Courts

Gregg Jarrett: Flynn judge wrong to allow anti-Trump former Watergate prosecutors to interfere in case

It’s a sure sign of desperation whenever lawyers try to raise President Richard Milhous Nixon from the dead. And so it is that a group of former Watergate special prosecutors this week resurrected the Ghost of Watergate Past in a last-ditch effort to keep alive the federal court case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The gang, adopting the sobriquet “Watergate Prosecutors,” asked permission from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to allow them to intervene in the Flynn case so they can – to put it bluntly – tell his honor how to think and what to do. The judge issued an order Tuesday indicating he will soon accept “amicus curiae” (“friend of the court”) submissions in the case. But in trial court proceedings involving crimes, only prosecutors and defense attorneys are permitted to be heard. Judges are supposed to render decisions based on evidence and arguments presented by the parties involved, not outside interests. The prosecution of Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, has been on life-support since the Justice Department belatedly moved last week to dismiss charges against him. He was accused of making false statements to the FBI during an interview that was nothing more than a devious perjury trap designed to “get Flynn to lie.” The FBI was creating a crime, not investigating one. A review ordered by Attorney General William Barr discovered that former FBI Director James Comey’s agents and Robert Mueller’s special counsel hit squad concealed vital exculpatory evidence from Flynn and his attorneys. The hidden documents showed that the retired lieutenant general did not lie to FBI agents, despite his coerced guilty plea under threat. The former Watergate prosecutors now want to meddle in the Flynn proceedings like uninvited house guests. In a court filing, they compare Barr’s decision to drop the Flynn charge to “the Watergate scandal” and Nixon’s infamous “Saturday Night Massacre.” The analogy is as tortured as the late President Nixon’s soul. Reading their “Statement of Interest” is a nauseating exercise in the hubris of war stories retold by old warriors prone to embellish. The former Watergate prosecutors imagine themselves as heroes who single-handedly salvaged democracy from the clutches of the demented Nixon. On that basis, they argue to the court, they are back to save the day. I’m reminded of what Butch kept asking Sundance: “Who are those guys?” Good question. The first name that pops out is Nick Akerman. He can be found on page 269 of my book “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History.” He is one of the many media flamethrowers who constantly accused (without evidence) President Trump and his presidential campaign of colluding with Russia. At one point on MSNBC (July 11, 2017), Akerman said the following about Donald Trump Jr. and his conversation with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower: “There’s outright treason. I mean, there is no question that what he’s doing is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” No question? Really? Forget that Akerman’s hyperbolic claim of treason had no remote application or support in the law. The president’s son was never charged with any offense because Special Counsel Mueller found no agreement or conspiracy to do anything illegal. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story, Nick. Another former Watergate prosecutor is Jill Wine-Banks, an MSNBC legal analyst who has a propensity to channel Nixon’s ghost at every turn. Earlier this year, she told Salon that “Trump is more dangerous than Nixon” and should be criminally indicted. On MSNBC, she declared that Trump is more of an “existential threat to democracy than Nixon.” Richard Ben-Veniste is also a Watergate alum who has carved out a late career as an inveterate Trump thumper. In a column for The Atlantic in 2017, he drew innumerable parallels between Nixon and Trump. In the same publication the next year, Ben-Veniste accused Trump of going the “full Nixon on Mueller.” One gets the distinct impression that Ben-Veniste’s Trump-Nixon obsession belongs on a psychiatrist’s couch. The 16 former Watergate prosecutors who are now determined to insert themselves into the Flynn case just happen to be the same lawyers (minus one) who penned a joint op-ed in the Washington Post on October 10, 2019 headlined “We investigated the Watergate scandal. We believe Trump should be impeached.” Of course, we know how that turned out. But the point is this: these individuals are hyper-partisans who despise Trump, but have convinced themselves that since they helped drive the demon Nixon from office 45 years ago they should now be given exalted status as super Trump-slayers. This kind of prejudicial interference from outside forces has no place in a court of law. It makes a mockery of both fairness and impartiality. Sadly, Judge Sullivan appears to have taken leave of his senses and decided to entertain the notion of allowing the former Watergate prosecutors to usurp the role of federal prosecutors. This resulted in his order Tuesday indicating he would permit “individuals and organizations” to file “amicus curiae” submissions. Hours later, Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, filed a well-reasoned opposition argument that courts are not a forum for special interests. “The ‘Watergate Prosecutors’ have no special role and no authority whatsoever to insert themselves in this litigation on behalf of anyone,” she wrote. Powell also pointed out that Sullivan rejected 24 previous attempts by parties to intervene in the Flynn case. In one of his prior refusals, the judge made this declarative statement: “The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases. Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court’s docket is not an available option.” What has changed? Nothing. But Sullivan’s ruling may be a reflection of his own abiding prejudice. In a hearing last year, he all but accused Flynn of treason, only to retract his words after a recess. He seems to have a feeble grasp of the facts in this important case. The former Watergate prosecutors should be denied the opportunity to pursue their biased agenda in a court of law. Flynn has been victimized enough by corrupt and dishonest government officials. Let these former prosecutors resurrect the ghost of Richard Nixon in a more-friendly forum: the Trump-hating media. These media organizations are sure to roll out the welcome mat.

No kidding…  Thanks Gregg!  Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and commentator, and formerly worked as a defense attorney and adjunct law professor. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.” His latest book is the New York Times bestseller “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History“

Charles Hurt: ‘Demand Justice’ Fight Back — Against Judges Who Like the Constitution

Anti-democratic Democrats opened up a new front in their relentless war on an independent judiciary in America. An absurdly-named special-interest group calling itself “Demand Justice” filed a formal complaint with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals accusing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of wrongdoing in stacking the federal judiciary with judges who believe in abiding by the Constitution. On the face of it, the complaint is funny because it suggests that “Demand Justice” is so unfamiliar with the actual Constitution that they don’t even know how judges are installed on the federal bench. According to the Constitution, federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. “Demand Justice” is apparently upset over President Trump’s impressive first-term record confirming nearly 200 judges to the federal bench, a record one-fifth of the federal judiciary. If “Demand Justice” had actually read the Constitution, they would know that their complaint lies not with Mr. McConnell but with the American voters who gave Republicans control of the White House and the Senate. Their specific complaint gets even daffier upon closer inspection. The swamp-based special-interest group is upset that a judge on the D.C. Circuit stepped down in March, opening a vacancy on the powerful second-highest court in the country for Justin Walker, a Kentucky judge with ties to Mr. McConnell. In addition to constitutional illiteracy, “Demand Justice” also appears to suffer from a poor grasp of history. For better or for worse, federal judges — including Supreme Court nominees from both parties — often come from the ranks of jurists who have long-standing relationships with lawmakers in Washington. That is why President Bill Clinton felt confident that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would not turn into some rogue constitutionalist on the high court. And it is why President George W. Bush felt confident Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would not turn the court into some kind of uncontrollable super-legislature. Specifically, the group is demanding to know whether Mr. McConnell bribed the D.C. Circuit judge to step down, thus creating the vacancy for the Kentucky jurist. Now, mind you, these people offer not a whiff of evidence suggesting such a bribe. But what difference does that make? Welcome to the swamp. The baseless accusation is even more audacious for anyone with the faintest memory of the decades-long onslaught these people have waged against an independent judiciary in America. A cache of internal Senate Judiciary Committee memos exposed during Mr. Bush’s first term revealed extensive efforts by Democrats on the committee — working with outside special-interest groups — to rig the federal judiciary to get certain outcomes in high-profile cases before the courts. In one memo to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, staffers reported that they had privately huddled with a lobbyist who urged committee Democrats to stall a Bush nominee to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until after that court ruled on a landmark affirmative action case. The lobbyist “would like the Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided,” staffers urged the so-called “Lion of the Senate.” “Rumors have been circulating that the case will be decided in the next few weeks,” they added. But even Kennedy staffers — famous for their shamelessness — knew they were involved in some dirty business. In the same memo, they allowed that they “are a little concerned about the propriety of scheduling hearings based on the resolution of a particular case. We are also aware that the 6th Circuit is in dire need of additional judges.” Oh, but to hell with it! “Nevertheless,” they wrote, going on to detail their plans. In the end, their corrupt plan worked. Mr. Bush’s nominee got stalled until the court could rule 5-4 to uphold the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program. It’s funny. Somehow, “Demand Justice” did not seem to have a problem stacking the courts and rigging the judiciary back then. And that tells you all you need to know about them.

And even that, is too much.  What a bunch of morons!  THIS is why elections matter.  Thanks to columnist Charles Hurt for bringing this to our attention.  He can be reached at churt@washingtontimes.com or @charleshurt on Twitter.

Ginsburg eviscerates 9th Circuit’s handling of immigration consultant’s case

Authoring a unanimous Supreme Court opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tore into the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for “drastically” straying from judicial norms when hearing a case involving a California immigration consultant. After Evelyn Sineneng-Smith had been convicted of violating a federal law related to encouraging illegal immigration, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision, not based on arguments presented by Sineneng-Smith, but by third parties the court brought in to submit arguments that the panel of judges themselves had suggested. “[T]he appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion,” Ginsburg wrote, later stating that “a court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.” The Supreme Court sent the case back down the Ninth Circuit “for reconsideration … bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties.” Sineneng-Smith had been convicted of violating a federal law against someone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States” if they know they would be in the country illegally. That was after she charged clients who sought to apply for labor certifications to obtain legal status, prosecutors said, even though she knew they could not meet the application deadlines. She argued that her conduct was not covered by the statute, and if it was it would be a violation of her First Amendment rights. After both sides submitted briefs and held oral arguments, the Ninth Circuit panel — instead of deciding the case at that point — invited the Federal Defender Organizations of the Ninth Circuit, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild to file briefs. The Ninth Circuit specifically outlined issues for them to discuss, including whether the law in question was unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment — an issue separate from any of Sineneng-Smith’s arguments. They also gave the organizations 20 minutes to present oral arguments, compared to just 10 for Sineneng-Smith’s lawyers. The Ninth Circuit ended up overturning Sineneng-Smith’s conviction based on the idea that the law was overbroad under the First Amendment. Ginsburg wrote that the Ninth Circuit’s actions undermined the principle that parties and their counsels are responsible for presenting their own case. “There are no doubt circumstances in which a modest initiating role for a court is appropriate,” Ginsburg wrote. “But this case scarcely fits that bill.”

You know its bad when the Supremes issue a unanimous decision.  That, in and of itself, is a smackdown.  We very rarely agree with Justice Ginsburg.  But, ya gotta give credit where credit is due…and it is here.  The lunatics at the 9th CIRCUS Court of Appeals in San Francisco (go figure) are the most overturned federal appeals circuit court.  President Trump is desperately trying to get a few quality judges on that bench before he leaves office.

Federal judge rules U.S. Soccer did not violate Equal Pay Act

A federal judge ruled Friday in favor of the United States Soccer Federation, dismissing a claim it violated the Equal Pay Act by allegedly discriminating against female athletes. District Judge R. Gary Klausner granted in part a motion for summary judgment sought by the U.S. Soccer Federation, siding with its lawyers in a dispute involving athlete pay. He allowed other aspects of the lawsuit to move ahead, however, setting the stage for lawyers representing members of the Women’s National Team to pursue different claims in court. An attorney for the team said they would appeal the dismissal of their equal pay claim, and Democratic presidential hopeful Joseph R. Biden said he would get involved if elected. Lawyers for members of the women’s team filed the suit against U.S. Soccer in March 2019, seeking more than $66 million in damages for alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Judge Klausner, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ultimately dismissed the suit’s claim that athletes on the Women’s National Team have been underpaid in comparison to players on the Men’s National Team in violation of federal anti-discrimination law. “In sum, Defendant has offered evidence in support of its Motion for Summary Judgement that the WNT has been paid more on both a cumulative and an average per-game basis than the MNT over the class period,” he ruled from U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. But he did not dismiss allegations that U.S. Soccer violated Title VII, which protects employees against discrimination based on characteristics such as sex. He said the plaintiffs can move forward with its claim that female athletes have been subjected to unequal working conditions, paving the way for their argument to go to trial as soon as next month.

Sounds like Judge Klausner made a reasonable and prudent ruling here, and should be commended for it.  The only question we have is..  Who the hell does Joe Biden think he is?  A dictator?  What on earth could he POSSIBLY do as a President to “intervene?”  Someone needs to remind crazy ol’ Joe that here in America we have three SEPARATE branches of government, and that presidents (executive branch) cannot interfere with the judiciary; basic American civics 101.  Either he’s too senile and forgot that, or he really thinks his base is too stupid to not know that.  For the rest of us, we’ll just roll our eyes and call him out for his outrageous, inappropriate and very UNpresidential comments.  For more on this story, click on the text above.

COMCAST Loses IP Theft Case to TiVo

Comcast, the telecom giant that owns NBC and MSNBC, has lost a case that alleged the company deliberately stole intellectual property from TiVo for its cable boxes. The case, one of three brought by TiVo against Comcast before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), was decided last Thursday. Another case was won by TiVo before the U.S. Court of Appeals earlier in the year. In its determination, the ITC ruled that Comcast must face “(1) a limited exclusion order prohibiting the entry of infringing digital video receivers and related hardware and software components; and (2) cease and desist orders directed to respondents.” The latest ITC legal setback for Comcast will hit the telecom giant’s customers, as it means they will lose a valuable feature of their viewing experience. Comcast has been forced by the courts to remove valuable search features from its products, at a time during a pandemic when more customers are using their product than ever before. Despite having now lost two out of three cases bought by TiVo, Comcast does not appear to be changing course. Comcast might be betting on the fact that companies like TiVo might not have the stomach to see this fight through to the end – but in TiVo’s case, they just need to win one more case. Comcast-owned broadcasters are known for their liberal bias. Earlier this year, President Trump derided MSNBC as “MSDNC,” and called NBC “worse than CNN.” “And Comcast, a company that spends millions and millions of dollars on their image… I’ll do everything possible to destroy their image because they are terrible. They are terrible. They’re a terrible group of people,” said the president at a rally in February. Last month Andrew Surabian, the former special assistant to the President, praised the crackdown on Comcast’s IP violations in a column for Fox Business. “Far from merely putting the writing on the wall for Comcast’s other future IP decisions, the federal court’s opinion also represents a significant economic victory for all U.S. workers and innovators,” Surabian said. “It will ensure that no company can deliberately jump through hoops to avoid IP law, which almost assuredly would have become a recurring trend should Comcast been allowed to set the precedent.”

Supreme Court: Trump Administration’s Self-Sufficient Immigrants Policy Can Stand in Coronavirus Era

The United States Supreme Court ruled on Friday against pausing the Trump administration’s policy that requires would-be immigrants to be self-sufficient so they do not become a “public charge.” Pro-migration media outlets, including Law360, regularly refer to the policy as “a wealth test for immigrants:” In a one-sentence decision, the high court denied a request by New York state, New York City, Vermont and Connecticut that would temporarily lift or modify a stay of a nationwide injunction that would block the public charge rule from going into effect. The order does not preclude a filing in the district court “as counsel considers appropriate,” the high court said. In a separate appeal before the Supreme Court on Friday, the high court also refused to issue a stay that would lift a similar injunction blocking the public charge rule in Illinois. Again, the Supreme Court clarified that the order does not bar the state from filing a request in the district court. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced in August that an application for a green card to allow migrants to live legally in the United States would include information about said migrants economic independence. The high court gave the DHS a green light earlier this year to carry out the new immigration rule, even though five federal court orders claimed the rule could be “illegal.”

This is GREAT news!!  Kudos to the Supremes for this, however temporary, decision.  Its a HUGE win for American citizens at a time when we cannot afford to be the world’s welfare state.  We’re TRILLIONS in debt, and getting worse by the day.  AND, we have over 20 MILLION Americans out of work due to this Wuhan virus crisis.  So, when we lift the current immigration moratorium, we need to have some sort of screening of potential immigrants who want to come to America to see if they have any skills that can benefit America’s economy…OR, if they’ll be just another welfare drain who we-the-actual-taxpayers will have to support indefinitely.  It is perfectly reasonable to ask such questions and insist that those who come are able to be self-sufficient, and not just enter and start collecting freebies that the rest of us are forced to pay for.  Coming to America is a privilege; NOT a right, as many so-called “immigration activists” would have you believe.

Supreme Court rules government must pay insurers enrolled in ObamaCare program

The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision Monday that the federal government must pay out $12 billion to insurers who had enrolled in the Affordable Care Act’s “risk corridor” program, reversing a lower court’s decision that had left Washington off the hook. The program limited both profits and losses for insurance companies that offered plans through the online exchange created by the Affordable Care Act – commonly known as ObamaCare – by having certain profits go to the Department of Health and Human Services, which in turn would give money to plans that did not bring in profits. The result was the government owing over $12 billion more than was brought in. “We conclude that §1342 of the Affordable Care Act established a money-mandating obligation, that Congress did not repeal this obligation, and that petitioners may sue the Government for damages in the Court of Federal Claims,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the court’s opinion. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled that Congress had “repealed or suspended” the obligation by implication through appropriations riders. The Supreme Court noted that according to court precedent, “repeals by implication are not favored,” and because Congress never directly repealed the obligation to pay the insurance companies, they are still bound by the program. Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter in the case, argued that there was no basis for a cause of action. The majority held that this case falls under the Tucker Act, under which the government waives normal immunity from lawsuits based on “the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” Alito argued that ObamaCare’s provision that the government “shall pay” for insurance companies’ losses is not enough to create a cause of action under the Tucker Act. He claimed that allowing the companies to sue has significant repercussions and allows private insurers to collect money to which they should not be entitled. “Today,” Alito wrote, “the Court infers a private right of action that has the effect of providing a massive bailout for insurance companies that took a calculated risk and lost.”

Divided Supreme Court rules for Trump administration in requiring immigrant’s removal

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court’s decision that an immigrant with lawful permanent resident status cannot fight deportation due to a previous offense, even though that crime was not grounds for his removal. In a 5-4 ruling with conservative justices on one side and liberals on the other, the court ruled for the Trump administration in holding that the statute in question, as drafted by Congress, requires deportation in the case of Andre Barton, even though the assault offenses that prevent him from appealing were not enough to deport him in the first place. “Removal of a lawful permanent resident from the United States is a wrenching process, especially in light of the consequences for family members,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the court’s opinion. “Removal is particularly difficult when it involves someone such as Barton who has spent most of his life in the United States. Congress made a choice, however, to authorize removal of noncitizens— even lawful permanent residents—who have committed certain serious crimes. And Congress also made a choice to categorically preclude cancellation of removal for noncitizens who have substantial criminal records. Congress may of course amend the law at any time. In the meantime, the Court is constrained to apply the law as enacted by Congress.” The controversy deals with an immigration law that allows defendants to apply for cancelation of deportation, but only if they satisfy certain requirements, including not having committed a particular offense within their first seven years of continuous residence in the U.S. This limitation, known as the “stop-time rule,” refers to offenses that render individuals inadmissible or deportable. Barton, who is being deported for drug and firearms offenses, had committed aggravated assault offenses during that seven-year period, but those offenses did not qualify for deportation. The court’s majority saw no problem with this, claiming that the assaults triggered the stop-time rule because they qualify as crimes that would render someone inadmissible. Kavanaugh noted said that just because the assaults were not the initial grounds for deportation, they can still come into play, just as outside factors can be considered in criminal matters. “It is entirely ordinary to look beyond the offense of conviction at criminal sentencing, and it is likewise entirely ordinary to look beyond the offense of removal at the cancellation-of-removal stage in immigration cases,” Kavanaugh wrote. The particular dispute between the two sides of the court dealt with the language of the statute, which says a defendant cannot have their deportation canceled if they had committed “an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2) of this title or removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4) of this title.” The conservative majority took this to mean that Congress was including both offenses that would render someone inadmissible as well as those that would make them removable, meaning that because aggravated assault would leave a person inadmissible, it triggers the provision keeping Barton from having his deportation canceled. Kavanaugh noted that the Second, Third, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal all hold the same view, with only the Ninth Circuit holding otherwise.

This really isn’t that earth-shattering.  But, it DOES reinforce the rule of law, and puts immigrants, both legal and illegal, on notice should they commit a crime when they come to America.  This is a big win for the rule of law, and for the Trump Administration.  We, of course, agree with the majority opinion.  Kudos to the Supremes for this decision.  For more, click on the text above.

Missouri files suit against China for ‘enormous’ consequences of coronavirus ‘deceit’

Missouri became the first state to file a lawsuit against China on Tuesday, accusing the country of being responsible for the severity of the coronavirus pandemic and seeking damages to make up for “the enormous loss of life, human suffering, and economic turmoil” resulting from the disease. The suit in the Eastern District of Missouri follows at least seven federal class-action suits that have been filed by private groups, with one filed in Florida saying that China knew “COVID-19 was dangerous and capable of causing a pandemic, yet slowly acted, proverbially put their head in the sand, and/or covered it up in their own economic self-interest.” It also comes on the heels of 22 Republican lawmakers on Monday requesting that the Trump administration bring a case against China to the International Court of Justice (ICIJ) for the country’s actions during the pandemic. Officials told Fox News that outside of the health consequences of the coronavirus — Missouri has confirmed 5,963 cases of the virus and 215 deaths as of Tuesday morning — the economic shutdown the state imposed to reduce the spread of the disease has cost Missouri about $44 billion, according to one estimate. “In Missouri, the impact of the virus is very real – thousands have been infected and many have died, families have been separated from dying loved ones, small businesses are shuttering their doors, and those living paycheck to paycheck are struggling to put food on their table,” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said in a statement. The text of the lawsuit lays the blame for the pandemic’s consequences squarely at China’s feet. “The repeated unlawful and unreasonable acts and omissions of” China, the Missouri suit claims, “have been injurious to—and have significantly interfered with—the lives, health, and safety of substantial numbers of Missouri residents, ruining lives and damaging the public order and economy of the State of Missouri.” Officials say that in addition to extracting as large a financial judgment out of China as it can, Missouri is looking to hold the Chinese government officially accountable for its alleged actions to exacerbate the coronavirus pandemic and potentially bring further facts about how the Chinese government handled the virus, and possibly about the virus’ origin, to light. “An appalling campaign of deceit, concealment, misfeasance, and inaction by Chinese authorities unleashed this pandemic,” the suit reads. “During the critical weeks of the initial outbreak, Chinese authorities deceived the public, suppressed crucial information, arrested whistleblowers, denied human-to-human transmission in the face of mounting evidence, destroyed critical medical research, permitted millions of people to be exposed to the virus, and even hoarded personal protective equipment—thus causing a global pandemic that was unnecessary and preventable.” The suit makes numerous claims of wrongdoing by China and the other defendants related to the Chinese government it seeks to hold responsible, including an “emerging theory on the origin of the virus … that it was released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was studying the virus.”

Kudos to Missouri AG Eric Schmitt and the rest of his legal team for taking this action, and leading the charge from the state level against the communist Chinese government responsible for this Wuhan virus nightmare.  For more, click on the text above.

Supreme Court rules criminal jury verdicts must be unanimous, overturning decades-old precedent

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that state juries must be unanimous to convict defendants in criminal trials, overturning the Louisiana second-degree murder conviction of Evangelisto Ramos that resulted in a life sentence when a jury found him guilty with a 10-2 vote. The court noted that 48 states — and more importantly federal courts — already required unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases, with only Lousiana and Oregon holding out by accepting 10-2 decisions. “[T]he Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “Thus, if the jury trial right requires a unanimous verdict in federal court, it requires no less in state court.”

Agreed..  For more, click on the text above.