Call for Amicus Briefs regarding Petition to U.S. Supreme Court

Re:  Amicus Briefs regarding Petition to U.S. Supreme Court

Please consider submitting an Amicus Curiae Brief regarding your stance on the issues soon to be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.  They regard immunity exceptions, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), the legal rights of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (MN DOLI), the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and Section 1983 claims. 

Simply stated, the petitioners are claiming the practice of granting blanket immunity to all claims against county, city, and township officials is unconstitutional.  The courts are failing to account for the several exceptions that exist as recourse for wronged individuals (malice, bad faith, failure to perform ministerial and operational level duties, etc.).  This specific case entails the refusal of the building inspector to adhere to several required duties of his position.

Only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law." Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County (2006 emphases added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power.'" Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1979).  Thus, the state courts practice of granting blanket sovereign immunity, while ignoring Minnesota Statutes exceptions to immunity, is unconstitutional.   The courts ruled contrary to the powers expressly granted Congress “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” [Congress’s Article I § 8].

Second, the township hid behind the MGDPA when they thought it applied to them, and even after finding it did not.  According to the MGDPA, only seven metropolitan areas have to comply.  The rest of the local governments are expected to voluntarily provide this information.  Thomson Township elected to not share anything of value, even after volunteering the information initially (when they thought they had too).  The township was empowered by the legislature's recent decision to exempt them from the same record sharing process to deny rightful discovery by petitioners.

Third, the courts failed to recognize the MN DOLI as the legal state department in charge of determining whether or not the building inspector has met his required obligations.  In this case, the building inspector was censured for wrongdoing, including being cited for several violations of Minnesota Statutes and Rules.  These powers were expressly granted to the MN DOLI and should not have been ignored.  This is yet another example of continued legislation from the bench.

Fourth, ample evidence of trespass on several occasions by the building inspector and fire chief, were simply ignored by the court.  These are clear violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments that cannot be ignored.

Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that:  "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."  Minnesota courts failed to uphold the constitutional rights under the guise of immunity.

Thank you for your time and serious consideration in filing an amicus brief regarding any of these specified matters.

A full copy of submissions will be provided to you upon your request to marvindp@msn.com.

Sincerely,

Marvin Pirila & Gail Francette

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Marvin Pirila & Gail Francette - PETITIONERS
vs.

Thomson Township, Thomson Township Fire Department, John Gulland, Duane Grace, Jeffrey Juntunen. — RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

MINNESOTA SUPRREME COURT
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Marvin Pirila & Gail Francette
1 N Cloquet Rd W
Esko, MN 55733

(218) 391-2876

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1.  Did the courts rule contrary to the powers expressly granted Congress “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” [Congress's Article I, § 8,] state laws regarding immunity and its exceptions?

2.  Did the state courts rule contrary to the findings of the Minnesota's Department of Labor, the legitimate authority of State Building Codes under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 326B, as expressly granted by Congress?

3. Were the plaintiffs’ fourth and fourteenth amendment rights violated by defendants?

4.  Were plaintiffs denied due process rights by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, requiring no municipalities and townships, outside of seven metropolitan areas, to answer information requests?

5.  Is the exemption townships receive under M.S. § 368.01 from participating in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act unconstitutional, particularly when they refuse to provide data voluntarily or during official discovery attempts?

6. Were the plaintiffs rights to privacy and rights to due process wrongfully denied and illegal under Title 42 U.S.C. 1983?

Note:  The Supreme Court of the United States has special rules for amicus curiae briefs, covered generally by Supreme Court Rule 37. The Rule states, in part, such a brief should cover "relevant matter" not dealt with by the parties which "may be of considerable help".^[1] The cover of an amicus brief must identify which party the brief is supporting or if the brief only supports affirmance or reversal. Supreme Court Rule 37.3(a). The Court, inter alia, also requires that all non-governmental Amici identify those providing a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief. Supreme Court Rule 37.6. Briefs must be prepared in booklet format and 40 copies must be served with the Court.^[2]

In general, unless the amicus brief is being filed by the federal government (or one of its officers or agents) or a U.S. state, permission of the court (by means of motion for leave) or mutual consent of the parties is required. Allowing an amicus curiae to present oral argument is considered "extraordinary".^[3]

1. Rule 37(1).
2. United States Supreme Court Rule 33
3. FRAP 29.