Skip to content

Judicial Watch • US v AZ Answer Intervention Legislature 442011

US v AZ Answer Intervention Legislature 442011

US v AZ Answer Intervention Legislature 442011

Page 1: US v AZ Answer Intervention Legislature 442011

Category:General

Number of Pages:18

Date Created:February 14, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:442011, intervention, legislature


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

C"I 
Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document 143 Filed 02/11/11 
Geoffrey Kercsmar (#20528) Gregory Collins (#023158)KERCSMAR FELTUS PLLC 
6263 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 320 Scottsdale, Arizona 85250 

Tel: (480) 421-1001 
Paul Orfanedes 
(Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) James Peterson 
(Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) Michael llekesha 
(Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) JUDICIAL WATCH, lNC. 
425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 
Tel: (202) 646-5172  
Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor/Defendant the Arizona State Legislature
.....l .,., .co_
 2'"7 
"'"'o c THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT '(.)(/)._. 
 (/)

 trade> national security> etc., 1070 speaks for itself does the article cited paragraph 38. Defendant-Intervenor denies that the summaries contained paragraph are accurate and complete, and further denies any 
Case 2:1 O-cv-01413-SRB Document 143 Filed 02/11/11 Page 
characterizations 1070. Defendant-Intervenor affirmatively states that response necessary the extent the allegations are intended challenge Section 1070 because the Court granted defendants' Motion Dismiss with respect Section 
39. DefendantIntervenor without sufficient information and knowledge admit deny whether other states arc "contemplating" similar legislation. Defendant-Intervenor denies all remaining allegations contained paragraph the Complaint. Section 1070 

40. Defendant-Intervenor admits that paragraph the Complaint includes quotes 
small portions Section 1070 and paragraph attempts summarize portions Section 1070. 1070 speaks for itself and Defendant-Intervenor denies that 
uo
,..J :; ;(] 
.....:i ,,., the summaries contained paragraph are complete. Defendant-Intervenor further
 2"7 t.>., ;::: ;::; 
denies any characterizations 1070. 
>=> Cl') Plaintiff lacks both Article III and prudential standing bring this Action 
.....'>=> Plaintiff has failed name DHS, DOJ, and the State Department the real 
patties-in-interest. 
Any alleged foreign policy implications were caused individuals other than any defendant this matter, including plaintiff and its agencies and officials. Pursuant the Constitution, plaintiff should have brought this matter the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction lawsuits between the United States and individual state under the Constitution. 
Plaintiff has unclean hands the extent has failed enforce the immigration 
laws and otherwise fulfill its duties required law and the Constitution and the 
,.., 
....l -V
....l:;:t 
c.. .-00 
"'..so
:::l i::o 
.,,,: 
LL.  c:: 
 i .:i; 
.... 
:..::
,.....ui 
..c 
..c 
Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document 143 Filed 02/11/11 Page 16of18 
executive branch the federal government has failed enforce the decisions Congress 
made when enacted the immigration laws. 
10. Defendant-Intervenor acted under the State>s broad police power under the 10th 
Amendment the Constitution. 
11. Defendant-Intervenor will irreparably harmed plaintiff obtains the relief 
sought this matter. 
12. Plaintiff's facial challenge the constitutionality 1070 barred the 
extent that relies hypothetical speculative circumstances. 
13. Sl3 1070 not preempted federal law the Constitution. 1070 does not 
conflict with federal law, does not constitute improper regulation immigration, and 
Congress has not fully occupied the field. 
14. 1070 does not violate the Commerce Clause the Constitution discriminate burden interstate commerce. 
15. The allocation power contained the Commerce Clause does not authorize 
Congress regulate state governments' regulation interstate commerce. 
16. Defendant-lntervenor does not know additional affirmative defenses may prove have some application and, therefore, incorporate reference the additional defenses 
contained within Rule 8(c) the Fed. Civ. 
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant-Intervenor requests that the Court: Dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and that plaintiff take nothing 
thereby; Award Defendant-Intervenor its costs and reasonable attorney fees, and 
other expenses pursuant any applicable statutes; 
c:::i 
Case O-cv-01413-SRB Document 143 Filed 02/11 /11 Page Award any such other and further relief the Court deems appropriate. 
Dated: February 11, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, 
KERCSMAR FELTUS PLLC 
By: Kercsmar 
Geoffrey Kercsmar (#20528) 
Gregory Collins (#023158) 
6263 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 320 Scottsdale, Arizona 85250 
Tel: (480) 421-1001 
Paul Orfanedes 
(Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) 
James Peterson 
(Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) Michael Bekesha 
(Motion for admission pro hac vice filed)
....J (I) 

0...  
"'SO 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 425 Third Street, W., Suite 800 
::::s i::o 
Washington, 20024 
Tel: (202) 646-5172 
Li.. -  (.)



Sign Up for Updates!