The Big Apple Sets Its Own Rules

For John, BLUF:  Per Law Prof Turley, New York City is a vast Democratic Party wasteland, where the rule of law is subverted to political ends.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

At the Supreme Court, two cases lay bare New York’s legal wasteland

From The Hill, by Law Professor Jonathan Turley, 22 June 2024, 10:30 AM ET.

Here is the lede plus one:

In 1976, Saul Steinburg’s hilarious “View of the World from 9th Avenue” was published on the cover of the New Yorker. The map showed Manhattan occupying most of the known world with wilderness on the other side of the Hudson River between New York and San Francisco. The cartoon captured the distorted view New Yorkers have of the rest of the country.

Roughly 50 years later, the image has flipped for many. With the Trump trial, Manhattan has become a type of legal wilderness where prosecutors use the legal system to hunt down political rivals and thrill their own supporters. New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) ran on a pledge to bag former president Donald Trump. (She also sought to dissolve the National Rifle Association.)

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg also pledged to get Trump. Neither specified how they would do it, but both were elected and both were lionized for bringing controversial cases against Trump.

Just beyond the Hudson River, the response to these cases has been far less positive. James secured an obscene civil penalty of almost half a billion dollars without having to show there was a single victim or dollar lost from alleged overvaluation of assets.

The picture Profesor Turley paints is one of the rule of law being subverted to political ends in an area where one political party has almost total control.  The natural question is if the Democratic Party stranglehold on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts could create similar political and legal conditions?

The job of good Americans is to stand against this kind of perversion of the Rule of Law.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Preserving Our Freedoms

For John, BLUF:  We are missing the erosion of our society, but an immigrant points it out to us..  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:  We Have Been Subverted

Here is the sub-headline:

What is at stake in our ability to see the threat plainly?  Nothing less than the preservation of our way of life.

From The Free Press, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 4 June 2024.

Here is the lede plus seven:

If you wonder why I—a woman of color, an African, a former Muslim, a former asylum seeker, and an immigrant—look at the antics of today’s anti-Israel, anti-American protesters with such fear and trembling, allow me to explain.

I was born in Somalia in 1969. The country had achieved independence nine years before. But less than a month before I was born—on October 21, 1969—a junior member of the brand-new Somali armed forces seized power with the help of the Soviet Union. The first two decades of my life were shaped by the upheaval that followed that coup.

The Somalia that gained its independence was a young, optimistic society full of national pride. We had such hope for growth, political stability, prosperity, and peace. But, in a story sadly familiar to many of my fellow Africans, those hopes were dashed.

What followed was a nightmare.

For me it is all captured in the earliest memories of my youth: statues of Mohamed Siad Barre, our dictator, sprung up across Mogadishu, flanked by a trio of dark seraphim: Marx, Lenin, and Engels. This particular communist experiment plunged Somalia into bloodshed, mass starvation, and a 20-year period of suffocating tyranny. I recall my grandmother and mother smuggling food into our house. I also remember the whispering: we felt the state was omnipresent. It could hear everything.

My father was thrown into prison. His friends—those other pioneers in pursuit of a democracy modeled on America—were either jailed like him or, in many cases, executed.

By the time I was eight, my family knew we needed to escape. We left in 1977. By 1990, the country had descended into a civil war from which it has never fully recovered.

I never stopped longing for the kind of freedom my father had taught me about. And at the age of 22, I fled to the Netherlands seeking it. There—and later, in America—I discovered what we’ve come to call “Western” values.

This is a companion piece to the one noted in an earlier blog post, "Niall Ferguson: We’re All Soviets Now".♠

We are where we are, in terms of political organization, because of those who went before us, stretching back thousands of years.  We have the Magna Carta, from 1215 AD.  It was kind of narrow when signed, but it grew in meaning until we had the Common Law protecting the rights of Citizens.  Before all thar we had the Decalogue, the Ten Commandmentd, brought down from the mountain by Charlton Heston.  It was a set of rules about how Citizens should relate to each other.

But, today these underpinnings are being dismissed or buried.  An example of this ahistoric approach is the recent outrange regarding a Louisiana Law signed Wednesdaay, by Governor Jeff Landry requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every classroom.  But, not everyone is happy to see the Ten Commandments put forward as a guide for life, as this Slate article shows.

Our system of government works because there are rules and we follow them.  Author Ali is saying that is slipping away.  On the one hand, we have moral relativism.  However, it does not provide a solid basis for agreeing on the future, as discussed here.  On the other hand we have the Marxist Woke culture of group pitted against group, destroying unity.  Remember, our motto, as a nation, from 1782, was E pluribus unum ("Out of many, one").  What do we rally around?

We would do well to pay attention to Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The two authorw are married.

Squatter

For John, BLUF:  How long will Citizens endure their homes being seized by illegal immigrants as squatters?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

NYC squatters are cashing in on legal loopholes and crowded courts to take over homes — and good luck getting them out: experts

From The New York Post, by Reporter Jorge Fitz-Gibbon, 7 April 2024, 3:17 p.m. ET.

Here is the lede plus four:

The Big Apple is seeing a troublesome trend of unwelcome squatters illegally bedding down in private homes and apartments in the five boroughs — and it’s gotten much harder to kick them out.

A backlog of housing court cases and changes in the law in recent years have made it a bigger and longer-lasting headache for landlords to boot unwelcome tenants, legal experts tell The Post.

“This is happening far more now than in the past,” real estate attorney Josh Price said. “Squatters have become far more sophisticated than before. They set up elaborate schemes, fake documents and investigate the homes before breaking in.”

Two changes in city law in 2019 now dictate that landlords can’t just boot a squatter without a “special proceeding,” and have to file a lawsuit to get them out.

Manhattan real estate lawyer Alan Goldberg said he’s seen a 10-to-20% bump in squatter cases over the past two years, attributing it to the migrant crisis, post-pandemic homelessness — and media coverage.

How long can this go on before we have a large number of homeless American Citizens, because their homes have been taken over by illegal immigrants squatting in their home.

Blogger Sarah Hoyt says:

The left has forgotten what happens when people lose faith in the courts and law. I’m very afraid a great lesson is coming.

. Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Maxine Paddling Up Stream

For John, BLUF:  She claimed her opponent had a dishonorable discharge, from the Navy, which wasn't true.  He sued.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Libel Suit Against Rep. Maxine Waters Can Go Forward

From The Volokh Conspiracy, by Law Professor Eugene Volokh, 10 May 2023, 5:30 PM.

Here is the lede plus three:

From Collins v. Waters, decided today by the California Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice John Wiley, joined by Justices Grimes and Viramontes:

In 2020, challenger Joe E. Collins III and incumbent Maxine Waters competed for a seat in Congress.  During the campaign, Waters accused Collins of a dishonorable discharge from the Navy.

Collins shot back that he had not been dishonorably discharged. He showed Waters a document saying so. This document apparently was official.  There was nothing suspicious about its appearance.  The document, if genuine, would have established without doubt that Waters's charge was false.

Waters easily could have checked its authenticity, but did not.  Her appellate briefing asserts that today, years later, she still does not know the truth about whether Collins's discharge was dishonorable.

Later the document mentions a DD 214, which is a form issued when one is discharged, listing things like one's discharge status and awards and decorations.

I think Representative Waters was a little too quick to dismiss her challenger as unworthy.  She could lose this after the appeal.  It won't change the election outcome, but it might change the minds of voters.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Collapse of Prosecution

For John, BLUF:  Our judicial system works because we trust the system.  Mr George Soros seems to be taking actions that undermine that system.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Judge shreds Soros-backed prosecutor, moves to hold her in criminal contempt:  'Rudderless ship of chaos'

Here is the sub-headline:

Kimberly Gardner under fire for repeated no-shows in court as office struggles with staffing

From Fix News, by Reporter Aaron Kliegman, 29 April 2023, 12:56pm EDT.

Here is the lede plus one:

A Missouri judge on Thursday moved to hold a George Soros-bankrolled prosecutor in "indirect criminal contempt" after she and her subordinates failed to show up for multiple court dates, lambasting her office as a "rudderless ship of chaos."

Judge Michael Noble announced he will appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the contempt case against St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner, the city's top prosecutor, and Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Desilets after no one from Gardner's office appeared at a trial and subsequent hearing in an assault case involving the wounding of an 11-year-old girl.

"It appears that Ms. Gardner has complete indifference and a conscious disregard for the judicial process," Noble said during a hearing to address the no-shows.  "There is sufficient evidence of disdain and disrespect for the judicial process to determine that both Ms. Gardner and Mr. Desilets' conduct support a finding of indirect criminal contempt.  Furthermore, any attorney's violation of a court's order constitutes an intentional disobedience and shows a clear intent to disregard the power and authority of the judicial system process."

What is Mr George Soros thinking when he backs District Attorneys who are unwilling to prosecute low level crimes?  Has he not heard of the Broken Windows Theory?♠  Does he think that criminals just want to be free and will mature into law abiding citizens eventually?

What is it with Mr George Soros?  Was it his childhood, gowing up in occupied Hungary during WWII, that causes him to act this way?  Or, is this a low level effort to undermine our Anglo-Saxon form of Government?  In that he would not be alone amongst the Progressives.  Or is he trying to protect himself from the actions of Law Enforcement against him and his enterprises?

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Loowell gets mentioned in this Wikipedia article.

Be Normal

For John, BLUF:  Black lives do matter, but we are creating a society where we are allowing rampant violence devalue all lives, and to create islands of people while allowing many to get away with murder, and other crimes.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Making the abnormal normal destroys society

From The Don Surber Blogspot>, by Retired Reporter Don Surber, 25 September 2021.

The point of the article is that, over the last 70 years, society has become more tolerant of diverse mores, which I see as a good thing, but at the same time we have created a society where large numbers of groups feel no compunction about breaking the local and federal laws and the stndards that a majority of the Citizenry think are the proper standards.

Los Angeles County Distrit Attorney George Gascón and the San Francisco City and County District Attorney Chesa Boudin seem to think that by not locking people up they will naturally improve their performance as Citizens.  Not all of us are as optomistic.&nsp; Some of us believe that people will begin to flee those two wonderful cities for places with more law and order.

I talked wwith a physician last week, who grew up in New York City.  It was his take that New York City fluctuates between a law and order mayor and a progressive mayor.  Is the Big Apple due for another change of direction, toward an emphasis on law and order?

I want a nation where your private conduct is your private conduct and should not be policed by the Government.  If you wish to live outside of propriety, then good luck to you, but don't expect everyone to celebrate it.  Tolerate it, yes.  On the other hand, when your actions impact directly my wealth or well being, such as robbing me on a city street, then you should be subject to the punishment the law allows.  That is the dividing line.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Rule of Law For Now

For John, BLUF:  While most of us tend to follow the law, some like to abuse the law to achieve higher goals.  In the process they alienate those who believe in the rule of law fr all.  This can lead to a breakdown in the Rule of Law, which will be bad for everyone.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A Rigged System Can’t Last

Here is the sub-headline:

From Town Hall, by Columnist Kurt Schlichter, 26 Apr 2021, 12:01 AM.

Here is the lede plus two:

You can’t win, but that’s all part of the plan.

Reason, rules, processes – these are the foundations of a free society, which is why the cultural left is so dead set against them.  A citizen needs to be able to rely on clear rules and fixed processes to vindicate his rights in order to have any rights.  But the rights of free citizens – your rights – are an obstacle to the Lil’ Stalins who yearn to rule over us.  If the liberal establishment can create a society where you can’t appeal to facts, evidence, or law, then – until the peasants' revolt – its poobahs can wield undisputed, undiluted authority.  That’s their dream, a country where you live in terror of them because you can never be sure that what you are doing or failing to do is suddenly going to be criminalized.

Take the whole imbroglio about Stabby Girl, the teen psycho in Ohio who decided to filet a girl in front of a cop.  Not surprisingly, to people who aren’t idiots, the officer ventilated her, saving the life of the innocent victim.  But then, of course, the establishment and the media – including America’s #1 Matlock superfan – weighed in on how stopping this future felon was racist racism of racismness.  Normal people were baffled, but then, it’s only if you haven’t been paying attention that you might think that non-criminal black lives matter to Black Lives Matter.

I think he has some important points.

I especially liked this sentence, later in the essay:

There’s this basic Anglo-American premise in law – I know we’re supposed to pretend that our political and legal culture didn’t come down to us [from] the British Isles but it did – that you can use deadly force in the defense of yourself or another when some bad actor is trying to cause death or great bodily harm.

That seems pretty straight forward.  However, we need agreement on how the system should work.  It appears we don't have that agreement.  Moreover, it is not clear that those presuming to speak for Blacks speak for all Blacks.

The author worries that while one side is firmly bound by rules and obligations, the other is makung it up as it goes along.

Eventually, you will inevitably reach a breaking point.  And that’s coming.  Then the bad guys are going to miss the rules that they still expect to protect them.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Encouraging the Police

For John, BLUF:  People respond to incentives and if we make policing riskier, we will see police pulling back from policiing activities.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Maryland Strips Police Officers Of Substantive Due Process Rights:  Oh, THIS Will Work Out Well, Yessiree!

From Ethics Alarms, by Blogger Jack Marshall, 11 April 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

I know this is the second appearance today of James Donald’s anguished coda at the end of “The Bridge Over The River Kwai,” but he arrives when it is appropriate.

Maryland’s Democrat-controlled legislature moved yesterday to pass a “police reform package “that includes the repeal of the state’s Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights (LEOBOR), overriding Republican Gov. Larry Hogan’s veto to do it.

The state’s police Bill of Rights covered due process for officers accused of misconduct.  You can read it here:  I have. I would call it a not especially radical or permissive document, and its provisions simple codify basic due process rights.  I view this move by the legislature as primarily symbolic, a virtue-signaling gesture of support for the individuals who break laws and against those who enforce them.

Actions that appear to withdraw legal protections from Law Enforcement Officers will tend to make law enforcement officers more cautious.  Perhaps not at first, but quickly as these new laws take effect.  This, in turn, will result in less policing.

This, in turn, will result in increases in crime.  The question is, will citizens intervene?  That could, in turn, result in more mayhem.  My youngest Son argues that the purpose of the police is to protect the sespected perp from irate Citizens.  That is not an unreasonable police function.  I heard someone say today that someone will control the streets.  In the United States we like to think it is Law Enforcement.  In much of Mexico it is the Criminal Cartels.  That said, in some parts of Mexico the People are pushing back.  Will we see that here?

Regards  —  Cliff

Policing One's Own

For John, BLUF:  Professions, as Professor Sam Huntington told us, includes a self-policing function.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

DC Fails To Disbar Anti-Trump FBI Lawyer Despite Guilty Plea

From Real Clear Investigations, by Reporter Paul Sperry, 28 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

As the U.S. government seeks prison time for a former FBI lawyer who admitted falsifying evidence to spy on a former Trump aide, the District of Columbia Bar association hasn’t begun an investigation to strip him of his law license, records show.

The defendant, Kevin Eugene Clinesmith, is still listed as an “active” attorney in “good standing” with the Democrat-controlled D.C. Bar, despite his having pleaded guilty more than five months ago to illegally altering a document used for authorization to electronically eavesdrop on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page as part of the FBI’s Russiagate probe.

A search of the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel database of "disciplinary proceedings" turns up no such proceedings against Clinesmith, even though his guilty plea was reported to the bar and the bar's board has received at least one formal complaint demanding his disbarment.

This was from Thursday and on this Friday Mr Clinesmith was sentenced.  Perhaps on Monday the DC Bar will reverse course.

As a responsible Citizen, I apologize to Mr Carter Page for the actions of our Government.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Who is a Paying the Piper?

For John, BLUF:  This is your classic "follow the money" approach.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What the Media will not ask

From The New Reform Club,by Mr Seth Barrett Tillman, 24 May 2020.

In which the Author asks about who is pay for the participation of Judge John Gleeson and Lawyer Beth Wilkinson in the Michael Flynn case.

A good question, with appropriate supplemental questions.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann on President Trump

For John, BLUF:  I find Mr Weissman commenting on President Trump to be a reminder of the concerns of many for two levels of justice in the United State, one for Republicans and one for Democrats.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mueller prosecutor Weissmann says look to Italian model to oust 'amoral' Trump

From The Washington Times, by Columnist Rowan Scarborough, 7 February 2020.

Here is the lede plus several:

Former senior Trump-Russia prosector Andrew Weissmann says Democrats should mimic Italian politics for the way to “get rid of” President Trump, whom he called a “demigod” and “amoral.”

Conservatives say Mr. Weissmann’s advice on MSNBC reveals what his goal was all along as a senior prosecutor on the staff of special counsel Robert Mueller.

Mr. Weissmann, a Democratic Party donor and one of 18 Mueller prosecutors, also lamented he could never get Mr. Trump to sit down for an interview where a slip up could have resulted in federal perjury charges.

Mr. Weissmann made the pro-removal remarks on Thursday after Mr. Trump held a Senate acquittal celebration at the White House.  The president lashed out at FBI chieftains, such as former agent Peter Strzok, for investigating an election conspiracy he said agents knew didn’t happen.

He also ridiculed the Democrats for buying a dossier based on Kremlin sources that was essentially a hoax, but used by the FBI to target Trump associates.

The final Mueller report, which Mr. Weissmann helped write, said the FBI didn’t establish a Trump-Russia conspiracy.

Previously on MSNBC, Mr. Weissmann said Mr. Trump talks on an open phone line so Russian President Vladimir Putin can listen in.

Mr. Weissmann said on Thursday that the way Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, like Mr. Trump a populist conservative, was ousted is a model for Democrats.  Also like Mr. Trump, Mr. Berlusconi is a billionaire.  Critics claimed he used government policy to help his companies.  He was convicted of tax fraud after serving longer than any post-World War II prime minister.

Prosecutor Weissmann thinks President Trump is amoral?  Has he looked in the mirror?  Does he remember the late Senator Ted Stevens or the Arthur Andersen LLP v United States case?

I scoff.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Open Government

For John, BLUF:  The rules of conduct the Democratic House Managers are setting for elected officials seem pretty high.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Congress:  Attorney General Lynch ‘Pleads Fifth’ on Secret Iran ‘Ransom’ Payments

Here is the sub-headline:

Obama admin blocking congressional probe into cash payments to Iran

FRom The Washington Free Beacon, by Reporter Adam Kredo, 28 October 2016.  (Three and a half years ago.)

Here is the lede plus two:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is declining to comply with an investigation by leading members of Congress about the Obama administration's secret efforts to send Iran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year, prompting accusations that Lynch has "pleaded the Fifth" Amendment to avoid incriminating herself over these payments, according to lawmakers and communications exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) initially presented Lynch in October with a series of questions about how the cash payment to Iran was approved and delivered.

In an Oct. 24 response, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch's behalf, refusing to answer the questions and informing the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which was bound up in a ransom deal aimed at freeing several American hostages from Iran.

I look forward to our new future, when Administration personnel conduct full and open relations with the US Congress, and visa-versa.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Avoiding the Rule of Law

For John, BLUF:  When I was growing up the Boggy Man was "Reds under the bed."  Today it is "Putin's Puppet."  The idea that Tulsi is anyone's puppet strikes me as a strange view.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Law Professor Glenn Reynolds Blogs on Hillary Refusing Service

Law Prof Glenn Reynolds, 29 January 2020.

Here is the Blog Post, with a link to the newspaper article:

OUT:  NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.  In:  Hillary Clinton refuses to be served Tulsi Gabbard’s defamation lawsuit.  “Dunne said their process server first attempted to effect service at the Clinton’s house in Chappaqua Tuesday afternoon — but was turned away by Secret Service agents.  The agents directed the server to the Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, who on Wednesday claimed at his Washington, D.C. firm Williams & Connolly that he was unable to accept service on Clinton’s behalf, said Dunne.”

I don’t understand why service of process is any business of the Secret Service’s.  They’re supposed to protect her from killers, not from the rule of law.

It doesn't look good and it sets a poor example for the ongoing Impeachment trial.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sun Setting Laws

For John, BLUF:  We have a lot of old and out of date laws on the books, and they need to be replaced, lawfully.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Judge orders 234,000 purged from Wisconsin voter rolls

From MSN, by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Reporters Bruce Vielmetti and Patrick Marley, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 15 December 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

An Wisconsin judge on Friday ordered the state to remove hundreds of thousands of people from Wisconsin's voter rolls because they may have moved.

The case is being closely watched because of the state's critical role in next year's presidential race.  Ozaukee County Judge Paul Malloy also denied the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin's petition to intervene.

Lawyers for the League and for the Wisconsin Elections Commission indicated they will appeal and asked Malloy to stay his ruling pending those appeals, but he declined.

At issue is a letter the state Elections Commission sent in October to about 234,000 voters who it believes may have moved.  The letter asked the voters to update their voter registrations if they had moved or alert election officials if they were still at their same address.

The commission planned to remove the letter's recipients from the voter rolls in 2021 if it hadn't heard from them.  But Malloy's decision would kick them off the rolls much sooner, and well before the 2020 presidential election.

First off, "hundreds of thousands seems like lazy journalism.  The mailing went to 234,000 voters, per the article. 

Of the 234,000 letters that were sent, about 60,000 were returned as undeliverable as of Dec. 5, according to the Elections Commission. As of then, about 2,300 recipients of the letters said they continued to live at their address and about 16,500 had registered to vote at new addresses.

That is nit-picking.  The real issue is that unelected officials were not following our democratic procedures and allowing appointed officials to override our laws and procedures.

But [Judge] Malloy went further than issuing an injunction.  In granting a writ of mandamus – essentially a court order that a government official or agency do its job – he said he was convinced the commission had a clear, positive, plain legal duty to purge the voter rolls within 30 days.

"I don't want to see someone deactivated, but I don't write the law," said Malloy, who was appointed to the bench in 2002 by Republican Gov. Scott McCallum and has been re-elected by voters.

He said the commission didn't like the policy so it set a new one without following a formal rule-making procedure that would have included notice to the public and a chance for input.

To be filed under "It's All About Me":

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers on Twitter railed against the ruling.

"I won the race for governor by less than 30,000 votes," he wrote.  "This move pushed by Republicans to remove 200,000 Wisconsinites from the voter rolls is just another attempt at overriding the will of the people and stifling the democratic process."

This is rubbish.  the invocation of 200,000 is sloppy math.  Further, the Governor doesn't talk about how some of those voters might be Republicans.  When someone in my District casts an illegal vote, that is the suppression of my vote.  In my own City, Lowell, a group has sued, and the City folded, so next local election my vote will, in some Districts be reduced in value by a factor of ten.  And Gerrymandering is alive and well.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Be Safe, But Not Rigid

For John, BLUF:  The right to not use the handrail affirmed in Canada.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Canadian woman arrested for not holding escalator handrail awarded $20G in damages

From Fox News, by Miss Nicole Darrah, 1 December 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

A Canadian woman who was arrested for not holding on to an escalator handrail has been awarded $20,000 in damages by the nation's Supreme Court.

Bela Kosoian was riding an escalator at the Montmorency Montreal Metro station in Laval, Quebec, in 2009 when an officer stopped her because she wasn't holding on to a handrail, as she was looking through her purse.  A sign that stated "caution" and "hold handrail" was located near the escalator.

And here is the Supreme Court of Canada:

This case was about civil liability for doing something wrong.  In a free and democratic society, police officers can’t interfere with people’s freedoms except where the law says so.  They have to know the law and act within it.

Earlier we talked about Canada's abhorrence of Free Speech.  Here we see that the Canadians have not totally forgotten about the Rights of Englishmen, and kudos to them for that.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Yes, Lavrentiy Beria

For John, BLUF:  Soviet Leader Lavrentiy Beria was infamous in his day, a symbol of the badly distorted Soviet "Justice" System.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

LISTEN:  Liberal Democrat Dershowitz Compares Democrats To Russian Secret Police Under Stalin, Blisters CNN

FromThe Daily Wire, by Hank Berrien, 11 November 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Speaking on the John Catsimatidis radio show, famed attorney and liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz blistered CNN for its coverage of the impeachment proceedings against President Trump, saying, “CNN has banned me from their airwaves.  CNN will not allow me on their network because they don’t want a liberal Democrat to be telling their viewers the truth about the Constitution.”  Dershowiz also ripped Democrats, comparing them to the Russian secret police under the murderous Russian dictator Josef Stalin, asserting, “The Democrats are now making up crimes.”

Catsimatidis prompted Dershowitz by asking, “Do the Democrats today think that the American public is so stupid on some of the things they’re doing?”

Dershowitz replied:

They’re very scary.  They’re very frightening to any civil libertarian.  Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican; whether you come from New York or the middle of the country, you should be frightened by efforts to try to create crimes out of nothing.  The latest twist was people on television, particularly CNN and MSNBC, are saying that if the president or somebody else was to name the whistleblower in the Ukrainian situation, that person would be guilty of a crime.  I said in the afternoon yesterday — searching the federal criminal statutes from beginning to end — I couldn’t find the crime.  It reminds me of Lavrentiy Beria, head of the KGB, said to Stalin, he said, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”  Which he really meant, I’ll make up the crime.

Yes, Lavrentiy Beria?

Maybe it is time for Speaker Pelosi or Minority Leader Schumer or DNC Chairman Perez to introduce the vast majority of Democrats to Kübler-Ross.  The vast majority are stuck in Stage 1—Denial.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Mr Cohen and "Hush Money"

For John, BLUF:  Prosecutors making up the law as they go along.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime

From National Review, by Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, 12 December 2018.

Here is the key passage:

In A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More’s future son-in-law, Roper, states that he would “cut down every law in England” if it would enable him to catch the devil.

Here is where "Anglo-Saxon Privilege" comes into play.  As Sir Thomas says, "Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!"

We would do well to show a little humility.  It will be interesting to see if Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is the same politically oriented, sanctimonious prig the Mr James Comey comes across as.

EXIT QUESTION:  Will the very radioactive Russiagate turn out to have a half life of about a year and to decay into some isotope of campaign finance?  Supplemental Question:  Will this then blow back on the Democrats, to their disadvantage?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

How Many?

For John, BLUF:  I expect that if the US Congress passed a gun confiscation law the majority would comply.  However, it is likely many would resist, covertly or overtly.  Recently Congressman Eric Swalwell raised this issue in a novel way, noting that the Federal Government has the edge, due to its monopoly on nuclear weapons.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What's your comfort number, Lefties?

Here is a comment from a Canadian Blog, which references an article by Mr Kurt Schlichter, from Town Hall, posted on 6 December 2018.

Here is an Excerpt from the Blog Post:

But, as I mentioned yesterday and today, people like Swalwell and Occasionally-Cortex have no interest in facts and practicality.  When faced with opposition, they will double down every time.  Because they are playing to a crowd.  And that crowd is angry, they want red meat and lots of it! They don't care what's real, or what's true. They just want a target.

So there's really only one question worth asking DemocRats in the USA and Liberals here: how many people are you willing to throw out of work to get your socialist plan enacted?  How many will you imprison to enforce your regulation?  How many senior citizens are you willing to freeze to death for your ecological fuel tax? How many resisters will you kill? Hmm?

One?
Ten?
Ten thousand?

The Communist's answer was 100 million in the 20th Century.  The entire nation of Canada, four times over, died for the myth of the Worker's Paradise.  The Chinese Communists are still at it.

I know it sounds far fetched.  However, think of the million plus Ukrainians who died during the 1930s Holodomor.  That deadly experience was so far fetched that The Old Gray Lady, through its Pulitzer winning Reporter, Walter Duranty, denied that it happened.

To put this in American terms, how many Waco Seiges are we willing to abide?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

I Hope Someone In Their Right Mind Fixes This

For John, BLUF:  This is dumb.  Dumb in the sense that we now have a system where folks can farm for money with dumb lawsuits.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Women-Only Craft Beer Forum Shut Down By Men’s Rights Activist

Here is the sub-headline:

Ting Su, co-founder of Eagle Rock Brewery and host of the event, now finds herself needing to raise money for a legal defense fund.

From Vice Munchies, by Ms Beth Demmon, 19 October 2018.

When someone poisons the well, then no one can drink from it.  And I don't mean Ms Su.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Mueller Grand Jury Report

For John, BLUF:  The rules are the rules.  Or at least they should be.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Could A 60 Year Old Case Torpedo Mueller’s Report?

From Hot Air, by Reporter Jazz Shaw, 27 August 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

One of the more compelling bits of drama coming out of the Russia, Russia, Russia investigation this summer has been the question of Bob Mueller’s highly anticipated “report” on the findings of the grand jury.  Rudy Giuliani has argued that he has to release it by this week or sit on it until after the midterms.  (A claim with some basis in reality but not a rule written in stone.)  Others have argued that politics shouldn’t set the timetable for anything in terms of upholding the law.  But is there even a report?  Thus far, Mueller’s been silent on the matter.

Assuming there is, however, there’s a completely separate court case drawing to a close in the next month which could keep any report Mueller generates under wraps.  Politico has a fascinating look at a mystery that’s over six decades old and a lawsuit arising from it which could seal the report from the prying eyes of the public and the press.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff