Matt Whitlock @mattdizwhitlock
·
This city of Honolulu is suing oil and gas companies for bad weather, accusing them of causing climate change.
The Hawaii Supreme Court - who said the 2nd Amendment “violates the spirit of Aloha” green-lit the absurd case.
It’s up to the Supreme Court to fix this.
Alliance For Consumers @for_consumers
Replying to @for_consumers
Pay attention to this new cert petition coming out of the Hawaii Supreme Court...
It's a golden ticket that just got placed before the Supreme Court, at least for those of us who want to see the Left’s public nuisance campaign grind to a halt:
https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-947/301676/20240228105935605_Sunoco_pet.pdf
Background: Honolulu is suing energy companies for their alleged role in driving climate change. There are two dozen other cases making these types of claims in other states.
What makes this case interesting is that it’s the first big-ticket climate change case where a state supreme court conclusively weighed in on the merits of how these cases should work…
The Hawaii Supreme Court said that these claims can go to trial in state court irrespective of federal law.
The Hawaii Supreme Court decision is a dangerous precedent – it allows a single judge or jury in state court to weigh liability for global greenhouse gas emissions and assign billions in fines, effectively steering energy policy for the rest of the country. And it did so based on its own reading of federal law.
Make no mistake, lawsuits like this one are designed to reshape entire sectors of the economy.
Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, said as much in a decision dismissing Oakland’s climate-nuisance suit….
8:34 AM · Mar 6, 2024
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals finds Brock did not “substantially interfere with administration of justice” – ruling could apply to other J6 defendants as well //
GWB | March 4, 2024 at 10:28 am
The “sentencing enhancement” at issue is found in the 2021 version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.)
Wait a minute. The crime committed was committed only 6 days into that year. Is it possible the guidelines were revised in the first 6 days of 2021? Yes. Is it likely? No.
So, these were (aside from the issue noted by the panel) sentencing guidelines not in effect at the time of the crime? How is that no ex post facto?
In the small town of Calhoun, Georgia, the Timms family has found itself embroiled in a heart-wrenching legal battle that further exposes the profound flaws within the state’s child welfare agency. The ordeal began when Brady and Carrie Timms’ three-month-old son Jameson was forcibly removed from their care following medical visits that quickly spiraled into a misdiagnosis and false accusations that brought about their current nightmare. //
The couple later petitioned the court to have Jameson examined at Boston Children’s Hospital by an expert. The court agreed, provided that two case workers with DFCS were also allowed to be present. The doctor diagnosed both Carrie and Jameson with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), a genetic condition that could explain the child’s symptoms and injuries. //
The family believed the diagnosis, which occurred with the DFCS agents present, would vindicate them. Unfortunately, the agency disregarded this critical evidence and refused to move toward reunifying the family.
The Supreme Court will be hearing a J6 case called USA vs. Fischer in eight to ten weeks. They will give a ruling in June, and that will either bring down this entire house of cards, or it will bring down the pretense that we have a rule of law in our nation. //
The Department of Justice is using a sledgehammer to get people to plead to lesser charges by separating the concept of mens rea (“guilty mind” in Latin) from that of the act of the crime itself. Her question: Can a "subset of a statute be orphaned from its parent?"
This is absurd reasoning and is the best one-liner I've ever heard, "Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes." It's crazy! //
anon-x8p1
18 hours ago
1962, JFK allowed government employees to unionize. America has never been the same since. 22 million people now work for the government at some level; most belong to a union - teachers unions, SEIU, AFSCME ....etc
That is your divide in America - those voting for their own vested interests taking more of our tax dollars for themselves and working hard to control all election outcomes. Including staffing virtually all county election offices who control counting the votes.
Think of the reach of their organized government employee union power today over every single aspect of our lives, and the fact they vote 99% Democrat.
Even the media are union members - SAG and AFTRA. There is your hive mind.
Cloudflare committed $100K in bounties to “hamstring” another patent troll. //
In a blog post, Cloudflare announced that its most recent victory—defeating a lawsuit filed by Sable IP and Sable Networks in 2021—was largely thanks to participants of Project Jengo. Launched in 2017, Cloudflare's program offers tens of thousands of dollars in awards to activate an army of bounty seekers and crowdsource submissions of evidence—known as "prior art"—that can be used to overcome frivolous patent claims or even invalidate patents that never should have been issued.
To find prior art, Project Jengo participants comb through academic papers, technical websites, and patent documents, helping Cloudflare explain in detailed petitions to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) why certain patents should be invalidated. //
In court, pointing to prior art and sharing a Cloudflare engineer's expertise, the Cloudflare legal team broke down for the jury "the many reasons why" Sable's patent "does not describe anything that Cloudflare actually does."
It took a jury two hours to decide that Cloudflare was right, not just dismissing Sable's claims but invalidating Sable's patent permanently because prior art showed that "Sable’s patent covered, at best, only technology that had already been described by inventors at Nortel Networks and Lucent Technologies—leading routing technology companies at the time."
So far, Cloudflare has awarded $70,000 to Project Jengo participants who helped the company defeat Sable. According to Cloudflare's blog, the company will announce the final $30,000 in awards after the "official conclusion of the case." //
Project Jengo's first success came in 2019 when Cloudflare defeated Blackbird Technologies. As a result of that victory, Blackbird "went out of business," effectively ending that company's meritless patent infringement claims, Cloudflare said. Now, Cloudflare has "invalidated significant parts of three Sable patents, hamstringing their ability to bring lawsuits against other companies," Cloudflare said.
Hawaii's Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision finding that Hawaii was subject to federal law and Supreme Court precedent, and found that the Supreme Court had erred in its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Todd Eddins said, "We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public." //
While they were declaring Heller and Bruen were wrongly decided and violated Hawaii's understanding of what the US Constitution means, the court took a swipe at the Dobbs decision that found infanticide was not a Constitutionally protected activity, accusing the Supreme Court of engaging in "historical fiction." //
As RedStater Bill Shipley noted on "X,"
The Hawaii Court could have written its entire opinion just the way it has, and added a single sentence/ paragraph at the end that began "Nevertheless" and explained the SCOTUS decisions in Breun and Heller required it to uphold the lower court decision dismissing the charges.
They could have had their diatribe for 50 pages while respected their place in the Constitutional order of things -- even if they didn't like it.
Instead, they just lit themselves on fire.
After noting that Omar's speech has led to calls for expulsion from Congress and denaturalization, Turley wrote: "Neither would be appropriate," in his view.
The speech is clearly protected under the First Amendment. Omar is not advocating imminent violent or criminal conduct. She is expressing her personal priorities and loyalties.
The omission of an expression of loyalty to the United States has left many irate and insulted. However, it is still protected speech. Indeed, burning an American flag and condemning America are protected forms of free expression. //
The growing calls for denaturalization are disconnected from governing constitutional and statutory standards. //
Others can condemn Rep. Omar’s comment, but they cannot strip away her citizenship due to her exercise of free speech.
The greatest disconnect in these calls is that Omar would be stripped of her citizenship for exercising the very right that defines us as citizens. //
"This country is not endangered by a lack of patriotism or even a lack of loyalty in others," Turley wrote, concluding: "It is threatened by allowing our anger to blind us to the denial of the very thing that defines us."
Again, while it might be frustrating to some of us and angering as hell to others, as hard as it is to admit, Jonathan Turley was right. //
Just Jim
17 hours ago
Apparently oaths of allegiance mean nothing anymore.
The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all
applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:Support the Constitution;
Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
Bear true faith and allegiance to the same ... //
etba_ss
15 hours ago edited
Turley is wrong. She's violating the oath she took, which is grounds for expulsion from Congress and revoking her naturalized citizenship.
Besides that, the law is not a suicide pact. There are two sets of rules at play. We better decide if we want to surrender or if we want to restore this country. Those are the two choices. Writing a white paper on the virtues of the law is going to get us and Turley sent to a gulag. //
Watch-tower
18 hours ago
He is not always right and in this case he is not. She took an oath of office. Her words violate that oath. Some investigation is needed to see if she have received favors, titles or renumeration from Somalia, as that would violate the Constitution.
This is more than free speech. This is a disavowal of her US citizenship.
Rogue Rose Watch-tower
16 hours ago
And she fraudulently took the oath of citizenship.
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America ... //
This entire ordeal is dumb. The statue never should have been allowed in the first place. Further, the leniency applied to those tearing down statues of Thomas Jefferson can't be ignored. Are we really a country that lets people off for destroying works of art but charges people with hate crimes for damaging a statue of satan? I guess we are.
Any judicial nominee named by Joe Biden knows he/she is going to have to answer questions in a hearing for the job, and they know that they're going to have to face Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) and his test of basic legal questions. Yet, Biden nominees invariably seem to have issues when it comes to those questions. //
Sen. Kennedy asked how many motions she had argued before the Court. Meriweather had to admit that she hadn't argued any. He then asked how many cases she had tried in the Court of Federal Claims. Again, she had to admit that the answer was zero. Generally, if you're naming someone to a court, you would hope they would have at least some experience in that court.
"Tell me the grounds for granting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims," he next inquired. //
Meriweather finally had to admit that she didn't know, "Senator, that is not an issue I have had occasion to consider before, despite my extensive civil experience and my familiarity not only with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but I've also reviewed the rules of the Court of Federal Claims." She said she would review the rules if presented with the question. //
Then he asked her what a "contract of adhesion" was, another basic question. He said you would see a lot of that because it's some of what the Court of Federal Claims deals with.
She was completely stumped. //
Kennedy has nailed multiple nominees before with his test. A prior Biden nominee recently withdrew her nomination in the face of failing the Kennedy test when she couldn't answer what Article 5 and Article 2 of the Constitution are,
GregInFla
2 hours ago
The law used by Carroll to sue Trump (which was limited to one year life) was passed for the sole purpose of suing Trump for the supposed rape, a rape that occurred so long ago that the victim cannot even say what year it occurred in. Carroll's lawyer was one who pushed the law in Albany. I think this travesty is a worse travesty for law than the King fraud case. Corrupt persecution at its finest.
anon-kje4 -> GregInFla
20 minutes ago
The New York law changing the statute of limitations for one year to get Trump is essentially a bill of attainder: "A bill of attainder is legislation that imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial." Such bills, or laws, are unconstitutional and the Supreme Court needs to swiftly knock it down in the interest of due process. How can anyone expect to gather evidence and witnesses 30 years after the fact, especially where, in this case, the charge was never brought to the defendants attention for years and years after the alleged incident.
World Economic Forum Poohbah Klaus Schwab is fond of paraphrasing the Joseph Goebbels quote, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," as "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be afraid." Fortunately, that dark day in America has been kicked down the road by no less a body than a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Tuesday, the court struck down the FBI and Department of Justice in what looks to be a precedent-setting case called Snitko v. United States, dealing a significant blow to the government's expansive search and seizure practices known as "inventory searches."
The case started out with a 2021 raid on a company called US Private Vaults, a California company offering secure safe deposit boxes with minimal personal identification requirements. Though apparently some specific boxes were targeted, the FBI elected to break open some 700 boxes and rummaged through their contents to the extent of bringing drug dogs in to sniff for traces of drugs as an excuse for invoking civil asset forfeiture. //
The central problem was that the FBI's warrant did not authorize "criminal search or seizure" of the safety deposit boxes. The FBI claimed it was just an "inventory search" that would allow box contents to be inventoried and returned to their owners. This requires following a specific set of rules that the FBI didn't bother to use.
If there remained any doubt regarding whether the government conducted a ‘criminal search or seizure, that doubt is put to rest by the fact the government has already used some of the information from inside the boxes to obtain additional warrants to further its investigation and begin new ones.”
The judges grilled the FBI and Department of Justice on how their actions didn't violate the very purpose of the Fourth Amendment.
This raid, targeting hundreds of boxes, opened a Pandora's box of legal and ethical questions regarding privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches; "It was those very abuses of power, after all, that led to adoption of the Fourth Amendment in the first place." //
Many moons ago, when I was an IG investigator for the Army's Recruiting Command, my boss gave me this sage advice on how to read a crowd if you were giving a training session: " If all the recruiters suddenly start writing," he said, "you've just closed a door they've been using or opened a door they didn't know existed."
The government's correct answer at the original trial was, "My bad, we did something wrong, and we'll do the right thing." The fact that they fought this tooth and nail and then tried to get out from under the ruling shows that they routinely use the "inventory search" masquerade to develop evidence in criminal cases and raise cash at your expense.
Though this was a victory, it was also a tragedy. No one was prosecuted. No one was fired. No one cared. "Deprivation of Right Under Color of Law" is a felony. There is a division of the Justice Department that prosecutes these cases. The DOJ IG didn't open a case to see how widespread this problem is, probably because they already know. What about other people who didn't have a high-profile case to attract free legal care? How do they get their property back? And what about the criminal cases launched, cases that helped move someone's career forward, based on patently unconstitutional searches?
Sooner or later, we have to arrive at a point where we admit that the FBI and most of the Department of Justice are much more of a danger to civil liberties than traditional Catholics, pro-life demonstrators, J6 defendants, Donald Trump, and even China. //
anon-goox
2 hours ago
The fact that Klaus is quoting Josef Goebbels as an authority SHOULD tell everyone---including Klaus himself---that he is on the wrong track.
The governor writes:
The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States. The Executive Branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting States, including immigration laws on the books right now. President Biden has refused to enforce those laws and has even violated them. The result is that he has smashed records for illegal immigration.
Despite having been put on notice in a series of letters - one of which I delivered to him by hand - President Biden has ignored Texas's demand that he perform his constitutional duties. //
The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas's constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border. //
In the Constitution, Article I, § 10, Clause 3 states:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
A 61-year-old grandfather is suing Sunglass Hut's parent company after the store's facial recognition technology mistakenly identified him as a robber. Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr. was subsequently held in jail, where he says he was sexually assaulted, according to the lawsuit.
The January 2022 robbery took place at a Sunglass Hut store in Houston, Texas, when two gun-wielding robbers stole thousands of dollars in cash and merchandise.
Houston police identified Murphy as a suspect – even though he was living in California at the time.
When Murphy returned to Texas to renew his driver's license, he was arrested. He was held in jail, where he says he was sexually assaulted by three men in a bathroom. He says he suffered lifelong injuries.
The Librarian
5 hours ago
Representation of the People Act 1983, s.107:
Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of the inducement or procurement, shall be guilty of an illegal payment.
s.112: a third party who supplies the money (knowing what it is for) can also be found guilty of an illegal payment.
He committed a crime and whoever sent him committed a crime.
Oh... wait... I forgot.... The Rule of Law no longer applies in the U.S.
Fujitsu software bugs that helped send innocent postal employees to prison in the UK were known "right from the very start of deployment," a Fujitsu executive told a public inquiry today.
"All the bugs and errors have been known at one level or not, for many, many years. Right from the very start of deployment of the system, there were bugs and errors and defects, which were well-known to all parties," said Paul Patterson, co-CEO of Fujitsu's European division.
That goes back to 1999, when the Horizon software system was installed in post offices by Fujitsu subsidiary International Computers Limited. From 1999 to 2015, Fujitsu's faulty accounting software aided in the prosecution and conviction of more than 900 sub-postmasters and postmistresses who were accused of theft or fraud when the software wrongly made it appear that money was missing from their branches.
Some innocent people went to prison, while others were forced to make payments to the UK Post Office to cover the supposed shortfalls. So far, "only 93 convictions have been overturned and thousands of people are still waiting for compensation settlements," a BBC report said. //
A Financial Times article said that the public inquiry "heard in December last year that the Post Office's lawyers had rewritten Fujitsu witness statements."
The FT article also said the Post Office, which used prosecution powers available to private corporations in the UK, obtained 700 of the 900 convictions. The other convictions came in cases brought by Scottish prosecutors. The scandal may lead to reforms of the private prosecution system that lets organizations take people to court.
Reagan Airport @Reagan_Airport
·
🔺TRAFFIC ALERT: Expect delays around the airport due to a group in vehicles exercising first amendment rights in roadway. Use caution and expect slow moving vehicles. Recommend @Wmata to access airport.
Readers added context
There is no first amendment right to block traffic
aclu-il.org/en/news/when-e… https://t.co/7PWvBDRP5u
Context is written by people who use X, and appears when rated helpful by others. Find out more.
2:53 PM · Jan 20, 2024
(((tedfrank))) @tedfrank
·
You do not have a first amendment right to block the roadway. In fact, drivers inconvenienced by such illegal action have a civil cause of action for public nuisance against the people and organizations conspiring to block the roadway. If you were trapped in your car, you have a false imprisonment tort claim, too. You may wish to consult an attorney.
Wednesday’s arguments were all about whether the Supreme Court should do away with the unworkable Chevron deference. //
Another common theme pushed, especially by Kagan, concerned the question of “who decides?” If there is an ambiguity, Kagan posed several times, do we want the agency or the courts to make the policy decision?
The correct answer, however, is neither: Congress should make policy decisions and draft statutes that provide clarity on the law. When Congress delegates authority to administrative agencies, such authority should similarly be clear.
Chevron deference has allowed Congress for far too long to avoid making tough calls, and while some of the justices seemed fine with that approach, it is inconsistent with our constitutional structure. //
Businesses need certainty, the solicitor general argued, and overturning Chevron would destroy the predictability of the law.
On the contrary, the fishing businesses’ attorneys stressed, what creates uncertainty is Chevron deference, which allows for each new administration to reverse prior regulations. Several justices seemed to share that viewpoint as well. Further, as several of the justices noted, the unworkability of a legal rule can justify its reversal, notwithstanding stare decisis — and several of the exchanges on Wednesday showed Chevron deference, in its current iteration, is unworkable. //
Right there could be the reason two undecided justices join to form a majority to overturn Chevron — it is just not workable because the lower courts won’t do the work required.
Decision of Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appels said Indiana must allow transgender students to use school bathroom consistent with their gender identity – ACLU calls it a “victory” for transgender rights. //
These three points are each important:
First, the Seventh Circuit Order, as Bloomberg points out, merely affirmed a preliminary injunction saying that it was “likely” that the student would win her case. Now the case goes back to the Indiana federal trial-level court for further litigation and trial. The school district could still win that case, at trial or on appeal of the trial results.
Second, the Seventh Circuit’s ruling is inherently weak because it relied on Bostock. In that case, as Bloomberg correctly points out, the Supreme court held for the first time that Title VII employment discrimination claims could be brought by transgender employees. But what Bloomberg omits to say is that Bostock expressly held that its ruling did not apply to any other transgender situation. //
So to the extent the Seventh Circuit relied on Bostock, it was mistaken to do so.
Third, Bloomberg points out that in a similar case in Virginia where the Fourth Circuit backed the transgender student, the Supreme Court also declined to review the case, making this the second time the Court has declined to review such a case.
But there is hope!
That is because there is a definite conflict, or “circuit split,” in how different U.S. Courts of Appeals handle this type of case. //
the Court may be sensing the tremendous turmoil across the country regarding the rights of “transgender” students, both in the bathroom context but more importantly in the school sports context, and the Court may well be waiting for an appropriate time and case to grant review and weigh in on these critical issues. //
sidwhite in reply to sidwhite. | January 17, 2024 at 11:07 am
Reading further I see that this is a rejection of having a hearing on the temporary order rather than a court decision.
They allege Capitol CCTV footage blows up the story told by a member of Nancy Pelosi's security detail -- Special Agent David Lazarus. Lazarus gave testimony corroborating another Capitol police officer's account, claiming that he had an antagonistic encounter with the Oath Keepers. But The Blaze report says what Lazarus claimed couldn't possibly be true.
Steve Baker, the investigative reporter on the story, walks through the timeline of events and alleges that Lazarus was elsewhere at the time of the purported incident, not at the site of the incident when it purportedly happened. They point out other conflicts in the testimony as well as to who saw what when.
This is truly wild and very disturbing. //
If you can't get equal justice under the law, where does that leave our Constitutional Republic? And as Baker also notes, if this is true, then what else are they not telling the truth about? //
Largo Patriot
an hour ago edited
Who made the decision to withhold exculpatory videos from J6 defendants and their attorneys knowing this decision violated their right to a fair trial? Jacob Chansley (the Shaman) was immediately released from prison after Tucker Carlson aired the video of him peacefully walking into the Capitol and being escorted around the building by police officers. The video, which was not made available to Mr. Chansley and his attorneys, contradicted the government's allegations that he encouraged violent protesters to force their way into the Capitol and assault police officers in the process. In fact, Mr. Chansley entered the building alone and interacted only with police officers while inside. There is nothing in the video, which government prosecutors saw prior to filing the indictment against him, that supports the allegations in the indictment other than the allegations that he attended the January 6th protest and entered the building. Based on video evidence now available to the public, prosecutors made allegations against members of the Oath Keepers knowing that their witness lied about the interaction between them and Officer Harry Dunn.
Curmudgeon
10 hours ago
The bank in question testified at the trial for the defence. They stated they did their own assessment and agreed terms with Trump. The loan was paid back in full in accordance with the agreement. //
Blue State Deplorable
9 hours ago edited
This prosecution is patently ridiculous. First, there are no damages - the bank was made whole with interest. Second, the bank is not some unequal partner that was taken advantage of. This is their business and they have professionals that advise them accordingly. Third, and as Kevin O’Leary points out, this is a negotiation that happens every day in every city in America. It’s how commercial real estate development is often financed. Anyone who thinks Trump is guilty of something here is galactically stupid. //
Ready2Squeeze Romeg
9 hours ago
At least here in NY, valuations for purposes of taxes are always much lower than what the property is worth on the market. That is done intentionally as it fools a lot of people into thinking that they are getting a 'deal' on their tax assessment - when in fact everyone else's property is similarly 'under valued'.
But don't worry - the government just makes it up on the tax rate ...