This is an on going educational effort to explain the super PAC lawsuit.
If you missed a section please use links below. If you think you might be a party to this suit please start with Notice and Introduction to the super PAC lawsuit. You can also check out Facebook site SuperPacFederalLawsuit
101 What is a defendant class action lawsuit
102 The citizen/private attorney general
103 Common law
104 Reasonable person test
105 EMILY's List ruling
201 Standing and jurisdiction
202 What is an excessive contribution
203 What is a prohibited contribution
301 Pre-trial motions
302 Summary judgment
303 Trial
304 Court rulings
305 Settlement offers
Graduate level:
401 Civil fines and payment
402 Criminal court
403 Criminal court trial
404 Criminal court rulings
405 Settlement offers
Post-graduate level:
501 U.S. Supreme Court appeals.
More details:
Case number: 12-CV-00004
Date filed: March 19, 2012
Plaintiff: Philip B. Maise proposed Plaintiff and Citizen Attorney General of the United States acting on the behalf of the U.S. Federal Election Commission (Plaintiff).
Defendants: “Political Action Committees-Class I, et al.”
Suggested PACER search: Maise,Philip
Court phone: (617) 473-9100.
Court date and time: The Court is across the international date line and 10 hours ahead of eastern time.
Facebook: SuperPacFederalLawsuit
201 Standing and jurisdiction
Introduction
After my last lecture I received a comment that I kind of sounded like a "crackpot". Absolutely no offense was taken. During these past few months I have thought the same of myself. I've searched and searched for anything that could prove me wrong.
The problem I've found is each time I look I only receive more and more proof that substantiates that super PACs are illegal and super PAC donors are guilty of violating the law.
Who is the Plaintiff?
Its you. Yes you. You currently are pressing the super PAC lawsuit.
Like I said, everything I say may be a bit difficult to understand or believe. That is why I search for the most basic things you know. Like the United States is not France. That really is the heart of the case. Most have no time to read in depth histories of Court systems. That is why I redirect to reference materials.
The 105 page complaint includes tables with references to thousands of pages I read to confirm and reconfirm these positions.
Now where was I. Oh, Yes! You are the plaintiff..
How is this possible? Easy. I'm not an individual in this lawsuit. I'm a voice.
Think for a second to Court scenes you may have seen. The judge comes out and bangs the gavel and says "State your appearances!"
The Court wants to know who STANDS before it.
My appearance before the Court will be
Philip B. Maise Citizen Attorney General of the United States acting on the behalf of the U.S. Federal Election Commission
What a mouthful. However, even this has been abbreviated. Perhaps you might understand why YOU are the plaintiff if I include a few words that got dropped out.
A more correct title to who is prosecuting the super PAC lawsuit is:
Philip B. Maise Private Individual and Citizen Attorney General of the United States acting for the People of the United States on the behalf of the U.S. Federal Election Commission
I am you.
Stand by your man
Rather, stand by your Congressman. Congress is who granted you the right to prosecute this case. When Congress thought up this thing called the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), they anticipated a problem.
These guys were pretty smart. They knew the Executive branch is usually the only group that can prosecute and enforce the law.
What if the Executive branch fails to enforce campaign laws?
So they placed into the Act a provision that allowed you to enforce it. Well, "you" do have to be a U.S. citizen and have the right to vote. I fit that group.
It is pretty simple isn't it? I am acting for the People of the United States. That is you.
You can sue to enforce the law because Congress gave you that right.
Jurisdiction
To render this term more easily understood think of the Judge. This question is one the Judge must ask. What is the reason I can decide this case?
Congress knew this question would come up and informed judges that a 3-judge panel in a U.S. District Court is required.
In this case the Defendants are spread out over the entire United States and no Court is close to all. However, the Plaintiff is close to only one Court. That Court is in Guam because the Plaintiff has commitments in S.E. Asia. Airline flights are required to get to Guam. However, even if it was in the Plaintiff's home State he still would have to travel by air since the U.S. Court is on a different island. Further, many of Defendants are billionaires that no doubt will send someone wearing a nice suit to answer on their behalf. It is no inconvenience to them.
Washington D.C. is 12 time zones away from the Plaintiff.
Can a Court in Guam rule?
Yes. Of course it can. Further it can rule against any Defendant that fits into the different classes. Defendants can contest the case in Guam's court, or if they are convicted, have the ability to go to their local U.S. Court and contest the ruling within 90 days.
The 90 days is a proposed time to contest the ruling and the 30 days is all that is provided for by the FEC. The Court must approve the extended time, however, since it is agreeable to the Plaintiff and to the betterment of the Defendants it should not be a problem.
Okay class dismissed
Really that is all the essential material for this lecture. For those that wish to stay after class for more detailed discussion, feel free to remain.
A word to all attorneys
The Plaintiff has spent weeks reviewing every law journal on standing and arguments in Lujan. In Van Hollen v. FEC, Lujan had no bearing.
Standing to act according to the statues utilized by the Plaintiff are based upon Statutory right.
Philip B. Maise the Individual and Lujan
I, as an individual, believe Lujan has no place in this case. This case is really the People of the United States against your client.
However, I will pass the mustard test requested by Justice Scalia. Further dig back into then Judge Scalia's writings and read his full work and don't cherry pick from it.
My injury and the cause that gave rise to this action is both personalized and particularized. However, I must now set that aside and focus on compliance with Chapter.
Chapter requires a non-partisan prosecution so it doesn't matter if your client was involved in my injury, or even was to my benefit.
If you represent a campaign contributor, all that matters is whether your client when viewed by a reasonable bystander, had an understanding funds would be utilized for Federal electioneering.
If you represent a PAC that received funds all that matters is whether they received excessive or prohibited funds. Prohibited funds are funds made in the name of another.
If you represent a corporation, foundation, 527 or other such persons what is of interest is whether funds originated from an individual, or whether they were directed by an individual that could have directed them in an alternate manner.
Extra Credit
I am not in full agreement with Hessick in the Cornell Law review in his work Standing, injury in-fact, and private rights. That said he is more complete in his analysis of Justice Scalia's writings and incorporates more of the civic aspect of the functions of the Court. His work is just 54 pages but starts with a historical background and it is nice to see a consolidated work incorporating early English law.
Unfortuately, Hessick's work was not identified during the drafting of the Complaint otherwise the complaint would have focused more as it did initially on Akins.
Extra extra credit
It is fairly interesting to track the evolution of both the thinking of then Judge Scalia's in his writings, comparing them with Nichol Jr's 1993 work Justice Scalia, standing and public law litigation, then watching how it evolves after Lujan. Tracking the evolution of the particularized injury is where Hessick falls a little short as he fails to go into the original writings.
Don't fall into the Lujan trap in this case especially in light with Hollen Jr. v.FEC If you are going to challenge standing please do so early and feel free to ask me for an updated standing argument. In brief I have attempted to assist the Supreme Court by proposing new ground rules according to the type of Act issued by Congress. This allows the court to allow both Lujan and Akins to live harmoniously in the future by employing them according to the type of Act at bar.
My argument is Acts fall into two different types.
Lujan should clearly be applicable in copyright law since it is the particularized injury of the copyright holder itself that gave rise to the action. The same can be said for CWA. The person living on the river who derives income from that river is the injured party and they must have a showing.
Other Acts are certainly not along this nature. Using Lujan in FECA as objected to in the complaint makes no sense.
Homework advanced only
Compare in the following Acts the applicability of both Lujan and Akins to a citizen litigant and predict the questions Justice Scalia would pose.
FECA, CWA, FCA, CRA, and FIA.
If you think FCA will be the most difficult one to resolve re-read the first half of this page.
Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff
Note: I realize that some will initially be plenty upset that I have to target all on a non-partisan basis. However, I think the few that can claim they didn't cause the injuries that gave rise to this case will gladly pay any fines. They will be pretty happy to know the bulk of the defendants that damaged me must pay them too.
TO ALL SUPER PACS
Reread what to do with funds in legal question. This lawsuit places those funds in legal question.