Judicial Watch
The following headlines have been reprinted from The Penn Wealth Report and are protected under copyright. Members can access the full stories by selecting the respective issue link. Once logged in, you will have access to all subsequent articles.
|
Cali
08 Dec 2022 |
The despicable acts of Michael Avenatti
The first time we saw so-called celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti we immediately thought, “arrogant (expletive).” At the time, he was considering gracing the country with a run for president. And why not? That seemed about par for the course. Now, several years later, we finally get a bit of schadenfreude. When this California-based legal professional wasn’t busy rushing to the cameras with the likes of porn star Stormy Daniels, he was hard at work defrauding helpless clients. And evading taxes. And trying to extort $25 million from Nike. And committing domestic violence. It now appears that if the reprobate wants to run for president again, it won’t be any sooner than the 2034 election cycle: US District Judge James Selna just threw a 14-year sentence at him, to run concurrently with the term he began serving in 2020. One of Avenatti’s lawyers proclaimed the sentence to be “off-the-charts harsh.” This person committed so many unfathomable acts it would take a 500-page book to detail all of them, but let’s consider the case of paraplegic Geoffrey Johnson. Avenatti represented the mentally handicapped Johnson in a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles, alleging that he garnered his injuries as a result of being denied his Constitutional rights (Johnson had jumped off a balcony at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in LA, causing his injuries). Fearful of the lawsuit going to court, the county did precisely what Avenatti knew they would—pay a $4 million settlement to end the case. Within four months, the settlement funds—which had been placed in his law firm’s trust account—had been drained by the California lawyer. He even financed a new business venture, a coffee company, with the stolen money. Instead of simply taking his confiscatory fee from Johnson, he concealed the settlement from his client and magnanimously paid the man’s monthly assisted living expenses. He subsequently hid income from the government on his business, Tully’s Coffee, and impeded the IRS’s efforts to collect $3.2 million in unpaid payroll taxes. There are dozens upon dozens of similar stories surrounding Avenatti, and we imagine he will demand payment for the movie which will ultimately be made about him. As for Stormy Daniels, she decided to write a memoir of her travails. In a case of aggravated identity theft, Avenatti stole the $300,000 book advance. There is so much about the American justice system that has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with greed. In 2020, the State Bar of California finally yanked Avenatti’s license to practice law; where was that esteemed organization in the decades leading up to that point? |
Uber and Postmates take the gloves off, sue California over slanted gig law. (31 Dec 2019) It is known as Assembly Bill 5, or simply AB5, and its goal is clear: force companies which operate within the "gig economy" to label workers as employees rather than independent contractors, whether those workers wish to be considered employees (they don't) or not. And it is clearly aimed at companies such as Uber (UBER $29), Lyft (LYFT $43), DoorDash, Postmates, and other innovative firms. AB5 would require companies to offer workers all the benefits traditional employees receive, such as paid time off, sick leave, unemployment, and other benefits. Now, Uber and Postmates are fighting back against the law, which is set to go into effect in California on New Year's Day. The firms are suing both the state and Attorney General Xavier Becerra, calling the legislation unconstitutional as it targets only certain workers and companies. Despite the hyperbolic bull being thrown around by the state, the new law is unconstitutional, and it will ultimately be struck down by the judicial system. The question for firms like Uber and Postmates is this: what happens between January 1st and the inevitable final ruling? This bill, soon to become law, is a glaring example of why companies are flooding out of California for greener pastures. Much like with China, however, too many companies cannot simply cease doing business in the region, no matter how warped the government becomes.
Washington State wants to stop Montana from exporting coal via its shores; is that legal? (09 Oct 2019) This will be a great judicial battle to watch. The United States produced about 755 million short tons of coal last year. Of that amount, Montana produced 45 million tons, placing it at the number seven spot of coal-producing states. As coal has become a dirty word in this country, states have turned to big consumers in Asia to buy their supply and, subsequently, fund their coal infrastructure and workforce. To get the coal from the supplier to the buyer, landlocked states must, obviously, transport the coal to coastal states via primarily rail, and then via cargo ships to their destination. Now, Washington State has a message to Montana: we don't want your coal, and we won't even allow you to ship it from our ports. Our immediate thought was that this is simply illegal, as it clearly goes against the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution, which gives the federal government the right to regulate commerce through the various states. Hence the lawsuit.
Lighthouse Resources, the company trying to build a coal export terminal on the Columbia River—on a site that already allows coal exports, we might add—has been told by Washington State that it will not be given permission to do so. Citing the Commerce Clause, Lighthouse sued Governor Jay Inslee and two state regulators for the seemingly-illegal action. Not surprisingly, a partisan state appeals court upheld the decision, as would (we have no doubt) the comical 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco—the most overturned court in the land. Montana is not the first state to have issues with Washington State. Two coal companies in Wyoming went bankrupt after similar antics were pulled in 2017 due to the inability to freely move their supply to the buyers. Eight states, in fact, have filed an amicus brief on the grounds of economic discrimination by coastal states over those which are landlocked.
This is a fascinating and historical case to watch; one which has the flavor of the 1830s rather than the 21st century. We can almost imagine Andrew Jackson sending troops to the shores of the Columbia River to assure safe passage of the cargo to the North Pacific. In the end, we see the Supreme Court of the United States ruling, by a 5-4 or 6-3 decision, in favor of Lighthouse Resources and the landlocked states. In the meantime, how many more coal companies will go belly up? Washington State is hoping that number is large.
Lighthouse Resources, the company trying to build a coal export terminal on the Columbia River—on a site that already allows coal exports, we might add—has been told by Washington State that it will not be given permission to do so. Citing the Commerce Clause, Lighthouse sued Governor Jay Inslee and two state regulators for the seemingly-illegal action. Not surprisingly, a partisan state appeals court upheld the decision, as would (we have no doubt) the comical 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco—the most overturned court in the land. Montana is not the first state to have issues with Washington State. Two coal companies in Wyoming went bankrupt after similar antics were pulled in 2017 due to the inability to freely move their supply to the buyers. Eight states, in fact, have filed an amicus brief on the grounds of economic discrimination by coastal states over those which are landlocked.
This is a fascinating and historical case to watch; one which has the flavor of the 1830s rather than the 21st century. We can almost imagine Andrew Jackson sending troops to the shores of the Columbia River to assure safe passage of the cargo to the North Pacific. In the end, we see the Supreme Court of the United States ruling, by a 5-4 or 6-3 decision, in favor of Lighthouse Resources and the landlocked states. In the meantime, how many more coal companies will go belly up? Washington State is hoping that number is large.
|
Tax
Reform |
Federal judge in New York throws out states' lawsuit over SALT deductions. (01 Oct 2019) One of the more interesting components of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was the $10,000 limit on state and local income tax deductions. In other words, wealthy individuals, primarily residing in states like New York and New Jersey, could only "write off" their first $10,000 of taxes paid each year to their state and local governments. Think of it this way: by having confiscatory state tax rates in place (hello, New York), citizens were forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money for the privilege of living in their respective state. The state governments told them, in essence, "hey, at least you can deduct everything you paid us on your federal tax returns!" The 2017 massive tax overhaul changed all of that, limiting the amount that could be claimed to $10,000 each year. High tax states went ballistic, suing the IRS and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. This week, that lawsuit ended with a thud. A federal judge in New York, of all places, threw out the case, claiming that the states failed to show that the limitation was unconstitutional (a truly lame argument by the states). Perhaps more citizens of these states will begin fighting outrageously-high state and local tax rates, or simply move to states with lower tax rates. The latter has already begun to manifest. God bless the American experiment, which had the audacity to take control away from a central government and place it in the hands of the individual states, which must then reckon their actions with their own residents. When studying the tactics of politicians, always view their comments and actions through this prism: Are they doing what they are doing to empower the central government, or to place more power at the lowest possible level—the level closest to the people?
|
Supreme Court rules against forced union dues for public employees. For 41 years, public-employee unions have been allowed to force government workers to pay union dues—whether they chose to join their respective union or not. That 1977 precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, was tossed out on Wednesday by the majority of current justices of the Supreme Court. Unions call these forced payments "fair-share fees," but the majority wrote that this practice amounts to a violation of the First Amendment, in that workers who may oppose the views espoused by the unions are still required to monetarily support those views. Public unions, such as the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) decried the decision and vowed to "stand up and fight."
Sales tax decision by SCOTUS is good for states, bad for consumers. (22 Jun 2018) For an entire day, I was convinced that I was the only person in America (other than the four dissenting justices) who thought the US Supreme Court made a lousy decision with respect to the collection of online sales tax. Every guest, every retail "expert," every company spokesperson performed verbal backflips after the vote. What does the decision do? It gives the individual states the right to go after anyone selling goods online, even if those small retailers have no physical presence in their state. Sorry, that is wrong. The grinning guests on the news networks were all arguing that now "the playing field was leveled" for the brick and mortar stores. Um, er, are we really supposed to believe that the lack of sales tax was the reason Americans were shopping online? Please. Here's who actually gets hurt by the ruling: consumers, who will end up paying the tax; and small "mom-and-pop" companies which sell their goods online, and whose livelihood just got more complex and costly. As for the states—which stand to make billions of dollars in aggregate from the ruling, and which did absolutely nothing to generate the revenue—we are sure they will apply the extra money directly toward the welfare of their residents. (That was sarcasm.)
Disgraced judge to step down from disgraceful court of appeals
(18 Dec 2017) Ah, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals...affectionately known as the 9th Circus Court of Appeals because of its 80% decision reversal rate. Yes, 80% of the cases from the 9th reviewed by the US Supreme Court between 2010 and the present have been reversed. In what shouldn't come as a surprise from this cabal, it has just been announced that 9th US Circuit judge Alex Kozinski will soon retire. The reason? At least 15 women have come forward and claimed the judge sexually assaulted them or made inappropriate sexual advances toward them. With five vacancies on the 9th (including Kozinski) and two more judges announcing their retirement, President Trump will have the opportunity to fill a full seven seats on the San Francisco-based US Federal court. There has been an active push to split this highly-partisan court into two because of its sheer size and its apparent ineffectiveness.
(18 Dec 2017) Ah, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals...affectionately known as the 9th Circus Court of Appeals because of its 80% decision reversal rate. Yes, 80% of the cases from the 9th reviewed by the US Supreme Court between 2010 and the present have been reversed. In what shouldn't come as a surprise from this cabal, it has just been announced that 9th US Circuit judge Alex Kozinski will soon retire. The reason? At least 15 women have come forward and claimed the judge sexually assaulted them or made inappropriate sexual advances toward them. With five vacancies on the 9th (including Kozinski) and two more judges announcing their retirement, President Trump will have the opportunity to fill a full seven seats on the San Francisco-based US Federal court. There has been an active push to split this highly-partisan court into two because of its sheer size and its apparent ineffectiveness.
Whatever happened to tort reform? Jury awards widow $4 billion
(28 Sep 2017) Max Hopper was a Dallas resident with a net worth of around $19 million. After he died, with no trust and no will in place (which is disgraceful), JPMorgan (JPM $65-$95-$96) was responsible for his assets, which included 6,700 putters and 900 bottles of wine. Jo Hopper, the widow, said it took up to five years for the bank to divide some of the assets, which included artwork, home furnishings, jewelry, and the putters and wine (the assets were to be divvied up among family members). Claiming she was distraught over what the bank put her through, she sued. A jury awarded the family $8 billion in punitive damages. The family’s attorney admitted there was duplication in some of the damage findings, so that amount could be knocked down to “$4 billion or $5 billion.” Sad and warped. Fortunately, the US Supreme Court has ruled that this type of case cannot extract amounts from companies “disproportionate to actual damages,” so the odds of the family getting anywhere near this amount are zero. Nonetheless, how warped has our civil justice system become, when twelve American citizens come up with such a silly verdict and punitive amount? Were they allowed to roll into the courtroom at 10 am each morning in there pajamas and fuzzy slippers as well?
(28 Sep 2017) Max Hopper was a Dallas resident with a net worth of around $19 million. After he died, with no trust and no will in place (which is disgraceful), JPMorgan (JPM $65-$95-$96) was responsible for his assets, which included 6,700 putters and 900 bottles of wine. Jo Hopper, the widow, said it took up to five years for the bank to divide some of the assets, which included artwork, home furnishings, jewelry, and the putters and wine (the assets were to be divvied up among family members). Claiming she was distraught over what the bank put her through, she sued. A jury awarded the family $8 billion in punitive damages. The family’s attorney admitted there was duplication in some of the damage findings, so that amount could be knocked down to “$4 billion or $5 billion.” Sad and warped. Fortunately, the US Supreme Court has ruled that this type of case cannot extract amounts from companies “disproportionate to actual damages,” so the odds of the family getting anywhere near this amount are zero. Nonetheless, how warped has our civil justice system become, when twelve American citizens come up with such a silly verdict and punitive amount? Were they allowed to roll into the courtroom at 10 am each morning in there pajamas and fuzzy slippers as well?
(19 Jun 2017) Supreme Court gives Washington Redskins a big win. In a surprising blow (because of the unanimous vote) to political correctness, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not refuse to register potentially offensive names because it violated the First Amendment. While the ruling gives an enormous amount of ammo to the Washington Redskins as they battle accusations of "hurtful speech," the case actually revolved around an Asian-American band which named itself "The Slants."
(03 Apr 2017) Dem Party willing to allow senators to vote for Gorsuch—so long as that number doesn't reach 8. Thanks to the hubris of then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, the US Senate nuked the 60-vote filibuster rule for most of the nominations of a president, including federal judicial nominees. Minority Leader Chucky Schumer says he regrets that decision by Reid, but that is because there is currently a Republican in the White House. The nuclear option will come back to haunt the party as soon as this week, when President Trump's US Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, gets confirmed. There are ten Democrat senators up for reelection in 2018 who reside in states that went for Donald Trump in the presidential election. Schumer realizes this, and is willing to allow some of them to vote for Gorsuch to buttress their position among voters. But, he has also made it clear that he wants to filibuster the widely-respected judge, and that means no more than 7 defections. He will probably win that battle but certainly lose the war—the GOP will use the Reid Option to get the 49-year-old judge seated. Odds are Trump will get one to two more chances to re-shape the makeup of the highest court in the land, based on the health of at least one justice—Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
(10 Mar 2017) All remaining Obama-appointed US attorneys fired. According to the Justice Department, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has requested resignations from the 46 remaining Obama-appointed US attorneys currently serving. This common occurrence takes place when one party wrests control of the executive branch from another, and helps ensure a "uniform transition" from one administration to the next. Until the new US attorneys are confirmed—there are 93 in total—the career prosecutors in the US Attorney's Offices will handle the work load.
Despite the fact that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama replaced all but one of the prior administrations' attorneys, top Dem senator on the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had to make Sessions' actions political: "I'm surprised to hear that President Trump and Attorney General Sessions have abruptly fired all 46 remaining US attorneys." You can't be that stupid, Ms. Feinstein, can you? Or do you just assume the American people are too stupid to see through your lies?
Despite the fact that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama replaced all but one of the prior administrations' attorneys, top Dem senator on the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had to make Sessions' actions political: "I'm surprised to hear that President Trump and Attorney General Sessions have abruptly fired all 46 remaining US attorneys." You can't be that stupid, Ms. Feinstein, can you? Or do you just assume the American people are too stupid to see through your lies?
(10 Mar 2017) American Bar Association gives highest possible marks to Gorsuch. Senate minority leader Chuckie Schumer has referred to the American Bar Association as the "gold standard" with respect to its ratings on judges. Therefore, he should be relieved that the ABA has given President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, the organization's highest possible rating. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the ABA wrote, "after an exhaustive evaluation process, the Committee has determined by unanimous vote that Judge Gorsuch is 'Well Qualified' for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court." This exemplary assessment should lead to a 100-0 vote for confirmation in the Senate, right?