Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
11Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CA9Doc 22

CA9Doc 22

Ratings: (0)|Views: 908 |Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Amicus Curiæ brief of Margie Reilly (and Application to file brief) in support of Appellants, urging dismissal with directions to trial court to vacate and dismiss and, in the alternative, reverse. Filed 9/20/2010
Amicus Curiæ brief of Margie Reilly (and Application to file brief) in support of Appellants, urging dismissal with directions to trial court to vacate and dismiss and, in the alternative, reverse. Filed 9/20/2010

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Sep 20, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/27/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Case ## 10-16696/10-16751IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PERRY, APPELLANTV.SCHWARZENEGGER, APPELLEECITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., PetitionersV.MARK B. HORTON, as State Registrar of Vital Statistics, etc., et al.,Respondents
On Appeal from a Judgment of Unites States District Courtfor the Northern District#
3:09-cv-02292-VRWVaughn R. Walker, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Application to file, and, Brief of Amicus Curiæ Margie ReillyIn support of Appellants UrgingDismissal with directions to trial court to vacate and dismiss and In thealternative reverseJAMES JOSEPH LYNCH, JR.Attorney At Law (SBN 85805)POB 215802Sacramento, CA 95821-8802Office: (916) 312-7369 jjlynchjr@jamesjospephlynchjr.comCounsel for Amicus Curiæ
Case: 10-16696 09/20/2010 Page: 1 of 14 ID: 7479835 DktEntry: 22
 
i
Application for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief 
Margie Reilly applies for leave to file the attached amicus curiae brief on the grounds thatit is nearly identical to the brief she presented to, and considered by, the California SupremeCourt, and therefore ought to be considered here. The original order for briefing was September17, with Amicus briefs due within 7 days. We filed for notice, but were not noticed as to theaccelerated briefing schedule. We request leave to file late. No party responded to a request tofile this brief. The brief is short, 3500 words (see certificate of length at p. 10), and should assistthe court on the issues as set forth immediately following. The interest of Amicus is set out atpage 1 of the brief.
James Joseph Lynch, Jr.Counsel for Amicus Curia
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
There is no corporation involved with amicus.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1.
In view of the
Erie Doctrine
and provisions for reviewing decisions of State Supreme Courtsby the U.S. Supreme Court, do Plaintiffs
 /Appellees have standing to challenge in federal courtProposition 8?
2.
In light of the Preambles of U.S. Constitution and of the Constitution of the State of California, are the People of the State of California the sovereignty of the State and membersof the sovereignty of the United States?
3.
In view of 
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. Browning
(1940) 310 U.S. 362;
Skinner v. Oklahoma
(1942) 316 U.S. 535, can Plaintiffs/Appellees show injury in view of their rightto a civil union that gives them everything a marriage provides, except the possibility of having a child begotten and born by the partners of the union?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS
1.
In view of the Erie Doctrine and provisions for reviewing State Supreme Court by the U.S.Supreme Court, Plaintiffs
 /Appellees do not have standing to challenge in federal court Prop. 8.
2. In light of the Preambles of U.S. Constitution and of the Constitution of the State of California, the People of the State of California are the sovereignty of the State and membersof the sovereignty of the United States.
3.
In view of 
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. Browning
(1940) 310 U.S. 362;
Skinner v. Oklahoma
(1942) 316 U.S. 535, the Constitution does not require things which aredifferent in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.
Case: 10-16696 09/20/2010 Page: 2 of 14 ID: 7479835 DktEntry: 22
 
ii
Table of Contents
Application for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief......................................................................iTable of Contents.........................................................................................................................iiSTATEMENT OF INTEREST...................................................................................................1INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................2
A. H
ISTORY OF THE
P
ROPOSITIONS
................................................................................................................2B. T
HE
I
N
R
E
M
ARRIAGE
C
ASES
....................................................................................................................2
1. Majority Opinion......................................................................................................22. Minority Opinion......................................................................................................3
C. T
HE
P
ROPOSITION
8C
ASE
........................................................................................................................3D. T
HE
I
MPLICATION ON FUTURE
G
ENERATIONS
..............................................................................................3
ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................5I. DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES DO NOT HAVE STANDING............................................5II. THE VALIDITY OF PROPOSITION 8 .............................................................................7III. PROP 8 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE “EQUAL RIGHTSOF THOSEDESIRING “A SAME SEX FAMILY LIFE”...........................................................................8CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................10Certificate of Length FRAP, R. 28,1(e)(2)(A)(1) [14000 words]; R. 29(d)[1/2]....................10PROOF OF SERVICE..............................................................................................................10
Case: 10-16696 09/20/2010 Page: 3 of 14 ID: 7479835 DktEntry: 22

Activity (11)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
John Lay liked this
Kathleen Perrin liked this
MarriageToGo liked this
rhie_lantz liked this
JustClaire liked this
BookaHolic1963 liked this
Wallace Hodges liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->