Category: Legal Commentary

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.