(1974). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a court may grant dismissal only if “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Roeder v. Alpha Indus., Inc., 814 F.2d 22, 25 (1st Cir.1987) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), the party invoking jurisdiction has the burden of proof to establish its existence. Murphy v. United States, 45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir.1995). In either case, the Court takes as true “the well-pleaded facts as they appear in the co and the legislature of not properly appropriating money for the Clean Elections Fund, the complained-of actions fall into this legislative sphere. See Bogan, 523 U.S. at 55, 118 S.Ct. at 973 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that, in claims against the
holding that the title of legislation is relevant to legislative intent holding acts of voting to be quintessentially legislative and the introduction of a budget to be formally legislative holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law holding that legislative consent to suit must be by clear and unambiguous language in either a statute or by other express legislative permission holding that substantive criminal statute could not be applied retrospectively because there was nothing  in the language or the legislative history that was a clear and unequivocal expression of legislative intent to rebut presumption of prospective application only