Defendant LaCabe's Response to Plaintiff MSJ
Defendant LaCabe's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
So, a few comments on these crap motions (disclaimer, IANAL, all of that jazz):
1) The Defendant's lawyer doesn't bother even defend the constitutionality of the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring Colorado residency.
2) The Defendant's lawyer makes a statement that LaCabe has a ministerial duty to deny and then says that we needed to file an MSJ against the state.Â* It's clear that the this attorney here doesn't understand that you must file the case against the enforcers of the law under 42USC1983 (LaCabe, as he was the one who denied my license, not the state).
3)Â* The Defendant's lawyer nitpicks and states that we didn't put in undisputed facts into the MSJ, which is not true, we merely did not number them inside of the MSJ, but she chose to respond to them anyway (what a way to torpedo your own argument).
4) The defendant's lawyer is nitpicking saying that because we don't ask for in the conclusion that the law be declared unconstitutional, the statute is presumed to be valid.Â* These are purely a styling difference in terms of filing for MSJ and honestly, it's a desperation tactic.Â* We repeatedly proved the unconstitutionality of the statute throughout the plaintiff MSJ, and our amended complaint makes it clear the relief against LaCabe that is being sought.Â* IMHO, Defendant's lawyers presuming that the court is too stupid to read is generally a bad idea.
5) The defendant's lawyer seems to think I should sue the State of Colorado directly. I guess she hasn't read the 11th amendment recently.