Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

[Michael R. Masinter]

I referred to Bell Atlantic v. Twombly because plaintiffs have sued  
both USDA and Michigan officials under RFRA despite City of Boerne v.  
Flores.  The predicate for the RFRA claims is the conclusory  
allegation that Michigan is a puppet controlled by USDA, so that its  
actions properly can be imputed to the U.S. and brought within the  
surviving scope of RFRA.  I understand Twombly's murky discussion of  
pleading requirements to sometimes require more than a conclusory  
allegation to meet Rule 8(a)(2)'s requirement of an allegation that  
shows the pleader is entitled to relief.  Twombly seems to require the  
allegation of a plausible basis in fact for the asserted conclusion on  
which the right to relief hinges, at least when the conclusion alleged  
is contrary to common experience.

The USDA regs explicitly make the tagging optional; therefore  
Michigan, not USDA would seem responsible for Michigan's decision to  
require tagging, and if so, beyond the reach of RFRA.  The conclusory  
assertion that USDA is acting as puppeteer in the face of regulations  
that deprive them of that power strikes me as insufficient to meet  
Twombly's pleading requirements, as murky as they are. I have since  
read the USDA motion to dismiss; not suprisingly, like thousands of  
post Twombly motions to dismiss, it makes that very argument.

Michael R. Masinter                      3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law                         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University             954.262.6151 (voice)
masinter at nova.edu                        954.262.3835 (fax)

Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)    305.284.3626 (voice)
University of Miami Law School           mmasinter at law.miami.edu
1311 Miller Drive
Coral Gables, FL 33146


Quoting Marc Stern <mstern at ajcongress.org>:

> Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast.
> I am  puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i don't see
> the relevance of the reference.
> Marc Stern
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
>
>
> Complaint:
>
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf
>
> DOJ Brief:
>
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley <jean.dudley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> 	http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html
>
> 	 From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan
> 	regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification
> 	devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the
> 	beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over
> 	cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental
> 	religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in
> 	September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."
>
> 	Thoughts?
>
> 	Jean
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> 	To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> 	Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
>