From: legal_reality
Subj: June is the final month in the Supreme Court term -- lots of cases
Subj: June is the final month in the Supreme Court term -- lots of cases
18 June A.D. 2013
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/
There are always more rulings this time of year than time allows for study and comment. Five rulings were issues on June 17.
The Arizona ruling, Case No. 12-71, regarding proof of citizenship for voting, prohibits STATEs from adding more requirements for "federal" elections than the "federal" law allows/requires. As may be obvious, and as was picked up on by even some of the syndicated talk-radio hosts, there is a distinction between STATE elections and "federal" elections. We can expect that distinction to start to manifest itself in STATE legislation and "election" activity. (While they do that, those who realize that the problems are commercial in nature, not political, can proceed toward resolution of the problem(s).)
Down the path of immigration and "securing the borders," as is all the political discussion these days, the legal reality is along the lines of Can-Am-Mex, where the "borders" have been reduced to "transportation" "check points." While this author hasn't studied statutes, treaties, etc., for purpose of putting a finger on the exact language that ends the national identity of "United States (of America)," we can generate deductively, starting with the criminal prosecutions of Ramos and Compean, the conclusion. There's a very good reason why the political machinery "talks" about the borders, but "does nothing legislatively" about the borders and even actively recognizes those who should be treated as illegal as "part of the citizenry." That reason is that there are no borders. Says who? The bankers, of course.
From that angle, we have this scenario. The "dollar," in the form of "funny money" printed up by "the fed" (the Federal Reserve Bank) ("federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement"), is being assailed in the world market. A South American nation (or two) wants its gold back. Russia and China (and Japan?) want to stop using the "dollar" and use some other "currency" or medium of exchange entirely. Thus, a more domestic expansion of "use" of the "funny money" was made with the intent of "securing" (what was/is possible to secure about) the "dollar." Thus, all the drug activity through the porous southern "border," which is transacted in "dollars," and all the shipping of "dollars" "home" to Mexico, maintains (expands) the "use" of the "funny money." Where the objective is to justify needing a huge supply of "funny money," anything and everything that "uses" "funny money" is "good." Kiki Camarena was "outed" by his "own." Why? There's always intrigue where there's huge amounts of money involved, but then that's just it: huge amounts of money. The drug-trafficking is one more mechanism, just like oil, by which huge amounts of money are transacted. It's so easy to attribute the matter to individual corruption, and yet the problem is so much larger than that. The "war on drugs" is a complete success, where we realize that the objective is to "support" (bolster) the need for "funny money." Prosecute a few of the "little people" doing drugs, so as to pretend to care whether the people poison themselves (to death) with that stuff or not, while having set up banking systems that cater to the need to hold and pass huge sums of (drug) money. The big playerz in that game aren't really doing "drugs." They're doing "banking." This goes a long way toward understanding why the obvious "solutions" aren't being implemented, and why the exact opposite off what makes sense is being implemented. Where the banking cartel "own" the system, it does the bidding of its owners. Those owners are, essentially, the board of directors, and that board will hire who it wants to do the running of the business. Thus, "voting" is 100% irrelevant; there is no political solution to the drug problem; there is no southern "border;" and if importing people that will "use" the "funny money" and borrow "funny money" (into existence) is what the bankers expect will reduce the pain derived from being cut off, slowly but surely, in the world market, then importing people is exactly what's going to happen.
Thus, as will come as zero surprise to the longer-term readers, "the" solution here, i.e., "immigration," is commercial in nature. Once the "funny money" is no longer in (popular) "use," the need to salvage that (type of) system, and destroying this nation in the process, will cease. We can say, "It's all about the money," and "follow the money," and we're pretty close. To be right down the center stripe (of the runway), we do well at least also to say, or at least have firmly in mind, if not exclusively to say, "It's all about the money supply," and "follow the money supply." For the european banking cartel to remain in business, thus to remain as the preeminent source of Fourth Reich legal standards and policies, which standards and policies justify the murderous life-style directly associated with the Clintons, the "funny money" has to flow super-abundantly. Where the "funny money" stops flowing, so does the european banking cartel's system (of God-hating, America-hating) policies. It's not easy, but it's got to be done. And, to get that started, the small business owner is the key. For the "buyer" to have the choice, the "seller" must offer the choice. Since the "big boyz" are addicted to the "funny money," that leaves the other 99.7% (2010 statistics) ( http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf ) of the "employer firms" (of 500 or fewer employees -- SBA's "definition" of "small business") of the marketplace, where the goods and services are supplied by "small business." Since 98% (same statistics source) of firms doing exporting are "small businesses," it's also an international outreach ministry.
We have a choice. The sooner we exercise that choice, the sooner the slide to despotism, under the, "Let's depopulate the world" banking cartel, stops.
The Maracich ruling, Case No. 12-25, can be labeled several ways, including "The Lemon Car Sales protection" ruling, "The Next Phase of Privacy Protection" ruling, and the "Bash The Plaintiff's Bar and Class Actions" ruling. Lawyers used STATE FOIA requests to obtain DMV information to get addresses for sending solicitation letters to set up a class action suit against various car dealerships. The recipients of those letters sued, alleging unauthorized disclosure of restricted information. The litigation for which that information was sought was pending, but 18 U.S.C. § 2721, anti-stalking, privacy protection legislation, wasn't intended to allow lawyers to access that information for purposes of sending out solicitations of this nature. Note, carefully, though, some of the defenses that might be possible to assert on remand, including governmental function. In other words, there may be a "private attorney general" defense in the making. How do lawyers reach those people otherwise? That may depend on the STATE's Bar Rules regarding solicitation. Something other than direct mail/contact may be necessary.
[Note: There are scads and scads of people bashing lawyers, thinking that somehow, if there are enough lawyers bashed that the personal situation of those doing the bashing will change for the better. The presumption throughout is that the instant one is "licensed" to "practice law" in "this state" comprehension of the reality is universal, as if a download directly to the brain. These lawyers got (very, well, well see as the case moves forward just "how" or "very") sideways with the law. They were in good faith throughout, but "wrong." As brilliant as many attorneys are, they don't acquire an understanding of the reality by acquiring a "license." Reality is not what's taught. And, until one undergoes a rather wicked paradigm shift, the reality isn't what comes to mind.]
The Alleyne case, No. 11-9335, overrules Harris, from 2002. Harris allowed judicial fact-finding for sentencing purposes (distinguishing between facts that increase the statutory maximum sentence and facts that increase the mandatory minimum sentence). That distinction is now eliminated, and judicial fact-finding for sentencing purposes is eliminated. In general, where the Court sees the need to make changes, they do so incrementally. This is the next step in that incremental change that reduces judicial fact-finding (for purposes of sentencing). Part of the confusion arises from the separation of the "guilt/innocence" phase from the "sentencing" phase, and part of the confusion arises from the structure of the statutes being construed. This ruling clarifies the restriction on judicial fact-finding, which may go a long way toward statutory construction, i.e., what facts go with which punishment level of which offenses.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/
There are always more rulings this time of year than time allows for study and comment. Five rulings were issues on June 17.
The Arizona ruling, Case No. 12-71, regarding proof of citizenship for voting, prohibits STATEs from adding more requirements for "federal" elections than the "federal" law allows/requires. As may be obvious, and as was picked up on by even some of the syndicated talk-radio hosts, there is a distinction between STATE elections and "federal" elections. We can expect that distinction to start to manifest itself in STATE legislation and "election" activity. (While they do that, those who realize that the problems are commercial in nature, not political, can proceed toward resolution of the problem(s).)
Down the path of immigration and "securing the borders," as is all the political discussion these days, the legal reality is along the lines of Can-Am-Mex, where the "borders" have been reduced to "transportation" "check points." While this author hasn't studied statutes, treaties, etc., for purpose of putting a finger on the exact language that ends the national identity of "United States (of America)," we can generate deductively, starting with the criminal prosecutions of Ramos and Compean, the conclusion. There's a very good reason why the political machinery "talks" about the borders, but "does nothing legislatively" about the borders and even actively recognizes those who should be treated as illegal as "part of the citizenry." That reason is that there are no borders. Says who? The bankers, of course.
From that angle, we have this scenario. The "dollar," in the form of "funny money" printed up by "the fed" (the Federal Reserve Bank) ("federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement"), is being assailed in the world market. A South American nation (or two) wants its gold back. Russia and China (and Japan?) want to stop using the "dollar" and use some other "currency" or medium of exchange entirely. Thus, a more domestic expansion of "use" of the "funny money" was made with the intent of "securing" (what was/is possible to secure about) the "dollar." Thus, all the drug activity through the porous southern "border," which is transacted in "dollars," and all the shipping of "dollars" "home" to Mexico, maintains (expands) the "use" of the "funny money." Where the objective is to justify needing a huge supply of "funny money," anything and everything that "uses" "funny money" is "good." Kiki Camarena was "outed" by his "own." Why? There's always intrigue where there's huge amounts of money involved, but then that's just it: huge amounts of money. The drug-trafficking is one more mechanism, just like oil, by which huge amounts of money are transacted. It's so easy to attribute the matter to individual corruption, and yet the problem is so much larger than that. The "war on drugs" is a complete success, where we realize that the objective is to "support" (bolster) the need for "funny money." Prosecute a few of the "little people" doing drugs, so as to pretend to care whether the people poison themselves (to death) with that stuff or not, while having set up banking systems that cater to the need to hold and pass huge sums of (drug) money. The big playerz in that game aren't really doing "drugs." They're doing "banking." This goes a long way toward understanding why the obvious "solutions" aren't being implemented, and why the exact opposite off what makes sense is being implemented. Where the banking cartel "own" the system, it does the bidding of its owners. Those owners are, essentially, the board of directors, and that board will hire who it wants to do the running of the business. Thus, "voting" is 100% irrelevant; there is no political solution to the drug problem; there is no southern "border;" and if importing people that will "use" the "funny money" and borrow "funny money" (into existence) is what the bankers expect will reduce the pain derived from being cut off, slowly but surely, in the world market, then importing people is exactly what's going to happen.
Thus, as will come as zero surprise to the longer-term readers, "the" solution here, i.e., "immigration," is commercial in nature. Once the "funny money" is no longer in (popular) "use," the need to salvage that (type of) system, and destroying this nation in the process, will cease. We can say, "It's all about the money," and "follow the money," and we're pretty close. To be right down the center stripe (of the runway), we do well at least also to say, or at least have firmly in mind, if not exclusively to say, "It's all about the money supply," and "follow the money supply." For the european banking cartel to remain in business, thus to remain as the preeminent source of Fourth Reich legal standards and policies, which standards and policies justify the murderous life-style directly associated with the Clintons, the "funny money" has to flow super-abundantly. Where the "funny money" stops flowing, so does the european banking cartel's system (of God-hating, America-hating) policies. It's not easy, but it's got to be done. And, to get that started, the small business owner is the key. For the "buyer" to have the choice, the "seller" must offer the choice. Since the "big boyz" are addicted to the "funny money," that leaves the other 99.7% (2010 statistics) ( http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf ) of the "employer firms" (of 500 or fewer employees -- SBA's "definition" of "small business") of the marketplace, where the goods and services are supplied by "small business." Since 98% (same statistics source) of firms doing exporting are "small businesses," it's also an international outreach ministry.
We have a choice. The sooner we exercise that choice, the sooner the slide to despotism, under the, "Let's depopulate the world" banking cartel, stops.
The Maracich ruling, Case No. 12-25, can be labeled several ways, including "The Lemon Car Sales protection" ruling, "The Next Phase of Privacy Protection" ruling, and the "Bash The Plaintiff's Bar and Class Actions" ruling. Lawyers used STATE FOIA requests to obtain DMV information to get addresses for sending solicitation letters to set up a class action suit against various car dealerships. The recipients of those letters sued, alleging unauthorized disclosure of restricted information. The litigation for which that information was sought was pending, but 18 U.S.C. § 2721, anti-stalking, privacy protection legislation, wasn't intended to allow lawyers to access that information for purposes of sending out solicitations of this nature. Note, carefully, though, some of the defenses that might be possible to assert on remand, including governmental function. In other words, there may be a "private attorney general" defense in the making. How do lawyers reach those people otherwise? That may depend on the STATE's Bar Rules regarding solicitation. Something other than direct mail/contact may be necessary.
[Note: There are scads and scads of people bashing lawyers, thinking that somehow, if there are enough lawyers bashed that the personal situation of those doing the bashing will change for the better. The presumption throughout is that the instant one is "licensed" to "practice law" in "this state" comprehension of the reality is universal, as if a download directly to the brain. These lawyers got (very, well, well see as the case moves forward just "how" or "very") sideways with the law. They were in good faith throughout, but "wrong." As brilliant as many attorneys are, they don't acquire an understanding of the reality by acquiring a "license." Reality is not what's taught. And, until one undergoes a rather wicked paradigm shift, the reality isn't what comes to mind.]
The Alleyne case, No. 11-9335, overrules Harris, from 2002. Harris allowed judicial fact-finding for sentencing purposes (distinguishing between facts that increase the statutory maximum sentence and facts that increase the mandatory minimum sentence). That distinction is now eliminated, and judicial fact-finding for sentencing purposes is eliminated. In general, where the Court sees the need to make changes, they do so incrementally. This is the next step in that incremental change that reduces judicial fact-finding (for purposes of sentencing). Part of the confusion arises from the separation of the "guilt/innocence" phase from the "sentencing" phase, and part of the confusion arises from the structure of the statutes being construed. This ruling clarifies the restriction on judicial fact-finding, which may go a long way toward statutory construction, i.e., what facts go with which punishment level of which offenses.
The Actavis case, No. 12-416, is an antitrust case involving
pharmaceutical companies. There was a patent challenge between the "brand
name" company and the "generic" company. The settlement produced
a question of anti-competitive activity, and the FTC filed suit, which the
trial court dismissed. The 11th Circuit, which court is hopefully now infamous
for supporting the trial court's rulings against Lozman (the floating
house case, which defines "transportation" (as commercial activity)),
affirmed, despite the existing S.Ct. rulings (emphasis on the plural) that
overtly state that patent-case settlements are not immune from anti-competition
scrutiny.
And, in the Salinas
case, out of Texas, No. 12-246, there's not a lot surprising about the ruling.
In this system, rights don't exist unless asserted. In our present Monte
Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" legal environment, going silent is not
an assertion of a right (or of anything else). The Supreme Court have
extraordinary patience in various matters, and their need to teach us
repeatedly that there are always two options when it comes to interacting with
law enforcement personnel is one of those areas in which they patiently
continue to repeat themselves and repeat themselves and repeat themselves.
Either (1) don't talk, voluntarily, at all, or (2) assert rights. This is the
classic case, a textbook case, of not answering on the grounds that the answer
might incriminate. That non-response is what the prosecution used (and they may
or may not have needed to "go there," but they went there, and we now
have this case). This isn't an issue that is terribly relevant for those
receiving these notes directly, so it's not something that warrants a lot of
discussion or analysis. In one of the classic, textbook fact patterns, where,
"I decline to answer based on the Fifth Amendment" would have been a
perfect response, this individual went silent. [Note that his body language is
what is being used here, not just his non-speech but also his body language.]
For these kinds of cases, i.e., violent, homicide, where the party is good for
the crime, this present system isn't looking for ways to exonerate. The
evidence presented at trial tied the defendant with the shotgun, and the
shotgun with the death-causing injuries. <
http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2013/04/salinas-v-texas-is-silence-golden.html
>. So, it's not like the prosecution "had" to use that part of
the "voluntary interaction" with the police in that case. There was
also third-party testimony of a confession by Salinas regarding those specific
murders. With all that, is any court or Court going to let him off the hook of
murder because he went silent during a purely voluntary interview? Reality and
Common Sense suggest No, and No turns out to be correct, this time.
These are just the rulings for June 17. Two of these have been discussed in the news, and despite all the distractions, there's still a murder case arising from the facts in Benghazi, and it'll be good to remember that there's been a few murders in Benghazi, despite the plethora of distraction stories that are being used to try to avoid the reality of the murders in Benghazi, in the exact same way that there were murders associated with the drug-trafficking in and out of Mean, Arkansas. Is it just coincidence that Hillary Clinton's name keeps showing up in such murderous activities? We could ask Vince Foster, but then, he suicided himself, or so the "official" story of that murder presently states.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
These are just the rulings for June 17. Two of these have been discussed in the news, and despite all the distractions, there's still a murder case arising from the facts in Benghazi, and it'll be good to remember that there's been a few murders in Benghazi, despite the plethora of distraction stories that are being used to try to avoid the reality of the murders in Benghazi, in the exact same way that there were murders associated with the drug-trafficking in and out of Mean, Arkansas. Is it just coincidence that Hillary Clinton's name keeps showing up in such murderous activities? We could ask Vince Foster, but then, he suicided himself, or so the "official" story of that murder presently states.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
No comments:
Post a Comment