Time: Sat Nov 23 20:34:56 1996
To: Ted <tdarby@bham.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: 'Constitutionalists' say unfavorable ruling what they wanted
Cc: 
Bcc: 

Before appealing, file a Motion for Reconsideration
and Clarification, then a Motion for Written
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which
will perfect your appeal record and give you some
real meat to argue over.  Last but not least,
this action should have been brought in the
District Court of the United States, not the
United States District Court, because voting is
a fundamental Right for state Citizens (the state
zone), whereas the U.S. Constitution does not always
extend into the federal zone (e.g. territories over
which the United States District Court has jurisdiction).
For details, see "Karma and the Federal Courts" at URL:

  http://www.supremelaw.com

/s/ Paul Mitchell



At 08:39 PM 11/23/96 -0600, you wrote:
>'Constitutionalists' say unfavorable ruling what they wanted
>By Peggy Sanford
>News Staff Writer
>The Birmingham News
>November 23,1996
>Metro/State Section Page 5A
>
>A Birmingham area group of self-described "constitutionalists" said they got
>what they wanted from a federal judge Friday - thrown out of court.
>
>U.S. District Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. said he would dismiss a September
>lawsuit by the group seeking a ban on corporate and foreign donations to
>political canidates. The lawsuit, directed at President Clinton, former
>Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole and a host of Alabama political
>figures, also asked the judge to prohibit the State of Alabama from
>acknowledging any candidate's political affiliation on ballots.
>
>"We needed the smoking gun to actually point to," said plaintiff Michael
>Moore, a computer consultant from Morris. Once the judge enters a written
>order dismissing the case, the group can use it as proof that American
>citizens have lost control of electing their political leaders, he said.
>
>"We asked the judge, do we (American citizens) have the exclusive right to
>affect the outcome of elections? He said, no," Moore said. "He even said
>that we don't have the constitutional right to expect that we should have
>exclusive control over the outcome of elections."
>
>John Vernon Sr. of Birmingham, another plaintiff in the case, said the
>Constitution and America's founding fathers made it "crystal clear" that
>foreigners do not have the right to affect the outcome of elections.
>
>"Judge Pointer said he didn't even want to hear it," Vernon said.
>
>Pointer dismissed the case Friday without oral argument or explanation.
>
>Moore said they will appeal the ruling.
>
>Foreign contributions to the Democratic Party became an issue during the
>recent political campaign and Republicans have called for a special
>prosecutor to probe fund-raising activities at the Democratic National
>Committee.
>
>Questionable fund-raising activities have prompted the DNC to return more
>than $750,00 in campaign gifts.
>
>"Maybe we're being presumptuous," Moore said Friday, "but maybe we raised a
>major issue in this campaign."
>
>Birmingham lawyer Jack Drake, who represented Clinton and the state
>Democratic candidates for federal office named in the lawsuit, said the
>issue of foreign contributions is "to be decided on and forced by the
>Federal Elections Commission and the Justice Department and not by a group
>of citizens."
>
>The case was rightly dismissed, he said.
>
>"I was delighted to be there. I've never represented the President of the
>United States before," Drake said.
>
>Along with Clinton and Dole, defendants in the lawsuit were the State of
>Alabama, Gov. Fob James, Secretary of State James Bennett, and all Alabama
>Democratic and Republican Party candidates for federal office in the recent
>election.
>
>The 10 original plaintiffs brought the lawsuit without legal representation.
>the plaintiffs were Moore, Vernon, Richard L. Mitchell and Lee G. Gober of
>Columbiana, Raymond H. Beach of Hueytown, Robert E. Peacock of Trussville,
>Thomas A. Munz and Cynthia L. Munz of Pleasant Grove, and Dr. Gus J. Prosch
>Jr. and Patricia Prosch of Hoover.
>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail