The Department Of Homeland Security Is In Border Crisis Mode According To Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen

The Southern border debacle continues to give Trump heartburn. Mr. Trump blasted the Mexico government for letting all the immigrants pass through the Southern border while Mexico sits back and watches Trump’s face turn from orange to red.

The Department of Homeland Security needs more border agents, according to Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. Trump told her to hire 5,000 more border agents in 2017, but so far DHS hired 118 new border agents. Being a border agent is one of those jobs few people want on their resume.

Hiring border agents is a challenge due to all the red tape applicants have to go through to get the job. And most of the applicants don’t want to live in a tent in the remote terrain along the border. In short, the immigration system needs help, and Nielsen is in over her head. Kirstjen wants Congress to change the immigration laws now. She’s on the verge of having the same kind of meltdown Trump has every time he turns on the news and sees thousands of immigrants knocking at the border door.

Mr. Trump is so upset with the border situation he threatened to close the Southern border. That would be a monumental screw-up, according to the Washington Post. Thousands of legal workers cross that border every day. And thousands of products that American manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers need to do business would be in jeopardy. The U.S. economy would take another devastating hit if Trump closes the Southern border, according to the New York Times.

In order to show his voter base he means business, Trump cut funding for Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Trump claims most of the bad guys in the United States come from those countries. And Trump thinks cutting off American aid will make the governments of those countries stop the bad guys from leaving. The truth is those countries want them to leave.

The president gave Mexico a few Twitter gabs, but Mexico really doesn’t care what Trump says. The Mexican economy is on fire thanks to Trump’s tariffs. Chinese companies are in the process of opening factories in Mexico to avoid Trump’s tariffs. Trump’s tariff thing hurts American consumers more than it hurts China or any other country that feels the economic burn from the tariffs.

Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is in over her head. And she wants help from Congress, so the DHS can protect migrant children and families. She didn’t mention Trump’s border wall in her letter to Congress. Nielsen’s letter said DHS has 1,200 unaccompanied migrant kids in custody, and she doesn’t know what to do with them.

Law Firm Sues Associate Who Quits Job Early

There is an article on the Above the Law website about a law firm suing one of their associate lawyers because she quit her job after only one year. The firm, Preis PLC Law, had the lawyer, Jane Daily, sign a three-year contract when she joined the law firm fresh out of law school. The job wasn’t for her, however, so she left early, and the firm hit back in court.

A break with tradition

New lawyers leaving a law firm earlier than planned is very common. In fact, the legal field is notorious for its high turnover and burnout rates among those new to the lawyer profession. Generally, when a new associate is hired, the hiring firm accepts that they are taking a risk and that the associate may be out the door earlier than hoped. In fact, many associates work briefly for multiple firms before finding one that is a good fit for them. When contracts are signed, they usually aren’t enforced if broken, and law firms focus on retaining partners rather than associates because the former are likely to take business with them if they exit the firm.

Preis PLC, therefore, is going against tradition in their lawsuit against Daily. They say in their filing that they take great pride in recruiting new lawyers out of law school and training them thoroughly, and, that by leaving early, Daily not only cost them money but hurt their effectiveness by taking experienced lawyers away from their regular duties to train her. In its suit, the firm alleges that they have determined that it takes at least three years to properly train a lawyer, so Daily can’t claim that she was an asset to the company.

A tough profession

There are many reasons why so many new lawyers leave their first associate posting early. Many are blindsided by the many unpleasant realities of the law in practice versus the idealism of the law as presented in the classroom. Furthermore, law firms are notorious for making their associates work long hours; while associates know this is a stepping stone on the road to the more leisurely life of partner, many grow frustrated and despondent. Furthermore, associate lawyers are often working closely with a single experienced lawyer, and, if there is some kind of conflict, it’s generally not the associate that the hiring firm sides with.


Former Bush Ethics Lawyer Richard Painter Thinks Trump Should Be Removed From Office

Richard Painter was when George W. Bush ethics lawyer when he was president. Painter thinks Mr. Trump’s national emergency is proof the president’s decision-making process is more about winning than doing the right thing. In other words, Trump, according to Painter, is an out-of-control narcissist. Declaring a national state of emergency proves Mr. Trump has an overwhelming need to be in control and be the center of attention, according to Mr. Painter.
When Congress refused to fund his border wall project, Trump decided to do it his way long before the Congressional committee found a solution to the fake border wall crisis. Trump made that decision when the Democrats forced him to sign the funding bill. Nancy Pelosi’s wall challenge enraged Trump.

Even though he lost that battle, he knew he could make it look like he won in the eyes of his voter base. In his phony victory speech, he claimed the wall is under construction even though the part of the wall he wants to build won’t get underway until funds are available. The legal battles about the emergency will keep the funds in the courts for years, according to legal experts.

Mr. Trump believes he doesn’t answer to Congress. He doesn’t realize he is accountable for his decisions, according to Painter. Mr. Trump always finds someone or something else to blame when his decisions create more challenges.

When former FBI deputy director, Andrew McCabe went on the talk show circuit to promote his new book, he told viewers, Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein mentioned Trump’s mental issues when the president fired James Comey. Rosenstein and McCabe talked about the possibility of removing Trump from office using the 25th Amendment. But the men didn’t take action. It was just a concerned conversation that included other solutions that might protect the country from Trump’s irrational decision-making.

Rosenstein and McCabe knew Trump’s cabinet wouldn’t take the necessary steps to evoke the 25th amendment in 2017. And Congress didn’t want to pursue impeachment. But now that the Mueller investigation uncovered the Trump Organization’s attempt to allegedly work in tandem with the Russians, some Washington insiders say it’s time to use the 25th amendment.

But according to legal scholars, there’s not enough proof to evoke the 25th amendment or impeach Trump. Mueller or the Congressional Intelligence Committee would have to find smoking gun-type proof that Trump colluded with the Russians or he tried to obstruct justice when he fired James Comey.


Group Legally Disputes Label From Southern Poverty Law Center

A recent article on the National Public Radio website details the lawsuit by the right-wing, male-only group Proud Boys against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) after the latter organization labelled the former a hate group. Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes says that he is not running a hate group, and, therefore, the SPLC designation defames him.

McInnes says that Proud Boys is a harmless fraternal group, and that, while they may not be politically correct, they are far from a hate group. SPLC, by contrast, say that the group in general and McInnes in particular have a documented history of making racist, homophobic and xenophobic remarks.

Issues of reputation

McInnes says that the classification of Proud Boys as a hate group by SPLC forced him to leave the group he created because its and his own reputation had been destroyed. He noted that PayPal, Twitter and other online entities dropped Proud Boys after the classification, and he says that isn’t fair. His lawyers go on to question the amount of power SPLC center has in shaping public perception of fringe groups with strong views.

SPLC Response

SPLC have responded to the effect that they do not feel that McInnes has a legal case against them. For starters, they say his group is, in fact a hate group, and that they are merely voicing their own opinions as protected by the First Amendment. They also say that having earned the enmity of a person such as McInnes, who they characterize as bigoted, proves that they are doing their job.

SPLC was formed in 1971, and their mission is to advocate for the civil rights movement. Their hate group list is meant to put down in one place organizations they feel discriminate against others based on race, religion, sexual identity, gender orientation or ethnicity.

Read the full article:

Family Alleged To Have Built Huge Fortune Off OxyContin

In a recent lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General, the Sackler family is alleged to have built a huge fortune off of the production of OxyContin. This opiate drug is known to be highly addictive within a short amount of using the prescription painkiller. OxyContin addiction has often lead to people buying similar drugs off the street, some of which have been contaminated by the animal tranquilizer fentanyl, which is deadly in minute doses. Overdoses and deaths related to Oxycontin and fentanyl have skyrocketed over the past six years.

In the Massachusetts lawsuit, Attorney General Maura Healey found that in 2013, Purdue Pharma paid the Sackler family $400 million from its profits of selling OxyContin. Those profits were from the first three quarters of the calendar year. During the fourth quarter, profits from OxyContin decreased. At this time, the Sackler family is alleged to have pushed Purdue Pharma to increase the pressure of its sales representatives on doctors and hospitals to prescribe more of the addictive drug.

Purdue Pharma followed up on this by hiring a consulting firm. The consultants targeted doctors who wrote the highest numbers of prescriptions for OxyContin. Many of those physicians were located in the state of Massachusetts. After getting more visits from the pharmaceutical sales representatives, one doctor wrote 167 more OxyContin prescriptions.

Between 2008 and 2016, the Sackler family was paid more than $4 billion by Purdue Pharma. The lawsuit charges that the Sackler family has profited from the injury, addiction and death of people who were prescribed OxyContin by their doctors. Eight members of the Sackler family who have served on the board of Purdue Pharma as well as other members of the company’s board have been specifically named in the lawsuit. A judge on the case demanded that Purdue Pharma release its sales records. Purdue Pharma requested that its release be allowed to include redactions. The judge declined that appeal, forcing Purdue Pharma to release its records in full.

The lawsuit is ongoing in the Suffolk County Superior Court, which is located in Boston, Massachusetts. It is just one lawsuit of several hundred filed against Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family by state attorneys general from across the United States. The states are attempting to recover some of the funds they have spent on emergency care, police response and addiction treatment for people who have taken or been harmed by OxyContin.

Lawyer Says It Is Impossible For Man To Sue His Parents

A 27-year-old man from India recently went viral after he stated that he was going to sue his parents for giving birth to him. He stated that he did not give his parents consent to have him. The man, whose name is Raphael Samuel, stated that his parents should pay him for life. He also said that anyone who is born without their consent should be paid for life.

Raphael stated that he wants everyone to know that they do not owe their parents anything. He also said that parents should maintain their children for the rest of their lives. He said that he wishes he had not been born. Raphael stated that his life is not bad, but he wishes was he was not here.

Viva Frei is an attorney who has commented on this issue. He stated that this lawsuit is the stupidest thing that he has ever heard. He said that it is obvious that the man is doing this for publicity. He also stated that this can possibly be a social experiment.

Viva said that even though this lawsuit is stupid, he said that there is something that people can learn from it. You have to be able to prove fault, damages and a link between the two. Viva said that this lawsuit is not going to go anywhere.

Visa also stated that the man admitted that his life has been wonderful, so he has no reason to sue his parents. Additionally, he said that newborns do not require their parents’ consent. A newborn is not capable of giving consent by law.

Raphael is being slammed by people on social media. One person said that Raphael’s parents should counter-sue him for housing, food and educational costs. Another person stated that the man is ashamed of his actions, which is why he is disguising his looks.

2018 Review of Important Supreme Court Decisions

A lot has happened in the Supreme Court of the United States in 2018. The most notable event was the circus-like confirmation hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy. SCOTUS continued to make historical decisions during this time that will have an effect all of us. George Khoury looked at five important SCOTUS decisions of 2018 on

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Jack Phillips, a devout Christian owner of a bakery in Colorado, refused to create a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding for religious reasons that are backed by the First Amendment. He offered to sell the couple other products in his bakery, but the lower courts found Jack Phillips to be in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in favor of Jack Phillips, citing the CCRC’s hostility towards religion. SCOTUS did not decide on the constitutionality of the CADA, so a case like this will likely appear in front of SCOTUS in the future.

Murphy, Governor of New Jersey v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
This 6-3 decision ruled in favor of states to allow sports betting. States were prohibited from allowing sports betting entities from being created according to the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. States were charged with enforcing the PASPA, but New Jersey sued to relieve the state from enforcing the PASPA. SCOTUS ruled that Congress overstepped its powers by making states enforce federal law.

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
The Fair Labor Standards Act allows employees to litigate labor disputes as a class or collective action in federal courts. This 5-4 decision ruled in favor of employers putting in place and enforce arbitration agreements in employee contracts that ban collective action.

Carpenter v. the United States
Wireless carriers can track, collect, and store the location of its users when users cell phones connect to a cell tower site. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies would contact wireless carriers to obtain cell phone information to help find criminal suspects. In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS ruled that law enforcement agencies will have to get a warrant to gain access to this information.

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS ruled in favor of South Dakota who wanted to collect taxes for out-of-state online sales. Legal experts expect other states to look at this ruling and develop out-of-state online sales tax laws that are in line with this ruling.

Kim Kardashian Becomes Social Justice Activist

While more well-known for her reality television shows and other business and entertainment enterprises, Kim Kardashian has also recently appeared to embark on a new path, that of social justice activist. Along with her much-discussed Oval Office meetings with President Trump in which the two discussed criminal justice reform, Kim Kardashian has also in recent months taken up the cause of Cyntoia Brown. Serving a life sentence in prison for a murder she has freely admitted to committing, there are nevertheless numerous celebrities, social activists, and organizations such as the ACLU working to see Cyntoia Brown be set free.

Considered a classic example by many of how the criminal justice system can sometimes fail those who may slip through the cracks, Cyntoia Brown’s case is quite complex. Like many young girls, Brown was a victim of sex trafficking. When she was 16, she was arrested for murdering a man, Johnny Mitchell Allen, who had paid to have sex with her. Despite a claim of self-defense, her age at the time of the murder, and the set of circumstances surrounding the case, Brown was sentenced by a jury to life in prison.

Having already served many years of her sentence, Brown will be eligible for parole when she turns 69. However, Kardashian is hoping to see Brown win her freedom well before then. To accomplish this, she has hired a team of high-profile criminal defense attorneys to review the case and work to free Brown, headed by lead attorney Shawn Holley.

Using social media to her advantage, Kardashian has taken her cause of freeing Cyntoia Brown to her large online legion of followers from around the world. As a result, Brown’s case is drawing worldwide attention, with many legal experts believing her case may eventually lead to her winning her freedom.

But along with the case of Cyntoia Brown, Kardashian has also played a key role in using her new-found social justice activism to help win the freedom of another prisoner, Alice Johnson. Given a life sentence for a first-time, non-violent drug conviction, the now 63 year-old Johnson was recently granted clemency and pardoned by President Trump after a meeting between himself and Kardashian.

With these success stories under her belt, one wonders if Kim Kardashian will continue to use her celebrity influence in future cases of social justice. To learn more details about this story, visit

Observers concerned With Conflict Of Interest Following Vote By Prosecutors To Join Police Union

Investigators and assistant prosecutors in the county of St. Louis recently voted to become members of the police union. The vote is taken at a time when a leader with reform in mind prepares to take control of the St. Louis County Prosecutors Office.

The vote happened on Monday and has raised concerns that a conflict of interest could develop.

Wesley Bell is the new County Prosecutor in St. Louis. He is the first person of African-American heritage to hold the position. Bell will replace Robert McCulloch, who was County prosecutor when a grand jury declined to indict officer Darren Wilson for the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

The grand jury decision sparked violence among the citizens of Ferguson and protests across the country.

Bell stands in opposition to the death penalty and prefers treatment alternatives for individuals accused of minor drug offenses. He has also been on record promising reform to the cash bail system used in St. Louis County. Another major emphasis Bell expresses is holding police officers accountable for the actions they take while on duty.

The St. Louis Police Association is viewed by some as the most aggressive police union in America. The union regularly donated to the campaign efforts of McCulloch throughout his nearly three decades as County Prosecutor.

Jeff Roorda is the business manager for the union. Roorda caused a stir on social media a few years back when he used a Facebook platform to blame then president Barack Obama for the shooting of five police officers in Dallas, Texas. Roorda also made comments to the media suggesting the happenings in Ferguson amounted to a war being waged on police officers around the country. He also penned a book on the matter entitled Ferghanistan: The War On Police.

One potential conflict identified by the Washington Post is a scenario where a prosecutor files a criminal complaint against a police officer. If that officer then files a complaint with the union, which of the two union members will be backed by the union?

The Post also concluded that the vote to join the union by investigators and prosecutors can only serve to further worsen an already bad relationship between the police and the black community in St. Louis County.

Bell acknowledged that the choice by assistant prosecutors to join the police union raises questions but said he supports their right to join the union of their choice.

Read the full report:

California Romeo Dine-and-Dasher

A 45 year-old-California man has been charged with at least 10 felony cases and accused of 16 dining-and-dashing cases. He’s now looking nearly 17 years of prison food. The man personally met at least 13 women on a number of online dating websites, and now, he’s accused of running out on over $1,000 of dinner tabs. Needing to use the washroom or retrieving an item from his car were some of his excuses. After excusing himself for a minute, he’d never come back. His dates were left with the check. Since he never returned to the dinner table with his accusers, the prosecution convinced the presiding judge that he might not return to court either. Accordingly, the judge set bail at $315,000. The man remained behind bars until he could post bail.

The accused dine-and-dasher dater in this case is reportedly charged with 16 counts of extortion, two counts of attempted extortion and one count of grand theft. His scamming allegedly spanned a period of just under two years across southern California. In California, extortion involves obtaining property from somebody else by force or fear. At this point in time, it hasn’t been disclosed on how the prosecution intends on proving extortion. Both lawyers and non-lawyers perceive of extortion as being connected with blackmail. If that’s the case, the man’s defense options might be limited, especially if he left threats on the internet after dining and dashing.

One woman questioned why the man would want to date a woman who looked like her. Another said that he knew all of the right things to say at the right time. In yet another case, he’s accused of leaving an expensive hair salon without paying. Upon dashing on one woman after an expensive dinner, she said she waited for about 10 minutes until such time as she realized what had happened. The restaurant manager realized that both the restaurant and the woman were scammed by the dine-and-dash dater. The restaurant picked up the tab. Another woman said that he didn’t look at all like his pictures that were posted on dating sites.

Apparently the man is unable to pay for an attorney too. He is represented by an assistant public defender who he has already asked to have removed from the case. His request was denied, and he’s now considering acting as his own attorney.

Arrested and Sued For Sending a GIF

We’ve probably all been bullied at one time or another, and some of us might have even been cyber-bullied. Some examples of cyber-bullying might include text messages, emails or social media posts that operate to threaten, harass, intimidate, embarrass or otherwise harm a recipient.

Facing an Enhanced Charge
According to the American Bar Association Journal, one Twitter user recently sent another user a GIF with a strobe effect. It was accompanied by the message, “You deserve a seizure.” The sender knew that the recipient was an epileptic. Strobe lights can cause seizures in a small minority of epileptics. Indeed, the recipient went into a seizure. The sender has now been arrested on federal cyberstalking charges. That charge was dismissed, but the sender still faces another charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in state court. Prosecutors are calling the bullying an enhanced hate-crime.

A Physical Tool
There’s still another case that’s pending against the sender in federal court, and that’s a lawsuit based on the civil tort theory of battery. In its simplest sense, battery involves harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person coupled with the intent to do so. That definition dates back before the Mayflower. In the 21st century, battery isn’t always thought of as a violent physical blow or groping though. As per the strobe case, it was held that the GIF was a physical tool that would have “the same effect as any person with the plaintiff’s condition.” In support of his decision, the federal judge stated that past cases involving second-hand smoke, electrical shocks or loud noise can also constitute a battery. Much like a laser causing blindness, or a deafening noise, direct harmful or offensive contact need not be made.

What the sender never realized is that battery is an intentional tort. Intentional torts are generally not covered by insurance or dischargeable in bankruptcy. On top of that, punitive damages are allowed in personal in cases involving intentional torts. The sender is likely to learn a lesson from the school of hard knocks in this case. He’s likely to be in for a long payoff.

Read More:

Lawsuit Claims Harvard Biased Against Asian-Americans

Harvard University has one of the best academic reputations in the world. Students from all walks of life compete to be admitted to this prestigious institution. However, some don’t think that Harvard is treating everyone the same during its admission process.

Students For Fair Admissions is claiming that Harvard is biased when it comes to admitting Asian-Americans to the school. According to a CNN news report, the group is contending that Harvard admits fewer Asian-American students than it should because the school gives this group of students low marks when considering the admissions criteria of personality and likability.

No one on either side of the lawsuit contends that if academic achievement were the sole criteria for Harvard admission that Asian-Americans would have a higher level of representation within the student body. One study has shown that if academics were the sole criteria, 43 percent of students at Harvard would be Asian-Americans.

When a student’s extracurricular activities and their personal ratings were added into the admissions criteria mix, the number of Asian-American students would be 26 percent of the student body. Harvard uses an additional criteria that they call demographic that lowers the number of Asian-American students the plaintiffs in the lawsuit contend.

For the upcoming academic year, 22 percent of the student body will be Asian-American. This is half the number that would be admitted if academics were given a higher rating in the admissions process.

Harvard University is aggressively defending itself against the plaintiff’s contention that the institution shows bias in any way toward any group of students. Harvard representatives have stated that the plaintiffs are misleading people by their selective use of statistics. Harvard contends the plaintiffs are not considering data from in person interviews and the essays that students submit as part of the admissions material.

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit is stating that Harvard is violating federal laws. They contend that their Title VI Civil Rights Act rights are being violated by Harvard’s admissions policy. According to that act, an institution that receives any type of federal funding is barred from any type of discrimination against people of different races or ethnic groups.

The judge is the case is currently looking at data presented to him by the plaintiffs in the case. The judge will determine later in the year if the case has merit and will proceed to trial.

Another State Legalizes Sports Gambling

Just a few weeks after a decision by the US Supreme Court that may allow other states to pass legislation to legalize sports betting, gamblers are now on their toes. They have been given the go-ahead to place thousands of dollars in sports bets miles away from the Sin City. The Governor of New York, Phil Murphy, signed a law that would allow sports betting in the state on Monday. The race tracks and Casinos in New Jersey are expected to begin accepting betting in games later in the week. It is also anticipated that the Monmouth Park track will open legal betting as early as Thursday this week at 10:30 a.m. The Park track is located just a one and a half hour drive from Philadelphia and New York.

This was according to a report that was released by Lawmakers had enacted draft legislation that gave authorization to sports betting in the state of New Jersey a week ago. However, the bill did not take effect immediately as the state governor had to sign it for it become law. In the meantime, a chance to become the first state apart from Nevada to legalize sports gambling was missed by New Jersey. On Tuesday of last week, the state of Delaware started accepting sports bets on single competitions in their casinos. The activities in Delaware include sports betting in Delaware Park and Dover Downs. Other joints that offer legal sports betting in Delaware include Harrington Casino and Raceway, Murphy’s Race and Sports Book, the Casino at Delaware Park and the Dover Downs Hotel and Casino.

There are other colleges and professional sports where bets are being accepted. They include soccer, hockey, golf, boxing/MMA, basketball, baseball and auto racing. Sports betting will be legal for most collegiate and professional sporting events in the state of New Jersey. However, wagers cannot be included in sporting events that involve high school students. Sports betting will also not be allowed in athletic games involving teams from New Jersey and the ones taking place in the state. This means that you are allowed to bet on a Georgia or Alabama game that was being played in stadiums inside New Jersey. However, you can never put a bet on Rutgers regardless of where their game is being played. The question of when sports gambling will be readily available in New Jersey remains unclear. Sports betting will also be prohibited in the Atlantic City casino.

Trumps Attorney’s Want the President to be Granted Legal Immunity

The vision of power that President Donald Trump has is so extensive that it would dwarf any delusions of grandeur by President Richard Nixon. The lawyers that work for the US president have drafted a memo that advocates for unbridled presidential powers against special counsel Robert S. Mueller. The memo goes far beyond what the biggest fans of unitary executive power would have had wild dreams about. The presidential powers advocated for by the memo goes beyond the boundaries of even the power fanatics like the late Judge of the US Supreme Court Antonin Scalia. In retrospect, implementing the proposal by the Trump attorneys would essentially mean that the US president would be above the law.

The claim of limitless power by the lawyers who work for Donald Trump means that the president can defy subpoenas issued by the Robert Mueller investigation on any involvement or cooperation with Russian intelligence or the Kremlin itself. It would also mean that the president was immune to charges of obstruction of justice about the firing of the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) James Comey. By being the senior most law enforcement officer, such actions would never amount to obstruction of justice. Both legally and constitutionally any obstruction by the chief law enforcement officer would mean that that the president was obstructing himself.

This was according to a letter that was drafted by attorneys Jay Sekulow and John Dowd to the Mueller investigation team earlier this year in January. The arguments that have been presented by these two lawyers are unconstitutional and laughable to anyone who has been schooled on matters of law. However, the elephant in the room is who will have the courage to stop the two lawyers from drawing a curtain of infallibility around the US President. As long as the Republican Party is at the helm of Capitol Hill, Congress will not be in a position to stop one of their own in his tracks.

The Republican legislators have been steadfast in their support for the punitive policies by President Donald Trump. Moreover, the leaders of the conservative party are also terrified of alienating the hardcore supporters of the president. Perhaps the Supreme Court might act to save the US from a constitutional dictatorship from the Trump administration. However, it is worthy of note that President Trump is only a Supreme Court judge vacancy away from swaying the highest court in the land to the far-right.

How Different Lawsuits Pinned Down The Far Right Following Charlottesville

Many far right leaders are finding themselves being attacked as the slew of lawsuits are being file because of Heather Heyer’s death and other conspiracies. Miss Heyer would have been celebrating her 33rd birthday this week. Instead, she was hit by a car during a summer protest last year. She was in Virginia protesting against the neo-Nazis and other white supremacists. This year, just last week, many lawyers were seeking to get a federal court judge who organizes these types of rallies where she was killed to be held accountable.

This case could end up leaving prominent and popular white nationalists like Richard Spencer in ruins. However, this case would also be an example of a much broader legal offense being aimed at the “alt-right” movement. Just nine months since the summer death of Heather prompted this, there is a sign that things are changing. Hate groups are running out of cash and are finding themselves quickly being banished from certain social media groups. Many of these groups are also beginning to turn against each other as well.

There is a legal strategy at play in all of this, says David Denielli. He is the deputy legal director for the SPCL or Southern Poverty and Law Center. He feels this strategy is going to send these hate groups into a full disarray and have them struggling to place the blame against each other. All in all, these legal theories are being started as tools to try and make people accountable for their actions.

When Donald Trump was elected in November of 2016, many people viewed that as the ultimate catalyst for the white nationalism empowerment movement. Just days following him being elected, Spencer was blocks away from the White House yelling “Hail Trump!” and was seen leading many supporters with salutes similar to the Nazis.

The far right has found themselves in many legal battles before and have threatened to file bankruptcy. A benchmark case showing this was back in 2000 when more than $6 million was awarded during a case to a woman named Victoria Keenan and her young son. They were attacked outside of Idaho headquarters by guards of a group of white supremacists for the Aryan Nations. This legal case forced the leader, Richard Butler, to have to turn over his 20-acre compound to the woman and her son. They used it to sell to a philanthropist who later donated it.