Monday, May 11, 2020

A Tale Of Two Indictment Dismissals: Trump’s DOJ’s Flynn Case vs. Obama’s DOJ’s Duke Case

Cass Sunstein on the Rule of Law — Confessions of a Supply-Side ...
I could not help but gag on my breakfast on May 9th when reading the Business Insider article entitled “There is no precedent that anybody can find': Obama reportedly excoriated the DOJ's decision to drop the Michael Flynn case in a private call.”  Apparently, Mr. Obama has forgotten his DOJ’s dismissal without explanation of the U.S. Capitol-Bombing, Domestic Terrorist, Elizabeth Anna Duke.  Let’s compare cases and see if you don’t gag too on the hypocrisy.

In United States Of America v. Michael T. Flynn, the U.S. Government filed a twenty (20) page Motion To Dismiss the Criminal Information against Michael T. Flynn.  That motion detailed: (i) the factual predicate for such a motion and (ii) the legal status of the government and court in addressing that motion.  While the entire Motion deserves reading by any fair-minded Citizen before they form any opinion regarding that Motion, the sum and substance was that:

“[T]he Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn ‒ a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words, prepared to close because it had yielded an “absence of any derogatory information.” . . The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue. 

That Motion now pends before the Honorable Judge Sullivan.  Stop eating before continuing reading:

Lost to the memory of most, Elizabeth Anna Duke was indicted on May 11, 1988, along with six other individuals, for acts of violence against the United States, including the bombing of the United States Capitol on November 7, 1983.  After her arrest in 1985, Elizabeth Duke was released on $300,000 bail over the strenuous objections of the United States Attorney.  She subsequently failed to re-appear as ordered and a fugitive bench warrant was issued for her arrest. To date, Elizabeth Duke has not been captured pursuant to that warrant of arrest and she is still listed on the F.B.I. 's Most Wanted list.

Fast forward twenty-five years to June 17, 2009. Shortly after Mr. Obama was sworn in as President, a putative Assistant United States Attorney made an oral motion to dismiss the Indictment and quash the arrest warrant for the fugitive, domestic terrorist, United-States-Capitol-bombing Elizabeth Anna Duke which was granted by Magistrate-Judge Deborah A. Robinson.

Neither the Oral Motion nor the Order dismissing the Indictment gave any reason for this extraordinary action of dismissing an indictment against a dangerous felony fugitive. When I finally forced Magistrate-Judge Robinson to release the transcript, I discovered that neither the law nor the facts granted to Magistrate-Judge Robinson the authority to dismiss the indictment against Elizabeth Anna Duke.  The tale from that point forward gets very sordid and calls into question Mr. Obama’s involvement with the radical, Weather Underground movement of the 70s and 80s.  A full recitation of my investigations and the appalling indictment of Mr. Obama’s abuse of the legal system can be found at my web-page on Elizabeth Anna Duke.

So Mr. Obama, No: a legally-justified (if not compelled) Motion to Dismiss in the Flynn case is not as you claim “the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic ‒ not just institutional norms ‒ but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”  Simply stated, the record in the Flynn case is available for all to see and judge. That is what the rule of law requires: transparency of government action.

Rather, when you send an attorney who appears not to be a DOJ employee to dismiss an indictment against a fugitive without explanation before an Article I magistrate-judge who: (i) does not have jurisdiction to dismiss an indictment, (ii) misrepresented herself on the dismissal order as an Article III judge, (iii)  patently lies on her dismissal order and (iv) coincidentally sees her son get preferential federal treatment for his felony arrest for drugs and weapon charges, then, Mr. Obama, I have a real concern that on your watch the “rule of law [was] at risk.” Serious risk.

Care to respond?


Friday, March 27, 2020

The 2nd Amendment, Stephen Decatur & Me

Stephen Decatur
I didn't really want this fight.  When I moved to New York in 2016, I simply wanted to have my pistols for protection and work (I am licenced as a Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator and am legally obligation to "take", i.e. "kill", animals suspected of rabies for testing.)

But then I ran into New York's Pistol Licensing scheme and found it wanting in due process, equal protection and respect for the Second Amendment.  I wished I could just look away, but  . . . I couldn't.  So as few can afford to challenge New York and I do know how, it was off to the races.

Now, after waiting six hundred (600) days for a decision on my Application for a pistol license, I received that decision on March 9, 2020.  In that Decision, Licensing Officer (and County Court Judge) Watches rested his sole reason for denying my Application that: “[Sibley] has failed to demonstrate good moral character.” Notably, Licensing Officer Watches did not find that I had failed to demonstrate “good cause” for such a license.

Fortunately, it is not 1820 and I don't have to challenge Licencing Officer Watches to a duel ala Stephen Decatur to defend my Honor and Family Name as Decatur did 200 years ago almost to the day.  Instead, there is a Court system to address this slur and I look forward to vigorously pursing vindication.

To that end, I have recently filed a pleading which briefly (well, as briefly as a lawyer can) and indisputably demonstrates structural and systemic failures in New York’s pistol licensing procedures and seeks relief not only for me but system-wide reforms.  I have also asked the Court to "fish or cut bait" as my Fundamental right to self-defense in my home is at issue. 

The noted jurist and High Priest of U.S. Jurisprudence, William Blackstone said it best in 1769: “[Self-defense is] justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.” 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries 139.  Yet, this is what New York has done to me . . . and 13 million other law-abiding New York Citizens.

Particularly now when the foundations of our civil society are being shaken, this need for self-defense is more pressing than anytime in our Country's history.


Thursday, February 6, 2020

Trump should Pardon Pelosi Now

Image result for trump refuses to shake pelosi handAt the beginning of the 2020 SOTU address, President Trump handed to Vice President Pence as the President of the Senate and to Speaker of the House Pelosi his “State of the Union” address.  He was required to do so by Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution which states: The President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” 

When Nancy Pelosi ripped up that document, she committed a federal felony. Eighteen USC §2071(a) – “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Likewise, 18 USC §2071(b) – “Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.  

Justice requires accountability for actions by public officers without color of law. If she is not prosecuted by the Department of Justice, then a hue and cry should rise up for she has laid: “Too rude a hand on English ways” thus requiring a “warning down from Runnymede!”

However, I suggest the best outcome is a pardon from President Trump as a gesture of good will towards her which she will be bound to reciprocate thus producing a more cordial atmosphere in our Nation’s Capital.  Or not. But at least President Trump will be the better “person” for the gesture.

Oh, and here is my favorite picture from last the SOTU address: