Morgan v. United States

11 Citing briefs

  1. Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 744 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment - CHEVRON CORPORATION'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS, COUNTERCLAIMS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPE. Document

    Filed January 28, 2013

    Such collusion nullifies the judgment. Morgan, 304 U.S. at 19-20; Browning, 826 F.2d at 345-46. Moreover, Ecuadorian judges do not have clerks, St. 118 and are required to draft judgments personally.

  2. Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 483 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document

    Filed June 13, 2012

    This judgment is the product of an ille- gal, improper, and secret collaboration whereby Defendants arranged for the drafting and release of their judgment by a collusive, cowed, or otherwise compliant court.9 Such a process is neither impartial nor comports with due process. See Caperton, 129 S. Ct. at 2259; Morgan, 304 U.S. at 19–20. Accordingly, this Court need not consider the impartiality of the Ecuadorian judiciary as a general matter,10 because that judiciary it not the author, or at least not the sole author, of the 9 Outsourcing judicial opinions to parties violates Ecuadorian law.

  3. Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 396 MOTION for Summary Judgment CHEVRON CORPORATION'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.. Document

    Filed March 1, 2012

    This judgment is the product of an ille- gal, improper, and secret collaboration whereby Defendants arranged for the drafting and release of their judgment by a collusive, cowed, or otherwise compliant court.10 Such a process is nei- ther impartial nor comports with due process. See Caperton, 129 S. Ct. at 2259; Morgan, 304 U.S. at 19–20. Accordingly, this Court need not consider the impartiality of the Ecuadorian ju- diciary as a general matter,11 because that judiciary it not the author, or at least not the sole au- 10 Outsourcing judicial opinions to parties violates Ecuadorian law.

  4. City of Gaithersburg, Maryland v. United States Department of Homeland Security

    RESPONSE re

    Filed March 5, 2020

    First, it is “not the function of the court to probe the mental processes” of the agency. Morgan, 304 U.S. at 18. That is why an “agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself.”

  5. Fmc Corporation v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

    MOTION for Summary Judgment on Due Process and Personal Jurisdiction, MOTION to Enforce Judgment of Tribal Court of Appeals

    Filed January 13, 2017

    Finally, even if the Judges’ remarks did involve some criticism of Supreme Court decisions, that is not a basis for finding bias. In United States v. Morgan (Morgan IV), 313 U.S. Case 4:14-cv-00489-BLW Document 66-1 Filed 01/13/17 Page 28 of 42 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DUE PROCESS AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION, AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE TRIBAL APPELLATE COURT’S JUDGMENT – 22 150971-1 409, 420-21 (1941), the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Agriculture’s public letter to the New York Times, criticizing the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Morgan v. United States (Morgan II), 304 U.S. 1 (1938), did not invalidate his subsequent exercise of administrative authority over the same dispute. “That he not merely held but expressed strong views on matters believed by him to have been in issue, did not unfit him for exercising his duty in subsequent proceedings ordered by this Court.” Morgan IV, 313 U.S. at 421.

  6. Wilson v. Holder et al

    RESPONSE to 37 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment

    Filed February 25, 2013

    Furthermore, those who are brought into contest with the government in a quasi- judicial proceeding aimed at control of their activities are entitled to be fairly advised of what the government proposes and to be heard upon the proposal before the final command is issued. Margan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1938). Here, the Defendants have deprived the Plaintiff of a fundamental right without any notice or opportunity to be heard.

  7. In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation

    RESPONSE to Briefs of the Carriers and of the United States Seeking to Apply 50 U.S.C. § 1885a To Dismiss These Actions

    Filed November 20, 2008

    If kept in ignorance of the adversary’s evidence, a party’s right to a hearing is “but a barren one.” Morgan v. U.S., 304 U.S. 1, 18 (1938). Sections 802(c) and (d) thus set up a sham proceeding that provides the semblance of a fair hearing but not the substance.

  8. In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition re Memorandum in Opposition Corrected Memorandum in Opposition to Motion of the United States Seeking to Apply FISAAA 802

    Filed October 17, 2008

    The right to submit argument implies that opportunity; otherwise the right may be but a barren one.” Morgan v. U.S., 304 U.S. 1, 18 (1938); see also West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (No. 1), 294 U.S. 63, 69 (1935) (“A hearing is not judicial, at least in any adequate sense, unless the evidence can be known.”); Lynn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 656 F.2d 1337, 1346 (9th Cir. 1981) (A decision based on ex parte evidence offends “principles of due process upon which our judicial system depends to resolve disputes fairly and accurately.”)

  9. In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation

    Memorandum in Opposition to Motion of the United States Seeking to Apply FISAAA 802

    Filed October 16, 2008

    The right to submit argument implies that opportunity; otherwise the right may be but a barren one.” Morgan v. U.S., 304 U.S. 1, 18 (1938); see also West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (No. 1), 294 U.S. 63, 69 (1935) (“A hearing is not judicial, at least in any adequate sense, unless the evidence can be known.”); Lynn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 656 F.2d 1337, 1346 (9th Cir. 1981) (A decision based on ex parte evidence offends “principles of due process upon which our judicial system depends to resolve disputes fairly and accurately.”)

  10. Jewel et al v. National Security Agency et al

    MOTION to Strike 287 Notice of Lodging of the Classified Declaration of Miriam P. of the National Security Agency and a Classified Supplement to the Government Defendants Opposition and Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for In Camera, Ex Parte Review

    Filed October 24, 2014

    The right to submit argument implies that opportunity; otherwise the right may be but a barren one.” Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 18 (1938). The independence and skepticism central to the Court’s judicial role is fundamentally inconsistent with allowing the government to secretly whisper legal arguments into the Court’s ear on the legal merits of plaintiffs’ claims.