|
COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA EUROPEAN CONNECTIONS, Plaintiff, COMES NOW, plaintiff, European Connections, Inc., who respectfully shows: 1. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to prevent the Attorney General of the United States from enforcing the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (hereafter, "the Act"), as violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. 2. Enforcement of the Act will greatly impact plaintiff's business, perhaps forcing a legitimate company out of business because of the burdens imposed by the Act. 3.The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). 4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). 5. Plaintiff is a company defined as an international marriage broker by the Act. 6.Defendant Alberto Gonzales is the present Attorney General of the United States and is sued in his official capacity. The United States of America is a sovereign nation responsible for enacting and enforcing the Act and any regulations to be adopted under the authority of that Act. Each defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 7.The Act provides in pertinent part that before plaintiff can contact foreign clients that it must collect information from the United State citizen, much of which is of an intrusive and personal nature. 8.The Act provides numerous exceptions to such requirements based on whether the so called marriage brokers are culturally or religiously based, profit or nonprofit, the nature of its charges and whether international brokering is more than 50% of the broker's business. 9. The Act is unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment because it is a prior restraint which is not narrowly tailored. 10. The Act is unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment because it is content based and the government cannot justify the restriction. 11. The Act is unconstitutional on its face under the Fifth Amendment because it denies equal protection and applies arbitrarily and in an inconsistent manner. 12. The Act is unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment because it does not directly advance the government's asserted interest and is more extensive than is necessary to serve the interest. 13. Section 833(e)(2)(B) of the Act is content based and overbroad; it is not narrowly tailored to meet the asserted governmental interest. 14. The Act becomes effective _______________. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury without adequate remedy at law if the Act is enforced against it. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays: Respectfully submitted, This gets into the meat of the argument by the plaintiff. Here's where the case is really made and use of supporting cases are cited. Click on MOTION above to read it. It's an education! JUDGE'S ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Docket No. 1:06-CV-0426-CC EUROPEAN CONNECTIONS & TOURS, INC., Plaintiff, Transcript of the Ruling of the Court Before the Honorable Clarence Cooper March 3, 2006 Atlanta, Georgia. (G.Gannon). APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Plaintiff: Ralph S. Goldberg, Esq. THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Let the record reflect the following. This matter having come before the Court for a hearing on Plaintiff European Connections and Tours, Inc.'s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, the Court having read and considered the briefs submitted by Plaintiff and the documents submitted to the Court by both the Plaintiff and the Defendants; and the Court having heard oral argument from counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants; and the Court having carefully weighed and considered the merits and demerits of the respective positions taken by both the Plaintiff and the Defendants; and the Court having read and applied the law applicable thereto, the Court hereby grants Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as Plaintiff has met the four-prong test for issuance of a temporary restraining order. Specifically, Plaintiff has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because it appears to the Court that there is no governmental interest suitably furthered by the distinctions made by the Act as to the brokers covered by the Act. Further, at this stage, the Court is of the opinion that the Act is more extensive than is necessary to serve the governmental interest in protecting foreign women from abuse at the hands of United States males, in that the disclosures required are overbroad. Because this does involve violations of the First and Fifth Amendments, Plaintiff has likewise demonstrated that a temporary restraining order is necessary to prevent the irreparable injury presented by the constitutional violations, that the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the TRO would inflict on the government, and that the TRO would serve the public's interest. The Court hereby instructs counsel for the Plaintiff to prepare a more definitive order for the Court's signature. Prior to submitting a proposed order to the Court for its signature, I want counsel for the Plaintiff to allow counsel for the Defendants to peruse the order to make sure it's consistent with the facts in this case. MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: And I would like for you to submit that by Monday of next -- Tuesday, I'll give you to Tuesday. Thank you both and good day. MR. LONG: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, can I raise one issue? THE COURT: Sure, go ahead. MR. LONG: The issue about whether or not this is going to become permanent. If we don't have a hearing or preliminary injunction hearing within ten days, would the Court be willing to set a date now for that hearing? THE COURT: Call on Monday and check with my calendar clerk, Ms. Springs. MR. LONG: Thank you. MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, Your Honor. (Proceedings concluded at 12:50 p.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: I hereby certify that the foregoing pages, 1 through 4, are a true and correct copy of the proceedings in the case aforesaid. Amanda Lohnaas, CCR-B-580, RMR, CRR |