3 Times that recent 'Legal Proceedings' defied common sense definitions of words and logic
Updated: Jun 7
From the article:
The subpoena, issued in April, demanded the production of records containing IP addresses and other identifying information "for computers and other electronic devices" that accessed the story during a 35-minute time frame starting at 8:03 p.m. on the day of the shooting.
"Being forced to tell the government who reads what on our websites is a clear violation of the First Amendment," Wadsworth said in a statement Friday. "The FBI's subpoena asks for private information about readers of our journalism."
Commentary: This is bizarre for several reasons. 1) Reading an article published by a major news outlet should not force the reader onto any kind of suspect list. 2) Stating that a subpoena for this information is protected by the First Amendment is an arbitrarily false defense. Reading an article is not 'speech,' for starters. 3) There is language in this article that suggesting that the real purpose of this charade is to allow the MSM to publish 'fake news' attributed to 'sources' protected... Yea, none of it makes sense to me. Also note that these agencies could contact 'big tech' organizations and subpoena records for user data and they would hand it right over, gladly. However, this would require more legwork.
From the article:
Zack Whittaker Thu, June 3, 2021, 12:30 PM The Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer who searched a license plate database for an acquaintance in exchange for cash did not violate U.S. hacking laws.
Commentary: First, this is bizarre on its face because there was no 'hacking' involved here. It is my understanding that a person cannot be forced to sit for charges when they have been charged under the wrong statute. I do not understand why this made it to SCOTUS in the first place.
Example: If a person is charged with 'shoplifting' and shows up in court and the paperwork reflects charges of 'assault and battery' the case has to be dropped. New charges, the correct charges can be brought, but the person cannot be charged in a court for the wrong crime simply because nobody wants to point out that someone screwed up the paperwork. #KAFKA - The Trial. Again, there was no hacking involved.
However, he should have been charged with illegally using government resources, AND FOR PROFIT, to perform a function outside the scope of his stated work responsibilities. This is at the very least what falls under wage theft and is prosecutable. The 'acquaintance' in this story is not identified and should be. Is the acquaintance also a government employee or a private citizen? That person may also be subject to charges of, I don't know, bribing an state/govt employee to perform these acts.
From the article: Van Buren was prosecuted on two counts, one for accepting a kickback for accessing the database as a serving police officer, and another for violating the CFAA. His first conviction was overturned, but the CFAA conviction was upheld — until today.
The 3rd party DID access the database illegally if not directly. But that is a separate matter and that part of the story is being left out for some reason.
From the article: Legal experts have argued that a broad reading of the law could criminalize violating a site's terms of service, such as lying on a dating profile or sharing a password to a streaming service.
This is not true at all. What kind of bogus justification is this?
The third and final example is, in my opinion, the most egregious fraudulent interpretation of language with regard to the law. I wrote an article about this ruling a few weeks ago:
This ruling essentially made the entire process by which we deport illegal immigrants....illegal.
An illegal immigrant came to the U.S. in 2005. Because he broke the law, the removal process started in 2013. He was ordered to leave the U.S. voluntarily or face deportation.
The illegal immigrant received two notices - one in March 2013 with his charges, and another in May 2013 with the time and place of the hearing - during his 8th year in the U.S. illegally.
Federal law says that an illegal immigrant in such a situation can avoid deportation at the attorney general's discretion if they have been in the U.S. for at least 10 years. The clock officially stops when they receive "a notice to appear" with information about their hearing. But in cases like plaintiff Agusto Niz-Chavez's, the government sent multiple documents containing different pieces of information. The court's majority ruled that because the law says "a" notice, that means it must be a single document.
That is not what the law means and that interpretation of it is fraudulent.
So if the wording of 'the law' was written this way: "notice to appear" instead of "a notice to appear" are we to believe that we would not be having this conversation right now? Do the other 5 Justices who sided with Gorsuch believe that 'a' means 'single' or 'singular?' Not withstanding the fact that the illegal immigrant did receive "a notice to appear." There is no indication that it must be limited to one.
The law does not say you can send more than one notification. It also does not say that you cannot.
What makes this this so disturbing is that is satisfies the criteria for 'you didn't say it wasn't, therefore it is' argument. Which, of course is fraudulent, being the premise for a logical fallacy and subject to circular reasoning.
This is like Bill Clinton trying to argue what the definition of 'is' is. So while SCOTUS is busy misinterpreting the language of the law for political ends, while refusing to hear even one case concerning election fraud, I think we can all see where this is headed.