|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
"Birthright Citizenship" Study Re-Released
|
December 13, 2005
|
|
A legal analysis of Birthright Citizenship, written by Bill Olson, Herb Titus and Alan Woll, was re-released by U.S. Border Control today. The paper, "Children Born in the United States to Aliens Should Not, by Constitutional Right, Be U.S. Citizens" was originally published in January 2001,and then updated in March 2003. The House of Representatives is expected to be considering legislation on this topic in the near future.
|
|
|
Michael New Reply Brief
|
November 23, 2005
|
|
On November 23, 2005, Michael New's legal team filed a hard-hitting reply brief to the United States government's continuing attempt to avoid New's claim that his 1996 court-martial conviction for disobedience of a "lawful" order was unconstitutional. For over 10 years now, the government has sought to dismiss New's claim that a 1995 order to wear a U.N. uniform and submit to the operational control of a foreign military officer was a political question. In his reply brief, New argues convincingly that the cases upon which the government has relied are totally irrelevant, having to do with orders issued to American soliders to serve under American, not foreign, command.
Also, for 10 years now the government has insisted that the issue of the lawfulness of an order to wear the U.N. uniform was to be decided by a military judge, not by a military jury, thereby imposing the burden of proving the order's unlawfulness upon New. In his reply, New demonstrates that the government's position rests upon the mistaken, and un-American, premise that necessity requires that all military orders unhesitatingly be obeyed. What is at stake, according to the New reply brief, is whether the American military will be governed by the rule of law, or by the judicially-unreviewable political policies of a president.
Oral argument before the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. is expected to be scheduled in the spring of 2006.
|
|
|
Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Amicus Brief in Wisconsin Right to Life Case
|
November 14, 2005
|
|
Today we filed an Amicus Brief for Citizens United and Citizens United Foundation in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC. The brief asks the Supreme Court to overturn a decision of a Special Three Judge District Court in the District of Columbia. The brief argues that the lower court misread the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC resolving a "facial" challenge to the constitutionality of the "electioneering communications" provisions of the McCain-Feingold law (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) to preclude future "as applied" challenges. The brief emphasizes that the judicial power to decide constitutional questions is limited to the facts as presented in an individual case or controversy and that no judicial ruling may constitutionally be imposed upon a person or entity not a party to the case. At stake, then, in this case is the reach of judicial power and the due process right of every person to have his day in court.
|
|
|
FSDEF Amicus Brief in United Seniors Association v. Social Security Administration
|
October 18, 2005
|
|
We filed an Amicus Brief for the Free Speech Defense and Education Fund in support of United Seniors Association's petition for rehearing of the decision to fine them over $500,000 for using the words "Social Security" on carrier envelopes. The FSDEF brief submits that the panel misapplied the deferential agency review standard of Chevron and failed to apply the relevant Due Process standards governing statutory vagueness.
|
|
|
FSC Comments on FEC Electioneering Communications
|
September 30, 2005
|
|
The Free Speech Coalition ("FSC") and Free Speech Defense and Education Fund ("FSDEF") filed these Comments with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") on Friday, September 30, 2005, in connection with the FEC's consideration of regulations with respect to the definition of "electioneering communication."
|
|
|
Michael New Initial Brief
|
September 6, 2005
|
|
We filed, on behalf of Michael New, an Initial Brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This brief presents for decision whether the district court improperly dismissed — for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted — each of the four counts of New's Second Amended Complaint, collaterally attacking his January 25, 1996 court-martial conviction and bad conduct discharge for having violated an allegedly lawful order contrary to Article 92(2) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
|
|
|
Herb Titus Quoted in USA Today
|
June 27, 2005
|
|
Herb Titus was quoted in USA Today in an article as to how the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the McCreary and Van Orden cases could affect other displays of the Ten Commandments around the country.
|
|
|
Olson Speaks at National Taxpayers Conference
|
June 17, 2005
|
|
Bill Olson was a speaker at the 2005 National Taxpayers Conference, sponsored by the National Taxpayers Union and National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The topic of his presentation was "Combatting Government Threats to Nonprofit Organizations."
|
|
|
|
| Paper on Unbundling the Postal Service
|
May 6, 2005
|
|
Bill Olson has co-authored a paper with postal economist Dr. John Haldi (of Haldi Associates, Inc.) entitled "Enhancing Competition By Unbundling the Postal Administration" which will be presented at the Thirteenth Conference on Postal & Delivery Economics, Antwerp, Belgium, June 1 – 4, 2005. http://crri.rutgers.edu/post/index.html The paper presents a possible solution to a recurrent problem associated with reforming postal administrations.
"Attempts to bring the rigors of competition to postal authorities via de-regulation have stumbled repeatedly over the following dilemma: (i) the Universal Service Obligation ("USO") has powerful political support; (ii)the postal monopoly is asserted to be necessary to assure funding of the USO; and (iii)a fully de-regulated government monopoly is unacceptable. The unbundling model presented in this paper offers a solution to this dilemma. Although scope of the existing monopoly over delivery would not be reduced by this proposal, unbundling the upstream portion of the network would reduce substantially the amount of resources protected by the monopoly, while preserving the USO." |
|
|
U.S.A. Today Article on Ten Commandments Cases
|
March 2, 2005
|
|
| Herb Titus was quoted in U.S.A. Today in an article discussing the U.S. Supreme Court's hearing of oral argument in two Ten Commandments cases. "Court Enters Debate over Display of Commandments" by Joan Biskupic. |
|
|
Business Mailer's Review Article Discussing Free Speech in the Mail
|
February 14, 2005
|
|
| The February 14, 2005 issue of the Business Mailer's Review contains an article about a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit holding that prison inmates have a right to receive bulk mail that they had requested. This article also discusses the observations of Bill Olson, FSC Legal Co-Counsel, as to the possible application of the principle established in this case to State Charitable Solicitation Laws. If prisoners can receive mail without government approval, perhaps someday citizens can receive mail from nonprofits without the sender being approved by the states. Business Mailer's Review subscription information can be found at http://www.businessmailersreview.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constitutional Law | Litigation | Nonprofit Law | Postal Law | Election Law
Biblical Wisdom | Press Coverage | Publications | Historical Documents | Martial Law
Executive Orders | About Us | Office Location | Contact Us | Favorite Links
Copyright © 2008 William J. Olson, P.C. All rights reserved.
8180 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1070, McLean, Virginia 22102-3860
This William J. Olson, P.C. Web site, including all information and material appearing herein, is for general informational purposes only, and is not intended to -- and does not -- constitute legal advice, advertising, or solicitation. No one should rely or act on any information contained on this Web site, including other sites that may be referenced herein, without seeking professional advice or counsel. No advice or counsel is provided in or by this Web site. Furthermore, no attorney-client relationship is created, or established, between William J. Olson, P.C. or any of its attorneys and anyone by virtue of anyone accessing or using this Web site, transmitting information to the Web site or receiving information from the Web site. William J. Olson, P.C. does not recommend use of the Internet, including e-mail, for the transmission of confidential, proprietary, and/or otherwise sensitive information.
|
|
|
|
