The first successful suit brought against DHS’s PACT forces in Portland, was brought by the ACLU, and supported by the State of Oregon, to grant 14 day restraining order, barring federal officers from using force, threats and dispersal orders against journalists or legal observers documenting the daily demonstrations in downtown Portland. Blog post here.
The second, and unsuccessful lawsuit was brought by the State of Oregon, sought injunction against PACT which would force them to follow the law in the form of identification, explanation of charges, and the need for probable cause while apprehending individuals outside of federal property. Blog post here.
Upcoming lawsuit #1, again by ACLU with co-complainants, seeks a ruling that DHS’s action through PACT are unconstitutional (1st+10th Amendment), and seeks an injunction restraining PACT forces from operating outside of the immediate Federal Courthouse property, and even includes some restraints for operating within the Federal property.
This lawsuit, somewhat similar to the State’s previous failed suit, includes the elements missing in the State’s suit and is written in such a way to prepare for larger arguments up to the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of any such Federally formed “task force.” Would the Federal government appeal a decision? I have no idea. Honestly, I don’t see the point if they have restraining orders in place while waiting. Wouldn’t make any sense…unless they thought Donny was actually going to win the election and there was a need for further propaganda after an election. Meh. Still doesn’t make sense. We’ll come back to this after the case is decided.
What this case has, that the State’s didn’t:
1.Standing. Previously, the Federal Court ruled against the State because it lacked standing to represent the people. ACLU and it’s co-complainants are the injured parties.
2. Identify the injuries sustained and endured as ongoing and need of relief through injunction. The ACLU’s case delineates this very item in advance through its co-complainants, unlike the State’s crappy case.
I think the prospects are very good for the ACLU suit, but again, I’m no lawyer. I do have to say, the inclusion of several State legislators as additionally harmed parties by the Federal government in this suit, leaves me scratching my head. They are presented as injured parties in that their ability to craft law is “frustrated”. I don’t understand this position as useful, seems very flimsy to me.
Upcoming lawsuit #2, ACLU with a different set of co-complainants vs Federal Government and the City of Portland. This one is in regards to the brutalization of self-declared “volunteer medics”. I think we all so this video.
ACLU will attempt to lump this class of people into the same category as those whom already won temporary relief from the Federal courts: Press and legal observers. This one…I don’t know that “volunteer medic” is a recognizable class either through precedence or quite literally ‘recognizable’. If everyone took some tape, and put on one side of a helmet PRESS, and the other side MEDIC, then there couldn’t possibly be anyone that threw that firework at a law enforcement officer.
Possibly the most important case, that doesn’t exist yet, would be a criminal case. Donavan La Bella v DHS (et al) and whoever the gunman was. This guy that was shot in the head, it’s worse than we thought. he appears to have suffered what could be permanent trauma to his brain. I don’t like this story. You can read it. Ugh.
This case would be the albatross around the neck of this entire propaganda effort. If the Fed wanted to fight it, they’d go through a discovery they don’t want. Wouldn’t we all love to see some inter-agency memos outlining the scope of the PACT mission and who authored them? How about those rules of engagement no one seems to know about? Let’s see them. Or, maybe we discover there are no rules. Which is worse? How about if we find out exactly who the members of PACT are, where they came from, how they were selected, and exactly what their relevant training was?