Packing the Courts, and why it’s bad

Joe Biden won’t answer the question about whether he’ll attempt to pack the U.S. Supreme Court, until the day after the election – so he’s claimed. What is “packing the Court,” and why is it such a terrible idea that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned against it?

The Constitution did not specify the number of justices to sit on the Supreme Court. That’s up to Congress. For the past 150 years or so, Congress has maintained that number at 9. An odd number is required, so as to avoid the rather-anti-climactic tie vote. With a 9 member Court, a 5-4 decision, or better, wins the case. With the loss of RBG, the American left loses a crucial vote on the Court, which is why they are threatening to increase the number of justices on the Court, so as to counteract her replacement with Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Thus, if Biden wins, and if Congress is able to increase the number, they could create a left-wing majority on the Court by increasing the number of Democrat-nominated justices.

But the problem with any such plan is, that eventually the other side will return to power and retaliate accordingly. What we then end up with has now become a super-legislature, rather than a Supreme Court, as the Founders intended. Even RBG herself was against Democrats’ 2019 threats to pack the Court:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview Tuesday that she does not favor proposals put forth by some Democratic presidential candidates who have advocated changing the number of Supreme Court justices if the Democrats win the presidency.

Ginsburg, who got herself in trouble criticizing candidate Donald Trump in 2016, this time was critical not of any particular Democratic contender, but of their proposals to offset President Trump’s two conservative appointments to the court.

“Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time,” she said, adding, “I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-am-very-much-alive

To pull it off, the Democrats would really need to add 4 new liberal members to the Court, which would create a 7-6 majority. Setting long-term retaliation and consequences to the Court aside, the results would be disastrous to the Second Amendment:

A 7-6 progressive majority on the court would very likely overturn decades of precedent that have protected gun owners from both state and federal attempts to deny them their Second Amendment rights. Millions of American gun owners would be subject to these changes and the laws, which Democrats, some of whom are committed to confiscating guns, would impose.

5 Major Ways America Will Fundamentally Change If Biden Packs The Court, The Federalist, by David Marcus, Oct. 9, 2020.

Free speech would be nonexistent:

The most obvious change to free speech laws that would come with a progressive majority on the Supreme Court would be the overturning of the 2010 5-4 Citizens United decision….. More broadly, speech laws such as those that exist in New York City requiring people to use preferred pronouns even if they do not believe that gender is mutable, would find a much kinder hearing in the new court.

5 Major Ways America Will Fundamentally Change If Biden Packs The Court, The Federalist, by David Marcus, Oct. 9, 2020.

Abortion, obviously:

The progressive reading of Roe v. Wade is almost limitless in its scope and perhaps the only question mark would regard the ability to kill babies even after they are outside of the mother. Beyond that, it is very likely that almost any state restrictions would be shot down.

5 Major Ways America Will Fundamentally Change If Biden Packs The Court, The Federalist, by David Marcus, Oct. 9, 2020.

Religious liberty:

Several religious liberty cases such as Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poorhave been closely decided of late. It is safe to assume these decisions would be reversed. Practicing Christians and members of other faiths would face far greater restriction in living their faith in their public life. Our understanding of how we may practice our religions would undergo a major change, abandoning the American tradition of public faith, and limiting religious expression to the church and the home.

5 Major Ways America Will Fundamentally Change If Biden Packs The Court, The Federalist, by David Marcus, Oct. 9, 2020.

Election laws:

In all likelihood, a new progressive majority would be open to efforts to abolish the electoral college, to allow statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and to allow voting by people in the country illegally. All of these changes would skew towards the Democrats and could very well result in one-party federal rule of the United States.

5 Major Ways America Will Fundamentally Change If Biden Packs The Court, The Federalist, by David Marcus, Oct. 9, 2020.

So what stopped FDR from packing the Supreme Court back in the 1930s? It happened during the Great Depression, when FDR was pushing his socialist New Deal programs, only to have them struck down by the conservative-majority Supreme Court of the early 1930s. President Roosevelt sought to solve the problem sooner, rather than later, so he introduced the “Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937,” commonly referred to as the “court packing plan.” This would have allowed him to appoint up to 6 additional justices to the Court for every justice older than 70.5 years, or who had already served 10 years or more. In reality, a conservative majority had developed on the Court, and like Biden, he was willing to add justices to create his own new majority, consequences be damned:

From the outset of his presidency, FDR had known that four of the justices—Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, George Sutherland and Willis Van Devanter—would vote to invalidate almost all of the New Deal. They were referred to in the press as “the Four Horsemen,” after the allegorical figures of the Apocalypse associated with death and destruction. In the spring of 1935, a fifth justice, Hoover-appointee Owen Roberts—at 60 the youngest man on the Supreme Court—began casting his swing vote with them to create a conservative majority.

When Franklin Roosevelt Clashed With the Supreme Court—and Lost, By William E. Leuchtenburg, Smithsonian Magazine, May 2005.

FDR indirectly attacked the Court, claiming publicly he was concerned about their age, rather than the ideological point of view of its majority:

 FDR recognized, though, that a direct assault on the court must be avoided; he could not simply assert that he wanted judges who would do his bidding. The most promising approach, it seemed, would be to capitalize on the public’s concern about the ages of the justices. At the time of his reelection, it was the most elderly court in the nation’s history, averaging 71 years. Six of the justices were 70 or older; a scurrilous book on the court, The Nine Old Men, by Drew Pearson and Robert Allen, was rapidly moving up the bestseller lists.

When Franklin Roosevelt Clashed With the Supreme Court—and Lost, By William E. Leuchtenburg, Smithsonian Magazine, May 2005.

A 1937 political cartoon with the caption ‘Do We Want A Ventriloquist Act In The Supreme Court?’ which was a criticism of FDR’s New Deal, depicting President Franklin D. Roosevelt with six new judges likely to be FDR puppets.
Fotosearch/Getty Images

FDR basically lied about his motivations. Rather than admit to the American people that he was playing politics, and attempting to enact his progressive legislation without interference by the conservative court, he feigned concern over the age of the justices:

“A part of the problem of obtaining a sufficient number of judges to dispose of cases is the capacity of the judges themselves,” the president observed. “This brings forward the question of aged or infirm judges—a subject of delicacy and yet one which requires frank discussion.” He acknowledged that “in exceptional cases,” some judges “retain to an advanced age full mental and physical vigor,” but quickly added, “Those not so fortunate are often unable to perceive their own infirmities.” Life tenure, he asserted, “was not intended to create a static judiciary. A constant and systematic addition of younger blood will vitalize the courts.”

When Franklin Roosevelt Clashed With the Supreme Court—and Lost, By William E. Leuchtenburg, Smithsonian Magazine, May 2005.

Similar to what would happen in 2020, the result was all-out war between the branches of government, and between the political parties:

While it was never voted on in Congress, the Supreme Court justices went public in their opposition to it. And a majority of the public never supported the bill, either, says Barbara A. Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

“Congress and the people viewed FDR’s ill-considered proposal as an undemocratic power grab,” she says. “The chief justice (Charles Evans Hughes) testified before Congress that the Court was up to date in its work, countering Roosevelt’s stated purpose that the old justices needed help with their caseload.”

“It was never realistic that this plan would pass,” Perry says. “Roosevelt badly miscalculated reverence for the Court and its independence from an overreaching president.”

This Is How FDR Tried to Pack the Supreme Court, by Lesley Kennedy, Jun 28, 2018.

The battle lasted 168 days. It’s difficult to imagine how it would play out in the era of social media and biased news. But even then, it was ugly:

Roosevelt’s message touched off the greatest struggle in our history among the three branches of government. It also triggered the most intense debate about constitutional issues since the earliest weeks of the Republic. For 168 days, the country was mesmerized by the controversy, which dominated newspaper headlines, radio broadcasts and newsreels, and spurred countless rallies in towns from New England to the PacificCoast. Members of Congress were so deluged by mail that they could not read most of it, let alone respond…..

This Is How FDR Tried to Pack the Supreme Court, by Lesley Kennedy, Jun 28, 2018.

At the time, the FDR liberals showed little concern for the Supreme Court as an independent and important branch of government. If other countries could enact these programs, then so should we be able to do so….

If Roosevelt won, opponents warned, he would destroy the independence of the judiciary and create an evil precedent for successors who wished to “pack” the court. If Roosevelt lost, his supporters countered, a few judges appointed for life would be able to ignore the popular will, destroy programs vital to the welfare of the people, and deny to the president and Congress the powers exercised by every other government in the world. Although the country divided evenly on the issue—about as many were for Roosevelt’s plan as against it—the opposition drew far more attention, especially on editorial pages……

This Is How FDR Tried to Pack the Supreme Court, by Lesley Kennedy, Jun 28, 2018.

The Bill was ultimately defeated, but FDR still got what he wanted in the end. The historians’ lesson of the affair, as relayed to us in 2005, is perhaps more credible than any we would receive today, in the era of over-politicization of all fields of academia. So pay attention to the parts in bold:

The nasty fight over court packing turned out better than might have been expected. The defeat of the bill meant that the institutional integrity of the United States Supreme Court had been preserved—its size had not been manipulated for political or ideological ends. On the other hand, Roosevelt claimed that though he had lost the battle, he had won the war. And in an important sense he had: he had staved off the expected invalidation of the Social Security Act and other laws. More significantly, the switch in the court that spring resulted in what historians call “the constitutional revolution of 1937”—the legitimation of a greatly expanded exercise of powers by both the national and state governments that has persisted for decades.

The 168-day contest also has bequeathed some salutary lessons. It instructs presidents to think twice before tampering with the Supreme Court. FDR’s scheme, said the Senate Judiciary Committee, was “a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.” And it never has been. At the same time, it teaches the justices that if they unreasonably impede the functioning of the democratic branches, they may precipitate a crisis with unpredictable consequences. In his dissent in the AAA case in 1936, Justice Stone reminded his brethren, “Courts are not the only agency of government that must be assumed to have capacity to govern.” These are lessons— for the president and for the court—as salient today as they were in 1937.

This Is How FDR Tried to Pack the Supreme Court, by Lesley Kennedy, Jun 28, 2018.

As RGB knew, even the mighty FDR was wrong to attempt to destroy the SCOTUS by increasing the number of justices as a means to an end for temporary political goals. However enticing it might appear, it’s going to hurt everyone in the end.

Continued fallout from the Family Court Judge Search Case

Here is some of the recent press and updates on the Family Court Judge Search Case out of Raleigh County, West Virginia. It made the front page there today:

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has charged a Raleigh County Family Court judge of 26 years with at least seven alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, after she admitted to visiting the home of litigants to investigate a property dispute.

The SCOA formally charged Judge Louise E. Goldston on Sept. 23 with violations to rules on compliance with the law, confidence in the judiciary, avoiding abuse of prestige of office, impartiality and fairness, external influences, competence, diligence and cooperating and extrajudicial activities, in general.

Goldston hears cases in Raleigh Family Court and Wyoming County Family Court.

https://www.register-herald.com/news/deja-vu-another-county-judge-in-ethics-trouble/article_9952c3b7-29c5-5d9a-8aba-17a6a5604849.html?fbclid=IwAR0UGqXmpoWpwy48dJXuLjgO0XJqd06gwvRmnRY9rzj-ExerRJOuRhQmn80

Another interesting update….. Apparently there was a public admonishment against another Family Court Judge, who was recently elected to the bench, for doing a “home visit” in two instances, though both of those included lawyers who either requested the visit, or failed to object. The judge in that case mentioned that he never would have performed them had someone objected, and blamed Judge Goldston (from the video):

Respondent opined that he believed it was proper to visit litigants’ homes because a colleague had engaged in the same practice for several years. (The colleague, who is also the subject of a judicial disciplinary proceeding, recently engaged in a visit to a litigant ex-husband’s home to search for….

Discussion with my client, Matt Gibson, on having his house searched by a judge:

I did three TV interviews on Monday. I’ve only seen one, this one, which I thought turned out well – brutally honest:

BECKLEY, WV (WVNS) — Impartiality and fairness, complying with the law, avoiding abuse of office. These are only three of the seven rules Judge Louise Goldston is charged with violating during an incident in March.

Goldston oversaw a divorce case involving Matt Gibson. In order to find items Gibson allegedly neglected to maintain or turn over to the court, his attorney, John Bryan, said Goldston reportedly stopped the hearing and ordered all parties to immediately go to Gibson’s house.

“From day one that I looked at that video, I didn’t see any way that that was legal,” Bryan explained.

Here’s another:

UPDATE: Raleigh County Family Court Judge now facing charges from the Judicial Investigation Commission

Even though Gibson is representing himself in the divorce case, he did hire John Bryan for action taken against the judge after the at-home search.

 “Apparently this has been going on for 20 years and at least 10 other times this was done upon the motion of an attorney without the object of the other attorney,” Bryan said. “And what does that tell me? That maybe they were scared to challenge the judge, to challenge the system. I don’t know. I think that there are a lot of questions there that need to be answered.” 

Read the formal statement of charges and my analysis:

WV Supreme Court Releases Formal Statement of Charges against Raleigh County Family Court Judge

Yesterday afternoon, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals clerk’s office released the Formal Statement of Charges against Raleigh County, West Virginia Family Court Judge Louise E. Goldston – a 26 year Family Court judge. This is the judge caught on video searching the home of my client, Matt Gibson – threatening him with arrest if he didn’t allow her in. Here’s the post with the original video, as well as the update video, if you haven’t seen it. The charges state that on March 11, 2020, investigators opened a complaint, and that a subsequently second complaint was filed by my client, Matt Gibson.

For reference, I originally uploaded the video of the judge searching Matt’s property on March 10 – the day before the inception of the opening of the investigation. The video quickly went viral, and by the next day an investigation had essentially opened itself. In other words, the power of Youtube is great. In one day, it found its way into the eyeballs of the Judicial Investigation Commission, the only folks with the power to lodge judicial disciplinary charges against judges in West Virginia.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia established the Judicial Investigation Commission to determine whether probable cause exists to formally charge a judge with a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, to govern the ethical conduct of judges and to determine if a judge, because of advancing years and attendant physical and mental incapacity, should not continue to serve.

http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/judicial-investigation.html

If you want to report what you believe is judicial misconduct, or a civil rights violations committed by a judge, anyone can file a complaint with the JIC. Here’s the complaint form.

Any person may file an ethics complaint against a judge. However, a complaint that is filed more than two (2) years after the complainant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the existence of a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct may be dismissed for exceeding the statute of limitations.

http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/judicial-investigation.html

Then, even though covid hit, the investigation apparently proceeded, and 6 months later the charges dropped (which was yesterday, 10/2/20). I just happened to be traveling when the charges came out, so it wasn’t really until this morning that I was able to digest them.The Formal Statement of Charges alleges that:

FAMILY COURT JUDGE GOLDSTON violated Rule 1.1 (compliance with the law), Rule 1.2 (confidence in the judiciary), Rule 1.3 (avoiding abuse of prestige of office), Rule 2.2 (impartiality and fairness), Rule 2.4(B) (external influences), Rule 2.5 (competence, diligence and cooperation) and Rule 3.1(A), (B), (D) (extrajudicial activities in general) of the Code of Judicial Conduct….

In other words, the JIC concluded that the judge failed to comply with the law, committed actions which undermines confidence in the judiciary, abused the prestige of her office, was impartial and unfair, allowed external influences on her actions, was incompetent, un-diligent (is that a word?) and uncooperative, and engaged in extrajudicial activities. According to the charges, these home “visits” (searches) have been going on “over the past twenty years.”

Over the past twenty years as a Family Court Judge, Respondent has been engaging in the practice of visiting homes of litigants appearing in front of her. Respondent went to the litigants’ homes to either determine if certain disputed marital property was present and/or to supervise the transfer of disputed property. Respondent admitted to conducting these home visits in her capacity as a Family Court Judge on eleven separate occasions in different cases.

In every instance except Mr. Gibson’s case, all of Respondent’s home visits were prompted by a motion by a litigant’s attorney and not objected to by the opposing party and will full knowledge of the purpose therein. Most of the Respondent’s home visits occurred during a court hearing in the case. A party’s attorney would move the Court to leave directly from the bench and accompany the parties to the home. After granting the motion, Respondent would meet the parties at the home.

The JIC interviewed the judge and asked her what authority she had to engage in this practice:

On July 22, 2020, Judicial Disciplinary Counsel took Respondent’s sworn statement. Respondent admitted that she failed to inform Mr. Gibson of the purpose of the home visit while the parties were in the courtroom and that she did not give him any opportunity to object thereto until everyone was at his house.

Respondent opined that she believed it was proper to visit litigants’ homes. Respondent likened the practice to a jury view or similar continuation of the court proceeding and stated that as a finder of fact it was necessary to determine whether a party could be held in contempt for not turning over personal property as previously ordered by the Court.

When asked, Respondent could provide no statute, rule or case that gave her the authority to conduct home visits. Respondent also acknowledged that there was nothing in the contempt powers that gave her the authority to conduct a home visit. Respondent confessed that she never held anyone in contempt prior to going to the home and that she failed to enter any order subsequent to the visit reflecting what had happened at the residence, whether any items had been secured and/or whether or not a party was in contempt.

I was absolutely correct when I first reviewed the video. There was no legal basis upon which a judge could search a home as was portrayed in the video. The fact that this judge had been doing it for the past 20 years, was not itself justification. Instead, this sobering fact proves that many former Family Court litigants are absolutely correct when they rant about corruption and unlawfulness. Over the past 20 years, at least 10 other victims have been subjected to this in this judge’s “courtroom,” subjected to unlawful “home visits” upon the motion of an attorney, and without objection from any other attorney.

I wonder how many of these visits involved this one particular attorney involved in this video? After all, it was this attorney who left a voice message for Mr. Gibson the night before the search, offering $5,000 in exchange for foregoing what would essentially be a Family Court anal probing:

This whole thing reeks to me, and sounds a lot like a “pay to play” style judicial experience. Had he paid 5 grand, he could have avoided being lucky number 11? Time will tell, hopefully. Roots run deep in a 20 year period inside one particular court. Perhaps this had something to do with a local Family Court attorney going on TV following my initial TV appearance with my client, to say that I was wrong, and that “home visits” were a perfectly legal Family Court practice. Yeah, okay…..

BECKLEY, WV (WOAY) – UPDATE: On Thursday, we ran a story about a Raleigh County man involved in a contempt case after a finalized divorce whose recording of a family court judge went viral. Matt Gibson claimed the search of his home was against his 4th Amendment rights. Because the judge and the opposing attorney cannot comment on ongoing litigation, local family attorney [let’s call him JOHN DOE] is speaking out saying Judge Louise Goldston was doing her job and doing it legally

“What I think is most important to know about this is when you see a video on YouTube, when you see a Terry search, when you see something and immediately it doesn’t match what we’ve always seen on television that doesn’t make it wrong,” he said. “Because they didn’t do it that way on Law and Order doesn’t mean that a judge that has decades of experience is breaking the law.”

It looks like I was right, and he was wrong. So, he said the judge wasn’t allowed to respond, so he was responding on her behalf? Why is that, I wonder? That’s a rhetorical question, of course. Is he saying that she asked him to respond and defend her publicly? Another good point that the JIC makes in the statement of charges, is that if the judge, and her local family court lawyers, are going to characterize her actions as a lawful component of a judicial proceeding, then they have some issues to consider:

Respondent admitted that she never had any clear or written procedures for conducting a home visit, including but not limited to, when the proceeding should be utilized and how the process should take place. She also acknowledged that she never took a court reporter to the scene.

Upon reflection, Respondent agreed that the practice could make her a potential witness to a future proceeding which could then result in her disqualification. Respondent further agreed that family court judges run the risk of disqualification if he/she were to become a witness in a subsequent proceeding pertaining thereto.

Respondent also agreed that the burden of proof in a contempt proceeding rests not with the Family Court Judge but with the moving party. She agreed that it is the moving party’s responsibility to provide evidence in support of his/her contention that the other side has failed to produce the items in question. Respondent admitted to improperly putting herself into the role of litigant.

Like I said during the TV interview, the reason I’ve never heard people complain about having their homes searched by judges before, is because that’s not what judge do – judges don’t search homes. This judge was acting in the role of a litigant. So it was basically like Trump debating both Biden and Chris Wallace in the first presidential debate. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. The opposing attorney is supposed to submit evidence and prove his case. Here you had a judge doing both of these things, and then engaging in an unlawful search of one party’s home, on behalf of the other party. Why? That’s yet another rhetorical question of course. If the other 10 victims were represented by lawyers, why didn’t they object?

And then there’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room: the Sheriff’s Department assisting the judge in these actions. On how many of these 10 other searches were they present? The statement of charges also notes that the bailiff (a sheriff’s deputy) forced Mr. Gibson to stop his recording, and that he himself started to record what happened inside the home:

Upon Respondent’s arrival at Mr. Gibson’s property, Mr. Gibson had a bystander video record the initial interactions outside the house between Respondent and the parties. Mr. Gibson also secretly recorded several minutes of audio of the initial interaction on his cell phone.

When the video and audio recording were discovered by Respondent, she ordered both recordings stopped. However, once inside the house, Respondent’s bailiff used his phone to record both video and audio of the separation of marital assets.

Where is this video, and why hasn’t it been produced? I heard through the grapevine, that following my initial uploading of the Youtube video, that the Sheriff of that county sent around a memo to the effect of, “no more going anywhere with a judge….” Of course, the JIC doesn’t investigate law enforcement, nor discipline them. You might find this shocking, but there is no state agency or commission which investigates law enforcement officers in the way that judges, and even lawyers, are investigated (there’s a pending disciplinary complaint against the lawyer who was involved here as well).

The only consistent investigator of law enforcement misconduct in West Virginia is me, sadly. Those who were involved in the search of my client’s house will be explaining their actions. I can’t put people in jail, nor discipline them, so we’ve pretty much come full circle. I have to demand money damages for my client, and they’ll have the opportunity to avoid what’s coming their way. It ain’t pretty, but that’s the relief available. Unless someone wants to deputize me as a special federal prosecutor or something…..

Family Court Judge Search UPDATE – the Judge has been charged!

UPDATE, and Part 2, to one of the craziest search and seizure cases I’ve ever seen, or personally been involved with: The West Virginia Family Court judge who’s searched the home of a federal law enforcement officer, looking for his ex-wife’s DVDs and other stuff, a year and a half after they divorced….. and got caught by YouTube.

Another UPDATE 10/2/20: The judge has been charged. The Statement of Charges was just released this afternoon:

The original video (Part 1), in case you missed it:

Part 3 expected early next week. Make sure to subscribe to our channel and also add yourself to our email subscription list. No spam, just updates every time a new post drops.

Email notifications of updates:

No Knock” Warrants and Search and Seizure Law Inside the Home

“No Knocks” are in the news following the Breonna Taylor shooting case. What is a “No Knock” warrant and when/how are they legal under federal constitutional law? One of my favorite topics. By favorite I mean that if I was a middle eastern dictator they would flow freely. This has been in the news now following the Breonna Taylor case. I’ll offer some analysis on that case, and also answer other civil rights constitutional law questions, if you have any – since this is LIVE.

Podcast version (audio only):

"No Knock" Warrants and Civil Rights Q&A – FIS Live Ep. 16 – thecivilrightslawyer.com Freedom is Scary

"No Knocks" are in the news following the Breonna Taylor shooting case. What is a "No Knock" warrant and when/how are they legal under federal constitutional law? One of my favorite topics. By favorite I mean that if I was a middle eastern dictator they would flow freely. This has been in the news now following the Breonna Taylor case. I'll offer some analysis on that case, and also answer other civil rights constitutional law questions, if you have any – since this is LIVE.This is the FREEDOM IS SCARY livecast Episode 16. Please join me. It seems to be happening every Monday evening……thecivilrightslawyer.com
  1. "No Knock" Warrants and Civil Rights Q&A – FIS Live Ep. 16 – thecivilrightslawyer.com
  2. Should RBG be Replaced Now? – a Lawyer's Perspective – Freedom is Scary, Ep. 15

Searches and Seizures in the Home and No-Knock Warrants, i.e., the “Knock and Announce” Requirement, Generally:

In the Home: No Warrant? Presumptively Illegal: Searches and seizures which take place in a person’s home are presumptively unreasonable, which means they are illegal by default according to the Fourth Amendment. On the other hand, outside a person’s home, Fourth Amendment protections only apply where there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Outside the Home: No Warrant? No Need unless REP: To the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that no presumption exists outside the home, because a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for most “places” outside one’s own home. These unprotected “places” include bank accounts, curbside trash, “open fields,” surrounding one’s home, and so on. 

Search of home with a warrant: presumptively legal: So since the inverse is true, all searches of a home, made pursuant to a warrant are presumptively reasonable. The standard for a warrant requires only that “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” It is still a requirement, obviously, that police officers tell the truth when they make their search warrant applications. If it is discovered that false information was intentionally provided to the magistrate, the warrant will be fraudulent, and therefore ineffective. At which point, we’re back to the search being presumptively unreasonable. During the execution of a lawfully-obtained search warrant, officers may temporarily seize the inhabitants of the structure being searched, including handcuffing them. 

There is a default “knock and announce” requirement under the Constitution, though it frequently is ignored. Can officers make, or apply, for a no knock entry just b/c the homeowner has a CCW? Check out the 4th Circuit case out of West Virginia, Bellotte v. Edwards (4th Cir. 2011), authored by Judge Wilkinson. Judge Gregory was also on the panel:

 The knock-and-announce requirement has long been a fixture in law. Gould v. Davis, 165 F.3d 265, 270 (4th Cir. 1998). Before forcibly entering a residence, police officers “must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose.” Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 387 (1997)….

“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” Richards, 520 U.S. at 394. The Supreme Court has admonished that “it is the duty of a court confronted with the question to determine whether the facts and circumstances of the particular entry justified dispensing with the knock-and-announce requirement.” Id. We have thus required a particularized basis for any suspicion that would justify a no-knock entry. See United States v. Dunnock, 295 F.3d 431, 434 (4th Cir. 2002)…..

Of course, the absence of a no-knock warrant “should not be interpreted to remove the officers’ authority to exercise independent judgment concerning the wisdom of a no-knock entry at the time the warrant is being executed.” Richards, 520 U.S. at 396 n.7. But where, as here, the officers faced no barrier at all to seeking no-knock authorization at the time they obtained a warrant, “a strong preference for warrants” leads us to view their choice not to seek no-knock authorization with some skepticism. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914 (1984)….

To permit a no-knock entry on facts this paltry would be to regularize the practice. Our cases allow officers the latitude to effect dynamic entries when their safety is at stake, but the Fourth Amendment does not regard as reasonable an entry with echoes, however faint, of the totalitarian state…..

It should go without saying that carrying a concealed weapon pursuant to a valid concealed carry permit is a lawful act. The officers admitted at oral argument, moreover, that “most people in West Virginia have guns.” Most importantly, we have earlier rejected this contention: “If the officers are correct, then the knock and announcement requirement would never apply in the search of anyone’s home who legally owned a firearm.” Gould, 165 F.3d at 272; accord United States v. Smith, 386 F.3d 753, 760 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216, 1218 (8th Cir. 1993). We recognized over a decade ago that “[t]his clearly was not and is not the law, and no reasonable officer could have believed it to be so.” Gould, 165 F.3d at 272.

Bellotte v. Edwards (4th Cir. 2011).

The “Killing Power” of an AR-15: an Update on Walker v. Putnam County

We received the brief from the lawyers for Putnam County, West Virginia in the Michael Walker case, the AR-15 open carry case currently pending at the Fourth Circuit. In case you haven’t seen it, here’s the video of the interaction at issue in the case:

The primary issue in dispute is whether a police officer can stop, detain and run a criminal background check, on an individual safely and lawfully openly-carrying an AR-15 style rifle. Putnam County’s law enforcement is arguing essentially that the AR-15 is a weapon of mass murder and warfare, and that it’s inherently suspicious of criminal conduct. Here are a few nuggets from their brief:

Finally, Mr. Walker’s argument that AR-15 style rifles may not be treated differently than less deadly firearms for reasonable suspicion purposes holds no basis in law, and is contrary to the public safety and intuitive sense. Different firearms have different utilities, purposes, and common uses, and their presence therefore draws different inferences. An AR-15 has more killing power, and is more commonly used in indiscriminate public gun violence than many more commonplace sporting or self-defense weapons, and therefore raises a greater concern for public safety in context. The fact that the AR-15 is so notoriously popular among the deadliest mass shooters also raises reasonable concerns over a copycat mass shooting. Objects need not be illegal for their presence, in appropriate context, to contribute to reasonable suspicion, and there is no reason for bearers of AR-15 style rifles to receive special protection.

“Killing Power?” Is that a scientific unit of measurement. If shotguns are okay, or a bolt-action hunting rifle is okay, then I wonder if they’re aware that an AR-15 uses a .223 caliber diameter round, which is unlawful to use for hunting in some states because it’s too small of a caliber, and therefore not deadly enough for game such as deer (as compared to the good ‘ole .308 or .270 Winchester calibers, etc., etc.).

This is a suburban residential and commercial area which is unsuitable for hunting or target shooting, and Mr. Walker was not wearing any items of blaze orange, or anything else which would signal to an observer that his intention was hunting. (See id.). Furthermore, this interaction occurred in February, when almost no commonly hunted animals, with the exception of noxious pests, are in season. Nor is an AR- 15 a weapon commonly used for hunting, such as a deer rifle or shotgun, or carried for self-defense, such as the handgun possessed by Mr. Troupe in Black. I

Was I the only one who just saw something happen on the news recently involving an AR-15 openly carried for self-defense, and used in self-defense? I think I recall something like that in the news. I bet this is also news to all their law enforcement officers in their county, and surrounding counties, who have an AR-15 in the police cruisers. Those are for hunting, right? Definitely not self defense. It appears that they just don’t like the AR-15:

The mass shooter’s preference for AR-15’s is because, as former U. S. Marine infantry officer and author of “The Gun,” a history of assault rifles and their effects upon security and war, C. J. Chivers, wrote in a February 28, 2018 New York Times column: When a gunman walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14, he was carrying an AR-15-style rifle that allowed him to fire upon people in much the same way that many American soldiers and Marines would fire their M16 and M4 rifles in combat. See Chivers, C. J., Larry Buchanan, Denise Lu, and Karen Yourish, With AR-15s, Mass Shooters Attack With the Rifle Firepower Typically Used by Infantry Troops, The New York Times (Feb. 28, 2018),

In sum, AR-15 style rifles give the wielder the capability to kill more people in a shorter amount of time than more commonplace styles of firearm, making it an appealing choice for a would-be mass shooter whose goal is exactly that, and a greater danger to public safety than would more commonplace, less-powerful, lower-capacity firearms, such as shotguns or handguns.

How is a .223 caliber rifle “more powerful” than a .308 bolt action hunting rifle? I wonder if they know that the M-60 machine gun is chambered in .308? I wonder if they know that our military has snipers who kill human beings with what are essentially hunting rifles chambered in the same caliber as hunting rifles, such as .308 caliber? They don’t chamber sniper rifles in .223 caliber found in AR-15s, because they are not powerful enough. Complete hogwash……

As discussed in prior sections of this brief, AR-15 style rifles have been featured in substantially all of the deadliest mass shootings in this decade. Mass murderers in Las Vegas and Orlando have killed and wounded over one hundred people in a single event with AR-15. Revolvers and bolt-action deer rifles do not share that infamy. It is therefore reasonable to infer that a person attempting to copycat a mass shooting would likely use the weapon of choice of mass shooters. If officers are concerned about a potential mass shooter, certainly they would justifiably be more concerned by a person carrying an AR-15 than one of the many firearms more commonly used for hunting or self-defense. Different inferences may be reasonably drawn from the presence of different firearms, because different firearms are used for different things: a person viewed at a gun range carrying a shotgun may be presumed to be there to shoot clay pigeons, whereas a person carrying a rifle is almost certainly not.

This is coming from the first county in the State of West Virginia to declare itself a “Second Amendment Sanctuary.” L.O.L. Also, by the way, there was no indication whatsoever that there was any indication or concern that Michael Walker could have been a copycat mass-murderer. That was all made up by lawyers after the lawsuit was filed. The entire incident was filmed. The entire 911 transcript exists. There was nothing that day to concern law enforcement, nor which did concern law enforcement, that Michael was a threat to a school. It was merely harassment for openly carrying a lawful and safely carried AR-15 style rifle.

Next we get to file a Reply Brief, responding to their response. At that point it will be in the hands of the Court. They can hold oral arguments, or rule on their briefs.

Should RBG be replaced before the November election?

My thoughts on the Ruth Bader Ginsburg drama. There are 3 currently living retired Supreme Court justices: Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Each of these still-living former justices chose to retire, rather than to remain on the bench until death. RGB was perhaps the most left-wing partisan justice ever to serve on the Court, so understandably, she made the purposeful choice to stay on as long as possible. Therefore, it was her choice to politicize the vacancy which would be created by her death. In fact, her last words, as relayed by her granddaughter, were purportedly, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

[Podcast version (audio only) here (download for later or listen)]

First of all, presidents are elected – not installed – and secondly, the seat belongs to the American people. It never belonged to her. It’s not her seat; it’s not the Democrats’ seat; it’s not the left’s seat; it’s not the right’s seat; it’s the people’s seat. Assuming that RBG actually said that, she didn’t just say wait until after the election, but rather, she wants to wait until Donald Trump’s successor takes office. She’s therefore expressing her desire that Trump not replace her. If she said that, it wouldn’t be the first time that she’s knocked Trump, and it’s frankly sad to think that a man she disliked was the last thing on her mind in her final moments, rather than the granddaughter she was purportedly speaking to.

There can be no doubt that the Constitution provides the that the President is tasked with nominating someone new to fill the vacancy, subject to the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. The only issue is the timing.The Constitution doesn’t necessarily provide, or require, that federal judgeships last until “death,” per se. What does the Constitution say about this? Article III is the part of the Constitution which lays out the constitutional foundation of the judicial branch, which leaves the logistics to Congress:

Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Thus, a justice serves “during good behavior.” So for life in general, but not necessarily. And it gives Congress the responsibility of organizing the federal judiciary. In fact, one of the first things Congress did in 1789 when it set up shop, is to set up the federal judiciary – including a Supreme Court, with then-6 justices. Of course, we now have 9, though Democrats have been threatening to increase the number (which RBG has gone on the record as opposing, even if done by Democrats).

The language about “holding offices during good behaviour” has been interpreted to mean that the only way federal judges can be removed from office is if the House of Representatives impeaches them, and the Senate convicts them, of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Only fifteen judges have ever been impeached (that is, formally accused by the House of Representatives) and only eight have been convicted and removed from office. For practical purposes, any judge who does not commit a crime (or do something equally bad) has “lifetime tenure” and will stay in office until he or she dies or voluntarily steps down. And, as the provision says, Congress and the President cannot retaliate against judges by cutting their salaries.

National Constitution Center, Article III, Section One, by Richard W. Garnett and David A. Strauss, https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45

Let’s look at the science behind it. There was a study done in 2010 on retirement vs. death-in-office of Supreme Court justices, noting that it was a “small but extremely important social group” which had not been previously studied in this way.

[S]ome observers have long asserted—and others have long denied—that the timing of justices’ resignations from the Court, and even the probability that they die in office, reflect a highly politicized process that, like their nominations, revolves around political compatibility between the individual jurist and the incumbent president of the United States as well as personal circumstances of justices, such as vitality (i.e., health, wellness), age, personal finances, and job tenure (i.e., length of service on the Court; see, e.g., French 2005). We call this assertion the politicized departure hypothesis.

The politicized departure hypothesis is based on (1) the observation that a justice’s retirement—particularly if it occurs early in a president’s term of office—allows the incumbent president to nominate the replacement for that justice, (2) the belief that justices tend to be loyal to the party of the president who appointed them to the Court, and (3) the conjecture that justices tend to display this loyalty by timing their resignations to give a president of that party the opportunity to appoint their judicial successor. Thus, the politicized departure hypothesis is as follows: (1) Other things equal, if the incumbent president is of the same party as the president who nominated the justice to the Court, and if the incumbent president is in the first two years of a four-year presidential term, then the justice is more likely to resign from the Court than at times when these two conditions are not met.

Retirement and Death in Office of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, by ROSS M. STOLZENBERG and JAMES LINDGREN, May, 2010 (citations omitted).

The study found that history has shown that, despite the ability to generally stay until death, as end-of-life nears, with the existence of a pension, justices have tended to retire, rather than die in office. Those who have chosen to stay until death are dedicated politicos, as one of my college professors (Dr. Lanier) used to call them, acting not in their own personal best interests, but rather for pure politics. I think he used to say, “Don’t kid yourselves, these people are seasoned politicos.” Turning to the study at hand, the average service period of a SCOTUS justice over the course of the last 230 years of American jurisprudence has been about 25 years. According to the science, as the age of a justice advances, the expected annual odds of their retirement are about a 6% chance per additional year of life. Then comes the politics, which skews the numbers according to the political party of the president vs. the justice:

If the incumbent president is of the same party as the president who nominated the justice to the Court, and if the incumbent president is in the first two years of a four-year presidential term, then the justice has odds of resignation that are about 2.6 times higher than when these two conditions are not met.

In addition, political climate effects on death in office are consistent with the politicized departure hypothesis. When the incumbent president is of a different party than the president who appointed the justice, then the justice’s death-in-office odds are about tripled, compared with when the appointing president and the incumbent president are members of the same party.

Retirement and Death in Office of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, by ROSS M. STOLZENBERG and JAMES LINDGREN, May, 2010.

That’s the category RBG fits into. The likelihood of RGB dying in office based purely on the politics of replacing her, was about 3 times higher than the likelihood of her having retired had Trump not won in 2016. That seems about right to me. She’s had cancer for some period of time. Had Hillary won in 2016, it seems rational to believe she would have voluntarily retired sometime after November of 2016. Still though, RGB’s choice bucks the trend. Looking at history, the trend seems to have been towards increasing voluntary retirement of Supreme Court justices, rather than through death, which was more pervasive in the 19th century:

The evidence shows that RGB was a diehard politico. She went against the grain in choosing not to retire, and instead to attempt to outlive a Trump presidency. Her anti-Trump politics were well-known.

Washington (CNN) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s well-known candor was on display in her chambers late Monday, when she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.”He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-faker/index.html

There was more:

Ginsburg had told a Times reporter, “I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.” 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/07/14/ginsburg-on-trump-comments-i-m-sorry

Mind you, she made these comments about Trump before he was elected. They were made during the 2016 election – only months away from election day. Wisely, she publicly apologized:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologized Thursday for comments she made about Donald Trump in The New York Times over the weekend. “On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” she said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/07/14/ginsburg-on-trump-comments-i-m-sorryhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/07/14/ginsburg-on-trump-comments-i-m-sorry

I can agree with that sentiment. Particularly inappropriate was the fact that she said this not while Trump was President, but during the campaign. So she’s not criticizing the Executive Branch, she ‘s criticizing a candidate. That seems dangerous to me. By all accounts she was extremely smart, and was an effective proponent of her point of view. She certainly wasn’t afraid of having her own opinions. You may not know this, because the media probably hasn’t spoken of it much, but RBG also criticized Colin Kaepernick, calling his national anthem kneeling/protest “dumb” – though she later apologized for that too.

You may have seem memes about RBG in reference to advising Egypt away from copying the U.S. Constitution…. In a 2012 interview with an Arabic television station, RBG publicly reccomended that the Egyptians, after overthrowing their old government, NOT look to the U.S. Constitution as a model for their new government. This wasn’t taken out of context, either. Don’t just read the meme, or a biased “fact-check” article. Go ahead and read her full quote:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jan. 30, 2012: You should certainly be aided by all the constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa — that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. So, yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

In her own words, as a sitting Supreme Court justice, she prefers the South African constitution, or the Canadian “Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” neither of which include any real right of the people to bear arms. South Africa itself is a hot-mess, and has a constitution which is full of problems, including the fact that it created a socialistic system of government control of over 700 businesses, as well as a disaster as far as racial relations goes. Canada’s ultra-leftwing charter is like taking the radical left’s social justice platform and turning it into constitutional law. It may be good from the left’s political perspective, but it would be antithetical to the governmental constraint and limited government required from the U.S. Constitution.

Clearly RGB knew it would be much easier for the left to impose their agenda on a populace without a constitution such as ours in place. That’s her opinion, which is likely the reason she chose to play politics until the very end. The beauty and the genius of the U.S. Constitution is that its can be amended at any time. Bad stuff can come out. Good stuff can go in. You just have to follow the process – which requires broad support by the people. It’s not something done by swamp creatures alone.

Therefore the question is not whether the President should nominate a new justice – it’s whether the President should delay doing so, just in case he loses the election, because political pressure from the opposition is demanding it. There is no constitutional basis for such a request – only politics. This, mind you, is coming from the same political opposition who impeached the President, in an election year. The President needs only to ask himself one question. What would the Democrats do? There’s his answer.

September 17, 1787 and Frederick Douglas on the importance of the Constitution

Some thoughts on the importance of Constitution Day…..

I mentioned the July 4, 1852 speech by Frederick Douglas, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” The entire speech is a worthy-read, but here are a few bits of it:

The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable — and the difficulties to be overcome in getting from the latter to the former, are by no means slight. That I am here to-day is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as of gratitude. You will not, therefore, be surprised, if in what I have to say I evince no elaborate preparation, nor grace my speech with any high sounding exordium. With little experience and with less learning, I have been able to throw my thoughts hastily and imperfectly together; and trusting to your patient and generous indulgence, I will proceed to lay them before you.

This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act, and that day. This celebration also marks the beginning of another year of your national life; and reminds you that the Republic of America is now 76 years old. I am glad, fellow-citizens, that your nation is so young. Seventy-six years, though a good old age for a man, is but a mere speck in the life of a nation…..

Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too — great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.

They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests.

They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was “settled” that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final;” not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times.

How circumspect, exact and proportionate were all their movements! How unlike the politicians of an hour! Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. Mark them!…..

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival…….

Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a track of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman……

Now, take the Constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery……

He ended the speech with this poem:

God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o’er
When from their galling chains set free,
Th’ oppress’d shall vilely bend the knee,

And wear the yoke of tyranny
Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom’s reign,
To man his plundered fights again
Restore.

God speed the day when human blood
Shall cease to flow!
In every clime be understood,
The claims of human brotherhood,
And each return for evil, good,
Not blow for blow;
That day will come all feuds to end.
And change into a faithful friend
Each foe.

God speed the hour, the glorious hour,
When none on earth
Shall exercise a lordly power,
Nor in a tyrant’s presence cower;
But all to manhood’s stature tower,
By equal birth!
That hour will come, to each, to all,
And from his prison-house, the thrall
Go forth.

Until that year, day, hour, arrive,
With head, and heart, and hand I’ll strive,
To break the rod, and rend the gyve,
The spoiler of his prey deprive —
So witness Heaven!
And never from my chosen post,
Whate’er the peril or the cost,
Be driven.

Read the full speech:

FILED: Bridge Cafe & Bistro’s federal lawsuit against the W. Va. Governor and Putnam County

This afternoon I filed a federal lawsuit against the West Virginia Governor and against Putnam County, and their health department inspector, on behalf of the Bridge Cafe & Bistro, located in Hurricane, West Virginia. We are seeking money damages and attorney’s fees for First Amendment retaliation, after Putnam County threatened my clients with closure in response to their Facebook post expressing their opinions and policies pertaining to the Governor’s mask mandate. We are also suing the Governor and asking the Court to declare the mask mandate, as well as the “Stay at Home Order” unconstitutional and unenforceable.

We believe it’s unconstitutional under the First Amendment, as the mask debate has become just that – political speech. We also believe they are in violation of the 14th Amendment due process clause because they’re an arbitrary deprivation of my clients’ property interests wholly without due process of law. Moreover, they’re also a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, because they treated restaurants in Putnam County, where only two deaths have occurred in over 6 months of the virus, just the same as they treated restaurants where the virus had a greater impact.

Additionally, we believe yesterday’s ruling from Judge Stickman in the Western District of Pennsylvania makes a good case that a Governor unilaterally choosing who is “essential” and who is “non-essential” in smoky rooms, rather than through an open, defined and rational process, is itself a constitutional violation. The Governor cannot enact legislation, period. Not in a time of war; not in a “State of Emergency” which has lasted over 6 months. The sole process for enactment of new laws in West Virginia is via the state legislature, according to the state Constitution. To the extent that counties attempt to enforce unconstitutional and unenforceable executive orders as if they were laws, we believe they can be sued for money damages under Section 1983.

Here’s the actual lawsuit which was filed this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. It doesn’t yet have a case number:

And…we’re off…. First media reports:

https://wvrecord.com/stories/555093294-putnam-county-restaurant-owners-challenge-state-s-stay-at-home-order-mask-mandate

https://www.wsaz.com/2020/09/15/federal-lawsuit-filed-against-wva-governors-office-and-some-county-officials-for-restaurant-mask-mandate/

https://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/hurricane-restaurant-challenges-wv-governors-covid-19-mandates/article_11a73129-4f6e-5021-a955-810de5e358aa.html

New federal lawsuit against the Governor over the continued “mask mandate” tyranny – Freedom is Scary Ep. 13

Enough is enough. On Freedom is Scary, Episode 13, LIVE on Youtube and Facebook, I will discuss the fact that the Governor of West Virginia has left me no choice but to file another lawsuit. (UPDATE: it’s filed: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2020/09/15/filed-bridge-cafe-bistros-federal-lawsuit-against-the-w-va-governor-and-putnam-county/?fbclid=IwAR039nWl-txdpdX5WPQa76t9JiRgkWwDGKbicA46VtkUsReuNpZzRUYVNKQ) This time I’m filing in federal court, on behalf of a restaurant who was on the receiving end of our Governor’s tyranny, via his local health department secret police. It’s been proven that lockdowns and other governmental tyranny doesn’t work.

Even assuming it was constitutional, it doesn’t work. The virus is/was going to take its course. Where the lockdown measures were most tyrannical, the virus spread at the same rate, or even worse. Then there’s the unintended consequences and side effects of keeping people locked down, and destroying their small businesses, which is the reason why we weren’t supposed to attempt lockdowns in the first place.

POST-VIDEO UPDATE: I will be filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Bridge Cafe & Bistro in Putnam County, West Virginia, challenging the constitutionality of both the “Stay at Home Order” as well as the Governor’s “Mask Mandate.” You may recall this restaurant’s Facebook post expressing their First Amendment protected speech pertaining to the concept of forcing people to cover their faces:

This social media post, on what is obviously an intense political topic of current days, resulted in the Putnam County Health Board (they’re located in Hurricane, West Virginia) threatening administrative closure, for which they physically inspected the restaurant twice for mask compliance, and then charged them for it. They were dragged through the (actual) media, and through social media, in response to the substantive content of their speech, which is allowable for private citizens to do, but is a big no-no for the Government. Because, the First Amendment. Here’s some of the media aftermath:

Threatened with closure if they didn’t change the content of their opinions, and comply with the unconstitutional “Mask Mandate,” they had no choice but to comply:

We’re suing in federal district court for First Amendment retaliation, under Section 1983, and we’re also challenging the constitutionality of the “Mask Mandate” itself, as well as the “Stay at Home Order,” as it applies to this restaurant and the family who owns it. I’ll post the Complaint as soon as it’s filed. Due to the great timing, we’re now incorporating some of today’s ruling out of Pennsylvania. More about that below:

Update No. 2: Today a federal judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion striking down the Pennsylvania Governor’s order closing “non-life-sustaining” (i.e., non-essential) businesses, as well as the order restricting large gatherings. It was a great opinion, and great timing as well, since we can now incorporate some of it into our federal lawsuit against the West Virginia Governor. It’s not binding in any way in our federal courts, since Pennsylvania is in a separate federal circuit. But it will be great guidance for the Court, and it also incorporates some of the federal rulings in Kentucky, which clipped the wings of their tyrant governor. Some of the highlights:

The fact is that the lockdowns imposed across the United States in early 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic are unprecedented in the history of our Commonwealth and our Country. They have never been used in response to any other disease in our history. They were not recommendations made by the CDC. They were unheard of by the people this nation until just this year. It appears as though the imposition of lockdowns in Wuhan and other areas of China—a nation unconstrained by concern for civil liberties and constitutional norms—started a domino effect where one country, and state, after another imposed draconian and hitherto untried measures on their citizens. The lockdowns are, therefore, truly unprecedented from a legal perspective…..

As with the lockdown, Defendants’ shutdown of all “non-life-sustaining” businesses is unprecedented in the history of the Commonwealth and, indeed, the nation. While historical records show that certain economic activities were curtailed in response to the Spanish Flu pandemic, there has never been an instance where a government or agent thereof has sua sponte divided every business in the Commonwealth into two camps—“life-sustaining” and “non-life- sustaining”—and closed all of the businesses deemed “non-life-sustaining” (unless that business obtained a discretionary waiver). The unprecedented nature of the business closure—even in light of historic emergency situations—makes its examination difficult from a constitutional perspective. It simply does not neatly fit with any precedent ever addressed by our courts. Never before has the government exercised such vast and immediate power over every business, business owner, and employee in the Commonwealth. Never before has the government taken a direct action which shuttered so many businesses and sidelined so many employees and rendered their ability to operate, and to work, solely dependent on government discretion. As with the analysis of lockdowns, the unprecedented nature of the business shutdowns poses a challenge to its review. Nevertheless, having reviewed this novel issue in light of established Due Process principles, the Court holds that the business closure orders violated the Fourteenth Amendment….

An economy is not a machine that can be shut down and restarted at will by government. It is an organic system made up of free people each pursuing their dreams. The ability to support oneself is essential to free people in a free economy. The late Justice William O. Douglas observed: The right to work, I had assumed, was the most precious liberty that man possesses. Man has indeed as much right to work as he has to live, to be free, to own property. The American ideal was stated by Emerson in his essay on Politics, ‘A man has a right to be employed, to be trusted, to be loved, to be revered.’ It does many men little good to stay alive and free and propertied, if they cannot work. To work means to eat. It also means to live. For many it would be better to work in jail, than to sit idle on the curb. The great values of freedom are in the opportunities afforded man to press to new horizons, to pit his strength against the forces of nature, to match skills with his fellow man. Barsky v. Board of Regents of University of State of New York, 347 U.S. 442, 472 (1954) (Douglas, J, dissenting). In a free state, the ability to earn a living by pursing one’s calling and to support oneself and one’s family is not an economic good, it is a human good. 

Here’s a .pdf of the 66 page ruling: