Today, for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, we joined in filing a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss seeking dismissal of the case against him with prejudice.
Hedgepath v. Bentley — Chief Justice Roy Moore Response to Motion to Dismiss
Today, representing Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, our firm joined with Alabama local counsel Douglas McElvy in filing a Motion to Dismiss a suit filed against certain Alabama state officials seeking to penalize their opposition to same sex marriage. A Brief in Support of the Motion was also filed.
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Hickenlooper — Brief filed
On March12, 2015, our firm joined with co-counsel with Barry K. Arrington, Esquire of Centennial, Colorado, and filed in the Colorado Court of Appeals a brief challenging the constitutionality of the recent 2013 Colorado laws banning so-called “large capacity” magazines and requiring criminal background checks for all private transfers of firearms.
In 2013, representing the National Association
Order Granting TSCL Motion in Part in FOIA Case Seeking Documents on US/Mexico Totalization Agreement
On October 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the disclosure of certain records relating to the U.S./Mexico Social Security Toatalization Agreement that we have been seeking for our client, The Senior Citizens League. Here is the Order and the Opinion.
A story about this decision appeared in Courthouse News Service entitled
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners et al. v. John C. Hickenlooper Complaint in the District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado
Today a complaint was filed in the case of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners,et al. v. John C. Hickenlooper in the District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado on behalf of plaintiffs Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, National Association for Gun Rights, Inc., John A. Sternberg, and DV-S,LLC, d/b/a Alpine Arms. This case is a constitutional challenge of two Colorado firearm laws,
GOF v. ATF Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Open America Stay in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Today our firm filed Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Open America Stay in the case ofGun Owners Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on behalf of plaintiff Gun Owners Foundation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
GOF v. ATF Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Today our firm filed Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the case of Gun Owners Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on behalf of plaintiff Gun Owners Foundation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Our reply responds to the following ATF opposition and
GOF v. ATF Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Today our firm filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the case of Gun Owners Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on behalf of plaintiff Gun Owners Foundation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. We filed the motion because the Government failed to respond to GOF’s FOIA request for 15 months,
Gun Owners Foundation Files Suit to Obtain ATF Fast & Furious Records
On June 6, 2012, on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, our firm filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit stemmed from an April, 2011 Freedom of Information Act request in which GOF sought records pertaining to the infamous “Fast and Furious” and program where ATF federal agents deliberately and incomprehensibly put firearms directly into the hands of Mexican
Michael G. New v. United States
The Michael New case is back.
On May 16, 2012, we filed a Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis based on the Army’s withholding of exculpatory evidence contained in two classified Executive Orders, access to which was unlawfully denied to Mr. New at his 1995 court-martial, at which he was charged and convicted of disobeying a lawful order for refusing to wear the U.N. uniform to serve in a U.N.
Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling, et al. Additional Pleadings Filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Today our firm joined with other co-counsel to file the following additional pleadings in the case of Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling,et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of plaintiff Sergeant Gary A. Stein:
Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling, et al. Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Today our firm joined with other co-counsel to file the following documents in the case of Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling, et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of plaintiff Sergeant Gary A. Stein:
United States v. Bernard von NotHaus Amicus Reply Brief for Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Today our firm filed an amicus reply brief in the case of United States v.Bernard von NotHaus in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA). On June 10, 2011, the United States filed a reponse in oppostition to the GATA amicus brief, filed May 31, 2011.
United States v. Bernard von NotHaus Amicus Brief for Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of United States v.Bernard von NotHaus in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee. We also filed Appendix A to our amicus brief.
Court Order in Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc.’s Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit
Today, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to produce to the court for in camera inspection redacted and unredacted copies of 20 documents by January 14, 2011, in this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc. arising from requests for records beginning in 2007 relating to “gold
Reply Comments Filed in Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc.’s Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit
On December 22, 2010, our firm filed Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for In Camera Review and Limited Discovery in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc. in this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit arising from requests for records beginning in 2007 from the Board
Daniel Chapter One Reply Brief of Petitioners
On behalf of Daniel Chapter One (“DCO”), today we filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit the reply brief of petitioners. The DCO reply brief argues that the FTC brief unjustifiedly disparages DCO and the Feijos’ relationship to it in an erroneous effort to assert jurisdiction over a ministry. Further, the FTC brief’s claim that DCO’s ads created the
Documents Filed in Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc.’s Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit
Today, our firm filed the following documents in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc. (“GATA”) in this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit arising from requests for records beginning in 2007 from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System relating to “gold swaps”:
Daniel Chapter One — District Court Order
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Daniel Chapter One (“DCO”) motion to dismiss, denied the government’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from violating the FTC’s order, and stayed the case pending resolution of DCO’s appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Daniel Chapter One Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Government’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
On behalf of Daniel Chapter One (“DCO”), today we filed a motion to dismiss the goverment’s complaint and a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion to dismiss with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On behalf of DCO, today we also
Daniel Chapter One — Court Order Denying Hearing on RFRA Claim
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the Daniel Chapter One (“DCO”) motion requesting a hearing on the DCO claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).
Daniel Chapter One Emergency Motion for Stay of FTC Order
On behalf of Daniel Chapter One, this morning we filed an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Review of FTC Modified Final Order (20 pages) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, as well as appendedExhibits A-G (162 pages).
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc.’s Freedom of Information Act Complaints Filed
Today, we filed a Freedom of Information Act complaint against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, also known as the Federal Reserve Board, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints arise from requests for records made by Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc. (“GATA”) beginning in 2007 relating to “gold swaps.”
Social Security Totalization Agreement: TSCL’s Freedom of Information Act Complaints Filed
On June 29, 2006, we filed Freedom of Information Act complaints against both the United States Department of State and the Social Security Administration in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints arise from requests for records made by TSCL beginning in 2003 relating to the Social Security Totalization Agreement which the United States Government has negotiated
John Hay Hooker v. FEC
Our firm represented Presidential candidate Howard Phillips and The Constitution Party, who were named defendants in the case of Hooker v. FEC. On December 15, 1999, we filed a Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, in the case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which was granted on April 12, 2000. John Jay Hooker