Indeed, the Attorney General never made a response to the court as is required. What notice and response it issued was to me only. I will fully deal with that response hereafter.
At the time I received the referenced notice, the issue had become moot since Clinton for whatever reason withdrew from her quest for the Presidency. Therefore, it was futile to proceed, as the court would have done what I did, and that was to dismiss the complaint. After carefully checking the clerk's file to make sure that no Defendant had appeared or filed any papers, I could safely dismiss and did.
The belated and private response by the Attorney General's (AG's) office is worth some attention even though I would still argue that it was insufficient and fell short of what is required by law to address and silence the issue by a prior ruling of an inferior court which the AG's office presented as Res judicata.
In STEAMS v. VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, 353 F. SUPP. 473, 475 (D.C.D.C. 1972)
The District Court held: "Masculine pronouns are often used to refer to antecedents of indefinite or mixed gender without modifying the meaning of the antecedents. Here, The pronoun "he" refers to the word "person", which latter term obviously encompasses both male and female persons." emphasis mine.
This lawsuit was filed by a woman who was an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. armed forces serving fourteen months of active duty in foreign countries during WW II. In February 1971 she sought membership in the Veterans of Foreign Wars [VFW], a quasi government corporation. Basically ,she was denied membership because of the male pronouns used in the charter or articles of incorporation which caused some if not all male members to regard VFW as a male only organization.
In reaching its ruling, the court often referenced the VFW charter as the "Constitution" giving some tagging to the U.S. Constitution which it was not!
To my knowledge the ruling was never appealed, as likely the male membership of VFW was largely sympathetic to the issue that women should not be excluded from membership. Had the ruling been appealed first to the Circuit Court of appeals and then if necessary to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would likely have upheld the lower court and had simultaneously applied it to the vague gender references of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the lower ruling would have been determinative of the issue and resolved. That has not happened. Additionally, If The Equal Rights Amendment had not been defeated by the male dominated hierarchy of the Mormon or LDS Church between 1976 and 1977, the issue would have been resolved.
So at this time, Sarah Palin or any other woman who wishes to become the President of the United States, please take notice that I as a retired attorney will take up the issue again should she or they publicly seek office I do this not because I have any prejudice against a matriarchal led government for I understand that was the way it was anciently.
I simply wish to see the issue resolved as a matter of law in order to keep our laws safe and clean. Perhaps Sarah Palin ought to be spending her present "traveling" time in the US addressing this issue. For you can be sure Sarah that if steps are not taken to correct this legal jungle, you will likely become a defendant in a new lawsuit based on the same issue.
1 | 2