Legale§e

Episode # 66

Today on Legalese we are doing a deep dive into the pending Supreme Court Case SEC v Jarkesy. This case was one included in my Supreme Court Roundup video from October 2023, which included a very brief summary of the case and reviewed the Question Presented.

In my opinion, this case is shaping up to be the most interesting and most consequential among those I am covering for this term in my Supreme Court Roundup. Which is why today we’ll be giving this case the comprehensive attention it deserves. The Court is being asked to either reaffirm or vacate a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals that found an internal SEC case brought against George Jarkesy as unconstitutional on three separate grounds.

Today we take a deep dive into the administrative state, the Fifth Circuit decision, the Supreme Court oral arguments and the scare-mongering untruths that are spreading by way of the corporate media and the Washington DC political class.

Episode # 65

Today on Legalese, we are discussing the case Moore v United States. This case, which was part of my 2023 Supreme Court Roundup was argued before the Court on December 5th, 2023.

There is a lot of new information that can be gleaned about this case from those arguments and so this video will be a summary of those arguments. Looking at the key issues raised and making some fairly certain predictions about the outcome of this case.

Understanding The Significance Of Ketanji Brown Jackson And Progressive Originalism

Episode #61

Today on Legalese we will be discussing the judicial philosophy of Progressive Originalism. What is it, what isn't it, how does it work and to what ends? Plus how does it compare with the other more common forms of Originalist judicial interpretation such as original public meaning or textualism?

Also we will be talking about the first Progressive Originalist on the Supreme Court. That is of course the Junior Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I will be discussing some likely surprising reasons Ketanji Brown Jackson has the potential to become one of the most influential justices on the high court and why that's not necessarily a bad thing!

Follow and Support

The History Of Qualified Immunity -The Slow Death Of Government Accountability

Episode # 64

Today on Legalese we are talking about the history of the qualified immunity doctrine.

Qualified Immunity Turns Against Police (Blue On Blue Violence)

Episode # 63

Today on Legalese we will be discussing two truly outrageous cases in which cops were granted qualified immunity.

The first is a unique example of what I call "blue on blue violence". A term I coined to describe incidents in which police officers are both preparator and victim. In this case, one officer shot another in the back, paralyzing him. The hapless cop who carelessly shot him would get qualified immunity.

While this case is, of course, a tragedy for Officer Jamie Morales (the injured cop)— If we step back, we can see this case as potentially being a positive development. Perhaps more police need to become victims of their own standards and practices if we ever hope to demonstrate just how unjust and unequitable the qualified immunity doctrine truly is.

The second case is a truly shocking example of a citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong and yet found himself being followed home by a truly deranged sociopath, who proceeded to assault this man right in his driveway... Only to find out this deranged sociopath was a police officer. He would also get qualified immunity for this off-duty assault that was the result of a deranged cop with a volatile temper and zero impulse control engaging in one of the most extreme cases of road rage ever.

Episode #62

Episode #58 Today I Legalese I will be discussing the cases that I will be covering in depth during the coming Supreme Court term for 2023-2024

Episode #54

A big win coming out of the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals in the case of Rogers v. Smith. The Court affirmed that a police officer who deprived a citizen of their first and fourth amendment rights when they arrested that citizen for criminal libel, despite the police's prior awareness the criminal libel law in question, Louisiana Revised Statutes §14.47 had been ruled unconstitutional by both the Louisiana and United States Supreme Courts. For these reason the police officers being sued in this case were DENIED qualified immunity and held to have deprived the plaintiff of his civil rights under color of law in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1983 I also use this case to discuss one of the most common and problematic myths in constitutional law. The writ-of-erasure fallacy. This deals with the crucial distinction between a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the Courts and the actual repeal of that law by the legislature. The confusion over this legal doctrine frequently has major real world consequences and we discuss what they are. Show Notes Page for Federal Court Short Circuits Officer's Qualified Immunity Defense - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-54-fifth-circuit-short-circuits

Episode #50

Today on Legalese we will be talking about corporate personhood. We examine a number of the most common myths and misconceptions surrounding the issues of corporations, of people and of rights.

The other day on Twitter the notable YouTuber and world-class milquetoast fence sitter, Tim Pool tweeted about the upcoming Supreme Court Opinion in Jackson and Bruen. Saying if the Court overturns Roe and Casey and also rules on Nationwide Constitutional Carry there will be less rioting. While there are myriad problems with this tweet the one that really grinds my gears was his insistence the court could rule on nationwide constitutional carry. After reaching out to Tim to verify if this was meant to be ironic or if it was a genuine statement and it became clear that not only he, but his many followers all genuinely believe this is the most likely outcome, despite the fact this is a constitutional and procedural impossibility.

After trying to explain and finding 240 characters not being nearly enough to refute such a complicatedly wrong belief I decided to make this video. Not only will it hopefully explain to the thousands of people espousing this with nothing but an assumption it must be correct why it is LITERALLY impossible for the court to make any ruling about constitutional carry and LITERALLY impossible the outcome of Bruen will be a nationwide anything, its also a great primer for those who are interested in this case to help explain what the case is about or to remind you of the importance facts, issues, the question presented and the potential judgement so when the case comes out you will have a fresh understanding of the arguments that were made in the cert petitions and oral arguments heard last November. 

Past Episode Referenced In This Episode

This is the first video in my annual Supreme Court Wrap Up. Today we will be revisiting a pair of cases from my Supreme Court Roundup last fall. These cases are: Twitter v Taamneh and Gonzalez v Google

The Supreme Court handed down two unanimous opinions on May 18th 2023 for both cases stating that the claims against Twitter & Google in regards to the Anti-Terrorism Act §2333 and the Communications and Decency Act §230 do not amount to "aiding and abetting" in a manner that would make these platforms liable for damages following a terrorist attack.

Today on Legalese, we are going to be looking at a statement put out by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch as part of the Court's procedural decision in the recent case of Arizona v Mayorkas. This decision dealt with the abuse of civil liberties under emergency powers, specifically through the usurpation of the so-called "Title 42 Emergency Orders" that were issued to help prevent the spread of Covid-19, that were usurped by several different state governments and federal administrative agencies for their own designs. Trying to keep these emergency powers in place indefinitely because of a new imagined crisis that they were never meant to apply to.

Today On Legalese we have the second video in my series about the Supreme Court's upcoming case that will reconsider chevron deference. Do their actions constitute some kind of usurpation of power and are they an attack on democracy itself? We discuss this while debunking an article from Vox that claims both of those things are correct. We also look at the real history of administrative law in regards to Chevron Deference

Today on Legalese, we will be discussing the Supreme Court's grant for judicial review on the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case is controversial because of the distinct (though highly unlikely) possibility that it may see Chevron Deference overruled entirely.

Chevron Deference is perhaps the most prolific legal doctrine in the whole of administrative law. This doctrine arose from a landmark Supreme Court case known as:

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837.

Chevron was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers.

We have discussed the Chevron case here on the show before as well as it's doctrine of Chevron Deference.

This case is again worth discussing because Chevron Deference supporters and detractors are both being told two different, but equally fallacious, narratives about what the potential outcome of this case may be and the impact that they claim it will have on the entire system of federal regulations and administrative law.

Today's episode is the first of two I will be putting out about this case. Today's video will focus on the background information needed to understand the Loper Bright case as a matter of law.

The second video, which will be released tomorrow will be taking a look at one article from the conservative mainstream media and one article from the progressive mainstream media to understand how political actors are using this case to manipulate and misinform the public at large (whether this is being done intentionally, or is the result of innocent ignorance, I cannot say... but perhaps that doesn't matter.)

Either way we will be looking at the potential motives and goals of using the law as a weapon to further a political agenda.

Today on Legalese we are talking about the meaning and scope of the Ninth Amendment, What did this amendment mean to the framers and ratifiers who gave the bill of rights legal force? What role has it played in Constitutional law and case precedent? What does it mean in our own time and how is it applied today? And could this amendment be the most important sentence in the entire Constitution?

Today on Legalese, we continue my ongoing series "Ignorance of the Law" where I expose the fact that while politicians and police are often quick to tell people ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law, it's often an excuse for making and enforcing the law.

We discuss the North Hampton, New Hampshire police department, where several officers and the police chief beclowned themselves following an especially absurd arrest.

But this incident is only the latest in a disturbing trend of North Hampton police officers overstepping their prerogative to the extreme.

In October of 2022, a medical emergency led to an auto accident that ended on the front lawn of North Hampton resident Colleen Loud, 67, who had been in her home watching a baseball game. Ms. Loud did not know the driver, had nothing to do with the accident that occurred; and in fact, had not even been aware the accident had occurred until police officers arriving on the scene would question her about the incident.

During this encounter, North Hampton police followed the standard protocol of turning an innocent witness into a victim of the officer’s own making. What followed was a series of events leading to the eventual arrest of Ms. Loud on such a mind-bogglingly absurd basis, its hard to believe this was a real news story and not a satirical take on modern policing you might find in The Onion or The Babylon Bee.

Unfortunately for Colleen Loud, it was all too real and she was the victim of what I believe is the dumbest arrest ever made.

Today on Legalese we have part two on my series about the trial of Muhammad Ali. In part one we discussed what it means to be a conscientious objector in accordance with American text, history and tradition. We also looked at the basic narrative of Ali's famous fight to get a conscientious objector exemption in accordance with his religious beliefs. Today we dive into the judicial history and do a deep dive legal analysis of the civil and criminal trials Ali faced on account of this personal conviction.

Today on Legalese, we discuss a very disappointing video from one of my favorite YouTube political commentators, The Actual Justice Warrior. Somehow this normally stellar YouTuber got it in his head that the police having no duty to protect you is a complete myth. So I made this video to correct the record and irrefutably prove the police have no duty to protect you.

Today on Legalese, we examine the recent claims made by Joe Biden regarding guns and gun owners and scrutinize every single claim to comprehensively explain why Democrats should reject the Democratic Party's message on gun control.

Welcome Back! Today on Legalese we finish discussing the Brunson Case (Commonly known as Docket: 22-380.) The first episode on The Brunson Case we looked at the background of the case and its judicial history. We also discussed what exactly a writ of certiorari is and broke down the first part of Brunson’s cert petition, including the all-important Question Presented.

Today we explore the other key part of any cert petition, the statement of the facts of the case, where one brings to bare the material evidence required to answer all topics raised by the QP. We will also discuss the wisdom of fighting battles to ostensibly “defend the Constitution” by sacrificing the Times, Places & Manner’s clause, The Presidential Elector’s clause, the Electoral College clause, The Presidential Vote clause, the Cases and Controversies clause, the Treason clause, and the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th and 12th Amendments on the altar of convenience.

FOLLOW

Today on Legalese we are going to be examining the case of Brunson v Adams (Also commonly referred to at Docket 22-380). Raland Brunson is suing 388 members of Congress, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris & Mike Pence seeking to kick them out of office then declare them traitors by judicial fiat and put Trump back in office immediately because he believes the election was stolen.

This case is fascinating for many reason and I want to share those reasons.

Whether you support this case, vehemently oppose it, or have simply never heard of it. Every one has something to gain from listening.

Today on Legalese is the first of two videos covering the Trial of Muhammad Ali In this part we focus of the history of Conscientious objection in the United States, get a general overview of the events that unfolded over a period of several years as Muhammad Ali fought what could be seen as his toughest fight ever. Fighting for his right not to go and fight in a war based on his religious convictions. We also discuss some parallels between the Vietnam War and the present war in Ukraine.

FOLLOW

Today on Legalese we will be taking a look at the legalized armed robbery that constitutes "Home Equity Theft”.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to grant cert on the merits for the case "Tyler v. City of Minneapolis". This case challenges the constitutionality of a Minnesota state law empowering local governments to seize the entire value of a property in order to pay off a much smaller delinquent property tax debt. The property owner in the case—93-year-old widow Geraldine Tyler—argues that this kind of uncompensated seizure of home equity violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires government to pay "just compensation" anytime it takes private property, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

So how does home equity theft actually work? How does the government justify this policy which stands in clear contravention to the 5th and 8th amendment's takings clause & excessive fines clause (respectively).

We will discuss the likely outcome of the case as well as the broader implications that this potential landmark 5th amendment case will have.

Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016 (5th Cir. 2023)

Today on Legalese, we will be discussing the recent case of Cargill v. Garland handed down by an en banc Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals. This case was a big win for gun rights and a well-deserved kick in the teeth for unaccountable Administrative State Agencies.

We will discus the case, what it means moving forward and look at several other important implications that can be deduced by researching this case.

Today on Legalese, we add a new video to my series: “Today In Supreme Court History”

This latest installment looks at the landmark case of Printz v. United States.

We call it “Today” in Supreme Court history because it was on this day in 1996 that oral arguments for this case were heard by the Supreme Court; as two of our Nation’s finest litigators squared off.

Stephen Halbrook, representing Sherriff Printz and Sherriff Mack argues as the petitioner.

Walter J Dellinger III represented the United States as the respondent.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs) to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of this interim provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona respectively.

This case became a landmark in defining the meaning and scope of the anti-commandeering doctrine.

Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Today on Legalese we take a look at the history of the right to privacy as well as the common law origins of our fourth amendment.

Today on Legalese we are going to be discussing a little known area of constitutional law known as the state legislature doctrine that will play a major role in a landmark case the Supreme Court will be hearing this term. This is Moore v Harper, almost certainly it has already become the most controversial case the Court will be hearing for their Fall 2022 term.

Links mentioned In The Episode

Today we have the latest installment of my series "Ignorance of the Law". . This where we take some time to highlight stupid, pointless, hypocritical and useless laws passed by the government; To point out that while the government will tell you ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, they clearly consider ignorance an excuse when making and enforcing the law.

This episode has 3 examples of ignorant laws being ignorantly enforced.

First we look at the foster care system in the State of Maine and their regulations regarding bunk-beds; and we share the story of some sweet old grannie taking care of her grandkids and how Maryland's laws are bunk-fucking grannie with their rules against foster children sleeping in bunk beds.

Md. Code Regs. 07.05.02.10 - Foster Parent's Home, Equipment, and Supply Requirements

D. Sleeping and Living Quarters.

(3) Each child shall have adequate bedding and an individual bed which may not be a cot, sofa, sofa bed, double-tiered bed, bunk bed, or any type of portable bed.

Second, we look at a case from Minnesota where the 8th circuit Court of Appeals has granted qualified immunity to a government employee who exercises police powers despite not being a policeman and answer the question:

"what are you supposed to do when a government employee who is not a police officer pulls you over, detains you for hours, and tries to perform a traffic stop, despite having no authority to do so?"

Finally I discuss why certain Halloween costumes just might make any child wearing it a potential felon.

Follow & Support

Today on Legalese we have my fall Supreme Court Roundup. Of the cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this upcoming term I have focused on 5 which I believe have a high likelihood of becoming landmark cases in constitutional law jurisprudence.

Including one case dealing with the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, based on Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

As well as two commerce clause cases, one dealing with the Indian Commerce Clause and another dealing with the dormant commerce clause as well as anti-commandeering doctrine under the tenth amendment.

Finally we have two cases regarding Section 230, the statute often referred to as the Internet's first amendment.

Today on Legalese we are covering Joe Biden’s already catastrophic speech in Philadelphia.

Today on Legalese we have the latest installment of a segment I call: Ignorance of the law

This is where we discuss and make fun of laws that are arbitrary, hypocritical, ridiculous or sure to backfire in some hilarious way.

Because as we all know, ignorance is no excuse when breaking the law…. But it IS an excuse when making and enforcing the law.

Today we will be discussing how New York is finally recognizing the very serious problem it has with crime, homelessness and drug abuse by finally taking on the serious issues sure to make a critical difference in the quality of life of its law abiding citizens by banning people under 21 from being able to buy whipped cream.

Related Articles

There is all kinds of misinformation currently floating around about monetary inflation. Such as those who desperately try to convince you, in spite of all evidence to the contrary: 

Inflation is caused by rich, corporate fat cats who aren't "paying their fair share in taxes"… 

Or gas prices are up because those greedy corporate fat cats running oil and gas companies all suddenly got extra-greedy at exactly the same time somehow and are just price gouging us.

Obviously neither of those things are true and the politicians selling that bullshit are just desperate to put the blame somewhere, anywhere other than where it belongs. Because where it belongs is with those politicians.

They have to lie, because an honest appraisal would lead to the inevitable conclusion that they are at fault and that the only way to return to long-term prosperity will require a heavy dose of short term pain and they simply have too much to lose to actually admit that. I, on the other hand, have nothing to lose by being honest and can merely state the facts. 

In this video we will discuss the real definition of inflation, the real cause of inflation and the only cure for inflation.

• Economic Policy: Inflation (Ludwig von Mises) - https://mises.org/library/inflation
• Inflation: An Unworkable Fiscal Policy (Ludwig von Mises) - https://mises.org/library/economic-freedom-and-interventionism/html/p/123
• Monetary Inflation and Price Inflation (Bob Murphy) - https://mises.org/wire/monetary-inflation-and-price-inflation 
• How Inflation Hides Inflation (Robert Blumen) - https://mises.org/wire/how-inflation-hides-inflation
• An Inflation Primer (Melchior Palyi) - https://mises.org/library/inflation-primer
• Defining Inflation (Frank Shostak) - https://mises.org/library/defining-inflation
• The Cure for Inflation (Henry Hazlitt) - https://mises.org/wire/cure-inflation 
• Inflation as a Policy (Henry Hazlitt) - https://mises.org/wire/inflation-policy

Follow & Support

Today on Legalese we will be discussing the full scope of the natural right of armed self-defense codified in the second amendment. Too often, the modern debate over the second amendment has to do with whether, and to what extent, may people engage in individual self-defense  when the government is either incapable or unwilling to adequately protect people.

However, they never question the legitimacy of the government's assertion of their monopoly on the use of violence. Moreover, should the types of arms individuals may own and carry be limited to those weapons suitable only for individual self defense.

Follow & Support

Today on Legalese, we finish our discussion on the Democrat's new "Assault Weapon" Ban bill (HR 1808)

We discuss, in greater detail what the ramifications of this legislation would mean for the future of the natural right of armed self-defense, codified in our Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, as well as gun rights and gun culture.

We watch all the anti-gun democrats on the House Judiciary Committee beclown themselves in their frantic attempt to prove they know (quite literally) NOTHING about firearms, especially technical & tactical distinctions; making them the very last people who should be writing legislation about the thing they have proven they know nothing about.

We also discuss a challenge in Federal Court on the New York "Assault Weapon Ban"

Related Links

The House Judiciary Committee has a new assault weapons ban they plan to vote on next week. This new bill makes the 1994 AWB that was in place for a decade look downright libertarian by comparison.

HR 1808 seeks to ban all semi-automatic sporting rifles, semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic shotguns as well as a ban on many types of triggers and silencers. All weapons which are in common use for lawful purposes. While this bill specifically exempts the very "weapons of war" it claims to be aimed at banning. This assault on our natural rights  acts with a breadth never before imagined.

In This episode we go through the bill to tell you everything you need to know about this bill.

Today on Legalese, as part of my ongoing series "Ignorance Of The Law" where we laugh at the fact that ignorance of the law may not be an excuse for breaking the law, but it's often an excuse for making and enforcing the law. Today we discuss the ignorance of Rent Control by looking at a recent John Oliver segment about the need for rent control and we look at a series of rent control laws passed in the Twin Cities that are considered to be the strictest Rent Control Laws in the country.

Studies and Related Links

Today by special request, we have a great episode that asks How can Substantive Due Process rights be transferred  to the privileges and immunities clause.

We look at the history of "Privileges & Immunities" from its common law and colonial American beginning, to the Articles Of Confederation, Article 4, Corfield v Coryell and reconstruction era civil rights legislation to inform us of what the Privileges or Immunities clause was understood to mean by those who gave it legal force. We also discuss a general framework under which enumerated and unenumerated rights protected under the due process clause could be transferred to the privileges or immunities clause.

Case Briefs and Legal Resources

12:50 CORRECTION - Utility Air 573, U.S. is NOT a regulation. 

It refers to the case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, (2014)

Today on Legalese, we are looking at 2 recent Supreme Court Opinions that curbed the  legal doctrine in administrative law known as Chevron Deference.

1. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf
2. West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

And how in both cases the Court finally made meaningful changes to begin to curb the seemingly endless power assumed to be delegated to Executive Agencies under Administrative Law

• Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/302/
• 42 U.S. Code § 1395l - Payment of benefits - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395l
• 42 U.S. Code § 7411 - Standards of performance for new stationary sources - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

And we bid a fond farewell to Justice Steven Breyer!

Follow & Support

Stare Decisis is a Latin phrase, commonly used in law that roughly translates to:

 “Let wrong decisions of the Warren Court stand”

Regardless of your personal opinion in the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate , Roe v Wade was a terrible opinion bereft of even a modicum of legal merit and substantive due process is a garbage legal doctrine invented out of thin air by the Warren Court a century after the 14th amendment was ratified.

The only people who could disagree with that statement are people who have never read the actual case brief for Roe v Wade and never bothered to so much as read the 14th amendment, much less earnestly try to give it a good faith interpretation.