|CAUS IN COURT||
January 8th Update
"Like cases brought seeking equitable relief to preclude the United States'
participation in military operations, this plaintiff (CAUS) lacks standing to
the Executive Branch to prevent the invasion complained of in this action."
-U.S. Attorney Richard G. Patrick in "CAUS v. United States of America"
CAUS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SECRETARY OF DEFENSE COHEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO; STATE OF ARIZONA; GOVERNOR JANE DEE HULL
The above is a quote from one of the arguments made by the U.S. Attorney (representing the United States; Secretary of Defense Cohen and Attorney General Reno) in asking the Federal Court to dismiss the CAUS lawsuit against the United States. For those of you unfamiliar with this lawsuit, CAUS brought the action under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, which requires the federal government to protect the States against invasion. It is CAUS' position that the alleged "alien abductions" as well as the unidentified technologically advanced aerial craft continually in our skies are probable cause for such belief.
Last week, the Attorney General of Arizona moved to dismiss the CAUS lawsuit against the State of Arizona and its Governor based upon the sovereignty of the State and its immunity from lawsuits it has not consented to or which are barred by federal statute. Arizona emphasized that it was not waiving its Eleventh Amendment (U.S. Constitution) rights or consenting to the CAUS lawsuit, and thus the lawsuit should be dismissed. Since Arizona and Governor Jane Dee Hull were named as defendants in an attempt to acquire federal "standing" to bring the lawsuit (see below for further discussion of U.S. Attorney's Motion to Dismiss) it is no surprise that the State is attempting to disjoin itself from the action. Since the U.S. Constitution does not place any responsibility on the States, but only on the federal government, in actuality, there is no "cause of action" against Arizona and CAUS will not oppose that Motion to Dismiss.
But CAUS has filed a Response to the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and both motions and response are posted on the CAUS Web Site. As stated in the CAUS Response:
"By this action, Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS) seeks the intervention of this Court to interpret the Constitution concerning the responsibility of the United States of America to protect the State of Arizona, and thereby its residents, from an ongoing invasion and to grant equitable relief by requiring the United States of America to protect the State of Arizona, and thereby its residents, from said invasion."
"Defendants seek to avoid answering the facts alleged in the Complaint for Declaratory and Mandate Relief and Injunction ("Complaint") and instead seek to dismiss it for failure to state a claim."
"The Complaint does state a claim for relief. Defendants cannot ignore their constitutional obligations or hide behind the "political question" doctrine. This action raises the serious question as to whether the Federal Government, having been given the responsibility and obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution to protect each of the United States, including the State of Arizona, against invasion, can simply ignore said constitutional responsibility and obligation, even when said protection is requested by the citizens of the State of Arizona."
"The Motion to Dismiss should be denied and the Federal Defendants compelled to answer the Complaint..."
The U.S. Attorney's arguments that the CAUS lawsuit should be dismissed revolve around two points: 1) CAUS does not have "standing" to bring this action in Federal Court (lack of jurisdiction); and 2) CAUS' claims involve "nonjusticiable political questions" (fail to state a claim that can be decided by a Court).
Though CAUS has always been cognizant of its questionable "standing" to bring this lawsuit, it continues to believe (as more fully explained in its Response to the Federal Motion to Dismiss) that its rights are "derivative." As shareholders in a public corporation, whose directors refuse to take action against a third party, are permitted to sue on behalf of the corporation (naming the directors as codefendants), CAUS, representing the residents of Arizona (shareholders) is bringing this lawsuit against the United States (third party) when the Governor of Arizona (director) refuses to take action. Of CAUS, this argument is without precedent and in all likelihood will not be given any weight by the Court.
The second argument put forward by the government is that the powers of both the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense are discretionary and not subject to judicial review. To paraphrase U.S. Attorney Patrick: "For this Court to determine that the United States has been 'invaded by aliens' when the political branches have made no such determination would disregard the constitutional duties that are the specific responsibility of other branches of government...."
Unless the Year 2000 has some judicial and/or extraterrestrial surprises, CAUS fully expects this lawsuit to be dismissed without any determination of the merits of the CAUS' claims. It is amazing that both the federal government as well as 47 of the States refused to even acknowledge letters from an attorney, admitted to practice law in both New York and Arizona, who claims to have evidence of an invasion by unknown intruders.
As I have stated on previous occasions, what is a person, who believes there is probable cause that our species is being subjected to an ongoing invasion by an unknown intelligence possessing advanced technological (magical) capabilities, to do once he has exhausted all administrative and judicial remedies? What have others, in similar situations, done in the past? Only time will tell!
CAUS v. DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE
As of this date, the scheduled oral arguments on the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment are still scheduled for February 7th in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix, Arizona. But it should remembered that in the CAUS lawsuit against the Department of the Army, the Judge canceled oral arguments a week before the court date and dismissed the CAUS lawsuit without any appearance in Court.
Hopefully lightning will not strike twice. If the oral arguments are not canceled, it will mark CAUS' return to court after a 17-year hiatus. CAUS was last in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC to argue the appeal of CAUS v. NSA. Maybe it's now time for another "day in court" for our CAUS. CAUS would appreciate the attendance of its supporters at this hearing.
Peter A. Gersten
The PAG Network
©2001. All Rights Reserved.
Send CAUS Comments and Reports to: CAUS@CAUS.ORG