2013
09.08

A Response to the Initial Pleading was filed on behalf of Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General by Randall J. Henzes, Deputy Attorney General and Gregory R. Heuhauser, Chief Deputy Attorney General.

One might hope that they represent the Attorney General better than they misrepresent the Plaintiffs.

A boilerplate dismissal was expected and delivered couched inside their request for more time to respond to the initial filing, with some confusion regarding their activity – unrequested? usurped? – to assume responsibility for every defendant in the matter and requesting waivers – again acting without request – on jurisdictional necessities.

Initial appearance that this contradicts their proposal of financial and judicial economy as there is no authorization to act on behalf of the other defendants. The failure of the waivers to come from each defendant additionally provide basis for an appeal by any of the defendants prevented from participation by usurped authority of the attorneys for the PA Attorney General, or by order of the Court granting such authority to the attorneys for the PA Attorney General. 55 appeals going to the US Court of Appeals would not be financially economical or judicially practical. Each Attorney Generals’ responsibility to respond is a necessity which cannot be usurped or subverted by courteous offers requesting waivers and representation by the counsel representing Kathleen Kane.

Where ALL 56 Attorneys General have been properly served with the Constitutional Challenge, it would be reasonable to expect their timely response to the pleading.

[gview file=”http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Response20130906a.pdf”]

[gview file=”http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Response20130906b.pdf”]

[gview file=”http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Response20130906c.pdf”]

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: