john lewis

There are few people that you admire in this world so much because of what they stand for that if you share a picture with them, you feel almost blessed to be in the same frame as them. MLK, Mother Teresa, Ghandi. John Lewis was one of these people. That’s saying something given that the person he is sharing the picture with  is the first African American President of these United States. Rest in Peace and may God bless your soul.

A Year After Prison, He Has a Job, a Fiancée—And a Week Left of Freedom By Eli Hager of the Marshall Project

This is an interesting story. It’s about a guy that committed a felony when he was 19 and obviously not mature enough or under the influence of some narcotic or maybe had used narcotics during that time. He and his buddy who was 17 at the time, robbed someone that they thought was a drug dealer and ended killing the guy. They were sentenced to 38 years in prison and the younger one was sentenced to 38 and half years, because he pulled the trigger. During his time in prison, he became a model prisoner and citizen, starting up  different programs for people and becoming literate in the law to help people and reunite them with their families. While in prison, the warden of the prison would come to him for help, sort of like a Shawshank Redempton thing without the corruption, on starting programs to alleviate problems inside the prison. He helped and stayed on the path of the straight and narrow and stayed a productive person. Due to a Supreme Court ruling, which stated that all minor offenders, his buddy was 17, should have their cases re-examined to see if they had matured and would be able to be set free from prison, his case was reheard. His buddy qualified and was set free. Under the original agreement, his buddy, who fired the fatal bullet, was supposed to have a longer sentence than him per the families wishes. This opened the door to allow him to go free, which the court agreed with and let him free. The Florida State Attorney generals office has just filed a motion to return him to prison, even though he has been free for a year, has gotten engaged, has been a model citizen and seems to be repentant of his actions as a young person that was not yet mature enough to understand his actions. Several questions arise, first, why would you want to put a person that has shown that he has reformed, a rare case, back in jail? I know that jail systems are profitable but the State would have to flip the bill. Secondly, the reason for the motion by the State is because he was 19, which they classify as an adult. If you are an adult at 19, why aren’t you allowed to buy alcohol until 21. The government has stated, in limiting who can and can’t buy alcohol, that maturity starts at 21, which is when you become an adult. I understand that 18 is the legal year of independence, but that doesn’t mean that you are an adult, in some states you can be emancipated at age 16, that still doesn’t mean you are an adult. If the law thought that everyone matured at 18, you should be able to buy alcohol at 18. What the law is stating is that most people mature at 18 while some need more time, hence the reason why people are not legally allowed to buy alcohol until they are 21. There are other things like legal age to buy cigarettes, people claiming their kids that are in college on their taxes and the most recent one implemented in Florida, legal age to buy Marijuana, or is that California?. Midkiff, pictured above, should be given the benefit of the doubt and the courts should change the law to represent what is  most beneficial for the defendants as per their own rules, regulation and guidance. This might not help Midkiff, but is an argument that I saw on Perry Mason or Law and Order or something like that. Thirdly, I feel that incarcerations are supposed to be for rehabilitation, to train a young mind to be a good person, our current prison system doesn’t really do that, or so I am told. So when you have a case that shows that it might work, why would you not flaunt it? Why try to make it disappear? I like Germany’s Prison system, they actually believe in trying to bring you back into society as a productive member. I think that 20 years should be the maximum sentencing except for sexual predators, they should just get the death penalty. It’s an interesting story and you should visit the Marshall Project to read the story, just click on the link.

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.



New York Times Says Senator’s Op-Ed Did Not Meet Standards

After a staff uproar, The Times says the editing process was “rushed.” Senator Tom Cotton’s “Send In the Troops” essay is now under review.


The New York Times, a newspaper that I have a subscription to because I like my papers to be free of bias, decided to recall an OP-ED from lawmaker Tom Cotton because it wasn’t to the standards of some of their staff. I can tell you that I would have completely disagreed with some, if not all of the Senator’s OP-ED but he penned it and you agreed to publish it, don’t know if he paid to have it published but nonetheless it was an opinion piece which could have been countered by a staff writer. When opposing “opinions” are not allowed to be debated then democracy has failed. It was the first time that I was disappointed by this prestigious newspaper. I thought about cancelling my subscription but thought better of it. My nine dollars doesn’t mean much but I earned it and I don’t want to spend my money on a newspaper that isn’t willing to debate topics that matter. It is no different from dictatorships (well, not that bad but getting close to it). Trying to silence anyone because you disagree with their views is for monarchies and regimes, not for newspapers that pride themselves on transparency. The reason I didn’t cancel is because they were open about staff writers threatening to quit. Now, I’m not saying to allow mein kampf to be published, but Sen. Cotton’s opinion on calming the riots by sending in the military isn’t quite that, even though it does come somewhat close. Plus, how can I look smart if I’m not allowed to blog about someone’s opinion that is completely wrong. Send in the military, calling for martial law, that’s just crazy, but let the Senator express his opinion and then let the voters decide if he is right and/or wrong and you print a rebuttal to counter his opinion, I thought that would have been the fairest and best solution.



Alright, maybe aliens do exist and they are super tiny and have ships shaped like a bee. Don’t know what kind of wall is going to keep these tiny bee shaped people out. Do the current visa restrictions apply to them and are they the cause of the corona virus? We need to start building tiny detention centers and beehive impounds before it’s too late. Maybe they got passed our satellite detection systems because they are so tiny. We need to start looking for super tiny high tech cities, they may have already invaded and are planning to take over. And have we already accidentally stepped on them. These are questions that deserve answers. In all seriousness, freaking spooky and awesome at the same time. It could be where evolution is taking us, to super tiny. Or, if they are 40 feet long and they were not picked up by our satellites, then someone has some really cool spy planes and someone is definitely loosing the arms race. I mean, c’mon, not even Santa can escape NORAD and he has multiple diesel reindeer powered sled that takes him around the world in one night and these things escaped all tracking, radar, satellite systems? It’s one hell of a spy plane…… or bullshit…..

SHARED NEWS: Big-Name Hotels Go Empty and Smaller Owners Are Hurt by The New York Times


“More than 90 percent of the hotels in the U.S. are franchised, and these owners say their business has been devastated by the coronavirus pandemic.”

A 2 trillion stimulus package was just passed and now states nationwide are erecting temporary hospitals while the already built structures are empty. The cost of making a temporary structure and then tearing it down when you can use existing structures and stimulate the hospitality industry all in one shot is staring you right in the face. While maybe I don’t understand the logistics of retrofitting a hotel into temporary hospitals like they did in WWII, it may be more costly, it seems that these hotel owners and the economy would benefit from using them. Wartime powers should allow these hotels to be used as hospitals and pay the hotel owners money to cover their losses while the pandemic is still going on. It’s a win win situation. Maybe the hotel owners don’t want their hotels infected but I’m sure it won’t be a problem after disinfection procedures. Or you can use the hotels for non-infectious diseases and put all patients with the infectious diseases at hospitals.




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.


Trump Administration Launches ICE Crackdown In NJ, Elsewhere


In shared news:

“Today’s filed lawsuit presents important legal issues concerning whether the directive’s prohibitions and restrictions on information sharing and basic cooperation with federal officials violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” Carpenito said.

I don’t know how it is now but it used to be that ICE detainers or ICE would be informed only if an illegal immigrant committed a felony or serious misdemeanor. In Arizona, police were detaining people if they thought they were illegal during traffic stops, which we all know, the light was yellow, not red. So the question is, does it violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution if local law enforcement does not inform ICE when dealing with immigrants? The law also clearly states that the only person that can determine citizenship is an Immigration Agent. That being said, why would local law enforcement try to determine someone’s residency requirements during anything that would not put them away for more than a year? The law is funny and trying to interpret the law, which seems to shift depending who is arguing it, can be tricky. If the law clearly dictates that local Law Enforcement can not determine citizenship and that is only left to immigration agents, then isn’t New Jersey following the law? The law also states that, if a person commits a felony, than that person’s residency needs to be established, for purposes of trial, that’s when Immigration Agents now can file that detainer. So anything short of serious misdemeanor, like domestic violence, there should be no need for ICE to be involved. That’s just my opinion. That in itself is troublesome because what will happen is that ladies or men are going to get hit and they are not going to report it because of fear of deportation. So, I believe the standard should be a felony, so women or men can report abusive spouses.


Kindness - Wisdom💥

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