Litigation

LITIGATION

Penkoski v. Bowser,​ ​1:20-cv-01519-TNM (D.D.C. 2020)

Fox News Discusses Special Forces Of Liberty Litigation Against Mayor Bowser

Understanding Special Forces Of Liberty’s Litigation Against Mayor Bowser

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

FIRST MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY PASTOR PENKOSKI

SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY TEX CHRISTOPHER

THIRD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY SEVIER

MAYOR BOWER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION

AFFIDAVIT OF A COALITION OF MULTI-RACIAL PASTORS


THE LITIGATION THAT CREATED THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND CHILD EXPLOITATION PREVENTION ACT

Sevier v. Googleet. al., 15-5345 (6th Cir. 2016)

SEVIER’S APPELLANT BRIEF

GOOGLE’S APPELLEE BRIEF

SEVIER’S REPLY BRIEF


LEGAL TALKING POINTS FOR ATTORNEYS GENERAL

HISTORY OF THE LAW LEADING UP TO THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND CHILD EXPLOITATION PREVENT ACT


Sevier v. Herbert et. al,2:16-cv-00386 (Utah 2016)

COMPLAINT

WASHINGTON TIMES ARTICLE


Controlling Legal Opinions Supporting The Constitutionality Of The Human Trafficking And Child Exploitation Prevention Act

Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union,​ 542 U.S. 656 (2004)

U.S. Supreme Court held that filters are the least restrictive means, and stated “Congress undoubtedly may act to encourage the use of filters…. It could also take steps to promote their development by industry, and their use by parent.



Ginsberg v. New York,​ 390 U.S. 629 (1968)

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the physical display statute which requires “physical” bricks and mortar stores place “physical” pornography behind a “physical” bind rack Constitutional as the “least restrictive means.” Therefore, a “digital” filter law, like the Human Trafficking And Child Exploitation Prevention Act, that requires internet enabled devices to put “digital” pornography behind a “digital” blinder rack by default is also Constitutional valid on the same basis exact legal basis.

Combs v. Texas Entertainment Association​, et al., 347 S.W.3d 277 (Sup. Ct. Tex. 2011)

The Texas Supreme Court upheld a statute that imposes a $5 strip club admission fee that is remitted back to the state to go to a special grant fund for the benefit of government and non-government groups that are working to uphold community standards of decency.

The statute was deemed to be constitutional because the fee is nominal and because the fee does not go to the general fund but goes towards helping the state fulfill a compelling state interest to uphold community standards of decency.


ESTABLISHMENT ACT LITIGATION THAT
CREATED THE ESTABLISHMENT ACT


THE LITIGATION THAT CREATED THE LIFE APPROPRIATION ACT LITIGATION

California v. HHS,​ 3:19-cv-01184 (2019)

MOTION TO INTERVENE