• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Private Content
Dutkiewicz v. Obama et al (M.D. FL 6-29-12) crackpot complaint #1?
 

Dutkiewicz v. Obama et al (M.D. FL 6-29-12) crackpot complaint #1?

on

  • 413 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
413
Views on SlideShare
413
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Dutkiewicz v. Obama et al (M.D. FL 6-29-12) crackpot complaint #1? Dutkiewicz v. Obama et al (M.D. FL 6-29-12) crackpot complaint #1? Document Transcript

    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION How long do you think it will takeEDWARD P. DUTKIEWICZ for this to be thrown out of court (a citizen and Florida resident) and how long will the complainer Petitioner, persist in this futile effort? Gambling is illegal outside ofv. CASE NO. authorized venues but what would the Vegas odds-makers give on this one. I wonder?BARACK OBAMA (In his official capacity as President of the United States)andERIC HOLDER (In his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States)andJANET NAPOLITANO (In her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for the United States)andALEJANDRO MAYORKAS (In his official capacity as Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for the United States) (Respondents.) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This is a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Petitionerrequests that the Court issue a writ of mandamus, commanding theDepartment of Immigration and the Justice Department to enforce thelaws currently applicable as the laws pertain to illegal -1-
    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID 2immigrants. The Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamuscommanding Barack Obama to rescind his illegal order, dated June16, 2012, wherein Mr. Obama directed that laws of the United Statesbe ignored for a select group of illegal aliens. In furtherance ofthe Petition, the Petitioner herein alleges: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. The Petitioner, Edward P. Dutkiewicz, is a natural person,who resides in Pasco County, Florida, and located within thejurisdiction of the District Court of the Middle District ofFlorida. 2. Barack Obama is a natural person, sitting as president ofthe United States of America, and is acting in his officialcapacity as President of the United States. 3. Eric Holder is a natural person, sitting as AttorneyGeneral of the United States, and is acting in his officialcapacity as Attorney General of the United States. 4. Janet Napolitano is a natural person, sitting as theSecretary of the Department of Homeland Security for the UnitedStates, and is acting in her official capacity as the Secretary ofthe Department of Homeland Security of the United States. 5. Alejandro Mayorkas is a natural person, sitting as Directorof the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and is acting inhis official capacity as Director the same. -2-
    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID 3 6. The district court has subject matter jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. 1651 wherein all courts established by Act of Congressmay issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of theirrespective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principlesof law. 7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1361, in that the court oforiginal jurisdiction is that district court wherein the Defendantsmay be found or the that location in which a substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Venueis also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 139l(e), in that the plaintiffresides within the Middle District of Florida and no real propertyis at issue. 8. This action is brought under The Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C.1361, and no money damages are alleged or requested. 9. The executive order at issue provides as follows: "Under this directive, individuals who demonstrate that theymeet the following criteria will be eligible for an exercise ofdiscretion, specifically deferred action, on a case by case basis: a. Came to the United States under the age of sixteen; b. Have continuously resided in the United States for a leastfive years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present inthe United States on the date of this memorandum; -3-
    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID 4 c. Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; d. Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; e. Are not above the age of thirty. [Dept. of Homeland Security, 6/15/12] ". (bold mine). It is a DHS Policy Memo NOT an "Executive Order". A copy of the executive order was not available, and this synopsis was found on the internet, at the web site:The MEMO is found at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf http://www.nationofchange.org/exercising-prosecutorial-discretion -different-issuing-executive-order-1339861017. 10. The Congress has clearly spoken on who is admissible into the United States and who is not to be considered for admission. In passing 8 U.S.C. 1182 Congress has plainly made certain parties ineligible for entry into the United States. The Presidents executive order sidesteps the law of the land, without applying the procedures, inquiries, and safeguards found in 8 U.S.C. 1182. 11. The Petitioner has standing to seek the remedy of mandamus, in that the executive order at issue, dated June 16, 2012 is illegal, in that Article I, section 1, et seq, vests all legislative powers in the Congress, and illegal actions by the -4-
    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID 5government officials undermines the control the citizens, includingthe Petitioner, have over the laws passed and placed into effect,with the Petitioner having a direct interest in having theofficials of this country acting within their constitutional limitsand powers. President Obamas violation of constitutionalrestrictions, as to the executive branch having the power to deviseand enact its own legislation which is contradictory to the will ofcongress, is clear and indisputable; 12. The Petitioner has standing to seek the remedy ofmandamus, in that the executive order at issue, dated June 16, 2012is within the zone of interest of the Petitioner, in that thePetitioner, and persons like-situated, have an interest in thegovernment officials acting within their constitutional authority,and likewise, the Petitioner and others have an interest in thegovernment officials not acting unconstitutionally, thePetitioners interest being within the zone of interest of theconstitutional limits of executive power; 13. The Petitioner has standing to seek the remedy ofmandamus, in that the executive order at issue, dated June 16, 2012undermines defined and legal immigration policy passed by Congress,said policies being put into effect to protect the citizens of theUnited States from such illegal aliens. The Petition is one of thecitizens of the United States. -5-
    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID 6 14. The Petitioner has standing to seek the remedy ofmandamus, in that the executive order at issue, dated June 16, 2012threatens the security of the citizens, of which the Petitioner isone, in that providing a reward for illegal activity, (workerstatus} without an alien following legal channels, encourages aflood of illegal aliens to enter this country, which may include,among those illegal aliens, criminals and terrorists. 15. The Petitioner has standing to seek the remedy ofmandamus, in that the executive order at issue, dated June 16, 2012 USCIS will charge a feewill illegally pose an administrative costs and burdens on the and Immigration Courts and ICEtaxpayers of this country, of which the Petitioner is one. will not watse money on low priority cases. 16. The Petitioner has standing to seek the remedy ofmandamus, in that the executive order at issue, dated June 16, 2012immediately injects over 800,000 illegal workers into theemployment system, at a time when citizens of this country aretrying to find employment, illegally increasing the unemploymentburden on the taxpayers, of which the Petitioner is one. 17. The Petitioner has standing to seek the remedy ofmandamus, in that the executive order at issue, dated June 16,2012, sets a precedent of allowing the executive branch to overrideand ignore laws put in place by the Congress, and in doing so,directly affects the citizens ability to have a fair and equal sayin how and which laws are enacted. While 800,000 is likely correct on the number immediately eligible, many will be high school kids plus some college-bound grads rather than real competition in the workforce. -6-
    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID 7 18. The Petitioner has standing to seek the remedy ofmandamus, in that the executive order at issue, dated June 16, 2012causes illegal aliens to be recognized as being rightfully in theUnited States, without any process or procedure to attempt toprohibit criminals, including drug dealers and pedophiles, fromentering this country, thereby threatening the security of thecitizens, including the Petitioner, which is provided by theexisting legal immigration laws. SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS 19. On or about June 15, 2012, President Obama signed anexecutive order in which he ordered those departments which wouldenforce immigration law, being the Department of Immigration andthe Justice Department, including the Attorney General of theUnited States, to fail to, or avoid carrying out the laws of theUnited States, as those laws pertained to illegal immigrants. 20. The Executive order effectively overruled standingstatutes which governed how illegal aliens would be treated and/ordeported following apprehension. 21. The President, Barach Obama, owes each citizen a duty toact legally, within the scope of his powers, as set forth in theConstitution of the United States. In signing the executive orderin question, President Obama has acted extra-constitutionally, and -7-
    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID 8he has breached his oath of office to uphold the constitution ofthe United States by acting outside his assigned powers. Obama hasalso breached his duty to the Citizens of this country, and to hisoffice. 22. In the past President Obama had stated that he, aspresident, lacked the authority to effectuate the "Dream Act",which entitled specific persons a path to citizenship, and, ingeneral, amnesty, for illegal entry into the United States. 23. President Obamas executive order substantially enactsthe "Dream Act" and thwarts the intent of congress to controlimmigration in a logical, rationale, and fair basis. Rather,President Obamas executive action is merely a political act, notbased on fairness or a rationale application of the law. PresidentObamas executive order at issue usurps the powers which reside inthe Congress. The President is not vested with legislative powers. 24. President Obama, and hence, those wilfully acting underthe authority of the executive order in question, have illegallyusurped the authority of Congress. As such, the executive order,and all the actions those parties take, in carrying out theexecutive order, is illegal. 25. President Obama is without constitutional power toeffectively legislate from the executive branch. Article l,section l squarely vests all legislative power in the Congress. -8-
    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID 9 26. Congress has had opportunity to act in regards to "theDream Act", but has chosen not to do so. Congress has spoken, andthe President is acting unconstitutionally in "end running"congress in signing an executive order, which effectively,overrules the law of the land. 27. There is no rationale basis, under the veil of nationalsecurity, for allowing almost a million illegal aliens to remain aslegal residents and workers of this country, when there is nomechanism in place to identify suspected criminals, gang members,or terrorists, nor do documents exist which would identify thoseparties who actually fit the parameters set forth in thepresidents illegal executive order. 28. The Petitioner is injured in that the act bypasses thelaws of the land, which are intended to protect the Petitioner fromillegal aliens, by providing a means and method for removing thosepersons here illegally, and by providing a means and a method ofallowing only those individuals who do not appear to be a threat toothers or this country. 29. The executive order opens the door to this country forpersons who, ab initio, broke the law to enter and remain in thiscountry, without regard for the law, the same laws which requirethat those persons in the United States illegally, must leave, andonly return using legal, proper channels and procedures. -9-
    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID 10 30. All the wrongs suffered by the Petitioner or those whichwill be imminently suffered by the Petitioner are directlyattributable to the executive order in question, and the Courtsorder that the agencies set aside that order, and that thePresident reverse that order, shall provide a remedy to the wrongssuffered by the Plaintiff, as well as other citizens of thiscountry. 31. The Petitioner has no other remedies or optionsavailable but to seek an order from the Court, as set forth in theprayer for relief. 32. Eric Holder is sitting as Attorney General for the UnitedStates of America. As such, Holder has an obligation to enforcethe legal laws of the country, and to not enforce those laws whichoriginate illegally, such as the executive order in question. 33. Holder, as Attorney General, has an obligation to enforcethe legal statutes, and not to enforce the executive order inquestion. Eric Holder must, as an obligation of his office,implement the statutes which were legally passed by Congress inregards to all immigration. 34. Janet Napolitano is sitting as the Secretary for theDepartment of Homeland Security for the United States of America.As such, Napolitano has an obligation to enforce the legal laws of -10-
    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID 11the country, and to not enforce those laws which originateillegally, such as the executive order in question. 35. Napolitano, as Secretary of the Department of HomelandSecurity, has an obligation to enforce the legal statutes, and notto enforce the executive order in question. Janet Napolitano must,as an obligation of her office, implement the statutes which werelegally passed by Congress in regards to all immigration. 3 6. Alejandro Mayorkas is sitting as Director of the U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services. As such, Moyorkas has anobligation to enforce the legal laws of the country, and to notenforce those laws which originate illegally, such as the executiveorder in question. 3 7. As Director of the U.S. Citizenship and ImmigrationServices, Moyorkas is directly responsible for the implementationof the illegal executive order in question, and Moyorkas isobligated to set aside the executive order, and implement thestatutes which were legally passed by Congress in regards to allimmigration. -11-
    • Case 8:12-cv-01447-SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID 12Whereas: The Petitioner seeks relief: A. In the form of mandamus relief directing that PresidentObama rescind his executive order which is at issue; B. That the Court declare the executive order at issue to beillegal, and unenforceable; C. That the Court enjoin the United States government, andthose Respondents named herein, from carrying out the executiveorder at issue; D. That the Court order the rescission, vacating of, orreversal of, the executive order in question; E. That the Court order all governmental agencies, includingthose Respondents named herein, to set aside the executive order,and not follow its directives, but rather, the agencies are tofollow Congressional intent, as set forth the applicable statutes; F. Any other relief that the Court deems just and reasonable.Dated: June 29, 2012 ,~u~/dd, Edwa~{r{&ftcz~ Trial Attorney FBN: 0883387 P.O. Box 937 Dade City, FL 33526-0937 (352) 467 - 2682 (p) (352) 567 - 5526 (f) -12-