COLLEGE SCANDAL?

college scandal

Whatever happened to the college scandal? People using their wealth to assure their kids a good college, while not bad as in evil, still not right, because maybe someone of lesser means might have missed out on a free ride, maybe, but that was never proven. The U.S. Attorney’s Office chose to punish these individuals by giving them short stints in the pokey, what a waste of a good opportunity. I’m not saying that the masterminds, the ones looking to profit off of this don’t deserve jail time, they do, but the people that were taken for their money, do they really deserve prison for loving their kids. My solution would have been different. They are obviously wealthy and I would have offered them an alternative to jail. With so many underprivileged kids, who have the smarts but not the money to afford that kind of an education, I would have focused on them. I would gave these wealthy people an opportunity to make up for their crimes by paying for ten students colleges tuition’s at prestigious universities. Full rides to include room and board and a stipend for books and transportation. Of those ten, they would have had to pay for five, the ones with the best grades, to get their Master’s, of those five, they would have to pay for 2 to get their PhD’s. That’s ten kids for each individual in lieu of going to the hoosegow. That would have equaled something like a hundred kids. I’m sure they would have gladly taken it. What a waste of an opportunity.

SUPREME COURT SAYS CHURCH AND STATE NEED TO STAY SEPARATED

scotus 1

Let me start by saying that I’m a big fan of the Supreme Court but we don’t always have to agree, but, just like having a wife, agree don’t agree, I’m still going to do what she says in the end because not doing it leads to way worse problems. The Supreme Court, in an earlier ruling, declared that government vouchers can be used for parochial schools, why not, they’re an accredited educational program, just like any other educational program, so if you’re going to give vouchers for education, I don’t think leaving parochial schools out would be fair, it would be discrimination. The Supreme Court just made another ruling, stating that the State or the government can not enforce discrimination based claims against parochial schools, this one I don’t understand, but I did not read the ruling or justification behind it, but the ruling was a 7-2 verdict.  I will have to read the justices’ rationale to see where they were coming from, the one thing that pops up to mind is if a parochial school can accept government funding, don’t they than have to then abide by the laws that come with that funding or otherwise wouldn’t that be a donation? Which would be against the separation of church and state mandate. Given the separation of church and state, any part of the parochial program that deals with religion is off limits but wouldn’t everything else be scrutinized? Again, I’m obviously wrong, like when I was wrong for telling my wife that all purses are the same, just get the cheap one.  Didn’t go over well.

THE HISPANIC VOTE IS UP FOR GRABS

Hispanic Vote

While both candidates court the Black and White vote, the deciding votes will be made by Hispanic voters. The second largest voting bloc in the U.S. (would be first if  our illegal citizens could vote, lol, just kidding, hearts are skipping beats all over the country right now). We will eventually decide who will become the next President of the U.S. in 2020 and we generally decide by how our pocket books are doing. Hispanics are notorious for not seeing that D and R in front of people’s name. The joke is that the D and R stand for,….              . Yet we go unseen, partially because of that illegal uncle living in the basement. Mostly because our votes are taken for granted. Hispanics mostly feel the economy is the biggest issue, then terrorism, then immigration, sorry tio and finally lack of opportunity and pinatas (don’t believe me, take your own poll). We believe in legal immigration, just not in the insurmountable obstacles that are needed to get achieve LAPR status, I mean why do I have to do 50 push ups and 100 sit ups and 10 pull ups on top of everything else, wasn’t scaling that 30 foot wall in under a minute good enough. So, while the emphasis is not on the Hispanic vote with the candidates, it will be felt in the voting booths as more Hispanics are flocking to the voting stations then ever before. At least we have two candidates to choose from, in Venezuela, they don’t even have voting stations. So, while the concerns if empanadas and burritos are going to become the new country past time food, they’re not, we prefer burgers, hmmmm.. empanadas and burgers, Hispanics, who can go either way with their vote, will be looking for the jalapeno’s to put on our burgers, while we choose our next President. Seriously, jalapenos on a burger are delicious and it reduces LDL’s in the blood stream as well as fight cancer causing elements, take that pickles.

ABORTION

abortion

With the Supreme Court ruling that a Louisiana law is too burdensome to people seeking abortions, the question of abortion and the death of fetuses has come to the forefront. I have a couple of scenarios and/or questions that I just don’t understand. Do fathers have a say in an abortion and if they don’t why do male judges have a say? If a person hurts a woman that  is pregnant, less than 8 weeks, and creates a miscarriage, is that murder? If a woman that is driving to get an abortion and gets into an accident by a drunk driver and creates a miscarriage, did (s)he commit murder? If it is murder, if my girlfriend or wife drinks or smokes during her pregnancy, which could create harm to the fetus can I get a restraining order or an injunction so she would have to stop? And if she causes that fetus to abort because she accidentally eats something that created a miscarriage is that manslaughter? babyslaughter? fetusslaughter? If you believe in the death penalty, are you allowed not to believe in abortions? And if you believe abortions are legal, are you allowed to believe that the death penalty is illegal? I am sure there are so many more questions but those just a few off the top of my head. I’m pro-choice but would never get an abortion, mainly because I’m not a seahorse, if you get that joke, you’re pretty damn smart.

SHARED NEWS: Josh Hawley warns Trump on Supreme Court disappointments. The GOP senator says the president needs to overhaul his process for picking nominees, in a swipe at top legal conservatives. POLITICO WRITTEN BY MARIANNE LEVINE

Supreme Court

When comments like that are made, it’s hard to justify or not believe that the third branch of government isn’t somewhat politicized or politically motivated. I really think we should look into how the Justices are selected and appointed and find a way to completely depoliticize how it’s done. They, and I am sure the justices would agree, are not there to push forward political agendas but to interpret laws and rules that are already in place and to determine if laws, that are passed, conflict with the original intent of the constitution. It’s my belief that the Justices should be apolitical and even  slightly robotic when it comes to their duties. This is not a knock on Sen. Hawley, he was just more open on what people on both sides of the aisle are thinking when this selection process is done.

TAXES

get what you pay for

People still complain about being treated like second class citizens while paying first class citizen taxes. Your complaints are you are being killed and  abused and you are paying for it to boot. If you feel like a second class citizen, pay second class taxes. That by the way is nothing, until they bump you up to a first class citizen.

THE SUPREME COURT

scotus 1

The Supreme Court made a ruling in the Title VII case and it made, in my opinion, the right call. It ruled that discriminating against a person on who they love unlawful and covered under federal law. It makes me think of nature vs nurture. If you believe that nature is the predominant influence, then you are most likely a believer of God, as he/she…. God controls nature, and if you feel that way, being born gay is what God made you than it can’t be wrong, because God doesn’t make mistakes and if you think God did, you can tell God that when you meet him, let’s see how that goes. If you believe in nurture, than you most likely believe in evolution, which also means that this is the way you evoluted, is that a word, which again can’t be wrong. Either way, your preference on who you choose to love can’t be wrong (unless, you know, the other person doesn’t feel the same and you decide to try and make them feel that way, but that’s a totally different Supreme Court case for the future) and any person who thinks it is can’t believe in God and/or evolution. Which makes them wrong.

And good for them, the LGBQT community, it is a much deserved win in a society that seems to be losing it’s mind. It goes to show what part of government must remain constant in common sense while the other parts seem to fluctuate.

I once again urge lawmakers to change the way that federal judges are chosen. I would think that the best way to choose federal judges would  be by letting an independent panel within the third part of government, the judicial part, choose and have a unanimous decision by the the  current Supreme Court judges affirm. If this is a separate part of government, then let them be separate.

Don’t elect me President, that would be one of the first things that would happen. I also wouldn’t want to be because I make silly decisions like the second thing that would happen, which would be a water fountain that has Corona Light, what… I said Light, less calories, with lime wedges all around the fountain. Mmmmmm…..

SHARED NEWS: SCOTUSBLOG

scotusblog

Reblogging a blog by John Elwood:

Relist Watch: 100 years of solitude

John Elwood briefly reviews Monday’s relists.

Wow. It’s been a longweek. As if the coronavirus weren’t enough all on its own, there’s fresh newsofother disasters. By which I mean parents everywhere realizing their wish they could spend more time with their familiesmight actually be coming true.

My forecast last week that “we’ll be seeing opinions in some of th[e relisted cases] soon” turned out to be correct. The Supreme Court summarily reversed in Davis v. United States19-5421, invalidating the unique rule of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit holding that factual error is categorically immune from plain error review. It took the court just two paragraphs of analysis to dispatch it. The court then GVR’d (granted, vacated and remanded) in two cases raising the same issue, Bazan v. United States19-6113, and Bazan v. United States19-6431. You aren’t having some quarantine-induced mental breakdown: Both cases involve the same defendant. Finally, the court denied review in Avery v. United States19-633,involving a similarly atextual rule. Section 2244(b)(1) of Title 28 creates a rule covering applications by state prisoners for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Yet six courts of appeals have interpreted the statute to cover applications filed not just by state prisoners under Section 2254, but also by federal prisoners under Section 2255, which the statute does not mention. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote an opinion respecting denial to emphasize that “the Government now disagrees with the rulings of the six Courts of Appeals that had previously decided the issue in the Government’s favor,” and essentially warned the Justice Department to start confessing error now, writing “[i]n a future case, I would grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split.”

There are three new relists this week, but the first two grow out of a single incident. There are a lot of moving parts in Brownback v. King19-546, and King v. Brownback19-718, so pay as much attention as your squalling children and blaring smoke detector permit. Douglas Brownback was an FBI special agent; Todd Allen was a detective with the Grand Rapids, Michigan, police department. Both worked for an FBI-directed fugitive task force. James King, who is of broadly the same height (within a five-inch range), build (“thin”) and age (within five years) as a known fugitive, had the misfortune to buy a soda from a particular gas station during the same two-hour period when the fugitive usually did so. Brownback and Allen, wearing plain clothes but with badges on lanyards, stopped King and had him put his hands on his head. They removed a pocketknife from his pocket, but when they also removed his wallet, King asked, “Are you mugging me?” and began running. What apparently followed was some tackling (of King), some biting (by King), and a whole lot of punching (by a bitten Allen). Michigan charged King with assault with intent to do great bodily harm, aggravated assault of a police officer and resisting arrest, but a jury acquitted him.

King then sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity allowing claimants to sue the federal government for “negligent or wrongful act[s] or omission[s]” if a private person would have been liable under those circumstances under state law. King also sued the federal government for constitutional violations on individual-capacity claims against the agents under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court entered judgment for the federal government on the FTCA claims because the actions were taken within the scope of the agents’ authority in good faith, denied the Section 1983 claims on the ground that the statute applies only to state officials and the FBI was running the show here (even for the state agents), and denied the Bivens claim on the merits on the ground that the police had not violated King’s constitutional rights.

King did not appeal his FTCA claims — only his Bivens and Section 1983 claims against the individual officers. The officers argued (through their government lawyers) that the claims were barred by the act’s “judgment bar,” which provides that “the judgment in an action under [the FTCA] shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” A majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit concluded that because King had not adequately pleaded all the elements of an FTCA claim in district court, that court never had jurisdiction over the claim, and, as a non-merits disposition, the district court’s decision did not trigger the judgment bar. The majority then concluded that the claim was properly brought under Bivens and not Section 1983 because the conduct was fairly attributable to the FBI and not the state of Michigan. The court also determined that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity under Bivens. Judge John Rogers (who apparently ties judge Jeffrey Sutton as the 6th Circuit’s most prolific judge) dissented on the grounds that the Bivens claims were precluded by the FTCA’s judgment bar.

Are you still here? I guess people really are hard-up for entertainment during the quarantine. In any event, the federal government sought review, and King filed a conditional cross-petition. The government argues that the final judgment in favor of the United States under the FTCA should bar the Bivens claims. King argues that Allen’s membership in a joint state-federal task force does not preclude him from acting “under color of state law” for purposes of being liable under Section 1983.

The third relist requires way less wind-up. Priscilla Daydee Valdez put an acquaintance in Mexico in touch with someone she knew in Tucson, Arizona, to buy ammunition. Valdez transferred money between the two and then traveled to the store, where her Tucson acquaintance bought 10,000 rounds of ammunition in a transaction I’m confident the clerk thought was completely above-board. They then drove to a spot near the Mexican border and left the car for a time, returning to an empty car after receiving a call that the car was “ready.” Valdez pleaded guilty to charges of attempting to export ammunition, which included a forfeiture count. Although the relevant firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924, provides only for forfeiture of ammunition used in a federal offense, other statutes, namely 21 U.S.C. §§ 853(a) and 2461(c), provide for the forfeiture of “any other property of the defendant” if, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant, the forfeitable property is unavailable. The district court ordered Valdez, who is indigent, to forfeit money of her own because the forfeitable ammunition had disappeared, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed.

Valdez seeks review, arguing that the government can require her to forfeit substitute property only if the original forfeitable property was also hers, and the ammunition here was not. If we have learned anything from the relists and opinions in Davisand Avery, and for that matter the relist in Brownback, it’s that the justices take the wording of provisions seriously. They’re undoubtedly taking a very close look at the forfeiture statutes here.

That’s all this week. Everyone enjoy your familytime!

Manny’s blog opinion:

First of all, John sells himself short on the entertainment factor. A guy buying a soda, getting mugged by police/FBI task force, then running because he thought he was getting mugged, gets tackled and then biting the officers and the officers punching him repeatedly in the face is pretty entertaining. Then the obvious flaw in a judicial system that makes it so hard to hold people accountable for their actions is also pretty fun to read. Now if SCOTUSBLOG had gone the extra mile of re-enacting the situation, that would have been pretty amazing.

As for my opinion, that is of course of a guy sitting on his couch eating twinkies while watching law and order, which makes me expert on all things judicial, Valdez, who had her ammunition stolen, is going to lose her case. The property was hers until she personally hands it off. If I bought a TV for my friend and he gave me the money and it was stolen from my car as I entered the bodega to buy my twinkies, I would have to file the stolen items report, not my friend, even though he gave me the money to buy it. The TV is mine until I give it to him, or transfer the property personally, that of course, is just my opinion, in laymen twinkie terms. I can see Valdez losing this case but who knows, the law is weird.

 

WEINSTEIN: DRAMA AND DILEMMA

 

weintein accusers
Brave women who found their date in court

Ever wonder why someone would do something as horrific as what Ol’ Harvey did and get away with it for such a long time? We’ve entered the third millennium of the calendar of the lord, if you believe in that, if not, then since one of the Ceasars decided to make his birth the beginning of time, either way that’s more than two thousand years minus the twenty or thirty thousand prior to that and we still have some bad hombres that feel that they can force, coerce, threaten or otherwise intimidate women into sex. Ol’ Harvey, with his sad heart condition, still feels that he did nothing wrong. That it was his right or, I don’t know, his authority maybe…. that women should cower, be at his beck and call, allow themselves to be taken advantage of, for his pleasure. The State of New York disagreed and sentenced Ol’ Harvey to 23 years of prison, where I am sure he will be in his own production of Harvey does Sing Sing, I wonder what tune he will be singing though (fill in your own song, I won’t even take a shot at it) which his lawyer said that at his age amounts to a life sentence. That of course doesn’t include the pending charges in Los Angeles, which I say, good for LA for not turning a blind eye to someone who would do that. Ol’ harvey didn’t really care what he did when he was doing it, ruining families and creating trauma, but now he’s sorry. My guess is that he is just sorry that he got caught, because prior to that he didn’t seem contrite at all. I do have one question, being that this behavior happened in two different states, where the hell are the Feds? Why haven’t they filed their own charges given that they aren’t bound by statute of limitations and these crimes are some of the most horrific that can be done to another person, where the hell are my tax dollars, if I paid taxes, going? I don’t know but at least NY and LA decided to take Ol’ Harvey’s deeds to task and good for them.

FAKE CENSUS LETTER

census letter

I received one of these fake census letters. I thought it was real and it didn’t mention any political messages that I recall. The problem with a fake census letter is that you don’t know who sent it and for it to state that it was from the Department of Commerce, it would be impossible for it to have a political message as it would violate the Hatch Act, a violation of federal law that would put someone in jail. My guess is that ICE mailed these letters in a scam to try and find illegal citizens. It wouldn’t be the first time that ICE would set up a sting to try and get information about citizens. I don’t know who got the letter but I’m Hispanic and it might be interesting to find out who else received the letter.

Kindness - Wisdom💥

KINDNESS IS FREE, sprinkle it all over the world and 😁 smile