Final call for amicus curiae briefs

Dear advocates of true democracy;

Your help is needed in pleading the rights of citizens to transparent local governments, ethical and professional government services, and the right to privacy in one's own homes. None of these basic rights were afforded us, yet the local authorities are not compelled by law to answer to their wrongs. The MN Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) does not apply to any municipalities or townships outside of the metro Minneapolis/St Paul area and left no recourse to us for the numerous wrongs committed by the local townships' building inspector and fire chief. If you will read our petition to the U.S. Supreme Court you will understand the trials and tribulations we endured from a township that flexed its uninhibited power to determine local winners and losers. When finding out the MGDPA did not apply to them, the township refused to answer discovery requests. They destroyed us emotionally and financially as they have with many others. We have taken this as far as we can alone, and need your help in supporting us via an Amicus Curiae brief. Please look at our case and let us know what you decide.

We'll pray for your participation in such grave matters of constitutional rights. See docketed case at U.S. Supreme Court below.  The time is now.

Sincerely,

Marvin Pirila & Gail Francette
1 N Cloquet Rd W
Esko, MN 55733
(218) 391-2876
marvindp@msn.com

No. 11-887 Title: Marvin Pirila, et al., Petitioners v. Thomson Township, Minnesota, et al. Docketed: January 20, 2012 Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Minnesota Case Nos.: (A11-276) Decision Date: August 22, 2011 Discretionary Court Decision Date: October 26, 2011 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jan 13 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 21, 2012) Jan 13 2012 Appendix of Marvin Pirila, et al. filed (Volumes 1 & 2). Jan 23 2012 Waiver of right of respondents Thomson Township, Minnesota, et al. to respond filed. Jan 26 2012 Waiver of right of respondent Duane Grace to respond filed.

---

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Marvin Pirila	1 N Cloquet Rd W	(218) 391-2876
	Esko, MN 55733
Party name: Marvin Pirila, et al.
Attorneys for Respondents:
Paul Donald Reuvers	9321 Ensign Avenue South	(952) 548-7200
Counsel of Record	Bloomington, MN 55438
Party name: Thomson Township, Minnesota, et al.
Steven L. Reyelts	332 West Superior Street, Suite 700	(218) 727-6833
Counsel of Record	Duluth, MN 55802-1801
Party name: Duane Grace

Supreme Court of the United States - Docket No. 11-887

The case of:

Marvin Pirila, et al.
                    (Petitioners)

                              v.                                           No. 11--887

Thomson Township, et al.
                   (Respondent)

is now on docket at the Supreme Court of the United States at .......

All amicus curaie briefs are now due within 30 days.  If you are behind individual rights, the limited powers of government, and just plain decency, please file your briefs now.

Amicus Curiae Brief Example

A good example of how an amicus curiae brief is written.  Click here...

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.