Posted on April 11 2018
it’s only WEDNESDAY...
DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF STANDING
Manafort v DOJ et al
This is based on Judge Berman’s previous minute order, instructing parties to file supplemental memos. The first 2 paragraphs really drive the Government’s position home.
- “Given Manafort’s shifting characterizations of what exactly he is seeking through this lawsuit, the Government respectfully submits that dismissal on both standing and abstention grounds would provide the clearest resolution of this matter.’ (emphasis added)
- ‘Manafort indeed lacks standing to pursue prospective relief against speculative future prosecutions.”
Standing is based in Article III of our Constitution. It reads in part:
- ”existence of standing are that the party seeking to sue must personally have suffered some actual or threatened injury that can fairly be traced to the challenged action of defendant and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision..”
- case or controversy, meaning is there a “real” case and controversy. As defined that two parties are in a disagreement.
Since Manafort is the “Plaintiff”, he does in fact beat the burden of subject matter jurisdiction, Article III, Standing, Injury and Case or Controversy. The Government correctly argue that nothing in Manafort’s previous pleadings indicate:
- “no allegations whatsoever regarding potential future prosecutions.”
- ”Nor does it allege any injuries purportedly stemming from ongoing investigations unconnected to the two existing prosecutions”
The government cites Younger abstention, named for Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Which makes sense given
Question before SCOTUS
“Did the federal court, in stopping a prosecution in a state court, violate constitutional principles of federalism?”
In an 8:1 Landmark Ruling, SCOTUS opined:
- “Specifically, the Court found that a federal court could not properly enjoin enforcement of a statute "solely on the basis of showing that the statute 'on its face' abridges First Amendment rights."
- “The Court referred to "the basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence," under which federal courts were required to show proper respect for state functions and notions of comity.”
In Younger, “generally” prohibits “federal courts from interfering into a state court’s authority to enforce its laws in its courts. This principle usually refrain the federal court from hearing constitutional challenges to state action”
I suspect Manafort’s counter argument, will likely be these following 3 areas. Where Courts have previously defined exceptions. Again I’m not asserting that the Government has participated in any of these actions, it’s me ruminating on what possible counter argument Manafort would use.
- Is the prosecution done in bad faith;
- Is the prosecution part of a decernible pattern of harassment against an individual; or
- Is the law being enforced is utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional.
The Government also cites, Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Which is particularly interesting given Seymour was “appointed as an Independent Counsel”. The Government goes on to make a salient argument;
- Manafort does not seek to challenge any regulation of his primary conduct; he merely seeks to challenge the Special Counsel’s authority to prosecute him.
To say Manafort’s pleadings are deficient, that’s an understatement.
Given that he’s that Plaintiff the bar is set for him to prove, standing and injury. This far Manafort has fallen adequately short. As officers of the Court, Manafort’s attorneys know better. They surely know the meaning of frivolous and filing suit in “bad faith” had Manafort at any time presented incontrovertible facts to support his claims, perhaps I’d be willing to give him some slack.
The reality is Manafort wants to challenge the “appointment” of the Special Counsel. At no time does Manafort offer any facts to support his speculative claims.
In summary these two sentences fully explain why the Government argues Manafort’s civil case should be dismissed:
- “Manafort fails at every step to bring his claim within the type of standing recognized in pre-enforcement cases, as well as to satisfy other bedrock Article III requirement”
- ...”past prosecutions authorize plaintiffs to seek civil relief overseeing potential future investigations and prosecutions—only further underscores the stark separation-of-powers concerns implicated by his claim.”
In a previous filing (which the Government recites in todays response) the Government rightfully stated:
- If Manafort believes the Special Counsel lacks authority to prosecute him, he is free to raise that objection in his criminal action by filing a motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- ‘But allowing Manafort to proceed with this civil action would enable him to “circumvent federal criminal procedure” and potentially “undermine the final judgment rule” in criminal cases. Deaver v Seymour”
And since you made it this far in to this entry, here’s today’s request by Special Counsel Mueller’s Team.
70 Subpoenas, (set of 35)
😂happy HUMP Day😂
Also worth noting that SCO Mueller filed these on 4/6/18 but this filing was uploaded to PACER earlier today.
While you're here, throw us a bone.
Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.
Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.