 |
|
Once the Plaintiffs asked for a three-judge district court, the court has
to create one. In this case, however, the judge initially assigned to the case
realized that this case is a bit different from others, so he ordered the Defendants to
file statements on July 21, 1998, whether they thought the case belonged in front of a
three-judge court. |
| 4 Appearance |
|
The way an attorney other than the plaintiffs' attorney lets the court
know that he or she will be involved in the case on behalf of a Defendant or some other
interested party, the attorney files an "appearance," saying, in effect,
"I'm so-and-so, representing so-and-so, and I'm here." This is the
appearance for the attorneys who represent the Clerk of the House of Representatives and
the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives. |
| 5 |
|
Since the judge set a fairly short time for the Defendants to respond to
the Plaintiffs' Application for a three-judge district court and since the
defense attorneys for the President had some conflicts on their schedules,
they asked the court to allow them more time to file their response. It's
called a "consent" motion because they had previously asked the Plaintiffs'
attorney if he would mind if they asked for more time, because they had a
conflict, and the Plaintiffs' attorney was willing to "consent" to the request. |
| 6 |
|
The court clerk's office sends out notices of orders; this one notes that
the court had granted the President's request for more time to respond to
the Plaintiffs' Application for a three-judge district court. |
| 7 |
|
This is the actual Order, telling the attorneys for Defendant Clinton that
they have until August 4 to respond to the Plaintiffs' Application for a
three-judge district court. |
| 8 |
|
Since the judge set a fairly short time for the Defendants to respond to
the Plaintiffs' Application for a three-judge district court and since the
defense attorneys for the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant at Arms of the
House had some conflicts on their schedules, they asked the court to allow
them more time to file their response. It's called a "consent" motion
because they had previously asked the Plaintiffs' attorney if he would mind
if they asked for more time, because they had a conflict, and the
Plaintiffs' attorney was willing to "consent" to the request. |
| 9 Motion to Dismiss |
|
On July 21, 1998, the Control Board was scheduled to file their response
not only to the Plaintiffs' Application for a three-judge court, but also to
the Complaint. A Defendant's response to the Complaint is called the
Answer. (The President and the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant at Arms
of the House have a different deadline under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; they are due to Answer on September 1, 1998).
Instead of answering the Complaint, however, a defendant can file a Motion
to dismiss the case against that defendant, if the defendant thinks that
certain fundamental things are missing in the case. The Control Board filed
a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Plaintiffs in this case do not have
"standing." Standing is a complex doctrine, designed to test whether the
people who are bringing the suit are the "right" people to bring the suit and
whether the defendant in the suit is the "right" defendant. |
| 10 D's Response to 3-judge
Application |
|
The Control Board also filed their Response to the Plaintiffs' application
for a three-judge district court. The Control Board thinks that the
Plaintiffs are not entitled to a three-judge district court. |
| 11 |
|
The Court had given all the Defendants other than the Control Board until
August 4 to respond to the Plaintiffs' application for a three-judge court,
but the Control Board filed its response on July 21. Since everything filed
by a party starts a clock running for the opposing parties to respond to the
filing, the Plaintiffs would have had to reply to the Control Board's
response sooner than the Plaintiffs would reply to the other Defendants'
responses. So the Plaintiffs asked the court for permission to reply to all
the responses at the same time (to "toll the clock" on the reply to the
Control Board's response, starting that clock running at the same time as
the clock would start running on the federal Defendants' responses). The
Defendants consented to the Plaintiffs' Motion. |
| 12 |
|
The Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to toll the clock on their reply
to the Control Board's response to the Plaintiffs' Application for a
three-judge district court. |
| 13 P's Opposition to Motion
to Dismiss |
|
Once the Control Board had filed a Motion to Dismiss the case against the
Control Board, the Plaintiffs have to file an Opposition to the Motion,
telling the court why the case should not be dismissed. This document
contains a lot of information about the Plaintiffs and about the claims made
by the Plaintiffs. It sets out a lot of the legal basis for saying that the
Control Board injures the Plaintiffs. |
| 14 |
|
This is Defendant Clinton's Response to the Plaintiffs' Application for a
three-judge district court. Defendant Clinton doesn't think that the
Plaintiffs are entitled to a three-judge district court. |
| 15 |
|
This is the Response of the Defendants Clerk of the House and the Sergeant
at Arms of the House--which call themselves the "House Officers"--to the
Plaintiffs' Application for a three-judge district court. The House Offices
don't think that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a three-judge district court. |
| 16 |
|
The attorneys for Defendant Clinton needed more time to file their Answer
to the Complaint (which was due on September 1, 1998). They asked the
Plaintiffs' attorney if he had any opposition to the request for more time,
and he has no opposition, so it's a "consent" motion. |
| 17 Control Board's Reply |
|
This is the Control Board's Reply to what the Plaintiffs have said in
their
Opposition to the Control Board's Motion to Dismiss. |
| 18 P's Reply to
3-Judge Responses |
|
This is the Plaintiffs' Reply to what all the Defendants had so say in
their Responses to the Plaintiffs' Application for a three-judge district
court. The Defendants had all opposed the Plaintiffs' Application, so the
Plaintiffs explained why the reasons for the Defendants' positions were
insubstantial. |
| 19 P's Response
to D's Challenge to Standing |
|
In the House Officers' Response to the Plaintiffs' Application for a
three-judge district court, the House Officers had added in a challenge to
the Plaintiffs' "standing," which was related to the Control Board's earlier
challenge to "standing." Therefore, the Plaintiffs file this separate
document to explain why they have "standing" to sue the House Offices. |
| 20 |
|
The Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia and the law firm of
Covington & Burling want to be able to tell the court something about an
aspect of this case. They want to oppose a position taken by the attorneys
for Defendant Clinton in opposition to the Plaintiffs' Application for a
three-judge district court. The way they choose to do this is to ask the
court for permission to appear as "friends of the court" (amici curiae, in
Latin). |
| 21 |
|
The information the Corporation Counsel and Covington & Burling want
to
tell the court is in this Brief. The Department of Justice attorneys who
represent Defendant Clinton had said that the law which defines three-judge
district courts does not apply to this case. The Department of Justice, in
short, is defining the law in a very narrow manner. The Corporation Counsel
and Covington & Burling argue that the Department of Justice's reading of
the law is too narrow and is not supported by the history of the law. |
| 22 |
|
The Clerk of the Court notifies all parties that the federal Defendants
(Clinton and the House Officers) have until September 18, 1998 to answer the
Complaint. |
| 23 |
|
In their Brief as friends of the Court, the Corporation Counsel and
Covington & Burling had told the Court that they were preparing to file a
suit of their own concerning voting rights for the citizens of the District
of Columbia. They had suggested that the Court should wait until they filed
their case to decide whether the Plaintiffs in 20 D.C. Citizens should have
a three-judge district court. The Plaintiffs in 20 D.C. Citizens oppose
this suggestion. |
| 24 |
|
The Court gives permission for the Corporation Counsel and Covington &
Burling to appear in the case as friends of the Court and accepts their
Brief into the record. |
| 25 |
|
The Control Board had filed a Reply to the Plaintiffs' Opposition to the
Control Board's Motion to Dismiss. It is not at all unusual for the
Plaintiffs to file a "reply to a reply" (also called a "sur-reply").
But
the Plaintiffs' "reply to a reply" had to be filed later than the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure said it should be filed, so the Plaintiffs asked
permission to file beyond the time limits. For the record, the House
Officers opposed the Plaintiffs' request, the Department of Justice for
Clinton took no position, but the Control Board--against which the Reply was
aimed--consented to the Plaintiffs' filing. |
| 26 |
|
The Plaintiffs attached this memorandum (their Reply to the Control
Board's
Reply) to their Motion to File Out of Time. This Reply to the Control
Board's Reply just answers certain points made by the Control Board. |
| 27 |
|
The Defendants House Offices Responded to the Brief filed by the
Corporation Counsel and Covington & Burling (the "Amici Curiae"). They
argued that the Amici Curiae are wrong and that the law defining three-judge
district courts is very narrow, such that cases like this one are not
supposed to be heard by such courts. |
| 28 |
|
The attorneys for the House Offices need more time to file their Answer to
the Complaint (which was due on September 1, 1998). They asked the
Plaintiffs' attorney if he had any opposition to the request for more time,
and he has no opposition, so it's a "consent" motion. |
| 29 |
|
Defendant Clinton Responded to the Brief filed by the Corporation Counsel
and Covington & Burling (the "Amici Curiae"). He argues that the Amici
Curiae are wrong and that the law defining three-judge district courts is
very narrow, such that cases like this one are not supposed to be heard by
such courts. |
| 30 |
|
Although it is not uncommon for parties to file "replies to
replies"
("sur-replies"), the Court entered an Order denying the Plaintiffs'
opportunity to file their Reply to the Control Board's Reply. |
| 31 |
|
The Court grants the request by the Defendants House Officers to file
their
Answer on September 18, 1998. |
| 32 |
|
We have strong reasons why we think ours and the Corporation Counsel's cases are independent and should not be
consolidated. |
| 33 |
|
One of the groups which came to the Court to be heard as a
"friend of the Court" was the Committee for the Capital City, which is a
non-profit organization supporting the goal of retroceding or "reunifying" the
District of Columbia with Maryland. Although the Committee came to the Court saying it
spoke to both cases, it actually provided arguments supporting only the consolidated case,
Alexander v. Daley. This is the Plaintiffs response to the brief filed by the Committee. |
| 34 |
|
This document is perhaps the most important document filed in this case,
other than the Complaint. This document is a comprehensive legal statement of the
Plaintiffs' claims. The purpose of this document is to tell the Court, in essence,
"you've got enough facts before you already, and enough law, to decide this case IN
FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS." Usually, when a case is filed, a time comes when there's
a trial. The purpose of a trial is to present the facts of the case to the court or to the
jury, if there is one, to decide the case. Sometimes, however, all the facts can be laid
out on paper, with affidavits or other documents of sufficient reliability to persuade the
Court to decide the case in favor of the party asking for it. So we filed this Motion and
Memorandum, supported by a pile of supporting documents (an index is at the end of this
document; the actual supporting documents are not on this site, since some are copyrighted
and others are affidavits which we don't have in digital form).
This document is not the most COMPLETE statement of the Plaintiffs' case, however.
Because of the specific claims made in this case, the Defendants have to respond to this
document with a statement of whatever "compelling governmental interests"
support Congress keeping the District of Columbia as a colony. The Plaintiffs' response to
those "reasons" (such as they may be) will complete the Plaintiffs' statement of
their case. Look for that document in the future or later in the index.
Unlike the other documents in this index, this document is not substantively identical
to the document as filed with the Court. This version does not have any of the citations
of legal authority and it does not have any of the extensive footnotes. This information
is left out because this document is just so long and hard to read with all the legal
citations included. Still, the version of the document here should be very informative. |
| 35 |
|
Once the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on December
22, 1998, the Defendants were entitled to respond and oppose the Motion. They did this in
early 1999 (we hope to have their documents up on this website in the near future, so you
can read what they have to say). Each Defendant argued that the Motion should not be
granted, though most of their arguments simply repeated arguments they had made months
earlier in their Motions to Dismiss. Following the Defendants' documents opposing the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs filed these three documents,
rebutting specific points raised by the Defendants. |
| 36 |
|
Another group which came to the Court to be heard as a
"friend of the Court" was a group of eleven law professors. They filed a brief
specifically supporting the consolidated case Alexander v. Daley, but their arguments and
their claims to expertise intruded on the arguments set out by the Twenty Citizens, so the
Plaintiffs filed this memorandum in response to the Law Professors' brief. |
| 37 |
|
Yet another "friend of the Court" was one of the
District's "shadow Senators," Paul Strauss, who was elected by the citizens to
lobby for admission of the District as a State. Senator Strauss supported the remedy in
Alexander, but did so with arguments and suggestions of facts which conflicted with
arguments made by the Twenty Citizens, and conflicted with history. Therefore, the Twenty
Citizens filed this memorandum to clarify the record. |
| 38 |
|
On the Wednesday afternoon before the oral arguments, the
Court issued this order to all parties. This is an unusual event, but not unheard of, in
which the Court wanted an answer to a specific question about the law on a specific point.
The question the Court wanted answered boils down to the question whether the District of
Columbia might still be "part of" Maryland. The Court ordered all parties to be
prepared to discuss the question, but also noted they could file a document on the
question within two days. |
| 39 |
|
This memorandum is the response by the Twenty Citizens to
the question raised by the Court just before the oral arguments. Although the question
arose because of some of the claims in Alexander v. Daley, which amounted to suggestions
that the District might still be "part of" Maryland for the purposes of voting
for representation in Congress, the question clearly has direct impact on the claims and
arguments presented by the Twenty Citizens. Therefore, the Plaintiffs filed this
memorandum on the point. |
| 40 |
|
10-14-98 Order to Show Cause
When the case Alexander v. Daley was filed in the Fall, the Court observed that it
presented questions which looked, at least on their face, like some of the questions which
we present in the Twenty Citizens' case. Therefore, the Court entered this Order
that the parties should address the question whether the cases should be
consolidated. It's standard (time-honored) form for the Court to present such a
question to the parties as an order to "show why it shouldn't be done."
|
| 41 |
|
11-2-98 Ps' Opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Once the President, Clerk of the House and Sergeant at Arms of the House had moved for
dismissal of the charges, the Plaintiffs are obligated to rebut their reasons for
dismissal. This document has two fundamental parts, which respond to the Defendants'
two categories of arguments to dismiss the case. The arguments in the latter half of this
Opposition were, in essence, superseded by the arguments presented in the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment which was filed in December, so readers may wish to attend
only to the first half of this document and then turn to the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment.
|
| 42 |
|
11-03-98 Memorandum and Order
When the case was filed, the Plaintiffs asked for a special kind of court: a District
Court composed of three judges sitting together. This Memorandum by the Court
explains why the Court GRANTED the Plaintiffs' request. We are extremely proud that
the Court based its decision are the grounds presented in the request made on behalf of
the Twenty Citizens. This Memorandum is the first acknowledgment by local courts--at
least in something other than a footnote or a dissenting opinion--that the citizens of the
District are deprived of fundamental rights and that this deprivation may violate the
Constitution. |
| 43 |
|
11-10-98 Request for Designation of Three Judges
This is Judge Oberdorfer's formal request to the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit to
designate the judges which will hear the Twenty Citizens' case. |
| 44 |
|
11-16-98 Designation of Three Judges
This is the formal order by the Chief Judge of the United States Circuit Court for the
District of Columbia designating the three judges who hear the Twenty Citizens' case.
|
| 45 |
|
11-25-98 Statement re: Corporation Counsel
In the 1998 budget for the District, Congress had included a "rider" which
barred the municipal government of the District from spending any governmental funds on
the law suit which had been filed by Corporation Counsel. In late Fall, Corporation
Counsel had filed a Motion to be allowed to continue in the case, despite the
"rider." In the course of the arguments supporting the Motion, Corporation
Counsel made a couple
statements which implicated the rights of the Plaintiffs in the Twenty Citizens' case and
implicated the prerogative of their counsel to represent them in their wholly independent
proceeding. Therefore, this brief statement was in order. |
| 46 |
|
12-10-98 Motion for Leave
Under local procedures of the District Court, a party which makes a motion is allowed to
respond to any opposition filed by the party against which the motion was filed, but the
party opposing the motion is not usually allowed to reply to those responses. This
Motion asks the Court to allow the Plaintiffs to reply to arguments presented by the
Federal Defendants in support of their Motions to Dismiss.
The next two documents, the Amended Sur-Reply to Clinton and the Amended Sur-Reply to
House Defendants, were filed along with the Motion to receive them. The Court denied
the Plaintiffs' request, however. |
| 47 |
|
12-22-98 Material Facts
While we commonly think of law suits as proceeding to trial before a jury or judge, some
cases can be decided on the basis of papers or documents filed with the Court and on the
basis of legal facts which the Court can see on its own without trial. This way of
deciding a case is called "summary judgment." When a party asks the Court
for "summary judgment," the party has to tell the Court all the facts which are
at issue and has to tell the Court that they are not in dispute. This document lists
all the relevant facts for this case, which the Plaintiffs are prepared to prove if this
case were to or had gone to trial. |
| 48 |
|
In the Twenty Citizens' case, we refer to "federal enclaves,"
places where Congress HAS now or has had exactly the same powers under the Constitution as
it has over D.C.. It's about a THIRD of the physical area of the United States. The map,
by the way, is from the "National Atlas of the United States of America,"
compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. |
| 49 |
|
The Three-judge District Court sent a broad category of issues in Adams
back to Judge Oberdorfer to decide on his own sitting as a single District Judge: all
claims concering local governance of the District. These claims were directed
against the President and against the Control Board. In his Memorandum and Order,
however, Judge Oberdorfer only addressed the claims against the Control Board (and didn't
really address the claims made in the case, at that). He left intact the claims
against President Clinton. Therefore, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for immediate
entry of judgment in their favor on the remaining claims. The Motion is based
completely on the original Motion for Summary Judgment filed in December of 1998 and
pursues exactly the same ends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|