Quite An Appealing Brief

Trump's attorneys have filed an appeal in the THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v DONALD J. TRUMP case. The one where he was convicted of 34 very dubious felony counts in a proceeding  that very much was a case of "Give me the man and I will give you the case against him."

But, that conviction. as irregular as it was, gave the Democrats their ability to call him a felon during and after the election, and that is all that mattered.

While the very well-written brief is obviously written to favor Trump's side of the case, the facts and law in it are rather damning.

It's worth a read to see the documented multiple machinations and legal f--kery that went on in the case, and it points out a multitude of grounds for reversing the conviction  -- and all it takes it one. 

I'd expect this conviction to be reversed on appeal, much to the horror of the Left. 

Give it a read and decide for yourself.   It will be fun to see the brief in response.

Lack Of Standing, Much?

Some knowingly sloppy legal filing on the part of the anti-Trump left in an effort to be seen to do something to fight President Trump.

Politico: A Virginia couple is asking a judge to block Trump from tearing up the East Wing

A Virginia couple has gone to court to try to block President Donald Trump from proceeding with demolition of the White House’s East Wing to make way for a new ballroom.

Charles and Judith Voorhees filed a motion in Washington federal court Thursday afternoon, asking a judge to halt any further damage to the White House while the legality of the project is assessed.

There's some definite problems with this court filing.

First, there's no complaint to start the case, it is simply a motion for an injunction without any support nor any brief backing it up. Sloppy and it should be dismissed out of hand for that alone.

Second, for its basis, it cites a law that specifically exempts the White House from the law. Not a winning argument, that, especially when you're seeking an injunction and once of the main elements in the granting of an injunction is the seeker's likelihood of prevailing in court.

Third and most importantly is the lack of standing.  Standing means you have a dog in the particular dog fight you are complaining of, and they simply do not have it in this one.

A couple of progressives in Virginia have no standing to even bring the motion at all regarding construction at the White House. I also see no record that they filed such a motion when Obama paved over an area to make a basketball court and put a bowling alley into the White House, which is most curious.

If you argue that they do because its the people's house, then why were people who merely wandered through Congress given federal charges for trespassing there on January 6?  After all the legislature is clearly the people's house, far more so than the White House, neh?  

In short, this is an ineffectual stunt designed to attract attention, or to try and draw a fellow-traveler Democrat judge who will ignore the law and throw an injunction into the mix because Orange Man Bad. 

Quite simply, the lawyer who filed this dreck should know better and should be sanctioned for this nonsensical filing, but most likely will not be sanctioned. We will see if the case gets properly dismissed or not.

When Prosecuting Someone For Mortgage Fraud

It's generally best not to be doing it yourself.

 NY AG Letitia James (D), who was elected on the promise of "Getting Trump" and who prosecuted President Trump for alleged mortgage fraud for allegedly overstating the value of his properties in securing a loan (which was paid back in full), now faces prosecution for mortgage fraud in connection with a house she bought in Virginia.

CBS News: New York Attorney General Letitia James accused of possible mortgage fraud

New York Attorney General Letitia James has been referred for federal criminal prosecution for alleged mortgage fraud related to a Virginia home and a New York property.

William Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), wrote a letter obtained by CBS News New York to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi alleging that James "has, in multiple instances, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms."
Details of the allegations

Pulte alleges James may have falsified her residence status at a home in Norfolk, Virginia, to get a better mortgage rate.

According to Pulte, in 2023 James granted Shamice Thompson-Hairston power of attorney to make the Norfolk property, purchased in August of that year, her "principal residence," despite James actually living and serving as attorney general in New York at the time.

But wait, there's more: 

Pulte also alleges James bought a five-family property in Brooklyn in 2001 with a loan that is only available for homes with four units or less.

"Spanning the last two decades, Ms. James has consistently misrepresented the same property as only having four units in both building permit applications and numerous mortgage documents and applications," Pulte wrote. "It appears that Ms. James may have listed the Brooklyn, NY property as four units instead of five units in order to meet the conforming loan requirements, and thus receive better interest rates."

But wait, there's even more!:

It's also alleged James and her father signed mortgage documents in 1983 stating they were husband and wife.

"Ms. James, for both properties listed above, appears to have falsified records in order to meet certain lending requirements and receive favorable loan terms," Pulte concluded, adding that it could lead to charges such as wire fraud, mail fraud and bank fraud, along with making false statement to a financial institution. 

Talk about keeping the fraud in the family.

Not a good look when you made your bones prosecuting someone who you allege did something you yourself have done, apparently on multiple occasions.

Worse for Ms. James, she's allegedly  committed federal crimes with her acts of mortgage fraud, and she defrauded federal government lenders as well,  so she can't count of the New York state judiciary to help her out. 

Bring popcorn, this should get good.

9-0 And Down Colorado Goes

The US Supreme Court just gave an important corrective ruling to Colorado and other Democrats and progressives trying to prevent Trump from appearing on their state ballots. 

Far from a partisan decision, this one was unanimous and Colorado's rather dubious barely legal arguments didn't get far at all.

You can read the decision for yourself here - Trump v Anderson.

In short, the States do not have the ability nor the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  Instead it is up to Congress,  and not the States to enforce the section.

Well, Team Blue Really Wants To Go There

Democrats in Blue states are gallivanting around removing Trump from the ballot in Illinois, Colorado, and elsewhere on the specious grounds that he committed insurrection when he has never been charged nor convicted of such.

Thus is a rather dumb interpretation and application of the 14th Amendment for many reasons, and also shortsighted on the part of the Democrats in the Blue States involved short-sightedly thinking such would never happen to their candidate.

After all, following the same logic of the Blue States, Red States are free, if they so choose, to also take a novel application of 14th Amendment, Section 3 and disqualify Joe Biden from the ballot in their states.

After all, Section 3 states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

President Joe Biden indeed has demonstrably provided aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States:

$6 billion worth of aid and comfort to Iran, and even before that insanity, he also removed sanctions from Iran.  Iran, a country that is a sworn enemy of the United States, has committed acts of terrorism against Americans, and has directly and through surrogates attacked US military personnel.  This is the same country that annually has demonstrations where they shout "Death to America" - and mean it.

Joe Biden had also removed the Houthis from the terrorism list, again providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.  These are the same Houthis whose slogan is:  God Is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam.

Verily, it will be much easier to prove that President Biden has given aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States than proving that former President Trump had engaged in insurrection. If the Red States apply the same standards and "logic" that  the Blue states have applied, removing Biden form their ballots will be a cinch.

As such, it wouldn't take much for Red States to decided turnabout is fair play and start removing Biden on the grounds he has violated the 14th Amendment.

This of course would be stupid. 

I really can't recommend such a course of behavior, but since Democrats insist on playing stupid games, game theory dictates that turnabout is indeed fair play.  Should the Supreme Court not decide that the removal of Trump from the ballot is incorrect, having the Red States take this action may be the only way to get them to knock it off. 

Of course, this can have some bad unintended consequences, but the Blue States are already indulging in this bad behavior.

In short, should the Supreme Court not have the Blues knock this gamesmanship off, the Blue states should show some restraint and knock it off themselves before the Red states decide that two can play that game.

The ICJ Decision

 In short, the ruling is preliminary, and no, it does not say Israel is committing genocide, only that the court may have jurisdiction to investigate if that is happening and, that. shocker, Israel shouldn't commit genocide.

You can read the decision for yourself here.

In short the decision basically refused to dismiss South Africa's  case and holds the court may have jurisdiction to examine the accusations and South Africa may have standing to bring its claim (see page 12  and page 24).

The cool question will be, if South Africa continues it's plan to withdraw from the ICC and ICJ, and it keeps refusing to enforce ICC and ICJ orders, would it still have standing? Be sure to pass the popcorn if that happens before this case is resolved.

The decision does not say Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.

It did say Israel should take steps to prevent a genocide in Gaza. Since Israel isn't committing a genocide, that's rather easy for Israel to do.

It did say Hamas was to immediately release the hostages it holds unconditionally (p.24).

I suggest you do not hold your breath waiting for Hamas to comply.

It did, ridiculously say that:  "The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip"

This of course goes against the whole point of siege warfare, and also improperly requires Israel to do something its not required under actual  international and military law to do. 

At least they didn't order that Israel has to keep providing jobs for Gazans, so we can be thankful for that.  For now, anyways. 

We can also note that Egypt and not Israel controls one of the borders with Gaza.

In no other conflict has an adversary been ordered to enable or provide such to its adversary - especially as the fact is that Hamas uses these supplies to provide for its fighters.  If anything it is Hamas responsibility to provide such and they've gone out of their way to not provide  such services so they can complain to the world about it.

Other than that,  it basically said some Israelis have used bad language such as calling Hamasniks animals, which is dehumanizing per the court and Israeli officials shouldn't say such hurtful things about an organization and its members that beheaded babies, raped women and massacred civilians.(p.17-18). Quelle Horreur.

Oh, and the court ordered that Israel is to provide a report in a month on how it is following the court's order.

In short, the order is not even all sound and fury signifying nothing.  It is far less than that, but is yet another troubling example of lawfare.

Again, the fact remains that the population of Palestinians in Gaza has continued to increase  massively over the years since 1967 when it was taken over from Egypt. Even since 2005 when Israel completely pulled out of Gaza the population there has continued to grow. So, if Israel is committing genocide as claimed, they're not just doing an extremely crappy job at it, as they're apparently causing conditions that lead to the exact opposite of genocide.

The Court should have dismissed the claim outright, but instead the case will continue to wind its way through the process.

The ICJ Decision - First, About South Africa

Before we even go into the inane decision, which in many ways didn't amount to much but is the camel's nose under the tent so to speak. We should first note that thus case was brought by South Africa.

The same South Africa that after the ICC issued an arrest warrant on Vladimir Putin for the invasion of Ukraine, invited Putin to South Africa for the BRICS conference, and had in 2015 failed to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir under an ICC warrant in June 2015 when he was in South Africa. 

Indeed South Africa under the ANC is busy working on withdrawing from the ICC even now over the Putin warrant. In short, South Africa only cares about the ICC when it can be used as a tool for supporting their allies and their own terrorist-supporting ends.

South Africa under the ANC also seems to be busily practicing genocide against whites in South Africa at his very moment.

In short South Africa probably wasn't the best country to bring such a ridiculous charge given its own issues, its own disdain for the court, and its constant failure to adhere to the court's orders, but commies and terrorists gotta commie and be terrorists, so what can you do?

So, on to the decision in the next post.

More Michigan Dem Lawfare Proceeds Apace

So Governor Whitmer is basically suing the state - she's actually suing 13 county prosecutors - the same state she runs and to whom she swore she would faithfully execute the laws thereof, because she wants to have Michigan's 1931 Abortion law declared unconstitutional.

Again, she's the governor of the state, and instead of acting through the executive or trying to persuade the legislative branch, she's basically suing her own branch of government, that she's in charge of, in Court.

Again, its a rather chummy play, with her basically suing without any actual case or controversy in question yet, and she's trying to bypass normal legal procedure by boosting it right to the Michigan Supreme Court, and ignoring a Michigan Court of Appeals case from 1997 that held there is no right to an abortion in the state constitution.

Not quite as blatant as the Planned Parenthood case where everyone involved including plaintiff, defendant, and judge is on the same side, but it's darn close.

The Detroit Free Press: Michigan Supreme Court agrees to take up procedural question in Whitmer abortion lawsuit

The Michigan Supreme Court asked a few questions, including the really important one: Whether there is an actual case and controversy requirement and, if so, whether it is met here. 

In short no, there isn't one yet so the case should be dismissed outright without even getting to the other questions and the governor should be sanctioned for this nonsense.

It seems that when it comes to abortion, the Michigan Dems are ready to throw all procedural and legal norms out the window to get the result they want quick.   

No way that this kind of game playing could go wrong or backfire on them, now could it?

Again, regardless of what you think about abortion, this kind of harm to both state level separation of powers and judicial norms is just plain wrong.

Lawfare: It's Awfully Convenient When All Sides Are Playing For The Same Team

So Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against Michigan's 1931 law banning abortions - even though it is not in effect, has not been enforced nor even threatened to be enforced against anyone,  and thus there is no case nor controversy before the court. But that didn't stop Planned Parenthood which has sought an injunction to prevent the law that is not being enforced from possibly being enforced in the future.

"Defending" the law, but not really, is AG Dana Nessel, who is busily acceding to the Defendant;s injunction of the law and hasn't argued that it should be dismissed due to the lack of case or controversy. She has also graciously announced she will not appeal the judge's decision to place an injunction on the law. How convenient.

Considering that AG Nessel has already announced she would not enforce the law under any circumstances, before she even "defended" this case, her lack of basic legal diligence defending on behalf of the People of Michigan it is rather unsurprising.

So that's both sides working together for the same result.

Even better, the judge in the case? She's a donor to Planned Parenthood and had represented Planned Parenthood in a major case in 1997.

Gleicher disclosed early on in the case that she was an annual donor to Planned Parenthood and had represented them in the key 1997 abortion rights case. Gleicher said she could remain unbiased.

Sure, of course she could.  

By the way, that 1997 case, Planned Parenthood lost and the Court of Appeals said there was no state right to an Abortion - but in this case Judge Gelicher is now finding one and trying to ignore and get around the 1997 ruling and claim there is a such a right in the Michigan Constitution.

In short, all three players in this case, Plaintiff, Defendant, and Judge are on the same side here. That's not how this is supposed to work.

Again, this should have been dismissed outright as there is not yet any case or controversy nor any attempt to even enforce the 1931 law yet.  Instead its been heard and all players are busy working to get the same result. This is the Democrats playing with the justice system for purely political ends and

Regardless of your thoughts, feelings, or views on abortion, this is a travesty of the law and not how the court system is supposed to operate. 

Update:  It turns out not only is Nessel importantly and improperly declining to appeal, but Nessel threw the case from the outset and the fix was well and truly in from the get-go:  Michigan conservative activists want Court of Appeals to overturn abortion law injunction:

"The attorney general, who already declined to file a motion to dismiss or file a brief opposing the requested preliminary injunction on the merits, now cheers her own defeat and the Court of Claims’ purported injunction," reads a portion of the center's filing with the court of appeals.

So, she did not file a motion to dismiss for lack of a case or controversy, and she didn't even file a brief opposing the injunction. This would be called malpractice if it was any other attorney and any other client.

Gov Half-Whit: I'll Play Politics And Sue - Though There Is No Actual Case

In election years politicians do dumb things. Gov Half-Whit offers no exception to this rule, and if anything, proves it.

Here, our dear Governor Whitmer, ready to burnish her Democrat and Feminist credentials has filed a non-justiciable lawsuit. As a lawyer she should darn well know it 

Justiciability requires that there be an actual case or controversey in order for a court to make a decision.

You can't sue and ask the court to decide a hypothetical, you have to have a real actual conflict or actual wrongdoing violation, or real threat of penalty or sanction in order for a court to rule.

Gov Whitmer knows this, she is, after all, an attorney but she doesn't care.

The Detroit News: Great Lakes Justice Center to represent 2 county prosecutors named in Whitmer's abortion suit

Whitmer's lawsuit filed earlier this month challenging a 1931 ban on abortion came in anticipation that the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that enshrined abortion as a constitutional right.

The lawsuit names 13 county prosecutors, seven Democrats and six Republicans, who may be called on to enforce the 1931 law in counties where abortion clinics are present. 

Note the issue - it's filed in anticipation of the law being restored, the Federal case has not been heard yet, so the 1931Michigan ban is not currently operative and thus cannot be litigated as there is no real case or controversy.

Note also how she doesn't name all Michigan county prosecutors and interestingly enough, the Democrat prosecutors she sued have all agreed to not enforce the ban - nice collusion there, eh? (which again, cannot even be enforced yet).  

Whitmer weirdly filed in Oakland County Circuit Court rather than the court of claims and is trying to jump it straight to the Michigan  Supreme Court.

Even stranger, she's the Executive of the State trying to overturn a law passed by the Legislature and a Prior Executive, as defunct and non-enforceable as it may be. Funny how she's not trying to preemptively and properly overturn it legislatively, neh?

Both the Oakland County Circuit Court and Michigan Supreme Court should dismiss this case out of hand as its non-justiciable, frivolous, and untimely.  The courts should sanction her for this kind of political grandstanding and knowingly bringing such a quite frankly BS case before the court.

Nova Scotia Targets The Law Right At The Trucker Protest

In Nova Scotia, Canada, the provincial government is running scared of the truckers' protest.

How scared?

Well they just passed an emergency declaration that bans not just blocking traffic in general,  but specifically bans a gathering of people beside a road from gathering and cheering in support of the trucker protest, and only the trucker protest and no other.  

Cheer by the roadside for BLM or any other favored cause?  Cool by them. 

Cheer on the freedom convoy? Fines for doing so range from $10,000 to $100,000 Canadian. Clearly the edict is designed to chill support for the trucker protest under penalty of law.

In the USA, this sort of law would be shot down pretty quickly in Court as a First Amendment violation in terms of not being content neutral and having massive viewpoint discrimination.

Canada, however, has no such First Amendment protection, and their Charter of Rights and Freedoms which declares it protects free expression - and standing by the side of a road doing nothing more than cheering on a protest is indeed freedom of expression - comes with a notwithstanding clause that the government can use to override Canadian's rights laid out in that document whenever it deems convenient.  This means freedom of expression in Canada and its provinces can be suspended whenever the government feels it may be inconvenient.

Clearly, the protesters simply need to rename the event to “Freedom in 2023” convoy and then section c of the law won’t apply and gathering and cheering by the roadside can take place so long as they don't announce they intend to interfere with the normal flow of traffic.   

That is one of the problems at making a law aimed at a specific protest only.

Talk about crafting a law directly at a single protest, sheesh. Methinks the Nova Scotia government really doesn't like the idea that  average Canadian is getting fed up with their arbitrary and capricious regulations.

So, Detroit PD Are Down To Throwing Bricks Back Or Using Live Fire

Lawfare continues apace as local Detroit BLM types, with the help of the National Lawyers Guild, a communist legal front, seek to hamstring the Detroit Police from keeping order during the local BLMers "mostly peaceful" demonstrations.

You know,  those "mostly peaceful" demonstrations protesting on behalf of attempted cop killers where mostly peaceful rocks, bricks, and bottles are thrown at cops in a mostly peaceful kind of manner.

The Detroit News: City seeks changes to order banning Detroit police use of tear gas, rubber bullets on protesters

Yep, a Federal District Court judge, an Obama appointee, had quickly granted an injunction of behalf of Detroit Will Breathe prohibiting Detroit police from using less-than-lethal riot control methods.  

What could possibly go wrong?

This leaves Detroit Police with  the following options when the local BLM types start again throwing "mostly peaceful" rocks, bottles, bricks, etc at them:

1. They can ask them to stop, and then ask them to stop again;

2. They can throw the bricks, etc, back at the protesters; or

3. They can use live fire to protect themselves as less-lethal options including use of batons, tear gas, and pepper spray are now all off the table.

If that sounds imbecilic, it's because it is indeed imbecilic.

The Detroit Police and City have at least gotten creative after the injunction was entered.

They've rather cleverly decided to file a motion asking the judge to make the injunction mutual and enjoining Detroit Will Breathe and company from throwing rocks, bottles, and bricks at police.  The judge has yet to rule on that motion but has required a response from Detroit Will Breathe et al., which should be entertaining reading.

Situation Desperate But Not Serious - Obama Admin's Terrorist Policy Just Droning Along

Obama and his policies regarding drones operations in foreign countries against US Citizens has managed to boomerang nicely and illustrate the trouble with treating foreign terrorism overseas as a law enforcement problem.

The Detroit News: American citizen possibly targeted for U.S. drone attack

An American citizen who is a member of al-Qaida is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, U.S. officials say, and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year.

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he’s a U.S. citizen and the Justice Department must build a case against him, a task it hasn’t completed.

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And President Barack Obama’s new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Quite the catch 22 - and adding to the fun you'll see as you read the article that currently, only the military by law may try to capture him, but by law the military isn't allowed to go capture him. Yet the CIA drone may lawfully fly there, but can't shoot because that would be unlawful.

So, this fellow is responsible for the deaths of Americans overseas but can't be touched because there hasn't been a domestic law enforcement case made against him, a case that can't be prosecuted as he can't be brought to justice in the US due to his current remote location that would require US troops to have to land and try to capture him, and thus we can't let the CIA go after him, and the military can't touch him because he's not in a conflict zone where they could act.

In other words, a terrorist with American citizenship located outside America may plot and kill Americans with impunity under this policy, and all drones can do is circle around and watch as he does so.

That's quite the policy, and it's an example of the inherent insanity in treating foreign terrorism as a law enforcement problem that can be defeated by pretty platitudes and policies.

Ex-Navy Loser Leaker Lawyer Properly Disbarred

Surreptitiously shipping classified lists to a left-wing group will get a sailor/lawyer sunk real fast.

Mathew M. Diaz apparently never got the lesson on "Loose lips sink ships", not to mention how divulging classified information is a surefire way to sink your career and future prospects.

And it was not just any classified list either:

The Kansas Supreme Court has disbarred a former Navy lawyer who mailed a classified list of Guantanamo detainees to the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Ex-Navy Lawyer Is Disbarred for Sending Secret Names of Gitmo Detainees to Legal Group

It was also clearly not a mistake or spur-of-the-moment stupidity:

Diaz had printed the detainee names, cut the list into strips, and placed them in a Valentine’s Day card to Barbara Olshansky, the deputy legal director for the Center of Constitutional Rights, according to findings of fact cited by the court.

This was far from being some act of heroic dissident. He admitted that he was too much or a coward to even take this up with his chain of command, or do an open act of disobedience and take the consequences for his beliefs and acts, instead he decided to try to surreptitiously leak his way to glory:

The court noted, however, that Diaz did not take his concerns to higher-ups because, by his own testimony in court-martial proceedings, “I wasn't really to put—willing to put my neck on the line and jeopardize my career.” The information he disclosed also could have been used to identify detainee interrogation teams, putting them at potential risk, the court said.

Disbarment is appropriate, the court said, given the nature of Diaz’s criminal violations and his “admitted selfish reasons for the clandestine disclosure of classified information.”

So Diaz ended up with 4 felonies, 6 months in confinement - which seems a little light, and a disbarment, not to mention dropping from the rank of Lt. Commander to nothing. All on behalf of Guantanamo detainees who would likely kill him and other Americans if they got half a chance.

He chose....poorly.

After all that Prep Work and Defiance, Underwear Bomber Pleads Guilty

On the second day of trial, after months of preparation, weeks of jury selection and posturing, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab decides to plead guilty on all counts.

Underwear bomber pleads guilty, warns: 'If you laugh at us now, we will laugh at you later'


Apparently all this was done just so he can make a public statement regarding his actions:

Abdulmutallab read from a statement saying he was guilty under U.S. law, but not under Islamic law, for the crimes charged. He said he tried to carry out the bombing in retaliation for the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Isreal and elsewhere by the United States.

He warned the U.S. that, if it continued to murder innocent Muslims, a calamity would befall the U.S.

“If you laugh at us now, we will laugh at you later,” he said.

And I say, in the immortal words of Nelson Muntz:

He said committing jihad against the United States is one of “the most virtuous acts” a Muslim can perform. ...

I wonder how virtuous it is considered for being an incompetent terrorist scumbag and burning your nuts in the process.

Outside the courthouse, Abdulmutallab's lawyer, Anthony Chambers, said he hadn't his client to plead guilty.

"It's disappointing," he said, adding that he never wants a client to plead guilty to charges that could result in a life sentence. He said Abdulmutallab made the decision on his own and announced it this morning.

He said he thinks he had a viable defense to some of the charges, adding that he questions whether the aircraft was damaged by the bombing attempt.

He said the guilty plea enables his client to get on with the rest of his life and read a statement in court to explain his actions.

So the entire farce of giving this guy a trial and his failure to plead out earlier is so this moron can read a pro-jihad statement while racking up time and costs in his lawfare bid?

Let's hope his statement brings him comfort during his life in prison that he should hopefully receive at his sentencing, and let's hope there's some reconsideration of the policy of granting foreign terrorists access to American civillian courts.

Apparently, Putting Explosives In Your Underwear Causes Brain Damage

Underwear bomber shouts 'Osama's alive' as he enters court during jury selection

“Osama’s alive,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab shouted as he entered a courtroom in Detroit this morning. “I’m forced to wear prison clothes.”

Abdulmutallab, wearing khaki prison pants, a white T-shirt and black skull cap, refused to stand when U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds, who was in another room with prospective jurors, asked him to stand with others in her courtroom several floors away.

While Edmunds briefed jurors about the allegations against him, Abdulmutallab hollered “jihad” and stared at the ceiling when she told jurors about the alleged plot to blow up the plane with a bomb in his underwear.

Ok, the brain damage may very well have been pre-existing....

He's also going with some lovable and oh so wacky legal theories:

Edmunds conducted a hearing to decide several requests from Abdulmutallab, including one to be released claiming he’s being unlawfully detained by the U.S. government. Specifically, he has argued in court documents "all Muslims should only be ruled by the law of the Quran."

She denied the request.

Who coulda seen that ruling coming?

As an exercise in lawfare, it is certainly succeeding in tying up US government resources and promises to continue to do so:

In September, Abdulmutallab fired his govern­ment-ap­pointed lawyers and suggested that he wanted to plead guilty to some charges. He has said noth­ing about a plea since.

Chambers has said that a plea is unlikely.

"We will challenge everything," Chambers said earlier this year, noting his client "has a full understanding of his situation."

Yep, he's going to waste court resources, turn the trial into a circus and demonstrate how the civillian justice system has a difficult time dealing with international terrorist Islamists.

A Seal of Approval - SEAL Acquited in assault on Terrorist Charge

As I wrote before, as an example of lawfare the enemies of our country engage in, some SEALS were charged with assault involving the capture of a terrorist, who claimed they punched him when they captured him.

The SEALS are being tried via courts martial and the first SEAL was quite properly acquitted.

Fox News: US Navy SEAL cleared in Iraq abuse case

A U.S. Navy SEAL was cleared Thursday of charges he covered up the alleged beating of an Iraqi prisoner suspected of masterminding the grisly 2004 killings of four American security contractors.

A six-man Navy jury found Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas not guilty of dereliction of duty and attempting to influence the testimony of another service member. The jury heard too many differences between the testimony of a sailor who claimed he witnessed the Sept. 1 assault at a U.S. base outside Fallujah, Iraq, and statements from a half-dozen others who denied his account.

Smiling and composed as he left the courthouse at the U.S. military's Camp Victory on Baghdad's western outskirts, Huertas said he felt vindicated.

"It's a big weight off my shoulders," said Huertas, 29, of Blue Island, Illinois. "Compared to all the physical activity we go through, this has been mentally more challenging."

Huertas said he would rejoin the SEALs, the Navy's elite special forces, as soon as possible. His was the first trial of three SEALs accused in the assault of Ahmed Hashim Abed and its alleged cover up.

Good, he deserves to be fully reinstated with all honors and put back on the proper promotion path as well.

Of course the natives of Fallujah - that hotbed of the Sunni violence being a pro-Saddam, anti-American hot spot weren't happy:

Thursday's verdict was met by anger and sad shrugs from Iraqis who said they no longer expect to see U.S. troops held accountable for atrocities or other abuses.

"They would release him even if he had killed an Iraqi and not just beaten him," said Ahmed Abdul Aziz Khudaeir, teacher in Fallujah.

Abed, who is a suspected terrorist, claimed in his testimony that he had nothing to do with the 2004 attack on four Blackwater Worldwide security guards whose bodies were burned and dragged through the streets of Fallujah in what became a turning point of the Iraq war. Two of the bodies were hanged from a bridge over the Euphrates River, and Abed was the focus of an Iraq-wide manhunt by U.S. forces in the following years.

Too bad, so sad but you're not getting a SEAL to have as a trophy, your terrorist buddy lost and the good guy won.

I do wonder what Khudaeir was doing during the 2004 battle of Fallujah between the Marines and the insurgents.

In any case, this was a proper result and ending to a case that shouldn't have been brought in the first place.

It's a good thing the military jury understands the nature of this war -

"There was no abuse," Monica Lombardi, Huertas' civilian attorney, told the jury. She said Abed could have bit his lip on purpose to cast blame on U.S. troops, calling it "classic terrorist training."

The jury was smart enough to know the truth and justice prevailed. 3 more of these ridiculous trials to go, hopefully with the same proper result.

She's a Guilty Girl in the World - Terror Mom Found Guilty

Just after I finished the previous post, the jury came back with a verdict on the Al Siddiqui trial: She was found GUILTY of Attempted Murder of a US Serviceman today.

An MIT-trained Pakistani woman was convicted this afternoon of trying to kill Americans while detained in Afghanistan in 2008.

The tirade-prone Aafia Siddiqui, 37, was found guilty by a jury in Manhattan federal court even after she denied charges that she had opened fire on US soldiers and FBI agents in Afghanistan.

After the verdict was read, Siddiqui turned to the gallery, pointed her finger in the air and said: "This is a verdict coming from Israel, not America, and that is where the anger belongs. I can testify to this and I have proof."

Siddiqui, 37, was convicted of two counts of attempted murder, though the crime was not found by the jury to be premeditated.

At leat the jury was not intimidated and came to the appropriate conclusion.

Now does the time and expense of the trial, defendant's theatrics and mockery of the court demonstrate the silliness of charging terorists with criminal acts in a US District Court, especially for acts they committed overseas, to now have them sentenced and imprisoned in the US to serve their sentences? Does it really make sense to charge foreign terorists under the US criminal code for acts committed overseas?

My bet is the Obama administration continues this wrongheaded pattern of treating terrorist acts as US criminal law questions.

She's Just A (Terrorist) Girl In The World

Foxnews: Innocent Mom or Would-Be Terrorist? Trial for Neuroscientist Nears End

Jurors heard a U.S.-trained Pakistani scientist portrayed Monday in closing arguments at her attempted murder trial as both a would-be terrorist determined to kill Americans and a fearful woman framed by the government.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher La Vigne cited testimony that Aafia Siddiqui had bomb-making instructions, documents referencing a "mass casualty attack" and a list of New York City landmarks including the Statue of Liberty when she was detained in Afghanistan in 2008.

Siddqui was carrying "a road map for destruction — documents about attacking the United States," he said in federal court in Manhattan.

During the two-week trial, FBI agents and U.S. soldiers testified that when they went to interrogate Siddiqui at an Afghan police station, she snatched up an unattended assault rifle and shot at them while yelling, "Death to Americans." She was wounded by return fire but recovered and was brought to the United States to face charges.

Given her and her supporters' actions in court, my bet isn't on the poor little innocent that just happened to wander into Afghanistan -via Solomonia and Michelle Malkin:

The Pakistani government is paying for part of her defense. She has used the civilian court system to shout anti-American propaganda and spew hatred against Jews, cause legal chaos, and make a mockery of the rights she has been granted. al Qaeda has been trained to game the system. The Western-educated Siddiqui is milking it for all it’s worth.

On Monday, she was thrown out twice for outburts. Her defense team is now asking for, you guessed it, a mistrial....Two jurors were also let go after a man sitting in the courtroom pointed at them, used his finger as a gun to pretend to shoot them, and mouthed an obscenity.

Read all of Michelle's Malkin's account of the trial antics and given her behavior it is pretty clear she's not some poor little innocent but rather an Al Qaeda player.


The trial shows once again the wrongness of the Obama Law-Enforcement view of this war. Indeed, Al Sidiqui does not appear to have been charged (see the complaint against her here) with using a machine gun to commit a crime of violence as the Blackwater Guards were charged? Why not? It certainly seems like a missed opportunity and to overcharge stretch a statute as far as possible and at least in the direction of someone who deserves it an is rather inconsistent with the riddiculous stretching of the statute towards the Blackwater employees. Terorrists get undercharged, Americans get the book creatively thrown at them, doesn't seem fair somehow.

Just wait for the 9/11 conspirator trial to see this bit of Obama misjudgment and Al Qaeda lawfare in full bloom (or is that full boom?).

Outrageous Lawfare Stupidity of the Day: SEALS Charged with Assault for Capturing Wanted Terrorist

You've got to be kidding. Not sure if this is a result of the Eurofication of our military and the desire to turn the American way of war into a law enforcement and court-dominated system in the hope it will have everyone like us or what.

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

A bloody lip? And we charge three of America's elite soldiers with assault for capturing this scumbag?

Has our defense establishment gone nuts?

The scumbag is no average guy off the street either:

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time."

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

So for capturing a terrorist, and he gets a little hurt during capture and now based on his allegation of "abuse" were prosecuting our troops?

Un-bloody-believable.

hat tip: Solomonia. (If you don't read his blog yet, you owe it to yourself to start).