Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Journalism. Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Uncategorized Weaponization of Government.

Winning. Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas from House GOP.

Winning. Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas from House GOP.

A federal judge tore into the Justice Department on Friday for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas issued in the impeachment probe of his father, President Joe Biden, pointing out that a former aide to Donald Trump is sitting in prison for similar defiance of Congress.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee on the federal District Court in Washington, spent nearly an hour accusing Justice Department attorneys of rank hypocrisy for instructing two other lawyers in the DOJ Tax Division not to comply with the House subpoenas.

“There’s a person in jail right now because you all brought a criminal lawsuit against him because he did not appear for a House subpoena,” Reyes said, referring to the recent imprisonment of Peter Navarro, a former Trump trade adviser, for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee. “And now you guys are flouting those subpoenas. … And you don’t have to show up?”

“I think it’s quite rich you guys pursue criminal investigations and put people in jail for not showing up,” but then direct current executive branch employees to take the same approach, the judge added. “You all are making a bunch of arguments that you would never accept from any other litigant.”

It was a remarkable, frenetic thrashing in what was expected to be a relatively routine, introductory status conference after the House Judiciary Committee sued last month to enforce its subpoena of DOJ attorneys Mark Daly and Jack Morgan over their involvement in the investigation of Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes.

Republicans are demanding the two attorneys testify and say it’s crucial for their ongoing impeachment probe of the elder Biden. But the Justice Department argues that subpoenaing two rank-and-file, or “line,” attorneys to seek details about an ongoing investigation would be a violation of the separation of powers.

Reyes has been on the bench for just over a year. Rarely seeming to stop to catch her breath, she repeatedly dressed down DOJ attorney James Gilligan as he sought to explain the department’s position, scolding him at times for interrupting her before continuing a torrid tongue-lashing that DOJ rarely receives from the bench.

She delved into great detail about the nuances of House procedure — like the chamber’s rule against allowing executive branch lawyers to attend depositions — and even asked whether the Judiciary Committee had followed internal rules requiring that the ranking Democrat on the panel be notified of the subpoena to the DOJ attorneys before it was issued.

Yet, perhaps even more remarkably, Reyes seemed inclined to support DOJ’s central argument that the line attorneys cannot be compelled to answer substantive questions from Congress.

They just need to show up and assert privileges on a question-by-question basis, she said — the type of thing, she said, that DOJ demands from others “seven days a week … and twice on Sunday.”

Indeed, while Reyes was withering in her attacks on the DOJ’s position, she was similarly unflinching in her criticism of the House for its stance in the dispute — particularly its claim that line lawyers working on the Hunter Biden tax probe are not entitled to attorney-client privilege.

She also said she thought it absurd for the House to argue that privilege was waived because it was obscuring some crime or fraud within the executive branch.

“I don’t think you’re going to win that fight,” the judge told House Counsel Matthew Berry, saying at one point that she “can’t imagine” ruling for the House on that issue.

At bottom, Reyes said she viewed it as unlikely that the two DOJ attorneys would ultimately be required to answer anything of substance from Congress, but that the department’s effort to prevent them from showing up at all was a brazen affront.

“I imagine that there are hundreds, if not thousands of defense attorneys … who would be happy to hear that DOJ’s position is, if you don’t agree with a subpoena, if you believe it’s unconstitutional or unlawful, you can unilaterally not show up,” the judge said.

Gilligan suggested that the employees subpoenaed in the dispute at issue are current employees, while Navarro and another Trump adviser who was convicted of similar charges, Steve Bannon, were no longer on the government’s payroll when their testimony was demanded.

The judge didn’t seem impressed with that distinction and downplayed the significance of a Trump-era Office of Legal Counsel opinion contending that executive branch employees could defy such subpoenas if Justice Department lawyers were not allowed to be present. “Last time I checked, the Office of Legal Counsel was not the court,” she said.

Reyes also sounded stunned when Gilligan refused to commit to instructing the two subpoenaed lawyers to show up if the House dropped its objection to allowing government counsel to sit in the room. “It would be a different situation,” Gilligan said. “I cannot answer that now. ”Are you kidding me?” the judge responded.

Reyes ultimately ordered the Justice Department to send lawyers to the Capitol next week to confer with Berry and attempt to hammer out a workable agreement. And she said that if the two sides did not work out a deal, she planned to require them to estimate the total cost to the taxpayers of continuing the legal fight, which past precedent suggests could drag out for years.

“I don’t think the taxpayers want to fund a grudge match between the executive and the legislative,” she said. “Bad cases make bad law. … This is a bad, bad case for both of you.”

Categories
Affirmative Action Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Education Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Stories we sometimes miss. Constitutional Scholars, Black Conservatives, Asian Americans praise ruling banning affirmative action.

Stories we sometimes miss. Constitutional Scholars, Black Bonservatives, Asian Americans praise ruling banning affirmative action.

A collective cheer rang out Thursday from a variety of constitutional scholars, black conservatives and Asian American students and supporters after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision banning race-based admissions practices as unconstitutional.The nation’s highest court on Thursday released a 237-page opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College in which a 6-3 majority determined that Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Today’s victory … belongs to thousands of sleepless high schoolers applying to colleges,” Calvin Yang, a member of Students for Fair Admissions and a rising junior at the University of California Berkeley, said at a news conference Thursday afternoon.

Yang said he was rejected from Harvard University because of its affirmative action policies and he chose to join SFFA to stand up for those who have suffered.

The victory “belongs to those with the last name of Smith or Lee, Chen or Gonzales; it belongs to all of us who deserve a chance. … We can rejoice in the fact that our children will be judged based on their achievements and merits alone,” Yang said at the news conference.

Several black conservatives also chimed in Thursday on social media and in news releases, arguing the decision is a win for the black community.

“Years from now, black students admitted to top schools will say Thank you Supreme Court for a decision that removes the perception the only reason I got in is due to my race. You re-established merit as the core criteria to be considered against a standard bar of excellence,” stated Ian Rowe, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, on Twitter.

 

The Project 21 Black Leadership Network also published a news release Thursday that cited a parade of scholars praising the decision.

“Using discriminatory practices to supposedly remedy past discrimination was always going to be a recipe for disaster,” said Project 21 Ambassador Christopher Arps. “…Today’s Supreme Court decision is a decisive victory towards Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of a colorblind society.”

Project 21 Ambassador Melanie Collette added: “For years, blacks have been told their achievements are not solely their own, and that their skin color somehow played a role in their successes. It’s insulting and demeaning to suggest that blacks couldn’t have done this without affirmative action’s handout.”

The justices ruled in Students for Fair Admissions that the affirmative action policies instituted by these major universities are unconstitutional.

Constitutional scholar GianCarlo Canaparo with the Heritage Foundation also joined the chorus of praise for the decision.

“For too long the court has allowed universities to use stereotypes to racially balance their student bodies. Today that ends,” he told The College Fix via email on Thursday.

Constitutional scholar Adam Feldman, creator of Empirical Scotus, said the ruling has far-reaching implications for both public and private colleges and universities.

“This ruling not only encompasses public universities but through the Harvard decision also includes universities accepting federal funds as a violation of Title VI. Once the Supreme Court granted these cases the most obvious hypothesis was that the Court would overturn affirmative action with the new conservative supermajority,” Feldman told The Fix via email.

Both Feldman and Canaparo said they expect lower courts will experience more litigation as a result of the decision and admissions officials will now use loopholes to continue to administer race-based enrollment decisions.

Universities “may not use race explicitly, but they’ll give advantages and disadvantages to zip codes and high schools where they know they will find high proportions of the races they like and the races they don’t like,” Canaparo said.

Courts will be forced to “draw a line in the sand delineating how race can no longer play a role in university admissions,” Feldman added. “The magnitude of this decision and its expansiveness should not be understated.”

“It is tricky to predict repercussions beyond the decision’s clarity of race based admissions violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and that this will be applied in all future and pending litigation.”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett; Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the liberal side of the bench, dissented.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch quoted Bostock, which determined that employers must exercise sex-blindness when making employment decisions. Even though Title IX – which provides clear protections for sex-specific spaces, including athletics – was not mentioned in the opinion, it is unclear how Justice Gorsuch’s inclusion of Bostock will impact future court decisions involving the Civil Rights Act, some scholars say.

Despite what litigation may follow, students say they are hopeful that the court’s majority opinion will provide a brighter future for students, properly awarding merit rather than judging students based on the color of their skin.

“Today’s decision has started a new chapter in history and the saga of Asian Americans in this country. It marks the promise of a new beginning,” Yang said at Thursday’s news conference.

Another student of color who weighed in Thursday was Grove City College’s Isaac Willour, who wrote a piece for the Lone Conservative headlined “Why I welcome the death of affirmative action.”

“The things that allow non-white Americans to rise in today’s society are the things that allow everyone to rise: ingenuity, dynamism, personal drive, and good choices. To claim that such virtues can be encapsulated or accurately measured by skin color is inherently racist,” wrote Willour, who is also an alumnus of The College Fix.

MORE: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in landmark decision

IMAGE: Lazy Llama / Shutterstock

Categories
Biden Cartel California. Commentary Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Life Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Living in Florida vs California.

Living in Florida vs California.

For those who think it’s so great, think about what it would cost you to live in California..

 
If you lived in California instead of Florida, you would:

PAY 8.2% MORE FOR RESTAURANTS

 
 FLORIDA
 CALIFORNIA
Basic meal with drink at inexpensive restaurant$19.03
 
$19.70
 
Fast food combo meal
McDonalds, or similar
$9.60
 
$10.02
 
Bottle of Coca-Cola (11 fl. oz)$2.25
 
$2.59
 
Bottle of water (11 fl. oz)$1.84
 
$2.01
 

 

PAY 3.6% MORE FOR GROCERIES

 
 FLORIDA
 CALIFORNIA
Bread
1 loaf
$3.21
 
$3.79
 
Local cheese (8 oz)$6.22
 
$6.34
 
Milk (1 gallon)$4.26
 
$4.47
 
Eggs
1 dozen
$4.01
 
$4.63
 
Boneless chicken breast (1 lb)$5.09
 
$6.05
 
Apples (1 lb)$2.33
 
$2.14
 
Bananas (1 lb)$0.76
 
$0.86
 
Oranges (1 lb)$1.97
 
$1.77
 
Tomatoes (1 lb)$2.20
 
$2.23
 
Potatoes (1 lb)$1.43
 
$1.42
 
Onions (1 lb)$1.46
 
$1.24
 

 

PAY 22.6% MORE FOR TRANSPORTATION

 
 FLORIDA
 CALIFORNIA
Gasoline (1 gallon)$3.44
 
$4.89
 
Monthly public transit pass$52.60
 
$68.08
 
New Volkswagen Golf 1.4 (standard edition)$24,899.31
 
$25,571.45
 
Taxi trip in downtown area (5 miles)$15.08
 
$17.49
 
 
 

PAY 17.8% MORE FOR HOUSING

 
 FLORIDA
 CALIFORNIA
Internet connection
50 mbps or faster, cable/dsl
$69.94
 
$70.94
 
1-Bedroom apartment in downtown area$1,757.68
 
$2,161.66
 
1-Bedroom apartment outside city center$1,518.55
 
$1,891.75
 
Utilities for two (700 sq ft apartment)
including electric, gas, water, heating
$124.44
 
$151.84
 

PAY 37.9% MORE FOR CHILDCARE

 
 FLORIDA
 CALIFORNIA
Private preschool for 1 child, monthly$960.80
 
$1,413.75
 
Middle school for 1 child, two semesters$14,658.88
 
$18,865.17
 
 

PAY 23.8% MORE FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS

 
 FLORIDA
 CALIFORNIA
Domestic/local beer (1 pint)$4.81
 
$6.51
 
Cappuccino in mid-range area$4.36
 
$4.78
 
Pack of cigarettes
Marlboro or similar
$7.52
 
$9.86
 
Monthly membership at local gym$39.38
 
$52.94
 
Movie ticket to theater/cinema$12.34
 
$13.37
 

PAY 6.4% MORE FOR CLOTHING

 
 FLORIDA
 CALIFORNIA
Regular jeans
Levi’s brand
$44.23
 
$49.43
 
Regular dress
from H&M or similar store
$35.60
 
$38.84
 
Running shoes
Nike or Adidas
$82.15
 
$81.58
 
 Page last updated: April 2024
Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Elections Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Joe Biden’s Political Origin Story Is Almost Certainly Bogus. It May Land Him In Legal Trouble.

Joe Biden’s Political Origin Story Is Almost Certainly Bogus. It May Land Him In Legal Trouble.

March 25, 2024

For nearly two decades, President Joe Biden has told a story about why he devoted his life to politics. He repeated the tale, at the risk of facing criminal charges for lying to a federal agent, while speaking to Special Counsel Robert Hur in October 2023.

Fresh out of law school and working as a clerk at a high-powered Wilmington, Delaware, law firm, Biden, in his telling, was tapped to defend a construction company sued by a 23-year-old welder who “lost part of his penis and one of his testicles” to a fire that broke out when he was working inside a chimney at a Delaware City plant. Thanks to Biden’s shrewd legal defense on the construction company’s behalf, the injured man lost the case.

“I wrote this memo. And son of a b—, it prevailed,” Biden told Hur on Oct. 8. “And I looked over at that kid…and I thought, ‘son of a b—, I’m in the wrong business, I’m not made for this.’”

Biden said he was so wracked with guilt that he concocted an excuse to avoid a celebratory lunch with one of the firm’s named partners and walked into the public defender’s office to ask for a job that very day. It’s “the only time I ever lied,” Biden told Hur on Oct. 8. Thus began, according to a New York Times report on the special counsel interview, “a career that would one day take him to the White House.”

But this story is almost certainly a complete work of fiction. Although Biden did work at a law firm tapped to defend a construction company in a negligence suit like the one he described to Hur, the case concluded in 1968, while Biden was still in law school. And the welder won, walking away with $315,000, more than $2.8 million in 2024 dollars.

Biden, whose 1988 presidential campaign collapsed amid allegations that he had plagiarized speeches and a law school paper, has a long record of embellishments and yarn spinning. Over the years, he has told several stories about himself that don’t stand up to scrutiny. Those fibs range from the small and peculiar—he claimed in November 2023 that he was offered a spot on the Naval Academy’s football team—to the mendacious, such as his insistence that he never spoke with his son, Hunter Biden, about the latter’s foreign business dealings.

This report is based on a review of court records obtained from the National Archives as well as contemporaneous news reports and interviews with Biden’s former law firm colleagues and federal court clerks.

Over the years, Biden has told different versions of the welder story. He told Hur that he received several offers from “prestigious law firms,” one of which he landed because of his good looks. Biden says he accepted a job at Prickett, Ward, Burt & Sanders but could not begin work until he passed the bar exam and started as a law clerk at the firm.

In his 2007 memoir, however, Biden says he had very few job prospects after his 1968 graduation from Syracuse University Law School and that Prickett took a chance on him, offering him a role despite his poor grades—including the F he received in a torts class after he was caught plagiarizing.

Regardless, Biden began work at Prickett in 1968 and spent about a year at the firm. It was there, Biden says, that senior partner William Prickett tapped him to draft a motion to dismiss a case against the firm’s client, Catalytic Construction Company, which had been sued by a welder who had been engulfed in flames while working inside a chimney at a Delaware plant.

If there was any “slightly contributory negligence,” Biden said to Hur, “you were out.” So, Biden told Hur that, in his brief, he leveraged the welder’s failure to wear protective gear and argued the worker bore legal responsibility for his misfortune.

The Washington Free Beacon was unable to find any record of Biden working on a case that fits this description or any record of Prickett handling such a case while Biden was in the firm’s employ.

Biden’s story bears a striking resemblance to a case Prickett took on while Biden was still an undergraduate at the University of Delaware. Some of the language Biden used in recounting the incident to Hur matches that found in an article published by the Wilmington News-Journal, which Biden reportedly reads daily.

In May 1962, Joseph Januszewski, a welder for the Catalytic Construction Company, was working inside a chimney at the Stauffer Chemical plant in Delaware. At one point, the News-Journal reported, “sparks from his torch apparently ignited a chemical substance used to clean water” and engulfed his body in flames.

The accident left Januszewski disfigured. Surgeons amputated his leg at the thigh and he was wheelchair bound until his death in 1972.

A Pennsylvanian who was 56 years old at the time of the accident, Januszewski was working inside a “vessel” at the plant when the accident occurred, a detail Biden emphasized during his interview with Hur. Both Januszewski and his wife sued the Catalytic Construction Company in 1964. William Prickett represented Catalytic.

 

Whether Januszewski was left without a penis, as Biden claimed, is unclear. In April 1968, a federal jury sided with Januszewski and awarded him $315,000, a massive sum worth more than $2.8 million in 2024 dollars.

It is extremely unlikely that Biden had any involvement in the case. He was 21 years old when Januszewski filed suit in May 1964. At the time, Biden was completing his junior year at the University of Delaware in Newark. He was finishing his law degree at Syracuse University when a federal jury ruled in Januszewski’s favor four years later, and didn’t start working for Prickett, Ward, Burt & Sanders until at least June 1968, according to his memoir. By then, records show, the case had concluded. No appeal was filed.

There is a possibility that Biden is referring to another civil case tried in the late 1960s in the District Court of Delaware or its Pennsylvania counterpart that saw William Prickett defending the Catalytic Construction Company against a welder and his wife suing over burns sustained while working inside a “vessel” at a company plant.

But if there was such a case, no one can locate it. The District Court of Delaware only keeps records for cases dating back to 1974, a clerk told the Free Beacon. Nor does Prickett, Ward, Burt & Sanders have any records on it. A spokesman for the firm, which is now named Prickett, Jones & Elliot, told the Free Beacon that its records from the Januszewski case and any others in the late 1960s have long been destroyed. William Prickett died in 2014.

“We are familiar with the passage in Mr. Biden’s autobiography discussing our firm and a civil action William Prickett and Mr. Biden worked on,” the spokesman said. “Unfortunately we cannot confirm that the Januszewski matter is the one to which the autobiography refers. Any records from the case, and other matters the firm handled in the late 1960s, are well outside the time period of our records retention policy and have likely been destroyed.”

The Free Beacon obtained a copy of the case records from the National Archives in Washington, D.C. A staff member there could not locate any cases with similar fact patterns.

Spokesmen for the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

This piece has been updated to reflect that Biden was not under oath while speaking to Hur, but could still face criminal charges for lying to a federal agent.

This article was originally from The Free Beacon.

Categories
Biden Pandemic Government Overreach Lies Reprints from others. Tony the Fauch

Four Medications the Government Tried to Restrict During COVID and How to Legally Get Them

Four Medications the Government Tried to Restrict During COVID and How to Legally Get Them

The following content was sponsored by The Wellness Company on the original site, BREITBART.

Just a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable that our government would ever try to restrict access to certain drugs. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, opened our eyes to just how far our government would go to line the pockets of Big Pharma.

Here are four critical medications that might have been hard to get during the pandemic due to pressure from the government and big medicine:

1. IVERMECTIN

Nobel-prize winning medicine demonized as “horse medicine” by the mainstream media and the FDA, Ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines.

Depositphotos

2. HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE

An antiviral that has been used for 50 years for the treatment of various diseases, Hydroxychloroquine was smeared by the left and medical establishment after President Donald Trump advocated for it.

Depositphotos

3. GENERIC Z-PAK

One of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in history, Z-Pak is also a key component in early treatment protocols and thus came under fire by some in our crooked medical establishment.

Depositphotos

4. BUDESONIDE

Budesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid breathing treatment used to reduce inflammation in the airways and lungs.

Depositphotos

Access to all of these critical prescription medications were limited or restricted, making them difficult for suffering Americans to get.

2024 is the year to be prepared.

We know what the globalists did in 2020, and we know they will do whatever they can to maintain power, which makes 2024 a potentially very dangerous year for Americans.

Warning: The following is their advertisement if not interested, stop here.

Unlike 2020, you don’t have to be caught unprepared, and that’s where the Wellness Company comes in.

The Wellness Company and its great doctors – like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Drew, Dr. Harvey Risch, and Dr. Jim Thorp – are regularly in the media fighting against the broken medical establishment.

Dr. Thorp, one of the nation’s leading critics of corrupt Big Pharma, believes that now – more than ever – people should be prepared for the next pandemic:

I’ve strongly recommended “stockpiling” critical medications including antibiotics since the turn of the century. This has been an incredible investment as many friends, family, and patients have benefited. Now, in the winter of 2024, this recommendation is even more crucial.

The ultimate safeguard for your health.

Be ready for the next crisis. This Contagion Kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications – including ivermectin, and hydroxychloroquine. The Contagion Kit also includes a guidebook to aid in the safe use of these life-saving medications.

This kit is prescription-only – you can’t find it in any store or pharmacy. Simply fill out a short questionnaire after purchase and a trusted Wellness Company doctor will confirm your suitability and issue your prescription, Contagion Kit.

The Wellness Company Contagion Kit contains:

  • Azithromycin (generic Z-Pak) 250 mg – 12 tablets
  • Budesonide 0.5 mg/2 mL – 10 vials (plus nebulizer included)
  • Hydroxychloroquine 200 mg -20 tablets
  • Ivermectin 12mg – 25 tablets
  • 1 Contagion Kit Guidebook written by the Chief Medical Board for safe use.

What people are saying about the Contagion Kit:

This is the perfect emergency kit at the perfect price. Every home should have this for peace of mind. – Rebecca B.

This is absolutely great! I encourage everyone to buy one of these for emergencies!! – Melody H.

Peace of mind. It is an amazing peace of mind to have this kit in case of emergencies and shortages. The Wellness Company did an excellent job of getting this to me in a timely manner and I and thankful to have it. – Phyllis T.

Don’t be caught unprepared for whatever 2024 sends your way!

Never be without these critical drugs. Get the Wellness Company’s Contagion Kit – which contains all four of these drugs – TODAY!

Order the Wellness Company’s Contagion Kit today!

Categories
Biden Cartel California. Commentary Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

State Farm, California’s largest insurer, announced that it will discontinue coverage for 72,000 homes.

 

State Farm, California’s largest insurer, announced that it will discontinue coverage for 72,000 homes and apartments starting this summer, a move likely to sharply inflate housing costs for affected residents in a state that’s reeling from a series of destructive recent wildfires.

The Illinois-based insurance giant, which accounts for a fifth of the California home insurance market and is the largest property and auto insurer in the U.S., cited rising costs, increasing catastrophe risk and outdated regulations in declaring it won’t renew California policies for 30,000 homes and 42,000 apartments.

“This decision was not made lightly and only after careful analysis of State Farm General’s financial health,” the company said in a March 20 statement. “State Farm General takes seriously our responsibility to maintain adequate claims-paying capacity for our customers and to comply with applicable financial solvency laws. It is necessary to take these actions now.”

The announcement comes less than a year after State Farm announced it would not issue new policies in California, citing similar concerns. And it comes as the state’s elected insurance commissioner embarks on a yearlong overhaul of home insurance regulations aimed at calming California’s imploding market by giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums while extracting commitments from them to extend coverage in fire-risk areas.

“One of our roles as the insurance regulator is to hold insurance companies accountable for their words and deeds,” said Deputy Insurance Commissioner Michael Soller. “State Farm General’s decision today raises serious questions about its financial situation — questions the company must answer to regulators. … We need to be confident in State Farm’s strategy moving forward to live up to its obligations to its California customers.” But it was unclear whether the department would launch an investigation into State Farm’s move.

Harvey Rosenfield, the Consumer Watchdog founder who authored the state’s insurance regulation system approved by voters in 1988’s Proposition 103, said the company’s announcement comes just after the state Department of Insurance approved a 20% premium increase for the company. That approval was based on State Farm’s existing number of policy holders, and he said the state should take another look at the rate hike considering the new cancellations.

Whole article is here.

 

 

 

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Articles we missed. California Exit Tax & Wealth Tax: What Is it & How it Applies to You.

 

California is known for having some of the most significant in-state taxes in the country with a 13.3% annual income tax rate. You can checkout anytime you want, but you can never leave.

However, did you know that you might still be taxed even after you leave the state?

Yep! Thanks to the California exit tax legislation, depending on how much money you get from in-state activities, such as investments in real estate or business operations, you could still be treated like a Californian on your next tax return!

Join us as we walk you through the California wealth and exit tax questions, such as “what is the exit tax in california,” how much it is, who it applies to, and a deeper dive into the CA wealth tax proposal and the Assembly Bill 2088.

 

So, what is the California exit tax? The California exit tax explained:

The California exit tax is a one-time tax that must be paid by businesses and individuals who relocate outside of California. The tax is based on the value of the business or individual’s assets, including property, stocks, and other investments.

It forms part of the larger California wealth tax, whereby the state imposes a tax based on its residents’ wealth.

Those who have lived in the state at any point in time in the past and who earn an annual income greater than $30 million are affected by the wealth tax and would have to pay an annual tax on their wealth for as long as 10 years after they have left the state.

How much is the California exit tax?

The amount of the California exit tax is 0.4% of an individuals’ net worth over $30,000,000 in a tax year, no matter where it’s located—within CA, other states within the US, or overseas. This amount is halved to $15,000,000 if a married taxpayer files a separate return to their spouse.

The one caveat is that there is no California exit tax on real estate (but if the real estate is within state lines, it would still be taxed under California Revenue and Tax Code § 17591).

Who has to pay California exit tax?

The exit tax applies to both businesses and individuals who leave California. This includes businesses that move their operations out of state as well as individuals who relocate to another state. It should be noted that the exit tax only applies if you’re moving to another state, not within California.

Why was the California exit tax of 2020 created?

The exit tax is intended to recoup some of the money that California has invested in these businesses and individuals.

For example, if a business owner has received tax breaks or other financial incentives from the state, the exit tax ensures that they will still contribute some money to California‘s economy even after they leave.

The primary reason for the enactment of the exit tax was to close a loophole that allowed people to avoid paying taxes on their capital gains.

Under federal law, capital gains are only taxed when they are realized. This means that if someone buys a stock for $1,000 and it goes up to $10,000, they don’t have to pay taxes on that $9,000 until they sell the stock.

If that person lived in California and then moved to another state before selling the stock, they would never have to pay taxes on that $9,000 in capital gains.

To close this loophole, the Golden State enacted the California wealth and exit tax. Now, anyone who leaves the state is required to pay taxes on their unrealized capital gains.

It’s been criticized by many people, who argue that it is unfair and punitive. They point out that many people who are leaving California are doing so because they can no longer afford to live there.

By California taxing people who leave even more, they say the state is effectively pushing them out.

What’s more, they argue that the exit tax will make it even harder for these businesses and individuals to get back on their feet financially once they’re in their new location.

The California Wealth Tax Proposal in a Nutshell

California is in the midst of a major overhaul of its tax code, which could expand the state’s ability to tax non-residentseven if they sever their connections with the state.

The bill that is causing quite a stir among business and property owners is called the Assembly Bill 2088 (AB 2088), which is, effectively, the California wealth tax proposal.

AB 2088 was introduced in Sacramento in August of 2020, and it proposes a California wealth tax for the first time in the state, affecting individuals who have lived in the state and who make an annual income greater than $30 million.

However, before we delve into the loopholes and exceptions to this ambitious, but potentially consequential, new bill, we must first understand how California’s tax code could impact you, even as a non-resident.

Whether you are a landowner or an entrepreneur with connections to the state, understanding the tax implications is crucial to mitigating the possibility of having to pay some pretty significant taxes.

Starting point: Residency & the California exit tax proposal 2020

First, California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is in charge of setting the requirements for California citizenship, and plays a pivotal part in a California residency audit.

Factors that affect its determination include:

  • your largest residential property’s location
  • Residence of your spouse and children
  • School districts where your children attend
  • Whether your account statements from your credit cards show your residence in California
  • Exemptions you may claim as a homeowner in California
  • Approximately how many days you spend in California each year
  • Whether your California residence is listed on a federal and local tax return
  • Where you vote
  • Where your vehicles are registered

Looking at these factors, you might think that removing yourself physically from the state would result in them no longer applying and saving you a fair amount of money.

There is some truth to this assumption, as the Franchise Tax Board actually cannot base your residence in California if you do not physically reside within your home in California for most of the year.

This is especially convenient for people who frequently travel or, perhaps, own other residential property outside of California.

Still, even if you change addresses, remove California on your tax returns, and move across the country, you could still be impacted by the California tax code when it comes to taxes.

The above factors listed by the FTB are to be used as a guideline; they are certainly not the only things to consider.

A common fallacy: people frequently believe that moving out of California will make them exempt from paying individual income taxes. This is not necessarily the case, and it would be wrong to assume relocation is a blanket solution.

Check Out Our Complete Residency Audit Guide for More Help

Requirements for the CA exit tax 2020: do they apply to you?

California looks at two major factors when determining whether an individual’s income is taxable and how that then applies to the California exit tax proposal 2020:

  1. Do you generate income from sources within the state? (e.g. real estate investments, business investments in California);
  2. Does your business operate within state lines? (e.g. facilities, employees, etc.)

Let’s look at these two in more detail and how they apply to the “leaving California tax”, as it’s sometimes known…

1. Income-generating sources from within the state

According to the California Revenue and Tax Code § 17591any financial ties you have to California follow you to your new state of residence.

In other words, if you have invested in or own real estate within California, you still need to pay in-state tax on that real estate, even if you technically reside in another state.

This tax code applies even at the time of sale of that real estate, because it falls under the category of California-source income”—income derived from sources within California state lines. 

FTB Publication 1031 elaborates further on the types of real estate and property investments that are subject to California nonresident taxes:

Community property income

For individuals with spouses who are California residents, the spouse’s income is considered community property and is, therefore, split equally by the couple.

The community property share of that income is taxable to each spouse, even if one of the spouses lives outside of California and has never lived in the state before.

Real estate sales

Any gain (or loss) from selling real estate located in the state of California is taxable under California’s tax code.

This applies even if the owner is a non-resident who has never lived within the state. The location of the property controls whether the tax applies.

2. Business Operations and Activities in California as a Non-resident

Another situation to be wary of is owning or operating a business within California state lines as a non-resident.

Many business owners falsely believe that because they live outside of California or conduct part of their business operations out-of-state that this exempts them from California taxes.

Under the Constitution, a business’s income may be taxed by the percentage of business activity conducted within a given state.

As applied to California, if a business’s manufacturing facilities are located in Nevada but its workforce, such as remote and/or in-person workers, and corporate offices are in Los Angeles, then that business has demonstrated a sufficient “nexus” or connection with California.

Thus, it is subject to the state’s taxes, and the exit tax in California applies.

If a business demonstrates a sufficient connection or “nexus” to the state of California, it may be subject to the state’s taxes, regardless of whether some of its operations or employees live out of state.

Still, this does not necessarily mean that the California taxes will apply to that business’s total income, especially if only a fraction of the business’s total revenue is derived from California sources.

Say, for example, a business earns $10 million in annual income with 40% from California consumers and 60% from Nevada consumers. California will only be able to tax $4 million of the total $10 million income, because that is the proportion of California-sourced income.

Types of non-resident businesses and the exit tax in California

FTB Publication 1031 elaborates further on the types of business activities that are subject to California non-resident taxes:

  • Salary and wages: To non-residents, wages and salaries for services performed in California are taxable, regardless of the location of the employer or employee.
  • Income from business: Income from a business, trade, or profession conducted in the state may be taxed on non-residents.

Unsure How This Applies To You? Give Us A Call

Foreseeable Developments to the California Exit Tax 2020 Proposal—Assembly Bill 2088

In terms of whether the California exit tax 2020 proposal bill will actually stand the test of litigation, the likelihood of courts nullifying the law, should it be enacted, is high.

The exit tax clearly violates the constitutional right to travel, because it burdens individuals from:

  1. Moving to the state of California in fear that the state tax will follow them even after they leave the state, and
  2. Moving out of the state for the similar reason of having to continue to pay California taxes while also navigating the state and local taxes of their new residence.

To provide some context to why courts will likely find the tax unconstitutional, it is important to first understand the levels of “scrutiny” or critical inspection of the law that will be applied.

Since the law affects a fundamental constitutional right—the right to travel—strict scrutiny will apply here.

Strict scrutiny of the “leaving California tax

Under strict scrutiny, the burden is on the legislature to show that the law was enacted to further a “compelling government interest” and the law is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.

In other words, the question revolves around whether the law is essential or necessary and whether there are alternative, less-intrusive methods of attaining the same result.

The state of California will likely argue that the “compelling” interest is to mitigate economic inequality and the disparity between classes. This is certainly an important and necessary issue to address.

However, coming up with an argument to show that the exit tax is “narrowly tailored” in that no other alternatives for achieving the purpose are available will be an uphill battle.

Overall, because the bill will impact a fundamental constitutional right and there are likely many other ways to go about addressing the compelling interest it aims to address, the likelihood of the exit tax withstanding strict scrutiny is slim.

Nevertheless, litigating the issue will take time, and it’s important to prepare for any impact the bill may have upon being enacted.

Avoiding the California exodus tax: what can you do?

The first step to approaching this California tax for leaving state is to consult a licensed tax attorney and explore your options.

Depending on your situation, taxes may apply to you in ways you might never anticipate.

Further, having a professional explain to you what parts of your income, business operations and activities, and wealth are taxable under California law will help to ensure that you do not suffer from unfortunate surprises on your next tax statement.

Still Need Assistance? Give Us A Call

Key takeaways on the California wealth and exit tax

The AB 2088 Bill is responsible for the California wealth tax over 10 years ruling, whereby if you leave California, the State can tax you for up to 10 years.

As part of this California 10 year tax, the exit tax is 0.4% of an individuals’ net worth over $30,000,000 in a tax year, which is halved if you have a spouse filing a separate tax return.

However, this all depends on your residency status, which can be a complicated matter. Get in touch with our team if you need help with residency or anything to do with the California exit tax.

 

Categories
Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic COVID Daily Hits. Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

10 stories last week that should have been major news.

10 stories last week that should have been major news. Vigilant Fox does this weekly special. I just changed the title.

#10 – Secret recording catches Pfizer saying the quiet part out loud.

#9 – Boeing whistleblower John Barnett said before his death: “If anything happens to me, it’s not suicide.”

#8 – Dr. Phil GOES OFF on the CDC and Department of Education.

#7 – Joe Rogan warns we are empowering ‘evil’ with terms like ‘minor-attracted person.’

#6 – New study unearths alarming findings for people who got vaccinated after COVID infection.

#5 – Judge who refused to remove Fani Willis from her junk RICO case against Trump donated to Fani Willis’s campaign.

#4 – 16 Female Athletes Sue NCAA for Allowing Men to Compete in Women’s Sports

#3 – Trudeau’s Canada threatens life sentences for “hate.”

#2 – Dr. Pierre Kory reveals why Big Pharma is ‘terrified’ of Vitamin D.

#1 – Australian government introduces frightening legislation to parents resisting the New World Order.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

What say you? Income-based electric bills.

What say you? Income-based electric bills. California average is $.35 cents per kilowatt. National average is $.18. I’m paying $.05.

California residents might find their electric bills looking a little different in the new year.

Typically, electricity bills reflect the amount of electricity a specific household uses. But, after Assembly Bill 205 passed last year, California could see electricity charges based off of income level instead.

The state’s three largest electric utility companies, Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company, all proposed the plan, saying that low-income customers could save approximately $300 a year under this new law.

Alternatively, California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal.

PREVIOUS COVERAGECalifornia electric bills may soon be income-based

Here’s a breakdown of the proposed rate restructuring for SoCal Edison customers, based on income:

  • Above $180,000: $85/month
  • $69,000 – $180,000: $51/month
  • $28,000 – $69,000: $20/month
  • Less than $28,000: $15/month

The plan will break down monthly bills into a fixed rate, plus a reduced usage charge based on consumption, according to officials.

Supporters of the bill believe it to be a possible solution to many moderate and low-income families getting priced out of California by rising housing costs. Opponents worry the law could weaken incentives to conserve electricity or raise costs for customers using solar energy.

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024, although officials said implementing it will still take some time before California residents see any changes to their electricity bills.

Categories
Biden Cartel Government Overreach Gun Control Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Another California gun law struck down.

Another California gun law struck down.

A California law barring people from buying more than one gun a month has been struck down.

In his March 11 ruling, a federal judge said that the one-gun-a-month (OGM) law does not adhere to requirements for gun restrictions outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in a pivotal 2022 decision.

“Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law,” U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes wrote in the decision.

“The court therefore concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the OGM law under the Second Amendment.”

The U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen says that if a law regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment, officials defending the law must show it is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Defendants must provide “historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding [that] evinces a comparable tradition of regulation,” the high court stated.

Justices instructed lower courts not to “uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue” but that “analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.”

They also issued guidance for judges to consider “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense” and to examine “whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified are central considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.”

The law, signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019, barred people who bought a handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle from a dealer from applying to buy another handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle for at least 30 days.

“Gun violence is an epidemic in this country, one that’s been enflamed by the inaction of politicians in Washington,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said at the time.

“While Washington has refused to act on even the most basic gun safety reforms, California is once again leading the nation in passing meaningful gun safety reforms.”

Gun owners and groups sued in 2020, saying the law violated their constitutional rights.

After the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, defendants were ordered to provide historical examples of similar laws.

California officials offered four categories of historical restrictions, including regulations on selling guns to Native Americans and regulations on gunpowder.

Those regulations are not relevant to the law in question, Judge Hayes said.

Differing Objectives

The restrictions on Native Americans, for instance, “do not impose a comparable burden” to the California law, he wrote.

“The identified historical laws targeted only a narrow subset of the population perceived as dangerous, while the OGM law, with limited exceptions, affects all people acquiring handguns and semiautomatic centerfire rifles in California.

“Further, laws restricting the sale of arms to Native Americans impose neither a quantity nor time limitation similar to that of the OGM law.”

The gunpowder regulations were comparable because they “placed limits on the ownership and storage of gunpowder,” but “did not completely prevent people from purchasing gunpowder,” the state argued.

The regulations and the 2019 California law are “comparably justified” because both were imposed to “promote public safety,” the state said.

Judge Hayes, though, noted that officials have said previously that the California law was aimed at reducing firearms trafficking and disarming criminals, while the gunpowder regulations were put in place to prevent fires and explosions.

“Put simply, gunpowder regulations addressed fire-related risks, while the OGM law addresses risks associated with illegal gun trafficking and gun violence. Gunpowder restrictions and the OGM law are therefore not comparably justified,” he said.

Judge Hayes, a George W. Bush appointee, entered a stay of the order for 30 days to enable California officials to appeal.

“We are currently evaluating the decision, but it is important to acknowledge that the law limiting firearm purchases to one every thirty days remains in effect at this time,” a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, told The Epoch Times via email.

“Another week, another California gun control law declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Cody J. Wisniewski, vice president and general counsel of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement. Some of the group’s members are among the plaintiffs.

“California’s one-gun-a-month law directly violates California residents’ right to acquire arms and has no basis in history,” Mr. Wisniewski said. “Given it seems certain California will refuse to learn its lesson, we look forward to continuing to strike down its gun control regime and to defending this victory.”

“This is a win for gun rights and California gun owners,” Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, another plaintiff, said in a statement. “There is no historical justification for limiting law-abiding citizens to a single handgun or rifle purchase during a one-month period, and Judge Hayes’ ruling clearly points that out.”