We, Alan R. Adaschik and other Plaintiffs as a class, by and through the undersigned attorney Pro Se, hereby respectfully request that, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 23, Fed.R.Civ.P, the Court decline to dismiss this action on the basis of jurisdiction over the subject matter do to the Plaintiff's lack of standing and failure to satisfy the prerequisites to maintain a class action.

MEMORANDUM OF CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL PRINCIPLE

We the plaintiff's hold these truths to be self-evident and inviolate:

1. A constitution serves two primary purposes; it establishes government and more important, it establishes how that government will function and operate; the prime function of a constitution.

2.  If the provisions of a constitution can be violated by the government it establishes in the course of conducting its affairs, then the constitution does not fulfill its prime function. A constitution that does not fulfill its prime function is dysfunctional and void. If a constitution dysfunctional and void, then the government it established is illegal and unlawful.

3.  Items #1 & #2 above being true, it follows that a mechanism must exist, under a constitution, for citizens to hold their government accountable by challenging the actions of their government in a court of law. Furthermore, it also follows that it is incumbent and imperative for government to cease, desist, and refrain from all actions deemed to be unconstitutional by a court of law. If a government refuses to do so, then it is illegal and unlawful.

4.  If no mechanism exists, under a constitution, for citizens to challenge the actions of government in a court of law or if any citizen, any group of citizens, or all citizens as a group, for any reason, are denied the right to challenge the constitutionality of governmental actions in a court of law, then the constitution in question can be violated with impunity by the government it is supposed to control and restrain. If the constitution in question can be violated with impunity by the government it is supposed control and constrain, then that constitution is dysfunctional and void. Therefore, as established in item #2, above, the government in question is illegal and unlawful.

5.  Items #1, #2, #3, & #4, above, are true and inviolate for all constitutions and all nations including the United States of America. If items #1, #2, #3, & #4 are not true for any nation, including the United States of America, then the government of the nation in question has violated an inalienable right of the people; the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Any government that violates an inalienable right of the people, for any reason, is unlawful and illegal.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE DEFENDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

This proceeding is a trial in a court of law. However, it is different than all other legal proceedings because the controversy is not one between two parties with opposing interests, but instead a controversy between a government and its citizens where the interests of both the plaintiffs and the defendants are one and the same; that the Constitution is upheld and preserved through adherence to its provisions. To be sure, the defendants have sworn an oath of office affirming that this is the case.

The Plaintiffs have raised the issue of the Constitutionality of GATT and our participation in the WTO. Not only do the Plaintiffs hold that GATT and our participation in the WTO is unconstitutional, we hold that it is self-evident that it is unconstitutional because it has change the nature and form of our government. Therefore, a determination of constitutionality is not only vital, but crucial to the interests of this Nation and its people. This being so, the plaintiffs hold that motions to dismiss this legal action by the Defendants due to questions of standing and issues concerning the maintenance of a class action are wrongful.

This is not to say or imply that the Plaintiffs and Defendants do not have an obligation and duty to satisfy the rules and procedural requirements of this court. The Plaintiffs have every intention of doing that and are sure the same is true for the Defendants. However, when a citizen raises an issue of constitutionality in a responsible and professional manner, a governmental official is bound by his oath of office to facilitate and seek a ruling in the matter. To do otherwise, presupposes that the government official in question prefers to continue a course of action that may be unconstitutional over a course of action that will determine the truth of the matter. It is not possible to reconcile an oath to uphold and preserve the Constitution with subscribing to a course of action that may result in the continuance of an unconstitutional act.

RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Re: RELEVANT PROCEDURAL GACKGROUND, 2., page 2. The Complaint states no facts relating to the District Court's jurisdiction over this action.

In this legal action the Plaintiffs offered an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison which establishes that the Federal Courts hold jurisdiction over the legislative acts of Congress.

On July 13, 1998, Alan R. Adaschik, the attorney Pro Se of this legal action, on behalf of the people of the United States of America, petitioned our Supreme Court to for a ruling in regard to the Constitutionality of GATT and our participation in the WTO as members under the Courts authority of "original jurisdiction" as established in Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution (petition included as Exhibit A) the United States of America, seeking a ruling from the Supreme Court under is Constitutionally provided authority of original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ignored this request and as a result, on August 3, 1995, Mr. Adaschik called the office of William K. Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court to find out why the Supreme Court had not responded to his petition. This call was taken by Mr. Francis Lorson, Assistant to the Clerk of the Supreme Court (see Exhibit B, Mr. Adaschik's August 4, 1995 letter to William K. Suter). In the course of his conversation with Mr. Lorson, Mr. Adaschik was told that the only way for a citizen or citizens to obtain a ruling on issues of constitutionality was through a District Court and the appellate process.

In consideration of the above, the facts relevant to the District's Court's jurisdiction over this action are that it is the responsibility of the federal court system to make determinations of constitutionality, the Supreme Court has declined to do so, an official of the Supreme Court has instructed the Plaintiff that the District Court has jurisdiction, and that the Plaintiff's hold that the GATT and our participation in the WTO as members is unconstitutional.

These facts as listed of above will be made part of an amended complaint.

2. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, page 2. Plaintiff would have this court address matters of foreign affairs which fall squarely within the purview of the political branches of government.

Not true - The Plaintiff's interest in this matter is to achieve a determination concerning the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress and our participation as a member of an international organization wrongfully given authority establish laws binding upon Americans and to veto the duly constituted laws of this Nation. The fact that the offending law concerns matters of foreign affairs does not mitigate or abrogate the Courts responsibilities in this regard.

3. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, page 3. Plaintiff complains that the political branches have ceded too much authority to international organizations.

Not true - The Plaintiff's hold that the Constitution precludes Congress and the President from ceding any legislative authority to any organization, international or otherwise, by legislative act, by the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, or by the power to enter into agreements with foreign nations.

4. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, page 3. The arguments presented by the Plaintiff are very similar to those presented by the voter/citizen in Made in the USA Foundation, et al., v. U.S.

Not true - While the arguments made by the plaintiffs in this legal action may be similar to those in Made in the USA, they are not the same arguments. Furthermore, the two cases are entirely different in nature and scope such that and rulings made in one do not necessarily apply to the other. NAFTA is a trade agreement between nations and nothing more. GATT, on the other hand, is far more than a trade agreement. Instead, it establishes a fourth branch of our government that is made up of foreign nationals with no ties to this Nation or its people. The tragic reality of this state of affairs is that this external fourth branch of government is superior to and sits above the other three branches; our President, our Legislature, and our Supreme Court.

5. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, 1., Threshold Analysis, page 4, 5, & 6.

The Plaintiffs will amend their complaint to meet the three requirements necessary to establish standing as identified in this Section of the Defendants motion to dismiss.

6. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, Threshold Analysis, 1., a., page 6, 7, & 8. Plaintifs Claims of Injury Are Not Sufficiently Particularized to Confer Standing, and Amount Instead to a Generalized Grievance

The Plaintiffs hold that the Defendants claim that to establish standing in this complaint a plaintiff has to establish that he has suffered harm or injury separate and apart from all others. For example, provided by the defense, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that:

raising only a generally available grievance about government - claiming only harm to this and every citizen's interest in the proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large - does not state an Article III case or controversy

The Plaintiffs take no issue with this ruling of the Supreme Court. However, we object to the defendants using this ruling as justification for moving to dismiss this legal action because the Plaintiff has not alleged a unique injury as opposed to a generalized one. The Supreme Court has ruled that generalized injuries do not rise to an Article III controversy when government has properly application the Constitution and laws. This should not and cannot be construed to mean that generalized injuries do not rise to an Article III controversy when the government has improperly and wrongfully applied the constitutional provision such that Constitution has been grievously violated as maintained by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs do not claim harm and injury as a result of the proper application of the Constitution and laws but instead we claim we have been harmed as a result of a grievous violation of Constitutional provisions.

7. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, Threshold Analysis, 1., b. Causation, c. Redressability.

8. NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS, page 10. Even if the Complaint is sufficient to supply Plaintiff with standing to maintain this action, it must be dismissed for lack jurisdiction over the President of Congress.

While it is true that the Court lacks jurisdiction of the actions of the President and Congress, it is also true, as established by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury versus Madison that the court has jurisdiction over the laws passed in regard to judging them to be constitutional or not. Indeed this is one of their most important and sacred duties. It is this responsibility that the Plaintiffs are asking the Court to fulfill and this responsibility resides solely with the Court.

9. PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, page 11. This Court cannot order the President to terminate and international agreement. Courts, however, generally do not have jurisdiction to direct or enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. Even if GATT were declared unconstitutional by a federal court, that would not necessarily relieve the United States of its obligations under the agreement as a matter of international law. Etc. Etc.

Even granting that all of the above is true, the President has overstepped the authority of his position and acted far beyond any authority given to him by the Constitution and the laws of these United States. As has been established in our original complaints, GATT is not just an trade agreement. It is an agreement to establish a World government whose power and authority supersedes and is superior to the governments of its individual members, including the government of the United States of America. Such a change in governing and our government cannot be accomplished through our President's authority to enter into agreements with foreign states, cannot be made by Congress through their ordinary legislative power, and cannot be made by Congress though its authority to enter into treaties with foreign nations. A change of this nature can only be made by constitutional amendment.

10. CONGRESSIONAL IMMUNITY UNDER SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE. Page 12. The question to be resolved is whether the actions of the petitioners fall within the "Sphere of legitimate legislative activity".

It has been made clear in the previous item that changing the nature and form of our government by establishing a fourth branch superior to all others is does not fall within the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity" of Congress.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Americans pride themselves upon the fact that our government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We hold these perceptions for two very important reasons, we vote for those who make the laws we live by and those we vote for to make our laws are morally and legally bound to abide by the provisions of our constitution. These truths are the essence of a Democratic Republic. We are a Democracy because we vote for those who lead us and we are a Republic because those who lead us are bound by our Constitution to lead us in a specific and predetermined way. A necessary principle inherent to a Republic is the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances; the most important and fundamental grievance being the departure of government from constitutional provision.

It appears from the points of law used by the defense in this legal action that decisions made by the courts of this Nation have served to remove any possible way for citizens to question the unconstitutionality of governmental actions in a court of law. If this is indeed true, then the plaintiffs hold that the courts of this Nation have denied the citizens of this Nation their inalienable right to petition the government for the redress of grievances and by doing so, have given license to the government to violate the provisions of our Constitution with impunity. If the government can violate our Constitution with impunity, then our Constitution is dysfunctional and void. If our Constitution is dysfunctional and void, then our government is illegal and unlawful and can no longer hold claim to being a Republic.

For all of the above reasons, the Plaintiffs ask this court to deny the defendants motion for a dismissal.

In addition to the preceding response to the defendant's motion to dismiss, the following statement of Constitutional principle was also filed with the Court.

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF BELIEF AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES

We, Alan R. Adaschik and other Plaintiffs as a class, by and through the undersigned Attorney Pro Se, hereby respectfully inform the Court and the Defendants that we hold to the following beliefs and principles and ask the Court to give them due consideration in deciding this matter.

The Defendant's have asked this court to dismiss this civil action because the Attorney Pro Se for the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that he has suffered a personal and particular injury separate from the other Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' hold that, irrespective of previous rulings and precedents, dismissal of this complaint for the reason cited is unconstitutional because it serves to separate the Plaintiffs from their Constitution and renders that document dysfunctional and void for the primary purpose for which it was written.

The primary purpose of our Constitution is to establish the nature and form of our government. It is self-evident that nature and form of our government is common to all citizens. Therefore, changes to the nature and form of our government will not affect us separately as individuals, but instead, will only affect all citizens in common as a group.

For example, suppose that instead of enacting GATT, Congress voted to ensure that all our laws, rules, and procedure would conform to that of the British Empire. Further, Congress also voted that all laws passed by the British Parliament would be legally binding upon this Nation and that all Americans will swear allegiance to the British Crown. Beyond question, the effect of this act of Congress would be the reversal of the American Revolution. Is such an act of Congress constitutional? If the Defendant's have their way, this question is irrelevant, because the act in question injured Americans universally and no American will be able to demonstrate a unique injury apart from other citizens. Therefore, constitutional or not, the law in question would stand because no citizen would be able to challenge it in a court of law.

To be sure, if Congress voted that all Americans reaching the age of eighteen will be branded with their social security number, citizens would also have no recourse in a court of law concerning this matter because the injury sustained is common to all. Clearly, "unique and separate injury" is an absurd constitutional standard to be applied when citizens approach a court on issues of constitu-tionality because such issues, by their nature, are common to all citizens.

The constitutional standard proffered by the Defendants wrongfully denies citizens access to the courts, thereby rendering our Constitution dysfunctional and opening the door to a real tyranny. If citizens are not able to challenge the actions of government in a court of law due to the commonality of the injuries sustained, then our government holds the power to change its nature and form, at will, without amending the Constitution. Clearly, such a state of affairs is repugnant to our Constitution and it follows that any decision by a court that establishes or sustains this state of affairs, is also repugnant to our Constitution.

The Defendants have raised an issue concerning the procedural matters of this Court and ask the Court to dismiss this legal action on that basis. What is more vital to the interests of this Nation and its people. To have this Court sustain the Defendant's motion to dismiss and thereby possibly give license to a course of action that may be repugnant to our Constitution or to deny the Defendant's motion and thereby render a determination of the matter? The Judicial System of this Nation is tasked with the responsibility of ruling on issues of constitu-tionality. This responsibility cannot be fulfilled unless issues of constitutionality are brought before a Court. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss, for all intents and purposes, is really a motion for the Court to shun an important and crucial constitutional responsibility.

The status of the above lawsuit is that it is in Limbo. It has been almost three years since the defense filed its motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed their response to the motion. Upon having done this, it is incumbent upon the Court to issue a ruling in the matter, which is has failed to do. Unless a ruling is issued, the legal action cannot proceed. It is clear that by filing this legal action with the Court, as citizens, the plaintiffs have petitioned their government for redress of a very real and important grievance. Furthermore, no other avenue of approach is available for addressing the issues raised. Therefore, if this legal action is in permanent limbo and continues to be ignored by the Court, then the inescapable conclusion is that the plaintiffs unalienable right to petition government for the redress of grievances no longer exists.

<<< Click here to go back to the main "Challenge and Participation" page.