Claims And Issues

Elon Musk And The Law: The Philadelphia Story, 2024.

If you ask for a Preliminary Injunction, you’re not asking for money or for jail time.  You’re asking a judge to tell him to stop.

Court of Common Pleas.  This one happens to be in Alleghany County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  (Wikimedia Commons) 

It is a federal crime punishable by a fine of $10,000.00 or five years in prison, or both, for a person to “knowingly or willfully pay or offer to pay “either for registration to vote or for voting[.]”  The statute is found at 52 U.S.C.A. § 10307(c).  The statute is enforceable by the Attorney General of the United States who may file a civil action for an injunction to stop the perpetrator from pursuing his scheme.  That statute is found at 52 U.S.C.A. § 10308(d).

What Congress did here is allow for the option of civil, not criminal sanctions or penalties or jail time, so that the law could be worked out without a defendant being asked to pay money or serve time in prison.

Elon Musk and his Political Action Committee, which he calls America PAC, is notoriously offering $1 Million in a daily giveaway to registered voters in selected “swing states” including Pennsylvania.  Applicants reportedly must sign a Musk “petition” or pledge to ‘support’ the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution.  Mr. Musk and his PAC have announced that the winners of their daily giveaway are selected at random.

The U.S. Department of Justice sent Mr. Musk a strongly worded letter to stop.  Musk and his PAC have not stopped.  They have continued.  They have given away some $9 Million as of Monday, October 28, 2024; in particular, nearly half of that amount has been given to Pennsylvania voters.

Apparently tired of waiting for the United States Attorney General to act even by asking for a civil injunction under the federal statutes, the District Attorney of Philadelphia, Larry Krasner, has reportedly filed a civil lawsuit under Pennsylvania law in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia.

I have not seen the complaint.  I have only read reports.  But based on my own experience, I draw a couple of conclusions.  The reporting describes the D.A.’s lawsuit as a civil case.  That means to me that the D.A. is not asking to send Elon Musk to prison here.  That is because you cannot ask for jail time in a civil case.

I also draw from the reporting that the D.A. is requesting a Preliminary Injunction.  If you ask for a Preliminary Injunction, you are not asking for money or for jail time.  You are asking a judge to tell the defendant to stop.

Now, the D.A. may or may not be asking for damages in addition to asking for a Preliminary Injunction, but that hasn’t been reported.  A Hearing has been set by the Court for Friday, November 1, 2024, presumably on the D.A.’s request for a Preliminary Injunction.  We should know more then.  Hopefully, someone will attend who has been in a courtroom before, someone other than the judge and the lawyers, someone who can give us a better idea of what’s going on.

The Philadelphia D.A. has reportedly raised three grounds for an injunction to bar the Musk giveaway.  Mr. Musk and his PAC will of course have the opportunity to defend themselves, in Court.

These are reportedly the legal theories behind asking a judge for an injunction to stop Mr. Musk’s unique Daily-Million-Dollar-Giveaway, at least in Pennsylvania:

1. The Philadelphia D.A.’s complaint reportedly alleges that the Musk giveaway is in reality a lottery. In Pennsylvania, only the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, i.e., the State, can run a lottery and then only for the benefit of Pennsylvania’s senior citizens (and not, for example, for the benefit of a senior citizen of Florida).
2. The D.A.’s complaint also reportedly alleges violations of Pennsylvania’s consumer protection laws.
3. Finally, it is reported that the D.A.’s complaint challenges the fairness of the Musk giveaway in the first place. In fact, the complaint contains the allegation that the giveaway is not random and that it is in fact false.  For example, the complaint reportedly points out that so far, Pennsylvania winners of Musk’s $1Million are only people who have shown up at rallies for Musk’s chosen candidate.

I have some questions, questions that have arisen in the brief time since I learned about the filing of this lawsuit.  Before asking them, I want my readers to know that these questions are based on my own experiences and beliefs about the role of the law.  In my eyes, it is the job of prosecutors to enforce the law while it is the job of judges to decide the law.  The prosecutor must always have probable cause for what she or he does in office, of course, but from everything I know, in this particular case I think that there is probable cause to file a civil case to ask a judge to tell the defendant to stop.

And so I ask:  Why endure Merrick Garland a moment longer in the office of Attorney General of the United States?  Why wait once again for Merrick Garland to act to enforce the law?

Didn’t we already wait long enough for him to do something about the 2020 Election Frauds, waiting until it now seems it may all be too little, too late especially but not just if the Roberts court has its say?  Waiting so long that the waiting itself caused or contributed to the debacle.  So why should we wait any longer now?

Why, indeed, Mr. Garland?  You are no longer a judge, you know.  You do not get to decide what the law should be any more.  Since 2021, you are supposed to act to enforce it, and that’s a different job entirely – which you have not done.  The District Attorney of Philadelphia is doing it. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Check out my Substack newsletter. 

Write the Report, Jack. You don't have to ask.

Editing.  (LexisNexis)

 

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming”

 

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith filed a motion last week to dismiss the criminal indictment in the election insurrection case.

At first, I was not completely sure what kind of motion or motions Jack Smith filed regarding the classified documents case.  Now it's clear that he has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and the indictment he had going in that case too.

I would like to address Jack at this point.  Directly.

Jack, you said that you did not file motions to dismiss these criminal indictments because you did not have the evidence to prove the crimes.  You said that instead you filed motions to dismiss them because of Department of Justice policy.   Prove it, Jack, by writing a full and complete Report citing all the evidence. 

Prove it, Jack.  You are going to have to prove that you did not file motions to dismiss because you did not have the evidence, Jack.

It is clear that nothing and no-one can stop you from writing the Report, Jack.  In fact, there is nothing and no-one to stop you from writing your Report in both cases you had going.  The appointed trial judge in the classified documents case, the honorable Aileen Cannon, cannot order you to hand the evidence over to her.  There is no longer any appeal pending now, either, so the Eleventh Circuit cannot order you to turn the evidence over to them.

As far as the election insurrection case goes, Judge Chutkan has already approved your dismissal of the People’s indictment.  I do not believe that Judge Chutkan would ever order you to turn the evidence over to her, and besides she has already ruled. 

We the people of the USA should see all the evidence, good and bad, pro and con, in a Report of the Special Counsel. That means you, Jack; you’re the Special Counsel in both of these cases and you have to do at least one Report for both cases or perhaps write two Reports, one for each case.

Otherwise only the criminal defendants will say what the evidence is, and I am sure that you already know this but we cannot count on them to be transparent about it.  They are not the kind of people who would willingly share the evidence that convicts them.  It seems reasonable to expect that the only evidence these people would share would be any evidence that tends to exonerate them.

We can feel confident that they’ll tell their story, Jack, depending on how you release your Report and especially if you do not write one.  How do I know, and why am I so sure? Precedent, Jack. That’s exactly what they did with Bob Mueller’s Special Counsel Report. Mueller did not really get the chance to tell us what was in his Report, the Attorney General did that for him. The Attorney General did not tell the truth, of course.

If you act now, only you can tell us your story, Jack. Your story is our story too.

You may think that if you write a Report based on the evidence it would not go well for you with Merrick Garland or with the Department of Justice for that matter.  Well, Jack, as things stand you are not going to work for the Department of Justice or for any other department, bureau, or agency of the federal government in the U.S. ever again anyway. Unless you are on President Putin’s payroll, you will not get a job as a prosecutor in this country. You might conceivably get a future job somewhere else in the Western World, but not here.

So that’s the way I see it for you, Jack. To my way of thinking, it’s pretty clear. You have no future in this country regardless of how you conduct yourself in the future. Now is the time for you to act, Jack, because soon you will not be able to.

To say again, now is the time to write your Report, Jack, if the American People are ever going to know any of this evidence. To read the documents. To know the testimony from witnesses under oath. The time is now, or never, Jack.

Jack, I would like to end, once again, with a few lines from a poem called The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats. These are the lines, lines that could have been written yesterday or even today:

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

I underlined the thought expressed in the last two lines because I think that the thought deserves emphasis today, Jack.  Yeats said it first, in I think 1919, but the thought applies in 2024

— so far.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  A previous version of this article was published in my Substack newsletter. 

 

Election Day 2024

It’s a joy!

Voting Booths Flags.  (Common Ground Project.jpg)

 

I can vote today because others made it possible.

Make it possible for others to vote tomorrow.

Vote today.

It’s a right.  It’s a duty.  It’s a privilege.  It’s a joy!

 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

What the Evidence Shows, if we Look at it.

Vote!  (Photo of the author)

 

In 2016, 3,000,000 more people voted for someone else.

In 2017, on the day after his Inauguration, the largest march in the history of the world was held to protest him.

In 2020, 7,000,000 more people voted for someone else.  And he lost in that unnecessary appendix to the U.S. Constitution, the Electoral College.  He lost it by the same margin that he proclaimed a “landslide” in 2016 when he lost the popular vote by 3,000,000.

In 2022, his party barely overcame the popular vote and took over the House of Representatives, despite a lot of gerrymandering in his party’s favor.

Why would anyone think that things will be any different in 2024?

In 2024, the evidence will show what we should have known all along, if we looked at it.  Perhaps we will look at it now.

Tomorrow is not the end.  It is the beginning.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

What would you do with $2Trillion?

Seamus waiting for the election. (Author Photo)

It is reported by reliable sources that Mr. Elon Musk has declared that if he gets the power to do it, he will cut $2Trillion from the economy.

It is also reported by reliable sources that Mr. Musk’s fortune is about $20Trillion.

I cannot imagine doing whatever it took to accumulate $20Trillion.  I can imagine what I would do if I had that much money at my disposal.  Instead of taking 10% of that amount out of the economy, I would spend that 10% of my fortune on people who need it. 

If I did that, I wouldn’t have to worry about taking $2Trillion out of the economy and it would free up about $2Trillion from the U.S. budget.  I understand that the entire amount of Federal spending apart from dedicated budgets of say the Defense Department and such, totals $1.7Trillion which of course is even less than the $2Trillion.

What do you think you would do with your $2Trillion?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

"IS THERE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE?"

This is a good question.  It was asked so often at public meetings that it became a joke starting in Vaudeville days.  It's not a joke any more.

          There was at least one doctor in the house, at the rally that Saturday.  Reporting identifies him by name, a surgeon taking pictures with his cellphone.  Apparently the former president was taken away before the doctor could see him.

          When Gabby Gifford and President Reagan were shot, they were both taken to the hospital.  So was the former president on Saturday, according to reporting.  But the reports are confusing and incomplete.  One report has it that he was "taken to a local hospital from the rally site."  His spokesperson says that he was "being checked out at a local medical facility."  What an odd way to describe a hospital, by the way, "medical facility."

          All of these statements are incomplete because they do not tell us the name of the hospital where he was taken.  Seems like we should know.  When President Reagan was shot, he had been put into the presidential limousine where a Secret Service agent ordered the limo driver to proceed to the hospital.  We know the name of the hospital, of course.  It's not a state secret or a secret of any kind, and it should not be a secret. 

It's published right on the website of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library:  George Washington Hospital.

          So a good question is a simple one:     What is the name of the hospital where he was taken?

           Here's another:  Who treated him, whether at the hospital or at the rally?  Seems like we should know.  The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library has a long list of everyone who was around when the President was shot, including the names and workplaces of the doctors who treated him.

          As a rally, this was of course a gathering.  It was in Butler, Pennsylvania.  A permit is required to hold a public gathering.  The permit would require the presence and show the identity of Paramedics on scene.  The permit here would have been issued either by Butler Township or by Butler County.  Pull the permit and see what it tells you.

          Then there is the question that so far as I know has been raised by only one person, Ruth Ben-Ghiat.  She wondered about it in the course of taking a look at authoritarian playbooks including attempted assassinations, so she did not dwell on it but she is the only one I know who asked the question.   Why did the same Secret Service agents who had surrounded him, protecting him with their bodies as shields from any bullets that might still be fired, allow him to stop and stand  not once but twice on the way to the SUV, and the second time "expose his face, arm, and hand to the cameras and crowd, and deliver the fist pump and 'fight, fight, fight' message that created an iconic image."  Or as she herself framed it, "Why the Secret Service allowed him to do these things, in violation of any conceivable security protocols for such moments, is another story."

          Now would be a good time to get the answer:   Why did the Secret Service violate any conceivable security protocols for such moments?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

'"SO IT'S ON TO CHICAGO, AND LET'S WIN THERE!"

Senator Robert F. Kennedy said that on June 5, 1968.  Right after he said that, he left the stage in a hotel in Los Angeles and walked through the kitchen.  He was murdered there.

          President Joe Biden is not Senator Robert F. Kennedy.  Judging by the frenzy surrounding Joe Biden's candidacy for re-election, that is his great sin in the eyes of many people, that he is not Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

          Full disclosure:  I am not now and never have been a big fan of Joe Biden as a candidate.  He is not my first choice to run for President.

          But he is an adequate candidate.  And he is a very good President.

          If as appears likely he stays in the race, consider the likely results.

          If he wins and dies in office, Vice President Kamala Harris would replace him automatically.  She is capable and we as a country can certainly make it  through four years with her as President.

          Or President Biden might win and become incapacitated while he is in office over the next four years.  That is why we have a 25th Amendment, and if he were removed because of incapacitation at any point during that time, once again Kamala Harris would become President Harris.

          Or President Biden might win and become too sick to serve for some of the next four years.  Everyone even his current critics concedes that Joe Biden loves this country, so if the 25th Amendment was not invoked then we can expect that he would step aside and once again, we would have President Harris.  (This scenario keeps repeating because that is why the Constitution requires a Vice President, someone to step into the office when the President no longer can.)

          If the other guy wins the Presidential election in 2024 (although if he won the popular vote this would be the first time in his career that he won the popular vote for anything), then the game is over.

          Likely, it will be over for many years if not forever.

          Given the likely outcomes of Joe Biden remaining in the 2024 Presidential election, my choice is Joe Biden.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"IT'S THE DICTA, STUPID."*

*With apologies again to Mr. James Carville, who famously said during one of the successful Clinton campaigns, "It's the economy, stupid."

Dicta is a word that lawyers use to describe the opinions of judges that go beyond what they need to say to decide the case that confronts them.  To paraphrase Black's Law Dictionary, a standard text for many lawyers, dicta are opinions of judges concerning matters which are not necessarily involved in nor essential to determine the case presently before the court.

          In the course of enticing all justices to agree that a candidate of a certain persuasion should remain on all ballots, 5 judges went beyond that case to declare how and why candidates in future cases should not remain on the ballot (which most legal scholars say is self-evident from the Fourteenth Amendment and which did not need to be rewritten).

          When the U.S. Supreme Court took this case, they limited their review to whether they should affirm or reverse the Supreme Court of Colorado.  The Colorado Supreme Court, you will recall, had held that the Fourteenth Amendment barred this particular candidate in this particular case from the Republican primary ballot in Colorado.

          That is what the U.S. Supreme Court said that they would review.  That narrow question.  Of course, as lawyers know, the question of affirmance or reversal on the facts of the particular case is everything that a reviewing court can ever determine without issuing an advisory opinion.

          Here is what the 9 said they ruled on together.  You may or may not agree with it, but you can certainly read it for yourself.  They don't want you to read it for yourself, you know.  Every good trial lawyer, and any lawyer or person for that matter, knows that when they don't want you to look at something, you should look at it.  Read this for yourself:

          A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year's election, from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.

* * *

Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.

Trump v. Anderson, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2024 WL 899207, at *1 (U.S. March 4, 2024).

          The U.S. Supreme Court was previously pretty consistent in stating the view that it is or was limited under Article III of the Constitution to the existence of a controversy, and that, unlike State Supreme Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts lacked the power to issue advisory opinions.

          Based on preexisting precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court is accordingly prohibited by the Constitution from issuing an advisory opinion on what action Congress should take to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.  So there were very strong grounds before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this case that it would be limited to deciding whether the Supreme Court of Colorado was right or wrong in this particular case.  Period.  End of report.

          Instead, the joint opinion of the 5 rewrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the satisfaction of the 5.  But this is not how all 9 think about the issue they decided, and it is certainly not the view of the other 4 who decided the narrow question of whether this particular candidate in this particular case would remain on the ballot.

          So the command of the 5 to Congress on how to implement Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates is dicta.

          That is what it is.  Meaning no offense but stating it clearly:  "It's the dicta, stupid."

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

CONTEXT, POLLS, AND YOU.

Context.  The best reporting presents things in context.  Context is recognized as a necessity for trustworthy journalism.  Always.

         An example was given by polling results that were published by The New York Times in November, 2023 about how people said they would vote come the November, 2024 election.  Many people expressed shock and surprise that the results of those polls had Joe Biden losing.  Before we address the most obvious problems with these polls, many observers have already (correctly) pointed out that the results are unreliable for various reasons, including some that are mentioned below.

         In context, the most obvious thing behind the New York Times' November 2023 poll results is that Joe Biden is not popular to begin with.

         In his past runs for the Presidency, Biden has not done very well.  I believe that he had two runs before 2020 and the longest his candidacy lasted may have been a few months; if he earned a single delegate in those past runs, that would be a surprise.

         In 2020, Joe Biden was almost left for dead, politically,  until the South Carolina primary came along.  He had the good fortune to be the only so-called "centrist" candidate left, meaning that the rich and arrogant people that think they are in charge of the Democratic Party had no-one else to turn to.  Then came South Carolina and Biden's fortunes changed such that he got his party's nomination and ran in the general election against someone else who had run for the Presidency before,  had never won the popular vote, and alienated so much of the electorate that Mr. Biden got 7 Million more votes than his opponent.

         Returning to reasons that polls in November, 2023 are unreliable predictors of results in November, 2024:

• Most obviously: Polls have not been correct for the past 8 years.  There is no reason to expect them to be correct now.

• The next Presidential Election is a year away. A lot can happen in the meantime.  (Look for example at what has happened in just the past year.)

• There is a real difference between what people say, and what voters do. Some people lie to pollsters.  People lie for various reasons.  Some are annoyed with pollsters and their polls.  Others are unhappy with the current state of affairs in the United States (for that matter, who isn't?).  Still others don't like the people they have to choose from in this election.  There are a lot of reasons, but there is a real difference between the answers a person is willing to give to poll questions, and the vote that same person casts at the polls.

         All that said, no objective person can legitimately say that this is good news for Joe Biden.  The shock and surprise at poll results from November of last year, about predicted results to come in November of this year, are that if this were a horse race, Biden should be way ahead, leading by lengths:

• The economy is the best it has been in years, the unemployment rate is microscopic, and inflation has been coming way down.
• Workers are enchanted with new-found security and better wages.
• Biden's opposition comes from sources that are the most anti-American since secessionists started a civil war.

         Putting things in context is, to say again, the mark of the best reporting.   Context is a necessity for trustworthy journalism.

          Always.

This marks a perhaps temporary departure from the past several months' of Go Forward articles.  The focus here is still on what's positive in the country, in the world, and in our lives.  Go Forward.

 

KEEP THEM ALIVE.

Right now many working-class Americans are struggling with inflation and rising costs of living. Any cuts to Medicare and Social Security would only threaten the livelihoods of millions, and pull the rug out from underneath all of us who have paid into the programs. Not to mention the risks of a recession and job losses if the House forces the government to default on its debt.

Members of Congress of all parties must keep the people who depend on these vital programs alive, by refusing to "defund" them through the back door by not raising the debt ceiling for these programs which have already been budgeted but cannot be funded without raising the current debt ceiling.

It's really as simple as that.

I urge Representative Cory Mills not only to join the sign-on letter from Representatives Boyle, Kuster, and Jayapal calling for a clean vote to avoid the US defaulting on our debts, and to oppose negotiating any cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other programs my community relies on. I urge him to vote for the people who cannot live without these programs, including the people who live in the 7th Congressional District of Florida which elected him in the first place.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2023 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WE ARE GOING TO WIN ON DECEMBER 6, TOO.

(Voting Booths, Flags / Common Grounds Project)

We are White, Black, Latino and Hispanic.

We are straight and we are LGBTQIA+.

We are Catholic, Baptist, evangelical, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Buddhist, all kinds of Christians and all kinds of people.

We are voters in the United States of America.  We live here.  And we will not be denied.

So it's on to December 6th and let's win then, too,  with our Sisters and Brothers in Georgia!

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

"THERE'S SOMETHING HAPPENING HERE. WHAT IT IS AIN'T EXACTLY CLEAR."

These words from a song in the 1960's describe what is happening in our day in 2022  as well as they described yesterday in the 1960's.

There is something happening here.  What it is ain't exactly clear.  But there is something happening in this country.

As I said before, so I say again:  It feels like 2018 again. 

Maybe it will become more clear on Election Day.  Whatever is coming, it feels like it will come then.

Faith is belief in things unseen, they say.  Hope is similar.  Hope is belief in things that are not yet seen, but will be seen.  Certainly things will come more clearly into view over the long term.  But what is happening here is happening now, even if it ain't exactly clear yet.

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

TODAY'S ORDER DENYING INJUNCTION AGAINST INTIMIDATION IS ALREADY ON APPEAL.

Today, Friday, October 28, 2002, a federal Court Order denied an injunction against voter intimidation in Maricopa County, Arizona.  Download Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans v. Clean Elections USA et al. Doc. 32 Order filed Oct. 28 2022 (D. Ariz. No. 2.22.cv.01823.MTL).

The Court held that the Ku Klux Klan Act requires intent to intimidate.  Id. at 11.  There is nothing in the Ku Klux Klan Act that requires intent, and no Court has ever said so, until today; the intimidation is the point.

The Order is already on appeal the same day.

Please see the previous articles published here and here.

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

IT'S BEING TO LOOK A LOT LIKE ... 2018.

(Common Ground Project)

The Midterm Elections of 2018 broke voting records.  More people turned out than the pundits had a right to predict, and they predicted very poorly.

The polls were wrong in 2018, and they may very well be wrong now too.  The polls were also wrong in 2016 and 2020.

Just ask President Hillary Clinton about the polls in 2016, and just ask the rejected un-reelected Grievance Guy about the polls in 2020.

We may be standing on the shore of another Blue Wave Midterm like what happened in 2018.  That's the thing about the future.  It's so hard to predict.

Still the corporate media keeps talking about the polls.  God Bless them, it may be easier for them to get paid for speaking and writing, than for thinking.

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

 

HERE'S EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW, AMERICA. YOU TOO, OHIO.

John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, receiving Notre Dame's Laetare Medal from Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, President of the University of Notre Dame (Notre Dame Archives)

On stage at a rally in Ohio, with J.D. Vance standing near him, here's what he had to say, as quoted by The Los Angeles Times:

 

J.D. is kissing my ass.  Of course, he wants my support.

 

What kind of character does a person have?  I am speaking here about J.D. Vance, of course.

And there is a message here for America too:  Is this something that the greatest president in history would say and do, is that what you think, America?

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

HERE'S EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW, OHIO. YOU TOO, AMERICA.

President Reagan presents Mother Teresa with the Medal of Freedom (Wikipedia)

On stage at a rally in Ohio, with J.D. Vance standing near him, here's what he had to say, as quoted by The Los Angeles Times:

 

J.D. is kissing my ass.  Of course, he wants my support.

 

What kind of character does a person have?  I am speaking here about J.D. Vance, of course.

And there is a message here for America too:  Is this something that the greatest president in history would say and do, is that what you think, America?

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

JUDGES RULING THE EASTMAN THEORY INTO LAW.

Justice Samuel Alito needs to be better known than he is.  He is an important member of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Justice Clarence Thomas thinks so; he is the one who assigns the Court's opinions and he assigns a lot of them to Justice Alito.

One of Justice Alito's pet theories (he calls them "doctrines") has to do with state legislatures.  Justice Alito calls his theory about them "the independent state legislatures theory,"  oops, "doctrine."  (It isn't really a doctrine, you know, except to Alito.  Soon it will be, maybe, but not now, not yet.)

Both Mr. Eastman and Justice Alito base their theory on the first part, and only the first part, of what is generally called "the Elections Clause" in the U.S. Constitution.  Here is what the first part says:

The Times, Places and Manner of hold­ing Elec­tions for Senat­ors and Repres­ent­at­ives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legis­lature thereof; …

This is the same theory that Eastman tried to sell to the Grievance Boy in January 2021, that  the states have the power to set the times and places and manner of voting for federal elections.  In Eastman's mind, that means one more step which involves having the states re-run every federal election where the results are not to his liking, starting with the Presidential Election of 2020.  (Note to Mr. Eastman:  The U.S. Constitution does not talk about state legislatures setting the times and places and manner of voting for Presidents; it talks about setting the times and places for voting for Senators and Representatives; read it.)

Justice Alito does not go that far, yet.  He agrees with Eastman that the states have the power to set the times and places and manner of voting for federal Senators and Representatives and, in Alito's mind, this means that state legislatures have this power to the exclusion of state courts, state governors, and federal courts except the U.S. Supreme Court.  That means that Justice Alito reads one provision of the U.S. Constitution all by its lonesome, as though it were the Articles of Confederation, say, or as though it was the only provision in a Constitution that actually embodies federalism and takes no constitutional powers away from state courts.

In other words, when a state legislature does something against the state's Constitution, state courts are constituted to be a check and a balance on the legislature's unconstitutional actions.  Not so in Justice Alito's eyes.  This is what he has in mind for the "independent state legislatures theory" --doggone it, there I go again, I mean  "independent state legislatures doctrine."

Alito bases this theory (or doctrine) mainly on "the Elections Clause."  Here again is the first part of what it says.  I repeat the first part because that is the only part that Justice Alito uses in his Eastman theory:

The Times, Places and Manner of hold­ing Elec­tions for Senat­ors and Repres­ent­at­ives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legis­lature thereof; …

It is an important question how come "the Legislature thereof" is so important if it means a state legislative body, a body which exists if, and only if, the state's constitution says it does?

Justice Alito has never answered this question and, so far as I know, no-one has ever asked him.

No-one has ever asked him what to do with the rest of the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the part which Alito and his followers have never mentioned, I believe:

… but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regu­la­tions.

If the first part is the Eastman or "independent state legislatures" theory, shouldn't this second part of the Elections Clause be called "the independent and supreme Congress doctrine"?  So far as I know, Justice Alito and his followers have never been asked this question, or anything like it.

It's a shame that some judges do not have to answer questions, isn't it?  Or maybe "shameful" is the right word to use.  It's certainly not a doctrine.

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

MAYBE NOT A MORAL FAILING, BUT DEFINITELY AN ECONOMIC CALCULATION.

REASONS FOR OPTIMISM IN THE UNITED STATES IN JUNE OF 2022.

I have been searching for optimistic news to write about.  I found some.  Let me say, first, that I did not find optimistic news in Washington, D.C.  As you will see, the efforts in the U.S. Senate surrounding murders with guns are not the kind of efforts that make most people optimistic.  I found optimism in some news from the States.

Uber and Lyft want their drivers to be classified as independent contractors without benefits rather than employees with benefits.  Uber and Lyft in particular in the so-called “gig economy” have set out to persuade voters to vote for this classification through elections.  Uber and Lyft have made a conscious choice to spend their money on elections.  They have decided that it is cheaper to pay for elections than to pay their workers.

I do not mean to say that their position is a moral failing.  It is, however, their clear economic calculation.

In Massachusetts Uber and Lyft pushed for a question on the ballot that the voters would decide that Uber and Lyft workers are independent contractors without benefits rather than employees with benefits.  They tried to do too much.

In their ballot measure, Uber and Lyft snuck in a provision that would have given them immunity from all liability, not just immunity from liability as employers with an obligation to pay benefits.  Uber and Lyft spent millions to get voters in Massachusetts to vote for their plan this year.  In addition to hiding their intent by burying their proposals in a single plan, their plan ran afoul of the Massachusetts State Constitution in the eyes of the highest Court in Massachusetts.  The Uber-Lyft proposition proposed two “substantively distinct policy decisions, one of which is buried in obscure language,” the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court wrote in striking the Uber-Lyft proposition from the ballot in Massachusetts.

In California, Uber and Lyft previously pushed and after Uber and Lyft again spent millions on the campaign, voters passed an initiative that became law, that their workers should be classified as independent contractors without benefits rather than employees with benefits.  Parenthetically, in California a voter initiative is a ballot measure that becomes law when it is passed by the voters just as if the Legislature itself had passed the law.

In their initiative, Uber and Lyft snuck in a provision to ban collective bargaining by their drivers.   Like the Massachusetts State Constitution (and many State Constitutions), the California State Constitution requires that ballot measures have one subject.  A California State Judge held that Uber’s and Lyft’s initiative was unconstitutional under the California Constitution’s requirement, saying that “a prohibition on legislation authorizing collective bargaining by app-based drivers” has nothing to do with classifying those workers as independent contractors without benefits rather than employees with benefits.

The Uber-Lyft initiative would also have stripped worker’s compensation protections from their workers.  In the California State Judge’s eyes, that by itself made the initiative law unenforceable under California State law.

There is positive news, hopeful news coming from the States.  At least from some States, like Massachusetts and California.  And from the State Courts there specifically.

Washington, D.C. is a different story. 

In the District, there is an idea that the most important thing, to the exclusion of everything and everyone else, is to “get something done.”  That idea plus the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate gives power to a minority.  Actually, the combination gives power to a minority of a minority.  Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn and their gang of Republican Senators are not only in the minority in the Senate, but as a group they are elected by a minority of Americans.

When Chris Murphy and other Senators wanted to pursue the possibility of legislation that might at least reduce the number of murders such as the Uvalde Elementary School Massacre, they worked in the direction of the few ideas that the McConnell Gang liked.

Practicing the art of the possible at all costs, means throwing any ideas overboard that the other person doesn’t like.  Even if the entire country, or most of the country, likes those things.  Even then those ideas must be thrown overboard; compromise is everything in these things.  Just take a look at the evidence of even a few of the things they discussed, and discarded.

Ban assault weapons?  Gone.

Make gun makers liable for their product defects?  (Gun manufacturers are perhaps the only manufacturers in the United States who are not at risk of paying damages for misuse of their products.)  Gone.

Limit or ban ammo clips with insane numbers of bullets?  Gone.

All of these measures, and more, are supported by the American people.  None were acceptable to the minority of the minority, the McConnell Gang.

Instead, the Senate’s proposed solutions – maybe (they haven’t been adopted yet, and they may never yet be voted on) – are things that are not necessarily designed to stop murders with guns.  Their announced suggested proposals include more money for suicide prevention and mental health programs, and money for States that may choose to enact “red flag” potential murderers using guns, but not apparently actual red flag laws.  Why?  The gun lobby has lots of money and much of it goes to the McConnell Gang and their few friends.

I do not mean to say that their position is a moral failing.  It is, however, their clear economic calculation.

So, there you have it.  There are grounds for optimism in the States.  Do not look to Washington, D.C. for inspiration or even for hope.  We have a Senate that offers neither inspiration nor hope.  The Senate will stay that way just as long as the McConnell Gang or any other minority of a minority is calling the shots, or more accurately perhaps, is allowed to call the shots by silly rules and deluded people.

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

MORE QUESTIONS ON THE DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 12.16.20.

This continues after the biggest question in my mind about the draft Executive Order dated December 16, 2020, which is why the Secretary of Defense and not the Attorney General should be ordered to seize voting machines that were used to elect President Biden.  

          Another good question is why the Secretary of Defense would be directed to use the National Guard, and not the Army.  Why not the Army?  Download Draft Executive Order dated December 16 2020.

          Same answer as to why not the Attorney General:  Because they wouldn't do it.

          Recall the summer of 2020, specifically, the protests after the death of George Floyd.  The closest that active-duty soldiers got to the streets of Washington, D.C. was when the 82nd Airborne Division camped in the outskirts of D.C.  They refused to strong-arm the protestors in the streets of Washington, D.C., let alone use their weapons on their fellow countrymen.  Then the 82nd Airborne went back to their barracks.

          The Army just wouldn't do it.  Thus Barr and his boss TFG brought in the border guards and the prison guards from all over.  They came to downtown Washington instead.

         So, same answer as before:  The order is not directed to the Attorney General or to the Army because they could not depend on the Attorney General to order that the voting machines be seized, and they could not depend on the Army to do it.

          But there are more questions, including who is the person who would be appointed Special Counsel with full resources "necessary to carry out her duties"?

To be continued ....  For more of an "inside baseball" look at this problem, see today's post at Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2022/01/more-questions-about-the-draft-xo-dated-december-16-2020.html. 

 

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

"WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOSE?"

Plenty, as it turns out.

I think we may have already begun to get it back.

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

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH JANUARY 17?

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

January 17 is the date reportedly set for Capitol Hill Riot Part Two.  That date is the choice of  the same people who staged the Capitol Hill Riot Part One, on January 6, to do it again.

January 16 -- the date before Capitol Hill Riot Part Two, or shall we call it Capitol Hill Coup Part Two -- is the day that the current chief of the Capitol Police says that he will leave office.

If you believe in coincidence, you are living in the wrong time and place.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

HAVE FAITH, ABIGAIL SPANBERGER,* NOT FEAR.

(Doug Mills / New York Times)

The victories of Jon Ossoff and Rev. Raphael Warnock in the U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia surprised many people.  But their victories did not surprise Mr. Ossoff or Reverend Warnock.

And their successes were certainly not surprising to Ms. Stacey Abrams, whose approach to politics is a successful contrast to Democratic Party politics nationally.

    The two Democratic Senate candidates were a striking shift from previous recruits, who tended to be white moderates, and stepped gingerly, and sometimes awkwardly, around the God and guns issues crucial to white voters who had become disenchanted with Democrats.

    Mr. Ossoff, with his degrees from Georgetown and the London School of Economics, speaks without a hint of Southern twang; he could hail from Santa Monica, or Portland. He would also be the first Jewish person to be elected to the Senate from Georgia.

    Mr. Warnock is the kind of preacher who sees activism as central to the mission of the Black church. As pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached, he has embraced Dr. King’s philosophy of economic justice as a corollary to racial justice.

    In effect, the two men ran as themselves. As unabashed liberals. In Georgia.

Lisa Lerer and Richard Fausset, Republican Bulwark is Confirmed as an Election Battleground, NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, January 7, 2021, at A18, online with the headline and subhead, For Democrats in Georgia, ‘There’s No Going Back’ / The two Democratic victories in the Senate runoffs confirmed that Georgia’s metamorphosis from conservative bastion to battleground state was complete.

*You may be wondering about the name of Abigail Spanberger in the headline of this blog article.  Ms. Spanberger is the person who exemplifies the national Democratic approach to elections.  She famously melted down during a telephone conference call among Democratic Members of the House of Representatives, blaming Progressives for the loss of Democratic seats in the House in 2020.

It seems that the national Democratic party needs to look at how it does things just as much as it needs to look at how things are now done in Georgia.  Not a single Progressive lost a House seat in 2020.  Not one.  Now, two Senators are coming to Washington who ran "as unabashed liberals.  In Georgia."

Faith Over Fear, Ms. Spanberger.  Faith Over Fear, Democratic National Committee.

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

GEORGIA, THIS IS THE DAY AND THIS IS YOUR HOUR

Georgia, this is the day and this is the hour, beginning at 7 AM and going through 7 PM.

Vote!  Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.  If you have your Absentee Ballot, drop it off at a drop box or at a polling site.

Or vote in person!  But vote! 

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!

AN OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS IN VALDOSTA, GEORGIA

(John Amis / Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.

The Georgia Secretary of State says that Friday was the last day both to Vote Early and to ask for an Absentee Ballot.

So, plan to vote in person on Tuesday, January 5 OR if you have not dropped off your Absentee Ballot yet, the SOS Website says you can drop off your Absentee Ballot by Election Day!

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!

AN OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS IN SAVANNAH AND RICHMOND HILL

(John Amis / Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.

The Georgia Secretary of State says that Friday was the last day both to Vote Early and to ask for an Absentee Ballot.

So, plan to vote in person on Tuesday, January 5 OR if you have not dropped off your Absentee Ballot yet, the SOS Website says you can drop off your Absentee Ballot by Election Day!

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!

AN OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS IN ATLANTA AND STONE MOUNTAIN

(John Amis / Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.

The Georgia Secretary of State says that Friday was the last day both to Vote Early and to ask for an Absentee Ballot.

So, plan to vote in person on Tuesday, January 5 OR if you have not dropped off your Absentee Ballot yet, the SOS Website says you can drop off your Absentee Ballot by Election Day!

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!

LET THEM KNOW THEY ARE PLAYING HARDBALL. THIS ISN'T SLOW-PITCH.

(John Amis / Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Let the objectors know that they have chosen to play hardball.  This is not slow-pitch softball.

Since they choose to make objections and challenges, fine.  Challenge them back.

The best defense is an offense whether in war, in football, or in politics.

Challenge Tommy Tuberville of Alabama who also stood for election in 2020.  Oh, you say, that was an election to the U.S. Senate and January 6th is only about the presidential electors?  Okay, then Democrats challenge the certification of presidential electors from Alabama.

Then after starting with the letter "A," challenge the certification of electors from every other State which voted for anyone other than Biden-Harris.  Object to certifying electors from each and every one of those States.

If the objectors in the Senate and House are going to make their challenges, let them know that they have opened up everything to objections and challenges including the elections that elected or re-elected them.

There is no reason to let them have the inevitable microphones to themselves.  There is no good reason to let them hog the TV coverage that is coming, either.  Share the air time.  Give the corporate media their sound bites and videos.

And for good measure, remind the people of this country every chance you get that these federal challengers, these federal objectors in the Senate and the House, are attacking democracy itself.  They are trying to have the federal government tell the States what to do.  They want the federal government to overturn the will of the voters in America.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.  Make them pay a price for what they themselves have chosen.

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

AN OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS IN ATHENS, GEORGIA

(FreePhotos)

Put that University education to work for your State and your Nation!  Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.

The Georgia Secretary of State says that Friday was the last day both to Vote Early and to ask for an Absentee Ballot.

So, plan to vote in person on Tuesday, January 5 OR if you have not dropped off your Absentee Ballot yet, the SOS Website says you can drop off your Absentee Ballot by Election Day!

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!

AN OPEN LETTER TO DULUTH, MACON, AND PERRY DEMOCRATS

 

(John Amis / Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.

The Georgia Secretary of State says that Friday was the last day both to Vote Early and to ask for an Absentee Ballot.

So, plan to vote in person on Tuesday, January 5 OR if you have not dropped off your Absentee Ballot yet, the SOS Website says you can drop off your Absentee Ballot by Election Day!

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO ALBANY, AUGUSTA, AND COLUMBUS DEMOCRATS

(John Amis / Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.

The Georgia Secretary of State says that Friday was the last day both to Vote Early and to ask for an Absentee Ballot.

So, plan to vote in person on Tuesday, January 5 OR if you have not dropped off your Absentee Ballot yet, the SOS Website says you can drop off your Absentee Ballot by Election Day!

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!

P.S. THE PROMISE OF THINGS UNSEEN.

 

In yesterday's article I asked a question.

Much has been written and said about the Occupant's behavior dampening the enthusiasm of voters for Georgia's Republican Senatorial candidates.

The question I posed yesterday was about the behavior of the President-Elect and whether his behavior dampens the enthusiasm of workers for Georgia's Democratic Senatorial candidates.

My answer is that I will continue to work as hard as I can to elect Jon Ossoff and Rev. Raphael Warnock, the Democratic candidates for U.S. Senator in the Georgia runoff election.

My answer is the promise of things unseen.

Please read the disclaimer.   ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.