• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Guttman, Buschner & Brooks

  • Home
  • Areas of Practice
    • High Impact Litigation
    • Whistleblower and False Claim Cases
    • Employment Litigation and Civil Rights – Employees
    • Employment Counseling and Litigation – Employers
    • Corporate Governance
  • Successes
  • Articles
  • Attorneys
    • Justin S. Brooks
    • Traci L. Buschner
    • Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.)
    • Dan Guttman
    • Reuben A. Guttman
    • Brad Miller
    • Dr. Caroline Poplin
    • Elizabeth H. Shofner
    • Paul J. Zwier II
  • Amicus
  • Videos
  • Contact Us
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn

September 27, 2017 By guttman

Amicus of Certain Members of Congress Opposing Motion to Dismiss in United States v Arpaio

United States of America,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF AMICI CURIAE CERTAIN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR VACATUR AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

The amici curiae are members of Congress. They are Representatives John Conyers, Jr.; Jerrold Nadler; Zoe Lofgren; Sheila Jackson Lee; Steve Cohen; Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr.; Theodore Deutch; Karen Bass; Cedric L. Richmond; Luis V. Gutierrez; David N. Cicilline; Ted Lieu; Pramila Jayapal; Jackie Speier; Raúl M. Grijalva; Joseph Crowley; Linda Sanchez; Bennie G. Thompson; Keith Ellison; Adriano Espaillat; Ro Khanna; Ruben Gallego; Norma J. Torres; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Jimmy Gomez; Dwight Evans; Juan Vargas; Nydia M. Velazquez; Jim Costa; Colleen Hanabusa; Frank Pallone, Jr.; Grace F. Napolitano; and Barbara Lee.

The amici have an interest in protecting the division of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government set forth in the Constitution. The amici regard that division of government powers as essential to the preservation of liberty, as did the framers.

The amici oppose Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio’s Motion for Vacatur and Dismissal with Prejudice. The presidential pardon upon which that motion is based is an encroachment by the Executive on the independence of the Judiciary. The amici urge the Court to defend jealously against that encroachment as the framers intended.

. . . .

Amincus in US v Arpaio.

Primary Sidebar

Information

  • Where to Start
  • Whistleblower Information
  • Federal & State False Claims Acts
  • Protecting Whistleblowers

Footer

Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC

Washington DC Office:
2000 P Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202-800-3001



Pennsylvania Office:
119 Coulter Avenue
Suite 211
Ardmore, PA 19003
(610) 547-9556


Delaware Office:
4023 Kennett Pike
Suite 302
Greenville, DE 19807
(302) 327-9210

Articles

On the Rule of Law: The Times They are a-Changing and So Should Trial Advocacy Training

25 Congressmembers Oppose Effort to Vacate Joseph Arpaio’s Guilty Verdict

China’s evolving environmental governance and challenges – perspectives of one outsider

More Articles

Copyright © 2019 · Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC
Disclaimer