Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stephen Maturin · 12-04-2002, 10:31 AM

The Ninth Circuit panel that issued the original Pledge of Allegiance decision back in June (Judges Alfred Goodwin, Stephen Reinhardt and Ferdinand Fernandez) ruled today that Dr. Newdow has Article III standing to contest government action affecting his daughter despite California state court orders vesting sole custody in the child's mother and enjoining him from prosecuting the Pledge case on his daughter's behalf. Today's ruling comes in response to a motion to intervene filed by the girl's mother and contains some interesting comments on not only Newdow's standing but also the substantive Establishment Clause issue.

The panel also issued an order denying the U.S. Senate's motion to intervene. However, the panel noted that it would treat the Senate's rehearing petition and supporting memorandum as an amicus brief if the Senate so desires.

The orders are available for download in PDF here:

<a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B07C412D8CA2D8888256C850058E77C/$file/0016423p.pdf?openelement" target="_blank">Order Denying Sandra Banning's Motion to Intervene</a>

<a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EE6DDDB891D2305288256C8500586164/$file/0016423o.pdf?openelement" target="_blank">Order Denying Senate's Motion to Intervene</a>

These rulings should clear the decks for action on various motions for reconsideration pending before the panel as well as petitions for rehearing en banc.

Buffman · 12-04-2002, 11:05 AM

The response to the Senate's intervention attempt is absolutely "delicious." Even the footnotes are wonderful. I truly enjoyed how they chose to tell the Senate that it should get its head out of its ass.

"Because of the respect that we owe to and have for the Senate, we have constrained to explain the reasons for our denial of intervention."

Then they go on to do exactly what they said they weren't going to do...educate the fools concerning how our government is supposed to work.

Splat · 12-04-2002, 11:06 AM

I was really afraid that the 9th CC would fold and use these distractions as an excuse to let the whole thing die.

uhcord · 12-04-2002, 11:18 AM

Quote:

I was really afraid that the 9th CC would fold and use these distractions as an excuse to let the whole thing die.

I was pretty sure that this wouldn't happen with Goodwin as being one of the judges. He is a good judge and doesn't let threats, or public opinion sway his rulings.

He himself said that it was stayed for "damage control". Let the people/media cool down before continueing.

Anyways, call me optimistic, but I believe "we" will win this....

hezekiah jones · 12-04-2002, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Splat:
I was really afraid that the 9th CC would fold and use these distractions as an excuse to let the whole thing die.

No way man. This is a constitutional principle and these folks are appointed for life. David Barton et al may be calling for the impeachment of like-minded judges on "good behavior" grounds, but in fact to behave otherwise, that is, relinquish their independence, would be better grounds for impeachment.

Just another reason why Barton lives on the Bizarro world of constitutional jurisprudence.

Grumpy · 12-04-2002, 02:53 PM

I see Judge Fernandez entered a concurrence, if only to point out that he thought Judge Goodwin overstepped his argument when he started rehashing the constitutionality of "under God" again.

Either I'm a pessimist or a non-lawyer, but I figured the standing question would torpedo the case. I'm glad to be wrong. Next stop, en banc consideration of Newdow vs. Congress, right? Only this time, with Newdow's rights as a parents the sole question, as opposed to a child's rights as a student.

hezekiah jones · 12-04-2002, 03:14 PM

<a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B07C412D8CA2D8888256C850058E77C/$file/0016423p.pdf?openelement" target="_blank">Order Denying Sandra Banning's Motion to Intervene</a>

Stephen, irrepressible cynic that I am, I'm very curious to know which vile legal opportunists put Ms. Banning up to this. Do you know if 9th circuit briefs, motions, petitions, whatever, are available online? Lexis only has Supreme Court briefs, so I'm guessing I'm s.o.l.

<a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EE6DDDB891D2305288256C8500586164/$file/0016423o.pdf?openelement" target="_blank">Order Denying Senate's Motion to Intervene</a>

There is some interesting separation-of-powers stuff in here, huh?

Toto · 12-04-2002, 04:07 PM

Banning's lawyers' brief appears to be here:

<a href="http://www.pledgedefensefund.com/courtupdates.htm" target="_blank">Pledge Defense Fund</a>

National Capitol Strategies is handling media relations. Googling it turns up very little, except a mention of their attendance at the American Association of Christian Schools in 1999 and the National Federation of Republican Women in 2002.

hezekiah jones · 12-04-2002, 07:46 PM

Hey Toto; thanks.

Foley & Lardner, hmmm. Silk stockings. I was expecting the hand of Jay $ekulow or the like. Still, I'd like to know who's bankrolling F&L, unless they're doing it pro bono. But I can't imagine a few hundred PayPal accounts are footing the bill.

ybnormal · 12-05-2002, 03:15 AM

I love following these things just to see how high up they lead me. This has been a fun one. At first, I was gonna say that the Bradley Foundation is a safe bet for the funding. It's in Milwaukee, where Foley & Lardner is based. Chairman of F&L, Michael Grebe, quit in July to take over as President of Bradley, where he's been on the board for 5 years (not to mention the Hoover Institute and the GOP National Committee).

Noticing Toto's "Christian Schools" mention and seeing that Bradley was into schools and the school voucher push, I followed that idea.

<a href="http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1416" target="_blank"> Here </a> is the PFAW Bradley Foundation report about Michael "school vouchers" Joyce, who Grebe replaced at Bradley. <a href="http://www.milwaukeeworld.com/articles/mlaw/ml010625front.php" target="_blank"> Here </a> is a short, interesting local story of how Joyce endeared himself to Bush and why he left Bradley. And <a href="http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm" target="_blank"> here </a> is the Media Transparency - Bradley page that has other local links related to Grebe and Joyce. And not surprisingly, I ran across several F&L lawyers who are Federalist Society members.

Below is Toto's National Capitol Strategies... attendance at the American Association of Christian Schools in 1999

Quote:

<a href="http://www.aacs.org/pubs/ViewPArticle.aspx?ArticleID=623" target="_blank"> AACS 10/99 </a>
(excerpt)

Bob Cone and his team at National Capitol Strategies (NCS) are working earnestly to promote quality education as well. NCS has spent approximately $500,000 over the last ten months conducting research on the federal role in education over the last ten years.

Robert (Bob) L. Cone's bio on the Council for National Policy member's list:

Quote:

http://www.ifas.org/cnp/

Former co-owner and present director, Graco Childrens Products, Inc., a world leader in the manufacturing of baby furniture; owner and president, Itnac Corporation, a manufacturer of material handling equipment; board member, Shepherd's Home, a home for the mentally retarded, Union Grove, Wisconsin; founder and president, two charitable foundations; graduate, Drexel University, B.S.M.E., 1962. Spouse � Dawn. Elverson, Pennsylvania.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/scandal/etc/script.html" target="_blank"> Transcript </a> of the October 6, 1998 FRONTLINE, "Washington's Other Scandal" with Bill Moyers.

(excerpt)
BILL MOYERS: Cone's involvement with Triad was uncovered by Senate investigators, among them committee counsel Elizabeth Stein.

[on-camera] Here are some of the records you found. Triad business account, June '95 to December '95: Robert Cone, Elverson, Pennsylvania, $25,000; Robert Cone, Elverson, Pennsylvania, just two months later, $50,000; Robert Cone, one month later, $25,000; Robert Cone, $25,000; Robert Cone, one month later, $50,000. I mean, he was giving a lot of money to Triad.

ELIZABETH STEIN, Counsel, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: [voice-over] But Cone had shown little interest in politics until 1994, when at least 10 children had died in the swinging cradles produced by his company, Graco Children's Products. When their parents threatened to sue, Cone and his brother began contributing to candidates who promised to limit a citizen's ability to sue corporate America.

In 1995, Bob Cone became Triad's founding donor.

Now, just for a second, back to the "National Capitol (Capital) Strategies" and the "National Federation of Republican Women in 2002" -- and/or, the Missouri Federation of Republican Women.
Seems Cone relinquished the NCS to Malenick.

Quote:

http://www.mofrw.com
"Empowering Women in Politics for the 21st Century April 2002"

Carolyn Malenick, President National Capital Strategies, Inc. spoke on correlating education reform and the 2002 elections

Carolyn Malenick's bio on the Council for National Policy member's list:

Quote:

http://www.ifas.org/cnp/bios/malca.html

Carolyn Malenick

President, Triad Management Services, a for-profit business whose purpose is to provide expert services to its clients � conservative political donors; former consultant, VPAC; director of development, Freedom Alliance; former assistant to North Defense Trust; former consultant for Lt. Col. Oliver North on various projects; former administrative assistant to the president, the Viguerie Company; former account assistant, the Viguerie Company; former audio service coordinator, Old-Time Gospel Hour, Lynchburg, Virginia; former volunteer, Kemp for President campaign; 1980 Reagan/Bush campaign work; 1980-1981, direct mailings for Moral Majority, Inc. Manassas, Virginia.

Which brings us to...

Quote:

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/10/pledge.of.allegiance/" target="_blank"> CNN LAWCENTER</a>

'Under God' opponent claims personal affront
August 11, 2002
(excerpt)

Banning has established a legal defense fund to assist her in fighting her case. A spokeswoman for the fund, Carolyn Malenick, said the daughter in fact enjoys reciting the words against which her father is fighting.

Moyers Frontline piece went on that 85% of Triad's money came from "The Cone brothers, and something called the Economic Education Trust", which is supposedly connected to Koch Industries. That's where I'm at for now... which I found to be a bit more interesting than $ekulow, for a few hours anyway.

12-04-2002, 10:31 AM	#1
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	More on Newdow v. U.S. Congress The Ninth Circuit panel that issued the original Pledge of Allegiance decision back in June (Judges Alfred Goodwin, Stephen Reinhardt and Ferdinand Fernandez) ruled today that Dr. Newdow has Article III standing to contest government action affecting his daughter despite California state court orders vesting sole custody in the child's mother and enjoining him from prosecuting the Pledge case on his daughter's behalf. Today's ruling comes in response to a motion to intervene filed by the girl's mother and contains some interesting comments on not only Newdow's standing but also the substantive Establishment Clause issue. The panel also issued an order denying the U.S. Senate's motion to intervene. However, the panel noted that it would treat the Senate's rehearing petition and supporting memorandum as an amicus brief if the Senate so desires. The orders are available for download in PDF here: <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B07C412D8CA2D8888256C850058E77C/$file/0016423p.pdf?openelement" target="_blank">Order Denying Sandra Banning's Motion to Intervene</a> <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EE6DDDB891D2305288256C8500586164/$file/0016423o.pdf?openelement" target="_blank">Order Denying Senate's Motion to Intervene</a> These rulings should clear the decks for action on various motions for reconsideration pending before the panel as well as petitions for rehearing en banc.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-04-2002, 11:05 AM	#2
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	The response to the Senate's intervention attempt is absolutely "delicious." Even the footnotes are wonderful. I truly enjoyed how they chose to tell the Senate that it should get its head out of its ass. "Because of the respect that we owe to and have for the Senate, we have constrained to explain the reasons for our denial of intervention." Then they go on to do exactly what they said they weren't going to do...educate the fools concerning how our government is supposed to work.

12-04-2002, 11:06 AM	#3
Splat Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hell, PA Posts: 599	I was really afraid that the 9th CC would fold and use these distractions as an excuse to let the whole thing die.

12-04-2002, 02:53 PM	#6
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	I see Judge Fernandez entered a concurrence, if only to point out that he thought Judge Goodwin overstepped his argument when he started rehashing the constitutionality of "under God" again. Either I'm a pessimist or a non-lawyer, but I figured the standing question would torpedo the case. I'm glad to be wrong. Next stop, en banc consideration of Newdow vs. Congress, right? Only this time, with Newdow's rights as a parents the sole question, as opposed to a child's rights as a student.

12-04-2002, 03:14 PM	#7
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	<a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B07C412D8CA2D8888256C850058E77C/$file/0016423p.pdf?openelement" target="_blank">Order Denying Sandra Banning's Motion to Intervene</a> Stephen, irrepressible cynic that I am, I'm very curious to know which vile legal opportunists put Ms. Banning up to this. Do you know if 9th circuit briefs, motions, petitions, whatever, are available online? Lexis only has Supreme Court briefs, so I'm guessing I'm s.o.l. <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EE6DDDB891D2305288256C8500586164/$file/0016423o.pdf?openelement" target="_blank">Order Denying Senate's Motion to Intervene</a> There is some interesting separation-of-powers stuff in here, huh?

12-04-2002, 04:07 PM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Banning's lawyers' brief appears to be here: <a href="http://www.pledgedefensefund.com/courtupdates.htm" target="_blank">Pledge Defense Fund</a> National Capitol Strategies is handling media relations. Googling it turns up very little, except a mention of their attendance at the American Association of Christian Schools in 1999 and the National Federation of Republican Women in 2002.

12-04-2002, 07:46 PM	#9
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Hey Toto; thanks. Foley & Lardner, hmmm. Silk stockings. I was expecting the hand of Jay $ekulow or the like. Still, I'd like to know who's bankrolling F&L, unless they're doing it pro bono. But I can't imagine a few hundred PayPal accounts are footing the bill.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.