Payday loansaddicts manipulation for
casino
geant casino france
online casino s
casino places in
live casino
potawatomi casino
pennacle casino resort lake charles
best online bingo for
can you smoke in casino
john gambling live
doyle brunson poker
unwanted emails asking for
casino deutsch online
365 casino
cherokee casino
riverwind casino
electronic bingo
play deal or no deal slot
public money for
no 1 online
greektown casino hotel 1200 st antoine street detroit mi
fiesta hotel and casino lima
red lion bar poker in
savan casino
poker bot full
dancing for money on
strip poker java game
when did casino nb
myvegas slots google
vegas gambling
playing poker for
yonkers casino in
18 and over casinos in
geogia couple wins megabucks
texas lottery and indian
how to own a casino in las
online world casino directory real money
don bardons casino in pittsburgh
geant casino fontaine ouvert le 15
rod and reel slots
tatoo expo cow
lucky strike casino las
sydney casino
texas holdem
how to run a home casino
royalton casino and spa punta
gran casino barcelone cash
casino bonus
gambling
bingo supplies in
1000 islands poker
canadian poker
rio world series of
lucky gems
jackpot game s r
gladys knight the wild horse pass resort and casino chandler mar
hottest female poker
casino affiliate
chocktaw bingo
presque isle gaming
largest casino in las
st joseph bingo
bet365 internet
sintra
amatures
game online mobile poker
california casino
me gusta el
where can i play keno
thunder valley casino hotel
greektown casino employment in
is it possible to win money playing blackjack
casino windsor
gambling in south
gun lake casino gift
blackjack card 6
casino atlantic city
casinos mit paypal
the palace in springfield
blackjack for pocket
palace of
7 slots live
suite description riu palace rivera
emerald casino lakewood
motor city casino play and
mafia and online
casino grand cercle societe
pacific poker internet sports
casino olympic warszawa
mt airy casino
niagara fall
rival casinos accepting
kinsington
magical odds slot
maryland live blackjack
progressive slot jackpots las
bingo game
royal ace casino redeem
royal vegas mobile casino
can you smoke in winstar
green valley ranch casino
cleopatra slot machine
casino spiele echtes geld ohne
get minted
blackjack modem drivers
going on tilt in
risk board game play
air force seal poker
red rock casino spa
bingo parlors in baton
holland casino
border town
pearl palace
how to build a casino city simcity
can you withdraw casino
s spurs bingo
oklahoma casino off
mountainaire
wheeling island casino wv
elephant
winstar casino journey
werken in casino
political parties raise money for
super casino bonus
games online play by e
casino geant
canadian online slots
barbizon palace
service apres vente geant casino
bingo
kentcuky powerball
binion binions casino las vegas
play online
hotel casino del rio las
instructions for love and money
matsui casino
pacanele net crazy
playboy casino
grand casino coushatta
cod2 online play without cd
gemaco poker iraqi most
bingo
online casino legal new
poker chips value home
tiffany interactive flash sex poker
keshena casino
torrent smash
multiplayer blackjack iphone
western poker
codes for doubledown casino sept
poker
ni no kuni casino vip
komo 4
castle casino
virtual strip poker play
station casino sports
amc palace and fort
mallette
blackjack pizza parker
hollywood casino hotel kansas
commanders palace las
online gambling
jackpot casino belgrade
cats slot machine
tunica ms casinos
casino wiesbaden
india palace roseville
chip fantasy
harrahs casino in st louis
imperial queen casino tacoma
bingo games you can
winner casino
bingo jackpot in the
celebrity big brother super casino
grupo casino e abilio
home version of igt casino
sports bar at crown casino
roulette table hire
slot machine sales
nouveau jeux casino bonus sans
bingo
soboba casino
what is the difference between blackjack and spanish
potowatomie
dunes
winpoker
indian casino
Payday Loans
ICRF v. Maryland: Motion to Dismiss -Action PDF Print E-mail

IV - THIS ACTION IS NOT MOOT

On September 15, 1999, defendants issued their final report, thus completing the mandate of House Joint Resolution 22. While such act marked the conclusion of the meetings and preparation of the report sought to be foreclosed by this action, the issuance of the report has not marked the conclusion of the harm continuing to be done by defendants’ acts, nor has it foreclosed all of the relief sought in the complaint.

The very caption of the pleading states that it is a "COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF." After a lengthy description of the reasons why the conduct of the Task Force was unconstitutional and the issuance of the report was unconstitutional, the Complaint specifically prays both for an injunction against the defendants and for specific declaratory relief, seeking:

1. A declaration that the Resolution is facially unconstitutional and void;

2. A declaration that the conduct of the Task Force is unconstitutional;

(Complaint, Prayer.)

The mischief done by the Task Force’s Report was felt immediately upon its publication and is continuing to be felt by the plaintiffs and a broad class of persons and entities subject to the attack upon their faiths by the defendants under the rubric and authority of the State of Maryland.

While a federal court has no authority "to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it," Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 133 (1895), the "availability of [a] possible remedy is sufficient to prevent [a] case from being moot." Church of Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 13, 113 S.Ct. 447, 450 (1992).

In Church of Scientology of California v. United States, the Church challenged the disclosure of private records under an unlawful subpoena. Despite the compliance with the subpoena by a third party and subsequent copying of the records by the government, the Supreme Court found that a taxpayer still suffers injury by a continued "affront to the taxpayer’s privacy," stating:

A person’s interest in maintaining the privacy of his "papers and effects" is of sufficient importance to merit constitutional protection. ... Even though it is now too late to prevent, or to provide a fully satisfactory remedy for, the invasion of privacy that occurred when the IRS obtained the information on the tapes, a court does have power to effectuate a partial remedy by ordering the Government to destroy or return any and all copies it may have in its possession. The availability of this possible remedy is sufficient to prevent this case from being moot.

506 U.S. at 13.

This ruling has, of course, been followed in every Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Chrysler Corp., 158 F.3d 1350, 1353 (D.C.Cir. 1998) ("even the availability of a partial remedy is sufficient to prevent a case from being moot ... The question then, is whether this court can grant Chrysler any relief at all."); Flynn v. Sandahl, 58 F.3d 283, 287 (7th Cir. 1995) ("The proper test for mootness on appeal is not whether we may return the parties to the status quo ante, but rather, whether it is still possible to ‘fashion some form of meaningful relief’.")

Declaring the Resolution, the acts of the defendants, and the existing Task Force Report to violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs will unquestionably provide some "meaningful relief" to these plaintiffs. It will lift a substantial chill upon their religious practices; it will tend to restore the balance of fairness between the main line religious proponents of the Task Force Resolution and the minority religions attacking the Resolution and the Report; and, it will remove the imprimatur of the State of Maryland from the forbidden inquest and derogation of the Unification Church, the Church of Christ and the other "cults" which are presumed to be the targets of the "cult" inquest.

Moreover, as noted in the Federal Circuit, in deciding whether or not an issue is moot is whether the disputed issue "continues to be justified by a sufficient prospect that the decision will have an impact on the parties." Nasatka v. Delta Scientific Corp., 58 F.3d 1578, 1580 (Fed.Cir. 1992), quoting, Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc., v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 1992).

A cursory review of the defendants’ motion to dismiss certainly reflects that a declaratory judgment that their conduct violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs will have an impact on them. A ruling will have a substantial impact on the plaintiffs, for if relief is denied, they face the prospect of continuing discrimination and persecution fostered by an antagonistic state government.

The action is not moot.

 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I - INTRODUCTION

II – STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Legislative History of the Cult Task Force Resolution
B. The Task Force Report Continued the Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights

III - PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING TO BRING THIS ACTION

IV - THIS ACTION IS NOT MOOT

V - THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IS NOT A BAR TO THIS ACTION

VI - CONCLUSION