Tag Archives: Courts

Roger Stone Cold Sentencing and Assoc. Problems

22 Saturday Feb 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Roger Stone Cold Sentencing and Assoc. Problems

Tags

, , ,

So yeah, about that Constitutional crisis:

A funny thing happened, however, on the way to the courthouse. Two things, actually. First, the jury forewoman in Stone’s case outed herself as a die-hard Democrat who despises President Trump and his supporters as well as a former congressional candidate and far-left activist who still buys into the Russian collusion scam. She came out to defend the honor of the prosecutors in Stone’s case but ended up revealing that, while Judge Jackson silenced Roger Stone from speaking to the public during his trial, the forewoman of the jury was busy posting daily anti-Trump polemics. Second, rather than cowering in intimidation, President Trump took the opportunity of an “emergency meeting” of the federal judges to publicly ask that they look into the well documented FISA Court fraud and the Judiciary’s role in perpetrating the greatest political scandal in our nation’s history: President Obama’s use of the CIA and FBI to spy on the campaign of a presidential candidate from the opposing party and the subsequent use of such criminally obtained information to launch the Mueller probe and overturn the result of the 2016 election.

And, the branches were never coequal, being introduced in order. Congress having largely abdicated, that leaves the executive. Jump!

What Facebook Thinks of You: “There is no privacy”

31 Friday May 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

That’s what they said in Court, to a judge.

A lawyer for Facebook argued in court Wednesday that the social media site’s users “have no expectation of privacy.”

According to Law360, Facebook attorney Orin Snyder made the comment while defending the company against a class-action lawsuit over the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

“There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no privacy,” Snyder said.

In an attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out, Snyder further claimed that Facebook was nothing more than a “digital town square” where users voluntarily give up their private information.

Now, who out in the town square of old, sold your PRIVATE information, that you may or may not have willingly divulged, to the highest bidder? The first equivalent I came up with was ye old pickpocket.

THE WALL Progresses!

22 Wednesday May 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on THE WALL Progresses!

Tags

, , , ,

At THIS RATE the entire border should be (nominally) secure within  500 years!

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has put up just 1.7 miles of fencing with the US$1.57 billion that Congress appropriated last year for President Donald Trump’s wall along the Mexican border, a federal judge was told.

A lawyer for the U.S. House of Representatives provided the information Tuesday to the judge in Oakland, California, who is weighing requests from 20 state attorneys general and the the Sierra Club to block Trump from using funds not authorized by Congress to build the wall.

“The administration recently provided updated information to Congress on the status of its efforts as of April 30, 2019,” the attorney, Douglas Letter, said in a court filing. “Based on that updated information, it appears that CBP has now constructed 1.7 miles of fencing with its fiscal year 2018 funding.”

That was 3/4 of a mile more than the administration reported at the end of February, Letter said.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam had asked for the information at a May 17 hearing.

Representatives of Customs and Border Protection didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment after regular business hours.

And, it will only end up costing about $2 Trillion! What. A. Deal!

Six and a Half Years of Hard Work Pays Off: Obamacare Invalid

15 Saturday Dec 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

My friends, you are welcome.

Some few will recall the inaugural post, here, was a very simple: “Welcome to the mad ravings of Perrin Lovett! I am proud to present my new blog. Let’s see how it develops. More to come soon!”

The soon, the first substantive post came four days later, on June 28, 2012: The Shared Responsibility TAX: ObamaCare a hit with the Supremes…

Time will certainly cure the injustice done today. In 500 or 1,000 years the Unaffordable TaxCare Act will be but a lousy footnote in history. …

Thanks to my relentless pounding of the issue, it only took 6.5 years. President Trump, via his tax cuts, took the teeth, of which Roberts and Co. lusting so greatly, out of the ACA. Now, a federal judge in Texas has declared the whole law unconstitutional and invalid.

A federal judge in Texas struck down the entire Affordable Care Act on Friday on the grounds that its mandate requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and the rest of the law cannot stand without it.

The ruling was over a lawsuit filed this year by a group of Republican governors and state attorneys general. A group of intervening states led by Democrats promised to appeal the decision, which will most likely not have any immediate effect. But it will almost certainly make its way to the Supreme Court, threatening the survival of the landmark health law and, with it, health coverage for millions of Americans, protections for people with pre-existing conditions and much more.

In his ruling, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth said that the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power.”

This is the fulfillment of Roberts’s idiotic logic from 2012. If it’s a tax, then it’s only a tax. Take that away and you’re left with nothing. Great.

There will be, maybe already is, an appeal. If it reaches The Nine (again), expect legalistic gymnastics to re-justify the Congressional criminality. However, I fear – I don’t think – it will go that far. While praising the ACA’s demise, The Trump is also calling for a STRONG new law. He’ll probably get one, probably next year, by working with the Dems. They, unlike the idiot party, know how to get things done.

But, if only for today, let’s all celebrate the end of a monstrosity, a pre-existing condition we can all live without.

Constitutional Consideration: Deportation and Immirgation Exhortation

28 Thursday Jun 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Andrew Napolitano has some choice wisdom for President Trump, who recently proposed deporting illegal invaders without due process:

The president took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in relevant part that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This is the so-called Due Process Clause, and it essentially prevents all governments from impairing the life, liberty or property of any human being on American-controlled soil without a fair trial.

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. “Person,” in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there.

This protection is so profound and universally understood that when the George W. Bush administration rounded up what it thought were the collaborators, enablers, supporters and relatives of the 9/11 murderers whom it thought were here unlawfully, it recognized their due process rights and afforded them trials before deportation. The government actually lost many of those cases, and innocents were not deported.

He’s right, legally and technically. If we’re still pretending the Constitution is anything but a relic in a museum, then it might be well to follow it. The DP clause is thus still valid. As are the following portions and proposed usages:

The current law is a sad mess but, generally speaking, if an invader does not make an asylum claim or plea to some other removal-delaying mechanism, then the due process can be very short and fast – a quick hearing would suffice.

The law could be (should be) changed to allow for rapid removal and to do away with incentives and protections, among other restrictions. This would require action from a Congress which repeatedly demonstrates its uselessness, ineptitude, and stupidity. Asking A LOT. It would also require surviving court challenges, sure to be filed nationwide as a result of any program or legal change. If (a huge if) Trump could somehow motivate his idiotic party to action, then both issues could be resolved together, Constitutionally.

There’s more in the old parchment than due process. Congress has the power and the authority to establish, ordain, and regulate the jurisdiction of the Courts. “Congress shall have the power … To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” US Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, No. 9. ” The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” US Const. Art. III, Sec. 1.

The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over a narrow band of matters specified in Art. III. All others and all those of the inferior courts may be limited by Congress (should they see fit).

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

US Const. Art. III, Sec. 2, 2-3 (double emphasis added).

Immigration and naturalization, being Article I subjects, are not included in the specific exemptions. Thus, they are potential exemptions (as are [potentially] most other laws). So, a simple add-on to the end of any modifying legislation could strip the courts of the ability to review cases executed under the new law: “No court, including the Supreme Court, shall have any jurisdiction to review any matter arising under this Law.”

As an added deterrent, Congress could make extrajudicial review an impeachable offense.

One, wishing to challenge the new law, could do it the right way: seeking redress through Congress. All this assumes much.

And, while we’re assuming, let’s look deeper at the issue of invasion as it concerns the States affected by the influx of foreigners. Equating unmitigated and unrestricted immigrant invasion to a form of warfare, which is certainly is, the influx looks a lot like an actual invasion. The Constitution also provides a mechanism for dealing with this, for the several States.

Assuming Congress and the President are not doing enough to combat the issue (Trump is trying, Congress … do we even have a Congress anymore?), then the States can DECLARE WAR on the invaders, their exporting nations, or countries allowing them to pass through. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” US Const. Art. I, Sec. 10, No. 3.

If expecting action from Congress assumes much, then expecting action from Austin or Sacramento assumes more.

But, if it’s still real, then the Constitution is still there – all of it.

UPDATE: Another thought on “persons” and due process:

What or who is a “person?”

Websters defines “person” as a “human individual;” or, archaically, as “the body of a human being.”

Black’s, for legal purposes, defines “person” as “A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.”

“Human being” is the common denominator. You probably already knew all of this without dictionary references; you can probably guess where I’m going with it. Play along. A “human being” or just “human” is, scientifically, a certain kind of “bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens).” This could be further broken down to the level of the exact chemical composition, genetic markers, and associated vitality necessary to satisfy any biologist as to the specific nature of the subject creature. Having satisfied the purely scientific, the medical, there is no need to go even further with the addition of a soul.

Again, you probably knew “person” meant “homo sapien,” all types and forms. I suspect you’re a human person. Napolitano and Trump are human persons. Those crossing the borders, legally or illegally, are human persons. All humans are persons. All, to include the smallest, the unborn, whose only rights consist of the right to life and chance for development into the above, larger forms and whose only charged duties consist of the growing and living.

First: Redefining a baby as a “lump of tissue,” a “thing,” per Black’s, is a dangerous proposition. Technically it’s true. Somewhere between the person and the soul, “tissue” is firmly established to exist. And, everything physical is a “thing.” So, yes, that “thing” in the woman’s womb is a “lump of tissue.” So is the woman. So is the doctor with the vacuum.

If we’re to believe in equality or rights, then why would a “right to choose” be limited only to a certain class of (pregnant) women? That’s sexist. Does a man have the right to chop a doctor into 1,000 pieces and vacuum them into a bucket? Just tissue, things, mind you. Reality, legal and moral, tells us, “no.”

Now: Reality, legal and moral, also tells us that, if aliens at the border are persons, deserving of due process to preserve a liberty interest concerning geographic location, and if all persons have such process rights of liberty and life, then so to do unborn children.

Grant children due process! Justice demands it. As does the Fifth Amendment.

My old friend Bobby Franklin used to introduce legislation to affect just these ends. His law would have required that any legal abortion proceed only after the issuance of a death warrant, following a hearing before a judge. Someone would need conclusively demonstrate, as in a capital offense, why the baby deserved to die. Due process for the child at issue. His idea was mocked by the same sorts who, now, insist on due process for illegals and who, now, scream and shout about the inhumanity of separating children.

Just another thought.

Shocking Justice in Texas

09 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Shocking Justice in Texas

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Some wonder why people have a hard time trusting the “justice” system. Here’s part of it: a Texas Judge repeatedly zaps a defendant with shock device for no good reason:

State District Judge George Gallagher of Tarrant County told a bailiff on three occasions to punish an uncooperative defendant with electric shocks, and now the sex offender’s conviction has been overturned and a new trial ordered.

Stun belts can be strapped around the legs of some defendants and used to deliver thousands of volts of electric shock in the instance a defendant turns violent or attempts to escape the courtroom. However, in the case of Terry Lee Morris, who was convicted in 2014 of charges of soliciting sexual performance from a 15-year-old girl, an appeals court found that Gallagher used electric shocks as punishment after Morris failed to answer the judge’s questions properly.

…

“While the trial court’s frustration with an obstreperous defendant is understandable, the judge’s disproportionate response is not. We do not believe that trial judges can use stun belts to enforce decorum,” Justice Yvonne T. Rodriguez said of Gallagher’s actions in the court’s opinion.

“A stun belt is a device meant to ensure physical safety; it is not an operant conditioning collar meant to punish a defendant until he obeys a judge’s whim. This Court cannot sit idly by and say nothing when a judge turns a court of law into a Skinner Box, electrocuting a defendant until he provides the judge with behavior he likes,” Rodriguez wrote.

I know some will read this (or have it read to them) and say, “Who cares? He’s a child mo-lester!” That may be true. It may be proven at a subsequent, lawful retrial. The problems here are several. And they illustrate that maybe, just maybe, in some cases the government lacks the moral authority to try child mo-lesters or anyone else.

First, there’s that pesky right to remain absolutely silent. Even in court. Even in defiance of the judge. One does not have to enter a plea. In the absence of a verbal or written plea the universal protocol is for a judge to enter the defendant as “not guilty” and set a jury trial. Why Judge Sparky missed that I can’t explain.

Second, if you do speak to the court, or in order to another party while in court, then they’re supposed to let you speak. They can gently admonish you to stay on subject but a shock device is a but much.

Third … cruel and unusual anyone? And for nothing. Normally, as the article hinted at, a disruptive party will simply be removed from the court room. This man said he was mentally ill and may actually be (even without the electric torture). Judges with more sense sometimes suspend trials and cases pending mental evaluations. Shrinks don’t use shock treatment (much) anymore.

Here, in this case and as the article makes clear, this defendant, annoying or not, was not combative. Protocol, which has to be nationwide – especially in large states like Texas, is to use the shock devices only to protect staff from an actually violent and dangerous suspect.

I think what this fellow was wearing was a shock “ankle bracelet.” Belts usually go around the waist. And they have waist worn shock belts. I’ve seen one used in court. In civilized jurisdictions they usually are required to test demonstrate how effective the belt is – and they are effective. At the judge’s order, the sheriff, the bailiff, or whoever is in charge of security, will test shock an officer, in court and in front of the defendant, the judge, and the public.

Only once did I see this happen, in a murder case with a potentially, allegedly well-trained and dangerous defendant. Maybe he wasn’t that dangerous, volatile to begin with, or maybe it was seeing a 300-pound deputy knocked off his feet by the 50,000 volts, but he never once acted out during his prolonged trial.

As an aside, that guy didn’t make it all the way through the trial. Sensing his actual guilt or maybe the hopelessness of his case, he self-executed one night with a bed sheet. Justice? Maybe. We’ll never know.

But we do know there was little to no justice in Fort Worth.

There is now, and has been for a while, a massive assault on due process, equal protection, liberty, and the rule of law (not of crazed, zappy men) in America. Every little violation runs together with the others to form the monumental mess we now have at hand. It’s changed Anglo-American jurisprudence, governance, and culture for the worse.

The changes may make for expedience in some events. I’m half serious about handling certain criminal or martial acts with E.O. status and prosecution. What, years ago would have been considered insane tyranny, has been rubber stamped by all associated parties. Expedient? Yes, sometimes, sure. Dangerous? You damn-well better believe it.

So, in the real interest of justice (if we still value the word and concept), I bring you warning stories like this.

Now! All is not quite so dark and depressing. Somewhere near the end of the article the Star-Telegram featured a video. Watch it. Human concern and kindness from the most unseemly source. Maybe there is a little hope. Let’s hope so.

stun-belt-1280x720

These things work, appropriate or not. The Blaze.

More on the Justice in the Cliven Bundy Case (VIDEO)

09 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, The Perrin Lovett Show

≈ Comments Off on More on the Justice in the Cliven Bundy Case (VIDEO)

Tags

, , , , ,

I really can’t emphasis how important, if localized, this case and decision are.

From my Freedom Prepper article today:

Friends, this is simply huge. The criminal case against Cliven Bundy and his associates, has been dismissed with prejudice. That means it is over and cannot be re-tried. The government, the judge found yesterday, committed such horribly abuses of discovery and due process as to make a fair trail impossible.

Let this be a lesson and an inspiration for all preppers, freedom lovers, and real American patriots.

Here’s THE STORY.

Here’s the amended CRIMINAL COMPLAINT from the criminal government. I could not find the Dismissal Order, yet.

I have some experience trying criminal cases in state and federal courts. This is not an isolated issue; it’s just that in this case justice was actually served. Here’s my reaction:

Perrin Lovett Show/FPTV/YouTube.

nimbus-image-1515518450226

Let it ring!

Justice Gives a Gift for the Winter Solstice

21 Thursday Dec 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Justice Gives a Gift for the Winter Solstice

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Happy winter, 2017, a season which began an hour or so ago. This one begins on a nominally merry note. Several notes, in fact, as the little GOP elves deliver happy tax cuts for the peeps.

Also, yesterday, just like Wodan Santa bringing gifts to the kiddies, Lady Justice delivered to Americans a blow for freedom and against government tyranny. A federal judge declared a mistrial in the Cliven Bundy criminal case, the result of massive government obstruction. My brief recount from Freedom Prepper:

Cliven Bundy, his sons, and friends, are American heroes. Like our great forefathers they actually stood up to the tyrannical power of the central government. You likely know their story of defiance against the Bureau of Land Management.

Now, know the good news. The federal case against them continues to disintegrate. Read the amazing legal feel-good story, here, from the Washington Post and Leah Sottile.

If you still believe in the old Constitution and expect the government to abide by it, then you must notice that nowhere in that document does the government in DC have any authority to own and “manage” “public” lands. None. No authority.

Cliven and Co. took this issue and legal point straight to the BLM. The encounter turned sour as so many interactions with the police state do. Arrests were made and, then, the prosecutorial misconduct began.

“LAS VEGAS — A federal judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the criminal conspiracy case against rancher Cliven Bundy and three other defendants, saying government lawyers suppressed key evidence that would have been favorable to the defendants’ case related to a 2014 standoff with federal agents.

U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro determined that the prosecution suppressed evidence from FBI surveillance cameras recording the Bundy family home and the presence of Bureau of Land Management snipers around the property in the days leading up to the standoff there. Additionally, the prosecution did not provide FBI logs, maps, reports and threat assessments that said the Bundy family was not dangerous.

Navarro pointed to assessments conducted by the FBI, the Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center and the BLM that said “the Bundy family is not violent” and that they “would probably get in your face, but not get into a shootout.”

The court “regrettably believes a mistrial is the only suitable option,” Navarro told the packed Nevada courtroom. “A fair trial at this point is impossible.”
–Sottile

This is huge. First, there is public acknowledgement that the government does, in fact, do wrong and itself break the law. Second, a federal judge has called them on it. This usually is well hidden.

A hearing is scheduled for January 8, 2018 to assess the damage caused and to determine if the case should even proceed. It is possible that the judge may find the feds have so compromised justice that she has to dismiss the charges. That would be true and complete justice – not just for Bundy, but for all Americans.

This story is developing. But it is, right now, a victory for anyone interested in freedom. It’s a refutation to the mindlessness of both “government is god” liberals and of “law ‘n order” conservatives. Yes, the police routinely arrest innocent people. Then they commit perjury, hide evidence, mess with rules, prevent discovery, obstruct justice, destroy due process, and trample civil liberties. Usually, they get away with it, sometimes even with commendation. But not this time.

This is huge.

nimbus-image-1513875385558.png

Conservative Treehouse.

Another Rare (Odd) Victory for the Fourth Amendment

22 Friday Sep 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Another Rare (Odd) Victory for the Fourth Amendment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Another court has quashed the warrantless use of “Stingray” devices by the police.

A device that tricks cellphones into sending it their location information and has been used quietly by police and federal agents for years, requires a search warrant before it is turned on, an appeals court in Washington ruled Thursday. It is the fourth such ruling by either a state appeals court or federal district court, and may end up deciding the issue unless the government takes the case to the U.S. Supreme Court or persuades the city’s highest court to reverse the ruling.

The case against Prince Jones in 2013 involved D.C. police use of a “StingRay” cell-site simulator, which enables law enforcement to pinpoint the location of a cellphone more precisely than a phone company can when triangulating a signal between cell towers or using a phone’s GPS function. Civil liberties advocates say the StingRay, by providing someone’s location to police without court approval, is a violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment right not to be unreasonably searched. The D.C. Court of Appeals agreed in a 2 to 1 ruling, echoing similar rulings in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and federal district courts in New York City and San Francisco.

For those only concerned with “law and order,” this was just a case of bad police work. That is why all of their evidence and any hope of subsequent conviction is gone. The perp had two stolen cellphones in his possession, either of which could have been tapped with explicit permission. Instead, they opted to spy directly on the bad guy’s phone, sans the warrant. You get what you pay for – or skip.

As a victory, I’m sure there is a technological way around all of this anyway. That, or the Supremes will ultimately find that such illegal spying is really just a tax or something.

For now, it’s another small victory for the Bill of Rights.

Loosening the Cap: The Pot Continues to Melt

14 Friday Jul 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Loosening the Cap: The Pot Continues to Melt

Tags

, , , , ,

A federal judge just ruled to weaken President Trump’s travel ban so as to allow in even more “refugees” and their family members. This, on the heels of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling to uphold and vindicate the restrictions. Play legal games, win legal prizes.

And, does it really matter?

There is an administration imposed cap on “refugees” coming into the U.S. Obviously it has the same effect on immigration that the debt ceiling has on drunken Congressional spending – zero. We’ve hit the cap but more keep coming, seeking the ghost of Emanuel Cellar.

The U.S. has reached the Trump administration’s limit of 50,000 refugees for this budget year. That won’t stop some additional refugees from entering the United States in the next few months, but they will now face tighter standards.

A Supreme Court order last month said the administration must admit refugees beyond the 50,000 cap if they can prove a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the United States. That was part of a broader ruling that allowed President Donald Trump to partially administer his contested travel ban affecting six Muslim majority countries.

As of Wednesday, 50,086 refugees have been admitted since the budget year began last October.

Students and scholars, all, no doubt.

EmanuelCeller

The Posterity thanks you, Jerk. Wiki.

Perrin on Patreon.