The American Crisis: To Free a Lender-Owned Nation (Part II)

[9] Flint v. Stone Tracy 220 U.S. 107, 110 (1911).  

[10] See United States v. Ptasynski , 462 U.S. 74, 84-85 (1983) (classification must have some nonpreferential basis).

[11] Quoted in From Sunshine to Moonshine: How the Louisiana Legislature Hid the Governor's Records in the Name of Transparency, Blanchard, 71 Louisiana L. Rev. 703, 708 (2011).

[12] See United States Of America v. Schultz, 529 F. Supp.2d 341, 348 (N.D.N.Y. 2007): "[T]o prove a violation of - 6700, the Government must also show that the [defendants] made false or fraudulent statements concerning the tax benefits of participating in the plan or arrangement." [Citation.] "Two types of statements fall within the statutory bar: statements directly addressing the availability of tax benefits and those concerning factual matters that are relevant to the availability of tax benefits." [Citation.]

[13] This civil rights claim might not be valid against Fed officers, since they are not officers of the United States. Melcher v. FOMC, 644 F.Supp. 510 (D.D.C. 1986).   A public nuisance claim would rope in Fed defendants.   See   Redevelopment Agency v. BNSF Railway , 09-16585 (9th Cir. 6-28-2011) : "California law defines a nuisance, in part, as "[a]nything which is"an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.' Cal. Civ. Code - 3479."   However, for my purposes, less is more.

[14] Free speech precedents suffice because the "Petition Clause"was inspired by the same ideals of liberty and democracy that gave us the freedoms to speak, publish, and assemble. These First Amendment rights are inseparable." McDonald v. Smith 472 U.S. 474, 484 (1985).

[15] The agency duly changed the regulation, which mooted further appellate proceedings.   On remand, the trial court found that the change had cured the violation.   Bernstein v . U.S. Department of Commerce (N.D.Cal. 2003).