Category Supreme Court

Feb 14 2024

Trump v Colorado – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction


Posted originally on Feb 13, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Trump_v_Anderson_My_Amicus_Brief

Trump v Anderson My Amicus Brief-F

QUESTION: Your argument on the Commerce Clause is spot on, I believe. Why do the lawyers involved in the Colorado case removing Trump does not grasp the structure of the Constitution as you do? They admit that ruling in favor of Colorado would result in national chaos. Your analysis of the Commerce Clause demonstrates that the writers of the Constitution understood such a result would break the union. Any comment on this oversight would be greatly appreciated.

BW

ANSWER: Sometimes, lawyers focus too intently because statutory law is wordsmithing. They are arguing if Trump is an officer when they should be looking at the subject matter jurisdiction of the law. I have had to study law from a global perspective, looking at its evolution from ancient times to the present. Continental Europe followed Canon Law, whereas England created Common Law. There are huge differences such as under French law, not even your brother-in-law can be compelled to testify against you, whereas under English Common Law, the king is ruthless, so the only one with such a privilege is a spouse. They can throw your children in prison on contempt until they testify against a parent. We do not respect the family unit, whereas, under Canon Law, anyone related by marriage is covered.

I was so appalled that the oral arguments were focused on wordsmithing I decided to submit my own Amicus Curiae brief. The Court is not supposed to raise an argument that is not presented. They will probably reject it because it was after oral argument. But if they want a clean escape that is constitutionally correct rather than not addressing the issue directly, then just maybe they might make an exception and accept a Pro Se Amicus. It might be a first, anyway.

Feb 9 2024

Oral Argument in Supreme Court Trump v Colorado


Posted originally on Feb 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Sup Ct Oral Argument Trump v Colorado

Feb 3 2024

Supreme Court Grants Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold 10 Minutes to Justify Her Position on Disqualifying President Trump From Ballot


Posted originally on the CTH on February 2, 2024 | Sundance 

Apparently the Lawfare crew have been working and coaching overtime to give Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold a framework to explain to the Supreme Court how Colorado’s very specific election laws allow for presidential candidates to be disqualified despite meeting all constitutional requirements.  State Solicitor General Sharon Stevenson would be the legal mind representing Jena Griswold. This should be an interesting attempt.

Griswold asked the Supreme Court for 15 minutes to explain how Colorado law supersedes the U.S. Constitution.  In an order announced earlier today [pdf here], the court has granted Ms. Griswold 10 minutes to make her case.  The oral arguments will take place on Thursday, February 8th.

[Source Link]

President Trump’s attorneys will have 40 minutes.  The Lawfare group “Colorado voters”, funded by CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), will have 30 minutes, and the Colorado Secretary of State will have 10 minutes.

(Via MSN) – The U.S. Supreme Court will hear directly from Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold next week as it considers an appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision finding former President Donald Trump ineligible for the state’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.

The Supreme Court granted Griswold’s request to speak during oral arguments in an order Friday that allotted her 10 minutes. The justices also will hear from lawyers for Trump and the Colorado voters who challenged his eligibility during Thursday’s hearing in Washington, D.C. (read more)

Jan 23 2024

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 That State Authorities Cannot Protect American Citizens from Illegal Border Entry


Posted originally on the CTH on January 22, 2024 | Sundance

In a 5-4 ruling today [pdf Available Here], Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with the radical leftists on the court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, to say that Texas is not permitted to protect itself from illegal border crossers.  None of the justices provided any explanation for their vote.

The court majority sided with the Biden administration policy of removing razor wire to permit illegal alien entry without impediment.  Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas voted with Texas, in favor of national border integrity.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Border Patrol agents to cut razor wire that Texas installed on the U.S.-Mexico border, while a lawsuit over the wire continues.

The justices, by a 5-4 vote, granted an emergency appeal from the Biden administration, which has been in an escalating standoff at the border with Texas and had objected to an appellate ruling in favor of the state.

The concertina wire along roughly 30 miles (48 kilometers) of the Rio Grande near the border city of Eagle Pass is part of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s broader fight with the administration over immigration enforcement. (read more)

God, I pray for stability right now, because this is infuriating.

The irony and hypocrisy of the Supreme Court having a security perimeter for their own security yet dismissing the establishment of a security perimeter for the citizens of the country is not lost on me.

I am beyond angry!

Jan 10 2024

Very Revealing – Supreme Court Refuses to Permit Twitter to Outline Scope of FBI/DHS Unlawful Domestic Surveillance


Posted originally on the CTH on January 9, 2024 | Sundance 

If you understand how the Dept of Homeland Security and FBI access and ultimately control the content of social media platforms, specifically the public opinion square of Twitter, then you can start to understand a much bigger aspect to this hidden court case.

KEY CONTEXT – During the Twitter File releases, existing DHS/FBI guidance controlled what the Twitter legal team was allowed to share with researchers.  The Twitter File group gave Twitter search terms, and the Twitter team entered the search words/phrases and generated results.  However, the Twitter legal team then had to filter that information against the instructions of DHS/FBI to determine what the research group was allowed to know; ultimately, what was allowed to become public information.

This reality stimulates the question: where/when did that prior guidance from DHS/FBI originate?   The answer to that question is discovered in a little-known lawsuit by Twitter against the U.S. government.  Please do not overlook the dates here.

Back in 2014, Twitter sued the government, “seeking to make public the number of times the FBI requested user information from the company in connection with national security investigations.” {link} Why?  Because during the Obama administration, Twitter “was blocked from publishing the quantity of requests in its biannual online “Transparency Report,” claiming the government unlawfully restrained its speech.” {link}

In essence, DHS/FBI were weaponizing Twitter data and demanding information on specific users, specific inquiry about issues of greatest concern to the Obama administration.  The Obama administration then told Twitter they were not permitted to talk about their demands due to “national security” issues.  Twitter was barred from telling the public what was happening.

Keep in mind, the lawsuit by Twitter against the Obama administration (DHS/FBI) was in 2014, so the demands from government were ‘prior to’.   Now, does my prior outlining of “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop” start to make more sense?  [Keep in mind, I received a ridiculous subpoena for writing about this.]

The Twitter lawsuit against the government wound its way through the lower courts and various levels of appeal.  Each lower court ruled against the release of the information, forbidding Twitter from releasing the information.  Why? Because the executive branch, in this example Obama DHS/FBI, have unilateral authority to determine what constitutes a “national security” issue.   If DHS/FBI says the issue is a “national security” threat, the judicial branch is not prepared to challenge that definition.

Ultimately the lawsuit ended up at the doors of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court refused to engage the question thereby supporting the rulings of the lower court.  You can read about THAT PART HERE.  However, there’s another layer to this story that needs to be accurately understood, because this deference by the judicial branch to the executive branch is part of how the system is weaponized.

You might remember this 11th circuit court of appeals ruling against Trump; it essentially encapsulates the issue:

These rulings are essentially correct, as following the process within a constitutional republic. However, here’s the rub.  The weaponized Deep State are using this deference, as a tool in their Lawfare arsenal.

If the Deep State can unilaterally determine what constitutes “national security,” and if the judicial branch is not going to review or challenge those determinations, then the executive branch can target people, target institutions, and/or conduct domestic surveillance while hiding their conduct behind the shield of national security.

That’s exactly what the weaponized institutions (DHS, DOJ, FBI) have been doing.

That’s exactly the process that Barack Obama and Eric Holder created.

That’s exactly the motive for Eric Holder creating the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).

Now, can you see the bigger issue, as presented by the Twitter case against government, that was just highlighted by the Supreme Court decision not to get involved.

The DOJ-NSD is the targeting mechanism for corrupt interests in our government to target us.  The Dept of Homeland Security and the FBI unite in the process and provide the results to the DOJ-NSD for action against the targets.  The collaboration then uses “national security” as the technique to stop those being abused by the targeting system from ever finding out, and the judicial branch cannot provide oversight.

Hopefully, this helps people put the scale of the ‘weaponization of government’ issue into a context.

That’s how they are carrying out Lawfare.  That’s why there’s no process to impede them within the ordinary structures of constitutional protection.

Their ability to use “national security” as the justification for all of the corrupt targeting and surveillance is ultimately the source of power for the Fourth Branch of Government.

Jan 6 2024

Supreme Court to Decide if Trump Can Be Removed from Ballots


Posted originally on Jan 5, 2024 By Martin Armstrong

Alaska Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can be prevented from standing for president because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. This is fantastic news, for we need the Supreme Court to decide this question simply for the sanity of the nation. The Court acknowledged they need to reach a decision quickly, given the fact that primary ballots across the country will begin soon. The court agreed to take the case from Colorado stemming from Trump’s role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol.

I seriously doubt that many will accept the Supreme Court decision. As I have said, “insurrection” would have required Trump to violently attack the capital. Even proposing a violent attack on the sidelines is sedition, but that is not covered in the 14th Amendment. It is a fairly basic law that you cannot violate the Constitution by pretending to uphold one provision. Trump was not trying to overthrow the Constitution, he was asserting that he really won. That is not the same as “insurrection” in the context of the Civil War, which was to overthrow the Constitution.

I personally would be shocked if the Supreme Court agreed and kicked Trump off the ballot. It would be a very dark day for such a precedent to allow anyone to make such an allegation, never charge the person, and never put them on trial to prove their theory. That would be the end of the United States and the Constitution, regardless of who is running. We just cannot go there.

Of course, if the Supreme Court overrules Colorado, the LEFT will claim it did so because most are Republicans. I am not sure if the Supreme Court’s decision would be accepted any more than the final vote in November.

It’s getting worse. Pennsylvania Congressman Scott Perry is also the target to remove him from the ballot because of claims he violated the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment Insurrection Clause by simply supporting Trump’s “false” 2020 election fraud claims. So, anyone who supported Trump in Washington they want removed from office. This is not what democracy is about – it’s totalitarianism. You are talking revolution at that point if there is absolutely no rule of law left.

Jan 6 2024

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Colorado “Insurrection” Ballot Eligibility Case


Posted originally on the CTH on January 5, 2024 | Sundance

In a Friday notice, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case challenging a Colorado democrat court decision to block President Trump from the GOP ballot under the auspices of a 14th amendment claim.  [SCOTUS Announcement pdf HERE]

The high court has scheduled oral arguments for February 8, 2024, and set forth a schedule as below for the case review.

[Source pdf]

President Trump will appear on the Colorado ballot (and also Maine) while the Supreme Court takes up the case.  Both the Colorado effort (court) and the Maine decree (Secretary of State) were stayed pending appeal.  In essence, and reflected in both their actions, in both states the decisionmakers expect to lose.

WASHINGTON DC – Plunging into a political minefield, the Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president.

The court agreed Friday to consider whether states have the power to disqualify Trump from the ballot due to his attempts to upend the 2020 election and his role in stoking the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (MORE)

[…] Ballots for some overseas and military voters registered in Colorado will have already been mailed out by the time oral arguments happen on Feb. 8, and four days later, ballots are scheduled to be sent to most Colorado voters.

Colorado is a predominately vote-by-mail state, meaning most voters will have their ballots in hand — and potentially cast them — well before the March 5 primary.

Meanwhile, giving indications of exactly who is promoting and supporting this overall dynamic, LAWFARE is currently running an organizational chart to show which states are trying to follow a similar path [SEE HERE].  It is not accidental that Andrew Weissman is promoting the effort [SEE HERE].

In the biggest of big pictures, the Lawfare group who are assembled inside every effort to remove Trump are the exact same group of political conspirators.  These are the facilitators for a weaponized justice system from inside and outside government.

Always remember, the Lawfare crew have a self-preservation interest in the elimination of their original 2016 target, Donald Trump.

Dec 29 2023

Will the Supreme Court Save the Nation?


Posted originally on Dec 28, 2023 By Martin Armstrong 

supremecourt

The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court

This effort to prevent Trump from running for President is presenting a major CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. We have the extremely LEFTIST Supreme Court of Colorado ruling unconstitutionally that Trump should be barred from being on the ballot. Then we have the Michigan Supreme Court ruling against Colorado. Now, the State of Maine, another LEFTIST government, is also seeking to follow Colorado.

These Leftist Governments are planning to really destroy the Constitution in any way they possibly can. Not a single person on January 6th was criminally charged with the Insurrection Statute. Yet, these LEFTIST states are trying to use the 14th Amendment to block Trump from running when it has NEVER been used even once in history against any Southerner.

Khruschev Nikta

These states are fulfilling the warnings of Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971). They are so anti-Constitution and are allowing this country to be flooded with people from South America who have traditionally been Marxists, which is why they have destroyed their own economies and are flooding into the United States for free food, clothing, healthcare, and to be taken care of for life as long as they vote for the Marxists here determined to destroy the US economy.

Economy Dying

Our model warns of a recession from May 7th, 2024, into 2028. As Chairman Powell of the Federal Reserve warned, this spending by Biden is “unsustainable,” and there may not even be an election by 2028. Democracy is all about letting the people decide. States are rigging the ballots so that no challenger in the Democratic primary may appear on any ballot, leaving no choice for Democrats but Biden. Then, they are trying to prevent Trump from running at all. This is not Democracy – it is totalitarianism.

Lincoln House Divided
Will Supreme Court Save Nation

I fear we have reached the end of the rule of law. If the Supreme Court strikes down these Marxist States, they will only claim it was a Republican Decision. The very idea of a “UNITED” formation of states can no longer be justified. The nation has become so deeply divided; as Abraham Lincoln once said, a house divided cannot stand. This is what we face as we move into 2032. The Supreme Court instigated the Civil War with the Dread Scott decision when they tried to defuse the potential for the Civil War.

Emerson was Scott’s owner, and he allowed Scott to get married and left Scott and his wife in Wisconsin when Emerson traveled to Louisiana. Emerson died in 1843, and Scott attempted to purchase his freedom from Emerson’s widow, but she refused. Dread Scott argued that since he became a permanent resident in the federal territory of Wisconsin, which prohibited slavery, he became a freeman. The district court applied the laws of Missouri to find Scott was still a slave, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. It then went to the Supreme Court, in a hotly watched issue, then much as removing Trump from the ballots today. In a highly contentious opinion written by Chief Justice Taney, he held that persons of African descent were not citizens of the United States. The Court reasoned that, at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, persons of African descent were brought to the U.S. as property and, whether later freed or not, could not become U.S. citizens. With that decision, the Civil War became the solution. Abraham Lincoln was never on the ballots in 10 states: South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Virginia. He did not receive any votes from the states that would later form the Confederacy besides Virginia, where Republicans secured 1% of the votes. History is repeating once again. Today, the Marxist-following states that do not believe in Equal Protection of the Law seek to remove Trump from their ballots as well to prevent him from becoming president, precisely as was done to Abraham Lincoln.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, as in Dread Scott, one side will never support the outcome. It is questionable if the United States will ever be able to stand as one nation once again.

Dec 14 2023

Supreme Court Will Hear Dispute Over Twisted Jack Smith Obstruction Law Used to Indict J6 Defendants and Donald Trump


Posted originally on the CTH on December 13, 2023 | Sundance

Two of the charges against Donald Trump are centered around 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. As noted by Julie Kelly, “The statute was meant to close a loophole in other obstruction laws related to the destruction of evidence but left open to interpretation the terms “corruptly” and “official proceeding.”

In addition to Donald Trump, this federal statute meant to target organized crime and financial crimes has been used against 300 J6 defendants. Three J6 defendants have appealed the use of this provision to charge them with obstruction. A DC trial judge originally agreed with the argument and dismissed the framework of the Lawfare effort.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the dismissal order.

J6 Defendants Edward Lang, Garrett Miller and Joseph Fischer appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now agreed to take up the case, U.S. v Fischer. In one way, this can be looked at as the Supreme Court reviewing the charges against Donald Trump, without ruling on the charges against Donald Trump.

There is a strong possibility the twisted Lawfare use of 18 USC 1512 by the DOJ will be rejected by the court, thereby removing two of the charges against Trump.

Washington — The Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will hear a court fight involving the breadth of a federal obstruction law that has been used to prosecute scores of defendants for their alleged actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, as well as former President Donald Trump.

An eventual decision from the Supreme Court in the case known as Fischer v. U.S. could have far-reaching impacts, since the Justice Department has charged more than 300 people under the obstruction statute in cases related to Jan. 6.

Most significantly, special counsel Jack Smith has charged Trump with a single count of corruptly obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, namely Congress’ certification of the Electoral College results on Jan. 6. The former president has pleaded not guilty to that offense and the three others he is facing in the case related to the 2020 presidential election. A trial in Trump’s case is set to begin in March.

Arguments before the Supreme Court will take place next year, with a decision, which could threaten Trump’s charge, expected by the end of June. (read more)

As we have noted from the outset, Lawfare is a construct, a twisted manipulation of law, specifically intended for media consumption with the end goal to influence public opinion.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has applied twisted interpretations of law to his cases. The ability of the constructs to withstand judicial scrutiny has only just begun.

Dec 12 2023

Special Counsel Jack Smith Asks Supreme Court to Decide Trump Immunity – Highest Court Immediately Drops All Business to Comply With Special Counsel Request


Posted originally on the CTH on December 11, 2023 | Sundance 

After years of assembling datapoints around the potential for the Supreme Court to be compromised, it was the discovery of Mary McCord’s husband Sheldon Snook deep in the office of Chief Justice John Roberts that finally sealed the deal for me personally.  Yes, the Supreme Court is compromised.

Quick Context. Mary McCord was the architect of all Trump targeting efforts. The FISA on Carter Page, the weaponization of the DOJ-NSD, the installation of Michael Atkinson as Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), the companion to Sally Yates in the Flynn targeting, lead staff for the Schiff/Nadler impeachment effort, later appointment by FISA Presiding Judge Boasberg to be amicus to the FISC, in combination with Chief Justice John Roberts holding authority over the FISC, and the discovery that Sheldon Snook, McCord’s husband works in Robert’s office as “special assistant to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s counselor. The counselor’s office advises the chief justice not only on the management and budget of the Supreme Court but also on his interactions with the executive and legislative branches, along with numerous other public roles in which Roberts serves.” (link)

Mary McCord is the fulcrum point for all of the above issues.  She connects all of the targeting operations.  Mary McCord is the center of it, and John Robert’s office is compromised by the appointment of her husband Sheldon Snook.  So, this story below does not surprise me.

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith jumped over the appeals court and asked the Supreme Court to decide on President Trump’s position of presidential immunity for his requests to secure the integrity of the 2020 election while in office.   In the fastest turn around time in history, the Supreme Court [Robert’s office] said yes, they will hear the arguments.

[Source Link]

WASHINGTON DC – Special counsel Jack Smith is urging the Supreme Court to urgently resolve Donald Trump’s claim that he’s immune from prosecution for charges related to his bid to subvert the 2020 election.

Without the Supreme Court’s swift intervention, Trump’s trial could be indefinitely delayed, the special counsel warned in a petition to the high court on Monday.

That’s because the trial, scheduled to begin March 4, is effectively suspended while Trump pursues his appeal of the trial judge’s ruling rejecting his immunity arguments, Smith wrote. Resolution of the novel legal question is necessary to ensure the case proceeds “promptly,” he argued.

By coming directly to the Supreme Court, Smith is hoping to bypass a federal appeals court and is mounting an aggressive bid to keep the timing of the election-focused trial on track. If the March 4 trial date sticks, it would be the first trial for Trump in the four criminal cases he is facing as he mounts a bid for re-election to the White House.

[…] The justices acted quickly on Smith’s motion. In a brief order Monday afternoon, they directed Trump’s lawyers to respond by Dec. 20 to the prosecutor’s request for the Supreme Court to add the case to its docket for this term. (read more)

There’s your inflection point timeframe.

The executive branch wants Trump on trial by Super Tuesday, March 5th the main primary election date.   The legislative branch wants to extend warrantless surveillance, the mechanism to exploit the Trump supporter targeting operation, through April 19th. [Patriots Day ]

There’s the 2024 detonation timeframe, between March and mid-April.

Elon Musk herds all the MAGA groups and “domestic violent extremists” into the Twitter stadium. All seats are filled by March.  Boom, everyone scrambles.  Thousands of subpoenas released as part of the metadata hit list.