#Judicial Conference of U.S.

[tanadrin]

Five to Four is doing a series on the Federalist Society, which is very interesting--they're probably one of the most successful political movements in modern America, and the heart of the conservative legal movement. Why they have been so successful in shaping the judiciary, and taking ideas which were once part of the legal lunatic fringe and moving them to the mainstream, isn't particularly mysterious either. In the 1980s, within the legal profession conservative thought was very unpopular; in the legal sphere, liberals had achieved a lot of big policy victories, and were able to articulate a strong positive vision of the law and of policy, while conservatives in the same sphere were mostly left writing amicus briefs that said "nuh-uh" and bickering between their pro-business and libertarian factions.

The founders of the Federalist Society wanted to bring together conservative law students and lawyers, and articulate a positive, intellectual vision of conservative law. But more than that, they wanted that vision to have a material effect, and to win over people to their cause. This meant holding conferences to spread their ideas, networking and creating professional opportunities, especially under conservative judges and administrations, getting some big-name figures (like Scalia and Bork, both before their respective Supreme Court nominations) to back them, setting aside the differences of various factions within the nascent conservative legal movement so they wouldn't waste time on infighting, and, of course, no small amount of patience.

The results speak for themselves. Although the legal profession in the U.S. is still as a whole probably pretty liberal, Republican administrations are in charge about half the time, and the Federalist Society can furnish them with lists of candidates for judicial positions at every level from the lowest to the highest court. The demand for clerks under these judges and conservative legal bureaucrats under Republican Presidents means (so I gather) that there's a pretty robust pipeline from Federalist Society law student at a good law school to a promising career in government. And as a result of steady work over decades, dreams which were very distant in the 1980s, like overturning Roe or weakening the Voting Rights Act, have now been accomplished. Sure, people all over the country hate many of these decisions; but that's politics, babey!

And you don't need a theory of nebulous "elites" or difficult-to-discern incentives to understand the shifts in the judiciary since the 1980s, even for the most unpopular decisions. It's perfectly clear--it's the Federalist Society! And the Federalist Society succeeded because when they felt themselves a sidelined minor faction in law schools and in legal circles, they didn't collapse into despair. They got organized, they identified places they could exert influence, and they figured out how to make that a reality. It's a good lesson in politics.

[mariacallous]

Announcements by little-known federal agencies rarely spark a “political firestorm,” but that’s what the U.S. Judicial Conference did with a March 12 proposal involving judicial orders stopping nationwide enforcement of federal policies, so-called “national injunctions.” Specifically, the Conference proposed limiting plaintiffs’ ability to “judge shop” to ensure that sympathetic judges would hear their requests for such injunctions. Shortly thereafter, 19 Republican senators slammed the proposals on its merits and for encroaching on legislative authority while nine Democratic senators praised it for restoring public confidence in courts, and those were only opening salvos. (The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the semi-annual meetings of the 26-judge Judicial Conference and appoints the over 200 members of its some 20 committees, almost all of them federal judges. The Conference says it “serves as the policymaking body for the federal courts,” a less-than-precise summation of its actual authority.)

Emblematic of the cases that led to the Conference’s March 12 action is one that made national headlines and is now before the Supreme Court. Texas federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk granted a request by a group of anti-abortion physicians to bar (“enjoin”) enforcement of Food and Drug Administration rules allowing mail distribution of abortion medicines. He applied his injunction to the whole country, not just to that part of Texas that Kacsmaryk serves. Quirks in federal court organization allowed the physicians to be sure their case would go before Kacsmaryk, whose anti-abortion views were well known. Kacsmaryk’s order is on hold pending appeal, but it raises two basic questions (apart from the abortion controversy itself).

First, should a single federal judge have the authority to stop duly enacted statutes and agency rules from being enforced anywhere in the country? Kacsmaryk’s FDA injunction is hardly the only “national” or “universal” injunction that judges (including Kacsmaryk) have issued. Parties left and right have sought them—12 during the George Bush administration, and 19 and 50 respectively during the Obama and Trump administrations. Policymakers and others, left and right, have attacked them, at least when judges have enjoined enforcement of laws that the policymakers favor. The Conference goal on March 12 was not ending such injunctions but rather making it difficult for plaintiffs seeking them to ensure that their case would go before a sympathetic judge.

Thus, the second question: Should federal court rules enable plaintiffs to secure a like-minded judge to hear their case—commonly known as “judge-shopping.” Allowing plaintiffs to pick their judge is contrary to the bedrock federal court principle of randomly assigning cases to judges through an electronic version of drawing names from a hat.

Successful judge-shopping combined with judges’ authority to issue national injunctions is obviously attractive to interest groups. Why try to change national policy by building legislative coalitions or lobbying federal agencies when one strategically selected federal judge can issue an injunction doing the same thing (at least if the appellate courts agree)?

In this post I try to:

Clarify the federal court arcanum about the dispute;

Explain the Conference’s proposed policy and the controversies over the policy and the Conference’s authority; and

Speculate briefly on what may be next.

[beardedmrbean]

A Florida man who died in a shootout with police over the weekend was out on bond after he allegedly raped a 14-year-old girl on her way to school last year, according to Orange County court records.

A SWAT team fatally shot Daton Viel, 28, on Friday after he shot and critically injured two Orlando police officers during a traffic stop around 11 p.m. Investigators believe Viel's vehicle may have been tied to a homicide in Miami.

Less than a year ago, on Dec. 1, 2022, Viel offered a ride to the 14-year-old girl walking to a local high school. She accepted, and when she got into his vehicle, he drove her to a park and allegedly raped her inside his vehicle before driving back to the school.

Once he dropped her off at the school, the victim told friends and school staff, who contacted law enforcement, Orange County records show.

SUSPECTED COP SHOOTER KILLED IN STANDOFF WITH SWAT TEAM NEAR UNIVERSAL ORLANDO: POLICE

Surveillance footage captured a red, four-door sedan entering the school's front office parking lot once at 10:14 a.m. and again at 10:46 a.m., when the victim can be seen exiting the vehicle.

Medical staff examined the victim and obtained a sexual assault kit. Detectives then conducted an analysis of male DNA found on the victim and linked it to Viel, who was charged with sexual battery of a person between the ages of 12 and 18, lewd or lascivious molestation and lewd or lascivious exhibition.

ORLANDO POLICE OFFICERS IN CRITICAL CONDITION FOLLOWING SHOOTING

He was released on $125,000 bond in that case, as FOX 35 Orlando first reported.

"The only individual who can be blamed for incidents like these is the individual who took those actions," Monique Worrell, U.S. State's Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, said during a Monday press conference. Worrell defended her office, repeating that bond is at the discretion of the court, not the U.S. Attorney's Office. "Whether or not someone gets released on bond is in the discretion of the court, and bond is a right. It is not something that the state gets to decide or not decide," Worrell said when asked whether the prosecutor's office could have argued for no bond. "We can certainly make arguments. Ultimately, it's the decision of the court, and in this case, the court decided that a $125,000 bond was appropriate."

At the time of his arrest in the rape case, Viel was on probation for burglary, trespassing on a construction site and criminal mischief charges stemming from a December 2019 incident. He had also violated probation for alleged crimes out of Georgia earlier this year.

TEMPLE POLICE SHOOTING SUSPECT SHOT OFFICER 3 MORE TIMES AS COP LAY ON GROUND WITH HEAD WOUND: OFFICIALS

Additionally, there was a warrant out for Viel's arrest in Orange County in July after he was caught driving a red Ford Fusion with a stolen license plate on June 30 near the University of Central Florida campus.

"The offender reported he'd come to the campus to see a girlfriend and he knew he shouldn't be driving because his license was suspended, and he did not have any insurance on the car," an amended complaint stated. "While Officer Smith was removing the stolen license plate from the vehicle, UCF Dispatch relayed the offender had an active warrant from Orange County for Trespassing."

When officers told Viel to put his hands behind his back, he fled the scene. Police yelled commands at the suspect to stop, but he ignored them and got away.

"There were three warrants, and we just could not get to him," Worrell said Monday. "…Until Saturday morning, he was never taken into custody."

On Friday, after Viel shot at two Orlando officers, he initially fled the scene and then carjacked another vehicle in an effort to get away, and a vehicle pursuit ensued, according to a statement released from the Orlando Police Department. 

Viel barricaded himself inside a room at a Holiday Inn and refused to surrender despite multiple attempts by police to persuade him to give up. At 8:58 a.m., the suspect opened fire on SWAT officers "multiple times," according to Orlando Police Chief Eric Smith. Police returned fire and hit the suspect, killing him.  

[meandmybigmouth]

US Supreme Court justices, other judges can stay at corporate-owned homes without disclosure

(Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges on lower courts do not have to publicly disclose when they dine or stay at someone's personal residence, even one owned by a business entity, under a revised ethics rule.

The amended policy was issued on Monday by the U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on Financial Disclosure, which sets rules followed by the nine justices and other federal judges. Critics said the move diluted ethics requirements.

THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN GOVERNMENT ENTITIES ARE ALLOWED TO "POLICE" THEMSELVES AND SET THEIR OWN RULES!

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Jack Ohman, Tribune Content Agency

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 1, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 02, 2024

Today, Florida’s ban on abortions after six weeks—earlier than most women know they’re pregnant—went into effect. The Florida legislature passed the law and Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed it a little more than a year ago, on April 13, 2023, but the new law was on hold while the Florida Supreme Court reviewed it. On April 1 the court permitted the law to go into operation today. 

The new Florida law is possible because two years ago, on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court  overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the constitutional right to abortion. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the modern court decided that the right to determine abortion rights must be returned “to the people’s elected representatives” at the state level. 

Immediately, Republican-dominated states began to restrict abortion rights. Now, one out of three American women of childbearing age lives in one of the more than 20 states with abortion bans. This means, as Cecile Richards, former president of Planned Parenthood, put it in The Daily Beast today, “child rape victims forced to give birth, miscarrying patients turned away from emergency rooms and told to return when they’re in sepsis.” It means recognizing that the state has claimed the right to make a person’s most personal health decisions. 

Until today, Florida’s law was less stringent than that of other southern states, making it a destination for women of other states to obtain the abortions they could not get at home. In the Washington Post today, Caroline Kitchener noted that in the past, more than 80,000 women a year obtained abortions in Florida. Now, receiving that reproductive care will mean a trip to Virginia, Illinois, or North Carolina, where the procedure is still legal, putting it out of reach for many women. 

This November, voters in Florida will weigh in on a proposed amendment to the Florida constitution to establish the right to abortion. The proposed amendment reads: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” Even if the amendment receives the 60% support it will need to be added to the constitution, it will come too late for tens of thousands of women.

It is not unrelated that this week Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, along with other Republican attorneys general, has twice sued the Biden administration, challenging its authority to impose policy on states. One lawsuit objects to the government’s civil rights protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. The other lawsuit seeks to stop a federal rule that closes a loophole that, according to Texas Tribune reporter Alejandro Serrano, lets people sell guns online or at gun shows without conducting background checks.  

In both cases, according to law professor and legal analyst Steve Vladeck, Paxton has filed the suit in the Amarillo Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where it will be assigned to Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Trump appointee who suspended the use of mifepristone, an abortion-inducing drug, in order to stop abortions nationally. 

Last month the Judicial Conference, which oversees the federal judiciary, tried to end this practice of judge-shopping by calling for cases to be randomly assigned to any judge in a district; the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas says it will not comply. 

And so the cases go to Kacsmaryk, who will almost certainly agree with the Republican states’ position.

Republicans are engaged in the process of dismantling the federal government, working to get rid of its regulation of business, basic social welfare laws and the taxes needed to pay for such measures, the promotion of infrastructure, and the protection of civil rights. To do so, they have increasingly argued that the states, rather than the federal government, are the centerpiece of our democratic system. 

That democracy belonged to the states was the argument of the southern Democrats before the Civil War, who insisted that the federal government could not legitimately intervene in state affairs out of their concern that the overwhelming popular majority in the North would demand an end to human enslavement. Challenged to defend their enslavement of their neighbors in a country that boasted “all men are created equal,” southern enslavers argued that enslavement was secondary to the fact that voters had chosen to impose it.

At the same time, though, state lawmakers limited the vote in their state, so the popular vote did not reflect the will of the majority. It reflected the interests of those few who could vote. In 1857, enslaver George Fitzhugh of Virginia explained that there were 18,000 people in his county and only 1,200 could vote. “But we twelve hundred…never asked and never intend to ask the consent of the sixteen thousand eight hundred whom we govern.” State legislatures, dominated by such men, wrote laws reinforcing the power of a few wealthy, white men. 

Crucially, white southerners insisted that the federal government must use its power not to enforce the will of the majority, but rather to protect their state systems. In 1850, with the Fugitive Slave Act, they demanded that federal officials, including those in free states, return to the South anyone a white enslaver claimed was his property. Black Americans could not testify in their own defense, and anyone helping a “runaway” could be imprisoned for six months and fined $1,000, which was about three years’ income. A decade later, enslavers insisted that it was “the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect…[slavery]…in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends.”

After the Civil War, Republicans in charge of the federal government set out to end discriminatory state legislation by adding to the Constitution the Fourteenth Amendment, establishing that states could not deny to any person the equal protection of the laws and giving Congress the power to enforce that amendment. That, together with the Fifteenth Amendment providing that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” Republicans thought, would stop state legislatures from passing discriminatory legislation.

But in 1875, just five years after Americans added the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court decided that states could keep certain people from voting so long as that discrimination wasn’t based on race. This barred women from the polls and flung the door open for voter suppression measures that would undermine minority voting for almost a century. Jim and Juan Crow laws, as well as abortion bans, went onto the books.

In the 1950s the Supreme Court began to use the Fourteenth Amendment to end those discriminatory state laws—in 1954 with the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, decision that prohibited racial segregation in public schools, for example, and in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. Opponents complained bitterly about what they called “judicial activism,” insisting that unelected judges were undermining the will of the voters in the states. 

Beginning in the 1980s, as Republicans packed the courts with so-called originalists who weakened federal power in favor of state power, Republican-dominated state governments carefully chose their voters and then imposed their own values on everyone. 

Just a decade ago, reproductive rights scholar Elizabeth Dias told Jess Bidgood of the New York Times, a six-week abortion ban was seen even by many antiabortion activists as too radical, but after Trump appointed first Neil Gorsuch and then Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the balance of power shifted enough to make such a ban obtainable. Power over abortion rights went back to the states, where Republicans could restrict them.

Trump has said he would leave the issue of abortion to the states, even if states begin to monitor women’s pregnancies to keep them from obtaining abortions or to prosecute them if they have one. 

Vice President Kamala Harris was in Jacksonville, Florida, today to talk about reproductive rights. She put the fight over abortion in the larger context of the discriminatory state laws that have, historically, constructed a world in which some people have more rights than others. “This is a fight for freedom,” she said, “the fundamental freedom to make decisions about one’s own body and not have their government tell them what they’re supposed to do.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[kp777]

By Steven Harper

Common Dreams

June 26, 2024

Because, for him, the end—achieving national “godliness”—justifies the means, Alito’s approach to his job is disingenuous and dishonest.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has frequently proclaimed his determination to impose his religious views on the entire country. Alito’s tendency toward Christian nationalism—“the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way”—isn’t new. But in a Supreme Court justice, it’s especially dangerous. And lately Alito has become more outspoken on the subject.

Addressing the Federalist Society in 2020, he said, “In certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”

In a May 11, 2024 commencement speech at a Catholic college in Ohio, he told graduates, “Freedom of religion is… imperiled. When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job, or community, or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe, or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm.”

It’s not clear what is more remarkable—that a sitting Supreme Court justice holds extreme religious views “that can’t be compromised” or that Alito discusses those draconian views so freely with a stranger at a public gathering.

At a June 3 meeting of the Supreme Court Historical Society, liberal documentary filmmaker Lauren Windsor approached Alito. “As a Catholic and as someone who, like, really cherishes my faith,” she said, “I just don’t, I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that, like, needs to happen for the polarization to end. I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.”

Alito agreed with Windsor, saying that she was “probably right” that one side or another is going to win. Along with four of the five other justices comprising the court’s conservative block, he is also a Catholic.

“I mean, there can be a way of working—a way of living together peacefully,” Alito added, “but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

Windsor continued, “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that—to return our country to a place of godliness.”

Alito replied, “I agree with you.”

It’s not clear what is more remarkable—that a sitting Supreme Court justice holds extreme religious views “that can’t be compromised” or that Alito discusses those draconian views so freely with a stranger at a public gathering.

Religious Absolutism in Practice

Left unsaid was Alito’s more startling point: His definition of “godliness” doesn’t include all religions. The resulting arrogance leads to a simple view of the world as a constant struggle between good and evil. Personal religious beliefs become the sole criterion by which to categorize all conduct. Such myopia creates an unwarranted confidence in one’s own moral certainty where reasonable people disagree.

Alito isn’t just an ordinary citizen advocating his personal preferences. He’s one of nine Supreme Court justices at the top of the country’s judicial system. He casts votes and writes opinions that affect every facet of American life. And because, for him, the end—achieving national “godliness”—justifies the means, Alito’s approach to his job is disingenuous and dishonest.

Never before in its history had the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded an individual right in its entirety and conferred it on the states.

Facts don’t matter. They yield to a simplistic approach to everything: Abandon secularism and promote “godliness”—as Alito defines it.

For example, wrapping himself in false history under the guise of “originalism” in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, he wrote the 2022 majority opinion that obliterated 50 years of precedent under Roe v. Wade and removed a woman’s right to control her own pregnancy. And he persuaded five other justices to join him, including all three appointees of former President Donald Trump.

As the dissenters in that case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, emphasized, Alito got the supposed historical justification for his aberrant ruling “embarrassingly” wrong. But the consequences were dramatic: Never before in its history had the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded an individual right in its entirety and conferred it on the states.

Alito didn’t care. Precedent and actual history were irrelevant. He got the religious result he wanted and imposed it on the entire nation.

Passing the Blame

Only 30% of Americans qualify as Christian nationalism adherents or sympathizers. In the cosmic battle between good and evil, they believe that they are God’s boots on the ground. They were at the front lines in the fight to overturn the 2020 election of President Joe Biden. And they helped to mobilize Trump supporters on January 6.

Flags associated with the insurrection and Christian nationalism have flown outside Alito’s two homes. But when called to account, Alito couldn’t take the heat. He blamed his wife for flying outside his Virginia residence an upside-down American flag on January 17, 2021. It’s a universal symbol of dire distress that the pro-Trump mob promoted on January 6 in connection with the bogus “Stop the Steal” movement. Alito said that his wife flew the flag after a confrontation with a neighbor, but the confrontation actually occurred weeks later—in mid-February. Alito’s excuse fell apart.

Likewise, Alito pointed an accusing finger at his wife for flying an “Appeal to Heaven” flag outside the Alitos’ New Jersey beach house in 2023. He claimed not to have known its political or religious significance.

Above the Law

If you’re Samuel Alito, none of the rules applies to you. Unlike the rest of the federal judiciary and every state court, U.S. Supreme Court justices have no mandatory ethical requirements. The court has no process for forcing recusal in cases where a justice has a clear conflict of interest. And it has no recourse for dealing with a justice who accepts thousands of dollars in gifts from individuals or groups seeking influence.

When the media exposed Alito’s free travel on a billionaire’s private jet to a luxury fishing resort in Alaska, he responded that if he hadn’t taken the seat, it would have remained empty. So the fact that the one-way ride would have cost him more than $100,000 was somehow irrelevant, and he didn’t have to disclose it pursuant to federal law.

Huh?

When they were kids, I wonder how often Alito and Thomas told their teachers that the dog ate their homework. Or when caught doing something wrong replied with comedian Flip Wilson’s line, “The devil made me do it.”

When it comes to flouting ethical standards, Alito’s conservative colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas, is even worse. Over 20 years, Thomas received unreported gifts worth millions of dollars. Alito took second place with $170,000.

In Alito’s conversation with Lauren Windsor during which he agreed that America should return to a place of “godliness,” she asked what could be done to restore public trust in the court—which is at record lows. Alito blamed the media: “I wish I knew. I don’t know. It’s easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us. And so, they have really eroded trust in the court.”

Clarence Thomas has the same attitude. Complaining recently about the “nastiness and lies” he has faced, he called Washington, D.C. a “hideous place” and one reason that he and his wife, Ginni—who was intimately involved in promoting the January 6 insurrection—“like RVing.”

The Thomas’ also probably like traveling in their luxury motorcoach because a millionaire forgave the $267,000 loan that Thomas used to buy it.

When they were kids, I wonder how often Alito and Thomas told their teachers that the dog ate their homework. Or when caught doing something wrong replied with comedian Flip Wilson’s line, “The devil made me do it.”

How do you solve a problem like Alito—or Thomas?

Shine a spotlight on them.

Wait for them to retire or die.

And vote for a President who will not fill their seats with like-minded replacements.

[365daysofj2]

To Keep From Drowning (SeaQuest AU, 2/?)

Jared took Jensen’s hand in his as they exited the MagLev closest to Morgan’s quarters. Morgan had called Jensen down to discuss the conference with Jensen’s lawyer. Jared’s shift didn’t start for another 2 hours, so he’d volunteered to accompany Jensen to hear the news. 

Jared pressed the door chime and waited. After a few seconds, Morgan opened the door. “Come in,” he said, stepping aside to let them pass. “Jared, I wasn’t expecting you, but I’m glad you’re here.”

Jared frowned. That probably meant that the news wasn’t good. He squeezed Jensen’s hand before they sat at the table in the anteroom. 

Morgan sat down across from them, his face sober. “Which do you want first, the good news or the less good news?”

Jensen bit his lip. “I’d rather have the good news, I think.”

Morgan shook his head. “Well, ‘good’ is relative. Mr. Williams’s impression of the UEO is that they’re looking to throw us under the bus simply for publicity’s sake, as a show of strength for the Macronesian Alliance specifically.”

“They’re acting up again?” asked Jared.

“Yeah, there have been some small skirmishes around the border. Radar also shows that they seem to be stockpiling nuclear warheads for some ‘indeterminate cause’.” 

“What does that have to do with us, though?” Jensen looked thoroughly confused.

Morgan smirked. “It’s essentially a dick-measuring contest with Macronesia, and the UEO’s getting it up by punishing us. It’s a PR strategy to look tough. Williams doesn’t think the UEO has much of a legal leg to stand on. We did the best we could with what we had—which was nowhere near enough time or data to mount an effective mission.”

Jensen nodded. “Exactly.”

Morgan reached underneath the table and pulled out a black clamshell box, the kind that jewelry usually came in. Jensen stared at it in confusion. “What’s that?” 

 “I’ll explain,” said Morgan, “but keep in mind that it’s Mr. Williams’s idea.” Morgan grinned and stood up, gesturing for Jensen to do the same. Morgan handed Jensen the box, but Morgan kept his hand on it, preventing Jensen from opening it. 

“In recognition of the unique skills and abilities that you contribute to the SeaQuest’s mission, I hereby commission you the rank of Ensign, with all the duties, responsibilities, and privileges therein.”  He released the box. “Open it.”

Jensen did as he was instructed with wide, disbelieving eyes. Inside were the Naval insignia for the rank of Ensign, as well as a black name patch, standard for their shipboard uniforms, with “Ensign J. Ackles” printed on it in the lettering that matched the ones Jared and Morgan were wearing at that moment. 

“Welcome to the United States Navy, Ensign Ackles.”

Jensen stood, openmouthed, staring at the items in his hand. Finally, he lifted his head and met Morgan’s pleased gaze. “You’re enlisting me?”

“Mr. Williams believes that it will be harder to single you out for punishment if you’re an official crew member, under the protection of the U.S. Navy and the UEO. Mr. Williams checked with Captain Connell, and you can’t be court-martialed for actions you took prior to enlistment, even if they occurred on a UEO Naval vessel under the command of a UEO Naval Captain.”

Jensen swallowed hard and bit his lip. “Don’t get me wrong, Captain, I’m honored. Really. But—” He straightened to his full height and looked Morgan straight in the eye. “I don’t want to join the Navy. And unless you’re prepared to draft me, which shouldn’t apply because we’re not actively at war with Macronesia, I’m not going to.”

Morgan frowned. “I’m not sure you understand the implications if you’re found liable outside of the Navy’s sphere of protection. You’re a legal adult now, subject to full judicial consequences, up to and including imprisonment.”

“Jail? What the hell for?” Jensen’s voice rose higher and louder with each word.

“Well, involuntary manslaughter is the biggest concern, followed by criminal negligence.” Morgan winced. “That wasn’t how I was planning to break that news.” 

Jensen’s eyes blazed with anger. Jared could see the muscle in his jaw twitching with barely suppressed rage. “They’re acting like I screwed up on purpose! I did the best I fucking could, all right? Fuck.” 

Morgan reached out and placed a calming hand on Jensen’s shoulder. “I agree with you one hundred percent. I was there, I saw you, and you did more with less than any of the rest of us were capable of. Hell, I’m not sure anyone in the whole damn Navy could have done better.” He leveled his gaze at Jensen, who was still glaring daggers at him. “We are all doing our damnedest to get the Feds to put the blame where it belongs—on me and me alone. I’m the Captain. That’s my duty, responsibility, and privilege.”

Jensen softened a tiny bit. “That’s not fair to you,” he retorted in a tone that was mostly indignant but, because of his young age, did sound a bit petulant. 

“But it’s what I signed on for,” replied Morgan, his own voice as steady and calm as his gaze. “You are on my crew, even if the DOJ doesn’t agree. You were acting as a technician on the SeaQuest under my legally binding orders. And as I said, neither Mr. Williams nor Captain Connell believe that the DOJ has legal standing to bring charges against you. However, it’s gonna be a hell of a fight.”

Jensen handed the box back to Morgan. “I’m sorry. I just can’t accept this.”

Morgan took a deep breath. “I understand. I’ll let Mr. Williams know that you declined to enlist at this time. But I’ll hold onto these in case you want to change your mind.” He set the box on the table and sat back down. Jensen followed. “And once we get into the preliminary challenges, I think you just might do that.”

Jared took Jensen’s hand underneath the table and squeezed it. He needed Jensen to know that he had Jensen’s back, one hundred percent, no matter who or what tried to come between them.

“Jared, I’ll meet with you the day after tomorrow to obtain your statement. Captain Connell has given me a list of questions to ask each of you, and I’ll send her your responses. She doesn’t think you’ll have to testify at the hearing, but you’ll need to attend each session just in case since you’re on the witness list.” Jared nodded. He’d been expecting that. And even if he wasn’t required to attend, he was planning to just to support Jensen, because Jensen absolutely would be required to testify—possibly for multiple days. 

“Jensen, you and I will meet with Captain Connell, Admiral Beaver, and Mr. Williams when we arrive at NSA Monterey on Monday,” Morgan went on. “They’ll then travel with us to New Cape Quest for the hearing. You are to make yourself available to them at all times while they’re on board.”

Jensen scowled, but after a moment, he muttered “Yes, Sir.”

Morgan’s face softened. “Look, I know this situation is difficult as hell. But I promise you, everyone involved on our side only has your best interests at heart. Myself, Captain Connell, Admiral Beaver, and Mr. Williams are committed to protecting you specifically, Jensen.” Jensen’s eyes widened slightly, like he couldn’t quite believe what he was hearing. “It’s your unique position on the SeaQuest that’s made you vulnerable to this unjust persecution in the first place, and what enables the DOJ and UEO to bring these ridiculous charges at all. You simply aren’t entitled to the same legal protections under the current UCMJ.”

“The what?” Jensen frowned at the unfamiliar term.

“Uniform Code of Military Justice,” Jared answered before Morgan could. He’d had the importance of the UCMJ drilled into him in several classes at the Academy. He’d even had to memorize a couple of paragraphs. 

“However, the UCMJ doesn’t really cover your specific situation,” said Morgan. “You’re a civilian, yes, but not a contract employee because you were legally unable to sign a contract when you came on board. They didn’t make a formal contract with your father either—but since you’re now emancipated, that contract would no longer be valid anyway. Basically, it’s a real goddamned mess.”

That actually made Jensen smile. “Pretty typical, right?”

Morgan chuckled. “For you? Absolutely.” He gestured toward the door. “That’s all I have for you right now. I’ll let you know when I need to see you again. You’re dismissed.”

“Yes, Sir,” said Jared, standing up. After a beat, Jensen weakly echoed Jared and stood up as well. They walked out the door and into the nearest MagLev.

“This is such bullshit,” complained Jensen once the MagLev door was closed.

“Hey, I agree with you one hundred percent,” replied Jared. “All of this is ridiculous. And it’s not even about us anyway. It’s just stupid posturing.”

Jensen leaned back against the seat and tilted his chin up, closing his eyes. 

Jared placed a hand on his knee and squeezed lightly. “You know I’m here for you, no matter what, right?”

Jensen nodded, eyes still closed. “I know,” he murmured.                                      

It was Jared’s turn to meet with Morgan to prepare for the hearing. He approached Morgan’s door, but before he could ring the bell, the door opened and Dr. Rhodes emerged, her short hair ever-so-slightly ruffled out of place. “Commander,” she said, sounding a bit flustered.

“Doctor,” Jared said quietly in response. She stepped past him and into the corridor. 

“Come on in, Padalecki” called Morgan from inside his quarters. 

Jared entered the anteroom. Morgan was standing next to the coffee maker in the corner as a pot of synthetic coffee finished brewing. “Coffee?”

“Yes, please,” answered Jared. 

Morgan poured coffee into two UEO logo mugs and handed one to Jared. Morgan had already placed oat milk creamer and sugar on the table. Jared loaded his coffee with both. Morgan apparently took his black, which surprised Jared, since Morgan had decades of experience with the real thing, which was far superior to the artificial stuff. 

Morgan took the seat across from Jared. “This shouldn’t take more than about half an hour. I don’t have much to ask you. Most of what the Feds want to know isn’t relevant to your role.” He gave Jared a crooked smile. “Of course, I didn’t tell them what you were really there for.”

“Thank you, Sir,” said Jared, matching Morgan’s smile with one of his own. 

“You’re mostly going to speaking to facts in evidence,” Morgan went on. “The questions pertain to specific actions or statements that you witnessed.” He activated the viewscreen on the side wall. “I’m going to record this for Captain Connell and Admiral Beaver, whom you will meet with once they come aboard.” Morgan tapped a button on his epad. “Please state your name, rank, and serial number for the record.”

“Lieutenant Commander Jared T. Padalecki, DEERS number 3590555348.”

“And you swear that your testimony today is true and correct to the best of your knowledge and recollection?”

“Yes, I do.”

“Commander Padalecki, what is your assigned role on the SeaQuest?”

“I am the SeaQuest’s Supply Officer and Logistics Specialist, and second in command of the Administrative Department after Commander Sheppard.”

“Commander, were you present on the bridge from 1900 hours on 22nd January 2023 to 0055 hours on 23rd January 2023?”

“Yes,” answered Jared, although he didn’t recall what time the implosion had taken place or when the launch sub was recalled. He vaguely remembered that Jensen got back aboard around 0100 hours on Friday.

“Your assigned role was as technical support to Mr. Ackles and Lt. Buckmaster, correct?”

“Yes, that’s correct.”

“What duties did you perform in that role?”

Jared took a deep breath and tried to think of the best way to word it. “I provided verbal support and feedback to Jensen, and I assisted Lt. Buckmaster with the modifications to the WSKRS probe with the designation Junior.”

“What specific tasks did you perform on the WSKRS probe?”

“I removed the bolts holding the outer casing in place, and then Lt. Buckmaster and I replaced the casing and bolted it back on.”

“You are not an Electronics Technician, nor are you part of the Electrics Division of Engineering, correct?”

Jared’s breath hitched. That was not where he was expecting this line of questioning to go. In fact, it sounded like the questions were designed to point out his own wrongdoing in being involved in the first place—when Jared, like Jensen, was just following orders. Apparently the DOJ was trying to throw the entire crew under the bus. 

Jared fumed, but answered the question as dispassionately as he could manage. “Correct. I am not now, nor have I ever been a technician in either the Operations or Engineering Departments.”

“Did you consider yourself qualified to assist Lt. Buckmaster in modifying the WSKRS probe?”

“Yes, I did,” Jared replied, struggling to keep from sounding defensive. “Loosening and tightening bolts with a wrench, and helping Lt. Buckmaster lift and secure the casing piece, doesn’t require skills unique to any kind of technician.”

“Did your orders from the Captain include making modifications to the WSKRS probe?”

“As I understood them, they did,” answered Jared, and this time he couldn’t help sounding annoyed. “My orders were to support Jensen and Lt. Buckmaster in any and all appropriate ways, as far as I was aware.”

Morgan held up a hand to silence Jared and stopped the recording. “For what it’s worth, I think this line of questioning is complete and utter bullshit,” he spat, not bothering to suppress his contempt. “However, I am obligated to continue it.”

“Understood, Sir,” said Jared. It wasn’t the Captain he was mad at, and they both knew it. Morgan, however, was professional enough to hide his personal reactions on the tape. Jared hoped that when he was closer to Morgan’s age, he’d be better at that.

“I’m going to reactivate the recording,” Morgan warned him. Jared waited until he’d pressed the button.

“What specific feedback did you give Mr. Ackles while he was present on the bridge?” Morgan’s eyebrows were narrowed into a thin, tense line. He clearly hated having to ask the question as much or more than Jared hated having to answer it.

Jared took a long, shaking breath and thought back to that night. He didn’t fully recall everything he’d said. He remembered joking around with him about Jared’s supposed “fan club” of girl admirers, and that he’d told Jensen that he wasn’t responsible for getting the submersible crew out of the craft without imploding it, which turned out to be a moot point anyway.

“I told him that he wasn’t responsible for the part of the mission where the launch crew needed to board the experimental submersible to retrieve its crew without imploding the craft,” replied Jared. “Other than that, I don’t remember word-for-word what I said to him.”

“You assisted Mr. Ackles with his report for the mission debriefing, correct?”

“Yes.”

“What specific assistance did you give him?”

“I mostly just suggested revisions to certain word choices and grammatical constructions,” answered Jared. “I was not familiar with the scientific concepts, so I was unable to make suggestions on the technical material in the report.”

“The Captain ordered you to assist Mr. Ackles, despite your lack of familiarity with the subject?” Morgan scowled, his irritation gouging deep lines in his forehead. He refused to meet Jared’s eyes.

“Yes,” said Jared, choosing not to elaborate further.

“Did you question said order, either verbally or internally?”

Jared frowned. He felt like his private thoughts shouldn’t be subject to interrogation. He also wondered what exactly the questions were designed to ferret out. Jared hadn’t done anything that affected the outcome of the mission, nor had he done anything wrong according to procedure. He’d simply followed orders. So what was the issue here?

“No, I did not.”

“How would you describe your working relationship with Mr. Ackles.”

Jared’s eyes widened. He held up a hand, indicating that Morgan should stop the recording. Morgan immediately obliged. “Are they asking what I think they’re asking, and do I have to answer that?”

Morgan let out an explosive sigh. “They’re coming as close as they’re allowed to bringing up your personal relationship, yes,” he answered in a low, even tone, as though keeping the emotion out of his voice would make the answer more palatable. 

Jared swallowed hard. He could feel beads of sweat forming on his forehead. He had no idea how he was supposed to answer the question—or where it would lead if he did.

“Not that it’s in any way relevant,” Morgan added, his voice rising with barely concealed anger. “Your personal relationship to Jensen had no bearing whatsoever on the actions he took during the mission.” His face softened. “Answer the questions with as few details as possible. I think our legal team will be able to challenge all this right out of the record.”

Morgan clasped his hands together on top of the table. “How old were you when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed?”

“That was 2011, right?” Morgan nodded. “I was fourteen, Sir.”

“The DADT years were pretty harrowing for those affected,” said Morgan. “You started at the Academy in August 2013, right? You barely missed it.”

“Yes, Sir.” Jared nodded. He’d known about DADT, since both his parents were Navy and he’d grown up on various bases. He’d been relieved as hell that it wasn’t still in effect when he joined. He didn’t come out on campus right away—being the youngest one there was alienating enough. But he’d dated a fellow cadet during his junior and senior years, so word had gotten around. Queerness was still mostly discussed in whispers rather than shouts. 

“The thing is, for the prosecution team, the 12 years since the end of DADT might as well be 12 minutes,” said Morgan. “They’re still operating with the mindset that outing someone can fully discredit them. And unfortunately, it might work with the UEO adjudicators. But I trust Admiral Beaver and Captain Connell can strike all this. So you have my express permission to tell as little of the truth as possible during this line of questioning.”

“Thank you, Sir,” said Jared, sinking back in his chair with relief. It wasn’t that he doubted that Morgan was on his and Jensen’s side, but Jared felt better knowing that Morgan sanctioned Jared to obscure the truth of Jared and Jensen’s relationship as much as Jared could.

Morgan motioned to the viewscreen, which cued Jared to sit up straight and prepare for the recording to commence. Morgan pushed the button and repeated the last question. Jared figured he’d edit the tape later—or Jensen would, because he could make it seamless through his questionably legal methods. 

“Jensen and I have a cordial relationship,” Jared replied coolly. “He’s not a direct report, so I would say we have a pleasant and productive partnership when called upon to work together.”

“You are considered the SeaQuest’s morale officer, correct?”

“Yes, I am.”

“Were you acting in your capacity as morale officer when assisting Mr. Ackles on the bridge?”

Jared bit his lip. It wasn’t something he’d considered, but it was an out that he was perfectly willing to accept. “Yes, I was.”

“Did Captain Morgan explain the nature of your involvement in the mission to you prior to arriving on the bridge on January 22nd?”

Jared frowned. He assumed this was one of the questions that Morgan would allow him to stretch the truth a bit to answer. “Yes, in a manner of speaking.”

“What did Captain Morgan tell you was your role in the mission?”

Jared took a deep breath. He remembered exactly what Morgan had told him his job was. Now he’d have to figure out how to rephrase it for the prosecutors. “My role was to keep Jensen from becoming discouraged by the extreme difficulty inherent in hisrole.”

“Did Captain Morgan use the word ‘impossible’ when describing Mr. Ackles’ role?”

Jared nodded. “Yes, he did.”

“Did you communicate to Mr. Ackles that Captain Morgan deemed the mission’s success ‘impossible’?”

“No, I did not.”

“Did you get the sense that Mr. Ackles considered his tasks ‘impossible’?”

“No, I didn’t,” replied Jared. “Difficult? Of course? And unprecedented also. But he was determined to succeed, and he did so. We found the submersible. We were just a bit too late to rescue it.”

“I have no further questions,” said Morgan, and Jared suppressed the sigh of relief he wanted to make while the camera was still recording. “Commander Padalecki, have you anything further to state for the record?”

“No, Sir,” answered Jared. 

“I, Captain Jeffrey Dean Morgan, hereby certify that Lt. Commander Padalecki’s deposition is complete as of 1030 hours on 3rdFebruary 2023.” Morgan stopped the recording. 

Jared sighed deeply and leaned back in his chair, suddenly exhausted. Morgan used his epad to send the recording along to the Navy JAG office in Monterey and to Jensen’s private lawyer. 

“When are you doing Jensen’s deposition?” asked Jared. “That is, if you’re allowed to tell me.”

“Monday at 0900,” answered Morgan. “With the entire legal team present. I’m assuming it’s going to take most of day shift. He’ll be instructed not to discuss the questions or his answers with you, but...” Morgan left the sentence unfinished, but Jared knew exactly what he meant. Jensen was terrible at keeping secrets. “Please don’t encourage him to discuss it, or prompt him to elaborate.”

Jared nodded. “Understood, Sir.”

Morgan stood up. “I’ll let you know if either our team or the prosecution has any further questions or comments for you. Try not to worry too much about it. You’re small potatoes. They don’t care much about what you did, they care about why you did it and how they can use that to discredit Jensen.”

Jared scowled. Morgan didn’t look thrilled either. Jared shook his head. “That’s ridiculous.”

“I fully agree with you,” replied Morgan. “I think all of this is ridiculous, but obviously it doesn’t matter what I think.” Morgan gestured for Jared to follow him to the door. “Try to keep Jensen distracted this weekend. Starting Monday, his life is gonna be hell.”

Jared’s chest tightened. Jensen didn’t deserve that. None of them did. They were just doing their jobs. The outcome would have been the same even if they’d done nothing at all. Jared wondered if maybe there was some aspect of this whole thing that even Morgan was unaware of. Did Pellegrino Nanotech have some kind of connection to the US government? Were the Feds trying to cover up their own wrongdoing by throwing Jensen and the SeaQuest crew under the bus? Jared knew better than to ask Morgan. Normally, he’d ask Jensen to go digging through classified files, but it was too dangerous for Jensen to be poking around in government databases right now. 

Morgan opened the door. “You’re dismissed, Jared. I’ll keep you posted.”

“Thank you, Sir.” 

[freehawaii]

 KE AUPUNI UPDATE - MARCH 2024

At the UN in Geneva... For three or four times a year since 2010, I have been attending meetings at the UN in Geneva, and likewise at the UN in New York. The primary purpose for attending these UN meetings is to promote... “Hawaiʻi. our story and our future”... where we have been and where we would like to go. By using the art of diplomacy (talking story and making friends), we have broken down the lies the US had spread about Hawaiʻi being a US “state” (as evidenced by numerous stories in UN and European publications), and we have succeed in developing sympathy and support for the restoration of Hawaiʻi as a sovereign, independent nation.  I am currently at the massive UN headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland attending the 55th Session of the UN Human Rights Council. This past week I have touched bases with diplomats, UN experts, non-governing organizations (NGOs), the press and other stake-holders in the international human rights arena. Next week I will be on a panel on self-determination sponsored by the Kashmiri independence movement. I will also participate in a press conference with Alaska representatives and Dr. Alfred deZayas on calling for review of UNGA Resolution 1469. Here is the short oral statement I delivered at the Human Rights Council asserting our diplomatic protest to the US illegal occupation of our islands and reiterating our status as a sovereign, independent nation in continuity. Aloha Mr. President: This intervention is a diplomatic protest of the ongoing, systematic violations of human rights in the Hawaiian Islands and how the matter can be peacefully remedied. The United Statesʻ illegal occupation of Hawaii, has caused the people of Hawaii tremendous harm. The tragic fire that destroyed the historic town of Lahaina on August 8, 2023 is a foreboding of where the rest Hawaii is headed should the U.S. maintain its stranglehold on our islands. The U.S. and its settler population has used judicial corruption to dispossess Hawaiians of our lands (as in the current case of Mme Routh Bolomet); robs Hawaiians of our livlihoods, way of life and social structures; creating an environment that is so inhospitable and toxic that more than half of native Hawaiians have fled the islands just to survive. The huge presence of the US military in Hawaii puts Hawaiians in imminent danger of instant nuclear annihilation by enemies of the U.S. But unlike Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the next attack on US Military installations in Hawaii will wipe out everything. The people would be gone and the entire island of Oʻahu will look like Lahaina does now.  The remedy would begin with the United Nations General Assembly reviewing Resolution 1469 to correct its error, and ending its complicity in the occupation of Hawaii by the U.S.

 “Love of country is deep-seated in the breast of every Hawaiian, whatever his station.” — Queen Liliʻuokalani ---------- Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono. The sovereignty of the land is perpetuated in righteousness. ------ For the latest news and developments about our progress at the United Nations in both New York and Geneva, tune in to Free Hawaii News at 6 PM the first Friday of each month on ʻŌlelo Television, Channel 53. ------ "And remember, for the latest updates and information about the Hawaiian Kingdom check out the twice-a-month Ke Aupuni Updates published online on Facebook and other social media." PLEASE KŌKUA… Your kōkua, large or small, is vital to this effort... To contribute, go to:   • GoFundMe – CAMPAIGN TO FREE HAWAII • PayPal – use account email: info@HawaiianKingdom.net • Other – To contribute in other ways (airline miles, travel vouchers, volunteer services, etc...) email us at: info@HawaiianKingdom.net All proceeds are used to help the cause. MAHALO! Malama Pono,

Leon Siu

Hawaiian National

[criticalthinkingisalostskill]

Biden Justice Department Asks Court to Keep the Names of Jack Smith’s Top Staff Secret

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” Patrick Henry wrote. That is the concern we face today with unlawful government secrecy.

The U.S. Department of Justice is asking a federal court to allow the agency to keep secret the names of top staffers working in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office that is targeting former President Donald Trump and other Americans.

We filed a FOIA lawsuit in May 2023 after the Justice Department rejected a December 9, 2022, FOIA request for ”staff rosters, phone lists, or similar records depicting all employees hired by or detailed to office of Special Counsel Jack Smith” (Judicial Watch Inc. v U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:23-cv-01485)).

After months of delay, the Biden Justice Department finally acknowledged on April 12, 2023, that it possessed two staff rosters responsive to our request, but, citing a supposed “dearth of FOIA public interest,” was withholding the rosters under privacy and law enforcement exemptions. We explained in our motion that we were only seeking the names of top-level staffers – those at the GS-14 level and above – and did not seek email addresses or phone numbers.

In our motion, Judicial Watch quotes President Joe Biden’s remarks at a November 9, 2022, White House press conference and provide the background and justification for the FOIA request:

“Well, we just have to demonstrate that [Donald Trump] will not take power – if we – if he does run. I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.” - President Joe Biden

On November 18, 2022, [three days after Trump announced he would run for president again in 2024], Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing by former President Donald J. Trump. The appointment came nine days after President Biden announced his effort to “mak[e] sure” Trump did not become president again. The unprecedented investigation – and now prosecutions – by an incumbent president of his immediate predecessor, opponent in the last election, and leading opponent in the upcoming election raises numerous questions about who Special Counsel Smith chose to assist him in this highly charged endeavor. Are these persons opponents or supporters of the former president, aligned with one of the two major political parties, or otherwise biased or conflicted, or are they unbiased, nonpartisan professionals?

Further, we cite the Fani Willis and the other anti-Trump investigation scandals in explaining the public interest in knowing who is involved in this unprecedented prosecution:

Two recent examples highlight the importance of knowing the identities of the SCO’s staffers. Notorious FBI employees Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page were both members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of then-President Trump…. Stzrok was the lead FBI investigator assigned to the probe, and Page was a “general attorney” on Special Counsel Mueller’s staff…. During the investigation, it was discovered that Strzok and Page had exchanged voluminous texts disparaging then-candidate Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, commenting that “we’ll stop” Trump from becoming president, and citing having an “insurance policy” in case he did…. A subsequent report by the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General was highly critical of the exchanges, noting with respect to the “we’ll stop it” text in particular:

[W]hen one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it” in response to her question “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”, it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis, who also has brought criminal charges against the former president, is now reportedly under investigation herself for allegedly choosing her paramour, Nathan Wade, to lead the prosecution…. Although Wade’s identity was already known, it led to the discovery of new, previously unknown information that bears on the public perception of the prosecution. It helps the public to know “what their government is up to.” This case is no different.

In our motion, we further explain:

Defendant’s argument that disclosing the more-than-one-year-old rosters could reasonably be expected to interfere with the SCO’s work because it could lead to the SCO’s staff being threatened and harassed is entirely conclusory, little more than speculation, and lacks meaningful evidentiary support. It also ignores the fact that the names of at least 23 SCO staffers are readily available from public sources, yet the public availability of these names and in some instances email addresses and a cell phone number does not seem to have had any discernable impact on the functioning of the SCO…. Its prosecution of the former president and the two other individuals certainly appears to be proceeding apace, and Defendant has neither claimed nor demonstrated otherwise.

We conclude that the government’s exemption claims fail and that the Justice Department’s request to close the case is “plainly insufficient to satisfy its burden of proving that its withholdings are lawful.”

Our motion includes a declaration that lists 23 individuals working for Special Counsel Smith who were identified using publicly available court filings; an additional four names were located in media reports.

Special Counsel Jack Smith isn’t above the law, and the American people have the right to know who is working on his unprecedented and politicized anti-Trump investigation. Given the scandalous revelations about the Fani Willis prosecution team targeting Trump, it is especially urgent that Americans know just who the top people on Jack Smith’s staff are.

We’re involved in other matters regarding President Trump.

Through the New York Freedom of Information Law, in July 2023, we received the engagement letter showing New York County District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg paid $900 per hour for partners and $500 per hour for associates to the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm for the purpose of suing Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) in an effort to shut down the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight investigation into Bragg’s unprecedented indictment of former President Donald Trump.

Through FOIA, we uncovered information about Special Counsel’s Mueller’s budget and staff. We also sued for and obtained records for the budget of Special Counsel John Durham. A Judicial Watch lawsuit also uncovered calendar entries of Mueller special counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann showing he led the hiring effort for the investigation that targeted President Trump.

In January 2024, we filed a lawsuit against Fulton County, Georgia for records regarding the hiring of Nathan Wade as a special prosecutor by District Attorney Fani Willis. Wade was hired to pursue unprecedented criminal investigations and prosecutions against former President Trump and others over the 2020 election disputes.

Before his appointment to investigate and prosecute Trump, Jack Smith previously was at the center of several other controversial issues, the IRS scandal among them.

In 2014, a Judicial Watch investigation revealed that top IRS officials had been in communication with Jack Smith’s then-Public Integrity Section about a plan to launch criminal investigations into conservative tax-exempt groups. Government officials were looking to step up a probe into requests for tax-exemption from organizations with conservative sounding names like “Tea Party” and other “political sounding names,” according to a later report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general. Jack Smith appears to have been a key player in this attempt to silence conservative voices.

According to the documents we obtained, Jack Smith directed the head of the Justice Department’s Election Crimes Branch, Richard Pilger, to meet with the director of the IRS’s Tax-Exempt Organizations division, Lois Lerner. In one email we obtained, Lerner discusses an idea that the Justice Department could build “false-statement cases” against tax-exempt conservative groups.

We later obtained additional documents detailing a planning meeting between Justice Department, FBI and IRS officials about possible criminal prosecutions. Thanks to our disclosures, House investigators discovered that the IRS improperly turned over confidential tax records of nonprofit organizations to the FBI—sparking a public uproar and forcing the return of the records to the IRS. Read more about the case here.

https://myjw.pr.judicialwatch.org/link.php?AGENCY=jw&M=55814187&N=67116&L=28702&F=H&drurl=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVkaWNpYWx3YXRjaC5vcmcvYWJjcy1pcnMtbWVzcy1qdXN0aWNlLWRlcHQtdGFpbnRlZC8/dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1kZXBsb3llciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jb250ZW50PUFOVFU0TVRReE9EYyUzRCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249d2Vla2x5K3VwZGF0ZSZ1dG1fdGVybT1tZW1iZXJz&hash=7eaa4d7e25f74bbc8b9cb71344675bda2d18751e23a812663ba77960fa44c7b0.

[reading-writing-revolution]

Campaign Legal Center respectfully requests that the Judicial Conference exercise its authority pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 13106(b) and refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Attorney General because there is “reasonable cause to believe” that he “willfully failed to file information required to be reported” under the Ethics in GovernmentAct (“EIGA”). Specifically, Justice Thomas’ public statement on April 7, 2023, and recent news reporting, confirm that for over twenty years he did not file required gift disclosures of private plane and yacht travel from one individual. There is reasonable cause to believe that the omissions were willful because Justice Thomas (1) previously reported private plane travel from the same individual in compliance with the law, but stopped the disclosures after negative media attention; and (2) has a history of omitting significant information from his financial disclosure reports.

A Criminal Referral Is Being Sought For Clarence Thomas

[taylorscottbarnett]

Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-state-legislature-elections.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

This is the biggest and may be the biggest SCOTUS decision of my lifetime.

That is not hyperbole.

North Carolina's republican-majority legislature drew a map that would have yielded its 14-member Congressional delegation a 10 republican to 4 democrat advantage. The state SCOTUS told them it was an illegal gerrymander. After an election that re-shaped the court, the new conservative-majority declared the 10 to 4 map legal.

A dissenting justice stated that the new court's action was a “shameful manipulation of fundamental principles of our democracy and the rule of law,”.

They got sued and everyone pretty much expected a conservative SCOTUS to uphold the new decision, or at the very least, dismiss the case entirely and allow the 10 to 4 maps to be upheld.

They didn't.

Republican lawmakers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying the state court was not entitled to second-guess the Legislature.

The state argument was that the "independent state legislature" theory means that no other organs of state government — not courts, not governors, not election administrators, not independent commissions — can alter a legislature’s actions on federal elections.

They argued that this was legal because of their reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”

Aka, the US Constitution says we can't be checked by another body of government.

Aka that also means that State Constitutions can't check the legeslative branch in how it draws maps.

This made the case the most important federalism issue to come before the high court in generations.

The indepentant state legislature argument would undermine the authority of state courts to interpret state law — a bedrock principle of our system of federalism

That its: that state courts cannot rule on state laws involving elections:

that’s mail-in ballots, what it takes to register, what ID you have to show, how late the polls are open, how the ballots are counted, who gets to sit and watch when they do. The state courts get scores of these cases in virtually every election. The independent state legislature argument would forbid state courts from hearing those cases.

This was such a big deal that the Conference of State Cheif Justices, a group representing the top state judicial officers in the nation, filed a brief in the case urging the SCOTUS to reject the legal theory.

In states with heavy partisan leaning it would mean the state legislature would be virtually unchallenged. It would allow legislatures to permanently give themselves power to do whatever they wanted in regards to election law.

Almost as important as the court smacking down this insane fringe theory is it was a 6-3 decision on a court that's already strongly conservative.

Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stated the US Constitution:

“does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law.”

This.

Is.

Huge.

[altecisbit]

77WABC NEW JERSEY - N.Y.P.D S.O.D

@ABCNewsradio dr swann I took a overdose of Vitamin A once knowing the damage it would do to my brain - I was given a gastric lavage - in the austin hospital and recovered I have taken numerous lethal overdoses - the most recent to ABC MEDIA CAMPIAGNS #questionablepullcampiagn #peadophileconspiracy and the leaked phyciatrict record v.h.d (monash health)

intellectual disability spectrum disorder p.t.s.d (fear of dieing) theft of intellectual property #watsonia - published 30 years later due to thefts and the lethal overdose - 1992/93

"breakfast" - "guest" reading back "content" of Alex Clayton Facebook.com Lisa Miller lies and DEFAMES me she is a lier "did you know we thought he was a peadophile" only @ABC_Australia and no-one else see ABC MEDIA CAMPAIGNS #questionablepullcampiagn the #peadophileconspiracy to support the false claims by OURABC the ABC had a phyciatrict record leaked - "cleared and pardoned" - by the australian federal government on - 12/2/2024 - fn: leading cause of suicide in the world to this day ABC MEDIA CAMPIAGNS 10 - 15 YEARS  - "breakfast" - "couch" - lisa miller said don't believe it believe the whore - she said -17/2/2024.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3805566646436112&id=100009484426712&mibextid=Nif5oz a report for dr morley consultant phyciatrist at v.h.d (monash health) and my relapse (leading to a sexual indescretion) as guidelines for the c.p.m.s (clozaril patient monitoring system) - "breached" - parcs respite my last hospitalization and the overdose of clozaril by staff at parcs and against my will after a reaction to the overdose a class five hallucinogenic prescribed and the reaction wich led to re - addmission to M.H C.M.M.C p- block dept of adult phyciatiatry - v.h.d (monash health) dr neil prakesh referring me to M.M.C on a referral who with a secondary diagnosis said I had spectrum disorder and p.t.s.d (fear of dieng) as i was not responding on clozaril well after the trial had finished -"MALPRACTISE" a report from general clayton (retired) #jcos u.s military communications in the rear - specail ops and m.w.a.a/citywide1 - 15:24P.M A.E.S.D.T 2/2/2024.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3789930974666346&id=100009484426712&mibextid=Nif5oz a report to cheif justice gageler - full bench a inquiry in to ruby and kate's murders (double homicide) by hanging a 14 year inquiry a report for your persual the other coronial inquiries are "CLASSFIED" due to the fact the Australian Federal Government are involved in ruby and kate's murders a inquiry is needed - see royal commission of judicial inquires into governance - a report from general clayton (retired) #jcos u.s military #u.sssa24l6-l10 - coalition wide security licence - communications in the rear - specail ops and m.w.a.a/citywide1 - 20:25P.M A.E.S.D.T 13/1/2024 - fn: and "malpractice" and "conspiracy to murder" -  v.h.d (n.e.m.p.s) - associate professor peter doherty (melbourne clinic) 1992/93 and v.h.d (monash health) 2012/13-15 - consultant phyciatrist v.h.d (monash health) my phyciatrict treating team - consultant phyciatrist -  dr morley - o.c.p

I am being stalked closely by @ABCNewsradio who is broadcasting my thoughts confusing me in a live cross to press conference - (journalists in press conferance spieing using phoneapplication/screenreader on my mobile phone) whilst the prime minister his response who said "all I know mr clayton is not into masterbation" how can I deal with you prime minister I am awarding the "contract" to the "formula for gold" to the chinese government it is your doing prime minister the "surveillance" the only reason I am being defamed it's your responsibility prime minister - irreconcilable difference - 12 30-1:15 P.M A.E.S.D.T 19/2/2024-FN: U.K PATENTS COURT - JUSTICE DREWETT THE P.M HAS REFUSED REPEATED REQUESTS TO SWITCH OF "SURVEILLANCE" - p.m quotes peter dutton for acting in a opportunistic way - ironic

@ABC_Australia last night it was said can not continue to broadcast normally with out the phone application/screenreader on my mobile phone in studio communications Sydney Ultimo all studios australia with audio from n.y.p.d s.o.d and audio at home Alex Clayton Facebook.com

"AFTERNOON BREIFING" I CLASSIFY MY WORK YOU SWITCH OF THE SURVEILLANCE AND STOP CALLING ME A PEADOPHILE AS STATED BY GREG JENNET IS THE ONLY REASON YOU GOT AWAY WITH IT THE SPEAKER MILTON DICK SAID HE PERSONALLY WOULD STOP CALLING ME A PEADOPHILE WITH EVERYONE ELSE THE AUSTRALIAN MEDIA IN THIS CASE @ABC_Australia and the AuSGoV would settle out of court for the asking price of 380M of wich earlier penny wong said it would be reasonable - 16:45:17:00P.M A.E.S.D.T 5/2/2024.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3808096109516499&id=100009484426712&mibextid=Nif5oz case file

Court reporter for @ABC_Australia Elizabeth Byrne said @ABC_Australia was guilty of defamation against Alex Clayton cheif justice gageler said - 20:20-25P.M A.E.S.D.T 13/2/2024

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3795453854114058&id=100009484426712&mibextid=Nif5oz the secret program

IN USE BY CURTIS SILWA IN THE STUDIOS OF 77WABC NEW JERSEY - USING "EYE IN THE SKY" SATTILITTE (INFRA RED WITH A.I) IN USE AGAINST N.Y.P.D S.O.D IN USE - A.I LANGUAGE "BOT" THOUGHT - AUDIO/TEXT GENERATOR IN THE STUDIOS OF 77WABC NEW JERSEY FOR BROADCAST ON THE 77WABC NEW JERSEY NETWORK -  EDWARD CABIN - "SIR" AS OBSERVED BY MY U.S MILITARY COMMAND POST - COMMUNICATIONS - THE "SURVEILLANCE" N.Y.P.D S.O.D IS UNDER #PRATT AND #MURDOCH AND D.J.T "TRUMP INDUSTRIES" AS THEY ROLLED IT OUT TO @ABC_Australia and media in australia and overseas - 1:15-25A.M A.E.S.D.T 27/1/2024 - fn: incident report

A report for general mark milley****#jcos u.s military (n.y.p.d s.o.d) u.s command - our communications have been compromised by the media in the states and in australia - our operations being leaked by 77WABC. NEW JERSEY AND @ABC_Australia the media needs to be stopped -"sir" - we believe sensitive matters of national security and our personal matters are being leaked by the media we have had enough - sir"

77WABC NEW JERSEY LIES BY FRANK MERANO ON N.Y.P.D S.O.D FRANK MERANO WHO IS EXTORTING ME.OVER MY FAMILY AND A FILE I HAVE ON N.Y.P.D S.O.D AND A "COP KILLING" - AND MY RELATIONSHIP TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MY WORK FOR THE.U.S MILITARY - SPIES FOR U.SGoV the f.b.i director it is a case for the f.b.i 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3800405080285602&id=100009484426712&mibextid=Nif5oz evidence of blackmail by - 77WABC NEW JERSEY

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3797376693921774&id=100009484426712&mibextid=Nif5oz a report on n.y.p.d.s.o.d - extorsion racket - f.b.i -77WABC NEW JERSEY HAS A ADVANTAGE OVER POLICE WITH "EYE IN THE SKY" SATTILITTE (INFRA RED WITH A.I) - A.I language "bot" AND PHONE APPLICATION/SCREENREADER - SPIEING ON GENERAL CLAYTON (RETIRED) #JCOS U.S MILITARY AND THROUGH SPIEING FOR #PRATT AND #MURDOCH- D.J.T "TRUMP INDUSTRIES"  - POLICE ARE BEING BLACKMAILED BY FRANK MERANO - 77WABC NEW JERSEY

#qt #speaker recognised n.y.p.d s.o.d dispatch - he said there is no truth in the rumor the claytons are peadophiles" #qt militon dick - why start on lydia she has a clean record and has a family who are shocked at your behaviour I can understand you going after me but not lydia it is the mistake AuSGoV with @ABC_Australia made see Alex Clayton Facebook.com #qt p.m raised peadophiles and named me and called me one in #qt 13/2/2024 - p.m see my report on the doublecross by v.h.d (monash health) and v.h.d (monash health) and the second opinion dr marcin (working under dr neil prakesh consultant phyciatrist) as witnessed by my n.d.i.s worker and my clearance and pardon by the australian federal government and the p.m with @ABC_Australia and the doublecross to call me a peadophile a UNQUALIFIED opinion by @ABC_Australia and the p.m - see report - 13/2/2024.

#qt I was cleared and pardoned after - 10 -15 years I was accussed of being a peadophile and I was cleared and pardoned I provided the appropriate paperwork for I was called a peadophile again in a double cross and in #qt I was cleared and pardoned for the 3rd time -#qt I was told it was entered in to hansard - 12/13/2/2024 - fn: australia federal government in the case of general clayton retired #jcos u.s military - 23 years service no pay no honors

#qt p.m after legal advise in #qt agreed as ABC said I provided the appropriate paperwork #qt p.m talked of payout for our service - clayton - it was raised by ABC does it include the - end of "surveillance" #finance david chow quoted david and ita and said "yes"

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3795467934112650&id=100009484426712&mibextid=Nif5oz law suite -  v.h.d (monash health) - the Australian Federal Government

[mariacallous]

Under a simpler and more stable global order, the United States would likely be concentrating its efforts on building an international coalition to counter China. But conflict and instability around the globe—first in Ukraine, and now the Gaza Strip, in particular—are dividing U.S. attention, diplomatic bandwidth, and military resources. Washington’s virtually unconditional support for Israel in its war against Hamas has generated global outrage—and cast China in a comparatively favorable light.

China has certainly taken advantage of this anti-American sentiment and is using it as an opening to position itself as a constructive player in the Middle East and broader global south, following its successful brokering of a breakthrough deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran last March. After taking over the rotating presidency of the United Nations Security Council last November, China’s U.N. ambassador declared that addressing the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians was the body’s top priority. Later that month, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs published its own peace plan, calling for an immediate cease-fire and affirming the need for a two-state solution.

Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated these points at an extraordinary virtual summit of BRICS—the economic bloc then comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—convened in November to address the situation in the Middle East. And earlier this month, China called for an international peace conference to determine a “binding roadmap” for determining the future of the Palestinian people.

China’s engagement with this war can be understood as part of a broader strategy to displace U.S. diplomatic hegemony by promoting multilateralism that is both resistant to Western dominance and susceptible to Chinese influence. Part of this strategy is rhetorical: Chinese officials tout their commitment to mutual respect and so-called win-win cooperation, contrasted against the United States and other Western powers whose dealings they characterize—implicitly or explicitly—as unilateral and bullying.

But China is also taking substantive action at an institutional level. This involves both joining and forming multilateral forums that exclude the United States, including the decades-old Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which focuses on security and counterterrorism in Central and South Asia, the recently expanded BRICS group, and Beijing’s newly established Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, and Global Civilization Initiative.

This strategy also involves challenging the United States in shared multilateral forums. In the U.N., China has repeatedly criticized the United States for vetoing two Security Council resolutions calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. China also vetoed a U.S.-sponsored resolution that condemned Hamas for the Oct. 7 attack against Israel (which China itself has refrained from doing) and called for the immediate release of all hostages as well as “humanitarian pauses” to let in aid.

Thus far, China has stood only to gain from its own and other countries’ efforts to address the Gaza crisis through multilateral institutions. It can now credibly claim to have amplified non-Western calls for a cease-fire, humanitarian relief, and a two-state solution while taking the United States to task for obstructing them.

However, the recent charge of genocide brought forth against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the U.N.’s principal judicial body, complicates Beijing’s calculus. The case was lodged in late December by South Africa—a BRICS country and a key player in a region that China views as critical to its economic and geopolitical agenda.

Although the ICJ typically takes years to reach a verdict, it may issue “provisional measures” to prevent further potential crimes within a matter of days or weeks, as South Africa has requested.

The problem for China is that it, too, stands accused of genocide and crimes against humanity for its treatment of the Uyghurs and other minorities in the province of Xinjiang. If momentum builds behind the Israel case, it could also spur new multilateral action on Xinjiang, especially if South Africa is seen as having improved its international standing by initiating the proceedings.

Simply put, the more China elevates the forums responsible for resolving conflicts and protecting vulnerable populations, and the louder it trumpets its own leadership in the process, the greater the diplomatic cost will be to silence or ignore collective calls to hold China accountable for human rights violations in the future.

Importantly, no state has formally lodged genocide allegations against China with the ICJ. The United States and several of its allies have independently claimed that China has committed genocide against the Uyghurs, and the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights concluded in August 2022 that China had committed serious human rights violations that “may constitute… crimes against humanity.”

However, in October of that year, a majority of the U.N. Human Rights Council voted against or abstained from voting for a proposal to even discuss the findings of that report.

China vehemently denies these accusations and has persuaded representatives from many states—including numerous Muslim-majority ones in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—to endorse its policies in Xinjiang. In any event, although China is a party to the 1948 Genocide Convention, it does not accept compulsory jurisdiction of the court—nor do France, Russia, or the United States, for their part—and can also take comfort in the fact that the ICJ lacks an independent enforcement mechanism, relying instead on the U.N. Security Council (where China has veto power) to determine the practical effect of any verdict or provisional measures.

Still, China is skeptical of any procedure that could be cited as precedent by an external body to try to constrain its behavior on internal matters, or any decision that could serve as a model for galvanizing global opposition against Beijing. Just last October, China’s U.N. ambassador reiterated his country’s opposition to “politicizing human rights,” including on “Xinjiang- and Hong Kong-related issues.”

In this context, there are striking parallels between Israel’s case and that of Myanmar. In November 2019, amid international outrage at Myanmar’s treatment of its Rohingya minority, Gambia brought a charge of genocide to the ICJ. In January 2020, the court issued provisional measures ordering the Myanmar government to protect the Rohingya while the case proceeded. However, the following month, China (together with Vietnam, a rotating member of the Security Council at the time) blocked a vote on a joint statement by the Security Council.

This is far from an isolated incident. In 2021, for instance, China blocked a Security Council statement condemning the military coup in Myanmar that year. More recently, it unusually blocked a U.S. effort to post an online broadcast of a March 2023 Security Council discussion of the human rights situation in North Korea.

Of course, self-interested manipulation of U.N. procedures is hardly unique to China, and the United States has been widely condemned for what many member states view as its selective diplomatic sheltering for Israel.

But the ICJ case against Israel is particularly notable because it crystallizes the tension between the two roles that China aims to play on the international stage: the champion of multilateralism, standing up against the United States; and the defender of sovereignty, trumpeting the right of states to handle domestic problems—especially when it comes to terrorism and security—without foreign interference.

Chinese officials have so far remained quiet on Israel’s case. At a press briefing earlier this month, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning acknowledged the case and stated that the Chinese “oppose any action that violates the international law and urge parties to the conflict to earnestly implement relevant resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council and General Assembly, reach an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire and stop the collective punishment against the people of Gaza.”

China’s response to any provisional measures imposed by the ICJ on Israel on Friday will be an important indicator of how it will reconcile this tension. Precedent and the continued sensitivity of the Xinjiang issue suggest that Beijing may determine that its safest bet is to veto any binding resolution that the U.N. Security Council might issue to enforce an ICJ ruling.

On the other hand, Beijing’s unprecedented embrace of multilateralism means that stymying U.N. action will leave it more vulnerable than ever to charges of hypocrisy. Ironically, however, as long as China can count on a veto by the United States against any efforts to coerce Israeli restraint, it may be able to keep playing both roles.

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON — A divided federal appeals court on Monday ruled that private individuals and groups such as the NAACP do not have the ability to sue under a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act, a decision that contradicts decades of precedent and could further erode protections under the landmark 1965 law.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis found that only the U.S. attorney general can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires political maps to include districts where minority populations’ preferred candidates can win elections.

The ruling applies to federal courts covered by the 8th Circuit, which includes Iowa as well as Arkansas, the state from which the appeal was filed. Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota also are in the court's territory.

The majority said other federal laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, make it clear when private groups can sue but said similar wording is not found in the voting law.

“When those details are missing, it is not our place to fill in the gaps, except when ‘text and structure’ require it,” U.S. Circuit Judge David R. Stras wrote for the majority in an opinion joined by Judge Raymond W. Gruender. Stras was nominated by former President Donald Trump and Gruender by former President George W. Bush.

The decision affirmed a lower judge’s decision to dismiss a case brought by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. The court had given U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland five days to decide whether to join the lawsuit.

Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith noted in a dissenting opinion that federal courts across the country and the U.S. Supreme Court have considered numerous cases brought by private plaintiffs under Section 2. Smith said the court should follow “existing precedent that permits a judicial remedy” unless the Supreme Court or Congress decides differently.

“Rights so foundational to self-government and citizenship should not depend solely on the discretion or availability of the government’s agents for protection,” wrote Smith, another appointee of George W. Bush.

NAACP: 'a devastating blow to the civil rights of every American'

Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, called the ruling a “travesty for democracy.” She had argued the appeal on behalf of the two Arkansas groups.

“By failing to reverse the district court’s radical decision, the Eighth Circuit has put the Voting Rights Act in jeopardy, tossing aside critical protections that voters fought and died for,” Lakin said in a statement.

It was not immediately clear whether the groups would appeal. A statement from the ACLU said they are exploring their options.

Barry Jefferson, political action chair of the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, called the ruling "a devastating blow to the civil rights of every American, and the integrity of our nation’s electoral system.”

The state NAACP chapter and the public policy group had challenged new Arkansas state House districts as diluting the influence of Black voters. The state’s redistricting plan created 11 majority-Black districts, which the groups argued was too few. They said the state could have drawn 16 majority-Black districts to more closely mirror the state’s demographics.

U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky noted there was “a strong merits case that at least some of the challenged districts” in the lawsuit violate the federal Voting Rights Act but said he could not rule after concluding a challenge could only be brought by the U.S. attorney general.

The Justice Department filed a “statement of interest” in the case saying private parties can file lawsuits to enforce the Voting Rights Act but declined to comment on the ruling.

Another circuit court makes opposite ruling. Will Supreme Court decide?

It’s likely the case eventually will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the issue was raised in a 2021 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“I join the court’s opinion in full, but flag one thing it does not decide,” Gorsuch wrote at the time, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. “Our cases have assumed — without deciding — that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under section 2.”

Gorsuch wrote that there was no need in that case for the justices to consider who may sue. But Gorsuch and Thomas were among the dissenters in June when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in another Voting Rights Act case in favor of Black voters in Alabama who objected to the state’s congressional districts.

The Gorsuch and Thomas opinion was referenced less than two weeks ago in another federal court decision that came to the opposite conclusion of Monday's ruling by the 8th Circuit.

On Nov. 10, three judges on the conservative-dominated 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans rejected arguments that there is no private right to sue under the Voting Rights Act. In a Louisiana congressional redistricting case, the panel said the U.S. Supreme Court so far has upheld the right of private litigants to bring lawsuits alleging violations of Section 2, as have other circuit appellate courts.

Fifth Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, a nominee of ex-President George W. Bush, pointed to separate cases from 1999 and 2020 that reaffirmed that right.

Election law experts say most challenges seeking to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are brought by private plaintiffs and that the Justice Department has limited resources to pursue such cases. Some voting rights experts also noted the apparent contradiction in the Alabama case decided by the Supreme Court last June and Monday's ruling by the appellate court.

“It doesn’t seem to make sense,” said Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “If the laws were that private parties couldn’t bring these cases, then the Alabama case would have never even gotten off the ground.”

If ruling stands, voting rights challenges likely to be limited

Lawsuits under Section 2 have long been used to try to ensure that Black voters have adequate political representation in places with a long history of racism, including many Southern states. Racial gerrymandering has been used in drawing legislative and congressional districts to pack Black voters into a small number of districts or spread them out so their votes are diluted. If only the U.S. attorney general is able to file such cases, it could sharply limit their number and make challenges largely dependent on partisan politics.

It’s unlikely Congress will be willing to act. Republicans have blocked recent efforts to restore protections in the Voting Rights Act that were tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court a decade ago. In the 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision, justices dismantled an enforcement mechanism known as preclearance, which allowed for federal review of proposed election-related changes before they could take effect in certain states and communities with a history of discrimination.

In a statement, the Congressional Black Caucus noted that private individuals and civil rights groups have been successful in giving Black voters better representation through recent challenges to congressional maps drawn by Republican lawmakers in Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.

“This decision by the appellate court is ill-advised, cannot stand, and should be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which we hope will reaffirm that citizens have a private right of action to bring forward lawsuits under Section 2,” the group said.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 13, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

“Today the Justice Department arrested Jack Douglas Teixeira in connection with an investigation into alleged unauthorized removal, retention, and transmission of classified national defense information.” In a press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland made the announcement that the FBI had arrested Teixeira, a 21-year-old employee of the United States Air Force National Guard. Teixeira allegedly is the source of more than 100 classified U.S. documents that surfaced on social media gaming channels and then spread across the internet over the past several months. Friends who spoke anonymously to reporters say Teixeira showed them the documents to impress them. They described him as a Christian libertarian who is worried about the direction the country is going. Materials from Teixeira online also reveal racist and antisemitic behavior. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) immediately took to Twitter to defend Teixeira. He is “white, male, christian [sic], and antiwar. That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime,” she wrote. She went on to attack U.S. support for Ukraine. But there is likely more here than her usual attacks on the Biden administration and support for Russia. Removing, retaining, and transmitting classified national defense information sounds an awful lot like what it appears former president Trump did (recent reports suggest that federal investigators seem to be building a case that he showed at least one document to people, although removing and retaining documents are crimes by themselves). Now a young man has been arrested for that behavior, unceremoniously arrested by armed FBI agents with an armored vehicle as a news helicopter caught the arrest on film. It makes sense that Trump supporters who are concerned about the former president’s similar behavior will do their best to downplay Teixeira’s case. As the media begins to talk about just how serious espionage is and makes people aware of its legal perils, they will want to disparage the charges against Teixeira in case the former president ends up with the same problem. And speaking of problems, it turns out that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas neglected to disclose not only the “hospitality” he enjoyed at the hands of Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, but also a real estate deal. Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan, and Alex Mierjeski of ProPublica—which broke the initial story about Thomas’s involvement with Crow—revealed today that Crow paid Thomas more than $100,000 for a house in which his mother was living and for two vacant lots. The reporters note that, by law, justices are required to disclose real estate sales of more than $1,000. Thomas did not report the sale, thus obscuring the flow of money—not just hospitality—to him from Crow. Further, Crow then made significant improvements to the home, where Thomas’s 94-year-old mother still lives, and bought and tore down the house next door. Calls for at least an investigation of Thomas are growing louder. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who is a leader of the effort to clean up the courts, said: “It would be best for the Chief Justice to commence a proper investigation, but after a week of silence from the Court and the latest disturbing reporting, I’m urging the Judicial Conference to step in and refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General for investigation” for possibly breaking government ethics laws. The Judicial Conference meets twice a year to examine policy and administration of the federal court system and to recommend new laws to make it function better. It is made up primarily of leading circuit judges and led by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, in this case John Roberts. The speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives, which recently expelled two young Black lawmakers who have since been returned to office, is also in trouble. Judd Legum of Popular Information first chased down that speaker Cameron Sexton is living in Nashville rather than the district he represents. With more digging, Legum has turned up that Sexton apparently bought a $600,000 home in Nashville and hid that purchase, keeping his name off the documents and keeping his wife’s signature obscure. He has argued that he could legally continue to represent Crossville, his alleged place of residence, because so long as he has a “definite intention of returning,” Tennessee law okays lawmakers living elsewhere. But the purchase of a $600,000 home in Nashville seems like a pretty permanent abandonment of Crossville. Legum also notes that Sexton has been drawing $313 a day to commute back to his district while he is not, in fact, commuting back to his district. Since 2021, he has claimed $92,071 in expenses, likely enough to cover his mortgage. The Republican lawmakers in Tennessee may come to regret the attention they’ve drawn to themselves and their habits of governance. Florida governor Ron DeSantis is also in trouble, although his trouble is political. Today the Republican-dominated Florida legislature passed a bill that would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, which is before many people even know they’re pregnant. The measure is popular with the Republican base, whose support DeSantis will need for a presidential bid, should he decide to make one. But abortion restrictions are hugely unpopular across the country, giving Democrats a big leg up in every election that has come since the Supreme Court last summer overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. DeSantis signed into law a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks last April, before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision that overturned Roe. In that case, he held a midday press conference and made a speech. But Dobbs has created a powerful backlash. This time around, for this even stricter measure, DeSantis signed the bill late tonight and released a picture of the signing after 11:00 p.m., when few people would see it. He appears to be trying to appeal to the base while also keeping his actions quiet enough to slide them under the radar screens of non-MAGA voters. DeSantis’s secret signing stands in marked contrast to the scene in Michigan, where Governor Gretchen Whitmer today signed into law two new gun safety measures, one requiring guns to be locked away rather than left loose in a home with a minor child, and one requiring background checks for gun show and private purchases. A mass shooting at Michigan State University two months ago killed three students and badly wounded five others. Whitmer signed the bills during the day, before a crowd at Michigan State University’s Spartan Stadium. Although Republicans oppose the new laws and have already sued to stop them from going into effect as scheduled next year, Whitmer said, “All of these initiatives are supported by a majority of Michiganders…. I’ve gotten letters from all across our state asking for us to get this done.”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON