Make Federal Officials Actually Do Their Duty

Impeachment??  Really??  To only dream of 67+ Senators voting to convict within a Democrat-controlled Senate?  And, even with such impeachment conviction actually achieved, to then only result in mere removal from office, which still doesn't get the job done yet??  Instead, let's be actually serious, and use a more direct method under federal law which compels any federal official to actually do their legal duty.

You really want to secure America's borders and ports of entry??  You need to force any other official(s) to do their duty?  Learn how to actually do that with the law.

There are, of course, multiple big and important issues where the average American is desperate for a given federal official or two to start actually performing their real job duties.  But for our main example here, let's apply this process to securing the border, since that issue appears to be the highest in overall priority for everyone everywhere.

Except for unusual circumstances, the average regular individual person will typically not have any direct legal standing to just up and sue a federal official or two over failure to perform their job duties.  The law would just never properly allow countless 'harassment' lawsuits filed against governmental officials by the 'politically disgruntled' other half of the population at large, or nothing would ever get done, and the taxpayers would still have to pay all the bills.

However, the lack of border security does affect everyone everywhere, and the author could and would immediately argue that property owners/residents directly adjacent to the border, directly impacted by the same issue, meet that unusual circumstances threshold for valid legal standing to sue border officials over duty to secure, but any issue of Breach of Duty by a federal official is much better served by the plaintiff(s) being one or more legal entities, and so in this particular legal setup (to force actual border security), the better/best plaintiff(s) would be, in ascending order, any homeowner's association (HOA) of properties along the border, any incorporated town or city along the border, any township along the border, any county along the border, any non-border State except Alaska and Hawaii, and of course each and any of the border States themselves.  Also of very strong plaintiff strength would be any local, state, or even federal law enforcement agency that works daily in any jurisdiction along the border.  Any retail chain of brick and mortar stores, with lots of stores throughout the border States, could also be a strong plaintiff.

Any kind of such Breach of Duty suit against any federal officer, over any topic, would be a Petition for Mandamus and begin with the simple Breach of Duty federal statute that authorizes such suits, 28 USC 1361, entitled "Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty" and which clearly states in full: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff."  But you also need to identify the exact legal duty or duties you want finally/authentically performed, i.e., each duty as it is actually written somewhere in the law *and also* show that the same written duty belongs to the given official, or officials, that you named as defendant(s) in your lawsuit.

Fortunately for border security, it's not overly complicated, but rather straightforward.

In modern times as it always has been, there are two (2) basic functions of "border security" which are: (1) prevent, stop, and preclude the crowd, the throng, the issue of sheer numbers of people, from just illegally crossing the border en masse at whim; and (2) prevent, stop, and preclude especially any entry by bad actors, i.e., spies, criminals, terrorists, and so forth.

Hence, for our purposes in this Breach of Duty suit example, we're talking about two (2) federal agencies or units or departments, in this case including the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, currently mismanaged by Acting Commissioner Troy A. Miller, and which agency itself is under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), currently mismanaged by infamous Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas.

The collection of written legal duties, and legal assignments of duty, for this issue of border security, includes, as to Mayorkas, Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution (United States shall protect States from invasion), and everything contained already within the recent Articles of Impeachment, and as for Miller, his CBP duties are listed in 6 USC 211(c) and other statutes under 6 USC Chapter 1 Subchapter IV part B, including his duties to prevent drugs like fentanyl crossing the border.

So one or more suitable plaintiffs (border States anyone? Bueller? Bueller?) files a Breach of Duty suit under 28 USC 1361 against the Offices of both Secretary Mayorkas and Acting Commissioner Miller as the defendants, pursuant to their Offices' respective and joint written legal duties to secure the border, incorporating a mixture of "normal" case law as well as Contract Law case law within that federal lawsuit complaint filed, and the federal court order victory by law must compel each and both of their Offices to maintain performance of those legal duties into perpetuity.

It really is that simple for any kind of Breach of Duty suit against a federal official, once you have nailed the written legal duty or duties.  Now immediately after any such suit is filed, the Office of the U.S. Attorney General will file typically its appearance into that new court case as defense counsel for the given defendant federal official(s) being sued, and that's normal enough.  But in this very unusual overlap situation of law, it just so happens that the Office of the U.S. Attorney General (the entire DOJ) is legally precluded from attempting to defend either Mayorkas or Miller in such a border security case, because Garland and his DOJ have direct legal conflicts of interest, due to the directly related failures of their own agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services)....

Indeed, Garland and those two heads of agencies under him could also be named as fellow co-defendants within the very same Breach of Duty case, and those are options to further explore and invoke if appropriate and desired.

--->>> Return to the Homepage/Sitemap <<<---

--->>> Give, Share, Support to help everyone faster <<<---