Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 3:00-CV-2543-D
December 1, 2000
James Jones, JONES ASSOCIATES, P.C., Dallas, TX; Prof. Sanford V. Levinson, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas; William K. Berenson, LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM K. BERENSON, P.C., Fort Worth, Texas; Charles McGarry, LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES McGARRY, ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS.
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE BRIEFS OF DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court strike Sections I.A. and I.B. of the Response and Brief of Defendants Governor George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Application and Section I of Defendants Ernest Angelo, Gayle West, Joseph L. O'Neill, III, Betsy Lake, Jim Hamlin, Mary E. Cowart, Michael Dugas and John Abney Culberson's Response to Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Their Application for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Brief as violative of this Court's Order of November 27, 2000.
1.00 On November 27, 2000, this Court held a scheduling conference with all counsel in this matter via teleconference. As a result of that conference, this Court entered an Order of that date, paragraph 7 of which clearly states, "No reply briefs in support of defendants' motions to dismiss or plaintiffs' preliminary injunction application will be permitted."
2.00 In the November 27, 2000, teleconference, this Court made a clear distinction between the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants and the "merits" of Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction. See, e.g., Transcript of Telephonic Scheduling Conference Before The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge ("Transcript"), pp. 9, 45. Counsel for Defendants clearly understood this distinction. Transcript, p. 11.
3.00 Nevertheless, Defendants Governor George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney. have. under the guise of responding to the "merits" of Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction, filed a reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. See Sections I.A. and I.B. of the Response and Brief of Defendants Governor George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Application. These same individuals who have shown complete lack of respect for the terms of the highest law of this land — the United States Constitution — by attempting to end run the prohibitions of the Twelfth Amendment have now demonstrated that same lack of respect for the clear terms of this Court's Order and are now attempting to end run this Court's directives.
4.00 The Elector Defendants don't even attempt to disguise their reply regarding their Motion to Dismiss as addressing the "merits." Section I of their Response to Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of their Application for Preliminary Injunction simply replies to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs thus respectfully request that this Court strike Sections I.A. and I.B. of the Response and Brief of Defendants Governor George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney in Opposition to Plaintiffs Preliminary Injunction Application and Section I of Defendants Ernest Angelo, Gayle West, Joseph L. O'Neill, III, Betsy Lake, Jim Hamlin, Mary E. Cowart, Michael Dugas and John Abney Culberson's Response to Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Their Application for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Brief as violative of this Court's Order of November 27, 2000.