2014
03.17

ADDENDUM – PLAINTIFFS QUESTIONS / ISSUES

The Pennsylvania Attorney General Neglects to Address the Questions /Issues presented in the Plaintiffs’ Appellate Brief.

Question #1
Did the Court fail to act pursuant to FRCP 5.1(b) CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT of a Constitutional Challenge?

CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT would have had the Court query each Attorney General or state Supreme Court requesting their position on the question.

IS RULE 1.6 CONSTITUTIONAL?
DOES RULE 1.6 CAUSE A DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECT RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General does not indicate the position that the law being challenged is constitutional.

Question #2
Did the Court fail to act pursuant to Rule 5.1(c) INTERVENTION of a Constitutional Challenge?

A summons and complaint was NOT served upon United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, by the court advising of the constitutional question being challenged in the Court.

Only after filing of the Notice of Appeal did the Court serve a copy of the constitutional complaint upon the United States Attorney General on December 5, 2013.

Question #3
Did the Court ignore, deny, prevent and obstruct the Attorneys General from intentional default in the matter?

Any effort to involve the fifty-five non-Pennsylvania Attorneys General, who were properly served the constitutional matter by the Plaintiffs, was prevented by the Court.

Any effort to determine if the Attorneys General intended to default on the matter was prevented by the Court.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General fails to explain how fifty-five (55) Attorneys General who were NOT served with the Motion for Extension of the Responsive Pleading Deadline where “Attorney General Kane does not represent the other defendants.” all failed to file any answer to the summons and constitutional challenge by their “answer due” date.

Question #4
Did the court incorrectly dismiss the matter without basis in law while failing to substantiate any justification for dismissal in law, doctrine or case law?

This question is addressed in the misinformation of the Appellee Brief with information clarified and corrected in this document.

Question #5
Did the Court fail to reconsider the matter based on an incorrect application of LRCP Rule 7.1(g) where Rule FRCP Rule 52(b) applies to an action which concludes the matter before the court?

In a multi-page prolonged footnote, the Pennsylvania Attorney General engages in a speculative and circular argument which fails to indicate or explain why there was no response to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.


RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: