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 ...

A California man who lost $100,000 in a 2021 SIM-swapping attack is suing the unknown holder of a cryptocurrency wallet that harbors his stolen funds. The case is thought to be the first in which a federal court has recognized the use of information included in a bitcoin transaction — such as a link to a civil claim filed in federal court — as reasonably likely to provide notice of the lawsuit to the defendant. Experts say the development could make it easier for victims of crypto heists to recover stolen funds through the courts without having to wait years for law enforcement to take notice or help. //

On Dec. 14, 2023, a federal judge in the Eastern District of California granted Dellone permission to serve notice of his lawsuit directly to the suspected hackers’ bitcoin address — using a short message that was attached to roughly $100 worth of bitcoin Mora sent to the address.

Bitcoin transactions are public record, and each transaction can be sent along with an optional short message. The message uses what’s known as an “OP RETURN,” or an instruction of the Bitcoin scripting language that allows users to attach metadata to a transaction — and thus save it on the blockchain.

In the $100 bitcoin transaction Mora sent to the disputed bitcoin address, the OP RETURN message read: “OSERVICE – SUMMONS, COMPLAINT U.S. Dist. E.D. Cal. LINK: t.ly/123cv01408_service,” which is a short link to a copy of the lawsuit hosted on Google Drive. //

Let’s think about this for a second. We now can be served via an email that: inspires urgent action, cites consequences, is from an unknown/untrusted sender and, apparently, can use shortened links. Isn’t that EXACTLY the sort of thing we’ve all been telling our parents to be skeptical of?

Wednesday, the grand jury "no billed" the shooter. //

Dieter Schultz
11 hours ago edited

I don't have a problem shooting a man's weight in lead at him to bring him down. In this case, I thought a solid, indestructible self-defense case was available for the first four rounds. The next four were decidedly in the "gray area" of legality. The ninth round, in my opinion, could, in the right lighting, be mistaken for an execution.

While I can see streiff's point, why is it OK to train cops to 'keep firing until the person is no longer a threat', and they won't get dinged for doing it, but we're willing to put a shot count on civilians that aren't trained like the police are?

I get the last shots may have been unnecessary and overkill, but with adrenaline flowing how do we place these, seemingly, higher standards on civilians? //

anon-608f Asurea
3 hours ago
I appreciate your testimony. However, I believe this philosophy is outdated. Why are we changing the responsibility from the thug to armed civilian? No. The thug was willing to kill them all for pennies. He forfeited his life the minute he began the encounter. The armed citizen should only be held to account their behavior before the encounter- once it starts all accountability should be transferred to the thug. No more armed citizens should be prosecuted for ending, however completely, deadly encounters they didn't begin. The way we're handling it now is cruel and unreasonable. You were just as likely to have shot a fleeing felon in the back and been imprisoned for it...after they invaded your home! It is a sick theory that only attorneys could come up with. //

We agonize over a thug who, milliseconds before, was preparing to kill a truly innocent person- they have no good will, their humanity is forfeit. And so they get shot.

Why are we ever going after the armed citizen for injuring or killing a worthless thug? Why are we holding them to standards even police are hard pressed to meet??!!

No. I say no. When certain situational and evidentiary thresholds are met (not hard in this age of digital recordings), we shouldn't care if a thug is shot in the face or in the back, or even if already fleeing in a car. They forfeited their humanity and the citizen had every right and responsibility to ensure that they weren't coming back. Because they do. They'll rob multiple places in a night so long as they meet no resistance. Letting them flee is NOT morally superior to shooting a feral thug while fleeing.
As far as I'm concerned, you don't stop shooting at a predator attacking the flock just because it runs, and I respect coyotes and wolves far more than felons.

I just think our moral philosophy is outdated. I'm not saying this should be the "wild west" and people are shot dead with no account, but I do believe the threshold for "justifiable" and "reasonable" ought to be lowered in self defense.

But it turns out that Michael Cohen, the lawyer they're hoping to use against former President Donald Trump in the criminal case in Manhattan, was caught using AI for citations that he gave his attorney that were then used in a motion filed with a federal judge. 

(...)

This all came out because the judge in the case couldn't find three of the cases cited and ordered on Dec. 12 that Schwartz produce the cases and, if he couldn't, explain how non-existent cases got in his filings along with Cohen's role in them. The judge also asked Schwartz why he should not be sanctioned for made-up cases in his filing.

We are witnessing a wholesale assault on truth and reality, particularly on campuses. There’s a famous line, wrongly attributed to George Orwell, that ‘in a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

In that respect, we are revolutionary reality and truth tellers. We do it every day at the blog, and in our two main projects.

• CriticalRace.org
• EqualProtect.org

the Meese brief addresses the question of the universe of individuals who can be lawfully appointed to the position of “Special Counsel” in order for this regulation to fit under federal statutes and the Constitution’s Appointment Clause.

Meese states that the appointments of Patrick Fitzgerald, John Huber, and John Durham as past “Special Counsels” were all valid because, at the time of their appointment, each was serving as a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney within the Department of Justice. Their appointment as “Special Counsel” did not alter their authority; it just granted them the same authority over a particular investigation pursuant to the regulation that they otherwise would not have under their individual geographic limitations.

Meese and his co-authors first published the objection set forth in the current brief in law journals and other publications following Robert Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel, given that he was an attorney in private practice at the time he was named Special Counsel to investigate former President Trump, but never to a court.

Now Meese and his co-authors are making the claim against Jack Smith to a court because of his effort to have the Supreme Court take up the immunity issue. This created an opportunity for them to raise the question by arguing that Smith lacks jurisdiction to seek the Court’s relief because he is not truly an “Officer” of the United States.

Congress alone has the authority to create federal offices not established by the Constitution. And the Attorney General cannot ex nihilo fashion offices as he sees fit. Nor has Congress given the Attorney General power to appoint a Special Counsel of this nature. Thus, without legal office, Smith cannot wield the authority of the United States, including his present attempt to seek relief in this Court. //

Because Jack Smith was a private citizen when appointed, never having been nominated by a President or confirmed by a vote of the Senate, he was not within the scope of individuals who could be authorized by Garland to exercise prosecutorial authority equivalent to United States Attorneys. Any action purporting to create such a position – or “office” -- and vest it with the same authority as United States Attorneys is unconstitutional because it was not “created by law." //

Among the most compelling arguments made by the Meese brief comes at the end when it notes the incarnation of a Special Counsel vested with a Javert-like mission, as compared to the statutorily-created officers of the Justice Department – the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, eleven Assistant AGs, and 94 U.S. Attorneys – all subject to Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. According to the Biden DOJ, the Attorney General can simply create a Special Counsel Office, appoint a non-government actor to that post, grant him the power to wield the authority of a grand jury, draw resources from various federal law enforcement agencies, and direct their conduct, and seek search and arrest warrants when loosed upon a member of the public.

If the Meese brief’s argument is correct, then all the actions taken by Smith have been without lawful authority under federal law – beginning with the use of the grand jury in Washington D.C. to build the cases he has brought against former President Trump. The outcome would almost certainly mean that the cases would be dismissed.

A panel of judges made an extraordinary decision. They decided on their own that a person was guilty of treason and/or inciting an insurrection without that person having been charged with either, much less tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers. They did so to make him ineligible to be on the ballot in their state. //

Donald Trump has not been found guilty of either treason or inciting an insurrection, and the U.S. Code for insurrection seems pretty clear that you are ineligible for “any office in the United States” if you’re found guilty. //

Trump has a number of federal-law defenses: that Section 3 isn’t self-executing without implementing legislation or a criminal conviction, that it doesn’t cover the president, that the First Amendment protects Trump’s speech and wasn’t implicitly repealed in that regard by the 14th Amendment, that the Republican Party has a First Amendment right of association to put an ineligible candidate on its primary ballot, and even that Trump may have a legal defense because the Senate didn’t convict him on effectively the same charge. //

I do believe, however, that there is something deeply wrong with the Democrats going along with this and the courts that are making it happen. If you are accused of engaging in treason or insurrection, you should be tried for your crimes and punished appropriately. That is the criminal justice system that we have and it requires a jury of your peers unless you as the accused decide to forgo a jury trial.

But the courts cannot, seemingly on a whim, decide to make a person de facto guilty of a crime in order to justify a ruling they want to make. That is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set and could have far-reaching complications if that sort of mentality takes deeper root in our judicial system.

If he is tried and found guilty of treason or insurrection, I’d be fine with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision because the system worked as it was supposed to. You may not like those results, but it is incumbent on the accused and his lawyers to prove his innocence either in trial or on appeal. But there was no trial. A panel of judges decided he was guilty without a trial.

That should alarm us all. //

anon-ubjh
a day ago
" … but it is incumbent on the accused and his lawyers to prove his innocence either in trial or on appeal." WHAT? So now we are a country where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent? You have it backwards: it is incumbent on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. //

FrankD92
a day ago
Umm, actually, Mr. Cunningham, under our system it is NOT “incumbent on the accused to PROVE his innocence.” It is incumbent upon the accuser to prove guilt. And that is a HUGE distinction between a Republic vs totalitarianism. Quit adopting the language of the Marxist Left. //

Liberius
a day ago
It is NOT the responsibility of the accused to prove their innocence. It is the responsibility of the accuser to prove the guilt of the defendant.

How the heck have so many people in this country forgotten that simple concept?

etba_ss
a day ago edited
He shouldn't need to name check Trump. The problem is the decision by the court, not who it is against. The reaction to the ruling should be the same whether it was against Trump, DeSantis or Haley. By making it about Trump, it often clouds the more relevant legal question, because retreat to their camps and either dig in or celebrate it because they love or loathe Trump. ... //

IdeClair
a day ago
If Trump can be removed for a crime he wasn't charged with, much less convicted for, then Biden can be removed for non-convictions too..After all, Biden did commit treason when he took kickbacks from foreign governments..

anon-kvbw IdeClair
a day ago
More that that, Trump was acquitted for the insurrection charge by the Senate would they considered one of the House's serial impeachments. In addition, the Supremes have made it clear in a number of cases that the President is not an 'officer' of the United States. The statute applies to appointed officials, not the President.

Lee Zeldin
@LeeMZeldin
·
Follow
It is the Colorado Supreme Court’s unconstitutional, unambiguous and un-American belief that the time has come in our country to destroy democracy in the name of democracy.
Kaitlan Collins
@kaitlancollins
Breaking: The Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from holding office, citing section three of the 14th Amendment, removing him from the state’s 2024 ballot.
https://courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
6:39 PM · Dec 19, 2023 //

polyjunkie
an hour ago edited
This should take the Supremes about a half hour to adjudicate. If it stands, then every Red State should disqualify FJB. Let’s see how that works out….

PS - the Constitution lists the criteria for being President. Being approved by left-wing judges is not one of them. And the 14th Amendment does not apply since the Congress impeached Trump and the Senate found him not guilty. Therefore no “insurrection” occurred. Done. //

Cynical Optimist polyjunkie
2 hours ago
That is precisely the point Jonathan Turley made this afternoon, saying that the ruling opens the door for groups in every state in the nation to disqualify any politician they dislike or want off the ballot. //

anon-d2hb
2 hours ago
Not even charged with, let alone convicted of insurrection, and CO Supreme Court rules that he is an insurrectionist. Our courts have become centers of politicized injustice. Charged and tried have been thrown completely out the window. //

Ed in North Texas
2 hours ago edited
As I noted elsewhere, this looks like a judicial setup. Lower court judge rules Trump engaged in "insurrection" but the Amendment didn't apply to the President. The appeal to the CO supremes then allowed four of the seven SCP appointees to take a ruling that he had engaged in insurrection and rule that the Amendment did apply and boot him off the ballot.

Gee, it almost seems like tinfoil hat time, except legally it works.

Edit: Temporarily it works. Doubt the SCOTUS will buy it, but we do live in "interesting times".

“Defendant contends that the Constitution grants him “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility” while he served as President of the United States, so long as he was not both impeached and convicted for those actions…. No court—or any other branch of government—has ever accepted it. And this court will not so hold.” //

Earlier today, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Trump was not immune from civil suit based on claims related to January 6, on the ground that the conduct constesting the election was in his capacity as a candidate, not as a president.

Internet reader's rights

Some people think that every Internet user is a copyright violator. Downloading a document means making a copy of it, they say; and copying generally isn't legal without the author's permission. They argue about whether making material available through FTP or HTTP or USENET grants some sort of ``implied license'' to download the material---or whether an author can demand payment for the reader's copies.

Other people advocate a much simpler theory. When an author tells his FTP server to send a document to anyone who asks, he is the one making copies. In legal jargon, the author's command to the computer is the ``proximate cause'' of the copying. The reader is merely requesting a copy, not making it.

I don't know which of these theories will succeed in court. I also don't think you should have to care. So I promise I won't sue you for copyright violation for downloading documents from my server.

Does it bother you that this should even be an issue? Check out Richard Stallman's essay on The Right to Read.

Complaint: “Media Matters knowingly and maliciously manufactured side-by-side images depicting advertisers’ posts on X Corp.’s social media platform beside Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist fringe content and then portrayed these manufactured images as if they were what typical X users experience on the platform. Media Matters designed both these images and its resulting media strategy to drive advertisers from the platform and destroy X Corp.”