Claims And Issues

WHY ARE RICH PAYING TO ASSAULT IRS? FOLLOW THE MONEY.

(Bank Run 1933)

Rich people are paying for "ads" and false info so that you and I will assault the IRS.  Reportedly billionaires want to run "aggressive TV ads" and "hard-hitting kind of spots" that the IRS is "coming after" you and me, but not mentioning what they get out of it.  See Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman, Leaked Audio of a Billionaire GOP Donor Hands Democrats a Weapon, WASHINGTON POST online Thursday, Aug. 25, 2022 at 5:33 PM EDT.

But don't take someone else's opinion for it.  Look it up.

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported to Congress in May, 2022 about IRS Audit Rates and Results for Individual Taxpayers.  Take a look at what they found.

22,636 tax returns of people who made between $50,000 and $75,000 were audited by the IRS in 2019.

22,851 tax returns of people making between $100,000 and $200,000 were audited in 2019.

However, the rich got audited much less.  639 returns were audited in 2019 which showed that the people filing those returns made from $1 Million to $10 Million or more.

The chances of being audited if you are in the first group (making $50,000 to $75,000) are more than 35 times the chances of the millionaires being audited, while the chances of being audited if you are in the second group ($100,000 to $200,000) are about the same, closer to 36 times greater than the chances of a millionaire being audited.  Clearly the millionaires want it to stay that way.   

Check it out. 

No-one wants to be audited, that's true.  The millionaires know that in paying for the propaganda they are spreading.  The louder the complaints about IRS audits, the more money the millionaires are spending.

But it's not  the millionaires complaining about being audited in the past because they haven't been.  Instead it's the millionaires complaining about not wanting to be audited now.

And the millionaires are certainly not complaining about you and me being audited.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

IT'S NOT HARD. COMPLIANCE IS NOT OPTIONAL FOR EVERYONE. ELSE?

When any new lawsuit is filed and the party filing it claims relief, lawyers and their clients are bound to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Compliance is not optional.

This includes The Former Guy and his new lawsuit that were discussed here the day after that new lawsuit was filed.  So that as many people as possible can understand all this, let me try to explain it here (and hopefully  without sounding too much like a lawyer, if I can).

The Rules of Civil Procedure that lawyers and their clients are bound to follow in federal court, whether they like it or not, include Rule 8(a):

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

To break it down into digestible pieces, this Rule applies to every party who states a claim for relief from a federal court, as TFG tried to do in his new case, Southern District of Florida No. 22-cv-81294-AM.  The first thing they have to do is write "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction," which the "motion" that was filed in the new lawsuit just did not do. 

The first thing the judge ordered, two days after the motion was filed, was to state why the Court has jurisdiction.

The second thing that they all have to write is "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]"  In this new lawsuit, there are plenty of statements but not one of them is short and none of them is plain.

It is a press release that was filed in the Court file.

It does not show that the pleader is entitled to relief.  It misses by a mile.

Another thing that the judge ordered two days after the motion was filed was to state why the alleged owner of the searched premises is entitled to relief – and what relief is it, exactly, that he is requesting from her.

So, to say once again, it's on to Friday, August 26, 2022.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

SEARCHING FOR JUDGES IN SOUTHERN FLORIDA, SEARCH WARRANT NO CONTEST.

Lindsey Halligan, Esquire has probably gotten a lot of unfair press in the past week.  On August 22, 2022, she filed a new civil lawsuit and called the complaint a motion. The case is listed by the Clerk as Trump v. United States, Case No. 22-cv-81294-AMC.   (Every new civil lawsuit starts off with a complaint.  There are no motions until a complaint is filed.)  

The motion Ms. Halligan signed says it is "In the Matter of the Search," and it is titled Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief from the orders entered by the Magistrate Judge on the now-famous search warrant in the criminal case.  That's another case entirely, of course, Southern District of Florida Criminal Case No. 22-mj-8332-BER.  And it's a criminal case, not a civil case.   But wait.  There's a method to this seeming madness.

Reportedly Ms. Halligan has no experience in federal court, and other reports identify her as "an insurance lawyer" at the Ft. Lauderdale office of Cole Scott & Kissane.  That is an insurance defense firm among many other practice areas.

She was however present when the search warrant was executed.  It is now reported that the alleged owner of the search premises actually had two attorneys present at that time and she was one of them.  (Ms. Halligan has apparently said so on TV.)

The electronic docket of the new lawsuit in federal court identifies Ms. Halligan's involvement in the new lawsuit as an appearance by Cole Scott & Kissane.  Every civil case needs a Civil Cover Sheet, and the Civil Cover Sheet in the new civil case indeed identifies Ms. Halligan with Cole Scott & Kissane.

However, the motion she herself signed does not give her law firm address at Cole.  She gives a different address in Ft. Lauderdale.  She also lists only her personal EMail address at gmail, not her EMail address at the law firm.

In the meantime, there has been no contest of the search warrant in the already-pending criminal case.  There have been motions and requests to unseal the search warrant, the inventory, and the affidavit, but these requests to unseal have not been filed by the alleged owner of the searched premises.  The owner has not made an appearance in the criminal case, yet.  No, the requests to unseal have come from newspapers and organizations who want to publish whatever documents may be unsealed.

The first request to unseal came early, on August 10, 2022.  To say again, the alleged owner has never made a request to unseal.

In fact, the alleged owner has never made an appearance in the criminal case.

So why file a new lawsuit if it was not a mistake?  Well, for one thing, they got a new judge.  The judge assigned to the new lawsuit is the Honorable Aileen M. Cannon.  She was appointed effective November 13, 2020 by the alleged owner of the searched premises.

The attorney whose signature appears on the Civil Cover Sheet filed in the new lawsuit – back to the Civil Cover Sheet, who knew? – looks to be the signature of Evan Corcoran, Esquire.  Mr. Corcoran, from a large law firm with offices in Maryland and D.C., represented Mr.  Steve Bannon at one of Mr. Bannon's criminal hearings not too long ago.  Mr. Corcoran is listed on the motion in the civil case as one of the lawyers representing the owner of the searched premises.

So, it may be unfair to criticize Lindsey Halligan for all this.  Maybe the motion was intended to be filed in the criminal case; the Certificate of Service lists electronic service on the lawyers appearing for the United States in the criminal case, after all.  (It would be odd if not impossible to put a Certificate of Service on the initial complaint in a civil case in federal court, since there's no lawyer yet for the other party or parties in that case at that time.)

On the other hand, the new lawsuit may be the brain-child of someone else entirely.

And now the reasons for filing a new lawsuit may be a little more transparent.

In the meantime, the alleged owner of the search premises still has not appeared in the criminal case.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

VOTE!

If you want the freedom to love and marry whomever you wish—vote!

If you want the freedom to decide when you want to bear your children—vote!

If you want the freedom to decide how to raise your children—vote!

If you want the freedom to keep your children safe from gun violence and from insane persons with weapons—vote!

If you want a government that will commit itself to cool the rising temperatures that otherwise lie ahead of us all—vote!

If you want to count on your voice being heard in choosing who leads you and where they lead you—vote!

 

Ideas slightly restated and arranged here that were first surfaced so well  by Mark Danner, We're in an Emergency—Act Like It!, 69 New York Review of Books 6 (written July 21, 2022, published August 18, 2022).

No claim to copyright in these ideas.  This blog article ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THERE'S STILL A PANDEMIC, YOU KNOW. PEOPLE ARE STILL DYING.

But maybe it's not your people, you think.

You may belong to the majority of people in America who are not at risk of dying from COVID.  The majority, even if you belong to it, does not mean everyone in America.

Other people are at risk.  You may know some of them:  the aged, the victims of cancer and other devastating illnesses, the disabled.  In short, the vulnerable people, the people who are most at risk even if the majority are not at risk.

The vulnerable people may include your Grandma.  But maybe you lost the feeling to care deeply, or at all,  once you stopped paying attention to her.  Maybe you kind of forgot to care.  Or maybe it became inconvenient to care as much. For whatever reason, to the aged, the victims, and the disabled it looks like you stopped caring.

How else to explain the majority not just resuming their daily activities, but making no allowance for the risks faced by the minority as if the minority faced no risks at all?  Risks that can actually be cut down to manageable size, just by wearing masks or getting vaccinated?  Okay, maybe getting vaccinated is too much for the squeamish, but wearing masks?  This is not hard.  On the other hand, for the most part, it is not done.

Not enough to save  your Grandma.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

STAND BY OUR FBI AGENTS (AND OUR JUDGES) TODAY.

Here's a blowback to the noise attacking the FBI and Federal Judges after the search warrant was executed at Mar-A-Lago:   Senators and Representatives go and have your picture taken with FBI Agents to show your support.  To show that you have their backs.

You probably will have a tougher time doing this with judges, so as for judges, say supportive things.  Things like it is madness and evil to threaten federal judges, any judges.  Any time, for anything, anywhere.

You say there are no Members of Congress in Washington, D.C., they are all on August Recess right now?  They can still get the media attention they so clearly crave.  Then have them go to their local FBI Office and stand in the doorway and have their picture taken with FBI Agents to show that they have the back of FBI Agents.

You say that very few Republicans who hold office in Washington, D.C. will stand with FBI Agents right now?  Liz Cheney might; Adam Kinzinger might, others might as well.  Then tell Democrats to stand with FBI Agents and have their pictures taken showing that they support our FBI Agents right now.

Do something positive.  Make a contribution to our country.  Do good.  Now that's what I call pushback against the madness and the evil.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE; NOTRE DAME, VATICAN II, UNIVERSAL APPEAL.

This is a personal footnote to FAITH, HOPE AND CHARITY WERE IN KANSAS THIS WEEK, an article I published here last Saturday.

I was born and raised a Catholic when Vatican II came of age.  The Church grew then.  It added more than numbers, although it certainly did that.  The Church also added inclusivity, the quality of reaching out to include one's neighbors.  Faith, Hope, and Charity.  The last virtue is often called "Love."  That is what Vatican II is responsible for, what it inspired people seeking God to do as well as to say.

I went to Notre Dame when the Reverend Theodore Hesburgh was the President of the University.  We called him "Ted the Head."  Father Hesburgh was also the Chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, until he resigned to protest the activities of President Richard Nixon.

During my time as a student at Notre Dame, there were was a lot of discussion about Faith as you might expect.  Notre Dame students, faculty, and administration not only talked about their Faith, they tried to live it.  That gave everyone Hope.

There were many campaigns for Charity, running from raising funds for Biafra (a breakaway republic in Africa that no longer exists) to raising funds for the Tom Dooley Foundation (which delivered medicine and provided doctors in Southeast Asia, until the foundation was eliminated by those who took power later).

In my first article with FAITH, HOPE AND CHARITY in the title, I mentioned the activities of the so-called Catholic Church in Kansas City.  They campaigned this Summer to make everyone believe what they believe, which is not at all the kind of campaign that real Catholics ever waged.  To begin with, the Kansas City campaign was not a campaign for Charity.   What's more, it was not "universal" and so by definition it was not "Catholic," which means "universal."

But let's focus just on the money.  Following the money means following at least $2,450,000.00 or $2.45 Million Dollars.  That is the amount that the Archdiocese of Kansas City spent on a political campaign to pass an amendment to the Kansas State Constitution so as to permit the Kansas State Legislature to ban abortion for anyone and everyone in Kansas.

That $2,450,000.00 did not come from God.  It was donated by thousands of parishioners in the pews.  It was not the Archdiocese's money to spend on a political campaign.  Especially a campaign that turned God into Big Brother.

The contribution of $2.45 Million would have gone a long way to support adoption services.  That alone would be a huge encouragement to mothers to decide to bring babies to term  instead of having an abortion.  But of course, then there would have been no guarantee that women would be absolutely prohibited from making their own decisions.

The millions of dollars spent by the Archdiocese of Kansas City on a political campaign could have been spent to support healthcare of mothers and babies and small children in Kansas City and anywhere in Kansas for that matter.  The millions should have been spent for those purposes, or perhaps even to buy diapers and formula, and in a different age, Catholics' money would have been spent on Charity.

Where your money is, there will your heart be also, the Bible says.  And speaking once more of all that money taken from the faithful Catholics of the Kansas City Archdiocese, it should be paid back.  That would be the Christian thing to do.

Let us Hope for Charity as our Faith would have us do.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"SPEAK NO EVIL" MEANS RECONCILIATION vs. MURDER ON FIFTH AVENUE.

Chuck Schumer told me something last night.  Actually, it's what he did not say that educated me.  Speaking of one of America's most vocal politicians, that is saying something about Chuck Schumer, that he did not speak.

Last night on cable TV Schumer declined to answer about the search warrant on The Grievance Boy's Florida residence while TGB was back in New York City.  That was understandable, under the circumstances.

But then Schumer was asked a different question right after that one.  He was asked about threats made by Kevin McCarthy against the Attorney General of the United States, and the Senator declined to answer.

That was his instinct, Speak No Evil.  (I have no doubt that when instinct has passed, Senator Schumer will have something to say, but that will not change his instinctive reaction, the reaction he has when he is caught without time to reflect, so to speak.)

Compromise led to reconciliation only a couple of days ago.  A bill passed the Senate this weekend because Senator Schumer and President Biden lined up all 50 senators who call themselves "Democrats" to vote for it.   Compromise meant not saying anything bad about anyone whose vote you wanted.

They won't vote for your bill if they are  offended by what you say.  Even if what you say is the truth.  Perhaps especially if what you say is the truth.  So Speak No Evil is the order of the day or there will be no compromise, no reconciliation.

This was Chuck Schumer's instinct.  Speak No Evil.  I do not mean to single out Senator Schumer.  Speak No Evil is also President Biden's default, and it was President Obama's instinct too.  Speak No Evil.  You can't compromise if you Speak The Truth. 

Speak No Evil led to reconciliation.  Speak No Evil also leads to insurrection.  As we have seen, an instinct that Speaks No Evil encourages Evil to Speak and to take action.  There are limits on speaking no evil, you know.  If you don't see the limits, it's Murder on Fifth Avenue if your instinct is to watch and say nothing.

Just watch.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

FAITH, HOPE, AND CHARITY WERE IN KANSAS THIS WEEK.

Earlier this week, the people of Kansas rejected an attempted coup of their State Constitution.  In the process, they were gracious hosts to Faith, Hope, and Charity.

The people rejected a convoluted, devious scheme to overturn the Kansas Constitution that would take the right out of their own hands to decide whether to have children or not, and award that decision to the politicians in the Kansas Legislature.  For example, the election was scheduled by the Legislature for primary elections which are not usually well-attended.  (The election turnout  this year broke records.)  The amendment was written in language that was so convoluted very few people could understand it.  (An overwhelming majority voted "NO" anyway).  The people of Kansas voted overwhelmingly to keep the right to abortion a private right of each person to decide, and to reject the forced-birth crowd in the Capitol.

In contrast to the Kansas citizens' open display of Faith, Hope, and Charity, the Kansas City Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church contributed more than 200 times the amount contributed by anyone else to promoting this amendment.  According to a report stamped filed on July 18, 2022 with the Kansas  Governmental Ethics Commission, the Kansas City Archdiocese contributed $2,450,,000.00 in cash and another $16,000+ in what it called "in-kind contributions" to the failed campaign to change the Kansas Constitution.  The other nearest contributors gave $5,000.00 in cash, more than 200 times less.

Some reports put the Archdiocese's contribution at $2.45 Million, without counting the "in-kind contributions."  See, e.g., Jack Jenkins, Catholic Bishops Spent Big On Kansas Abortion Vote – And Maybe Lost Bigger, Washington Post online, August 5, 2022.

Parenthetically, the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission report also lists the expenditures of that campaign as well as the contributions.  The campaign spent $350,000.00 of the contributors' donations to a business in Florida for "canvassers."  The Florida business lists Carter Page as one of its Advisors.

Returning to Kansas, the head of the Kansas City Archdiocese is a man named Joseph Naumann.  Archbishop Naumann is famous for denying Communion to Catholic office-holders who, while perhaps personally opposed to abortion, still support everyone else's right to choose, which is what the Kansas Constitution does.

Do you think that Naumann will deny Communion now to everyone who voted "NO" against the amendment scheme?

Will he try to deny Communion to the two nuns who published a letter on July 27 in The Kansas City Star opposing the amendment scheme?  To Many Catholics, Social Justice Demands a No Vote  on Kansas  Constitution Amendment / It's About Control.  I understand that one of the nuns is a co-founder of Network, the Catholic Lobby for Justice.

More to the point, why did Archbishop Naumann spend Millions of Dollars raised from the Catholic faithful of the Kansas City Archdiocese to take away a constitutional right?  The money he spent was not his money, you know.  It was given by the people in the pews.  Given the size of the vote, I doubt that many of them intended their money to support the scheme.

If Archbishop Naumann was going to spend their  money, wouldn't it have been much better to spend that kind of money to assist mothers who bring children to term by supporting adoption services?

Or by supporting healthcare of mothers and babies and small children in Kansas City and anywhere in Kansas for that matter?

 Or in support of parental leave?

Or maybe even to buy diapers and formula?

Where your money is, there will your heart be also, the Bible says.  The people of Kansas put their money where their mouth is, this week:  Their vote invited Faith, Hope, and Charity to pull up a chair in Kansas and sit awhile.

Archbishop Naumann's choices, on the other hand, are failures.  Speaking of all that money taken from the faithful Catholics of the Kansas City Archdiocese, it should be paid back.  That would be the Christian thing to do.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

VENUS IN MY BACKYARD AUGUST 4, 2022

Venus in my backyard, August 4, 2022.

Venus in my backyard August 4, 2022 (Dennis Wall)

 

What a lot of wonder there is in creation, if we let it.

IT IS DIFFICULT TO REASON WITH AN AGENDA.

It has been rightly said, including here, that Justice Samuel Alito of the United States Supreme Court actually says that he doesn't care about what State Constitutions, Governors, and Courts have to say about federal elections.  As we shall no doubt see this Fall when the current majority on the Supreme Court takes up the case of Moore v. Harper, in their view and his there are only two deciding views on electing U.S. representatives and senators:  State "legislatures" and of course the federal Supreme Court on which they all sit right now.

This may not be the entire picture, singling out Justice Alito, that is.  He is prominent because Justice Clarence Thomas, who assigns the "major questions" opinions, assigns them more often than not  to Justice Alito.  The opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, for example, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  Removing a Constitutional right from Americans was short work not only for Alito, but for his followers too.

And that's the point.  So much has been made of the agenda pursued by the previous administration in so many attention-getting areas – making money, overthrowing the Constitution, putting children in cages are examples – that it is often overlooked that the previous administration appointed three Justices to join the Alito-Thomas majority.  I do not mean that this development has not been noticed.  Heaven only knows that the words that have been written about this development probably rival the word count of War And Peace.

No, what I mean to focus on, is the development that the newly empowered majority on the U.S. Supreme Court have an agenda and they will not be moved from it.  Only now, since Dobbs and the stripping of a Constitutional right for the first time in U.S. history, is attention being paid:  They do not listen, and neither do they hear.  They do exactly what they want to do, nothing less.  I would encourage listening to what they say about what they are going to do, except that these same people all said something different in their confirmation hearings when they were asked if they would uphold Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, remember?

"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.