In the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
|
Marc Perkel,
Appellant,
Vs
United States of America
House of Representatives
Appellee
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) |
Appeal No.: _____________________
Federal Case No.: 98-3387-CV-S-RGC
|
BRIEF
Because this case involves an emergency injunction and is of national importance, Appellant (hereafter referenced as I) moves this court to take immediate action on an emergency basis.
Because of the emergency nature of
this appeal, and that it is of national importance, I will outline the issues here. I request that this court excuse issues of form and procedure and take any action it deems necessary to protect the integrity of the
elections, the interests of the
United States of America, and the integrity of the judicial system.
Issues Involved
I have laid out my issues and arguments quite clearly in my pleading and my motion to reconsider. I'll stand by those statements and arguments as my statement to this court and I hereby
incorporate and attach my Pleading
and my Motion to Reconsider as part of my Brief before this court. I make one correction in that it has come to my attention that my quote of Kenneth Starr's interview on 60 minutes might not have happened. However, it
doesn't change my legal arguments.
I will now quickly outline the issues on appeal.
I am asking for an injunction to remove X-rated material contained in the Independent Counsel report from government controlled web sites because they violate the pornography laws of all 50 states and
undermine the ability of states to
exercise their reserved rights under the 10th amendment of the Constitution.
I am asking that the X-rated material be removed because government web sites should contain only G-rated material and becse the material is reproduced in G-rated newspapers and is delivered to people who do not
want X-rated material forced upon
them.
I ask for these injunctions to prevent the government from releasing additional X-rated material.
I am asking that this court order secret grand jury testimony should not be released to the public without the Court's supervision in order to protect the rights of those innocent people who might be harmed by the
release.
I am asking that this Court take control of the distribution of secret grand jury testimony in order to preserve the integrity of the grand jury process and the public confidence in the ability of the court to
enforce it's own grand jury secrecy
rules.
The decision of the Federal Court, that grand jury secrecy Rule 6(e) doesn't apply to the Independent Counsel is in direct conflict with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals who ruled the opposite way [Oliver L. North,
et al. (Omnibus Order 1994)] and
should be overturned.
The decision of the Federal Court, that the judiciary has no injunctive jurisdiction over the House of Representatives is in direct conflict with the United States Constitution and the concept of balance of powers.
Members of Congress would have more
immunity than the judiciary itself enjoys. This decision should be overturned.
The decision of the Federal Court, that the Internet is an extension of the House Floor and is therefore covered under the Speech and Debate Clause is very dangerous and needs serious rethinking. This decision
should be overturned.
I have raised the issue that the "impeachment process" is really not an impeachment process because it lacks the characteristics of an impeachment process and is in fact election tampering.
The integrity of the grand jury process is threatened by allowing secret testimony to become public without the Court's supervision.
The Independent Counsel laws have created a monster that operates as a fourth branch of government and is immune from adequate control by the other three branches. The Independent Counsel behaves much like a
monarchy and is similar to the Communist
Secret Police that Americans find repugnant. This court has a duty to enjoin the Special Prosecutor and rule the Independent Counsel laws to be unconstitutional.
The issues before this court are very serious and will directly affect our freedoms and our rights under the Constitution. Because of the release of the Starr Report to the public without judicial
supervision, I contend that a citizen can
now refuse to testify in front of a grand jury on the basis that he can not be assured that the Court can enforce Rule 6(e) and that his secret testimony won't be published on the Internet by the government. I therefore
challenge this court to refute
this argument. This court has a duty to the Constitution to act to protect The People from the abuses of the Independent Counsel and acts of Congress that are in violation of the law. This case will show this Court's
power to enforce the Constitution, or
will prove that the Courts are in fact impotent to enforce the Constitution, in which case the Courts have no legal basis for their existence. I therefore challenge you to do your job.
WHEREFORE, for the above stated reasons, and incorporating herein the arguments in his Federal Court Pleading and Motion to Reconsider, Appellant prays for this court to take whatever emergency action it deems
necessary to deal with the issues
presented herein and in his pleading and his motion to reconsider including but not limited to:
Ordering the Congress to remove pornographic material from the Starr Report and from the government's web sites.
Order the Congress to remove secret grand jury testimony from the government's web site and condemn the improper release of this material without judicial supervision in order to protect the integrity of future
grand juries.
Overturn the decision that the Independent Counsel isn't subject to Federal Rule 6(e) in direct conflict with the Oliver North case.
Overturn the decision that the Speech and Debate Clause cover material posted on the Internet by Congress.
Overturn the decision that the judiciary has no injunctive powers over Congress.
Take the necessary steps to ensure that the impeachment process is not just a cover for election tampering and to ensure the integrity of the election process.
Find that the Independent Counsel laws are unconstitutional and rule these laws void.
__________________________________
Marc Perkel - Appellant - 10-08-98
