Tag Archives: law

Napolitano on Soleimani

16 Thursday Jan 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Napolitano on Soleimani

Tags

, , , , ,

The Judge has come back around. Not that he ever left; he and I just had a difference of opinion about some matters Ukranian. But, he’s spot on with the story of the murder of Gen. Soleimani.

The general’s assassination was odd, out of place, untimely and unlawful. Odd, because the general’s folks had worked with our intelligence folks in Iraq against ISIS. Out of place, because the Iranian general was welcomed by the Iraqi government and was not engaged in any violence or war crimes at the time he was killed. Untimely, because whatever he may have been planning to do was not an imminent attack on the U.S. or on Americans. We know this because Trump administration officials revealed that the president gave the kill order seven months ago, in June 2019. How imminent could an attack have been in June if it had not occurred by January?

And unlawful, because we are not at war with Iran, and political assassinations have been prohibited by still valid executive orders signed by Presidents Gerald R. Ford and Ronald Reagan. The U.S. Constitution limits the federal government’s lawful power to kill to foreign troops in wartime and after due process, neither of which abides here. Moreover, international treaties to which the U.S. is party, as well as the laws of war to which the U.S. subscribes, prohibit preemptive killings except when the target is just about — “certainty” is the standard — to strike.

Now, back to the shifting sands of justification.

I imagine those have shifted yet again, not that anyone is watching. More of the same.

The Ultimate Miscarriage of Justice

14 Tuesday Jan 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Ultimate Miscarriage of Justice

Tags

, , , , , , ,

There is no justice for the masses in this dead shell of an empire. Even in a time of cultural rot when anything (that does not make sense) goes, a couple of broads, some of them pretty good-looking, in New Hampshire, cannot release the pink-nosed puppies without being arrested. The US Supreme Court, failed farce that it is, couldn’t care less.

The Supreme Court on Monday decided not to “Free the Nipple,” refusing to hear an appeal by three women fined by a city in New Hampshire for exposing their breasts in public who argued that banning female but not male toplessness violates the U.S. Constitution.

The justices left in place a 2019 ruling by New Hampshire’s top court upholding the women’s convictions for violating an ordinance in the city of Laconia that makes it illegal to show female breasts in public “with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple.”

The women – Heidi Lilley, Kia Sinclair and Ginger Pierro – were involved in the “Free the Nipple” movement, which court papers described as campaigns against “sexualized objectification of women” and in favor of women being able to go topless in public if they wish.

Starting to believe those rumors about some of the Justices. This is “live free or die?” Shame on the Granite State, shame. And, I guess this puts the final nail in the coffin of the Free State Project; smoking MJ is not an ideology, libertarians. And, it’s objectifying women. I’m not down with that. Free the nipple! (On the hotties!)

A Little Justice for the Good Guys

08 Wednesday Jan 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on A Little Justice for the Good Guys

Tags

, , , ,

CNN will reportedly pay off Nick “Covington Boys” Sandmann for their malicious, racist, anti-Christian smearing of him.

Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann received reportedly has received a settlement from CNN after suing the far-left network for smearing him last year.

“CNN agreed Tuesday to settle a lawsuit with Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann,” Fox 19 reported. “The amount of the settlement was not made public during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Covington.”

Sandmann also filed lawsuits against The Washington Post and NBC Universal, each for $250 million or over, and is reportedly planning to “sue Gannett, owners of The Enquirer.”

Sandmann attorneys Todd McMurtry and Lin Wood filed a $275 million lawsuit against CNN in March of last year in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

“CNN was probably more vicious in its direct attacks on Nicholas than The Washington Post. And CNN goes into millions of individuals’ homes,” Wood told Fox News’ Mark Levin last year. “CNN couldn’t resist the idea that here’s a guy with a young boy, that Make America Great Again cap on. So they go after him.”

Hit ’em where it hurt$. SANDMANN 2040?

They’re Worried About Freedom, Now?

29 Sunday Dec 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The useless UN aims to further its irrelevance in 2020.

The United Nations on Friday approved a Russian-led bid that aims to create a new convention on cybercrime, alarming rights groups and Western powers that fear a bid to restrict online freedom.

The General Assembly approved the resolution sponsored by Russia and backed by China, which would set up a committee of international experts in 2020.

The panel will work to set up “a comprehensive international convention on countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes,” the resolution said.

The United States, European powers and rights groups fear that the language is code for legitimizing crackdowns on expression, with numerous countries defining criticism of the government as “criminal.”

Say what now? I’ve watched these past few years as all those wonderful western governments and rights groups did nothing as people slightly to the right of Bernie Sanders were deplatformed right and right (never left). And, the European powers have laws criminalizing criticism of a government, if not their own; the US is working on that as well, the 1A be dead parchment. So, what is all the fuss suddenly about? Must be those dastardly Russians. If not for the UN support, I possibly could get behind this. As is, I just don’t care. I’m starting to see the internet, maybe even electricity even, as a mistake. Running from one Br’er Rabbit villain to another certainly is.

The Nanny State Puffs Away

19 Thursday Dec 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Nanny State Puffs Away

Tags

, , , ,

18 to die for the corporations, but 21 to enjoy a cigar. Typical gubmint-think.

The US Congress voted Thursday to raise the minimum age to buy tobacco and e-cigarettes from 18 to 21 across the country, a move intended to stem the rising tide of youth vaping.

Passed by the Senate as part of a wider budgetary bill, it will take effect next year and will mean that tobacco and e-cigarettes will join alcohol as substances that are prohibited to purchase for those under the age of 21.

Nineteen of the country’s 50 states and the capital Washington, DC had already set 21 as the minimum age.

“I’m proud the Senate approved legislation today including our Tobacco-Free Youth Act to help address this urgent crisis and keep these dangerous products away from our children,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, who co-sponsored the bill along with Democratic Senator Tim Kaine.

Good, old-fashioned, bi-partisan bullshit. What are they smoking?

A Little Fun with the NRA Survey

01 Sunday Dec 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on A Little Fun with the NRA Survey

Tags

, , , ,

The NRA generally does good work. My experience, working with them on legal cases here and there, was positive. However, their surveys get a little old. This one popped up on the side while I read something at Taki’s Mag. I’ll go through a few, shunning the simple “yes” and “no” answer for the real truth. Answers italicized.

NATIONAL GUN OWNERS SURVEY
1. Do you agree that the Second Amendment guarantees your individual right to own a firearm?
Yes
No
No Opinion

No. It merely states that the right “shall not be infringed,” which it is anyway, thereby kind of mooting the point – much like the rest of the Parchment.

2. Do you support the confirmation of pro-Second Amendment judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts?
Yes
No
No Opinion

 I support abolishing the Supreme Court and lower federal courts.
3. Do you support laws that protect your fundamental right to use a firearm to defend yourself and your loved ones from a violent criminal attacker?
Yes
No
No Opinion

Not sure which I support less: laws or violent criminals.

4. Should Congress and the states eliminate so-called “gun free zones” that leave innocent citizens defenseless against terrorists and violent criminals?
Yes
No
No Opinion

Better to abolish Congress and the states at this point, thereby eliminating the worst of the terrorists and criminals.
5. Should Congress pass a law that gives law-abiding citizens the right to carry a firearm across state lines?
Yes
No
No Opinion

Already got one! It’s called the Second Amendment. Duh.
6. Do you oppose any United Nations treaty that strips the U.S. of its sovereignty and gives U.N. bureaucrats the power to regulate every rifle, pistol, and shotgun you own?
Yes
No
No Opinion

I do not recognize the United Nations as anything other than an international criminal syndicate. Blue helmets are highly visible though.
7. Do you agree that law-abiding citizens should be forced to submit to mandatory gun registration or else forfeit their guns and their freedom?
Yes
No
No Opinion

For safety, we should register, confiscate, and destroy all government guns. 
8. Should NRA direct critical resources toward stopping anti-gun billionaires like Michael Bloomberg who are spending millions of dollars to destroy your Second Amendment freedom in states around the country?
Yes
No
No Opinion

Bloomberg and his kind should be immediately and permanently deported from America.
9. Would you vote for a politician…

No. That one was easy.
10. Would you vote for a politician who…

Again, no.

There are more, but that’s all the fun I can stand today. The NRA, like all else “conservative”, is hopelessly stuck in the museum. It isn’t 1994 anymore. The Nation on which they had based the “N” in NRA is dead and gone and these cucks did nothing to conserve it as it died. They would do better to start planning for the future – after the collapse and the rebuild. My suggestion would be to use the language from the existing 2A, but add a capital felony for anyone who ever tries to circumvent it. Oh, but please send some money so they can stop Bloomberg from appointing judges who will blah, blah, blah.

Great survey though!

Screenshot 2019-12-01 at 12.28.09 PM

 

Why Not Sue the CIA?

13 Wednesday Nov 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Why Not Sue the CIA?

Tags

, , , , , ,

The legacy of MK Ultra lives on and it may be very costly for American manufacturers. Thank you, conservative Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.’s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families of victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker and promoter of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

The court opted not to hear the gun-maker’s appeal, in a decision that was announced Tuesday morning. The justices did not include any comment about the case, Remington Arms Co. v. Soto, as they turned it away.

Remington had appealed to the highest federal court after the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the Sandy Hook lawsuit to proceed in March. In recent court filings, Remington says the case “presents a nationally important question” about U.S. gun laws — namely, how to interpret the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants broad immunity to gun-makers and dealers from prosecution over crimes committed with their products.

Remington manufactured the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle that Adam Lanza used on Dec. 14, 2012, to kill 20 first-graders and six adults at the elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

Attention, businesses of any kind. If you sell a product that someone else uses in a crime, then you may be liable. Welcome to Connecticut, 2019. How conservative to step aside and let communists set national policy! Thank you for your service.

Pimp’n Yo Ride

21 Monday Oct 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Pimp’n Yo Ride

Tags

, , ,

Eric Peters once again sounds the alarm on the dystopian future of automobiles in Amerika.

Volvo – which is not-coincidentally owned by the control-freak Chinese – intends to include an upgraded version of its “Volvo on Call” technology in its cars within the next couple of years. What it means is that your Volvo will make a call – about your driving. If the car doesn’t like it – based on data gleaned from sensors which monitor how you drive – the car will slow itself down and park. Where you’ll wait until the car decides to let you drive again.

Assuming it hasn’t called the cops.

Volvo isn’t the only car company intending to install such technology, either. In fact most cars sold since about 2015 already have the technology to monitor – and stymie – your driving.

Soon, they may have even more technology.

New Mexico Senator Tom Udall – along with Senator Rick Scott of Florida – are “calling” for  a new federal law (see here) requiring that all new cars be equipped with passive and active technology to prevent the car from being driven – and stop it while it’s being driven – if sensors detect the presence of alcohol, the amount of that presence tunable to nil by the government-corporate nexus.

Right now, the legal threshold defining presumptive “drunk” driving in most states is a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .08 – but several states – such as Utah – want to lower it to .05 or even less. For those under the legal age to drink alcohol, which is 21, any alcohol – even if not actually in the person – constitutes “drunk” driving if it is found inside the car, under “zero tolerance” laws in every state.

Will anyone hear what he’s saying? Probably, they are deafened by saaaaaaafety. For the kids and so forth. An old car – buy one.

The CIA v. The Donald

05 Saturday Oct 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on The CIA v. The Donald

Tags

, , ,

Ukraine! Ukraine! Ukraine! just doesn’t have the ring of Russia! Russia! Russia! Regardless, the CIA’s lawyer saw fit to interject herself.

Weeks before the whistleblower’s complaint became public, the CIA’s top lawyer made what she considered to be a criminal referral to the Justice Department about the whistleblower’s allegations that President Donald Trump abused his office in pressuring the Ukrainian president, U.S. officials familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

The move by the CIA’s general counsel, Trump appointee Courtney Simmons Elwood, meant she and other senior officials had concluded a potential crime had been committed, raising more questions about why the Justice Department later declined to open an investigation.

Maybe it’s because the domestic law enforcement (just the jurisdiction and all) didn’t find a crime??? And, this is from an NBC story, so it’s possible it’s all cleverly edited like a Florida 911 call. But, as-is, it’s double hearsay – reporting on a report about things that might have been heard… Impeach!

But, remember: Steve Bannon will now tell you that any conspiracy theory about “THE DEEP STATE” is totally nuts. No word on whether he would tell you that from Jeff Epstein’s house in Paris – where Bannon was a guest just last year. No deep state at all! It’s just the friend of a dead pedophile racketeer and foreign spy telling you to ignore what the fake news broadcasts about the Trumped (ah!) up allegations of a hysterical Congress contrived and based on the complaint of a leaking “asset” (and lawyer) (neither of whom are authorized by law to operate within the US) about the way the chief law enforcement officer and diplomat handled a criminal probe in a foreign country involving yet more usual suspects. Totally nuts…

Come to think of it … the obviously co-opted Judge Napolitano (sad, yeah) would say this is all very criminal. He may be right about the crime but wrong about the suspect.

An Encouraging Sign in the Epstein Case

27 Saturday Jul 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on An Encouraging Sign in the Epstein Case

Tags

, ,

This may be a very good sign for justice (if that word still applies).

Federal prosecutors in New York overseeing the case against millionaire Jeffrey Epstein are preparing to hand over highly-sensitive investigative material to the financier’s defense attorneys after a federal judge on Friday granted the government’s request to place a protective order on the documents.

Prosecutors sought the order because, they said in court filings, they intends to produce documents and materials that could … “affect the privacy and confidentiality of individuals…[and that] would impede, if prematurely disclosed, the Government’s ongoing investigation of uncharged individuals.”

A Brady Motion has been filed by now, I’m sure. The fact that the DOJ was ready, at this early stage, to deliver evidence to the accused means they are ready to fight. In cases where they lack substantial evidence, or where there is ample exculpatory evidence, they either sandbag near or at trial, or they outright hide the goods.

The fact of the protective nature of the disclosure is self-explanatory. “Investigation of uncharged individuals.” Let’s hope they’re ready for those cases too.