Beautifully done. I filed suit against the three Credit Reporting Agencies, and no judge had the Courage to allow them to get to discovery. Why? They know they have to uphold Corporate Policies over Consumer Protection Laws otherwise they'd lose their prestige they've acquired by upholding these corporate polices over actual Consumer Protection Laws. I told the judge (I, too, am Pro Se) that her biggest issue was not whether the Defendant's had engaged in Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, but whether she had the Courage to actually uphold the law. It took her six months to rule on it. I'd suspect she didn't want to rule b/c she knew the impact it would have on her standing amongst other judges and among generous corporations who take care of their corrupt helpers. However, after 6 months, she wrote a silly disposition upholding Corporate Policy and dismissing my case. Keep up the great work & God Bless you & yours 🙏🏼
The most egregious case of lack of standing dismissal I know of is the New York Supreme Court overturning a case won by attorney Bobbie Anne Cox that stopped governor Hochul’s executive order, allowing them to detain you indefinitely for any reason with no proof of being a danger to the public or having a communicable disease. This reversal happened a year afterwards, and the plaintiffs included New York State legislators, who had the legitimate role of making such a policy law if they chose to; it was not legitimately in the purview of the Executive to do so.
The court decided that these individual lawmakers did not have standing to bring the suit!
I’ve heard about a number of other cases during the Covid era. That were perfectly legitimate cases to bring, about rights being violated, all being tossed out due to lack of standing or mootness.
Powerful framing on how Pareto efficiency has been weaponized against justice rather than serving it. The surge of 180k cases in 2020 juxtaposed with dismissal rates is damning evidence that the system optimized for expediency over constitutional access. Ive seen similar patterns in regulatory procedings where agenices use procedural technicalities to sidestep substantive review, basically immunizing themselves from accountability while telling citizens "thats how the system works."
My whistleblower retaliation lawsuit was filed July 2021 and there has not been any action on it since with the exception of the state changing attorneys due to so many leaving state service. I was told several years ago that the state wants to have my case dismissed as well. There is no justice for whistle blowers.
Redress of grievances through the courts has become very difficult. The presence of judges (and justices) who are politically motivated rather than Constitutionally is destroying respect for the Judiciary. The whole system designed with much thought by the Founding Fathers is being taken down and discarded. Law is being written by the President via Executive Orders and bureaucratic agencies. Congress has not been codifying the President's Orders and they have given away their ability (and job) to legislate to the power hungry agencies. Checks and balances are being intentionally ignored.
Very good but I hope the courts do not move more toward the equity - equality of outcome - that is anathema to liberty and rugged individualism. Better to move toward equality of opportunity, and of course, justice, Constitutional first, and lawful at the pleasure of the Constitution.
That’s not what equity means. Never has been. That’s another made-up propaganda term that fools people. Like calling our country a democracy.
Equity is vital to an operating court system in a common law system.
I’ve heard some wild conjecture on equity by many who don’t know what they’re talking about. Grifters trying to sell some citizenship of the world thing or something. Maybe I’ll do another podcast on equity. Too much to explain in this chat box.
Interesting. I presume you are referring to a legal definition, which makes sense in the context of a post about law. I look forward to learning more about it. I think you will find a lot of commoners make a differentiation particularly with respect to DEI which demonstrably uses E in the sense I wrote (I saw in my own workplace where no whites were being interviewed for a software quality job). Thanks for your reply and for your work.
I knew that you meant and addressed it to clear it up. It is a legal meaning. But equity also has a common definition. And rhat common definition does not match the use in DEI. They capture words and morph them into false meanings.
I explain the legal part in this video at around 53:20.
Morphing words is popular these days. Like "vaccine". Like "gender care" and "women's health".
Actually since PC. I think it is odious and forces us to clarify which meaning of a word we are meaning to use. Inefficient. But all part of whitewashing words to convince people
Beautifully done. I filed suit against the three Credit Reporting Agencies, and no judge had the Courage to allow them to get to discovery. Why? They know they have to uphold Corporate Policies over Consumer Protection Laws otherwise they'd lose their prestige they've acquired by upholding these corporate polices over actual Consumer Protection Laws. I told the judge (I, too, am Pro Se) that her biggest issue was not whether the Defendant's had engaged in Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, but whether she had the Courage to actually uphold the law. It took her six months to rule on it. I'd suspect she didn't want to rule b/c she knew the impact it would have on her standing amongst other judges and among generous corporations who take care of their corrupt helpers. However, after 6 months, she wrote a silly disposition upholding Corporate Policy and dismissing my case. Keep up the great work & God Bless you & yours 🙏🏼
The most egregious case of lack of standing dismissal I know of is the New York Supreme Court overturning a case won by attorney Bobbie Anne Cox that stopped governor Hochul’s executive order, allowing them to detain you indefinitely for any reason with no proof of being a danger to the public or having a communicable disease. This reversal happened a year afterwards, and the plaintiffs included New York State legislators, who had the legitimate role of making such a policy law if they chose to; it was not legitimately in the purview of the Executive to do so.
The court decided that these individual lawmakers did not have standing to bring the suit!
I’ve heard about a number of other cases during the Covid era. That were perfectly legitimate cases to bring, about rights being violated, all being tossed out due to lack of standing or mootness.
Bobbie Anne is to Hochul as a knight is to a dragon.
Praying for them to take up the case!
Powerful framing on how Pareto efficiency has been weaponized against justice rather than serving it. The surge of 180k cases in 2020 juxtaposed with dismissal rates is damning evidence that the system optimized for expediency over constitutional access. Ive seen similar patterns in regulatory procedings where agenices use procedural technicalities to sidestep substantive review, basically immunizing themselves from accountability while telling citizens "thats how the system works."
Justice in the US comes from deep wallets.
Good luck John and thanks for the update.
My whistleblower retaliation lawsuit was filed July 2021 and there has not been any action on it since with the exception of the state changing attorneys due to so many leaving state service. I was told several years ago that the state wants to have my case dismissed as well. There is no justice for whistle blowers.
The author has highlighted a big issue that most people haven’t thought about.
John, are you aware of this substack writer? I have a feeling his work might be of interest to you.
https://csofand.substack.com/p/your-money-and-your-life
https://csofand.substack.com/p/let-it-ride
He relates pension actuarial savings to state death statistics with very interesting results.
Redress of grievances through the courts has become very difficult. The presence of judges (and justices) who are politically motivated rather than Constitutionally is destroying respect for the Judiciary. The whole system designed with much thought by the Founding Fathers is being taken down and discarded. Law is being written by the President via Executive Orders and bureaucratic agencies. Congress has not been codifying the President's Orders and they have given away their ability (and job) to legislate to the power hungry agencies. Checks and balances are being intentionally ignored.
The Republic is being destroyed from the inside.
It's not by mistake it's by design.
The legal system suffers from left brain bias.... They see a lot of details but sometimes miss the big picture.
Too much Watson not enough Sherlock.
https://robc137.substack.com/p/left-brain-vs-whole-brain-in-battlestar
Very good but I hope the courts do not move more toward the equity - equality of outcome - that is anathema to liberty and rugged individualism. Better to move toward equality of opportunity, and of course, justice, Constitutional first, and lawful at the pleasure of the Constitution.
That’s not what equity means. Never has been. That’s another made-up propaganda term that fools people. Like calling our country a democracy.
Equity is vital to an operating court system in a common law system.
I’ve heard some wild conjecture on equity by many who don’t know what they’re talking about. Grifters trying to sell some citizenship of the world thing or something. Maybe I’ll do another podcast on equity. Too much to explain in this chat box.
Interesting. I presume you are referring to a legal definition, which makes sense in the context of a post about law. I look forward to learning more about it. I think you will find a lot of commoners make a differentiation particularly with respect to DEI which demonstrably uses E in the sense I wrote (I saw in my own workplace where no whites were being interviewed for a software quality job). Thanks for your reply and for your work.
I knew that you meant and addressed it to clear it up. It is a legal meaning. But equity also has a common definition. And rhat common definition does not match the use in DEI. They capture words and morph them into false meanings.
I explain the legal part in this video at around 53:20.
Equity v Law
https://rumble.com/v6y038i-ep-006-tlbcast-standing-doctrine-next-stop-scotus.html
Thanks. I will look.
Morphing words is popular these days. Like "vaccine". Like "gender care" and "women's health".
Actually since PC. I think it is odious and forces us to clarify which meaning of a word we are meaning to use. Inefficient. But all part of whitewashing words to convince people
Whoever controls the definitions controls the Narratives, which allows them to control the world.
Thanks for completing the thought!