A US Supreme Court precedent was created that may toss the majority of immigration lawsuits by the left

 The US Supreme Court has just created a precedent that may help Trump and his immigration policy and put an end to the endless permanent injunctions put on his executive decisions in immigration policy by District Court judges.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/scotus-ruling-forces-soros-groups-to-make-anti-prostitution-pledge-to-get-u-s-aids-funding/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=corruption+chronicles&utm_term=members&utm_content=20200819172846

The US Supreme Court has ruled, as it should have, that the US Constitution is not applied to foreign citizens located outside of the United States.

Here go all the lawsuits brought by the leftists on behalf of foreigners who only want to come to the United States, but are located outside of it.

The essence of the case is that foreign combatting HIV AIDS tuberculosis and malaria globally with the help  of US taxpayer money can only receive that money if they condemn child trafficking and prostitution.

They don't want to and still want to get our money, and they had the gall to sue in a US court, asserting unconditional receipt of US taxpayer money, during the pandemic that is hurting Americans, as a matter of their right.

They got their way with corrupt judges in NY federal district court and in the 2nd circuit, the courts that usually toss all civil rights lawsuits of American citizens.

But, they got rightly choked in the US Supreme Court.

"In a blow to George Soros’ leftwing initiatives, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that foreign affiliates of his Open Society Foundations (OSF) are not protected by the Constitution and therefore must abide by a congressionally mandated anti-prostitution pledge to receive federal funding.

 Under a 2003 law called United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act the U.S. spends tens of billions of dollars to combat AIDS globally and a chunk of the cash flows into OSF coffers. 

Under the measure organizations that receive American taxpayer dollars to fight HIV/AIDS abroad must adopt policies opposing sex trafficking and prostitution. 

Leftist groups legally challenged the rule years ago, claiming that it violated their First Amendment right to free speech. 

In 2013 the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the policy requirement infringed on the American groups’ constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

The decision only applies to American organizations however, so an OSF affiliate called Alliance for Open Society International, which is handsomely funded by Uncle Sam, has engaged in litigation for more than a decade and a half to obtain the same exemption. 

The Soros group sued for permanent injunctive relief and a New York District Court ruled in its favor before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 

In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court recently reversed the appellate court decision, determining that foreign affiliates of U.S.-based groups that get federal dollars to combat HIV/AIDS abroad are not protected under the Constitution. 

“In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,” according to the ruling, written for the majority by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

 Because the foreign Soros groups possess no First Amendment rights, applying the anti-prostitution policy requirement is not unconstitutional, the decision further points out, stating that under American constitutional law, foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the Constitution.

Congress included the important policy in its landmark measure to combat HIV/AIDS globally because it determined that prostitution and sex trafficking are additional causes and factors in the spread of the deadly virus.

 Federal lawmakers also wrote in their legislation, which has helped save 17 million lives, that prostitution and sex trafficking are degrading to women and children.

 “No funds made available to carry out this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, may be used to provide assistance to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking,” the law states.

 Leftist groups receiving federal funds assert that condemning prostitution and sex trafficking interferes with their efforts to help those with HIV/AIDS because it creates a stigma. 

The government’s anti-prostitution pledge “falsely casts sex workers as part of the problem rather than acknowledging their important role in developing and implementing successful HIV/AIDS-prevention strategies,” according to an OSF publication released years ago.

The recent Supreme Court ruling was a “blow to free speech and public health,” according to a statement issued by Soros’ OSF. 

It quotes OSF President Patrick Gaspard saying that “the Supreme Court upheld the U.S. government’s quest to impose its harmful ideological agenda on U.S. organizations and restrict their right to free speech.”

 He continues. 

“The Anti-Prostitution Pledge compromises the fight against HIV by impeding and stigmatizing efforts to deliver health services. 

Condemnation of marginalized groups is not a public health strategy.”

 The statement claims that research has repeatedly found that moral rejection and criminalization of sex work creates an environment where sex workers are more vulnerable to violence and abuse and consequently at greater risk of contracting HIV. 

“These issues are heightened in the context of COVID-19, when sex workers face financial devastation that further contributes to these disproportionate health and safety risks,” the OSF writes, circling back to blast the Supreme Court ruling because it “will prohibit critical organizations from providing services and support to sex workers who are too often left out of—or are antagonized by—government responses to the pandemic.”

Protectors of sex abusers in high places - up to the U.S. Supreme Court

I guess, New York has disregarded this precedent - meant, of course, to protect the sex abusers (priests) when it has put into place the same statutes and prosectued Harvey Weinstein and others under it.

"Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law."

 I wonder if the US Supreme Court justices who decided this one were personally involved with the Catholic church - or specific Catholic priests.

Scalia certainly was.

More on freedom of speech in the American academia. How can scared-to-death-to-speak-their-mind professors teach students critical thinking?

Recently I have published a translation of a eulogy on the suicide of a harassed-to-death-for-his-conservative-views law professor Michael Adams.

http://attorneyindependence.blogspot.com/2020/08/a-belated-eulogy-for-untimely-death-by.html

From a Russian lawyer, from Russia, mind.  Nobody from the brave American legal profession dared to do the same on this side of the pond.

Now, I am publishing an entire text of a professor from the prestigious Berkley University in the blessed "Democratic" state of California.

Who, unlike the fearless law professor Michael Adams who has paid with his life for his right to freely and publicly express his views, preferred to remain alive and gainfully employed in this prestigiousting his letter as an anonymous author.

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3855424/posts?fbclid=IwAR3s8vSM-W045-Rr5AdiFpTqQeZIeCQl5CRVar6UbgHwPwYsZmCuuUJbcxY

Read that, complete with comments underneath it.

And, please, tell me, how are we different from dictatorships.

And how can scared-to-death academia bring up critical-thinking educated citizenry?

 

 

 

On Facebook's closure of the 200,000 member public Q Anon group.- future litigation against Facebook promises to be entertaining

 

I often wonder how super large companies like Facebook operate in terms of publicity.

Today there was an announcement by Reuters, which is supposed to be a respectable media source, that is supposed spokesman of Facebook who, nevertheless, declined to be identified, announced the Facebook has closed at 200,000 people public group called Q Anon for supposed hate speech and spreading misinformation, and for other violations of company policies.

https://reut.rs/2DsRTd8

No examples were given, no links, no scans, no evidence at all.  Apparently, the level of journalism even, in Reuters, is sinking through the floor.

How can an honest and borderline competent journalist, in a giant international respectable media source publish something without evidence from a spokesperson for giant company trading publicly on the securities market who nevertheless declines to be identified?

This is not fake information? This is not fake news?

So, Facebook, through its spokeswoman who refused to be identified, has publicly defamed each and every one of the over 200,000 people who are members of that group, cleaning without a bases in evidence that they are spreading false information and hate speech.

Now I wonder, where are the minds of public relations people who allows such announcements, and especially by spokespeople of the company who decline to be identified.

Facebook has fought and won many lawsuits based on first Amendment freedom of speech, claiming it is a private company, and freedom of speech requirements of the US Constitution do not apply to it.

True, but there are other ways Facebook is exposing itself, badly, to litigation, and it does pay do sometimes hire lawyers not because of their connections, but because of their brains and knowledge, which obviously Facebook does not do.

I'm looking forward to the 1st lawsuit against Facebook for violation of user agreements. 

By this agreement, private users, including those in the qanon group, agreed to allow Facebook to use their personal information to peddle it to certain advertisers, based, supposedly, on those private users' interests, as expressed in their posts on Facebook.

 I can personally testify under oath as to Facebook violating that particular Clause of the agreement, by suppressing political advertisements according to users interests and instead pulling into the users ' feed aggressive unsolicited political advertisement from political opponents of the user, which is contrary to the terms of the agreement. 

 Also, in return for Facebook's permission for users to specifically create communities on Facebook's platform, users agree to abide by Facebook company policies. 

And here comes a glitch, and a big one.      

A contract like that is a contract of adhesion, once people are sucked in and create that community, Facebook, while continuing to use private information of those two hundred thousand people in the group as eyeballs for advertisers, creates company policies, ever-changing, vague and arbitrary to the point that it is impossible for a private user not to violate them, if Facebook wants to arbitrarilily censure their activities.  

  So, it is fraud on behalf of Facebook and failure of consideration, pure and simple, no first Amendment claims needed. 

 So yes, the user may choose to quit Facebook, before he does so, he may demand Facebook disgorge, or give back to him, the money improperly gained through using that user's information on Facebook, while blocking, for no good faith reasons, communities that the user has created, thus, denying the user the benefit of the bargain.  

Again, I'm looking forward to when this claim is made in court, because it will be made in court, just a matter of time.  

And, it concerns any and all speech of a Facebook user, political or not, and if political, liberal or conservative, doesn't matter.

 It is a breach of a private agreement and fraud, nothing to do with constitutional law, which, correctly, does not apply to private companies, with the exception of discrimination by private companies providing public functions, which Facebook does provide, allowing account to public officials and public organizations and interaction on those accounts with users.

  Facebook blocks the user - Facebook blocks and direction of the use of with a public official or public organization, which is a first Amendment violation of the petitions clause, not freedom of speech clause. 

 Not to mention that Facebook has recently stopped to peddle its pledge of neutrality (which is far as I remember is contained in its user agreement) and stated to a court of law, in a lawsuit, under oath, but it is now a publisher, and as a publisher, has discretion, absolute discretion percent sure anything it wants in any way it wants, no merit or lack thereof for the censure needed.  

Yay, good for them.

  With the only exception that with such a claim comes publisher liability - which can also be sued upon. 

 So, the future litigation against Facebook is going to be pretty entertaining, as their left hand does not seem to know what their right hand is doing and vice versa.

A belated eulogy for the untimely death by suicide of law professor Mike Adams

A heartfelt eulogy by a Russian lawyer on the death of law professor Michael Adams North Carolina who committed suicide on July 27th or a couple days prior, because he was harassed to death by the politically correct crowd in and around his university just because of several tweets where he expressed his conservative opinion.

This country is going down the drain fast if people like Michael Adams, who is rated the best professor by his students, is squeezed out of the academia and harassed to death.

It is a long eulogy, but it is valuable in terms of details and assessment of those details.

Translation, will do it by parts:

"In the memory of professor Mike Adams, we'll take care of and preserve your families!

On the 23rd of July of this cursed year of ours, professor Mike Adams committed suicide before he reached the age of 56.  To be precise he was nearly a former professor - he was squeezed out of his university and on the 1st of August he was supposed to become a former professor.

Who was he, why was he squeezed out and why did it end so badly?

A lawyer and a criminologist, Adam start several subjects in the University of North Carolina - criminal procedure, evidence and other legal nonsense which can become the boring drilling of statutes rules and court cases, or it can become the most entertaining time and one of the best memories of student years.

Professor Adams fit the second category.  On the site read my professor his former students write about him - and not only stellar students,  but C-students,too. It is the same as review of any business, it is always worth it the review negative readings to understand what is going on.  I remember sitting in the best cocktail bar I have ever visited, that was called Aptekas in Vilnius, I checked out its ratings and saw a negative review "there is no beer by the glass" and "there is no TV with sports channels", which is obviously very positive for a cocktail bar.

Similarly, the c-students write - "if you rely on drilling, do not take this course but this is the coolest professor I have had in my entire time in college".

The rest just praise him, and all the ratings agree that there was no professor in that University who would be better, funnier, more educational and more interesting.

God dammit, why did they sack the best?

Adams was a conservative.  This horrible sin in American universities (and in Israeli universities as far as I know, too) is as unforgivable as was homosexuality in the last century. God forbid somebody will learn about it, but if people do know, you need to keep mum (you know this rotten tune - let them do anything in the bedroom but let them do it quietly and so that children would not know).

Back in 2007 already, when the first swallows of militant progressivism have flown through the American skies, Adams was passed over in his promotion to the full tenured professors.  I don't know how it is in Russian and how the economic system works, it is a permanent professorship instead of a temporary. they did not want to take Mike into the real professorship because you had a mouth that he did not want to close.

That same here Adam sued, demanding to stop politically motivated discrimination.  The litigation continued for 7 years.  After he went through several court levels, he has won the right to a jury trial, and after that the university back down and promoted him into the tenured professorship in arrears, as well as paid him full tenured professor salary for the last 7 years.

Despite the torture that he has endured, Adams continued to speak out, and lately allowed himself several unforgivable statements, called the "peaceful protesters" demolishing stores - "rioters", called "people with vaginas" - "women" (I'm afraid to quote any further. If it was enough to harass a professor of law to death, will be enough for sure to block me on Facebook).

Heart-feeling activists have launched on social media campaign for his firing and cooked up a petition "sack the turd".  No it is in America and its satellites there is a magical expression "they do not feel safe" - and as soon as something is said that is not to the liking of the progressivist activists, students begin to "feel they are in danger', and a danger to life must be immediately eliminated.

The crowd of " liberal" (now this word can be used only in quotation marks, since nowadays it means exactly the opposite of what it meant before) activist from Twitter got their way, and the professor was squeezed out.

But of course that was not enough, because one cannot underestimate the danger that was coming from that person, therefore the activist put up boards saying "beware of a racist and chauvinist" opposite his house and glued similar papers over the entire neighborhood, so the neighbors would know with a dangerous maniac lives next door.

A week ago he shot himself.  The man who has raised generations of students, who has taught them to love their profession, who has ignited in them the flame of gaining knowledge, we had grafted onto them the interest in the criminal procedure, a bright outstanding personality - was harassed to death in the name I love the "feeling of safety".

He was not the first, and, regretfully, will not be the last, who has been harassed to death by the progressist riff-raff.  Do you remember the British attorney who in a drunken condition I did something about Hindus on a plane? She has been harassed for half a year until she committed suicide, having destroyed the whole world (by the way not only juice like to talk about "who one soul in Israel", it is a later addition, an add-on, the is no Jew and no ellin in the original, there are only people).

By the way, I was also harassed by these creatures - defenders of all good from all bad, they even printed in newspapers that I am a misogynist, they even forward it to me a letter from the biggest women's organization, the cover of this whole snake pit ("irgun gag" it is called). In the letter I was ordered to repent and to present apologies two old women on the planet, otherwise they will file a complaint with the chamber of advocates.

To tell you the truth, the letter was not signed, and, when I inquired about the name of the author in order to file a complaint with the police about blackmailing, the courage left the tiresome strugglers for the rights of women (which I do not know why anybody needs to fight for if they exist for a long time and are confirmed in the law), and they got lost in the oblivion.

Now for the most important thing.  Well what I said previously is important to, but this is even more important.

The majority, the overwhelming majority! Of those harassed to death were single.

Never married, divorced, out of relationships (or it would be more proper to say separated?) - without a wife who would give you a hug in consolation and who would tell you, let them go to hell!

I remember I had a boy who went to rob a store with his best friends, but gor caught as an idiot, and decided to become a witness for the prosecution, to betray his best friends so that they would let him go.  I do not work with such people, so I called his wife and told her I'm leaving. I remember I was trying to find a good replacement attorney instead of myself for him, end up nobody out of decent people wanted to take such a client on.

So, when his wife has heard the reason for my leaving, she said - I will not live with him.  But now, while he's still in jail, I will be with him to the end, with when it will all finish, we will split, because you cannot trust such a person.

But now I must support him, because when we were getting married, I promised in joy and in sadness, and now it is sadness, and I must go through this with him without regard what I'm feeling right now.

Therefore, let's drink to our "halves", and not even 'halves", but real halves of ourselves, without home where only half a human.

Because those who have a good life partner shoot themselves a lot more rarely.

Because family it is, it is the true life, and work is just a means to feed the family and to do what you love to do, and however you're being harassed will fired you can find another job and another opportunity to do what you love to do.

And the search for that human who will become for you protection from death in the meaning of your life and you for her, me take the whole of your lifetime, and the result is not guaranteed.  It is not by chance that I have two bachelor friends both over 40, both amazing intelligent people, I saw such girls, too, who are despairing already.

Pablo Neruda said the right thing - "Si nada nos salva de la muerte, al menos que el amor nos salve de la vida".

---

So, here.

His numerous former and present students, his colleagues and his friends are afraid, as I understand, to say about him and about his untimely outrageous death by harassment what an out of the country foreign attorney dared to say.

And that is the saddest statement as to the state of the country we have become.

Done by speech to text dictation, apologies for possible mistakes.