High Court Drama – 19 States File Brief With Supreme Court Supporting Donald Trump Immunity Decision, Jack Smith Files Response


Posted originally on the CTH on December 21, 2023 | Sundance 

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow the legal arguments with presidential immunity to follow the traditional path through the appeals court [pdf court filing].  Special Prosecutor Jack Smith wants to sidestep the appeals court and go directly to the Supreme Court for resolution.

As noted by Politico, President Trump’s lawyers “repeatedly warning the justices to avoid “haste,” Trump’s lawyers skewered Smith for taking extraordinary steps to preserve the March 4, 2024, trial date without detailing why taking the case to a jury just over two months from now is so critical.”  In essence, Jack Smith is trying to force a fast trial on schedule to gain maximum interference with the GOP primary election, while Trump’s lawyers are calling him out for it.

Jack Smith filed a response to the Trump filing, again reasserting, “the public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves — for the first time in our nation’s history — criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office. And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election,” wrote Mr. Smith. “The nation has a compelling interest in a decision.”

Smith is worried the appeals court arguments and final decision will extend beyond the 2024 term of the Supreme Court, setting up a lengthy continuation of the DC case against Trump into October and November of 2024.   Trump’s team is saying the issues before the court are unprecedented and careful deliberation is needed.

To support the position of Donald Trump, 19 states filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court today [pdf Here].

[…] “In 234 years of American history, no President ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists. To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.

This Court’s ordinary review procedures will allow the D.C. Circuit to address this appeal in the first instance, thus granting this Court the benefit of an appellate court’s prior consideration of these historic topics and performing the traditional winnowing function that this Court has long preferred. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has already granted highly expedited review of President Trump’s appeal over President Trump’s opposition, with briefing to be concluded by January 2, 2024, and oral argument scheduled for January 9, 2024.

The Special Counsel urges this Court to bypass those ordinary procedures, including the longstanding preference for prior consideration by at least one court of appeals, and rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon. The Court should decline that invitation at this time, for several reasons. (read more, pdf)

Making matters more complex for the high court to review, former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and law professors Steven G Calabresi and Gary S Lawson have filed a briefing as Amici Curiae (friend of the court, not connected to either party), [pdf HERE] challenging the legitimacy of the Biden appointed special counsel, Jack Smith.

[SOURCE]

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court wants to weigh in on these issues, they are going to have to respond. This is in addition to the Supreme Court ultimately having to determine how the insufferable Colorado lawfare ruling is going to stand.

The Robert’s led supreme court does not like issues involving the political dynamic; however, on these two issues they are likely going to have to choose. If they deny the Jack Smith request, the trial of Donald Trump could be delayed until the resolution of presidential immunity ultimately reaches them (after appellate court review). However, there is a strong possibility the appeals court will side with President Trump, and the appeal to SCOTUS will then come from Jack Smith.

Abuse of Law


Posted originally on Dec 4, 2023 By Martin Armstrong 

Civilization Rule of Law

QUESTION: Is it true that Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, and when the Supreme Court ruled against him, he just ignored them? Didn’t this also undermine the rule of law to where we stand today?

WG

Taney Roger_B Chief Justice

ANSWER: Sadly, yes, you heard correctly. At the time, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that President Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln just ignored the Supreme Court entirely and refused to release John Merryman, who was a state legislator from Maryland, whom they arrested for attempting to hinder Union troops from moving from Baltimore to Washington. Later, on July 4, Lincoln, in a speech was very defiant. He acted like a tyrant and claimed he needed to suspend the rules in order to put down the rebellion in the South. So in other words, the rule of law and the Constitution mean nothing if the government claims it needs to act unconstitutionally.

Five years later, a new Supreme Court essentially backed Justice Taney’s ruling: In an unrelated case, the court held that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus and that civilians were not subject to military courts, even during a war.

Blackstone 10 guilty

I have read the discussions to form the Constitution. There is no question that the Framers intended to apply Blackstone’s foundation of law and to some extent, even Lord Coke. These were the glory days of the Rule of Law. The abuse of the rule of law in England really began during the 18th century. The colonies were denied most of the English Bill of Rights from the 17th century, which emerged after the English Revolution against King Charles I and his beheading in 1649.

The Sixth Amendment to our Constitution was intended to guarantee you counsel, which was denied in England since you had to defend yourself and all lawyers were prosecutors for the King. It entitled you to a trial by jury created in the Magna Carta against the abuse of the King back in the 13th century.

Coke Edward Lord

However, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a trial where the crime occurred – VENUE. The King would charge you, but because American juries would rule against the king, he put you in chains and transported you to England, where an English jury would always find you guilty. These were part of the abuses of the Rule of Law that led to the Revolution. You see, the Special Prosecutor indicts Trump in Washington DC, where 85% of the people are Democrats, but then files the criminal change in Florida. He is abusing the rule of law exactly as did the King.

Now, the mistake the Framers made was it took the theoretical King/Queen’s Bench which was supposed to be strictly law, and merged it with Chancery, which was “discretion” under EQUITY. It is true that the concept of equity or fairness predated Romans and was part of Asian culture as well as Judaea, where King Solomon decided who the real month of the child was.

I am concerned with the evolution of how we ended up where we are, and there is now NO POSSIBLE WAY the lawyers can reverse this trend. We have to crash and burn. Once you merge the King/Queen Bench with Chancery (discretion), there can be no rule of law. The very standard of review by an appellate court is now abuse of discretion. That is precise what Lord Coke declared:

“God send me never to live under the law of convenience or discretion.”

Lord Jeffreys

It was during the late 17th century that we find the original hanging judge – Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys. He was a ruthless prosecutor who targeted Catholics from 1677 until 1685. Then he was made Chief Justice. He was absolutely ruthless. He was a Puratin – no mercy. On Christmas Day no less, Jeffreys ordered the whipping of a woman:

“Hangman, I charge you to pay particular attention to this lady. Scourge her soundly, man; scourge her till her blood runs down! It is Christmas, a cold time for madam to strip. See that you warm her shoulders thoroughly.”

For stealing an apple when starving, he would ship you to America and rob your family of any support, all for the profit of selling “criminals” to plantation owners in America. You have no idea of how evil the rule of law has become when governments seek to exercise their power. There are never any rights that supersede the sheer will of the government.

Mill John Stuart Legal Persecution

This is what John Stuart Mill wrote about in his celebrated On Liberty. Just look at what they are doing to Trump. Indicting him where they can ensure Democrats would execute him if they could, and they charge him in Florida to comply superficially with the Sixth Amendment. This is the same abuse of law that led to the American Revolution, and there is NOBODY in Congress standing up for the last string that holds our civilization together.

Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus by executive decree. During World War II, the Supreme Court allowed the imprisonment of all Japanese based entirely on their race, even if they were third-generation Americans. If we go to war with China, does that allow the government to imprison all Chinese simply because of their race? What if we went to war with Italy? Shall all Italians report to concentration camps?

Marshal Law

We handed out one of the reports on Marshal Law, which Lincoln used to circumvent the Constitution. He just ignored the Supreme Court, and this is what we have to look forward to.

President Trump Pleads Not Guilty and Waives Arraignment Appearance


Posted originally on the CTH on August 31, 2023 | Sundance 

Smart move by President Trump not to appear in court today thereby starving the media of oxygen to push the anti-Trump narrative. ‘I do hereby freely and voluntarily waive my right to be present at my arraignment on the Indictment and my right to have it read to me in open court,’ he said in a filing submitted by his local attorney.

Strategically, it was also a brilliant counter-Lawfare move as it removes the power of corrupt DA Fani Willis to grandstand from the courtroom holding the appearance of Trump in Atlanta, GA, as a trophy for her tribe.  Remember, Lawfare is a construct for media consumption intended to manipulate public opinion.

The more you starve the Lawfare operatives of the oxygen they need, the stronger your offense against their schemes.

(Via Politico) – Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges that he conspired to subvert the 2020 election in Georgia, formally signaling his intent to fight the charges in the sprawling racketeering case brought by Fulton County prosecutors.

Trump entered his plea Thursday in a two-page court filing meant to waive his appearance at an arraignment scheduled for Sept. 6, when he was slated to have the charges read to him in court. Several of the 18 defendants charged alongside him have also waived their appearances at the scheduled arraignment. (read more)

We are living in an era that requires strategic thinking, not emotion.

Alinsky methods, like Lawfare, are designed to target your emotional and psychological response system.  If you struggle with the emotions of anger and frustration, take a walk, get your emotional self under control, then you can return with a cold, deliberate and calculated response.  This is not easy; it takes mental discipline.

Make the enemy eat up their mental and emotional space with thoughts and “what if’s” about you.  Meanwhile, you stay frosty and clear-headed.

Robert Barnes Summary – The Administrative State Motive to Weaponize Secrets and Create Precedent


Posted originally on the CTH on June 19, 2023 | Sundance 

Attorney Robert Barnes does a good job framing the motive of the DC administrative state, specifically the Lawfare ideologues currently in control of the DOJ, to create a precedent to usurp constitutional power by targeting President Trump.

Segment prompted to 23:40 WATCH:

.

Bunker Boy Gets a Redo


Posted originally on the CTH on March 30, 2023 | Sundance 

Before entering his latibulate phase, Bunker Boy Ron DeSantis transmits his political redo:

(Source)

A couple of notes.  First, notice how the statement is an assembly of every point Bunker Boy was previously criticized for not making (good job Karl).  Second, notice the account he used this time (good job Pushaw).   Lastly, SAY HIS NAME!

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait,
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

~ Rudyard Kipling

Lawfare Continues – Portions of Atlanta “Special Grand Jury” Report on 2020 Election Released


Posted originally on the CTH on February 16, 2023 | Sundance 

In May of 2022 Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis assembled what is called a “special grand jury” to review claims that President Donald Trump attempted to coerce Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to find votes and assist him in winning the November 2020 election.

The “special grand jury” exists outside the traditional justice system and as an outcome cannot produce indictments.  It was assembled, for all intents and purposes, as a quasi-grand jury with the intent on creating a continual political effort through a process best described as lawfare.

Essentially, the “special grand jury” is a panel of 26 selected Fulton County, GA, citizens to give an opinion as to whether District Attorney Willis should move toward holding Trump era officials accountable for unlawful election interference. The ‘special grand jury‘ provided the media with feeder material to maintain a narrative; they also heard testimony from 75 witnesses.  However, President Trump was never subpoenaed by this ‘special grand jury.’

Because the ‘special grand jury‘ is not necessarily subject to the same rules that apply to normal grand jury proceedings, which strictly forbid any traditional grand jury activity from public release (4th and 5th U.S. Amendment issue), Fulton County Judge Robert McBurney said parts of the narrative from the ‘special grand jury‘ assembly could be released to the public.

The excerpt of the ‘special grand jury‘ that was released did not assert any legal issue with the baseline for their formation, meaning no substantive finding of election interference. However, as you are likely aware, ‘lawfare’ focuses on the process side – and the strategy is to find unlawful activity within the process of a target defending himself/herself from the targeting itself.

To that end, the ‘special grand jury’ suspects that some of the witnesses who testified afore them may have lacked candor in their testimony.  The potential for perjury in front of the ‘special grand jury‘ now becomes the issue of focus.

(GEORGIA) – […] “A majority of the grand jury believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it,” the grand jury wrote in the report. “The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney seek appropriate indictments for such crimes where the evidence is compelling.”

The report does not list any names of those who grand jury members believe may have committed perjury.

Separately, the grand jury also found “by a unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election.”

Outside of this, in the few paragraphs that were released of the report’s introduction, conclusion, and section on perjury, there were no details revealed regarding whether or not the grand jury recommended changes for anyone related to efforts to overturn the election.

The report does not name any potential targets for indictment, nor does it offer any rationale for its allegations of perjury. It does not mention Trump by name, nor any of the 75 witnesses interviewed as part of their probe. (read more)

You did not hit the dog in downtown Atlanta on I-75 with your Mercedes on August 14th, 2020. You do not own a Mercedes and you were not in Georgia at all that year.  However, your brother testified you were in the Bahamas on vacation in August 2020, and the evidence shows that vacation was in July. Therefore, while you are not guilty of hitting the dog, your brother is guilty of perjury.  That’s lawfare. See how it works?

Sign the plea for misdemeanor endangerment of the dog, pay the fine, and the D.A. will leave your brother alone.

From the article: “[…] Norman Eisen, a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institute who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee from 2019 to 2020, told ABC News that despite the judge shielding most of the report, “it’s clear from the judge’s order that the grand jury recommended charges.”

“The question is: I don’t think that if people are being charged, Trump can logically be left out, because he was the ringleader,” Eisen told ABC News. “He was the mastermind of the plots.”

Lawfare Assisting Democrats in Congress