Alaska Chinook: Judge Mehta Style Conjecture

Homegrown PATRIOTISM MIA

Amit the Judge or Emmitt the Clown…OK jester sounds appropriate. Look, I am a True-Blue True-Blood New England Patriot, born in America the son of a proud Irish American hard-working proletariat, my “Founding Father” who followed in his father’s footsteps. But maybe when “My Country Tis of Thee” begs for neweigners to “come on over” and thus embrace the America way of life, well we find a different kind of Patriotism. Don’t get me wrong, I embrace this sea to shining sea revival in cultures different and welcome my brothers and sisters from abroad with open arms. Come here, work hard, stay for the duration. What I am saying, the age old saying it goes with the territory and maybe lingering resistance from the other territory. Take Ted Cruz for instance, his tirades against Miss Liberty can only rest its case the fact he was born in Canada, so instead of hearing “I pledge allegiance to the flag…” the latter Red, White & Blue symbol tattered was instead a crown as in Her Majesty at first light of dawn, and that can cause “Crazy Psycho Shit” fantasies. That is how Representative Cecilline calls it out, he is also a Patriot from my home-town. And at the same time, this kind of Cruz crud missile, it is what the GOP calls “Legitimate Political Discourse”. Did I hear someone yell “bipartisan” like “Fire” in a crowded theater! Back to my bone spur of contention. Now I have worked alongside many excellent “outsiders” that have come here to embrace our way of life now as honorable law abiding “insiders”. Go ahead, criticize my choice of words and I will apologize with a Melvin “you can just shampoo my crotch”! And to emphasize, these neweigners are well deserving of that challenge and its rewards in “citizenship”. Especially many close friendships I have made along the way with individuals from India, engineers that hate the cold and love sloppy Joes! But over time when confidence allowed, many have asked me “what this Patriotism” thing is all about. And I have heard more then enough criticism, from those same well-meaning individuals that don’t understand this “Patriotism”, in belief it boils over the pot how “We the People” behave - like on the 4^th of July. Look, like I said I learned about “Patriotism” and honor to Country before I soiled my first diaper, so it sinks in early on - but it is somewhat hard to explain, to those individuals that did not have that movement. We learned it all in kindergarten, most things, but what came first the chicken or the egg? Patriotism reigns.

So I am a little disheartened that Judge Amit Mehta has just chastised Miss Liberty, as it appears he has no idea what this “Patriotism” is all about, especially when this nation is in the grieving still process in procession through its deepest and steepest awakening, that Democracy fumbled on the 1-yard line! Just the other day in a long-awaited nightmare playing out, Judge Amit caved into individuals that have been caught red-handed aiding and abetting the “Enemy of the People”. Look, one cannot learn about this “Patriotism” from a law book! So be it in his “dismal swamp” dismissal of “Turncoats” in decision, the gavel was heard loud and clear. Patriotism has been wounded some more! Amounting to castration away forever at least “half” of Donald John Trump’s “Treason” affair and at the same time giving amnesty to Rudy Giuliani and cloak and dagger US some more, letting Donald Jr. off the hook also. And wait there’s more, a bribe for Mo Brooks?

Now since when is the “Court” allowed to bribe someone! For real, even though the news pundits are breaking open the champagne this “decision” by Judge Mehta, that the lawsuits by members of Congress against “individual Number 1” can proceed mind you with caution, as it is celebratory champagne that comes from the estate of Donald Trump - so is cesspool like cheers. Probably came from the Oval Office whiz SCIF urinal! See, for the time-being the United States District Court has now denied in part the total destruction in claims through “part and parcel guilty” dismissal of 3-pending “personal” lawsuits entered by 11-members of Congress and the Capitol police. Yes “civil” litigation which means asking a jury for beaucoup $punitive$ and additional $compensatory$ damage awards based on the “Emotional Distress” compass. Donald John Trump, Donald Jr., Ruby Giuliani, Mo Brooks and the Pound Foolish Boys are named as the defendants, in action commensurate with the before and after affects in affiliation the January 6^th “Domestic Terrorist Attack” on the U.S. Capitol. Wherein the plaintiffs claim suffrage from that “emotional mental distress” - yet those members of Congress that have joined this litigation are still able to attend to their jobs and collect $174000 bucks - so a lawsuit for a few extra million on the sidelines makes sense, as they chose to instead find a career that is not at all about the “Honey” $Money$, it is about…the jury is still out, patience please!

Now the original signatory of one of the lawsuits timely filed against Trump and his pigeon-toed goons only 41 days and 41 nights after said “Insurrection”, Representative Bennie Thompson - who is also of record suffering from that “Crazy Psycho Shit Emotional Distress” - he bailed out and is now the Chairman of the Nancy Pelosi “Select Committee” investigating the Trump “Insurrection”. I mean with the evidence that this “Committee” is receiving, it may be doing the leg work for these civil lawsuits! Your Tax Dollars at work? So I wonder, did Bennie leave that “emotional distress” behind when Pelosi ordered him to…forget it. Back to Judge Amit Mehta.

Now in the motion filed by the Trump “Conspiracy” perpetrators to dismiss the “civil by jury” lawsuit, well the Judge broke the damn case in half, basically it was a half-baked win for Donald Trump, a full victory for Jr. and Giuliani and if Mo Brooks takes the bait in “bribe”, he will also be off the hook. The lawsuits live on, yet watered down to - it’s a pathetic legal decision as it is like 112-pages of “conjecture”. I guess the judge has nothing better to do with his time, pencil whipping…look more then ever today the courts should be on alert that it is all about how we define “Patriotism” and herein it is not the time to think one knows what that means for saving grace saving Democracy. This sanitized “opinion” that sounds like it came from a 1^st year law student every “i” dotted and every “t” crossed, well la dee frickin’ da the court can do better then this to support “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” in once a vibrant Democracy. Wherein “citizens” stood strong for “Patriotism”! Look, it would have been a greater victory in Democracy had Judge Mehta “dismissed” the claims altogether then to render this pitiful decision - in favor of Patriotism in efforts to advance a souring Democracy. As what is now of record “can and will be used against you in a court of law”, that being now that Donald Trump is infallible due “Presidential Immunity” and Rudy’s gang can get away with hijacking the free speech and debate clause. It appears “Terrorist” bent on “Treason” now have a stake in the 1^st Amendment Right. And that is what I am getting at, forgive them for they know not what this Patriotism is all about when Democracy is under attack!

Giuliani and Donald Jr. and most likely Mo Brooks, they get to run away laughing because Judge Mehta said that even though Giuliani said things like “Trial by Combat“, that Rudy was only kidding? That he didn’t really mean it even though that is exactly what transpired? I guess Mehta is also a mind-reader in this no-kidding aspect! As even speculation would not render this spectacle as fathomable. Like the title of my “Opinion” this Amit Mehta “opinion” reeks with “conjecture” and something you would not expect out of a seasoned bench warmer - as Mehta is not seasoned when it comes to Patriotism - not his fault, it is what it is welcome to America!

Accordingly, Mehta’s decision in dismissing Giuliani and Donald Jr. away from the “civil” litigation is based on the Falloppio approach , the condom protection effect - that we know there was sex but protected; “None of their words, explicitly or implicitly, rose to the level of a call for imminent use of violence or lawless action.” Then just what the fuck was it? If Giuliani telling a maddening crowd in “Let’s have trial by combat.” is now acceptable…it was a precipice an element in “Treason” that is the reason the “Courts” may not be the best venue to arrest this “directing and aiding and abetting ASSAULT”. Yet even though Mehta lets Rudy and Jr. off the hook, he claims they were accomplices in the “Conspiracy” in fact that “directing and aiding and abetting ASSAULT”; “Giuliani and Trump Jr. aided the President in the foregoing efforts. They coordinated with him, spread similar disinformation, contacted state and local election officials, and agreed to speak at the January 6 Rally.” Like I am trying to get the point across, this is indeed a Mobius Strip “opinion”! Guilty maybe, NOT guilty maybe!

And in the final inning of Mehta’s very own insurrection on Democracy’s inevitable jurisprudence, the fact that even though there was established in fact a “conspiracy”, that Donald John Trump is free and clear. He cannot be held accountable for defecting, defecating, dereliction in conviction of duty in “failure-to-act” whatever in doing nothing to prevent it from ever happening in the first place or while it was in progress, even though he planned it, using Rudy and others as accomplices.

President Trump is immune as to Swalwell’s failure-to-act claim under § 1986. But the President cannot be held liable for his failure to exercise his presidential powers, at least under § 1986. Just as he is immune for acts that fall within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, so too must he be immune for alleged failures to exercise that official responsibility. Were it otherwise, Presidents routinely would be subject to suit for not doing more or for not acting at all. Absolute immunity would be gutted if a plaintiff could avoid it simply by alleging a failure to exercise presidential power. The court therefore dismisses Swalwell’s § 1986 claim.

If Swalwell contends that President Trump is liable under § 1986 because he himself is an alleged coconspirator and had the power to stop the conspiracy, the court is dubious that § 1986 can sustain such a construction. If accepted, it would mean that any coconspirator of a § 1985 conspiracy with some degree of authority is likewise liable under § 1986. The court is skeptical that Congress intended such an interpretation. In any event, Swalwell does not specifically articulate a reading of § 1986 that would rest on the President’s failure to act before the rally-goers stormed the Capitol.

Dubious my Patriotic ass. And this BS that the court is skeptical over what Congress intended, look does not Congress make the laws not the “conjecture jesters”? This is blasphemy upon jurisprudence.

And that is wherein the U.S. Congress is blowing it with this January 6^th ordeal and we know one thing for sure, lawyers are cashing in, as there are too damn many lawsuits along with too damn many Judges too damn many lawyers involved, and that amounts to chaos in the “Crazy Psycho Shit” legal debates. And for real, how can a sitting U.S. District Judge offer up a “bribe”? See, Mo Brooks was the only defendant that did not file any motions to dismiss his defendant status upon the Eric Swalwell case. As Brooks is a sitting member of Congress and tested the waters that his status allowed for a certification under the Westfall Act, that when he incited a riot he was acting within the scope and merits of his obligation as a member of Congress - that what he accomplished was within the framework of his duties as is found in the GOP House Rules under “Legitimate Political Discourse”. And instead of trying to bail out, the Westfall Act allows Uncle Sam to come to the aid and rescue of government officials, wherein in the Swalwell lawsuit Mo Brooks’ name would be replaced by “United States” and then Uncle Sam would have to - yes it would mean the Merrick Garland DOJ would be litigating against a member of Congress, that was trying to sue Donald Trump and Giuliani and Donald Jr. and Mo Brooks for “Treason”. It is getting ugly, as Judge Mehta has asked Mo Brooks to now file a motion for dismissal, as Mehta does not want to entertain the merits of Mo Brook’s Westfall Act assertion. So it remains to be seen what Kevin McCarthy does with this golden opportunity. I mean a bribe can get the judge tossed and get the entirety of the lawsuits dismissed, just what Donald Trump would love to see than file a motion for “Attorney Fees” inflated by the Trump Tower highway robbery going rate.

And even if the 3-lawsuits continue on without Rudy without Donald Jr. and maybe soon without Brooks, Mehta’s decision stole the thunder and gave a gift of gag to the remaining defendant, namely Donald John Trump. In his opinion, that the plaintiffs had reached too far to hold Trump accountable in the fact it was a conspiracy, never was the latter ever denied by the Court, that fact was confirmed by Judge Mehta, but Donald Trump was not derelict to not try and STOP it! And wait there’s more. Mr. Trump is the remaining litigant besides the Pound Foolish Boys, who are still somewhere on the roster. And this ruling, that Trump excited a “conspiracy” that excited a riot but is immune from being held accountable, he now has the luxury of asking for protection under that “Westfall Act” and it appears that the Judge Mehta has paved the way for that request to succeed in the future. Trump has not yet asked the DOJ to certify his actions under the Westfall Act for a reason, the one Judge Mehta seems afraid of, as time is on the Donald’s side. Trump has until the day before the trial begins to exercise that option and we know wherein the DOJ stands with that “Act”, it will not allow any standing to violate the protection that “Act” allows even for a former President, including Donald John Trump.

So this lawsuit may be a big nothingburger and will indeed harm the attempt to hold Donald John Trump responsible for that “Domestic Terrorist Attack”. And then we ask ourselves, of course Giuliani and Donald. Jr. and Mo Brooks a maybe, they can file a motion for legal fees now that Judge Mehta as dismissed their action as accomplices in the most frightening day ever targeting the decency of Democracy…those that have been provided 1^st Amendment Right protection for “Treason”.

But who to blame the fact we cannot shoot straight any longer? Simple Simon answer as we have a Coward and disgraceful Congress. And to add insult to injury, when of course we get this fabricated bull-shit from a sitting law abiding judge that bases all opines on precedence set - but we never had an “Insurrection” like what occurred on January 6^th. Dear Amit, THERE IS NO PRESEDENCE! Please STOP making all this electric kool-aid acrid crap up!

This is not “regular business” my friends! So the Court should disrobe, for anything that smells of an “Insurrection”. The only Court, the only bench that should be addressing the January 6^th “DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACK” in its entirety civil to criminal is that of Congress. Yes, Congress has the divided power - either onto the House or Senate - to hold trial under “Congressional Inherent Contempt” legislation, which allows for bench warrants and arrests warrants to be issued and then the Sergeant-at-Arms can “Attach” individuals that defy the wishes of Congress. It would at least get the Truth out of the Morons. Speak up in honesty or forever hold your peace behind bars. Why is it so hard to see what is going on all around US?

In another episode, that which may have been instrumental in tainting the Mehta bench, because this Amit Mehta “Opinion” is disgraceful any semblance of Patriotism for “We the People”, well just recently the Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump in a short-lived victory for Democracy - as it was but for only the time being a “win”. The Supremes, under the Falloppio condom of Baby Brett Kavanaugh, it ruled that Trump could not claim “Executive Privilege” just now, as in its “Opine” in an 9-1 decision, it also ventured where no lawman had ventured before - which is a Gran Tarantula win for Trump. And maybe we are starting to see the side effects of that High Court’s jurisdiction already with the Mehta verdict that allowed individuals that planned a “Terrorist’s Attack” off the hook and recommending that Donald John Trump did not violate his dereliction in that “failed-to-act” duty. In the Kavanaugh verdict, came the call that the action of the lower court in Trump’s "Executive Privilege” case was not a “binding” decision. Nor that it would be considered “precedence set” moving forward, that a former President does indeed have such a luxury in privilege and this “WARNING” was a shot across the bow to all the lower courts! Which means, well it appears that Patriotism has been tamed by Treason for the time being.

So this “Conjecture Opinion” by Judge Amit Mehta, it leaves Donald Trump as the remaining defendant, who is already “Not Guilty” and maybe bankrupt so what’s the point?

Highlights of Judge Amit Mehta’s “Conjecture Opinion”:

42 U.S.C. SECTION § 1985 safeguards federal officials and employees against conspiratorial acts directed at preventing them from performing their duties. It provides: If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties. The statute, in short, proscribes conspiracies that, by means of force, intimidation, or threats, prevent federal officers from discharging their duties or accepting or holding office. A party injured by such a conspiracy can sue any coconspirator to recover damages.

Section 1985(1) is a conspiracy statute, and so pleading a plausible conspiracy is an essential element of all Plaintiffs’ § 1985(1) claims. “A civil conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more people to participate in an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful manner.” The agreement can be either express or tacit It is enough “that members of the conspiracy in some way or manner, or through some contrivance, positively or tacitly, to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan.”

Before assessing the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ pleadings, it is important to bear in mind what the alleged unlawful conspiracy is and what it is not. It is not that Defendants conspired to sow doubt and mistrust about the legitimacy of the electoral process and results of the 2020 presidential election. Nor is it that Defendants worked together to influence, pressure, or coerce local officials, members of Congress, and the Vice President to overturn a lawful election result. Though many Americans might view such conduct to be undemocratic or far worse, neither example is an actionable conspiracy under § 1985(1). The conspiracy alleged is that Defendants agreed “to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat,” (1) Swalwell and the Bass Plaintiffs from discharging their duties in certifying the results of the presidential election and (2) the President elect and Vice President–elect from “accepting or holding” their offices. It is this conspiracy that Plaintiffs must plausibly establish through well-pleaded facts. The court begins with a detailed summary of those facts and then, assuming those facts to be true, assesses their sufficiency as to each coconspirator.

Viewing the foregoing well-pleaded facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, the court concludes that the Complaints establish a plausible § 1985(1) conspiracy involving President Trump. That civil conspiracy included the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, Tarrio, and others who entered the Capitol on January 6th with the intent to disrupt the Certification of the Electoral College vote through force, intimidation, or threats.

Giuliani and Trump Jr. aided the President in the foregoing efforts. They coordinated with him, spread similar disinformation, contacted state and local election officials, and agreed to speak at the January 6 Rally.

The court reaches a different conclusion as to Giuliani. There is little doubt that Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that Giuliani was involved in a conspiracy to “engage in a months-long misinformation campaign to convince Trump’s supporters that the election had been illegally stolen.” But, as the court stated earlier, such a conspiracy does not violate § 1985(1). What Plaintiffs must plausibly establish is that Giuliani conspired to prevent Congress from discharging its duties on January 6th by force, intimidation, or threat. There, they fall short. In addition to his pre–January 6th actions—which alone do not establish Giuliani as a § 1985(1) conspirator—Plaintiffs point to two of Giuliani’s acts that occurred on January 6th: (1) his rally speech, in which he said, “So, let’s have trial by combat” and “We’re going to fight to the very end to make sure that doesn’t happen,” and (2) a phone call that he made to members of Congress, urging them to delay the Certification. These allegations, individually and taken together, do not “nudge” Plaintiffs’ § 1985(1) claim against Giuliani “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” As to his rally remarks, the court believes Giuliani’s words are not enough to make him part of a § 1985(1) conspiracy. Critically, Giuliani uttered no words that resembled a call to action. “Trial by combat” was not accompanied by a direction to do anything. And, given the speaker, those words were not likely to move the crowd to act. There is no allegation that anyone took Giuliani’s words as permission to enter the Capitol. And there are no allegations that Giuliani at any time before January 6th uttered words advocating or inspiring violence. Indeed, as discussed further below, the court holds that Giuliani’s rally remarks are constitutionally protected speech. Nor is Giuliani alleged to have been involved in rally planning or known that the President would direct the crowd to march to the Capitol. And he did not express solidarity with the rally-goers after some violently assaulted police and forced their way into the Capitol. Giuliani’s words at the rally are not sufficiently additive to make him a § 1985(1) coconspirator. Neither are his phone calls to lawmakers on January 6th after the Capitol was breached. Whatever the timing of those calls, they at most establish Giuliani as an opportunist, not someone who shared in the same general conspiratorial objective as others before the violence at the Capitol occurred. Though Giuliani unquestionably was a central figure in the President’s efforts to sow doubt and mistrust in the election’s outcome, the court cannot say, based on the facts alleged, that he plausibly shared the common conspiratorial goal of violently disrupting the Certification.

The court reaches the same conclusion as to Trump Jr. The allegations against him are even thinner than those against Giuliani. Before January 6th, he sent false and misleading tweets about the election and publicly criticized officials who did not support his father. He also spoke at the rally, during which he repeated false claims about election fraud and theft. He also warned Republicans who failed to back the President, “we’re coming for you, and we’re gonna have a good time doing it.” As discussed below, the court believes these words to be protected speech. That is all Plaintiffs have attributed to Trump Jr. He is not alleged to have participated in rally planning, known that the President would direct a march to the Capitol, or expressed support for the rioters and their actions. The allegations against Trump Jr. are insufficient to make him a coconspirator in a plan to disrupt Congress from performing its duties.

At this point in time, the Judge Mehta’s opinion is to call out Donald John Trump as the “only” government conspirator and provide “conspiratorial amnesty” to Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump Jr.

Plaintiffs advance other claims, as well. Swalwell alleges a violation of § 1986, a companion provision to § 1985. 42 U.S.C. § 1986. That statute makes a person in a position of power who knows about a conspiracy prohibited by § 1985, and who neglects or refuses to take steps to prevent such conspiracy, liable to a person injured by the conspiracy. Swalwell claims that President Trump, Trump Jr., Giuliani, and Brooks violated § 1986 by refusing to act to prevent the violence at the Capitol.

The foregoing comes with one important caveat: President Trump is immune as to Swalwell’s failure-to-act claim under § 1986. That provision states: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned [in section 1985 of this title], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented. The statutory provision is unique. It requires persons with knowledge of a conspiracy proscribed in § 1985 and with the means to prevent the conspiracy to take affirmative actions to do so. A person who refuses or neglects to exercise such power is liable for damages to those persons whose injuries could have been prevented. Swalwell alone asserts a claim under § 1986 against President Trump. He alleges that President Trump knew about the alleged § 1985 conspiracy, had the power to prevent it, and failed to exercise “reasonable diligence” to avoid harm. But the President cannot be held liable for his failure to exercise his presidential powers, at least under § 1986. Just as he is immune for acts that fall within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, so too must he be immune for alleged failures to exercise that official responsibility. Were it otherwise, Presidents routinely would be subject to suit for not doing more or for not acting at all. Absolute immunity would be gutted if a plaintiff could avoid it simply by alleging a failure to exercise presidential power. The court therefore dismisses Swalwell’s § 1986 claim.

At this point in time, the Judge Mehta’s opinion states that Donald John Trump is the “only” government conspirator" left, but rest asured cannot be held liable for his failures! Maybe Metha fell asleep, maybe he farted, but for sure he defecated on "My Country 'Tis of Thee" as jurisprudence Patriotism is MIA. Case Closed.