Posted originally on Jul 2, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
We have a MOST interesting problem in this New York case where Trump was found guilty on 34 counts concerning the falsified documents that were created in 2017, while President Trump was in office as President. Trump’s lawyers are NOT arguing that the Trump Organization checks the president signed were official duties. However, the prejudice of the prosecutor and the pretend acting judge have created a problem that may require the dismissal of the conviction.
In March 2024, Trump’s attorneys moved to limit the scope of evidence to exclude the president’s official acts. Acting judge Merchan denied the motion, claiming it was “untimely.” This questionable judge responded that he could rule on objections based on presidential immunity during the trial. In addition, this conflicted prosecutor, Bragg, presented prejudicial statements and evidence that were presented by the district attorney at trial. The Prosecution described an event in the Oval Office as “devastating” and introduced statements by the president and witness testimony about working for the president in the White House. None of this would be permitted under the Supreme Court ruling. This official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury, and this quest to find Trump guilty by any means is starting to backfire. All of this is because, to convert a misdemeanor to a felon, they used the Federal Election of 2016, and that led to introducing even official acts in the White House.
The Supreme Court held that a president “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” Prosecutors would have to rebut the presumptive immunity for official acts before he could be charged for them.
Acting Judge Merchan has ordered that the sentencing of former President Donald Trump will be postponed from July 11th, which was timed for the Republican Convention to create as much chaos as possible, to September 18, 2024, at 10:00 AM “for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings.” I think a first-semester law student would have to conclude that, at the very minimum, this will be a mistrial, and Constitutionally, it is doubtful that this prosecution is even valid.
Our computer has been showing all year that Sepetember would be a Panic Cycle, and we are looking at some major event unfolding then. It may be more related to politics in the United States than geopolitical matters.
Posted originally on Jul 1, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
The Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron deference in a 6-3 vote in a major push toward eliminating government overreach. The 1984 Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council has permitted government agencies to implement the rule of law, bypassing the federal judicial system.
Individuals and Corporations have been at the mercy of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was permitted to implement regulations over entire industries as it saw fit. That violated the Constitution, for the laws are to be made by the PEOPLE, and Congress should NEVER delegate that power to an unelected agency that creates the Deep State. Conservatives have attempted to overturn the Chevron doctrine for years, as it simply places the law in the hands of unelected government officials.
Justice Roberts said Chevron violated the Administrative Procedure Act (1946), which dictates how government agencies may issue and develop regulations. The APA was intended to inform the public of how and why rules were implemented and provided a platform for public participation. It also created a clear standard for proceedings and restated judicial review. The APA was implemented after Franklin D. Roosevelt created an onslaught of public agencies through the New Deal. Chief Justice Roberts further stated that the Chevron doctrine was “misguided” as it made the rule of law ambiguous.
For 40 years, the Chevron doctrine has corrupted every aspect of American life, from health care to labor laws. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) deferred to public agency interpretations of the law, which was outrageous that non-elected and non-judges make the law. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had the authority to control what Americans content Americans could consume, and they abolished the Fairness Doctrine with no regard to how that would harm society with fake news.
The Food and Drug Administration (FD) had the authority to control what it deemed safe for Americans to consume. With COVID-19, they prohibited anyone from advocating drugs that worked all because funding comes from the Pharmaceutical companies. This has by no means benefited society and this decision was so necessary to restore some accountability.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had the ability to define American financial markets. The SEC has just been overruled where they were charging people, imposing penalties, and refusing to allow what the Constitution supposedly guaranteed – the right to trial by jury under the 7th Amendment.
Absolutely every facet of American life is partially controlled by unelected government agencies who need not abide by a uniform rule of law before implementing regulations. What the SEC has been doing has rejected the Constitution for decades. Once you hand this unbridled power to any agency, you get tyranny. What is WRONG WITH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM is that whenever Congress or an agency write any law or rule, they should go to court to establish that it is Constitutional. Instead, they pick on people who cannot afford lawyers to expand their tyranny, and it is always our burden for someone to challenge them and make it to the Supreme Court. That is outrageous.
The Supreme Court ruling is a major blow to the administrative Deep State. It is ABOUT TIME! This aims to de-politicize government agencies to control our very way of life. Executive branches need to be reined in dramatically, especially at a time when industries such as the EPA are driving entire sectors into the ground, outlawing gas stoves that I grew up with, and I think I’m still alive. The liberals in favor of Chevron believe Congress should be trusted to defer power to agencies, which they believe will rule based on expertise, laughably unbiasedly.
The reason I say we need a Constitutional Court that Congress and agencies go to first for PERMISSION to create the rule of law is that they get to rule the country by sheet tyranny. In my case, they seized the foreign companies, denied using any funds, would not allow them to answer complaints, and installed a receiver, Alan Cohen, who refused to defend the companies or even answer a complaint. This amounted to violating the 5th Amendment, illegally taking my companies, and denying them any right to defend themselves.
They threw me in contempt of court using 28 USC 1826, where the statute states the maximum time is 18 months, not 7 years, and that I was supposed to have a right to appeal in 30 days, which was NEVER honored by the Second Circuit. The very prison records show the contempt was renewed every 18 months, and the ONLY way I was ever released was when I finally made it to the Supreme Court, and they ordered the government to explain. They released me and told the Court the case was then moot. If they can do this to me, steal the pensions of 240 employees, they can do it to anyone.
Posted originally on Jun 29, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Smith and Garland are trying to indict Trump on Drug Charges, alleging he drugged Biden to win the Debate. They are desperately trying to find a statue they can twist to fit the crime.
The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the Jan. 6 defendant in a dispute over an obstruction charge that was clearly unconstitutional and a selective prosecution. The Court ruled in favor of a former Pennsylvania police officer charged for his alleged participation in the U.S. Capitol attack, saying a felony obstruction charge was improperly applied in his case. It was a 6-3 opinion that came from Chief Justice John Roberts but was joined by a Democratic appointee, Ketanji Brown Jackson. The majority also included Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
In the debate, Biden called those people criminals. The case centered on whether a 2002 law enacted in the wake of the Enron scandal to prevent the destruction of evidence in financial crimes could be used against defendant Joseph Fischer and others alleged in an attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. My investigation was this: this was most likely organized by the FBI to enable Pelosi to declare an emergency rule to shut down 7 states that were challenging the vote. They had to call this an insurrection to try to go after Trump on the 14th Amendment, but then to imprison everyone who dared to support him. Had just one challenge been allowed, the case could have ended in the Supreme Court, and Trump would have been president. But we would not have an open border, climate change nonsense, and this proxy war in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Asia had the Neocons not gained power under Biden.
The court’s majority wrote that the twisted interpretation of the statute was overly broad. To prove a violation of the law at hand, the court said; “the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s reasoning is very disturbing, and she was appointed by Trump. In her dissent, she said that while the events of Jan. 6 may not have been the target of the 2002 law, it includes a sweeping provision for any conduct that obstructs or impedes any official proceeding. Barrett wrote:
“The Court does not dispute that Congress’s joint session qualifies as an ‘official proceeding’; that rioters delayed the proceeding; or even that Fischer’s alleged conduct (which includes trespassing and a physical confrontation with law enforcement) was part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of the election results.”
“Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for ‘obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding’ seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?” she continued. “Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said.”
I am very disappointed in Barrett for her position. If any prosecutor can twist the words of a statute to apply to a new theory, then somehow that is OK. The Constitution declares that the PEOPLE are to draft laws – not prosecutors. If you put cash in a safety deposit box, that can now be charged as Money Laundering because you are “hiding” money from the government. The money laundering statute was created against drug dealers. What Barrett advocates is total tyranny by unelected prosecutors to twist the words into things that Congress never expressed.
Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed disappointment in the court’s decision but said it would have a limited impact on the Justice Department’s prosecutions. He is only maintaining the right to twist statutes to suit political agendas. Garland said in a statement.
“The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision.”
Meanwhile, Garland is facing arrest for contempt of Congress, and we see how the Department of Justice is totally out of control, refusing to prosecute Garland when they throw Bannon in prison for contempt of Congress. This is selective prosecution, and the DOJ is now just political.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 