Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Glafhr v Deal Appeal Amicus 08222011

Glafhr v Deal Appeal Amicus 08222011

Glafhr v Deal Appeal Amicus 08222011

Page 1: Glafhr v Deal Appeal Amicus 08222011

Category:General

Number of Pages:47

Date Created:August 22, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:Curiae, Appellee, appellees, Amicus, DOMA, Human, rights, immigration, GEORGIA, Plaintiffs, Illegal Immigration, ACLU, Congress, Counsel, DHS, section, plaintiff, federal, State, Supreme Court, states, court, united, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

APPEAL NO. 11-13044-C THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS  
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 
________ 
 
GEORGIA LATINO ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, al., 
 
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
 
vs. 
 
NATHAN DEAL, al., 
 
Defendant-Appellants. 
 
________ APPEAL FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT  
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT GEORGIA 
__________________________ 
 
 BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. SUPPORT APPELLANTS 
__________________________ 
 
 
Paul Orfanedes 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 
Washington,  20024 
Tel.: (202) 646-5172 
Fax.: (202) 646-5199 
 
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc. 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
No. 11-13044-C, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal 
 
CERTIFICATE INTERESTED PERSONS 
AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 
 Counsel certifies that the following persons have interest the outcome this case: 
Alterna Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation-NY Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
          
American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants Rights Project Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
American Civil Liberties Union Georgia Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
American Civil Liberties Union Racial Justice Program Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
American Immigration Lawyers Association Amicus Curiae 
 
Anello, Farrin Rose Counsel for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association 
Anti-defamation League Amicus Curiae 
 
Argentina Amicus Curiae 
 
Asian American Legal Advocacy Center Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Asian Law Caucus Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
No. 11-13044-C, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal 
 
 
Bauer, Mary Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Beatty, Mike (Commissioner the Department Community Affairs the State Georgia, his official capacity) Defendant-Appellant 
Blazer, Jonathan Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Bondurant, II, Emmet Counsel for Amicus Curiae Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, United Mexican States, Uruguay 
Bondurant Mixson Elmore, LLP Counsel for Amicus Curiae Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, United Mexican States, Uruguay 
Brazil Amicus Curiae 
Bridges, Paul Plaintiff-Appellee 
Broder, Tanya Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Brooke, Samuel Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Chea, Socheat Counsel for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association  
Chile Amicus Curiae 
 
No. 11-13044-C, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal 
 
 
Clark, Christopher Counsel for Amicus Curiae United Mexican States 
 
Clark, Joshua Amicus Curiae 
 
Coalition for the Peoples Agenda Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Coalition Latino Leaders Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Colombia Amicus Curiae 
 
Conley, Danielle Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Costa Rica Amicus Curiae  
 
Dale Schwartz Associates Counsel for Amicus Curiae Anti-defamation League  
Davidson, Meghan Robson Counsel for Defendants-Appellants 
Deal, Nathan (Governor the State Georgia, his official capacity) Defendant-Appellant 
Desormeau, Katherine Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
Dewey LeBoeuf, LLP-NY Counsel for Amicus Curiae United Mexican States 
DREAM Activist.org Plaintiff-Appellee 
Drew Eckl Farnham Counsel for Amicus Curiae GALEO 
Edwards, Paul Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
No. 11-13044-C, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal Salvador Amicus Curiae 
Federal Hasson, LLP Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
Federal, Jr., Robert Keegan Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Freeman, Steve Counsel for Amicus Curiae Anti-defamation League 
 
GALEO Amicus Curiae 
 
Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Gorniak, Carla Counsel for Amicus Curiae United Mexican States 
 
Gruner, Sharon Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Guatemala Amicus Curiae 
Harrell, Brett Amicus Curiae 
Honduras Amicus Curiae 
Howe, Everitt Plaintiff-Appellee 
Immigrant Justice Project, Southern Poverty Law Center Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
Immigration Clinic, University Miami School Law Counsel for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association  
 
 
No. 11-13044-C, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal 
 
 
Jackson, Chara Fisher Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Jadwat, Omar Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Jane Doe Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Jane Doe Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Joaquin, Linton Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
John Doe Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
John Doe Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Judicial Watch, Inc. Amicus Curiae 
 
Keaney, Melissa Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Kennedy, David Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Kuck, Charles Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Kuck Immigration Partners LLC Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
         
Lapointe, Michelle Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Law Office Brian Spears Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Ling, Sin Yen Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Mukherjee, Elora Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
 
 
 
No. 11-13044-C, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal 
National Immigration Law Center  Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Nicaragua Amicus Curiae  
 
Office State Attorney General Counsel for Defendants-Appellants 
Olens, Samuel (Attorney General the State Georgia, his official capacity) Defendant-Appellant 
Oleson, Nathaniel Counsel for Amicus Curiae Rightmarch.com 
Orfanedes, Paul Counsel for Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc. 
 
Orland, Devon Counsel for Defendants-Appellants 
 
Patterson, Jr., Pickens Andrew Counsel for Defendants-Appellants 
 
Peru Amicus Curiae 
 
Pinon, Ernesto Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Preciado, Nora Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Reese, III, Clyde (Commissioner the Department Human Services the State Georgia, his official capacity) Defendant-Appellant 
Rightmarch.com Amicus Curiae 
Rohan, Douglas Brooks Counsel for Amicus Curiae GALEO 
 
Schwartz, Dale Counsel for Amicus Curiae Anti-defamation League  
 
 
No. 11-13044-C, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal 
 
 
Segura, Andre Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Service Employees International Union Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Shahshahani, Azadeh Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Sharpless, Rebecca Ann Counsel for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association  
Singh, Jaypaul Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Socheat Chea, P.C. Counsel for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association  
Solano, Henry Counsel for Amicus Curiae United Mexican States 
 
Southern Center for Human Rights Amicus Curiae  
 
Southern Poverty Law Center-AL Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Southern Poverty Law Center-Atl Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Southern Regional Joint Board Workers United Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
Spears, George Brian Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Speight, Benjamin Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
State Georgia Law Department Counsel for Defendants-Appellants 
 
 
 
 
No. 11-13044-C, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal 
 
 
Stewart, Falecia (Executive Director the Housing Authority Fulton County Georgia, her official capacity) Defendant-Appellant 
Sugarman, Kenneth John Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Task Force for the Homeless Plaintiff-Appellee 
 
The Thompson Law Firm Counsel for Amicus Curiae Brett Harrell, Joshua Clark, Rightmarch.com 
Thomas Kennedy Sampson Patterson Counsel for Defendants-Appellants 
Thompson, Gerald Jason Counsel for Amicus Curiae Brett Harrell, Joshua Clark, Rightmarch.com 
Thrash, Jr., The Honorable Thomas United States District Court Judge 
Tsu, Naomi Ruth Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Tumlin, Karen Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Turner, Andrew Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
United Mexican States Amicus Curiae  
 
United States Justice Foundation Counsel for Amicus Curiae Rightmarch.com 
 
Uruguay Amicus Curiae  
 
Wang, Cecillia Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
 
No. 11-13044-C, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal 
 
 
Werner, Daniel Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
Weber, Gerald Counsel for Amicus Curiae Southern Center for Human Rights 
 
 
TABLE CONTENTS 
CERTIFICATE INTERESTED PERSONS AND  
 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........................................... C-1 
TABLE CONTENTS ............................................................................................ 
TABLE CITATIONS ........................................................................................ iii 
STATEMENT THE INTEREST AMICUS CURIAE .................................... 
STATEMENT THE ISSUES............................................................................... 
SUMMARY THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 
ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS AUTHORITY .............................................. Applicable Standards Review ..................................................................... The Court Gives Deference District Courts  
  Legal Determinations and Reviews District Courts  
  Interpretation the Underlying Legal Principles Novo ................................................................................................. This Facial Challenge Disfavored and Plaintiffs  
  Bear Heavy Burden ............................................................................ The Provisions Issue Must Presumed Constitutional .................. The Burden Establishing the Unconstitutionality the  
  Provisions Issue Rests Plaintiffs and Never Shifts ...................... 
II. II. The Enjoined Provisions Are Not Preempted Federal Law ....................... The District Court Erred Not Applying Presumption  
  Against Preemption ............................................................................. Section Not Preempted U.S.C.  1324 ................................. Section Not Preempted U.S.C.  1357 1103 ............ 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE 
CERTIFICATE SERVICE 
 
TABLE CITATIONS 
Cases  
Berman Parker, 348 U.S. 26, Ct. (1954) ......................................... 16, 
Bldg. Const. Trades Council Metro. Dist. Assoc. Builders  
 Contractors Mass./R.I., Inc., 507 U.S. 218, 113 Ct. 1190  
 (1993) ............................................................................................................... 
Boyes Shell Oil Prods. Co., 199 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2000) .............................. 
Broadrick Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, Ct. 2908 (1973) .................................. 
California Coastal Commn Granite Rock Co.,  
 480 U.S. 572, 107 Ct. 1419 (1987) ............................................................. 
*Chamber Commerce the United States Whiting,  
 131 Ct. 1968 (2011) ....................................................................... 18, 19, 
Close Glenwood Cemetery, 107 U.S. 466, Ct. 267 (1883) ............................. 
*De Canas Bica, 424 U.S. 351, Ct. 933 (1976)........................ 13, 14, 18, 
Equal Access Education Merten, 305 Supp. 585 (E.D. Va. 2004) ............. 
Estrada Rhode Island, 594 F.3d (1st Cir. 2010) ............................................. 
FW/PBS, Inc. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 110 Ct. 596 (1990) .................................. Citations primarily relied upon 
 
Gade National Solid Wastes Management Assn,  
 505 U.S. 88, 112 Ct. 2374 (1992) ......................................................... 
Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal,  
 No. 1:11-CV-1804, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69600  
 (N.D. Ga. June 27, 2011) ................................................................... 12, 20, 
Gonzalez Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 127 Ct. 1610 (2007) ..................................... 
Gray City Valley Park, 567 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2009) ..................................... 
Gray City Valley Park, No. 4:07-CV-00881,  
 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7238 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) ................................ 
Green Fund Asset Mgmt., L.P., 245 F.3d 214 (3rd Cir. 2001) ............................ 
Gregory Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 111 Ct. 2395 (1991) .................................... 
Jones Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, Ct. 1305 (1977) ........................... 
League United Latin American Citizens Wilson,  
 908 Supp. 755 (C.D. Cal. 1995) ................................................................ 
Levi Strauss Co. Sunrise Intl Trading, F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 1995) .............. 
License Cases, U.S. How.) 504 (1847) .......................................................... 
Lynch Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir. 1987) ......................................... 18, Citations primarily relied upon 
Marsh United States, F.2d 172 (2d Cir. 1928) ................................................ 
Medtronic, Inc. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 116 Ct. 2240 (1996) ............ 10, 11, 12, 
Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. New York Brownell,  
 294 U.S. 580, Ct. 538 (1935) ................................................................. 
Muehler Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 125 Ct. 1465 (2005) .......................................... 
National Endowment for the Arts Finley,  
 524 U.S. 569, 118 Ct. 2168 (1998) ............................................................. 
National Mut. Insurance Co. Dist. Col. Tidewater Transfer Co.,  
 337 U.S. 582, Ct. 1173 (1949) ........................................................... 
Noble State Bank Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, Ct. 186 (1911) ........................... 
Printz United States, 521 U.S. 898, 117 Ct. 2365 (1997) ............................... 
Silkwood Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 104 Ct. 615 (1984) ..................... 
This That And The Other Gift And Tobacco, Inc. Cobb County,  
 285 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2002) ......................................................... 
United States Hernandez, 418 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) ................................. 
United States Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 Ct. 1135 (2000) ............................ 11, 
United States Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3d 611 (8th Cir. 2001) ......................... 
United States Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 107 Ct. 2095 (1987) ............................... Citations primarily relied upon 
United States Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999) .................. 17, 
Washington State Grange Washington State Republican Party,  
 552 U.S. 442, 128 Ct. 1184 (2008) ......................................................... 
Winter Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,  
 555 U.S. 129 Ct. 365 (2008) ................................................................... 
Wisconsin Public Intervenor Mortier,  
 501 U.S. 597, 111 Ct. 2476 (1991)) ............................................................ 
*Wyeth Levine, 129 Ct. 1187 (2009) ......................................................... 11, 
 
Rules, Statutes, and Regulations U.S.C.  1101 .......................................................................................................... U.S.C.  1103 .................................................................................... 22, 24, U.S.C.  1103(a)(10) ............................................................................................. U.S.C.  1324 .............................................................................................. 19, U.S.C.  1324(c) ................................................................................................... U.S.C.  1357 .................................................................................... 22, 24, U.S.C.  1357(g)(1)............................................................................................... U.S.C.  1357(g)(10) .......................................................................................... Citations primarily relied upon U.S.C.  1373 ........................................................................................................ U.S.C.  1644 ........................................................................................................ 
O.C.G.A.  16-5-46 .................................................................................................. 
O.C.G.A.  16-5-46(b)  ............................................................................................ 
O.C.G.A.  16-5-46(c)  ............................................................................................ 
O.C.G.A.  16-11-200 .............................................................................................. 
O.C.G.A.  16-11-200(a)(1) ............................................................................ 14, 
O.C.G.A.  16-11-201  ............................................................................................. 
O.C.G.A.  16-11-201(2) ................................................................................... 14, 
O.C.G.A.  16-11-202  ............................................................................................. 
O.C.G.A.  16-11-202(a) ................................................................................... 14, 
O.C.G.A.  17-5-100  ............................................................................................... 
O.C.G.A.  17-5-100(a)(2) ...................................................................................... 
O.C.G.A.  17-5-100(b) ........................................................................................... 
O.C.G.A.  17-5-100(e) ........................................................................................... Citations primarily relied upon 
Other Authorities 
THE FEDERALIST NO. (J. Madison) (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) ................................. 
U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. ............................................................................................ Citations primarily relied upon 
STATEMENT THE INTEREST AMICUS CURIAE 
 Judicial Watch public interest organization headquartered Washington, D.C.  Founded 1994, Judicial Watch seeks promote accountability, transparency and integrity government and fidelity the rule law. furtherance these goals, Judicial Watch regularly monitors on-going litigation, files amicus curiae briefs, and prosecutes lawsuits matters believes are public importance. part its efforts promote fidelity the rule law, Judicial Watch has supported government policies and legislative enactments when finds such policies consistent with the rule law.  Conversely, Judicial Watch has opposed such policies and enactments when finds them contrary law. particular, Judicial Watch has undertaken extensive research immigration laws, including the interaction federal, state, and local laws touching immigration issues and the doctrine federal preemption.  Judicial Watch respectfully wishes share the results its considerable research with the Court filing this amicus curiae brief.  Although primarily for purposes assisting the Court, this amicus curiae brief supports the position Defendants-Appellants Nathan Deal, al. (Appellants) this appeal. 
 All parties have consented the filing this brief. counsel for party authored this brief whole part, and counsel party made monetary contribution intended fund the preparation submission this brief. person other than Amicus Curiae, its members, its counsel made monetary contribution its preparation submission. 
STATEMENT THE ISSUES 
 The issue presented whether the district court properly enjoined Sections and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act 2011 (hereafter IIREA) from taking effect July 2011. 
SUMMARY THE ARGUMENT 
 The district court erred finding that Plaintiffs-Appellees Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, al. (Plaintiffs) are likely succeed their claim that each enjoined provision preempted federal law.  Preliminarily, the district court erred not applying presumption against preemption.  The provisions issue not regulate immigration and are clearly with the State Georgias historic police power. 
 Section the IIREA not preempted U.S.C.  1357 1103.  Congressional intent governs courts determination whether federal law preempts state law, and the Immigration and Nationality Act (hereafter INA), 
amended, U.S.C.  1101 seq., expressly contemplates State and local governments exercising their inherent police power assist federal government efforts enforcing immigration laws, even absent the conditions contained U.S.C.  1357 and 1103. 
 Section the IIREA not preempted U.S.C.  1324. the context statutes concerning illegal aliens, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that Congress did not intend field preempt all State regulations touching immigration.  Contrary the district courts ruling, Section not preempted because States may complement federal immigration law where State enforcement activities not impair federal regulatory interests.  Nor Section preempted because its provisions are not identical its federal counterpart, different provisions not necessarily equate with conflicting provisions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS AUTHORITY Applicable Standards Review The Court Gives Deference District Courts Legal Determinations and Reviews District Courts Interpretation the Underlying Legal Principles Novo. 
 
 The issue before this Court whether the district court properly granted preliminary injunction with respect several provisions the IIREA.  A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that likely succeed the merits, that likely suffer irreparable harm the absence preliminary relief, that the balance equities tips his favor, and that injunction the public interest.  Winter Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 20, 129 Ct. 365, 374 (2008).  Since Plaintiffs were required establish each these elements order prevail their motion for preliminary injunction, this brief focuses solely whether the district court properly found that Plaintiffs had established that they are likely succeed the merits. 
 Although generally the Court reviews the grant preliminary injunction for abuse discretion, gives no deference the district courts legal determinations and reviews district courts interpretation the underlying legal principles novo.  Levi Strauss Co. Sunrise Intl Trading, F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 1995); see also This That And The Other Gift And Tobacco, Inc. Cobb 
County, 285 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11th Cir. 2002) (conclusions law drawn district court route granting preliminary injunction reviewed novo).  Because preemption legal question, the district courts decision grant preliminary injunction preemption grounds reviewed novo.  Id. This Facial Challenge Disfavored and Plaintiffs Bear Heavy Burden. 
 
  Plaintiffs have never alleged that the State Georgia its agents have taken any action enforce the newly enacted IIREA against them anyone else.  Plaintiffs thus raise facial challenge the constitutionality the statute.  Consequently, Plaintiffs confront heavy burden advancing their claims.  National Endowment for the Arts Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 580, 118 Ct. 2168, 2175 (1998).  The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that [f]acial invalidation is, manifestly, strong medicine that has been employed the Court sparingly and only last resort. Id. (quoting Broadrick Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613, Ct. 2908, 2916 (1973), and citing FW/PBS, Inc. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 223, 110 Ct. 596, 603 (1990) (noting that facial challenges legislation are generally disfavored)). 
 Facial challenges generally are disfavored because they rest speculation, run contrary the fundamental principle judicial restraint, and threaten short circuit the democratic process.  Washington State Grange Washington 
State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450-51, 128 Ct. 1184, 1191 (2008).  When legislative enactment facially attacked, court disadvantage because does not know how the law will applied construed enforcing authority.  The law might applied construed the enforcing authority way that avoids any constitutional issue. the U.S. Supreme Court has declared, It neither our obligation nor within our traditional institutional role resolve questions constitutionality with respect each potential situation that might develop.  Gonzalez Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 168, 127 Ct. 1610, 1639 (2007).  Instead speculating about hypotheticals, courts typically prefer wait until the law construed in the context actual disputes.  Washington State Grange, 552 U.S. 450, 128 Ct. 1191. court must careful not beyond the statutes facial requirements and speculate about hypothetical imaginary cases.  United States Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 Ct. 2095, 2100 (1987). 
 The fact that statute] might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set circumstances insufficient render wholly invalid ..  Salerno, 481 U.S. 745, 107 Ct. 2100.  Instead, challenger must establish that set circumstances exists under which the Act would valid.  Id.  Conversely, defeat facial challenge under the Supremacy Clause, party need merely identify possible application the state law not conflict with 
federal law.  California Coastal Commn Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 593, 107 Ct. 1419, 1431 (1987).  What this means for this case that, there exists any possible application construction the statute issue that avoids conflict with federal law, must applied save the statute.1 seeking preliminary injunction prior the IIREAs effective date, Plaintiffs asked the district court precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court has warned against  prematurely interpret and unnecessarily speculate the constitutionality the IIREA factual vacuum.  Plaintiffs did not and 
cannot establish that they are likely succeed their claim that all applications the challenged provisions are preempted federal law.  For this reason alone, 
preliminarily enjoining Sections and from taking effect not warranted this time. The Provisions Issue Must Presumed Constitutional. has been long established that [e]very possible presumption favor the validity statute, and this continues until the contrary shown beyond rational doubt.  One branch the government cannot encroach the domain another without danger. The safety our institutions depends small degree strict observance this salutary rule.  Sinking-Fund Cases, U.S. 700, 718 (1879); see also Bush Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 992, 116 Ct. 1941, 1969 (1995) (Statutes are presumed constitutional.); Close Glenwood Cemetery, 107 U.S. 466, 475, Ct. 267, 274 (1883) (Every legislative act presumed constitutional exercise legislative power until the contrary clearly established.); National Mut. Insurance Co. Dist. Col. Tidewater Transfer 
Co., 337 U.S. 582, 604, Ct. 1173, 1183-84 (1949) (presumption validity prevails unless there clear showing that transgresses constitutional limitations). The Burden Establishing the Unconstitutionality the Provisions Issue Rests Plaintiffs and Never Shifts. 
 
 It salutary principle judicial decision, long emphasized and followed [the Supreme] Court, that the burden establishing the unconstitutionality statute rests him who assails ..  Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. New York Brownell, 294 U.S. 580, 584, Ct. 538, 540 (1935).  Even more specific this case, the party claiming preemption bears the burden demonstrating that federal law preempts state law.  Silkwood Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 255, 104 Ct. 615, 625 (1984).  This burden proof never shifts. 
II. The Enjoined Provisions Are Not Preempted Federal Law. 
 The Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution, and the Laws the United States which shall made Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, which shall made, under the Authority the United States, shall the supreme Law the Land.  U.S. Const., art. VI, cl.  The preemption doctrine arises from this clause.  
 The Supreme Court has recognized three types preemption: (1) express preemption, where federal statute contains explicit preemptive language; (2) field preemption, where the federal regulatory scheme so pervasive make reasonable the inference that Congress left room for the States supplement it; and (3) conflict preemption, where compliance with both federal and state regulations physical impossibility where state law stands obstacle the accomplishment and execution the full purposes and objectives Congress.  This That And The Other Gift And Tobacco, Inc., 285 F.3d 1322 (quoting Wisconsin Public Intervenor Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 604-05, 111 Ct. 2476, 2481-82 (1991)). 
 Consideration under the Supremacy Clause starts with the basic assumption that Congress did not intend displace state law.  Bldg. Const. Trades Council Metro. Dist. Assoc. Builders Contractors Mass./R.I., Inc., 507 U.S. 218, 224, 113 Ct. 1190, 1194 (1993).  Accordingly, the absence express preemptive language, federal courts should reluctant infer pre-emption.  Id.  U.S. Supreme Court precedent establish that high threshold must met state law pre-empted for conflicting with the purposes federal Act.  Gade National Solid Wastes Management Assn, 505 U.S. 88, 110, 112 Ct. 2374, 2389 (1992).  Congressional intent the ultimate touchstone 
preemption case, and this intent governs courts] determination whether federal law preempts state law.  This That And The Other Gift And Tobacco, Inc., 285 F.3d 1322 (quoting Medtronic, Inc. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485, 116 Ct. 2240, 2250 (1996), and Boyes Shell Oil Prods. Co., 199 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir. 2000)). 
 Plaintiffs challenge Sections and the IIREA.  Section codified three separate parts.  The first part, O.C.G.A.  16-11-200, prohibits person who has committed separate criminal offense from knowingly and intentionally transporting moving illegal alien for the purpose furthering the aliens illegal presence the State Georgia.  The second part, O.C.G.A.  16-11-201, prohibits person who has committed separate criminal offense from knowingly concealing, harboring, shielding known illegal alien from detection within Georgia.  The third part, O.C.G.A.  16-11-202, prohibits person who has committed separate criminal offense from inducing, enticing, assisting illegal alien enter into Georgia.  Section codified O.C.G.A.  17-5-100, authorizes peace officer seek verify the immigration status any suspect who the peace officer has probable cause believe has committed criminal violation. the peace officer verifies that the suspect illegal alien, Section authorizes the peace officer take any action authorized state and federal law, 
including detaining the suspect, transporting the suspect detention facility, notifying the U.S. Department Homeland Security (hereafter DHS).  Id. 
 The district court enjoined these provisions because found that Plaintiffs had established that likely succeed their claim that each enjoined provision preempted federal law. doing so, the district court found that each enjoined provision, its face, creates obstacle the enforcement and implementation federal law.  The district court erred, however, Congress intent that states not preempted from enacting such laws could not any clearer. will shown below, the provisions issue are harmony with federal law and, consequently, are not preempted. The District Court Erred Not Applying Presumption Against Preemption. 
 
 One the cornerstones the U.S. Supreme Courts decisions preemption that all pre-emption cases, and particularly those which Congress has legislated field which the States have traditionally occupied, [courts] start with the assumption that the historic police powers the States were not superseded the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose Congress. 
 
Wyeth Levine, 129 Ct. 1187, 1194-95 (2009) (quoting Medtronic, Inc., 518 U.S. 485, 116 Ct. 2250) (citation and alteration omitted); see also United States Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 108, 120 Ct. 1135, 1147 (2000) (When Congress 
legislates in field which the States have traditionally occupied [courts] start with the assumption that the historic police powers the States were not superseded the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose Congress.) (citation omitted); Gade, 505 U.S. 111-12, 112 Ct. 2390 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (stating preemption must not found absent clear statement intent Congress) (citations omitted).  Courts rely the presumption because respect for the States independent sovereigns our federal system leads assume that Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes action.  Wyeth, 129 Ct. 1195 n.3 (quoting Medtronic, Inc., 518 U.S. 485, 116 Ct. 2250); see also Jones Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525, Ct. 1305, 1309 (1977) (This assumption provides assurance that the federal-state balance, will not disturbed unintentionally Congress unnecessarily the courts.) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). this case, the district court found that the presumption against preemption should not applied either Section because these provisions regulate immigration, not fields that the States have traditionally occupied.  Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights Deal, No. 1:11-CV-1804, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69600, *30, 46-47 (N.D. Ga. June 27, 2011).  The district court wrong for two reasons. 
 The provisions issue not regulate immigration.  The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the fact that aliens are the subject state statute does not render regulation immigration .. Canas Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 355, Ct. 933, 936 (1976). fact, even such local regulation has some purely speculative and indirect impact immigration, does not thereby become constitutionally proscribed regulation immigration that Congress itself would powerless authorize approve.  Id. 355-56, Ct. 936. legislative enactment regulation immigration only makes a determination who should should not admitted into the country, and the conditions under which legal entrant may remain.  Id. 355, Ct. 936.  In other words, the creation standards for determining who and not this country legally that constitutes regulation immigration these circumstances, not whether states determination this regard results the actual removal inadmissibility any particular alien, for the standards themselves are a determination who should should not admitted into the country, and the conditions under which legal entrant may remain.  Equal Access Education Merten, 305 Supp. 585, 602-03 (E.D. Va. 2004) (quoting Canas, 424 U.S. 355, Ct. 936). 
 The California statute issue Canas prohibited employers from knowingly employing alien who not entitled lawful residence the United States. Canas, 424 U.S. 352 n.1, Ct. 935.  The U.S. Supreme Court found that the statute, although plainly concerning illegal aliens, did not regulate immigration had adopted federal immigration standards regarding who was entitled lawful residence the United States.  Id. 355-56, Ct. 936-37.  The fact that the statute might have indirect impact immigration made difference the High Court.  Id. this case, Sections and although touching immigration status, not any way make require state official make a determination who should should not admitted into the country, and the conditions under which legal entrant may remain. Canas, 424 U.S. 355, Ct. 936. this regard, the determination who illegal alien expressly left the federal government, the provisions adopt federal immigration standards regarding who entitled lawful residence the United States.  Specifically, Section defines illegal alien a person who verified the federal government present the United States violation federal immigration law.  See O.C.G.A.  16-11-200(a)(1), 16-11-201(2), 16-11-202(a) (emphasis added).  Likewise, Section defines illegal alien a person who verified 
the federal government present the United States violation federal immigration law.  See O.C.G.A.  17-5-100(a)(2) (emphasis added). addition, Section does not regulate immigration all.  Rather, utilizes the State Georgias ordinary police powers create new criminal offense for any person regardless his her citizenship immigration status who commits the various elements the offense with the requisite criminal intent.  Specifically, prohibits any person again regardless his her citizenship immigration status who, the course committing another crime, entices illegal alien enter Georgia, harbors illegal alien Georgia, transports illegal alien Georgia.  One obvious example underlying criminal offense which Section likely apply, were allowed into effect, the States anti-human trafficking law, O.C.G.A.  16-5-46. this regard, individual who commits the offense trafficking person for labor sexual servitude (O.C.G.A.  16-5-46(b) and (c)) could also found have committed one the three offenses created Section the victim his her offense illegal alien who being enticed enter Georgia being harbored transported Georgia.  Other examples underlying predicate offences which Section likely apply, allowed into effect, include violations prostitution and drug trafficking laws.  The obvious purpose Section not criminalize illegal aliens immigration status, but target persons, regardless the citizenship immigration status, who conspire with, enlist, victimize illegal aliens carrying out another criminal offense.  Section the type enactment that quintessentially within any states traditional police power. this regard, the district court erred not applying the presumption against preemption because too narrowly defined Georgias traditional police power and the fields has historically occupied. has long been maintained the U.S. Supreme Court that the police power any State nothing more less than the powers government inherent every sovereignty the extent its dominions.  License Cases, U.S. How.) 504, 582 (1847).  It may said general way that the police power extends all the great public needs.  Noble State Bank Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 111, Ct. 186, 188 (1911) (citation omitted).  It may put forth aid what sanctioned usage, held the prevailing morality strong and preponderant opinion greatly and immediately necessary the public welfare.  Id.  The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the police power exists for the public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, and law and order.  Berman Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32, Ct. 98, 102 (1954).   
  Section not regulation immigration either.  Section authorizes peace officer, during the course criminal investigation, seek verify whether suspect illegal alien, the officer has probable cause believe that the suspect has committed crime.  See O.C.G.A.  17-5-100(b). the officer receives verification from the federal government that the suspect illegal alien, Section also authorizes the officer detain, transport, contact DHS such detention, transportation, contact authorized both state and federal law.  See O.C.G.A.  17-5-100(e).  The provision would seem promote good police work, not give rise violations the federal constitution. has long been recognized that state and local peace officers have inherent power investigate, not make arrests for, violations federal law, including immigration law.  See, e.g., United States Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295-96 (10th Cir. 1999) (finding state and local peace officers have long possessed inherent police powers arrest for violations federal law, including immigration law); cf. Muehler Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 125 Ct. 1465 (2005) (finding peace officer did not err under traditional police power when inquired into individuals immigration status); Estrada Rhode Island, 594 F.3d (1st Cir. 2010) (finding peace officer did not err under traditional police power when inquired into individuals immigration status, contacted immigration, and 
transported illegal aliens ICE office); Lynch Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir. 1987) (finding peace officers did not err under traditional police power when detained illegal alien stowaways incoming barge); United States Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3d 611 (8th Cir. 2001) (finding peace officer did not err under traditional police power when inquired into individuals immigration status); United States Hernandez, 418 F.3d 1206, 1209 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (noting within traditional police power for peace officer ask questions  even questions not strictly related reason for law enforcement intervention).  Rather than regulating immigration, Section merely codifies the inherent, well-established powers state and local police officers. sum, rather than regulating immigration, the State Georgia has merely invoked its well-established police power and codified the inherent, well-established investigatory powers state and local police officers.  Moreover, doing relied entirely federal immigration standards and the federal governments determination whether person lawfully present the United States.  Clearly, the district court erred finding that Plaintiffs were likely succeed challenging sections and the provisions are not regulations immigration defined the Supreme Court Canas.  See also Chamber Commerce the United States Whiting, 131 Ct. 1968 (2011) (State law  
sanctioning businesses that employ illegal aliens based federal immigration standards does not regulate immigration); Gray City Valley Park, No. 4:07-CV-00881, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7238, *24-25 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (State law sanctioning businesses that harbor employ illegal aliens based federal immigration standards does not regulate immigration), affd, 567 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2009); League United Latin American Citizens Wilson, 908 Supp. 755, 770 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (hereafter LULAC) (Proposition denying state benefits illegal aliens based federal immigration standards did not regulate immigration); Merten, 305 Supp. 603 (school policies denying  admission illegal aliens based federal immigration standards not regulate immigration).2 The fact that the provisions issue might have some indirect impact immigration does not make them regulation immigration either. Canas, 424 U.S. 355-56, Ct. 936-37; see also LULAC, 908 Supp. 770 (finding that although benefits denial provision might indirectly incidentally affect immigration causing such persons leave the state deterring them from entering California, provision was not regulation immigration under Canas). Section Not Preempted U.S.C.  1324. 
 
 The district court held that Section preempted U.S.C.  1324 because the federal provision prohibits the transporting, harboring and enticing illegal aliens the United States.  Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69600, *28-32.  According the district court, States 
cannot complement federal immigration law, and, even they could, Section implicitly conflict preempted because its provisions are not identical its federal counterpart.  Id.  Under either theory, the district court has clearly misconstrued the applicable legal principles. 
 As every schoolchild learns, our Constitution establishes system dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government.  Gregory Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457, 111 Ct. 2395, 2399 (1991).  Under our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that the Federal Government, subject only limitations imposed the Supremacy Clause.  Id. (citation omitted).  Hence, while the States have surrendered certain powers the Federal Government, they retain residuary and inviolable sovereignty.  Printz United States, 521 U.S. 898, 918-19, 117 Ct. 2365, 2376 (1997) (quoting THE FEDERALIST NO. 39, 245 (J. Madison) (C. Rossiter ed. 1961)). 
 Under our system dual sovereignty, States have the authority act including areas touching immigration when States prohibit activity that already prohibited under federal law. this case, the fact that the INA and Section include provisions about transporting, harboring, and enticing illegal aliens does not create conflict.  Not only are the provisions different  Section expressly requires that the transporting, harboring, enticing undertaken the 
course committing another state offense but establishing that federal law overlaps state law is, itself, insufficient establish that federal law preempts state law.  Green Fund Asset Mgmt., L.P., 245 F.3d 214, 228 (3rd Cir. 2001).  Indeed, the creation federal [prohibition] does not necessarily eradicate existing state law [prohibitions] require that the federal [prohibition] exclusive.  Id. 227 (citing Medtronic, Inc., 518 U.S. 495-501, 116 Ct. 2255-58 (holding that  360(k) the Medical Device Amendments 1976 does not preempt overlapping state tort law). the instant matter, the State Georgia carefully crafted Section promote the public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, and law and order (see Berman, 348 U.S. 32, S.Ct. 102) utilizing traditional police powers create new criminal offenses applicable anyone, regardless their citizenship immigration status.  Moreover, the extent that the offenses touch immigration status, the State Georgia was careful ensure that the relevant persons immigration status determined and verified federal officials, not state officials.  See O.C.G.A.  16-11-200(a)(1), 16-11-201(2), 16-11-202(a).  Section not preempted U.S.C.  1324, and the district court erred finding otherwise. Section Not Preempted U.S.C.  1357 1103. 
 
 The district court held that Section implicitly conflict preempted U.S.C.  1357 and 1103 because allegedly these federal statutes specifically enumerate the only conditions under which state officers can aid immigration enforcement.  The district court stated that Congress has provided that local officers may enforce civil immigration offenses only where the Attorney General has entered into written agreement with state, U.S.C.  1357(g)(1), where the Attorney General has expressly authorized local officers the event mass influx aliens. U.S.C.  1103(a)(10).  Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69600, *24 (emphasis added).  The district courts implied conflict preemption argument based solely the maxim statutory construction expressio unius exclusio alterius (the expression one thing the exclusion another). other words, when Congress granted arrest power State and local peace officers certain circumstances, impliedly precluded the exercise that power all other circumstances. 
 This might reasonable interpretation Congresss intent were not for the existence several other statutory provisions contained the INA that clearly indicate that Congress did not intend limit abrogate the States inherent police power enforce federal immigration law.  For instance, U.S.C.  1357(g)(10) expressly provides that written agreement required for State 
local peace officers to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status any individual, including reporting knowledge that particular alien not lawfully present the United States, otherwise cooperate with the Attorney General the identification, apprehension, detention, removal aliens not lawfully present the United States.  See Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1300 (finding U.S.C.  1357(g)(10) a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies participate the process enforcing federal immigration laws utilizing their inherent police power).  This savings clause dispositive. addition, U.S.C.  1373, Congress mandated that notwithstanding any other provision federal law, person Federal, State, local government entity agency may prohibit, any way restrict, State local government entity official from sending to, receiving from, DHS information regarding the citizenship immigration status, lawful unlawful, any individual.  The same provision also prohibits any restriction State local government entities officials maintaining exchanging such information with other Federal, State, local government entity. addition, the provision obligates DHS respond inquiries State and local government agency seeking verify 
ascertain the citizenship immigration status any individual providing such information. U.S.C.  1644, Congress mandated that notwithstanding any other provision federal law, State local government entity may prohibited, any way restricted, from sending to, receiving from, DHS information regarding the citizenship immigration status, lawful unlawful, any individual. U.S.C.  1324(c), Congress provided that: 
Authority arrest. officer person shall have authority make any arrest for violation any provision this section except officers and employees the Service designated the Attorney General, either individually member class, and all other officers whose duty enforce criminal laws. 
 
(Emphasis added). 
 
 Clearly, Congresss intent plain and unmistakable.  The INA expressly contemplates State and local governments exercising their inherent police power assist federal government efforts enforcing immigration laws, even absent the conditions contained U.S.C.  1357 and 1103.  Given that Congress specifically preserved such authority for the States, stands reason that Congress  did not intend prevent the States from using appropriate tools exercise that authority.  Whiting, 131 Ct. 1981; cf. Lynch, 810 F.2d 1367 (No statute precludes other federal, State, local law enforcement agencies from 
taking other action enforce this nations immigration laws.); Marsh United States, F.2d 172, 174 (2d Cir. 1928) ([I]t would unreasonable suppose that [the federal governments] purpose was deny itself any help that the States may allow.).  Section not preempted U.S.C.  1357 1103, and the district court erred finding otherwise. 
CONCLUSION 
 Because Sections and the IIREA are not preempted federal law, the district courts grant preliminary injunction should reversed and vacated. 
 
       Respectfully submitted, 
 
       JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
  
 
       /s/ Paul Orfanedes     
       JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
       425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 
       Washington,  20024 
       Tel.: (202) 646-5172 
       Fax.: (202) 646-5199 
 
       Counsel for Amicus Curiae 
  
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE 
 Pursuant Fed.R.App.P. 32(a)(7)(C), hereby certify that the foregoing Brief Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc. Support Appellants complies with the type-volume limitations Fed.R.App.P. 32(a)(7)(B).  The brief was written point-Times New Roman font and contains 5,613 words, counted Microsoft Word 2011.         
       /s/ Paul Orfanedes                                                                     
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that this 22nd day August 2011, filed the foregoing BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. SUPPORT APPELLANTS with the Court via the CM/ECF system and overnight mail via Federal Express (the original and six copies of) and served the foregoing BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. SUPPORT APPELLANTS the following counsel record via the CM/ECF system and first-class U.S. mail: 
Defendant-Appellants Attorney 
 
Devon Orland 
Sr. Assistant Attorney General Capitol Square, S.W. 
Atlanta, 30334 
 
Plaintiff-Appellees Attorneys 
 
Andre Segura     Jonathan Blazer   
Elora Mukherjee     Tanya Broder 
ACLUNY      National Immigration Law Center 
125 Broad Street     Suite 1400 
18th Floor      405 14th Street      
New York, 10004    Oakland, 612 
 
Cecillia Wang     Karen Tumlin 
Katherine Desormeau    Linton Joaquin 
Kenneth John Sugarman    Nora Preciado 
ACLU Immigrants Rights Project  National Immigration Law Center Drumm Street     3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850 
San Francisco, 94111    Los Angeles, 90010 
 
Mary Bauer     Daniel Werner 
Samuel Brooke     Immigrant Justice Project 
Andrew Turner     Southern Poverty Law Center 
Southern Poverty Law CenterAL  Suite 2150 
400 Washington Ave.    233 Peachtree Street, 
Montgomery, 36104    Atlanta, 30303 
 
Azadeh Shahshahani    Charles Kuck 
Chara Fisher Jackson    Danielle Conley 
ACLU Georgia     Kuck Immigration Partners LLC 
Building 400, Suite 425    Suite 300 
1900 The Exchange,    8010 Roswell Road 
Atlanta, 30339     Atlanta, 30350 
         
Sin Yen Ling     George Brian Spears 
Asian Law Caucus     Law Office Brian Spears Columbus Avenue    1126 Ponce Leon Avenue 
San Francisco, 94111    Atlanta, 30306 
 
Robert Keegan Federal, Jr.   Emmet Bondurant 
Federal Hasson, LLP    Bondurant Mixson Elmore, LLP 
Suite 1776      1201 West Peachtree St., 
Two Ravinia Drive    3900 One Atlantic Center 
Atlanta, 30346     Atlanta, 30309 
 
Christopher Clark    Farrin Rose Anello 
Henry Solano     Rebecca Ann Sharpless 
Carla Gorniak     Immigration Clinic 
Dewey Leboeuf, LLPNY   University Miami School Law 
1301 Avenue the Americas   1311 Miller Drive, E257 
New York, 10019    Coral Gables, 33146 
 
Dale Schwartz     Pickens Andrew Patterson, Jr. 
Dale Schwartz Associates   Smith, Gambrell Russell, LLP 
5500 Interstate North Parkway   Promenade II, Suite 3100 
Riveredge One, Suite 450   1230 Peachtree Street, 
Atlanta, 30328     Atlanta, 30309 
 
 
 
Gerald Jason Thompson    Socheat Chea 
The Thompson Law Firm   Socheat Chea, 
Suite 101      Building 300 
200 East Crogan Street    500 Duluth Park Lane 
Lawrenceville, 30046   Duluth, 30096 
 
         
 
       /s/ Paul Orfanedes