Category: Legal Commentary

I don’t think most people understand what an indictment means. As I can tell you from first hand experience, it’s worthless from an evidentiary standpoint. Let me explain the prosecution template that has been completely distorted by shows like Law and Order as John Oliver pointed out in a recent episode.

Prosecution Step One: Before the USA became a “police state“, prosecutions were initiated by a complaint of some sort. A complaint consisted of a citizen complaining to a police officer that something unwanted happened to them or someone they know. The police officer then investigated the complaint and if he found enough evidence that there was “probable cause” to believe that a crime had been committed, he/she arrested the suspect and then informed the prosecutor (often called the district attorney) that he arrested this guy for doing this thing that he thinks violates this law.

Now, since the USA became a police state, prosecution step one has another avenue, it’s called “crime prevention“. That’s where the police go out into the community looking for people who may be committing a crime. It’s un-American but part of our current existence nonetheless…

So for Trump, this first step was started when the people who work at the National Archives informed the Department of Justice (DOJ) that Trump was refusing to comply with the Presidential Records Act. So the DOJ initiated an investigation into their complaint. The DOJ soon found that the National Archive’s complaint was valid and ordered Trump to comply. He did so partially, probably not realizing the serious legal jeopardy he was now in… It’s not surprising that his partial compliance pissed the DOJ off and if Trump had competent lawyers, they would have informed him that partial compliance was a HUGE mistake. But Trump is dumb as a box of rocks and didn’t understand this fundamental change in his legal position. He didn’t understand he was now under criminal investigation.

Criminal Investigation becomes formalized in the form of a Search Warrant. Again, I can tell you from personal experience, search warrants carry with them a strong presumption of guilt. This is because the officer has to file an affidavit – under oath – attesting that he believes that the subject of the search has probably committed a specific crime (or crimes) and that he will probably be able to find evidence of that crime (or crimes) at the place he is requesting the court to allow him to search.

In my case, this initial search warrant was deemed “void ad initio” (which means it was void on its face because the magistrate had no authority to issue the warrant); but, the courts have assumed it was obtained in good faith so there was no need to suppress the fruits of their illegal search. I contested the government’s “good faith” because they lied to the magistrate about the evidence that the NIT Report provided. (As I explained in a previous post)

In Trump’s case, he has no such argument and thus why I believe that his indictment for the charges stated in the search warrant have already been filed and is currently under seal. This is because I know…

Prosecution Step Two: Once they have executed the search warrant and found what they were looking for, the next step is to present their one sided view of the evidence they’ve collected to a grand jury with a one sided narrative. (That’s why there is a saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. It’s because he gets to select the evidence and compose the narrative without any opposition.)

In my case this step was also fatally flawed. They used the NIT Report, that was solely based on a fabricated and falsified MySQL table, to present a false narrative to the grand jury that my IP “accessed” or “attempted to receive” contraband from a server under FBI control on or about November 19, 2012.

Again, in Trump’s case, he has no such argument and he and his lawyers know it. Thus all this nonsense with the special master, that is nothing more than a futile stalling tactic. In the end, the courts will rule (as the Eleventh Circuit has hinted) Trump has no legal claim to any of the documents. That means Trump has no legal defense against the charges listed in the search warrant.

Prosecution Step Three: Trial or Plea Deal. That’s it, those are your options after indictment. Although there is a third, and it’s what I tried in my habeas petitions. There is only one way to get an indictment tossed, you have to prove – by a preponderance of evidence – that the indictment was obtained in bad faith. Trump is hinting that he’ll try this tactic as well, it will eventually fail because his claim, unlike mine, is baseless.

My case was initiated with simple FBI perjury. My proof is this: I have an expert report proving that Tinyboard doesn’t have a visitors table, doesn’t issue session ids to visitors and doesn’t track visitor activity. That means that the FBI fabricated the visitors table, falsified the session ids in it and committed perjury when they told the grand jury that their fabricated table provided probable cause that my IP accessed” or “attempted to receive” contraband from a server under FBI control on or about November 19, 2012.

Trump can make no such argument. So all we have to wait for now is to see what his punishment will be…

So I just finished reading Thom Hartmann’s “Hidden History of Big Brother in America”. It is full of very useful information among its pages. One thing of particular interest to me was his review of China’s “Social Credit System” and how all the systems are in place to implement it here, we just need a receptive government. (Authoritative President + Sycophant Majority Congress + Corrupt Courts = Dystopia)

I think my experience as a Second Class citizen after leaving prison suggests that we may already be living in that dystopia. Take for instance, NY State’s law regarding employment of “convicts”. It states:

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.

NY Corr L § 752 (2019)

In my experience, all employers appear to be blatantly ignoring this law when it comes to me. But it is what it is I guess. But it feels like the social credit system is already here…

Take this article on one of my favorite sites. It states that, in regards to NYPD: “In addition to its ~$10 billion (with a “B”) annual budget, the city (via the billfolds of residents) hands out more than $250 million a year in lawsuit settlements.”

That means a Liberal city has a serious problem with bad police. What do you think the “bad police” stats are in Conservative cities? Perhaps this problem can be traced back to conservative judges who support the police in unsupportable situations, as I mentioned in a previous post, and the fact that Trump Judges pose an existential threat to our nation; nonetheless, many other judges – both “liberal” & “conservative” – have coddled police with a concept the SCOTUS invented out of thin air in 1967 called “qualified immunity”.

With that fact in mind, We really need to start teaching real history in high school again and forgo this nonsense of teaching towards standardized tests. (It’s a simple fact that it’s a major part of making our nation stupid.) We’ve also become a nation a busybodies all up in everyone else’s business. Maybe because most of us are too stupid to read an adult book?

Without real history being taught to our teens, they become adults who don’t know that ALL of their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS basically came in to existence during the Warren Court. How many of you know that Warren’s SCOTUS gave us the right to remain silent when arrested? Or that his Court gave you the right to an Attorney and as such one will be appointed to you if you cannot afford one? Or that this Court gave us the “exclusionary rule” and that subsequent courts have been trying to take it away?

All this proves that post Warren, all SCOTUS have steadily tried to remove the rights secured during his tenure. And that’s why America has a big problem, we cannot be the land of the free without the Warren Court’s decisions. Attacking them is the same as attacking out nation as we know it. I think Dobbs was just the beginning of our possible end. Dobbs tells women they are second class citizens, which is an obvious offense to our previous American ideals.

Our Justice System suffers from a severe case of “confirmation bias“. This case is a glaring example but only this Honorable Judge (An H.W Bush Appointee) had the courage to call it out. Of course a Trump Judge was involved in this miscarriage of justice but also an Obama judge.

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.