If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

GRANTS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON GROUNDS OF ARTICLE I, SECTION IX OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

by John Charlton

Obama has a long association with ACORN's work in Illinois. Here he is shown giving a talk to one ACORN affiliate. Note the ACORN membership T-shirt, being worn by the listener to his right.

(Dec. 12, 2009) — Yesterday afternoon, Federal Judge Nina Gershon of the Federl District Court, Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn, NY, issued a preliminary injunction obstructing the implementation of Congress’ ban on funding ACORN.

The injunction was issued to uphold Article I, section ix of the United States Constitution, which reads:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

A bill of attainder in British law, was one which stripped the personal rights from the individual so named.  In earlier centuries they were issued by the King of England against nobles who had risen up against him or conspired against his throne.  Nobles who were thus attainted lost their titles and properties, and became incapable of passing these to their heirs.  It was the most dredded of all punishments in Medieval England.

And ex post facto law, is any law which imposes an obligation retroactively, or which attempts to alter the legal obligations of individuals during the period of time before it came into force.

Our Founding Fathers placed this Article II, section ix prohibition in our Constitution to prevent poltical power in Congress from being used to issue de facto judicial judgements of guilt and punishment upon individuals, without granting them a fair and public trial.

Judge Nina Gershon is upholding the Constitution in her ruling, which can be read on line through this link.

That ACORN has sought to use this provision to conintue receiving tax payer monies, was clever.  But they were within their constitutional rights, even though it is widely believed that they have every intention of using those rights and government monies to lobby for special interest groups, and to create a political power base for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

In fact, the manner in which the Democrat controlled Congress imposed this ban on ACORN was sufficiently public enough to score points for the Party, while being unconstitutional enough not to stick.  Thus their collaborater in community organizing gets off, and they continue their pretense of impartiality and honesty.

Join the Conversation

17 Comments

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Strunk’s request for permission tof flle a motion to intervene was verbally granted, let’s see if this makes it into the transcript or other wise minute entry of the hearing (not in docket yet at 6PM)

    Gershon refused to reconsiderher Dec 11 order granting ACORN relief with a preliminary injunction regarding a ban on payments to ACORN.

    DOJ failed to ask for a stay of the original ACORN funding order PI pending their (DOJ’s) (interlochatory) appeal.

    much more to follow. Gershon told Strunk to file a statement covering all the points in the entire case.

    Interesting to note/observe that current docket is missing #23 — very strange, let’s see if the court corrects the error in the next few hours.
    1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Acorn et al v. United States of America et al
    Nina Gershon, presiding
    Lois Bloom, referral
    Date filed: 11/12/2009
    Date of last filing: 12/22/2009

    24
    Filed & Entered: 12/22/2009
    Order on Motion for Reconsideration
    Full docket text for document 24:
    MEMORANDUM AND ORDER directing that defendants motion for reconsideration is denied. For reasons stated on the record, the alternative application to strike the United States from the preliminary injunction is also denied. Finally, plaintiffs motion to modify or amend the preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice as described on the record. Ordered by Senior Judge Nina Gershon on 12/22/2009. (Fernandez, Erica)

  2. 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Acorn et al v. United States of America et al
    Nina Gershon, presiding
    Lois Bloom, referral
    Date filed: 11/12/2009
    Date of last filing: 12/21/2009

    22
    Filed & Entered: 12/21/2009
    Letter
    Full docket text for document 22:
    Letter from F. Franklin Amanat, counsel for defendants, to Judge Gershon, in response/opposition to the letter from Christopher Earl Strunk (a pro se non-party to the action) requesting a premotion conference in connection with his planned motion for leave to intervene as a defendant in this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, by Shaun Donovan, Timothy Geithner, Peter Orszag, United States of America (Amanat, F.)

  3. 1:09-cv-04888-NG -LB Acorn et al v. United States of America et al
    Nina Gershon, presiding
    Lois Bloom, referral
    Date filed: 11/12/2009
    Date of last filing: 12/17/2009

    16
    Filed & Entered: 12/17/2009
    Unsigned Order to Show Cause

    Full docket text for document 16:
    Unsigned Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction by Acorn, Acorn Institute, Inc., New York Acorn Housing Company, Inc. (Charney, Darius)
    17
    Filed & Entered: 12/17/2009
    Declaration

    Full docket text for document 17:
    DECLARATION re [16] Unsigned Order to Show Cause Certificate of Compliance by Acorn, Acorn Institute, Inc., New York Acorn Housing Company, Inc. (Charney, Darius)
    18
    Filed & Entered: 12/17/2009
    Order

    Full docket text for document 18:
    By motion dated December 16, 2009, defendants move for reconsideration of this courts December 11, 2009, opinion and order granting plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. In the alternative, defendants seek amendment of the injunction. Plaintiffs, on December 17, 2009, submitted an amended complaint. Plaintiffs also seek modification of the preliminary injunction. Defendants are directed to file their response to plaintiffs motion by 5:00 PM on December 18, 2009. Plaintiffs are directed to respond to defendants motion by the same date and time. The parties are directed to appear for a hearing on their motions on Tuesday, December 22, 2009, at 2:30 PM, in Courtroom 6D South, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York. Ordered by Senior Judge Nina Gershon on 12/17/2009. (Ehrlich, Julie)
    19
    Filed & Entered: 12/17/2009
    Amended Complaint

    Full docket text for document 19:
    AMENDED COMPLAINT CORRECTED against Shaun Donovan, Timothy Geithner, Peter Orszag, United States of America, filed by Acorn, Acorn Institute, Inc., New York Acorn Housing Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit G) (Charney, Darius)

    1. Filed & Entered: 12/18/2009
      Electronic Index to Record on Appeal

      20
      Filed & Entered: 12/18/2009
      Memorandum in Opposition
      Full docket text for document 20:
      MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [11] MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Acorn, Acorn Institute, Inc., New York Acorn Housing Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C) (Charney, Darius)
      21
      Filed & Entered: 12/18/2009
      Response in Opposition to Motion
      Full docket text for document 21:
      RESPONSE in Opposition re [15] MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement [10] Preliminary Injunction,, [9] Memorandum & Opinion,,,,,,, filed by Shaun Donovan, Timothy Geithner, Peter Orszag, United States of America. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit, # (2) Exhibit, # (3) Exhibit, # (4) Exhibit) (Leary, Peter)

      1. Tuesday hearing in Brooklyn USDC-NYED 2:30PM should resolve the ACORN payment issue assuming Gershon hears DOJ appeal foot steps, and much more will be in-play regarding nbc / quo warranto issue depending on how the NYED court handles Strunk’s appearance and intervention effort that day. Many court cases are potentially in play that day — much due to apparent ACORN RICO effort rigging the national election and 2010 census voter registration process.

        See USDC-DC Strunk cases in front of Judge Leon, as well as NYSSC (Kings County) Strunk v Patterson — Judge Schmidt.

  4. Or is this just another use of the Alinsky Rules for Radicals–about destroying an enemy target from the inside –the one that goes something like–“make them follow their own rules” while of course, not following the same rules themselves…I wonder…

  5. let’s see Strunk’s motion(s) in response to Gershon to be filed this week in USDC-NYED and perhaps in USCA DC Circuit as well as NYSSC-Kings County (Brooklyn)

    1. important news flash — check out today’s docket (09-4888 Acorn v US) items filed by DOJ including motion to reconsider (Docket #11), NOA (Docket #12), and now most currently — at approx 7:45 PM EST an additional “Notice (other) (Doc #13) explaining to the court that Gershon unfortunately did not grant a blanket injuction banning ACORN funding from all combined bills — or various explicit and partitioned bills (including bills signed today Dec 16 2009.

      1. the supposed anti-RICO congressional ex-post facto bill(s) of attainder story continues to newly signed bills — ACORN just filed today Dec 17th an amended complaint and motion to file an amended complaint seeking to patch-up (reconsider and with the obvious friendly help of Holder/DOJ expanding the scope of the ACORN connected federal district judge’s order of Dec 11th now already on appeal at the USCA-2nd Circuit) Gershon’s defective order not covering all the ACORN funding source bases from a funding freeze by various governmental agencies — budget bills.

  6. First of all, I can’t seem to find anything in the Constitution’s enumerated powers that even gives the federal government the authority to give taxpayer dollars to private organizations!?! And don’t even think about giving me that “general welfare clause” crap! If the GW clause did in fact mean giving government unlimited power, then it wouldn’t have needed to specify the 17 enumerated powers to begin with!

    We all know what ACORN really is. It’s just a GD shame that we have federal judges with the same mental capacity and partisan mindset as the crooks who run ACORN.

  7. I do not see how this in any way is a bill of attainder. If the government grants funding to a private organization and then for whatever reason withholds or cancels that funding, how is that a bill of attainder. The Congress did not pass a law to seize private moneys. The Congress simply said it was not going to fund ACORN anymore with taxpayers money. If this ruling stands then once the Federal government decides to fund any organization this ruling would prevent the government from ever canceling the funding. As I see it whatever the government gives to private organizations the government can also take away and stop.

    MPG

  8. How can activities of a national organization that has been found guilty of breaking the law many times in numerous states be in the public interest.

    Hell, one could then use the same logic and say the actions of the Mafia, Bloods, Hells Angels etc are in the public interest

    To say that the logic used by Judge Gershon to arrive at her ruling was ludicrous is an understatement.

  9. In my opinion Judge Gershon’s ruling is a judicial activism. Quote “issuance of a public injunction will serve the public interest” This of course if the opinion that Progressives take of ACORN, where in fact it has been shown that their activities are in fact against the public interest and the greater good.

    In addition:

    Even though Corporations are legally considered to have the same legal status of an individual, the founding fathers did not intend that Article I section 9 of the U.S. Constitution cover corporations.

  10. Now let’s see Gershon respond to intervention by Strunk linking prior USDC-NYED cases (and now even more relevent various USDC-DC cases), seeking quo warranto enforcement of natural born citizen clause on eligibility of elected POTUS/CINC, due to the legal status of the alien male parent Obama Sr of said born Obama Jr (and thereby his Obama Jr unconstitutional executive use of ACORN in 2010 census as well as his unconstitutional DOJ enforcement/defense of ACORN for 2008 election ACORN related campaign / voter fraud prosecutions)

  11. This is entirely consistent with the DNC’s full-scale assault on The Constitution. It will be interesting to see if The DoJ wheels out their ‘big gun’ lawyers to try to uphold this unconstitutional act, in the same way that they have done everything possible to uphold the usurpation of the presidency by Mr Obama, contrary to Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of The Constitution.

  12. So I guess our justices can apply the constitution when it is convenient. Where in the constitution does it say it is legal to pay ACORN in the first place? How about the eligibility issue?

    1. This is absurd. Article I, section ix pertains to criminal, not civil matters. There are numerous Supreme Court opinions that further this view.

      Not infrequently the congress passes ex-post facto laws with ot court blocking them. Look at laws pertaining taxation, the Internal Revenue Code and you’ll find ex-post facto laws.

      It seems that the legal stabdars are different for Barry’s kind than for the rest of the nation.

      ———————

      Mr. Charlton replies: I don’t like the consequence of Gershon’s ruling, but I think it is a good ruling, because the crux of the matter is not blocking ACORN from receiving funding: the Federal govt. can do that as a matter of general policy regarding any corrupt organization. The crux of the matter is a congressional bill which names one specific organization as being banned from competing for govt contracts and receiving govt monies. And that is what a bill of attainder is. If the congressional bill merely spoke in general of community activist organizations involved in corruption, that would be another thing. But a direct specific ban of one org, is unconstitutional. Perhaps the Dems put that ban in, in such a form, just so that they could later say, “See its unconstitutional, the courts even say we must give them money!” Let’s not be naive…most Congressmen are lawyers and know what the Constitution means, even if they only use that meaning when it serves them, and ignore it the rest of the time.