Despite Willis' tough talk, she has actually been slowed down. It's unlikely the Georgia-based trial will happen before the November election at this point, which leads to a big question: What happens if Trump wins and then this vindictive, political prosecutor still garners a conviction in a county with a heavily left-wing jury pool?

There's no easy answer to that. Whether a president can pardon himself is an open question, though one that would likely be answered in the affirmative. Whether a president can pardon himself from a state-level conviction is another issue and one that has no precedent. On its face, the answer appears to be no.

So what then? Are Fulton County authorities going to head to Washington to battle the Secret Service and take Trump into custody?

It'd be a constitutional crisis to move forward with the prosecution of Trump on these ridiculous charges after the election. That's Willis' plan, though, because she isn't doing this to enforce the law. On the contrary, she's already brutalized it beyond all recognition by twisting RICO statutes, but she wants her name in lights. She wants to be the person in the history books who finally "got Trump," consequences to the nation need not apply.

Anya Bidwell, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, the organization representing Gonzalez claims the city arrested the former councilmember as retaliation for her constant criticism of the mayor and other officials.

“In America, we don’t arrest our critics," she said.

The arrest led to Gonzalez’s lawsuit against the city, which invoked qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects government officials from civil liability unless it is established that they violated a Constitutional right.

The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling on this case could reach far beyond Castle Hills. It could redefine the landscape of free speech and government accountability. Depending on how the court decides, it could become harder for government officials to use their positions to punish those who criticize them.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled on March 8 that a federal law prohibiting illegal immigrants from owning guns is unconstitutional, arguing the law did not adhere to the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen that stipulated gun control laws must fit historical tradition. //

But someone who broke the laws of the land and is illegally residing here is not entitled to the same rights that the Constitution secures for U.S. citizens. Foreign citizens instead must have their rights secured by their own governments.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that “the people” refers to “all members of the political community.” Foreign citizens are by definition members of a different political community. Writing for the majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. “the people” “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” //

The topic was also argued more than a decade ago in a different case, with a panel of the Fourth Circuit ruling in U.S. v. Carpio-Leon that “illegal aliens are not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance.”

One interesting twist is that in the Harrel v. Raoul case, the National Association of Police has filed an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief supporting the Harrel Petitioners. This brief, available for review here, argues that the “Seventh Circuit’s legal standard eviscerates the Second Amendment, that the Illinois law’s “restrictions [approved by the Seventh Circuit] threaten to leave American citizens without effective means to utilize the sort of weapons employed by criminals throughout the country—and employed by nearly all police departments to fight them.”

And in a key paragraph:

In the world far removed from courtrooms, judge’s chambers and lawyers’ offices, Americans are using guns to defend themselves and others at extremely high rates—up to 2.8 million times a year. More than half of the incidents of self-defense involve more than one assailant, in which the ability to fire more defensive rounds obviously assumes more importance. Indeed, 3.2% of incidents involve five or more attackers, where the ability to shoot more than ten rounds is obviously critical. There are, of course, numerous reported incidents of citizens defending themselves who have been required to use more than ten shots to do so—or failing to defend themselves when only ten rounds were available. //

henrybowman | March 17, 2024 at 2:23 pm

“The panel did so after ruling that “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) are rarely used in self-defense…
…owners of the affected magazines, which come standard with most modern firearms.”

And the second observation proves that the first must indeed have been not a finding of fact, but an arbitrary ruling. //

oldvet50 | March 17, 2024 at 2:37 pm
This amendment was explained to our class in junior high school American History when I attended in 1962. A well regulated (trained) militia is necessary to protect our country. A standing army did not exist at the time, but could be formed when needed out of the citizenry (males). They would need to supply their own weapons and be proficient in their use. It has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with fighting our enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. How we even got to this point in banning certain weapons is beyond my comprehension. //

SHV | March 17, 2024 at 2:58 pm
This one is interesting. A 2A ruling from far left judge.

“District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional”

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2024/03/16/district-judge-gun-ban-illegal-immigrant-unconstitutional/

“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense.”

In Florida, a court challenge to the hotly contested Parental Rights In Education Act has ended with a settlement reached between the plaintiffs and the state. You can read through the media reports about this conclusion and see the bias plainly on display.

The Associated Press talked of “the fallout from Florida’s settlement.” The New Republic claimed the “settlement has curtailed the ‘Don’t Say Gay' Law”. The Miami Herald, in imbalanced thinking, declares “DeSantis’ homophobic law doesn’t survive court challenge intact.”

These are all very dramatic interpretations of a court agreement where the law in question was, in reality, completely upheld. //

Not a single thing about the law was affected. No elements were moved, no content was altered – not a single word has been changed. So just what are the journalism geniuses claiming? //

This new court decision has to then be regarded as a complete failure. Not only was the law upheld but no portion of it has been struck down. The settlement that was reached can better be described as a “Clarification." //

While representatives from Equity Florida pointed at the vague language of the law leading to some using it oppressively, the fact is the false negative reporting on the law created that atmosphere. Claims about the restrictions that did not exist led to adverse reactions in some areas, and it was all rooted in a lie. This is proven in the settlement terms.

The opponents are cheering all of the things they are now permitted to do today as a result, but this is coming about without having changed a single aspect of the law - meaning that all of those items were originally permitted. Yet today we have the press cheering they are allowed to do what they had always been allowed to do, and they are claiming victory while nothing has changed.

Those who refused to read the language of the law are now refusing to read the language of the settlement, and as a result, they are cheering wholesale changes taking place when they have the very same legislation in place that they had years ago. The deluded thinking is a marvel to behold. //

Quizzical
44 minutes ago
I've read the law in question. It has often been observed that the word "gay" is not contained in the law at all. For good measure, the neither the word "don't" nor "say" appears in the law, either. The word "parent" or some variation on it (parents, parental, etc.) appears 39 times. It's a law about parental rights, not about saying gay or not.

Legal scholar, writer, and political commentator Jonathan Turley weighed in on the unprecedented issue in a Monday column. //

It all comes down to the following, as Turley wrote.

The Trump trials are troubling precisely because they are being handled differently because of who the defendant is. No one can seriously suggest that Judge Chutkan would be moving other cases or canceling trips in order to shoehorn them into the calendar this year, if it were not for the election and the name of the defendant. Such cases are, after all, notorious for taking years to work out complicated pre-trial matters. //

Dieter Schultz
14 hours ago edited
I like Jonathon Turley but, because his perspective is that of a law professor and not of a former US Attorney, I love ShipWreckedCrew's analyses of what's going on here. I think the legal 'battlespace', legalspace?, is not disposed to support the Dems' lawfare in this. He had this to say about the DC case.
...

Just as the DC case was going to occupy nearly the entirety of the period January to May for pretrial matters and the trial itself, the Florida case is likely to tie up the entirety of May to September — at least. Nothing in the DC case can be done while all the attorneys and Trump are occupied working on the Florida case.

THAT is the landscape for SCHEDULING the DC case whenever the Mandate is sent back to the District Court.

You can see all the moving pieces that are now almost beyond control in the lawfare that the Democrat establishment has put in place. Who decided to indict Trump in two different district courts on unrelated charges less than two months apart? Amateurish and idiotic.
Source: https://shipwreckedcrew.sub... //

Avatar
GBenton Dieter Schultz
14 hours ago
I see desperation. Sloppy execution and sequential slow motion train wreck that will do far more damage to the Dems when all of these cases either lose or get overturned, setting precedent that hampers their ability to do this in the future.

When someone behaves in a desperate and stupid manner with reckless disregard, it doesn't signal competence or 5D Chess (Silly Billy's wet dreams notwithstanding).

The walls have been closing in on Trump with nothing but failure save the 2020 election Steal for 7 years.

If the Dems were good at any of this, that wouldn't be the case.

They just have institutional power and broad corruption, but we have the Supreme court and 300+ Trump judges and a majority of red states, so their stupid schemes keep disintigrating on impact with reality.

I know that makes Never Trump eunuchs sad, but that's just a bonus. //

Dieter Schultz GBenton
14 hours ago
I don't see it.

My belief is that far, far, ... far too many people see chaos as the equivalent of a brilliant strategic and tactical mind but it isn't anything close to that.

In fact, it seems to me that both those that sow chaos and those that are captivated by it are easy targets for those people that can play... not 5D chess but... regular chess.

Democrat Fani Willis’ legal troubles extend beyond recent revelations that she deceptively hired her otherwise under-qualified, secret, married lover to run the political prosecution of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans in Georgia. A new book from Mike Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman admits that a widely misunderstood phone call, on which Willis’ political prosecution rests, was illegally recorded. That means the entire prosecution could crumble with defendants having a new avenue to challenge Democrat lawfare. //

However, the person who recorded the phone call wasn’t in Fulton County or even in Georgia. That’s a problem. Jordan Fuchs, a political activist who serves as Raffensperger’s chief of staff, was in Florida, where it is illegal to record a call without all parties to the call consenting to the recording. She neither asked for nor received consent to record. //

Fuchs first gave The Washington Post fabricated quotes they later had to retract about a phone call President Trump had with someone in the elections office. Though Fuchs was not busted for her lie until March 2021, months after the fabricated quotes were used to impeach President Trump, the authors of the book say the embarrassment of being found out taught her the importance of recording phone calls such as the early January 2021 phone call that forms the basis of Willis’ investigation. They do not explain how this lesson worked in terms of the space-time continuum. //

Fuchs has never talked publicly about her taping of the phone call; she learned, after the fact, that Florida where she was at the time is one of fifteen states that requires two-party consent for the taping of phone calls. A lawyer for Raffensperger’s office asked the January 6 committee not to call her as a witness for reasons the committee’s lawyers assumed were due to her potential legal exposure. The committee agreed. But when she was called before a Fulton County special grand jury convened by Fani Willis, she was granted immunity and confirmed the taping, according to three sources with direct knowledge of her testimony. //

With Fani Willis repeatedly saying the entire investigation into Republicans was the result of a phone call that was illegally recorded, defendants might pursue legal recourse. It’s the latest challenge for Willis, even if the political ally judge reviewing whether she can continue prosecuting Georgia Republicans rules in her favor.

Fulton County DA Fani Willis used the phone call as the foundation for her RICO prosecution against Trump and his associates. According to a new book published by Michael Isikoff (who was an original pusher of the Russian collusion hoax), that call was illegally recorded by Jordan Fuchs.

Who is Fuchs? She is Raffensperger's Chief of Staff and has a very checkered history of political activism. Her hatred of Trump can be described as obsessive, and she was in Florida when she recorded the call in question. Why is that a problem? Because Florida is a two-party consent state. //

In other words, she broke the law because Trump did not give his consent to be recorded. In fact, according to Isikoff and his co-author, she didn't have Raffensperger's permission to record the call either. //

As Mollie Hemingway explains in her write-up on this revelation, this could put the entire case against Trump and his associates in jeopardy.

“Fruit of the poisonous trees is a doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained,” according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. “As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential ‘tree’ is tainted, so is its ‘fruit.’ The doctrine was established in 1920 by the decision in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, and the phrase ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ was coined by Justice Frankfurter in his 1939 opinion in Nardone v. United States. The rule typically bars even testimonial evidence resulting from excludable evidence, such as a confession.” //

Rollin L
18 minutes ago
Not sure why this is a bombshell or revelation. When this call was leaked years ago, it was known then that it came from Raffensperger's office. This was a Presidential phone call which was by definition classified. It was illegal to leak even if it had been legally recorded. So the only news is the confirmation that the actual recording of the call was itself illegal. Federal charges should apply even if immunity was given from state charges. Jordan Fuchs should be charged, and Raffensperger for conspiracy to hide the crime. //

SD 6 24 minutes ago

If Fuchs was in Florida when she recorded the call… and Florida is a two party state… how can Willis give immunity for a crime that occurred in Florida? I think Florida would have standing in this case to prosecute Fuchs… not Georgia…

Buying cobalt doesn't make US firms liable for abuses in DR Congo, court rules. //

Apple and other major tech companies don't have to compensate victims of forced child labor that provided cobalt for the lithium-ion batteries used in many electronic devices, a US appeals court ruled. The lawsuit filed by former miners from the Democratic Republic of the Congo alleged that Apple, Alphabet, Dell, Microsoft, and Tesla violated a trafficking law that makes it illegal to participate in a "venture" that engages in forced labor.

"The plaintiffs allege the technology companies participated in a venture with their cobalt suppliers by purchasing the metal through the global supply chain," the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit noted in its ruling issued yesterday.

A US District Court previously dismissed the lawsuit, and a panel of three appeals court judges unanimously affirmed the dismissal yesterday. "Purchasing an unspecified amount of cobalt through the global supply chain is not 'participation in a venture' within the meaning of the TVPRA [Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008]," the ruling said. "We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint." //

The plaintiffs' argument was a little more nuanced that, arguing not that buying cobalt in and of itself is the problem, but that these tech firms are demanding so much cobalt and at such cutthroat prices that they're inducing the mining companies into employing children to meet demand and margins because that's the only way they can satisfy the demand at the prices paid.

Legally it's still probably the "correct" outcome, but morally it's pretty hard not to find some fault with these incredibly profitable tech companies pretty knowingly using their market muscle to drive these sorts of atrocities. They could do better if they wanted to.

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.