Claims And Issues

MR. KELLY'S 8 LAWYERS vs. 3 PROSECUTORS: KELLY GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS.

Mr. R. Kelly was famously found guilty by the jury on all 9 counts, which break down into a gutsy, novel Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) count and 8 counts under the Mann Act addressing sexual relations with underage victims.

          Mr. Kelly was defended by 8 lawyers according to the docket on PACER (Public Access to [Federal] Court Electronic Records).  He was successfully prosecuted by three prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York.

          Each of the three prosecutors is a woman.  Each is a very accomplished, very successful criminal lawyer.

          They were led by ELIZABETH GEDDES, ESQUIRE.  Ms. GEDDES, a member of the U.S. Attorney's Office for 15 years, heads the Civil Rights Section of the Criminal Division at E.D.N.Y.  As is so clearly evidenced by this case, her specialty is the prosecution of racketeering and organized crime.

          Like each of the three prosecutors, Ms. GEDDES has a distinguished resume apart from her work at E.D.N.Y.  She is an adjunct at N.Y.U. in Clinical Law.

          NADIA SHIHATA, ESQUIRE has been with E.D.N.Y. for 10 years and has been the Chief of the Organized Crime and Gangs Section for nearly 2 and 1/2 years.  She graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 2003, where she was the Editor-in-Chief of the prestigious Law Review.  At Michigan Law, she also received the Order of the Coif, one of the higher honors any law student can receive.

         Ms. SHIHATA's distinguished resume does not stop there, however.    She got an L.L.M. from N.Y.U. in 2008.  She is an adjunct at Columbia Law.

         The third member of the prosecution trio is MARIA E. CRUZ MELENDEZ, ESQUIRE.  She is the Deputy Chief of the Civil Rights Section at E.D.N.Y.  She graduated from Harvard in 2001 and in an unusually positive mark of distinction for Notre Dame Law School, she is a 2006 graduate of Notre Dame Law.

         These accomplished lawyers are demonstrably competent and so they compare very favorably with the department of justice personnel who have appeared in past articles posted here.  The doj could not do better than making use of the talents of these three lawyers in every case they can handle for the United States.

         MERRICK GARLAND, let those who have eyes to see, let them see; let those who have ears to hear, let them hear.  Bring these people in to your depleted department and let them prosecute the January Sixers, and others.  That would be a terrific solution.  The results will speak for themselves.

         The results speak for themselves now.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

NO PAY, NO RECOUNT; SECRETLY FUNDED FRAUDITS ARE JAN6 CONTINUED.

AND FRAUDITS NEVER DIE.

We learned in the 2016 Presidential election that Wisconsin charges whoever demands a recount.  In fact, Wisconsin charges up-front as I recall; no pay, no recount.  In 2016 it was third-party candidate Jill Stein, remember?  She paid and got a recount.

          The Wisconsin recount was run openly.  In fact, it was run by the very same people who have the expertise to run an election in the first place.  By law, not only did the challenger have to pay for the privilege of a recount, there was a time-limit on the recount as well.

          How is it that individuals are demanding a recount in Wisconsin but no-one is talking about them paying for it as Wisconsin law demands? 

          And how is it that individuals are demanding a recount in Wisconsin but disguising it as a fraudit, so that they are able to have private individuals run it by counting the people's votes and handling the people's personally identifiable information (PII)?

          Finally, how is it that individuals are demanding a recount in Wisconsin but really demanding a fraudit that will go on forever, as fraudits do?

          Each of these questions applies to the demands for a recount in Pennsylvania and in parts of Texas and wherever else they are demanding fraudits.  Why are they not treated as what they are, which is recounts regulated by the law of the States?  Why are the individuals demanding them not being required to pay the States for them?  Why are the fraudits not term-limited instead of going on forever, as fraudits do?

          These are good questions.  There are other good questions as well, I am sure.  So far, we do not have any answers, let alone good answers.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

BY WHAT AUTHORITY, FRAUDITS?

(Manuel Balco Ceneta/Associated Press)

By what authority is there an audit in Texas or Pennsylvania or anywhere else at this point? Are there no state statutes to regulate the time and manner of reviewing election results?

          One of the first things I learned doing legal research is that elected officials and appointed agencies act with the authority provided to them by law.  They cannot do any more than what the law authorizes them to do.  Any challenge to their exercise of power begins with the fundamental question:  By what authority do they do this?

          That's a lawyer's way of framing the question, of course.  Other people may ask them:  Who do you think you are to do this?

          Either way, the question of their authority should be the starting point.  If the answer comes back that they have the authority, move on to the next issue.  But if the answer comes back that they do not have the authority, you may or may not continue your research but you have already won, as it were; you have answered the question.

          And they have already lost.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

EQUAL PROTECTION A U.S. VALUE, BUT NOT IN TEXAS FRAUDIT.

Reportedly the current governor of Texas is obeying The Former Guy and conducting a review of the voting in only 4 Texas counties, 3 of which voted for President Biden.  The review is a fraudit and it violates the Equal Protection Clause.

          Putting aside other questions about the Texas fraudit for a moment, the fraudit violates the Equal Protection Clause.  It singles out some counties from others, some voters and not others, some results and not other results.  It is a political power play by the temporarily strong against the currently weak.

          In the United States, we honor Equal Protection.  We do not ignore it, or disrespect it, or try to dismantle it.

          The Texas fraudit is more than a distraction from the worst loss at the polls in the history of U.S. presidential elections history.

          It is unconstitutional.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MERRICK GARLAND, ICE LITIGATION, COVID VACCINES: TALES FROM THE CRYPT ... Continued.

This post continues an article that began here on Wednesday, September 22, 2021.

When Messrs. Barr and TFG ran things, lawyers working at the doj had a clear choice whether to stay or go.  Some lawyers resigned rather than stay while the Messrs. were in charge of things.  To say again, every one of the Six stayed.  They clearly made their choice.  See AT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EVERYTHING IS CHANGING, NOTHING IS NEW.

          Appealing a federal judge's order to provide vaccine to people in U.S. custody was one of their choices.  This is nothing new for the current department which is really making the same decisions, behaving in many of the same legal ways as before.  See MORE CYA FROM INCREDIBLE, "DISINGENUOUS" DOJ:  APPEALING JUDGE JACKSON'S ORDER.

          Here are the Six who participated in the choice to file a losing appeal arising out of ICE, prisoners in U.S. custody, and injustices.  They should be known for these decisions they did not need to make, and that good lawyers would have resisted:

          WILLIAM C. PEACHEY is listed on the Notice of Appeal in this case as Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court Section.  He got his J.D. from University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville.

          JEFFREY S. ROBINS is the next lawyer listed on the notice.  His title is Deputy Director.  By the end of this year, he will be at the doj for 15 years.  A person well-familiar with Washington, he got his J.D. at the American University Washington College of Law in 2004.

          JAMES WALKER is next up.  Senior Litigation Counsel in the Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL), MR. WALKER (to his credit) spent a lot of useful time in the Orlando, Florida area.  He got his B.A. from Rollins College.  Like MR. ROBINS, the Deputy Director of the OIL, he graduated from the American University Washington College of Law.  MR. WALKER graduated in 2013.

          LINDSAY M. VICK is a Trial Attorney with the OIL.  She got a B.A. from George Mason and a law degree from Roger Williams University Law.

          MICHELLE RAMUS is also a Trial Attorney with the OIL.  She too is a person who is very familiar with Washington, having gotten her law degree from George Washington Law.  She received her J.D. recently, in 2018.

          ANNA L. DICHTER is last but not the least of the Six.  MS. DICHTER signed the Notice of Appeal attempting to reverse the judge's order to provide vaccine to people in ICE custody.  She got her law degree from Rutgers two years ago, in September 2019.  She joined the doj that same month.  She appears to be the lowest person on the totem pole of the Six, which may explain why she was the one picked to sign the notice of appeal in this case.

          In the end, what we are left with is a tale glaringly told of attorneys who stake much of their career advancement on their additions to their social media listings.  They also stake much of their career advancement on going along to get along, so to speak; for example, none of them was moved to leave the so-called justice department while Messrs. Barr and The Former Guy were in power.  To the contrary, it seems that something on the order of four of the Six joined the department while the Messrs. were operating it.

          To say again, BARR'S department 'ISN'T OVER, IT ISN'T EVEN PAST.'

          Impressions to the contrary are ill-informed.  In fact, it is plainly wrong to think that there is a new sheriff in town.  Beyond any reasonable doubt, the available evidence shows that MR. BARR's practices and competence are still on display.  There is nothing new here, just SOSOBS.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MORE TALES FROM THE CRYPT: ORDER PROVIDES ICE DETAINEES VACCINE, ....

.... BUT DEPARTMENT CLAIMING TO BE "JUSTICE" APPEALS TO REVERSE THE ORDER.

On June 23, 2021 a respected federal judge ruled that United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had to make COVID vaccinations available within 30 days detained immigrants in ICE custody who have chronic medical conditions, or disabilities, or are age 55 or older.  Download Fraihat v. U.S. ICE Doc. 318 Order Accepting Special Master's First Report and Recco June 23 2021 (C.D. Cal. No. 5.19.cv.01546.JGB.(SHKx))

          In this order, the federal judge only accepted the Special Master's First Report and Recommendations.  The Special Master is a retired judge.  Download Fraihat v. U.S. ICE Doc. 304 Special Master's First Report and Recco May 21 2021 (C.D. Cal. No. 5.19.cv.01546.JGB.(SHKx)).

          Here is what the Special Master recommended and what the federal judge accepted in his order to require ICE to:

1. Continue its efforts to work with the Special Master and Plaintiffs’ counsel to confirm that all subclass members have had a individualized and meaningful review to determine if release is warranted and to conduct redeterminations where necessary;
   2. Track the reasons for transfers of subclass members and provide that information to the Special Master and Plaintiffs’ counsel biweekly; and
   3. Make vaccinations available to all subclass members within 30 days of the order accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation.

          This is not exactly the stuff of an appeal that is likely to be successful.  Particularly orders entered after a Special Master's Report by a retired judge.  There is nothing onerous about this order at all.

         Think of this.  Would you appeal it?  Would you recommend that anyone appeal it?  Why would anyone appeal this order to make vaccines available during a pandemic to people who are in U.S. ICE custody?  This is a notice of appeal that simply did not have any reason behind it and every reason against it.  The decision to file a notice of appeal never needed to be made here.

          Except that the Special Master's Report and Recommendations may have been embarrassing to ICE.  It detailed ICE's behavior, which people still at ICE may not want to be made public.  One way to quash these findings is to appeal them and have the order accepting them reversed on appeal.

          Avoiding embarrassment however has never been a reason for taking an appeal.  Not a good reason anyway.  And certainly not a good reason for the federal government to take an appeal.

          Sixty-one (61) calendar days after the judge's order was entered accepting the Special Master's detailed report and recommendations, on August 23, 2021 the department of justice decided to file a notice of appeal.  Download Fraihat v. U.S. ICE Doc. 329 Notice of Appeal by U.S. ICE August 23 2021 (C.D. Cal. No. 5.19.cv.01546.JGB.(SHKx))

          That looks suspiciously like the last day of what would otherwise be a 60-day deadline to appeal.  August 23rd was a Monday, the first available working or business day that an appeal likely could have been filed.  Smells like the last minute to any lawyer who ever filed a notice of appeal in a situation like this or, for that matter, ever faced any unpleasant deadline.

          In any case, the United States appealed an order to make COVID vaccine available to immigrants in the custody of ICE during a pandemic.  And not to all immigrants during a pandemic, either, but to immigrants in the custody of ICE who are most at risk of catching and spreading COVID, immigrants in the custody of ICE who have chronic medical conditions, disabilities, or are age 55 and older.

          The Acting Assistant Attorney General, BRIAN M. BOYNTON of the doj Civil Division, has already been profiled in this space.  For example, MR. BOYNTON participated in earlier decisions to try to quash a subpoena for testimony on the former Education Secretary BETSY DeVOS.  See DOJ UNFATHOMABLE SECRECY:  WHY TRY TO SHIELD HER FROM TESTIFYING?

          This time the notice of appeal from an order to provide vaccine to immigrants at risk to COVID in ICE custody was also signed by no less than six (6) other doj attorneys.  All of the six are apparently employed in the doj Office of Immigration Litigation.

          Unlike other doj employees previously profiled here, none of the Six went to Harvard Law.  However, all of the Six shared a resume line with every other doj lawyer profiled here for past actions, such as attempting to derail the E. Jean Carroll litigation against The Former Guy:  Every one of them worked in Bill Barr's department of justice and every one of them worked during the regime of The Former Guy.

          This is clearly a pattern under MERRICK GARLAND, who holds the current title of attorney general.  See IN MERRICK GARLAND'S DEPARTMENT, PROTECTING "CAREER YOUNG ATTORNEYS" MEANS "CYA."

         

To be continued ....

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MR. DURHAM, RESIGN OR BE FIRED.

DEFUND DURHAM NOW.

Well, now the indictment is filed and public.  When I wrote about the John H. Durham matter on September 16th, the indictment had not yet happened.  You do not need to read the previous article to understand what I am writing in this one, but it can't hurt and it may help.  See TIME TO PULL PLUG AND DRAIN DURHAM'S DESTRUCTION, MERRICK & CONGRESS.  DEFUND DURHAM NOW.

          Mr. Durham's work is done now.  If he were still a United States Attorney he would have already submitted his resignation to the incoming new President.   With the title "Special Counsel" he should do the same thing and submit his resignation, which the President should accept.

          If that is not enough reason to resign, then Mr. Durham should be fired.

          The indictment he procured from a grand jury without the obstacle of any contradictory evidence is so incompetent that it is embarrassing to lawyers.  The Durham indictment goes on for 27 pages of hearsay and innuendo to result in the conclusion I and a lot of other people predicted last week, namely, it is based on a conversation in 2016 that Mr. Sussman had with Mr. Baker, who was then General Counsel of the FBI.

          Sussman went to see Baker to tell Baker that cybersecurity experts had detected "pinging" between The Former Guy's Organization and a bank in Russia and that they could not figure it out.  The indictment reports that Mr. Sussman affirmatively told Mr. Baker "that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying particular allegations" concerning The Former Guy.  Here is the indictment; please read it for yourself:  Download United States v. Sussman Doc. 1 Indictment 09.16.21 (D.C.D.C. No. 1.21.cr.00582.CRC)..

          The publicly available evidence was reviewed in last week's article, however, and the evidence is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr. Durham alleges.  Three years after the conversation, Mr. Baker's recollection is unclear whether Mr. Sussman said what the indictment says Sussman said to Baker.  The indictment is hilariously based on notes taken by a third person of a conversation which the third person had with Mr. Baker.  I say "hilariously," but this is serious stuff.  It is the use of federal power -- in this case, based on the poster child of hearsay -- against adversaries of The Former Guy; or should I say it is the continuing use of federal power to target adversaries of The Former Guy?

          Mr. Durham, resign or be fired.

          Merrick Garland, appoint someone else to continue the Durham 'investigation' if for some reason you think it is legally supportable.  Or drop the prosecution completely.

          Congress, defund Durham.  Now.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

TIME TO PULL PLUG AND DRAIN DURHAM'S DESTRUCTION, MERRICK & CONGRESS.

DEFUND DURHAM NOW.

Recall that one of the final acts of Bill Barr's tenure in the department of justice was to appoint John H. Durham to investigate whether Democratic lawyers and campaign workers erroneously tied the former guy's organization to a bank in Russia.

          "To date, there has been no publication that he has found any such evidence."  Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt and William K. Rashbaum, Special Counsel on Russia Said to be Seeking Charges Against Lawyer, NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, September 16, 2021, at A17.

          To the contrary.  All the evidence revealed so far says that there is nothing to it.   If Mr. Durham has any hidden evidence, now would be a good time to show it to the grand jury; if he does not have any hidden evidence, now would be a good time for Mr. Durham to shut it down.

          Apparently undeterred by any lack of evidence, and wanting to show something for his expenses, Mr. Durham is reportedly planning to ask a grand jury to indict a lawyer, Michael Sussman.  Mr. Sussman met with the FBI's General Counsel before the former guy was made the Occupant of the Oval Office.

          The idea behind the indictment is that the lawyer lied to the FBI's General Counsel, James Baker, about whether he, the lawyer, was representing a client or not when he met with the General Counsel.  The lawyer, Mr. Sussman, met with the General Counsel to tell the FBI that there was cybersecurity information indicating that the former guy's organization and a Russian bank may have been "pinging" each other's computer servers.  Mr. Sussman told the General Counsel that the information came from a cybersecurity expert or experts.  Mr. Sussman's defense lawyers say that Mr. Sussman was representing a cybersecurity expert when he met with Mr. Baker of the FBI.

          Here is the evidence we know that Mr. Durham has turned up after all this time on the case.  Mr. Baker, the FBI General Counsel, testified under oath in 2018 that he did not remember the lawyer, Mr. Sussman, specifically saying that he was acting on behalf of a particular client when they met together.

          However, not to be shown up as investigators, Mr. Durham's team surfaced some "handwritten notes" written by an unidentified person who supposedly wrote down that Mr. Baker told him that Mr. Sussman said, or did not say, something about representing, or not representing, a client at the time Mr. Baker and Mr. Sussman met.

          This is not admissible; it is not even evidence.  But it doesn't have to be, if the goal is to destroy and not to convict.

          Mr. Durham is also reportedly deciding whether to bring "some sort of action" against Mr. Sussman's law firm, Perkins Coie.  The Perkins Coie firm has been a target of the former guy and his minions for years.  Expect more destruction if Mr. Durham is allowed to continue his campaign.

          In the meantime, Mr. Durham has been operating with the blessing but without any oversight of the current department of justice and the current attorney general, MERRICK GARLAND.  Mr. GARLAND of course "has the authority to overrule Mr. Durham but is said to have declined to" overrule him.  Charlie Savage, et al., NEW YORK TIMES, supra.

          Why is MERRICK GARLAND tolerating this sloppy performative destruction that characterizes Mr. Durham's "investigation"?  The task of the department of justice ought to be to surface evidence that is likely to lead to a criminal conviction.  Until now, perhaps until the advent of the regime of the former guy and of Mr. Barr's reign over the department of justice, the task of the department has never been to surface supposed hearsay for the purpose of destroying political opponents.

          Regardless if he thinks otherwise, MERRICK GARLAND does not come off appearing unbiased or even-handed by tolerating the destruction that Mr. Durham is causing.  MERRICK GARLAND's tolerance of destruction comes off as something much smaller.  Perhaps he should consider resigning if the job of attorney general is beyond his powers.

          Moreover, Mr. Durham's so-called investigation for destruction has not been paid for by the former guy, or by Mr. Barr, or in fact by Mr. Durham.  Federal taxpayers like you and me have paid and continue to pay for this humiliating display of incompetence.  It is past time to defund Durham.

          Defund Durham now.  Call upon your Members of Congress and Senators to act in defense of justice, when the department of justice will not, and tell them to defund Durham now.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THREE QUOTES FROM RABBI HILLEL.

I was reading the Introduction to the recently published book by Viktor E. Frankl, Yes to Life / In Spite of Everything.  The Introduction was written by Daniel Goleman, who notes that Dr. Frankl cited Rabbi Hillel from 2,000 years ago.  Here are three favorite quotes:

• "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"
• "If I am not for others, what am I?"
• "And if not now, when?"

These three quotes apparently came together in a single paragraph, one after another, but I have broken them out here so that each one may be seen perhaps a little more clearly.

Make this another good day!

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog article ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

PRESS, PUBLIC COURT ACCESS: CAN'T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.

Until recently, I thought of Freedom of the Press as a First Amendment right reserved to, well, the press.

          I included the press right of access to criminal trials in that category.  That's how I used to see a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court protecting the Freedom of the Press to access criminal trials, for example.  I saw it as press freedom that is uniquely protected by the U.S. Constitution because, well, the press has to be free in order to have a chance to report regardless of whether things are good, or whether things are bad.

          Now I have had my eyes opened a little.  The Supreme Court may have been getting at this when they ruled a couple of decades ago that Freedom of the Press involves access to criminal trials:  Simply put, it may be that the First Amendment protects Freedom of the Press so that the press can help to protect the First Amendment presumption of public access to court proceedings (and to court files, too, for that matter).

          Emily Palmer is a reporter who reports on court proceedings.  Due to COVID-19, she can only rarely attend live court proceedings; at this time and for awhile before now, she has had to attend them via Zoom or its equivalent.  She reports that some information in the trials is lost in translation.

          She writes that she spends hours covering the trial alongside colleagues who help each other decipher what's happening on-screen "in a trial in which some evidence is never released to the public."  Even when things are not intentionally hidden, she writes, witnesses mumble and "read brusquely" from documents, "and most of the evidence from trial is rarely shared later with the public, making it both more difficult and more important for us to create a record of the proceedings in real time."  Emily Parker, Courtroom Reporting When You're Not Quite in Court, NEW YORK TIMES online Thursday, September 9, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/insider/court-reporting-pandemic-covid.html?searchResultPosition=1.

          Here's the rest of the story, as the saying goes:  Without press freedom, there may not actually be public access to court proceedings.  That is almost certainly why both things are protected by the First Amendment:  Freedom of the Press including the right to attend criminal trials, and the presumption that the public has the right to access court proceedings too.

Please see the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

CRUELTY FLOURISHES IN ANONYMITY. SO DOES DESTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Cruelty flourishes in anonymity.  Vindictiveness is easier in a lynch mob when a person acting alone would not want to have others single out an individual person's behavior.

          It is like that when judges practice issuing unsigned orders without bothering to write opinions let alone sign them.  We have had a rash of unexplained, unsigned orders of late, and two examples came in the same case.

          Many commentators have pointed out that hiding behind unsigned opinions is cowardly.  That is not the subject of this article, and we will say no more about that here.

          Many commentators also write that it is hypocritical for judges to rule in favor of outcomes they desire, without taking responsibility -- or credit or blame, as the case may be -- for the outcomes.  That too is not the subject of this article, and we will not mention it here again.

          The first of the two examples of the practice comes from Texas.  A panel of judges appointed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a trial judge not to hold a hearing.  The three people on the panel did not write an opinion, and did not sign their order.  They simply cancelled the hearing that another judge had ordered.

          The second of the two examples from the same case also comes from Texas.  Five of the justices on the U.S. supreme court let an infamous anti-abortion Texas law go into effect because there were doubts about the law's constitutionality.  This result was the opposite of what justices would do most of the time in such cases, even if the justices in question personally favored the constitutionally questionable State law.  In this case, though, the five did not even write an opinion, and they did not sign their order.

                                   (SarahBeth  Maney/NewYorkTimes)

          Yet we know who they are; that is not the point.  The Fifth Circuit panel in question was headed by Edith H. Jones, who has never stopped being a leader of her (minority) party.  She was joined by two others.  The Five supreme court members in question are named Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas.  So we know who they all are.

          But that is not the point.  The point is that they were supposed to behave as judges, and they did not.  They behaved as power brokers, wielding power for a minority view at that.  Perhaps that is why they stopped being judges and became power brokers.

          Both examples display that the core purpose of anonymity seems to have been a cloak for the elimination of previously recognized constitutional rights.

          In the Fifth Circuit example, the unsigned order eliminated Due Process by the expedient of cancelling a hearing; no-one has the opportunity to be heard when their hearing is cancelled.

 (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

          In the supreme court example, the unsigned order eliminated the constitutionally recognized right of a woman to be free from government interference in the early stages of her decision whether to give birth.  I am personally in favor of life, but I am not in favor of vindicating life by eliminating other people's rights.

          The Epistle of James was a part of last Sunday's services in my Church.  James' Epistle is translated in different ways when he wrote about people acting like judges and preferring people with fine clothes over poor people in their churches.  One translation has it that people acting in that way were acting like judges, "and corrupt judges at that."  Another translation has it that people acting in that way were "judges with evil designs."  Jas. 2:4.  Both translations fit these examples.

          There is a proper place for short rulings by panels of judges that are not signed by the individual judges on the panel.  These are called "Per Curiam" decisions, meaning that they are decisions issued from the court as a whole.  They are reserved for decisions that are so clear that no opinion is  necessary and no individual signature is required.

          They were never meant to be issued when decisions are not clear.

          They were never intended as places to hide.

          To borrow a Biblical phrase that seems apt, they were never meant to disguise evil designs.

A version of this article was previously published on Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog on Wednesday, September 8, 2021.  Reprinted here with permission.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

EYES OF LAW MORONS OF TEXAS ARE STILL UPON US.

 

(Austin American-Statesman)

More on the law morons of Texas.

          To say again what has been said before, the people who wrote TX Senate Bill 8 -- or the organization which wrote it, like the American Legislative Executive Council known as "ALEC" -- do not know how to write legislation.  TX Senate Bill 8 reads like it was written by people who do not know either how to read or how to write.  Good luck to the judges who have to interpret this stuff, assuming they interpret it at all.

          In basic and simple terms, TX Senate Bill 8 authorizes anyone from anywhere to sue any Texas woman who may be asking advice about or having an abortion, or who may be doing anything anywhere in between asking advice, at the beginning, and having the procedure, at the end.  (Presumably the Texas statute would stop there, but it is not clear.)  It also authorizes anyone from anywhere to sue anyone from anywhere who "aids and abets" anything between advice and surgery (or maybe beyond, we'll see).

          One of the first observations to make about this Texas law, then, is that it is so broadly written there is no telling what it is supposed to cover, if it actually ends up covering anything.

          Further, TX Senate Bill 8 was written so broadly that it was clearly unconstitutional at the time it was written.  The time to declare the effects of this law is now.  Now, before the U.S. supreme court has time to act, probably next year.

          To make this statute constitutional, the U.S. supreme court will have to declare that under the United States Constitution it is constitutional to reach whatever abortion activities may be reached by this Texas statute.  That is clearly not the case now, and it will not be the case at any time before the U.S. supreme court acts to save the Texas statute.

           Now is the time to get a preferably Texas State Court to declare this Texas statute to be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.  The answer to the U.S. Constitutional question will come quicker, and will not go through the nominally Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

          As counter-intuitive as it seems, the chances that the Texas State Courts will obey the Constitutional law of the United States are greater than the chances that the so-called Federal Courts in Texas will.

          There is a huge benefit to having the Texas Courts decide the question of what this law means, if it means anything:  The Texas Courts may decide not only that TX Senate Bill 8 is unconstitutional but that it is unenforceable because it is void for vagueness, in short, that no-one can understand what it means.  People cannot conform their behavior to laws they cannot reasonably be expected to understand.

          If the Texas State Courts declare that TX Senate Bill 8 is void, no Federal Court can touch their decision, even if they also decide that it violates the Federal Constitution  -- not even the so-called supremes in Washington.  That's the law.

          In this case, then, Texas would have the last word at last.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THE EYES OF LAW MORONS OF TEXAS ARE UPON US.

HAPPY LABOR DAY!

The leader of the Texas House, or maybe it was the leader of the Texas Senate, said that we shouldn't call them racists.

          Be that as it may, the leader didn't say we couldn't call them jerks.  They're the law morons of Texas.

          The people -- or the organization, like American Legislative Exchange Council known as "ALEC" -- who wrote TX Senate Bill 8 do not know how to write legislation.  TX Senate Bill 8 reads like it was written with crayons, and maybe it was.  Good luck to the judges who have to interpret this stuff, assuming they interpret it at all.

          A thought occurs to me.  The White men who wrote this law associate with rich Republican Texas women.  (It was almost all if not only men who wrote this law.)  The men probably think that these female people they know represent all women.  Rich Republican Texas women will not likely be affected by this law, so the reporting goes, because they can just go out of state and get their abortion; they can afford it.  (Image via Austin American-Statesman)

          Well, maybe it's not that simple.  If an airline sells tickets to women who are leaving Texas to have an abortion, the law is written such that arguably the airlines are "abetting" abortion by selling the airplane tickets.

          If trains and buses and Ubers and Lyfts and whatever sell services and tickets to transport or arrange housing for any Texas women to go out of state to have an abortion, the law is written such that they too could arguably be "abetting" abortion.  A $10,000 bounty for suing each one comes to a tidy sum when you add it all up.

          Too clever by half, the law morons of Texas, the ones who wrote and voted for TX Senate Bill 8 in the first place, and the ones who still think it's a good idea.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THEY'RE NOT JUDGES, THEY'RE "REPUBLICANS." (That's One Name For Them.)

(New York Public Library Collection)

The U.S. supreme court ruled 5 to 4 that a Texas law overturning Federal law could go into effect without a fight.  The 5 did not give their names.  But we know who they are.  Three were appointed by the former regime.  They all call themselves Republicans.

(New York Public Library Collection)         
Three federal judges in Texas cancelled a hearing scheduled by another judge to hear all sides in a case.  The three federal judges did not want to hear from all sides, apparently.  They did not sign their names.  But we know who they are.  Two were appointed by the former regime.    All three call themselves Republicans. 

 (Pacific Standard)          A judge in Michigan gave some people access to Dominion Voting software.   (In a break from the apparent practice, he signed his name to the opinion he wrote.)  It is not clear how, but somehow, the Dominion Voting software ended up on the internet ready to hack. The judge in Michigan calls himself a Republican.

          There is a pattern here.  Present-day media have not written much about it, but there is a pattern here. 

          They're not judges, they're "Republicans."  (That's one name for them.)

          They're not like any Republicans I have ever known.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.