<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks for sharing Ed.<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 29, 2016, at 17:28, Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" class="">egmorris1@toast.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px" class=""><div class="">
<div class=""><span style="font-family: 'lucida sans unicode', 'lucida grande', sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class="">Hello,</span></span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><font face="lucida sans unicode, lucida grande, sans-serif" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class="">?Attached please find the Complaint filed yesterday against the N.T.I.A. by the States of Oklahoma, Nevada, Texas and Arizona, requesting injunctive relief designed to prevent the transition from going ahead, as scheduled, this weekend.</span></font></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><font face="lucida sans unicode, lucida grande, sans-serif" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class="">Although we are on opposite sides of the issue, I would like to thank the Office of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich for sending the Complaint to me immediately after a telephoned request.</span></font></div>
</div></span></div></blockquote><br class=""></div>I’m not a lawyer so could folks who are please clarify the extent to which these Red states’ claims might be regarded as non-frivolous? </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">*"Plaintiffs operate multiple websites, including those that use the .gov and .com generic top level domains, to conduct their business and communicate with their citizens.” That’s grounds, we have websites?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">"Venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the United States, its agencies, and its officers in their official capacity are Defendants, and Plaintiff State of Texas resides in and uses the Internet in this District.” Maybe it could be held in the Governor’s mansion?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">"This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this suit concerns the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution [not what GAO thinks] and the First Amendment [no connection whatsoever], as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Lawyers burning up the phone lines in DC…</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bill</div></body></html>