413 private links
A scathing report by three federal judges on the “misconduct” of plaintiff lawyers in a challenge to Alabama’s ban on gender-transition medicine for minors illustrates something we learned a long time ago: Many on the far Left, including radical lawyers employed by self-proclaimed civil rights organizations, believe the ends always justify the means and that rules of ethics don’t apply to them. //
After the case was assigned to Judge Burke, the lawyers dismissed the lawsuits, then refiled almost immediately to get a different judge. //
Yes, Charles—a lawyer who now works for the Department of Justice—lied to the panel of judges under oath until he was confronted with hard evidence that exposed the lie.
The 34 charges against Trump were magicked into felonies by the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who contends there's an overarching federal election crime at play. //
The New York State legislature made a similar move for E. Jean Carroll so the founder of LinkedIn and ardent leftist Reid Hoffman could bankroll a new round of lawfare. //
In the fraud case that isn't fraud and which defrauded no one, //
And we haven't even touched on the FBI's Mar-a-Lago raid over documents Trump is allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act. Or the attempt to get Trump off the ballot using the 14th Amendment. Even the U.S. Constitution is fungible to these leftists.
And now we're in jury selection in Trump's latest case, which is literally a bookkeeping case in which Trump paid his attorney over time for services rendered that included making sure Stormy Daniels and another woman signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and were paid for them. Daniels has never been charged with extortion for breaking her NDA and demanding more money or she'd tell the media... //
Trump's being publicly humiliated and kept off the campaign trail — a feature, not a bug of this lawfare — because he booked payments to his lawyer in 2017, which, let's note for clarity, is after the 2016 election. Bragg contends these payments were in furtherance of stealing an election. //
Maximus Decimus Cassius
8 hours ago edited
We're in a phase where people have not quite figured out what is going on. I suppose that is understandable to a degree, but the fog, normalcy bias and refusal to accept reality is a bill which is going to come due someday, and I don't think anyone will like the cost.
The Ruling Class / left / Democrats, et al, are not afraid of the American people, but they are terrified of Donald Trump. The Covid-19 gaslighting, forced vaccinations of an experimental drug with minimal benefit but astonishingly severe side-effects, the inhumane lockdowns and omnipresent censorship with minimal resistance, together with the jackbooted thuggery against J6 patriots, again, with almost zero protest after the Stasi arrests started, leaves no doubt that the DC Junta does not fear the peasants.
But these absurd kangaroo legal persecutions of Donald Trump clearly demonstrates the elites' fear should PDJT reclaim the White House. And the Ruling Class will stop at nothing to prevent Trump from reclaiming the White House. After all, what is stopping them, or better yet, who is going to stop them?
IMO, the only way out of this and survive is for the Ruling Class, elites, etc. to become suddenly very, very fearful of We the People.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." //
aminahyaquin CarriedtheM-16forAmerica
6 hours ago
Yes we shouod call it the Biden regime in absentia since Biden is non compos mentis and has clearly, cognitively left the arena.
ModernDayJeremiah aminahyaquin
6 hours ago
Biden is full compost mentis. He has the Mierdas Touch. Whatever he touches turns to crap.
Ultimately, Trump isn't who is on trial here, it's the public's adherence to the American philosophy and foundational principles of governance that are being weighed and decided upon. //
Douglas Proudfoot
10 hours ago
Which Amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to Trump? If they don't apply to Trump, how can you be sure they will apply to you?
The indictments all depend on the false bookkeeping concealing another crime. However, the indictments don’t specify what the other crime is. Without the other crime, the NY State felonies become misdemeanors with a 2 year expired statute of limitations. If the other crime turns out to be a misdemeanor federal finance violation, the statute of limitations has already expired on it. How can 2 misdemeanors, one not even in NY jurisdiction, add up to over 30 felonies?
The judge has ruled that Bragg doesn't have to specify what the concealed crime is.
If this travesty causes Trump to lose the election, we will never have a free election for president again. The Bill of Rights will protect noone. The rule of law will become one Party rule. America game over.
To this point, the conservative justices have shown some skepticism of the government's case, which U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is presenting. On that front, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked a question that many of us have been pondering. Namely, he asked whether Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), who pulled a fire alarm before an important House vote and impeded a congressional proceeding, could be charged under the same statute. Astonishingly, the government responded with a "no." //
Returning to Bowman, he pulled a fire alarm during a voting session in the House of Representatives. Congressional members had to be evacuated, and the vote was postponed. That is a textbook example of obstructing an official proceeding, and the government's justification for not charging him is basically "because we say it doesn't count." //
etba_ss
an hour ago
I'm not sure they really care at this point. They've milked and milked and milked J6 as much as they can. They've set an example and a standard that they can do whatever they want to you if your politics do not align. The time to have been providing relief in these cases is not April 2024, but in April 2021.
I don't mean to say that it doesn't matter, but this is one of those issues that the damage has largely been done on. The whole point of J6 is to influence elections and suppress dissent, including covering up fraud and electioneering during the 2020 election. All serious efforts at exposing the issues in 2020 stopped after J6. That was the main purpose and it was instantly successful.
The time is coming where Governors, state legislators, sheriffs, etc. decide if they will follow the law and the Constitution or the federal government and the court system. The two things are not the same. We shouldn't ignore the courts for "light and transient causes", but if our Founders were willing to pick up a musket and risk the very real possibility of being hung for traitors, telling the federal government and/or the federal courts "no" isn't too much to ask. Again, you don't do this because you disagree with some largely irrelevant statute, but when it comes to such basic things as border security, liberty and political prosecution, those things aren't "light and transient causes", but ones that are fundamental to the existence of a constitutional republic. //
etba_ss Hallen
38 minutes ago edited
The problem with the court upholding the law, even if they thought it was valid and could be applied is that selective prosecution violates a higher law. The Constitution is supreme to the court or to any Congressionally issued statute or law. The Constitution includes "equal protection under the law". Selective prosecution on the basis of political connections or ideology is a direct violation of the US Constitution. So Congress could pass a law saying that it is illegal to be a Republican. That law would violate the Constitution and be thrown out.
So either the law itself must be thrown out, or at least its application in this case must be thrown out. It is a gross violation of the Constitution, which is what Gorsuch is pointing out.
Remember Nicholas Roske, the guy who attempted to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh? Apparently, the Justice Department doesn’t, which is why they seem to have forgotten that they are supposed to be prosecuting him. //
So, if this is such a “slam dunk” case, why is the DOJ slow-walking it? Are there political considerations in play, or are they just too busy trying to prosecute former President Donald Trump and pro-life protesters? //
Cynical Optimist
2 hours ago edited
The same reason that Peter Navarro is in prison for defying a subpoena while Hunter Biden has not even been charged. The same reason that peaceful Pro lifers have been convicted while those who firebombed Federal buildings in Portland Oregon have not even been charged. The same reason hundreds of those who protested Biden's election have spent and will spend years in prison while those who protested Trump's election not only were never charged but were paid money from a lawsuit.
Libertarians aren't anarchists, we're minarchists. It's the general libertarian belief that there should be hard and fast rules for society, but not a lot of them. The vast majority of the rules that are created should be applied to the government which can easily spiral out of control the more room it's given. The government is like a child, and it has to be watched, monitored, and given strict boundaries, or else it will [wreak] destruction upon you, your home, and itself. //
I'm a big fan of basic rules. God gave us 10 that are conducive to a happy, healthy life and our American system is broadly based on these rules. A few more could be added here and there, but if I'm being honest, at the end of the day it's not the laws that matter.
It's the people's willingness to follow them.
In order for society to function we have to agree to have a functioning society. This means following, not just the laws, but the unwritten rules that usually come with tradition and societal expectations. If even a fraction of the population suddenly disagrees with these rules, society starts to collapse. //
America — and the Western world in general — seems to have gotten to a point where it's perfectly fine with shrugging off propriety and common decency. It puts endless laws on the books, empowers its own government, and is even now willing to ban entire platforms off the internet, but it has very little concern about enforcing many of the basic rules already on the books, especially if the person not following them is of a certain identity.
People in America aren't following basic rules anymore because they aren't being enforced. Even when someone defends people against someone willing to violate these rules, the defender gets in trouble. //
We're encouraged to be passive while aggressors roam around us.
Then we wonder why everything is so trashy and our society is degrading.
We've shrugged off the rules in order to avoid being labeled as one thing or another, but as we pat ourselves on the back for being "tolerant" and "inclusive," we crumble.
The DOJ’s position on this matter once again shows their blatant two-tiered view of justice—Peter Navarro sits in a Miami prison cell for defying a subpoena, but Hunter Biden is walking around a free man and enjoying the White House Easter Egg roll despite blowing off his own order to appear. Meanwhile, the Department is counseling its own lawyers to defy the House.
John Kennedy
@SenJohnKennedy
·
Follow
Adeel Mangi is not qualified to be a federal judge because he supports organizations that celebrate people who kill law enforcement officers, hate Americans, and hate Jews.
It’s not Islamophobic to recognize that. It’s our job.
5:29 PM · Mar 22, 2024
There is no doubt that our criminal justice system is far from perfect. As someone whose name escapes me once put it, "It's not a system, and it has nothing to do with justice, but it is criminal." That said, sometimes the reason people draw long prison sentences for a very good reason that has nothing to do with systemic racism or bad lawyers.
We want to believe in rehabilitation and redemption, but we also have to realize that the patterns of behavior and personality traits that send a man to prison for several decades are rarely made better by incarceration. We should be surprised that a man who drew a 50-year sentence for violent crimes killed someone in the same way that we would be shocked that a poisonous snake bit someone. //
How much risk are we willing to inflict upon society so we can feel good about ourselves?
Mike Ford
30 minutes ago edited
Let me clarify this for folks unfamiliar with business and residential real estate valuation....Bottom Line...in some locales and instances, it is quite legal and proper to double or even triple actual measured square footage, as a sort of an algorithm to account for the value of very high ceilings....which Trump stated. Here is a clip from that vaunted conservative rag, the WaPo
Talk about a Pandora’s box. You open up a huge can of worms when you start talking about square feet. Let’s start with the bottom line: There is no uniform method across the country to measure square footage in residential homes. We wish there was one precise method for measuring that was agreed to all over the country, but there isn’t.
In some municipalities, vaulted ceilings will double the square footage of a room.
https://www.washingtonpost....
Hope this clears things up. As for the charge of perjury...what likely happened is that although there was no plea for a smaller crime...there was almost certainly a background threat.
Bottom line, Trump is entirely correct to state such measurements when obtaining a loan....as long as he states the reasoning....then it's up to the banks to either accept or deny that algorithm.
Here's some more info on how some of the "ephemerals" can increase "value" for loan purposes.
The author of the below piece, is familiar with pricing in the Palm Beach area and used to live 2 blocks up Fram Mar-a-Lago
https://afnn.us/2023/11/09/...
Side note: I came upon this little bit of arcane information when I heard Trump responding to some question about this as he remarked (words. to the effect) "It's because it has very high ceilings..."
I thought that was strange and thought it was just The Donald bloviating...then I did some asking around and poking around the internet....lo and behold, it's not an uncommon practice and legal in certain circumstances..
Engoron easily could have employed a non-fraudulent, apples-to-apples methodology. That method would calculate Trump’s purported “ill-gotten” interest “savings” by comparing the recourse loan rates that Trump actually received from the lenders with the recourse loan rates Trump would have received had he not allegedly overvalued his assets. But the problem for Engoron is that applying this proper economic analysis would result in $0 of “ill-gotten gains” for Trump. //
Unlike Trump’s purported “overvaluations,” Engoron’s financial manipulation has actual victims — Trump, his family, and the Trump organization. But the harm goes much deeper than that. Made in an election year against a front-running major party candidate, Engoron’s ruling is a financial fraud on America.
According to law professor Harvey Silverglate, as he wrote in his book Three Felonies a Day, had Milken not been famous and wealthy, critics might have taken a closer and more dispassionate look at the fabricated case against him. It now seems irrefutable that both Michael Milken’s financial success and Trump’s political success made them the targets of our weaponized system of justice. Milken was an easy scapegoat to satiate a growing public resentment over the so-called excesses of the 1980s.
In Trump’s case, an inability to effectively navigate the “political swamp” in Washington D.C. made him an easy target for ruthless Democrats eager to destroy him for having the audacity to win the White House in 2016 against the swamp’s anointed candidate, Hillary Clinton. Milken showed how you can raise capital outside of the large established New York investment banks, Trump proved how to win an election without the large establishment political donors.
The charges against Milken were more about taking down a high-profile figure than achieving true justice, according to numerous experts in business ethics, such as Professor Norman Barry, author of the book Business Ethics. //
By examining the cases against Donald Trump and Michael Milken, it becomes evident that targeting successful and or controversial individuals without solid evidence of criminal behavior does not advance the cause of justice; it undermines it. However, what is even more disturbing is how our justice system is used against people without any financial means whatsoever.
Under New York law, Trump cannot appeal this ruling without depositing the full amount, including interest, in a court account. Even for Trump, $455 million is hard to come by. Likewise, a bond would require a company to guarantee payment for a defendant who has been barred from doing business in New York and is facing the need to liquidate much of his portfolio. //
The judge's order also forbids Trump from borrowing from any financial institution chartered or registered in New York for three years, so he can't even borrow to pay any of it from any bank in New York, an additional unfair aspect.
So, who is going to issue a bond under such risky conditions? //
If the only protection in New York is the discretion of figures like James, few businesses would relish the future. The message is that you can expect blind and equal justice so long as you don’t run afoul of the Democrats in power.
The jury in Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that [think tank fellow Rand] Simberg and Steyn made false statements, awarding Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer. It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”[...] //
Steyn, who the Associated Press reported represented himself, released a statement via Melissa Howes, his manager, "that he would be appealing the $1 million award in punitive damages, saying it would have to face 'due process scrutiny.'”
His statement continued:
We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue,.And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages. //
LaserTSV
4 hours ago edited
Why was the case filed in DC and not Pennsylvania? I am totally confused by all of this. Isn't $1M a small amount of money for court cases? I am thinking the legal bills for both parties was larger than $1M??? Will Steyn end up paying more than $1M to appeal this? //
Keith
21 minutes ago
What a complete travesty of justice, Mann couldn't even get another "climate scientist" to testify on his behalf.
they were released on their own recognizance, which means police have nothing to arrest them on, on the assumption – which they have to operate on – that they’ll be back for their [March 4] court date.”
“The chances of that happening when four people get on a bus with false names and head for the city that literally you can cross the street into the Mexican border is probably unlikely,” he added. //
This is what "criminal justice reform" and defund the police have brought us – get-out-of-jail-free cards for criminals in cities like the Big Apple, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The phrase, “do the crime, serve the time” seems like a distant memory. Now it’s more like, “do the deed, get quickly freed.” //
Weminuche45
21 minutes ago
anarcho-tyranny:
The law is powerless to help you, but it can still harm you.
In simple terms, anarcho-tyranny is when the state stops upholding its end of the social contract and uses its monopoly on violence for its own ends.
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.
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.
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.
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.