This is a first (for me, anyway). A pro se litigant in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York has filed a “Motion to End Anarchy.” Here’s ¶ 2:
The election rigging by Debbie Wasserman Schultz to cheat the voters for
Bernie Sanders is dwarfed only by the police murders of innocent black victims
filmed for evidence is the definition of anarchy by a lawless society. The entire
media conspiracy never mentions disqualification of Hillary for voter fraud even
when Trump claims there will be rigging again. The Constitution is glorified
hypocrisy. The lenders are in court with their hands out to collect bogus loans
made while losses are provided for embezzlement and legal fees are donated to
lawyers by the court from the stockholders while one of two psychopaths are
anointed President. Evidence and law are ignored by the courts.
The Supreme Court has completed its October sitting, having heard arguments in 8 cases. I’ve already talked about the first 5 cases in a previous post. Read on for a recap of the other 3 cases argued this month, and for predictions about how those cases will be decided…
There’s a split over whether a grand jury proceeding constitutes an ongoing state judicial proceeding of the kind required to invoke Younger. See here at p.15.
There’s a split over whether the plaintiff or the government has the burden to prove that the government’s discretionary conduct was (or was not) policy-driven, so as to exempt the government from suit under the FTCA. See here at p.16.
There’s a split (not reached in Padilla) over whether the immediate-custodian rule applies in the immigration-detention context. See here at p.27-28.
There’s a split over what sort of prison “hardship” (such as prolonged solitary confinement) triggers a liberty interest protected by Due Process. See here at 26-27.
There’s a split over when the government may comment on (or use as evidence of guilt) a criminal defendant’s silence. See here at p.20-21.
There’s a split over whether counsel can waive a criminal defendant’s right to a public trial without the defendant’s consent. See here at p.9-10.
There’s a split over the appropriate level of scrutiny to be applied in abortion-related disclosure cases. See here at p.24.
Apparently there’s a split over the scope of rights conferred by the “free choice” provision of the Medicaid Act, § 1396n(c)(2)(C). See here at p.3-4 & n.2.
And there’s a developing split over whether J. Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in Freeman (about whether a defendant sentenced under a Rule 11(c)(1) agreement qualifies for relief under § 3582(c)(2)) is controlling under Marks. See here at p.4-5 & n.1.
The Supreme Court kicked off its 2016 Term by hearing arguments in five criminal cases. Read on for recaps, predictions, and even a few practice tips…
There’s a small split over whether a grand jury proceeding constitutes an ongoing state judicial proceeding of the kind required to invoke Younger. See here at p.15.
There’s a split over whether a case involving a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent suppression is also a case of “fraud or concealment” under § 1113 of ERISA. See here at p.16.
The circuits are split over whether courts may review Adjustment Board employment decisions on due-process grounds, in addition to the three grounds that the Railway Labor Act expressly permits. See here at p.16.
There’s a split over the meaning of “force” or “forcibly” in 18 U.S.C. § 111. See here at p.12-13.
There’s a split (apparently unacknowledged until now) over which definition of “conviction” applies for sentencing under the Guidelines, § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). See here at p.6.
And there’s a split over whether § 7(a)(1) of the Privacy Act confers an individual right enforceable under § 1983. See here at p. 35-36 & n.5.