Category: Legal Commentary

is a book by Carissa Hessick that I finished a few weeks ago. In it she described our flawed “justice system” where most defendants are presumed guilty. It’s a good read and confirms what I’ve been complaining about all during my railroading!

As I mentioned in a previous post, Trump judges are aiding our counties decent into a banana republic. Take this case. Where Reagan (Judge Boggs) and W. Bush (Judge Gibbons) appointees come to a correct and objectively well reasoned decision and the Trump (Judge Nalbandian) appointee comes to an incorrect and objectively nonsensical decision based on the same set of facts.

These Trump judges are becoming a serious problem…

“Banana Republicans” have apparently packed our federal courts with like minded sycophants. Trump judges are now effecting our country in increasingly detrimental ways. The biggest example of their effect is obviously the SCOTUS Dobbs decision, made possible by Trump’s 3 appointments; but, there are more sinister effects in play.

For example, my case (Eighth Circuit case no. 22-2050) was decided by 3 GOP judges (Ray Gruender (Appointed by George W. Bush), David Stras (Appointed by Trump despite not getting a “blue slip” from either of his state’s Senators) & Jon Kobes (Appointed by Trump and labeled NOT QUALIFIED by the ABA)). Please soak this paragraph in and read the links. My case was decided by – in part – a judge who the ABA noted “…has neither the requisite experience nor evidence of his ability to fulfill the scholarly writing required of a United States Circuit Court Judge…. [Mr. Kobes] was unable to provide sufficient writing samples of the caliber required to satisfy Committee members that he was capable of doing the work of a United States Circuit Court Judge.” … “None of the writing that we received is reflective of complex legal analysis, knowledge of the law, or ability to write about complex matters in a clear and cogent manner.”

But, perhaps, a better example is the glaring special treatment Trump has just received from Judge Aileen M. Cannon. Factor in that Trump has also “flipped” the Appeals court that will review her nonsensical decision if the DOJ appeals and we are entering pure banana republic territory.

For my part, I would have more faith in the system if judges, despite who appointed them, answered questions when asked. For example, I asked a simple question in various petitions – Is it a due process violation for the government to obtain an indictment based on perjury about fabricated and falsified computer logs? And got crickets from all courts including the SCOTUS.

If you’re interested in seeing how our “justice” system actually works. Check out this A&E series. It follows the accused until, most times, they take a plea deal. On this show, many times you’ll be yelling at the screen because they’re only pleading guilty because of the chance that they may not be acquitted at trial. This is mostly because of the prosecutorial misconduct of overcharging that has become commonplace.

As you can read on this blog, my case was no exception of this government misconduct, charging me initially with 2 crimes in Nebraska, then a little over 2 years later charging me with an additional 4 crimes in the Western District of NY to try to coerce a plea deal and perhaps more importantly conceal the conspiracy the government began with regard to their NIT on November 7, 2014.

It’s a good show and I recommend it if you’re having trouble accepting the injustice of my case…

We are approaching lawlessness on the part of the courts in a way that has not been seen before. First the Fifth Circuit defied the Supreme Court on abortion issues, now here comes the Eighth Circuit blatantly ignoring the Supreme Court’s RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES decision. As techdirt explains, this is such a clear violation of precedent the SCOTUS should reverse instantly; BUT, techdirt failed to notice that RODRIGUES was decided 6-3 in 2015, thus if the court was similarly constituted as it was in 2015 this decision would have been met with a “bitchslap” from the SCOTUS. Unfortunately, 3 of the 6 are gone – Ginsburg, Scalia, Breyer – with Roberts, Sotomayor & Kagan remaining. That means for this ruling to be reversed one of the 3 Trump appointees – Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Barrett – would have to join Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson. (Jackson will replace Breyer next term and supports the RODRIGUEZ decision).

BUT first Felipe Noriega, (United States v. Felipe Noriega, Jr., No. 21-1421 (8th Cir. 2022)) will have to seek SCOTUS review & they’ll have to grant it. This will be a case to watch, as it’s fundamental to curtailing our current “police state” where the “ends justify the means”.

An employer in NY state who employs 10 or more employees may not refuse to hire an applicant based on a prior conviction unless hiring the applicant would pose an unreasonable risk to property, or to public safety, or the conviction bears a direct relationship to the job. The law defines a direct relationship strictly to mean that the nature of the criminal conduct underlying the conviction has a direct bearing on the applicant’s fitness or ability to perform one or more of the duties and responsibilities that are directly related to the job.

An employer that considers an applicant’s prior conviction must look at these eight factors:

1. NY State’s public policy to encourage the hiring of those who have been
   convicted of crimes.
2. The duties and responsibilities that are necessarily related to the job.
3. Whether the conviction has a bearing on the applicant’s ability to perform
   those duties and responsibilities.
4. How much time has passed since the conviction.
5. How old the applicant was at the time of the offense.
6. The seriousness of the offense.
7. Any information the applicant provides about his or her rehabilitation, and
8. The employer’s legitimate interest in protecting property and the safety and
   welfare of individuals and the public.

An employer, who decides not to hire someone based on a criminal conviction must, upon applicant’s request, provide a written statement of the reasons for the decision. That statement must be provided within 30 days of the request.

So I’m an avid reader of Techdirt.com and they are no fan of the DOJ, like me. And I found these gems to bolster my corruption theory.

Justin Shafer, was persecuted by the DOJ from 2016 to 2018. As you can read in the article, the coerced him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor so they could save face for persecuting him.

Techdirt has also extensively documented the shenanigans of the FBI, in their pursuit of incompetence.

If you have any doubts about there incompetence, just read these pages and remove them.