DOJ: Solicitor General Noel Francisco Announces Departure from Department of Justice

Either Noel Fransico is going to stand up and bear witness to the war crimes of gerrymandering, or rather stealin' the children, land & vote in his JonesDay stint with Kevyn Orr, as the first Emergency Manager transposable model for the Privateers to invade and conquer the United States, or he shall take his role as a co-conspiritor in the planned and coordinated attack on Michigan Government, by advocating for that fake ass Detroit Bankruptcy, where everyone who was swagging a cross around their necks got settlement for some fake ass debt against the City of Detroit by getting settlement in quiet title properties, stolen, through fake ass Rock Financial, et al, Corporate Shape Shifters through the Perkins Coie Sucks Detroit Land Bank Authority, which is was the *russian/israeli/ukrainian* election interference because they money launder through child welfare organizations to fund political campaigns.

https://beverlytran.blogspot.com/search?q=noel+fransico

Boo Boo Barr still does not get the fact that you cannot promulgate, on behalf of foreign operatives who wish to overthrow the United States, the privatization of our children, land and vote with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, under the guise of what these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) are cloaking as Corporate Parental Rights, or rather the residuals of the peculiar institutions, because institutions are corporations, where, corporations are people, and, as such, demand parental rights, under another one of their fake ass laws they want to lube up with prolifer propaganda, slither into existence, for the purposes of fraudulently billing Medicaid, in furtherance of the best interests of the child, because children are chattel, legally acquired through default asset forfeiture laws for hailing from the population of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) when it comes to maximizing profits through trafficking tiny humans, and their souls, through the children's trusts.

https://beverlytran.blogspot.com/search?q=bill+barr+RFRA

Praise the lord.

Bad Boo Boo!

#maytheheavensfall

Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco announces his departure from the Department of Justice, effective as of July 3, 2020.

“Solicitor General Noel Francisco has represented the United States superbly before the Supreme Court for the past three Terms,” said Attorney General William P. Barr.  Boo Boo Barr lies because Noel was mean to my Sweetie. “Arguing before the Court 17 times on behalf of the federal government, he has been a principled and persuasive advocate on issues ranging from the separation of powers to religious liberty to vigorous enforcement of federal immigration law.  His skilled advocacy has been instrumental to historic victories on behalf of the President’s national security authority, the free speech rights of public employees, and property owners’ access to federal courts, among many other significant accomplishments.  Away from the courtroom, he has been a steady and respected leader for the Office of the Solicitor General, a wise counselor to me and others in the Executive Branch, and a good friend.  I am grateful for his tireless service to his country and the Department of Justice, and I wish him well in his future endeavors.”

“It has been the honor of my professional career to serve as the Solicitor General of the United States,” said Solicitor General Noel Francisco.  “Representing the United States before the Supreme Court is one of the greatest jobs in the law and an opportunity for which I am deeply grateful.  I am proud of the significant success the Office of Solicitor General has had in advancing the rule of law of in our great nation alongside the dedicated men and women at the Department of Justice — some of the finest lawyers I have known.”

Since his appointment in 2017, Noel Francisco has served over three Supreme Court Terms as Solicitor General and has represented the United States before the nation’s highest court in more than 150 merit cases.

Under Solicitor General Francisco’s leadership, the United States consistently and successfully advocated in support of our nation’s core Constitutional principles including religious liberty, separation of powers, first amendment freedoms and enforcement of immigration laws.  Over the course of his impressive tenure as Solicitor General, Francisco argued before the Supreme Court 17 times.  Significant victories include:

• Trump v. Hawaii: upholding the President’s restrictions on travel from countries that present national-security risks.
• Janus v. AFSCME: holding that the First Amendment prohibits requiring public employees who decline to join a union to pay union dues (overruling a 1977 decision, Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Education).
• Kisor v. Wilkie: significantly limiting judicial deference to agency interpretations of their own regulations while retaining such deference in core applications.
• Knick v. Township of Scott:  allowing property owners to bring claims for government takings in federal court without first suing in state court (overruling a 1985 decision, Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank). Gerrymandering
• Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n: concluding that Colorado violated the Free Exercise Clause in enforcing its antidiscrimination law against a baker who declined on religious grounds to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.  Corporate Parental Rights

In overseeing federal litigation, Solicitor General Francisco made strategic use of emergency motions to defend important federal programs against improper nationwide injunctions.  To that end, the government obtained relief from the Supreme Court on major immigration initiatives, including the travel proclamation, restrictions on asylum abuses, allocation of funds to build a border wall, and revisions to the definition of a public charge.  As a result of these successes, some lower courts have begun to curb the erroneous use of nationwide injunctions.

The Office of the Solicitor General and entire Department of Justice thank Solicitor General Francisco’s service and leadership.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Prelude To Detroit: Noel Francisco & His Battle To Cover Up Gerrymandering

Remember when I told you Noel Francisco sucked?

Do you remember how I went into ad nausuem detail of how Noel is a co-conspirator in the  Michigan Emergency Manager Law, Detroit Bankruptcy, Detroit Grand Bargain, Detroit Land Bank Authority, TARP, election interference, campaign fraud, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Parental Rights, Catholic Charities, trafficking tiny humans in foster care and adoption?

No?

Well, I guess you will just have to wait for the tale of stealin' the children, land & vote , otherwise known as gerrymandering, where he argued that it was a legal act for redistricting, to be told, again, because we are in Detroit and I have preserved the history.

#maytheheavensfall 

Solicitor General Noel Francisco Expected to Step Down

WASHINGTON — Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, the Justice Department official responsible for defending the Trump administration before the Supreme Court, has told the department that he plans to leave, a person familiar with his decision said late Wednesday.

Mr. Francisco’s top deputy, Jeff Wall, will most likely step in as acting solicitor general as the White House searches for a replacement.

While it is not unusual for solicitors general to leave as the Supreme Court winds down its term, Mr. Francisco would be the second high-ranking official to depart in the coming months.

On Monday, Brian A. Benczkowski, the head of the department’s criminal division, announced that he would leave in July. While at the department, he has worked to stem the nation’s opioid crisis and handled the politically charged referral of a whistle-blower complaint about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

The person who spoke of Mr. Francisco’s planned departure did so on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment early Thursday. CNN first reported Mr. Francisco’s decision to leave.

Since Mr. Francisco, 50, was confirmed as solicitor general in September 2017, he has gone before the Supreme Court to argue some of the most controversial positions taken by the Trump administration, most notably Mr. Trump’s decision in his first week in office to ban people from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.

The travel ban set off a firestorm in the Justice Department when Sally Q. Yates, then the acting attorney general, refused to comply and was fired. The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that Mr. Trump had the authority to impose the ban.

The solicitor general got his start in high-level Republican politics when he joined the legal team of George W. Bush, then a presidential candidate, during the 2000 Florida election recount. Mr. Francisco served in Mr. Bush’s administration until leaving in 2005 for Jones Day, the white-shoe law firm that has produced several Trump administration legal hires, including Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel.

Much of Mr. Francisco’s tenure at the Justice Department was overshadowed by the investigation of the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who was looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election, any ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, and whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct the inquiry.

The investigation, which lasted nearly two years, so enraged the president over that time that department officials worried he would fire the special counsel or the top officials overseeing it.

The attorney general at the start of the Mueller inquiry, Jeff Sessions, had recused himself from Russia matters, and the associate attorney general, Rachel L. Brand, resigned in early 2018. That placed Mr. Francisco squarely in the line of succession to oversee the Russia investigation should Mr. Trump fire Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who had appointed and oversaw Mr. Mueller.

This May, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked Congress from seeing redacted portions of the special counsel’s report that contained grand jury information. Democrats had argued that they needed the materials as part of their impeachment proceedings against the president. Mr. Francisco had argued that the materials should not be released because Congress did not have the right to obtain grand jury materials as part of an impeachment proceeding.

Most recently, Mr. Francisco wrote a brief asking an appeals panel to force Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to grant the Justice Department’s motion to withdraw its case against Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser.

Mr. Francisco essentially argued that the courts did not have the authority to reject prosecutorial decisions made by the executive branch.

After the Justice Department said it wished to withdraw its case against Mr. Flynn, who had twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I., Judge Sullivan tapped John Gleeson, a former mob prosecutor and federal judge, to argue against the government’s position.

Mr. Gleeson said on Wednesday that the government’s motion should not be granted and that the decision to withdraw the Flynn case was a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” and a political act meant to help an ally of the president’s.

But if the appeals panel agrees with Mr. Francisco and forces Judge Sullivan to grant the motion to withdraw, Mr. Gleeson’s argument could be moot.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

SCOTUS Says No House Judiciary To Mueller Detroit Grand Jury Material

Oups!

J'ai dit une bêtise.

#maytheheavensfall

DOJ asks court to temporarily block release of secret Mueller grand jury materials (Updated)

UPDATE: On Friday Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked the release of the grand jury materials and ordered the House Judiciary Committee to respond by Monday, May 18, at 3 p.m. EDT. The committee had not opposed the temporary hold, known as an administrative stay, to give the court time to review the government’s request.

The Department of Justice came to the Supreme Court today, asking the justices to put on hold the disclosure of grand jury materials from the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in March 2019 submitted a report on possible Russian interference in the 2016 election. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld an order by a federal trial court that would require the disclosure to the House Judiciary Committee of portions of the Mueller report that had been redacted, along with grand jury transcripts and materials that had been kept secret. Unless the Supreme Court steps in, the government told the justices, “the government will have to disclose the materials on May 11, 2020, which would irrevocably lift their secrecy and possibly frustrate the government’s ability to seek further review.”

The D.C. Circuit, the government explained, relied on an exception to the general rule of grand jury secrecy that allows courts to authorize disclosure of grand jury materials “in connection with a judicial proceeding” – in this case, the D.C. Circuit reasoned, the impeachment trial of the president. The Department of Justice plans to file a petition for review of the D.C. Circuit’s order; today’s filing asked the justices to temporarily block the release of the grand jury materials until that petition is filed and the Supreme Court rules in the case. The government argued, in a brief signed by U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, that the justices are likely to grant review; by contrast, the government contended, the House Judiciary Committee “has not identified any urgent requirement” to obtain the materials, and there is no impeachment trial currently underway.

The House Judiciary Committee indicated that it plans to oppose the government’s request to block the release of the grand jury materials, but it also indicated that – “out of respect” for the Supreme Court – it does not oppose a seven-day stay to give the justices time to rule on the government’s request.

The government’s request went to Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency appeals from the District of Columbia. Roberts can rule on the request himself or, as is more likely, refer it to his colleagues.

--DOJ v. HJC Stay Application for Stay - Mueller Material Unsealing - 05-07-2020 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: Solicitor General Noel Fransico Flies SCOTUS Request To Remand The Virginia Legislature' "Fill-In-The Blank" Lack Of Legal Standing Voting Rights Act Gerrymandering Case

This is case is supposed to be about racial gerrymandering, but it you take a second, much deeper look into the entire issue of redistricting, the U.S. argument is to remand to the lower court has nothing to do with the brown paper bag test.

It has to do with gerrymandering based upon an assigned, psuedo-scientific classification based upon  the residual of the peculiar institution; this case is about fraud.

Yes, as you have safely deduced based upon everything I do, this case is about TARP and the Virginia Housing Development Authority, which unsurprisingly looks like it was created the exact same way the Detroit Land Bank Authority was, meaning it was never incorporated, but the Virginia legislation allowed room enough in the statute to fill in the blank as to the Corporate Shape Shifter wanted to be, whenever they wanted, of course.

Here is the Virginia "fill-in-the-blank" law of its housing authorities.

§ 36-4. Creation of redevelopment and housing authorities.
In each locality there is hereby created a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, with such public and corporate powers as are set forth in this chapter, to be known respectively as the "__________ (insert name of locality) Redevelopment and Housing Authority" (hereinafter referred to as "authority"); provided, however, that any authority not now activated shall not transact any business or exercise any powers authorized under this chapter until or unless the qualified voters of such locality shall by a majority vote of such qualified voters voting in a referendum held as provided in § 36-4.1, have indicated a need for an authority to function in such locality. The referendum to determine whether or not there is a need for an authority to function (i) may be called by the governing body by resolution or (ii) shall be called by the governing body upon the filing of a petition signed by at least two percent of the qualified voters registered in the jurisdiction, asserting that there is need for an authority to function in such locality and requesting the governing body to call such referendum.
The governing body may by resolution call for a referendum to determine whether there is need for an authority in the locality if the governing body believes it is appropriate for one of the reasons set out in § 36-2. In the case of a town located within the county, the town council shall first obtain the concurrence of the governing body of the county and the county redevelopment and housing authority prior to scheduling a referendum.
In any suit, action or proceeding involving the validity or enforcement of or relating to any contract of the authority, the authority shall be conclusively deemed to have become established and authorized to transact business and exercise its powers hereunder if the voters of the locality have so indicated in a referendum held pursuant to § 36-4.1, that there is need for the authority.
1938, p. 448; Michie Code 1942, § 3145(4); 1946, p. 276; 1947, p. 138; 1952, c. 427; 1958, c. 533; 2006, c. 784; 2009, c. 78.

So, just to make sure I was not purporting any legal road blocks to a state legislature usurping the powers of a governor, I checked to see how many times one could "fill in the blanks" of this law.

I came up with 822 opportunities to fill in the statutory blank.

Michigan is trying to push legislation to allow the legislature intervene in suits of law, but former Governor Snyder vetoed.

This is a highlight from the brief:

 If the Court reaches the merits, it should vacate the district court’s judgment that race predominated in all 11 challenged districts and remand for further proceedings. To establish racial predominance, plaintiffs must meet a demanding standard. They must prove that race “was the legislature’s dominant and controlling rationale in drawing its district lines” and that the legislature thus “subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles * * * to racial considerations.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 913, 916 (1995). 

So, the moral of the story is, there is no racial consideration when filling in the blank of a state law, particularly when the fake housing authority never incorporated to be able to open a bank account and cash a check, just like the Detroit Land Bank Authority, or the Detroit Land Bank Community Development Corporation, or whatever Ham Sandwich it answers to.

Besides, race is a residual of the peculiar institution of property classification law of the one-drop rule.

Just ask Elizabeth Warren.

And that is why the state attorney general could not bringforth this case because the fill in the blank law has no legal basis, and could be corporately fungible with a bit of white out.

The U.S. brief goes on to say, blah, blah, blah on legal standing against Writ of Certiorari because only the State Attorney General can represent a state, not the House, or rather the legislative branch.

I call stuff like this privatization, or rather, stealin' the children, land and votes.

This case is about forced migration of geographic targeted population of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) for Public Private Partnership redevelopment.

I make understanding technology and law fun!

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether appellants have standing to bring this appeal.

2. Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard in concluding that the Virginia legislature predominantly relied on race when drawing each of the 11 challenged majority-minority districts in Virginia’s 2011 House of Delegates redistricting plan.

SCOTUS 18 281 VIRGINIA HOUS... by on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: U.S. Solicitor General Noel Fransico Petitions SCOTUS To Figure Out If Lybia Can Sue The Court For Not Being Able To Sue In Court

Of course, I have attempted to water this down to start taking small sips in understanding that our elected officials are implementing privatization policies through foreign actions by ignoring the simple fact that we are a tripartite government which is structured as a trust.

Privatization is the usurpation of Judicial powers by going through that god awful administrative law in those Privateering UCC ships that sail off after stealin' the children, land and the votes.

The fun part about all this is that SCOTUS may experience a constitutional crisis, which, dare I say, may be a situation of war crimes, including violations of the statutes of fraud in #cyberwars, better recognized as propaganda.

This is Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy is not mean to my Sweetie.

This is about the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of l976, Pub. L. 94-583, 90 Stat. 289l, 28 U.S.C. Sec. l330, l332(a), l39l(f) and l60l-l6ll [hereinafter the FSIA], limits the role of the Executive branch in suits against foreign governments and governmental entities by precluding the Department of State from making decisions on state immunity. The FSIA codifies the restrictive theory of immunity, incorporating criteria, which the courts had developed in applying the theory, while codifying and applying international law. (See ch. 5, Restatement 3rd, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, sec. 451-463, pp. 390, 435, American Law Institute (1986).) The Act prescribes the means of service for suits against a foreign state or agency and instrumentality in Section.

This is about privatization because it looks like the Michigan Emergency Manager Law where the Executive Branch can make policy through Executive Order usurping the powers of the Judicial Branch.

Only the Congress makes law.

In a nutshell, this is shockingly the progenitor to the Michigan Manager Emergency Law, which was born of Michigan Child Protection Law, the international model of privatization.

Petitioners are family members of Mihai Alimanestianu, one of seven United States citizens killed in the 1989 terrorist attack on United Trans Aeriens (UTA) Flight 772 over Niger.

They sued the Government of Libya.

They lost and appealed.

The district court entered a judgment in favor of petitioners, but their claims were dismissed on appeal pursuant to an agreement between the United States and Libya that required Libya to pay money into a settlement fund to compensate American victims of terrorism and the United States to restore Libya’s sovereign immunity to suit in U.S. courts.

Settlement funds is code for children's trust fund because that is how they are structure complex financial fraud schemes.

Then they sued the court for stealin' their claims.

Petitioners then sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC), alleging that the government had taken their claims against Libya without just compensation.

So, what had happened was....

The State Department made the determination, devoid of any due process, that Libya sponsored the UTA attack and could not be immune from being sued which sounds exactly like Child Protection Law, because you are guilty, until proven innocent, which you can never be proven innocent as the quasi-judicial determination of rights to property fell under the Executive Branch.

Then, in the spirit of Child Welfare Law, "reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child were made" with lots of great programs, billed to the U.S. Treasury, just like child welfare bills to Medicaid, that Libya's parental rights to its sovereign immunity was terminated and its goods were

Beginning in 2003, when Libya decided to “relinquish its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs,” the United States and Libya worked to reestablish normal diplomatic relations. 

Congress passed the Libyan Claims Resolution Act.

Libyan Claims Resolution Ac... by on Scribd

Then, Libya decided to settle for $1.3 billion to restore relations with the U.S., but not the UTA attack claims.

In October 2008, the Secretary of State certified receipt of the settlement funds from Libya, triggering the restoration of Libya’s sovereign immunity under the LCRA. Pet. App. 5a. President Bush then issued an Executive Order stating that the United States had “espoused” and “settled” the terrorism-related claims of U.S. nationals against Libya pursuant to the claims settlement agreement. 

TRANSLATION: AS SOON AS THOSE $$$ DROPPED, LIBYA GOT ITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BACK SO IT COULD TURN AROUND AND SUE THE COURT FOR NOT LETTING IT SUE UNDER THE IN COURT.

The Executive Order set up a different funding stream to compensate the victims and dismissed all the DOJ claims in the Judicial Branch by setting up Public Private Partnerships to funnel the money through child welfare NGOs like they always do.

Just consider this form of stealin' an "humanitarian action" because people have properties to build and research to develop so they can keep stealin'.

U.S. President George Bush ... by on Scribd

Then, Libya claimed that they could sue the court for dismissing their claims because they did not have sovereign immunity, which amounts to stealin' personal property under the Fifth Amendment.

The court of appeals reiterated that prohibiting a claimant from asserting a claim in U.S. courts did not amount to a “physical invasion of property.

Then it goes on to say, "Blah, blah, blah", per se, usurpation of Judicial Powers, blah,blah, blah.... you can read the background model, here.

Michigan Quo Warranto Petit... by on Scribd

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/fcsc/docs/lib-ii-184.pdf

Prior to 1976, a foreign state sued in United States courts would hie itself to the State Department and ask for an immunity letter. If the State Department acted favorably, the letter would have the practical effect of ending the lawsuit. To be sure, the Supreme Court's decision that such letters should be honored was a judicial determination based upon criteria for judicial deference developed in a series of foreign affairs cases. But such wholesale deference came to look very like surrender, particularly because the State Department's conduct was oft-times redolent of backroom politics: the department's decision to issue or withhold an immunity determination was not always based upon a strict reading of the Tate letter. The department regarded its function as partaking more of "political powers" -in Marshall's words 34-than of any quasi-judicial duty. It was difficult to see why litigants with presumably valid claims, often amounting to great sums, should live at the mercy of the diplomatic considerations which the State Department felt bound to honor.
Under the Act, the court-a federal court if the foreign state wants it that way-makes the immunity determination, looking only to the standards set out in the Act and, in theory at least, not to its own or somebody else's view of how nice or nasty the state-defendant's government is. The Act codifies a number of exceptions to a general principle of immunity, provides a procedure for serving process on a foreign state, and defines the assets that may be the subject of execution to satisfy judgment.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1875&context=mjil 


So, basically, the question I am presenting is if a claim is a moveable or immoveable one, because it sounds like chattel law to me, like what they do in adoption, termination of parental rights, quiet title actions, you know the routine when it comes to stealin' the children, land and the votes.

This action sounds like a foreboding proclamation to a series of Quo Warranto , but hey, what do I know?

I know this sounds like a constitutional crisis because there are more actions in the SCOTUS pipeline.

I also know it is not wise to be mean to my Sweetie.

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the government’s restoration of Libya’s sovereign immunity in U.S. courts and settlement of petitioners’ claims for more than $10 million in damages effected a taking of petitioners’ property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

ALEXANDER ALIMANESTIANU, ET... by on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: Solicitor General Noel Fransico Files SCOTUS DACA, DAPA Briefs To Enjoin Actions In Trafficking Tiny Humans In DC Court Of Appeals - The Sinking Of The Privateers' UCC Ships

The U.S. Solicitor General has filed the following reply briefs in SCOTUS on the  DACA/DAPA, or rather the trafficking of tiny human Petitions for Certiorari to enjoin the cases.

Trump bearing the Arms of the United States by terminating
right of the gold fringe under Admirality Law.

This is about the children's trust funds, child welfare.

Acting U.S. Attorney General Matt Whitaker seems to have some serious Skills, Knowledge & Abilities (SKAs) when it comes to the administration of these actions, so I have to show some love.

This is about U.S. Law, not Admirality Law.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

It is time to sink those UCC ships of "The Privateers" who have been stealin' our children, land and votes for far too long because we are a christian nation.

The Privateers of the Public Private Partnerships of UCC Children's Trust Funds

The time has come to "wall" the National Treasury by tearing down the "wall" of the Vatican that holds the Children's Trusts, without our consent.

This is about foster care and adoption.

This is about ending Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare.

This is the residuals of the peculiar institution and it all started in Detroit.

   Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Happy National Adoption Month: TRUMP v. NAACP Petition For Certiorari To SCOTUS On Trafficking Tiny Humans - DACA, DAPA

Happy National Adoption Month: SCOTUS - DHS v. States Children's Trust Funds On Trafficking Tiny Humans - DACA, DAPA Privatization Policies Of Fraud

3. At a minimum, the Court should hold this petition pending resolution of the Regents petition and any further proceedings before this Court. Because the district court here issued a nationwide injunction identical to the one in Regents, an order vacating the injunction in Regents would have no immediate practical effect unless the injunction issued here is also vacated. Holding this petition (or granting it) is the most efficient way to accomplish that result. Pet. 16-17.

KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, SECRET... by on Scribd

When this Court declined to grant certiorari before judgment to review the district court’s injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to maintain the non-enforcement policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the Court made clear that it expected the court of appeals to “proceed expeditiously to decide this case,” at which time the government could renew its request. 2/26/18 Order (No. 17-1003). More than ten months later, the court of appeals’ judgment is here and the Court is presented the opportunity it anticipated in February. The Court should now grant certiorari and resolve this important dispute this Term.

SCOTUS UNITED STATES DEPART... by on Scribd

1. In September 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determined, in accordance with the views of the Attorney General, that the non-enforcement policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was likely unlawful and should be wound down in an orderly fashion. Such a quintessential exercise of the Secretary of Homeland Security’s authority to establish “national immigration enforcement policies and priorities,” 6 U.S.C. 202(5) (2012 & Supp. V 2017), is not judicially reviewable and was eminently reasonable in any event. See Pet. 17-31, United States DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., No. 18-587 (Nov. 5, 2018); Reply Br. 6-11, Regents, supra (No. 18-587). Yet DHS has been compelled by two nationwide preliminary injunctions to retain the unlawful policy and thereby sanction the continuing violation of federal immigration law by nearly 700,000 aliens.

Trump v NAACP SCOTUS Petiti... by on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS v. TRUMP: Emoluments Clause Case Is Fast Tracked To SCOTUS With A Tweet

In the latest update of the Trump Emoluments Clause Case, we see that a tweet can now be entered into a court of law.

FUN FACT! I ENTERED MY BLOG AS A LIVING, BREATHING CONTINUANCE OF CLAIMS & EVIDENCE

I am not a tweeter because Twitter shadowbanned my Sweetie and me for years, but Trump is, and he has tweeted his way to fast tracking the case to SCOTUS!

The judge in the emoluments clause case cited this tweet from @realDonaldTrump to reject Trump's argument that any lawsuit would impose undue burdens on the presidency.
In this tweet, Trump actually invited a lawsuit from one of his enemies! He's got time, it seems. https://t.co/RTQbWUhahr

— David Fahrenthold (@Fahrenthold) November 2, 2018

To read the DC Circuit docket, complaint and latest opinion of Judge Emmet Sullivan, click here.

You may listen to Blumenthal in the CAC Foreign Emolumments Clause Case Pre-argument Press Call, June 5, 2018 here.

To follow the fast track to SCOTUS, click here.

Congress v. Trump Emolument Clause Case Plaintiff Opposition Re Interlocutory Appeal by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Foreign Emoluments 101 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

The Text History of the Foreign Emoluments Clause by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Noel Fransico Sucks

Jeff Sessions had dinner with the U.S. Solicitor General Noel Fransico.

So, what exactly does the U.S. Solicitor General do?

From U.S. Department of Justice, Solicitor General site, it states the following:

The task of the Office of the Solicitor General is to supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office. The United States is involved in approximately two-thirds of all the cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the merits each year. 

The Solicitor General determines the cases in which Supreme Court review will be sought by the government and the positions the government will take before the Court. The Office's staff attorneys, Deputy Solicitors General and Assistants to the Solicitor General, participate in preparing the petitions, briefs, and other papers filed by the government in the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General conducts the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Those cases not argued by the Solicitor General personally are assigned either to an Assistant to the Solicitor General or to another government attorney. The vast majority of government cases are argued by the Solicitor General or one of the office attorneys. 

Another responsibility of the Office is to review all cases decided adversely to the government in the lower courts to determine whether they should be appealed and, if so, what position should be taken. Moreover, the Solicitor General determines whether the government will participate as an amicus curiae, or intervene, in cases in any appellate court.

(ENTER - STAGE LEFT) Noel John Fransico in the spirit of fuchsia.

Noel John Francisco was sworn in as the 48th Solicitor General of the United States on September 19, 2017.

 Cheers, love.

Prior to joining the Justice Department, he was a partner in the Washington, DC office of Jones Day, where he was the chair of the Firm’s Government Regulation Practice.

Jones Day???

The same Jones Day that financially raped Detroit in the Chapter 9 bankruptcy, Grand Bargain, that allowed the Detroit Land Bank Authority to file as a creditor and get TARP, through the State appointed Emergency Manager, Kevyn Orr, who also hails from Jones Day???

Taken from the Jones Day site.

Kevyn Orr provides strategic crisis management advice, identifying creative approaches to novel or first impression situations with an eye toward developing cost-efficient, business oriented solutions.  

He has practiced in the areas of business restructuring, financial institution regulation, and commercial litigation for over three decades and has experience handling all aspects of complex and precedent-setting matters. Kevyn is Partner-in-Charge of the Washington, D.C. Office. 

Prior to rejoining Jones Day in 2015, Kevyn served as Emergency Manager of the City of Detroit and was charged with restructuring the city's finances and operations. During his tenure, he oversaw the largest and most complicated municipal bankruptcy proceeding in the nation's history. As a result of that proceeding, the city successfully restructured $18 billion in debt, reduced overall debt by $7 billion, developed and implemented a multiyear $1.7 billion revitalization plan for city services and operations, streamlined key city operations, helped improve public safety, put the city's art in a perpetual public trust, and avoided drastic cuts to pension and related retiree benefits. Kevyn received Turnaround Management Association's Mega Transaction of the Year Award for the City of Detroit, Michigan in October 2015. 

At Jones Day, Kevyn's experience includes advising Chrysler on all aspects of its bankruptcy, National Century Financial Enterprises in its bankruptcy and asserting its claims in the health care provider bankruptcies of PhyAmerica Corporation and DCHC/Greater Southeast Hospital, and Laidlaw Corporation in its defense of a $1 billion claim by the purchaser of its environmental cleanup division. 

Kevyn is a member of the American Bar Association and the American Bankruptcy Institute.

Back to Noel.

While at Jones Day, he appeared several times before the Supreme Court, including in McDonnell v. United States, which involved the meaning of “official act” under federal bribery statutes; Zubik v. Burwell, which involved the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to regulations related to insurance coverage for contraception; and NLRB v. Noel Canning, which involved the Constitution’s recess appointment power.  

Religious Freedom Restoration Act litigation?  That is child welfare.  That is privatization.  That is asset management of human capital.  That is human trafficking stuff.  The plot thickens. 

He has also argued numerous cases in the lower federal and state courts on a wide range of constitutional, civil, and criminal matters. 

He argued the SCOTUS National Voting Rights Act case where he changed the position of the nation to just purge voter rolls if you fail to vote for more than 6 years, claiming it was ok if notices were mailed out.  He never explained the switch of position, nor did he identify his authority to make such a switch in national voting policies without Congress, or public discussion, for that matter.  This was another election manipulation "authority" case to implement privatization, or what could be deemed as another implementation phase of a soft coup.  

Noel was mean to my Sweetie!

JON HUSTED, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE SCOTUS No. 16-980 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

  

From 2001 to 2003, Mr. Francisco served in the Office of Counsel to the President as Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush, and from 2003 to 2005 he served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. 

Noel knows where the children are buried, who did it and why.

Mr. Francisco was raised in Oswego, NY.  He received his B.A. with honors in 1991 from the University of Chicago, and a J.D. with high honors in 1996 from the University of Chicago Law School. After law school, Mr. Francisco served as a law clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit before clerking for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, is quite the $250 million international operation, or at least that is what it says in the filings, training lawyers to defend christian NGOs around the world, (yes, I intentionally made the "c" lower case), with very interesting 501c3 filings and a foundation, too! Only issue, though, is it does not seem to fund much "legal training" unless those "human rights" financial transfers do.  Just saying.  ADF is into neo-feudalism, promulgating that privatization law of owning humans as currency, more readily understood as the form of human traffickers.  They are behind the finalization of corporations being granted parental rights.  I know.  I was one of the original writers.  I can smell the RFRA.

This is the stuff ADF is into.

FBI Busts Baby Selling Ring, Then Sits Back On Its Arse While Human Trafficking Continues

#Time2AuditGod

I am doubling down on my Sneaky Jeffy* and I do not care what anyone has to say about it.

Get 'em, get 'em all.

Noel Fransico sucks.

Sessions: Federal prosecutor evaluating alleged FBI, DOJ wrongdoing, no second special counsel for now

Attorney General Jeff Sessions revealed Thursday a federal prosecutor was evaluating certain issues involving the FBI, the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One, but said he would not appoint a second special counsel at this point.

In a letter directed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, Sessions revealed that he asked U.S. Attorney John Huber to lead the evaluation into issues raised by the committees in recent months.

“I write in response to recent letters requesting the appointment of a Special Counsel to review certain prosecutorial and investigative determinations made by the Department of Justice in 2016 and 2017. I take the concerns you raise seriously,” Sessions wrote, noting how important it was that the American people and Congress had “confidence” in the Justice Department.

“While we continue to believe the appointment of a second Special Counsel is necessary, this is a step in the right direction. We expect that U.S. Attorney Huber, given his reputation, will conduct an independent and thorough investigation. Such an investigation is critical to restoring the reputation of both the Bureau and DOJ in the eyes of the American people,” Goodlatte and Gowdy responded in a statement.

Sessions referenced a November 2017 letter sent by Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, first reported by Fox News, directing senior federal prosecutors to evaluate “certain issues” requested by congressional Republicans, involving the sale of Uranium One and alleged unlawful dealings related to the Clinton Foundation.

John Huber

On Nov. 13, 2017, Boyd wrote: “These senior prosecutors will report directly to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General [Rod Rosenstein], as appropriate, and will make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.”

John Huber has a particular background in child welfare fraud and "authorities" using TARP, which makes me starry eyed.  "Hiya, Peaches!"

Sessions revealed Thursday in the letter to top Republican lawmakers in both chambers of Congress that Huber was the senior federal prosecutor leading that effort.

Sessions revealed that he asked U.S. Attorney John Huber, seen here, to look into the accusations.

“Mr. Huber is conducting his work from outside the Washington D.C. area and in cooperation with the Inspector General,” Sessions said, noting that Huber’s review would “include a full, complete, and objective evaluation of these matters in a manner that is consistent with the law and facts.”

Huber is a federal prosecutor, twice confirmed, unanimously, by the Senate as U.S. attorney for the District of Utah in 2015 and again in 2017. Huber previously served in leadership roles within the U.S. Attorney’s Office as national security section chief and executive assistant U.S. attorney.

“I receive regular updates from Mr. Huber and upon the conclusion of his review, will receive his recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel,” Sessions said.

Huber ultimately would be the prosecutor to decide whether issues raised by Republicans in Congress warrant the appointment of a second special counsel, Sessions said.

The attorney general cited U.S. Code, noting that the appointment of a special counsel was "reserved for use in only the most 'extraordinary circumstances,'" and that any special counsel must be "selected from outside the United States Government."

"To justify such an appointment, the Attorney General would need to conclude that 'the public interest would be served by removing a large degree of responsibility for the matter from the Department of Justice," the letter read.

Sessions added, "The Department has successfully investigated and prosecuted many high-profile resource-intensive matters since the regulations were promulgated in 1999, but the regulations' standard has been found to be satisfied on only two occasions," and said it was "more common" to appoint "accountable prosecutors" to conduct investigations within the department.

On March 6, Gowdy, R-S.C., and Goodlatte, R-Va., penned a joint letter to Sessions demanding the appointment of a special counsel to investigate "conflicts of interest" and decisions "made and not made" by current and former Justice Department officials in 2016 and 2017, noting that "the public interest requires" the action.

The letter cited potential Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses, which  Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced Wednesday would be investigated by his team. 

“The Office of Inspector General will initiate a review that will examine the Justice Department’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s compliance with legal requirements, and with applicable DOJ and FBI policies and procedures, in applications filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) relating to a certain U.S. person,” the Horowitz statement obtained by Fox News read.

“As part of this examination, the OIG also will review information that was known to the DOJ and the FBI at the time the applications were filed from or about an alleged FBI confidential source.”

Sessions told lawmakers in his Thursday letter that he understood the Justice Department was "not above criticism," and noted that if anyone "falls short" of the "highest level of integrity, ethics and professionalism," he would act.

"I will fulfill my responsibility to take necessary action to protect the integrity of our work," Sessions wrote, thanking the lawmakers for their "leadership" on the matters, and stating that he would  make their letters available to both Huber and Horowitz.

*I call Sessions "Sneaky Jeffy" because I busted him grinning when he should not have been grinning in a public hearing and I am pretty darn sure I know why he was grinning because I was grinning, too!

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©