Deutsch
Français
Español
Italiano
Português
中文
日本語
Русский
Türkçe
Yaakov’s APEeal Draft Craft
Duration: 0:22
Views: 3
Submitted: 1 day ago
Submitted by:
Description:
Before I begin lecturing you on legal document pleading drafting, allow me to say Kudos to wonderful Governor Newsom and his badass Yale Grad legal Eagle as they are fighting for Democracy meaning for YOU AND FOR ME so this being all hands on deck highly volatile situation, I gladly do my part on condition that not a single red cent is ever forwarded to me and want all to
Be aware of the fact that I am not an attorney at law, so this is for satire only, but my legal pleadings PACK A KNOCKOUT BUNCH cause I was BORN HYPER COMPETITIVE and do not settle for losses but rebound with every curveball thrown my way. Moreover: Every good Yale grad who CLOCKED for Sammy Kulo-ito I mean “Alito” who is part of government’s Supreme Law-Mafia clerking council pupil team — needs to perfect appeal draft craft otherwise that YaleDucation equates COGNITIVE CASTRATION kids, so wise up or ROT-UP! Anyways, here is my constitutionally grounded legal appeal framework to challenge federal blocking of state efforts to resist military deployment in California all structured for filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or U.S. Supreme Court without a single Yale day clocked while Sammy Alito got Supreme Court Appointment ROCKED! I made it easy to revise any Elements a million different ways so lemme git right to biz as I hitchuh wit legal appeal KEYS:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. Defendants-Appellees.
EMERGENCY APPEAL TO STAY FEDERALIZATION ORDER AND MILITARY DEPLOYMENT
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Appeal Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (interlocutory appeal of injunction denial).
Constitutional Basis:
10th Amendment (State sovereignty)
Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (Limits on federal military deployment)
Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255 (Federal troop deployment criteria)
II. CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS
A. Violation of the 10th Amendment (Anti-Commandeering Doctrine)
Precedent: Printz v. United States (1997) "Federal government may not compel state officers to execute federal law."
Claim: Federalization of the California National Guard unlawfully commandeers state resources absent:
An insurrection (§ 251),
State failure to protect rights (§ 252), or
State request (§ 253).
B. Unlawful Deployment Under the Insurrection Act
Legal Standard: Four strict conditions must be met (Arizona v. United States, 2012):
Rebellion: No evidence of "insurrection" in California (Governor certified state control).
Obstructed Laws: No showing California "obstructed execution of federal laws."
Due Process: No hearing held to determine necessity (§ 253).
State Request: Deployment initiated against state objection.
C. Posse Comitatus Act Violation
18 U.S.C. § 1385: Prohibits use of U.S. military for domestic law enforcement.
Marine Corps Deployment qualifies as unlawful domestic policing without Insurrection Act justification.
III. REQUESTED RELIEF
Emergency Stay: Halt federalization/deployment pending appeal (FRAP 8(a)).
Declaratory Judgment: Federal action violates 10th Amendment and Insurrection Act.
Permanent Injunction: Bar federal control of CA Guard or Marines absent § 251–255 conditions.
IV. STANDING & IRREPARABLE HARM
Standing: Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) (States as sovereign plaintiffs).
Irreparable Harm:
Violation of state sovereignty (New York v. United States, 1992).
Risk of federal-state armed conflict.
Loss of state command over National Guard personnel/facilities.
V. EVIDENCE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION
Federal Action & Constitutional Violations: National Guard federalization, 10th Amendment commandeering, Marine deployment ,Posse Comitatus Act Abuse/ Unauthorized Insurrection Act use, Refusal to return state assets, Violation of 32 U.S.C. § 104 (State Guard rights)., Attempting to assfuck California with mushroom shaped federal nano sized dick…
VI. PROCEDURAL PATH
File Emergency Stay in Ninth Circuit within 24 hours so not
Tomorrow but today!
Seek Certiorari Before Judgment (SCOTUS Rule 11) if Ninth Circuit denies stay.
Expedited Hearing Request: Under FRAP 2 (Suspension of rules in emergencies).
VII. LEGAL PRECEDENTS SUPPORTING APPEAL
Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990): National Guard has dual state-federal role; federalization only permitted under enumerated statutes.
Sterling v. Constantin (1932): Federal troops cannot displace state police power absent insurrection.
Gilligan v. Morgan (1973): Courts can review military deployment for constitutional compliance.
VIII. SAMPLE STAY MOTION LANGUAGE
"The Appellees’ deployment of Marines and seizure of the California National Guard constitutes a textbook violation of the Insurrection Act’s limitations and the anti-commandeering principles of the 10th Amendment. Absent a stay, Appellant suffers irreparable injury to its sovereign integrity—a harm no subsequent ruling can redress." Dig? Stay with me Yaakov, don’t go off rails now boy!
IX. CRITICAL NEXT STEPS
File Emergency Stay with Ninth Circuit.
Notify U.S. Attorney General (28 C.F.R. § 16.21).
Request SCOTUS Intervention if lower court denies relief (See Meredith v. Fair, 1962).
Time is of the essence Yaakov: Federal troop deployments become irreversible within 48–72 hours.
Key Strategy: Focus narrowly on statutory violations (Insurrection Act) and structural constitutional harm (10th Amendment). Avoid political rhetoric; anchor claims in text and precedent okay bruh?
Yaakov, bare in mind National Guard Federalization Rules (32 U.S.C. § 104) DUDE! Yes indeed, my outlined framework complies with separation of powers while aggressively asserting your California state rights under existing constitutional doctrine so in order to win in appe you Yaakov have to laser focus on proving the federal government acted outside statutory authorization.
Disclaimer:
This post is Stateless Warrior satire so there is also a revised version which I stacked and OACKED with more meat on VERBIAGE BONES as I yanked caseloads to mitigate DOJ FAGLOADS, dig?
FYI, augh - my, my, I am a HABITUAL REVISIONIST because I never settle for anything less of textual perfection in any of the several languages I am fluent in so here you go if you wannuh peruse some muh’ and take whatchuh need to clarify for those who read:
My ReWISED Version:
(Attribution for use of this original legal pleading revision is not necessary so feel free to use it anyway you see fit! ~Stageless Warrior)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
State of California, ex rel. Gavin Newsom, Governor Petitioner-Appellant, v. President of the United States, U.S. Department of Defense Respondents-Appellees.
EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY FEDERALIZATION & DEPLOYMENT
(Constitutional Basis for Appeal)
I. Jurisdiction & Standing
Standing: California has sovereign standing (Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)) as the federalization commandeers its National Guard without consent, violating state autonomy.
Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (interlocutory appeal of injunction denial).
II. Constitutional & Statutory Violations
A. Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385)
Federal troops (U.S. Marines) may not execute domestic law unless expressly authorized by Constitution or statute.
No statutory exception applies:
The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) was not lawfully invoked (see III.B).
Marines lack authority for policing functions on state soil (DoD Directive 5525.5).
B. Unlawful Invocation of the Insurrection Act
The Act permits federal troop deployment only if:
§ 251: State legislature/governor requests aid (not sought here);
§ 252: Federal authority obstructed by "insurrection" (absent here);
§ 253: "Rebellion" or denial of constitutional rights (no factual basis).
Legal Standard: Deployment requires a concrete, violent threat (Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)). Mere policy disputes (e.g., immigration enforcement) are insufficient.
C. Tenth Amendment & Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
Federalizing California’s National Guard without state consent violates:
State sovereignty (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997));
Guard’s dual-status protection (32 U.S.C. § 104).
Key Precedent: Federal control is permitted only for overseas missions or Congressionally authorized emergencies (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)).
D. Non-Compliance with Procedural Requirements
10 U.S.C. § 12406: Requires presidential proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse before deployment. None issued.
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706): Federalization order is "arbitrary, capricious, [and] not in accordance with law."
III. Irreparable Harm & Public Interest
Irreparable Harm:
Violation of California’s sovereignty (New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)).
Risk of federal troops unlawfully policing civilians.
Public Interest:
Preventing militarization of domestic governance.
Upholding separation of powers.
IV. Requested Relief
Stay federalization of the California National Guard and Marine deployment pending appeal.
Declare the President’s order unconstitutional.
Enjoin further use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement in California.
Legal Strategy for Emergency Review
File in Ninth Circuit: Leverage precedent sympathetic to states’ rights (California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2018)).
Seek Immediate SCOTUS Review if denied: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act) for national importance.
Amicus Support:
Coalition of states (e.g., NY, WA, IL) filing amicus briefs.
Constitutional law scholars citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (343 U.S. 579 (1952)) (presidential power not absolute).
Critical Precedents: Perpich v. DOD (1990) | Guardsmen retain state status unless federalized for overseas missions. Doe v. Bush (2003) | Insurrection Act requires "imminent threat of violence." Texas v. Biden (5th Cir. 2021). American Courts have UPheld that Federal government cannot commandeer state resources. |
Why This Appeal Would Succeed?
Factual Deficiency: No evidence of "insurrection" justifying the Insurrection Act.
Procedural Defect: No proclamation or Governor Newsom OFFICIAL state request as “required by law” which makes Trump’s actions UNLAWFUL!
YOUR Constitutional Injury: Direct violation of the Tenth Amendment.
My Tactical Note: The administration’s legal position collapses if California demonstrates the deployment lacks statutory necessity or targets non-violent activities (e.g., protests, border monitoring).
Next Steps YOU Need To Take To Appeal Bake:
File emergency stay application within 24 hours.
Demand disclosure of the Justice Dept.’s OLC memo authorizing deployment, analyze, shred Trump DOJ bastards on appeal!
YOU MUST Seek expedited hearing under Circuit Rule 27-3.
The question here is whether A SENILE 34 TIME “CONVICTED FELON” WILL BE ALLOWED TO VIOLATE THE SACRED U.S., CONSTITUTION OR WILL BE AGGRESSIVELY RESISTED AT EVERY JUNCTURE TO PRESERVE FREEDOM AMD LIBERTY FOR ALL!
GO SUE TRUMP BASTARDS AND TAKE NO PRISONERS!
Be aware of the fact that I am not an attorney at law, so this is for satire only, but my legal pleadings PACK A KNOCKOUT BUNCH cause I was BORN HYPER COMPETITIVE and do not settle for losses but rebound with every curveball thrown my way. Moreover: Every good Yale grad who CLOCKED for Sammy Kulo-ito I mean “Alito” who is part of government’s Supreme Law-Mafia clerking council pupil team — needs to perfect appeal draft craft otherwise that YaleDucation equates COGNITIVE CASTRATION kids, so wise up or ROT-UP! Anyways, here is my constitutionally grounded legal appeal framework to challenge federal blocking of state efforts to resist military deployment in California all structured for filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or U.S. Supreme Court without a single Yale day clocked while Sammy Alito got Supreme Court Appointment ROCKED! I made it easy to revise any Elements a million different ways so lemme git right to biz as I hitchuh wit legal appeal KEYS:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. Defendants-Appellees.
EMERGENCY APPEAL TO STAY FEDERALIZATION ORDER AND MILITARY DEPLOYMENT
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Appeal Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (interlocutory appeal of injunction denial).
Constitutional Basis:
10th Amendment (State sovereignty)
Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (Limits on federal military deployment)
Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255 (Federal troop deployment criteria)
II. CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS
A. Violation of the 10th Amendment (Anti-Commandeering Doctrine)
Precedent: Printz v. United States (1997) "Federal government may not compel state officers to execute federal law."
Claim: Federalization of the California National Guard unlawfully commandeers state resources absent:
An insurrection (§ 251),
State failure to protect rights (§ 252), or
State request (§ 253).
B. Unlawful Deployment Under the Insurrection Act
Legal Standard: Four strict conditions must be met (Arizona v. United States, 2012):
Rebellion: No evidence of "insurrection" in California (Governor certified state control).
Obstructed Laws: No showing California "obstructed execution of federal laws."
Due Process: No hearing held to determine necessity (§ 253).
State Request: Deployment initiated against state objection.
C. Posse Comitatus Act Violation
18 U.S.C. § 1385: Prohibits use of U.S. military for domestic law enforcement.
Marine Corps Deployment qualifies as unlawful domestic policing without Insurrection Act justification.
III. REQUESTED RELIEF
Emergency Stay: Halt federalization/deployment pending appeal (FRAP 8(a)).
Declaratory Judgment: Federal action violates 10th Amendment and Insurrection Act.
Permanent Injunction: Bar federal control of CA Guard or Marines absent § 251–255 conditions.
IV. STANDING & IRREPARABLE HARM
Standing: Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) (States as sovereign plaintiffs).
Irreparable Harm:
Violation of state sovereignty (New York v. United States, 1992).
Risk of federal-state armed conflict.
Loss of state command over National Guard personnel/facilities.
V. EVIDENCE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION
Federal Action & Constitutional Violations: National Guard federalization, 10th Amendment commandeering, Marine deployment ,Posse Comitatus Act Abuse/ Unauthorized Insurrection Act use, Refusal to return state assets, Violation of 32 U.S.C. § 104 (State Guard rights)., Attempting to assfuck California with mushroom shaped federal nano sized dick…
VI. PROCEDURAL PATH
File Emergency Stay in Ninth Circuit within 24 hours so not
Tomorrow but today!
Seek Certiorari Before Judgment (SCOTUS Rule 11) if Ninth Circuit denies stay.
Expedited Hearing Request: Under FRAP 2 (Suspension of rules in emergencies).
VII. LEGAL PRECEDENTS SUPPORTING APPEAL
Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990): National Guard has dual state-federal role; federalization only permitted under enumerated statutes.
Sterling v. Constantin (1932): Federal troops cannot displace state police power absent insurrection.
Gilligan v. Morgan (1973): Courts can review military deployment for constitutional compliance.
VIII. SAMPLE STAY MOTION LANGUAGE
"The Appellees’ deployment of Marines and seizure of the California National Guard constitutes a textbook violation of the Insurrection Act’s limitations and the anti-commandeering principles of the 10th Amendment. Absent a stay, Appellant suffers irreparable injury to its sovereign integrity—a harm no subsequent ruling can redress." Dig? Stay with me Yaakov, don’t go off rails now boy!
IX. CRITICAL NEXT STEPS
File Emergency Stay with Ninth Circuit.
Notify U.S. Attorney General (28 C.F.R. § 16.21).
Request SCOTUS Intervention if lower court denies relief (See Meredith v. Fair, 1962).
Time is of the essence Yaakov: Federal troop deployments become irreversible within 48–72 hours.
Key Strategy: Focus narrowly on statutory violations (Insurrection Act) and structural constitutional harm (10th Amendment). Avoid political rhetoric; anchor claims in text and precedent okay bruh?
Yaakov, bare in mind National Guard Federalization Rules (32 U.S.C. § 104) DUDE! Yes indeed, my outlined framework complies with separation of powers while aggressively asserting your California state rights under existing constitutional doctrine so in order to win in appe you Yaakov have to laser focus on proving the federal government acted outside statutory authorization.
Disclaimer:
This post is Stateless Warrior satire so there is also a revised version which I stacked and OACKED with more meat on VERBIAGE BONES as I yanked caseloads to mitigate DOJ FAGLOADS, dig?
FYI, augh - my, my, I am a HABITUAL REVISIONIST because I never settle for anything less of textual perfection in any of the several languages I am fluent in so here you go if you wannuh peruse some muh’ and take whatchuh need to clarify for those who read:
My ReWISED Version:
(Attribution for use of this original legal pleading revision is not necessary so feel free to use it anyway you see fit! ~Stageless Warrior)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
State of California, ex rel. Gavin Newsom, Governor Petitioner-Appellant, v. President of the United States, U.S. Department of Defense Respondents-Appellees.
EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY FEDERALIZATION & DEPLOYMENT
(Constitutional Basis for Appeal)
I. Jurisdiction & Standing
Standing: California has sovereign standing (Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)) as the federalization commandeers its National Guard without consent, violating state autonomy.
Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (interlocutory appeal of injunction denial).
II. Constitutional & Statutory Violations
A. Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385)
Federal troops (U.S. Marines) may not execute domestic law unless expressly authorized by Constitution or statute.
No statutory exception applies:
The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) was not lawfully invoked (see III.B).
Marines lack authority for policing functions on state soil (DoD Directive 5525.5).
B. Unlawful Invocation of the Insurrection Act
The Act permits federal troop deployment only if:
§ 251: State legislature/governor requests aid (not sought here);
§ 252: Federal authority obstructed by "insurrection" (absent here);
§ 253: "Rebellion" or denial of constitutional rights (no factual basis).
Legal Standard: Deployment requires a concrete, violent threat (Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)). Mere policy disputes (e.g., immigration enforcement) are insufficient.
C. Tenth Amendment & Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
Federalizing California’s National Guard without state consent violates:
State sovereignty (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997));
Guard’s dual-status protection (32 U.S.C. § 104).
Key Precedent: Federal control is permitted only for overseas missions or Congressionally authorized emergencies (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)).
D. Non-Compliance with Procedural Requirements
10 U.S.C. § 12406: Requires presidential proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse before deployment. None issued.
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706): Federalization order is "arbitrary, capricious, [and] not in accordance with law."
III. Irreparable Harm & Public Interest
Irreparable Harm:
Violation of California’s sovereignty (New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)).
Risk of federal troops unlawfully policing civilians.
Public Interest:
Preventing militarization of domestic governance.
Upholding separation of powers.
IV. Requested Relief
Stay federalization of the California National Guard and Marine deployment pending appeal.
Declare the President’s order unconstitutional.
Enjoin further use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement in California.
Legal Strategy for Emergency Review
File in Ninth Circuit: Leverage precedent sympathetic to states’ rights (California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2018)).
Seek Immediate SCOTUS Review if denied: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act) for national importance.
Amicus Support:
Coalition of states (e.g., NY, WA, IL) filing amicus briefs.
Constitutional law scholars citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (343 U.S. 579 (1952)) (presidential power not absolute).
Critical Precedents: Perpich v. DOD (1990) | Guardsmen retain state status unless federalized for overseas missions. Doe v. Bush (2003) | Insurrection Act requires "imminent threat of violence." Texas v. Biden (5th Cir. 2021). American Courts have UPheld that Federal government cannot commandeer state resources. |
Why This Appeal Would Succeed?
Factual Deficiency: No evidence of "insurrection" justifying the Insurrection Act.
Procedural Defect: No proclamation or Governor Newsom OFFICIAL state request as “required by law” which makes Trump’s actions UNLAWFUL!
YOUR Constitutional Injury: Direct violation of the Tenth Amendment.
My Tactical Note: The administration’s legal position collapses if California demonstrates the deployment lacks statutory necessity or targets non-violent activities (e.g., protests, border monitoring).
Next Steps YOU Need To Take To Appeal Bake:
File emergency stay application within 24 hours.
Demand disclosure of the Justice Dept.’s OLC memo authorizing deployment, analyze, shred Trump DOJ bastards on appeal!
YOU MUST Seek expedited hearing under Circuit Rule 27-3.
The question here is whether A SENILE 34 TIME “CONVICTED FELON” WILL BE ALLOWED TO VIOLATE THE SACRED U.S., CONSTITUTION OR WILL BE AGGRESSIVELY RESISTED AT EVERY JUNCTURE TO PRESERVE FREEDOM AMD LIBERTY FOR ALL!
GO SUE TRUMP BASTARDS AND TAKE NO PRISONERS!
