The New York's "Hush-Money" Case Against Trump UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ULTRA VIRES

 

The New York "hush-money" case against Trump should be thrown out based on constitutionality: The practice of using state business laws to enhance state laws using a federal law without prior conviction for state or federal laws is constitutionally illegal. Further far too many questions about the case and about Bragg’s path to convicting Trump — particularly of felonies — remain unanswered and most likely as per the following UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ULTRA VIRES ("beyond the powers of Bragg and New York Law.")

1. States cannot directly attach federal election laws or FEC regulations to their own state business practices laws. As outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the division of powers between the federal government and the states establishes that federal laws govern federal matters, while state laws govern state matters.

2. Federal election laws, including regulations enforced by the FEC, are established by Congress and fall under the authority of the federal government. These laws specifically pertain to federal elections, such as those for the President, Vice President, and members of Congress.

3. State business practice laws, on the other hand, regulate commercial activities, business operations, and other matters related to commerce within the state's borders. These laws are within the authority of the state government and are separate from federal election laws.

4. States cannot directly incorporate federal election laws or FEC regulations into their own state business practice laws. As outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the division of powers between the federal government and the states establishes that federal laws govern federal matters, while state laws govern state matters.

5. Under the U.S. Constitution, states do not have the authority to directly regulate federal elections or create laws that conflict with federal election laws administered by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Federal election laws are established by Congress and fall under the purview of the federal government.

6. Federal election laws, including regulations enforced by the FEC, are established by Congress and fall under the authority of the federal government. These laws specifically pertain to federal elections, such as those for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.

7. State business practice laws, on the other hand, regulate commercial activities, business operations, and other matters related to commerce within the state's borders. These laws are within the authority of the state government and are separate from federal election laws.

As outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the division of powers between the federal government and the states establishes that federal laws govern federal matters, while state laws govern state matters.

Constitutionality: Any practice that violates constitutional rights, such as a defendant's constitutional rights are violated by the application of state laws enhanced by federal law without prior convictions, a court could find such practices unconstitutional.

Legal Precedent: Courts often rely on legal precedent established by prior cases to determine the constitutionality of certain practices. If there is a relevant precedent that addresses similar issues, it could guide the court's decision in the current case.

State and Federal Jurisdiction: States and the federal government have distinct jurisdictions and authority, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. While states generally have authority over their own criminal laws and procedures, they cannot violate federal constitutional rights in the process. Likewise, federal law cannot infringe upon state sovereignty or violate state constitutional rights.

Judicial Review: Ultimately, the constitutionality of a practice would be determined by the judiciary. If a defendant challenges the legality of using federal law to enhance state charges without prior convictions, a court would review the arguments and evidence presented by both parties before issuing a ruling.

 

The "LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES" doctrine serves several purposes:

Fairness: It ensures that defendants aren't unfairly punished for a greater offence when the evidence only supports a lesser one.

Judicial Efficiency: It streamlines legal proceedings by allowing prosecutors to focus on proving the main charge rather than charging every possible offence.

Protection Against Double Jeopardy: It prevents defendants from being tried twice for the same offence. If a defendant is acquitted or in this case NEVER CHARGED of the greater offense, they can't be retried for the lesser offense because it's already considered included in the original charge.

The legal doctrine of lesser included offences is a fundamental aspect of criminal law. It ensures that defendants are not unfairly convicted or punished for a more serious offence when the evidence presented during trial only supports a lesser offence. This doctrine is rooted in the principle of fairness and the protection of defendants' rights.

In the United States, the doctrine of lesser included offences is based on the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy and the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a fair trial. The Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of this doctrine in several landmark cases, including Beck v. Alabama (1980) and Schmuck v. United States (1989).

In Beck v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that when the evidence presented at trial could support a conviction on a lesser included offence, the jury must be instructed on that lesser offence. Failure to do so would violate the defendant's right to a fair trial by limiting the jury's options and potentially leading to an unjust conviction.

Similarly, in Schmuck v. United States, the Court reaffirmed the requirement for jury instructions on lesser included offences when supported by the evidence. The Court emphasized that defendants are entitled to have the jury consider all reasonable doubt in their favour, including the possibility of a lesser offence.

New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) governs procedural aspects of criminal cases, including jury instructions and trial procedures. CPL Article 300 outlines the general principles for jury trials, including instructions on lesser included offences. Specifically, CPL § 300.50 addresses jury instructions on lesser included offences, requiring judges to instruct juries on lesser offences supported by the evidence presented at trial.

New York case law further clarifies the application of the doctrine of lesser included offences in practice. Appellate court decisions often provide guidance on issues such as when jury instructions on lesser offences are warranted and what constitutes sufficient evidence to support a lesser included offence.

Overall, in New York State, the doctrine of lesser included offences operates within the framework of statutory law, court rules, and judicial precedent to ensure that defendants receive fair trials and are not convicted of more serious offences than supported by the evidence. Prosecutors, defence attorneys, and judges all play essential roles in applying this doctrine appropriately during criminal proceedings.

 

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf

 

 

A Chant of "Death to America" IS a HATE CRIME under US Laws

In the United States, hate speech like "Death to America" meets the criteria that justify limitations on free speech as per the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) in my view.

 

As it is a direct call to violence against Americans, to nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected characteristics. Thus, it can and must be prosecuted under laws prohibiting incitement to violence and hate speech.

 

Individuals in America who chant this hate slogan must be prosecuted for hate speech including speech that incites violence or poses a direct threat to public safety.

 

Incitement to Violence: The U.S. Supreme Court has held that speech which directly incites lawless action or poses a clear and present danger of such action is not protected by the First Amendment. This principle comes from the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). If chanting "Death to America" is interpreted as a direct call to violence against Americans, it must be prosecuted under laws prohibiting incitement to violence.

 

True Threats: Under U.S. law, "true threats" are not protected speech. A true threat is a statement that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to cause harm or violence. If chanting "Death to America" is interpreted as a true threat against Americans, it must be prosecuted under laws prohibiting threats.

 

Hate Crime Laws: Hate crimes involving acts calling for violence or threats i.e. death to America which is motivated by bias or prejudice must be prosecuted under federal or state hate crime laws. These laws typically enhance penalties for criminal acts committed because of the victim's race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected characteristics.

 

State Laws: Some states have specific laws that criminalize certain types of hate speech or provide enhanced penalties for hate-motivated crimes. These laws vary by state and may define hate speech or hate crimes differently. For example, some states have laws specifically addressing hate speech directed at schools or certain groups.

 

Harassment Laws: Depending on the circumstances, chanting "Death to America" constitutes targeted harassment or intimidation against individuals or groups that must be prosecuted under harassment laws.

 

 Facts of the case - Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) 

Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made it illegal to advocate "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

Question

Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The Criminal Syndicalism Act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After Iran Attacked Israel Biden Seeks Diplomatic Response

 

In recent history, we've witnessed a concerning trend fueled by the unrealistic policy of appeasement towards both terrorist entities and nations that actively support and finance terrorism. This approach, championed by the Biden administration and its leader, President Joe Biden, has failed to provide effective solutions. Instead, it has emboldened aggressors like Iran, leading to brazen attacks on Israel.

The proposal for a "united diplomatic response" to Iran's aggression rings hollow, as it risks normalizing such hostile actions between Iran and Israel. This farcical strategy finds support among certain segments of the media and their adherence to socialist ideologies, further clouding the effectiveness of our response.

Despite clear evidence of Iran's involvement in attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria, totalling over 150 incidents since President Biden's inauguration, the administration has shied away from taking decisive action. Moreover, the Iranian-backed Houthi forces have escalated their aggression by targeting Israeli-affiliated shipping vessels in the Red Sea, with at least 40 vessels falling victim to these attacks.

Regrettably, the Biden administration's policy of appeasement has failed to deter such brazen acts of aggression. Even in the face of a strong condemnation by the United Nations Security Council, followed by further attacks by the Houthis, there has been a glaring absence of direct reprisals against Iran and its terrorist proxies.

This ambivalence towards Iran reflects a broader trend of isolationism and appeasement within the American Democratic political landscape, which has only deepened since President Biden's election over three years ago. The consequences of this approach are dire, with the world teetering on the brink of unprecedented turmoil and the spectre of a potential world war looming ominously.

It's evident that the weakness of President Biden's leadership, coupled with the incompetence of those surrounding him, has exacerbated these challenges. 

In my view, these conclusions are drawn from readily available facts, accessible to anyone willing to engage in thorough reading and research.

 

Concerns of Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024

  

Careful consideration and ongoing evaluation will be essential to mitigate potential drawbacks and ensure positive outcomes for all stakeholders involved.

Proposed Changes Analysis:

Ontario Land Tribunal Appeals:

1.      Restricting third-party appeals may limit community input and transparency in decision-making processes.

Development Charges:

2.      Revoking the phase-in could impact municipal revenue streams needed for infrastructure development.

Pre-Consultation Voluntary:

3.      Voluntary pre-consultation could result in insufficient community engagement and potentially lead to contentious developments.

Parking Standards:

4.      Insufficient parking could lead to congestion and inconvenience for residents and visitors.

Minister’s Zoning Orders/Community Infrastructure Housing Accelerators:

5.      Overreliance on MZOs could bypass local planning processes and diminish community involvement.

“Use it or Lose it” and Upper Tier Municipalities:

6.      Strict timelines for development approvals could pressure developers and potentially result in rushed projects.

Redistribution of planning responsibilities may strain resources in remaining municipalities.

Public Notices and Additional Unit Regulations:

7.      Reliance on digital notices may exclude individuals without internet access or digital literacy.

Removing zoning barriers may lead to concerns about neighbourhood character and infrastructure capacity.

Violence the Current USA Reality

Crime issues in the USA and Canada primarily stem from the disregard for authority and law and order by various groups, irrespective of race or ethnicity. This disrespect manifests through criminal activities involving illegal weapons, drugs, and gang affiliations.

 

Across North America, citizens are growing weary of lenient justice systems, with judges and politicians often neglecting the severity of gang-related crimes. Despite escalating violence in both urban and suburban areas, there's a concerning lack of acknowledgment from those in power.

 

It's evident that simply throwing money at the issue won't resolve it. What's needed is a shift towards stringent prosecution for all crimes, rather than the current cycle of arrest and release, especially concerning juvenile offenders and illegal migrants who drop out of school and remain reliant on welfare.

 

There's an urgent call for elected officials who grasp the gravity of the gang and drug problems, particularly within certain communities. These issues often stem from societal disillusionment, a lack of education, and a refusal to accept authority.

 

Law-abiding citizens are seeking leaders who uphold the law without hesitation, unlike the current trend of pandering to special interest groups and political ideologies. It's time to hold politicians, judges, and law enforcement accountable for their inaction and prioritize the safety and well-being of communities.

 

We must reject the influence of unelected bureaucrats and technocrats who shape policies without direct accountability to the electorate. Their decisions often prioritize fringe interests over the rights and safety of ordinary citizens.

 

Furthermore, the focus on animal rights and international standards often overshadows the urgent need to protect human life and uphold the rights of law-abiding individuals. 

Without consistent enforcement of laws, our society cannot claim to be, equal, equitable, just or civil.

 

 

 

 

Israel Back Stabbed by Joe Biden for Political Power

The Democratic Party under President Joe Biden's leadership is exhibiting heightened concern regarding the potential loss in the upcoming 2024 Presidential election, leading to a preoccupation that risks overshadowing their recognition of key allies and supporters.

In Biden's fervent pursuit of maintaining political dominance, there appears to be a tendency to overlook the importance of nurturing alliances and fostering relationships with trusted partners.

This phenomenon underscores the imperative for the party to recalibrate its strategies and prioritize collaborative efforts with both longstanding allies and emerging supporters in order to fortify their position and ensure a resilient path forward for their continued political power.

Keep in mind that "Joe Biden has been wrong on every major foreign policy decision in the last 4 decades"

Since the 1979 takeover of Iran by the country’s Islamic revolutionary government it has had one overriding ambition: to be the lead player in shaping the future of the Middle East and it wants Israel weaker and the United States gone from the region after decades of primacy. To quote their own statements " It wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth."

Yet we have heard that Britain, France, Germany and the USA governments all preach and say they are firm supporters of Israel's right to exist. Yet, each is also facing domestic criticism of that support as is the week US President Joe Biden who, keep in mind, "Joe Biden has been wrong on every major foreign policy decision in the last 4 decades."

Israel is supposedly an Allie and protected by the USA, Britain, France and Germany however, remember the USA's position during the beginning of the Second World War was one of isolationism and appeasement by the Democratic Party. Today the Democratic Party and its leader President Joe Biden are concerned about the votes in the following states that have a Muslim population as follows:

North Carolina. Percentage of Muslim Population: 1.3% ...

Arizona. Percentage of Muslim Population: 1.5% ...

Massachusetts. Percentage of Muslim Population: 1.9% ...

Minnesota. Percentage of Muslim Population: 2% ...

Virginia. Percentage of Muslim Population: 2%

At the same time keep in mind that today France actually has the largest Muslim and Jewish populations in Europe. Macron - President Emmanuel Macron of France says that he supports Israel's right to defend itself. But he's trying to also call for a humanitarian truce to get aid through which also is a stab in the back to the Isreal people and its government.

I strongly suggest that the purported leaders of democracy in the USA, Britain, France, and Germany exhibit a greater preoccupation with maintaining political power and their incumbency than with safeguarding Israel's inherent right to self-defence, especially as the sole democracy in the Middle East. Rather than upholding their commitments as principled statesmen, they should take decisive action against terrorism, particularly Hamas, which is fueled by Iranian support.

It is imperative for these leaders to unequivocally support Israel in eradicating the threat posed by Hamas once and for all, rather than misleading the Israeli government and its people with calls for ceasefires. While hostages remain in the clutches of this terrorist group, continually funded by Iran. and until Hamas is once and forever defeated and eradicated as a terrorist organization in Gaza.

Otherwise, like after WW1 and WW2 the world because of these weak-kneed leaders shall find themselves fighting such barbarian terrorists in their own countries for years to come. Appeasement did not work and does not work with terrorist organizations and nations whose sole aim is the destruction of Israel.

 PS 

 These Countries Presently Don’t Recognize Israel

Afghanistan

Algeria

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Bhutan

Bolivia

Brunei

Chad

Comoros

Cuba

Djibouti

Guinea

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Malaysia

Mali

Morocco

Mauritania

Nicaragua

Niger

North Korea

Oman

Pakistan

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Somalia

Sudan

Syria

Tunisia

United Arab Emirates

Venezuela

Yemen

 

 

Todays Progressive, Socialist, Liberal leftism

The leftist is ant individualistic, and pro-collectivist. He/she wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, and take care of them. They are not the sort of persons who have an inner sense of confidence in their ability to solve one’s own problems and satisfy one’s own needs. The liberal leftists are antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, they feel like losers.

What one is trying to get at in discussing liberalism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Yet today the movement is fragmented, and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When speaking of liberal leftists, one has in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, climate activists, globalists, and the like.

Yet not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. Thus, what one means by “liberalism” is perhaps to indicate roughly and approximately the two psychological tendencies that are the main driving force of modern liberal leftism.

By no means can one group or movement claim to be telling the whole truth about leftist psychology. Also, this is meant to apply to modern liberal leftism only. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern liberal leftism are called “feelings of inferiority” and “over-socialization”.

Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern liberal leftism, while over-socialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern liberal leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

By “feelings of inferiority” in the whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him/her (or about groups with whom she/he identifies) one can conclude that he/she has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem.

This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “black”, “oriental”, “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy”, “dude” or “fellow”. The negative connotations have been Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology is not the average person of colour, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society.

Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior.

The leftist liberals themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.

Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly, they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

Liberal Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good, and successful. They hate Canada; and America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality and the view of others.

The reasons that liberal progressive leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say and claim they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in third-world cultures, the liberal leftist finds excuses for them, or at best they GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas they ENTHUSIASTICALLY point out (and more often than not greatly exaggerate) these faults where they appear in Western civilization.

These faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. They hate, Canada, America, and the West because they are strong and successful.  Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”, “initiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary.

Have you noticed that art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat, and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment?

Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality and insist that everything is culturally relative. One can indeed ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge.

They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior).

The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he/she cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests.

Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behaviour because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it.

Thus, if a person is “inferior” it is not his/her fault, but society's, because he/she has not been brought up properly. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him/her a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, or a ruthless competitor.

This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself/herself but rather a deficit in his/her sense of power and self-worth, but they can still conceive of themselves as having the capacity to be strong, and his/her efforts to make himself/herself strong produce their unpleasant behaviour. 

But the leftist is too far gone for that. Their feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that they cannot conceive of themselves as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. They can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which they identify.

Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police and others to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they prefer masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait. 

Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principles do play a role for the leftists of the over-socialized type. But compassion and moral principles cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behaviour; so is the drive for power.

Moreover, much leftist behaviour is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously, it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them.

However leftist activists such as Black Lives Matter do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power.

In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.  If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to invent problems to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

Let me stipulate and emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.