Category: The Courts

Categories
Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others. The Courts

Winning again. Judge denies justice department plea to hold Trump in contempt over records

The man, the myth the legend. Winning.

A top federal judge denied a request from the justice department to hold Donald Trump’s office in contempt of court for failing to fully comply with a subpoena demanding the return of all documents bearing classified markings, according to sources familiar with proceedings.

The chief US judge for the District of Columbia Beryl Howell told the department during a closed-door hearing on Friday to resolve the matter with the Trump legal team itself because a contempt ruling would not hold, the sources said.

The precise details about the hearing were not clear with the case under seal. But the judge’s move amounts to a victory for Trump as he contends with a criminal investigation into unauthorized retention of national security information at his Mar-a-Lago resort and obstruction of justice.

Federal prosecutors had sought to force Trump to name a custodian of records and certify under oath that all documents with classified markings had been returned to the government – as demanded by the grand jury subpoena issued in May – or otherwise find Trump’s office in contempt.

The contempt action is understood to be focused on Trump’s political office because the subpoena sought the return of all documents and writings “in the custody of Donald J Trump and / or the Office of Donald J Trump” bearing classification markings.

In response to the subpoena, Trump’s lawyer Evan Corcoran turned over a folder of documents to the justice department and asked another Trump lawyer Christina Bobb to sign a certification that she heavily caveated because she had not done the search, the Guardian previously reported.

The letter ultimately said that Bobb was making the attestation “based on the information provided to me” and “to the best of my knowledge”, a fact that she emphasized to the department around the time that prosecutors collected the folder and the certification letter, a person familiar with the matter said.

But after the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago on 8 August and found 103 documents marked classified – leading prosecutors to believe the subpoena had not been complied with – the department sought Trump’s lawyers to again certify that no further materials remained.

The Trump legal team has resisted designating a custodian of records and providing a sworn statement, despite repeated requests. That deeply frustrated prosecutors who told the legal team that if they did not provide a second attestation, they would seek judicial enforcement.

Part of the Trump legal team’s reluctance comes because neither they nor any other member of the former president’s office have had custody of all documents marked classified and do not think they could comprehensively answer every question about them, the sources said.

In a statement, a Trump spokesman said the former president and his lawyers would “continue to be transparent and cooperative even in the face of the highly weaponized and corrupt witch-hunt from the Department of ‘Justice’.”

The closed-door court battle between the justice department and Trump’s lawyers comes after it emerged that a search of a storage unit in Florida holding boxes of material belonging to Trump turned up two more documents marked classified, in addition to the 103 found at Mar-a-Lago by the FBI.

It was not clear whether the department initiated the contempt proceeding before or after the two additional documents were found, though the Trump legal team is understood to have turned over the two new documents as soon as they were discovered, the sources said.

Categories
Links from other news sources. The Courts

Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Joe Biden’s ‘Sanctuary Country’ Orders

Arresting criminals. ICE/JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

In all of his craziness Last year ( February 2021 ) Biden declared that ICE agents could not arrest or deport  most of the illegal aliens in the U.S. unless they are considered a threat to public safety, a threat to national security, or arrived sometime after November 2020.

Well the Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments  where states are seeking to block President Joe Biden’s so-called “sanctuary country” orders from being implemented.

In August 2021, Judge Drew Tipton of the Southern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, halting the implementation of the orders, after Texas and Louisiana sued the Biden administration. That injunction was put on hold by a three-judge panel in September 2021 but the full 17-judge Fifth Circuit vacated that decision.

Tuesday, SCOTUS will hear arguments from the Biden administration where they attest that the orders have only “incidental effects” on states in terms of needing more public resources to deal with a growing illegal alien population that is largely exempt from arrest and deportation.

“… a State may not sue the federal government based on such indirect, derivative effects,” the Biden administration is set to argue:

Federal policies routinely have incidental effects on States’ expenditures, revenues, and other activities. Yet such effects have never been viewed as judicially cognizable injuries. As the recent explosion in state suits vividly illustrates, respondents’ contrary view would allow any State to sue the federal government about virtually any policy—sharply undermining Article III’s requirements and the separation of powers principles they serve. [Emphasis added]

Meanwhile, the states will argue that the orders are unlawful for three reasons:

First, it is contrary to law because sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) mandate detention, as this Court has repeatedly stated. DHS identifies no INA provision that prevents this Court from reaching that conclusion. Second, the Final Memorandum is arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider important aspects of the problems criminal aliens create, including recidivism and States’ reliance interests. Third, the Final Memorandum is procedurally invalid because it was not adopted through notice-and-comment procedures, which are required where agency action substantively changes a regulatory regime. [Emphasis added]

 

 

Categories
Crime How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Reprints from others. The Courts

ANDY NGO REPORTS: Five more Antifa members in San Diego plead guilty to violent attacks during riot

Five more Antifa members have admitted to having a role in violent felonies in San Diego, Calif. in January 2021 where beachgoers, Trump supporters, and a dog were violently assaulted. At a court hearing on Nov. 18, five accepted plea deals instead of going to trial.

Their plea deals were made more than a month after trans Antifa member Erich Louis “Nikki” Yach, 38, made a plea deal in September. Yach was the first of 11 defendants to plead guilty, and pleaded guilty to three violent felonies, including conspiracy to riot, and was sentenced to four years and eight months in prison earlier this month. Yach has a prior violent criminal record that was a factor in the sentencing.

Prior convicted felon Erich Louis “Nikki” Yach was recently sentenced to nearly five years in prison.

In the five new plea deals, court paperwork reveals that Antifa members Christian Martinez, Bryan Rivera, Joseph Austin Gaskins, Samuel Howard Ogden, and Alexander Akridge-Jacobs all agreed to two years probation, a fourth amendment search waiver that includes electronic devices, and to not associate with any co-defendant. Any actual custody time will be determined by the judge at a sentencing hearing in three months. Until then, all five defendants will remain at liberty on their own recognizance.

Christian Martinez, 24, pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy to riot with his Antifa co-defendants, plus felony assault on victim 7, likely to produce great bodily injury. He also admitted to the special allegation that he was armed with a weapon, a full can of Twisted Tea. The prosecutor told the grand jury that he threw this beverage can so hard at the victim that the can actually broke open. Martinez’s maximum possible sentence is four years and eight months in state prison, plus 3 years parole. Martinez was arrested in December 2021 at his family’s home in Los Angeles, and police found Antifa symbols in his bedroom, according to testimony before a grand jury.

In June, a secret grand jury indicted 11 alleged Antifa members accused of being part of a network of violent cells in southern California that planned and carried out brutal assaults during a riot in Pacific Beach, Calif. on Jan. 9, 2021. Video recorded at the riot showed the mob in black bloc assaulting multiple victims with weapons. Trump supporters, minors, a photojournalist, and a man and his dog walking on the beach were all hurt during the attacks. Multiple weapons and firearms were seized from suspects during executed search warrants. This shocking conspiracy case involving Antifa has largely been ignored by establishment media which furthers the false claim that Antifa “doesn’t exist.”

Sentencing for the five who pleaded guilty is scheduled for March 1, 2023, at the central courthouse in downtown San Diego before Honorable judge Daniel Goldstein.

The five remaining defendants out of 11 have pleaded not guilty to all charges. Faraz Martin Talab has a trial date of March 1, 2023. Jesse Cannon, Brian Cortez Lightfoot Jr., Jeremy Jonathan White, and Luis Francisco Mora have the same trial date of April 3, 2023.

Original article here:

Categories
Corruption COVID Drugs Reprints from others. The Courts

Fauci Can’t Recall Key Details During Deposition: Louisiana AG

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks in Washington on May 11, 2022. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Dr. Anthony Fauci said he could not recall key details about his actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to one of the officials who questioned him on Nov. 23.

Fauci, the director National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984 and President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, was deposed by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, both Republicans.

“It was amazing, literally, that we spent seven hours with Dr. Fauci—this is a man who single-handedly wrecked the U.S. economy based upon ‘the science, follow the science.’—and over the course of seven hours, we discovered that he can’t recall practically anything dealing with his COVID response,” Landry told The Epoch Times after leaving the deposition. “He just said, ‘I can’t recall, I haven’t seen that. And I think we need to put these documents into context,’” Landry added.

“It was extremely troubling to realize that this is a man who advises presidents of the United States and yet couldn’t recall information he put out, information he discussed, press conferences he held dealing with the COVID-19 response,” Landry added later.

Fauci and NIAID did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Landry declined to provide specific details about the deposition until it is made public, which will happen at a future date. But he said officials would be able to take some of what they learned to advance their case.

Landry and Schmitt sued the U.S. government in May, alleging it violated people’s First Amendment rights by pressuring big tech companies to censor speech. Documents produced by the government in response bolstered the claims. U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, the Trump appointee overseeing the case, recently ordered Fauci and seven other officials to testify under oath about their knowledge of the censorship.

Doughty concluded that plaintiffs showed Fauci “has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19.”

While Fauci qualified as a high-ranking official, the burden of him being deposed was outweighed by the court’s need for information before ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction, Doughty said.

Wednesday was the first time Fauci testified under oath about his interactions with big tech firms, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Before the deposition, Landry said in a statement, “We all deserve to know how involved Dr. Fauci was in the censorship of the American people during the COVID pandemic; tomorrow, I hope to find out.”

“We’re going to follow the evidence everywhere it goes to get down to exactly what has happened, to get down to the fact that our government used private entities to suppress the speech of Americans,” Landry told The Epoch Times.

Other Depositions

The government moved to block some of the depositions, but not Fauci’s. It just won an order blocking the depositions of Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly, and Rob Flaherty, a deputy assistant to Biden.

Similar efforts to block the depositions of former White House press secretary Jen Psaki and FBI official Elvis Chan have been unsuccessful.

Chan is scheduled to answer questions next week. Psaki is scheduled to be deposed on Dec. 8.

Chan was involved in communicating with Facebook, LinkedIn, and other big tech firms about content moderation, according to evidence developed in the case and public statements he’s made. Psaki publicly said while still in the White House that platforms should step up against alleged mis- and disinformation.

Plaintiffs have already deposed several officials including Daniel Kimmage, an official at the State Department’s Global Engagement Center.

That center worked with Easterly’s agency to create a coalition of nonprofits called the Election Integrity Partnership, which pushed social media companies to censor speech.

Kimmage was also responsible for meetings during which censorship was discussed, with State Department official Samaruddin Stewart acting on his orders, according to documents produced by LinkedIn.

Motion to Dismiss

Earlier Wednesday, the government asked Doughty to throw out the case, asserting that plaintiffs have not shown the government engaged in coercion against the companies.

Even if government officials “urged social media companies do more to contain misinformation, any content moderation decisions made by social media companies ultimately ‘rested with’ those companies,” U.S. lawyers said.

“Even emphatic requests or strongly worded urging, see … (President Biden saying failing to take action against misinformation results in ‘killing people’), do not plausibly amount to coercion,” the lawyers added.

Plaintiffs are crafting a response to the motion.

Both sides are also preparing briefs regarding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision that blocked the Murthy, Easterly, and Flaherty depositions.

The appeals court said Doughty had not adequately considered whether alternative means of obtaining the information sought exist, such as deposing lower-level officials or seeking written answers from higher-level officials.

Doughty ordered plaintiffs to file a brief by Nov. 29. The government has until Dec. 2 to respond. Plaintiffs may reply to that response by Dec. 5.

Funny how he can’t recall things that are already documented as happening.

Categories
Elections The Courts

Winning. PA Supreme Court rules that if Ballot is not dated or dated wrong, must be put aside.

Rearing it's ugly head.
IllegalBallots Pixabay

PA Supreme Court rules that if Ballot is not dated or dated wrong, must be put aside. The court ruled Tuesday afternoon that they were in agreement with the US Supreme Court. All ballots must have the correct date.

The acting Secretary of State was going to ignore the  court ruling. Now that will not happen. At least not legally. I can see this comming up in blue states where white progressives claim they need to direct their house brothers and sisters.

Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts

Winning for now. Supreme Court temporarily blocks Jan. 6 committee subpoena for Kelli Ward phone records

Kelli Ward contends that the Jan. 6 select committee subpoena would chill her First Amendment rights and serve as a backdoor for the panel to explore her political contacts as head of the Arizona GOP. | Ross D. Franklin/AP Photo

The much to do about nothing January 6th Democrat committee went fishing again. For now the Supreme court smacked their hand.

Kagan’s two-page order stayed the subpoena “pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.” Similar requests in high-profile cases are almost always referred to the full court.

Of all people, Justice Kagan said not happening. Kagan gave the Loon panel until Friday at 5 p.m. to respond.

Ward asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in an appearance before the Jan. 6 select committee, a fact that the appeals court panel majority noted could be held against her in the civil lawsuit.

Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts

Winning. New York Judge Rules Voting by Mail Due to COVID Fears Is Unconstitutional

Judge ruls for the people.Photo flicker.com

I want to thank Resist the Mainstream for this awesome article.

An upstate New York judge ruled that citing fear of catching COVID-19 is no longer a valid excuse to continue thwarting the state’s election law regarding absentee ballots.

Saratoga County Supreme Court Justice Dianne Freestone, ordered local election boards to stop counting absentee ballots they’ve already received. Freestone directed the election officials to preserve the absentee ballots until after Election Day, November 8, or after a Republican lawsuit is resolved.

Her ruling did not invalidate ballots already mailed, according to a Fox News report.

New York’s Republican and Conservative parties, along with many like-minded officials, filed a legal challenge in Saratoga County’s Supreme Court one year after a proposed state constitutional amendment allowing no-excuse absentee voting was rejected by voters.

The plaintiffs asked the court to rule Chapter 763 of 2021 state laws and Chapter 2 of the state’s 2022 laws unconstitutional, further arguing Chapter 763 conflicts with other existing state statutes.

Republicans claim Chapter 2, which authorizes absentee voting on the basis of fearing COVID-19, violates the state Constitution.

Freestone ruled in favor of the Republican and Conservative plaintiffs, declaring the Election Law changes challenged in the lawsuit violate New York’s Constitution.

The state legislature “appears poised to continue the expanded absentee voting provisions of New York State Election Law … in an Orwellian perpetual state of health emergency and cloaked in the veneer of ‘voter enfranchisement,’” Freestone wrote Friday in her ruling.

Democrats, who control both houses of New York’s legislature, have said their Election Law changes regarding absentee ballots were both for safety and to enable early counting of them.

Republicans gleefully greeted news of the favorable ruling, which comes just two weeks before Election Day.

“What we object to is mass mailing of paper ballots when they are not necessary,” NYS Assemblyman Robert Smullen told Schenectady, NY-based WRGB. “Look, the president of the United States has said the COVID-19 pandemic is over.” Smullen is one of the plaintiffs who brought the legal action.

 

Categories
Elections Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts Uncategorized

Winning. N Y Supreme Court justice rules part of N.Y. absentee voting law is unconstitutional.

New York Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy holds a rally in Saratoga County to highlight the party?•s opposition to November election ballot propositions that could transform New York?•s voting laws on Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2021, in Ballston, N.Y.Will Waldron/Times Union

The complete article can be found here at Times Union.

A state Supreme Court justice issued a split ruling Friday that found New York’s absentee ballot laws are partially unconstitutional, a decision that will hurl an element of disorder into the midterm election in which mail-in voting is already underway.

State Supreme Court Justice Dianne L. Freestone’s decision stopped short of overturning a change in Election Law that allows someone to vote by absentee ballot if they fear contracting COVID-19, a measure that she highly criticized but said could not be undone at this time.

Freestone’s ruling struck down a 2021 state law around the “canvassing” of absentee ballots. For now, the ruling will reinstate some of the laws that were in effect prior to last year’s changes, including allowing someone to vote in-person on Election Day to override any absentee ballot they may have submitted.

Republican officials contend that is an important provision because it enables a voter who learns something damning about a candidate before the election to change their vote.

The ruling also gives clearer ability for poll watchers, candidates and others to contest a ballot in the court, something that Republicans argued was curtailed under the 2021 law.

Freestone opinion noted that the COVID-19 excuse to vote by mail, which was passed into state law after voters rejected a no-excuse voting ballot proposition last year, presents an “Orwellian perpetual state of health emergency.” She described the measure as “cloaked in the veneer of ‘voter enfranchisement.'”

She said the Democrat’s argument that the coronavirus poses a current health risk is “replete with alarmist statistics.”

Categories
The Courts

Pennsylvania Secretary of State tells Supreme Court to go pound salt.

Supreme Court being ignored.

Thanks to our friends at NTD.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the ballot had to be signed and dated. The Secretary of state said my house my rules. Stated she and the counties were to go by the state laws. All ballots received on time would be counted.

A group of Pennsylvania voters, the Republican National Committee, and the Pennsylvania Republican Party filed the lawsuit (pdf) with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, asking justices to quickly declare illegal guidance from the Pennsylvania Department of State regarding ballots that do not have dates.

Categories
Elections The Courts

Winning. Supreme Court rules that mail in ballots have to be signed.

Waiting for a decision.

In a judicial race in Pennsylvania, they tried to accept ballots that weren’t dated. The 3rd circuit of appeals ruled it was immaterial. But the US Supreme Court ruled differently.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a ruling by a lower court on a Pennsylvania case that involved the counting of undated mail-in ballots, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

The Supreme Court ruled on a decision that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made in May in a case involving the 2021 election of Judge Zachary Cohen,