Senate Majority Leader McConnell Disbarment Proceedings

Announcement: Senator McConnell Disbarment Proceedings

Bret Sablosky, President Powerful Constitutional Rights Political Action Committee, will announce that complaint of serious attorney misconduct has been filed against the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell, with The Kentucky State Bar in Frankfort, KY, with relief being McConnell disbarment.The complaint alleges McConnell failed to support the U.S. Constitution, which is a violation of the oath of attorney. McConnell did this by denying hearings and a full yay or nay Senate vote on the Merrick Garland nomination, obstructing an Article II Process to deny President Obama Judicial Appointments Power, and transfer it to his own group. The most relevant federal statutes are criminal, so this will be only the beginning.

#stopkavanaugh and address McConnell’s Crimes

 

                         

Brett Sablosky

Powerful Constitutional Rights Political Action Committee

Draft only- not for public viewing or to be shared other than paper and not after 9/25

brett@powerfulconstitutionalrights.org

 

ACTIVITIES TO REMOVE GORSUCH AND BLOCK KAVANAUGH

            Neil Gorsuch was illegally appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch is not a tenured U.S. Supreme Court Justice because he was chosen by the legislative branch, the U.S. Senate, rather than the executive branch, the president of the United States. This is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine in the United States Constitution. The violation of the separation of powers is so serious as render the the confirmation vote on Justice Gorsuch void, and a null approval by the U.S. Senate. The United States Senate is not allowed to nominate judges of their own choice and prevent a sitting president from nominating a Justice to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution clearly states in Article 2  Section 2  Clause 2  that the President shall nominate and by and with the consent of the Senate, the President shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.  The language clearly states that the sitting president serving in office when the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy occurs shall in “shall”  language, which is mandatory language, appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.  When Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley stated to the public and the media, that they would not have hearings, and that they would not have a yea or nay vote of approval or disapproval on Merrick Garland, or on any other U.S. Supreme Court nominee, nominated by President Barack Obama, they were acting illegally, civilly, in violation of the above provision of the United States Constitution, which clearly states that it is the President, who is the only official, who can choose a potential U.S. Supreme Court Justice, by nominating that person and with Senate approval that is called appointment by the President.  In the 2016 nomination event, that person was Judge Merrick Garland.

 

            The refusal of Sen. Chuck Grassley to have Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Merrick Garland, as announced and ordered by President Barack Obama, violates the literal, explicit commands of the U.S. Constitution in shall language, that ‘shall’ is mandatory upon the president and is mandatory upon the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate, and “shall” is mandatory upon the majority leader, of the majority party, of the U.S. Senate, who was Senator Mitch McConnell Republican of Kentucky, as well as upon the entire U.S. Senate through McConnell.  The goal of Powerful Constitutional Rights Political Committee is to convince Democratic Senators, who were serving in the U.S. Senate in year 2016, who wanted to vote on the Merrick Garland nomination, to file a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to sue to ask the United States District Court, to order the removal of Justice Neil Gorsuch from the United States Supreme Court, on the basis that Justice Gorsuch was chosen by U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley, and the Republican members only of the Senate Judiciary Committee who met secretly, and that Justice Gorsuch, was puppet nominated by Donald Trump. President Trump merely acted as a puppet under the control of Senators Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley. The case will have to be appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit. On the United States Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Democrats hold 8 Judgeships and the Republicans hold 6 judgeships. On an en banc panel the Democrats outnumber the Republicans 8 to 6. However, Merrick Garland might recuse himself and that would give a 7 Democrat Judges and 6 Republican Judges en banc panel.   The question in this political issue case, is a question of whether a Senate majority party, or a group of Senators in majority of control of Senate confirmation processes by their numbers of their partisan group, in the U.S. Senate, can disobey, contravene, and violate the governing processes, which are as a mechanism explicitly commanded, in the shall language in the United States Constitution, explicitly, that is, with regards to the powers of the President, and the explicitly described procedures, to advise and consent to a judicial nomination.

 

            The question at hand is greater than just the Merrick Garland nomination of President Barack Obama.  The question is do the Republicans or any majority party in the U.S. Senate, have the right to refuse to have  hearings and refuse to have an approval vote on nominations, for any U.S. Supreme Court nominee, by any sitting President. Then the case goes on to the United States Supreme Court, on request for certiorari. Justice Gorsuch will have to recuse himself, since he cannot rule on the legality of the questionable, suspicious, circumstances that caused him to be elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court. That leaves 8 Justices to hear the case. If the court ties in a 4-4 vote, then the final ruling of the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit stands, as if that ruling were a ruling of the United States Supreme Court, under the rules of the United States Supreme Court. Whatever the ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, that ruling will prevail in the case of a 4-4 tie on the United States Supreme Court. 

 

            The idea of our Committee is that the removal of Gorsuch will create a vacancy that will last until after the 2018 Senate elections are completed. If our Democrat Senators suing get their way, the Merrick Garland nomination will be resurrected on the basis of a U.S. Supreme Court, or U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, order based on the equity powers of the court and the law powers of the federal courts to decide political issue cases where there is a dispute between the branches of the federal government, in this case between the both the Executive and the Legislative and the intrabranch [within the branch] dispute between the Republican Senators led by Sen. Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley and the minority Democrats led by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York.  Either the Garland nomination will be reactivated or another nominee who may even be chosen by  President Obama who was on Obama’s list for the U.S. Supreme Court, will be chosen based on a remedy ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At that point, what the Democrats can do depends on how many votes they have in the U.S. Senate and how many votes the Republicans have in the U.S. Senate. What the Democrats can do after the Gorsuch case is resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court is dependent on what decision is written by the U.S. Supreme Court or if there is a tie vote on the U.S. Supreme Court 4-4, then what the decision is will be the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Emoluments Clause from Encyclopedia Britannica

 

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The Constitution also contains a “domestic emoluments clause” (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 6), which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument” from the federal government or the states beyond “a Compensation” for his “Services” as chief executive.

 
ADVERTISING

The plain purpose of the foreign emoluments clause was to ensure that the country’s leaders would not be improperly influenced, even unconsciously, through gift giving, then a common and generally corrupt practice among European rulers and diplomats. An early version of the clause, modeled on a rule adopted by the Dutch Republic in 1651 that forbade its foreign ministers from receiving “any presents, directly or indirectly, in any manner or way whatever,” was incorporated into the Articles of Confederation (1781) as Article VI, Paragraph I: Nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

All but the prohibition of titles of nobility was dropped from the initial draft of the Constitution but eventually restored at the request of Charles Pinckney, who argued at the Constitutional Convention for “the necessity of preserving foreign Ministers & other officers of the U.S. independent of foreign influence.” The final text of the clause included a provision that permitted acceptance of foreign gifts with the explicit approval of Congress, perhaps reflecting the awkward experience of Benjamin Franklin, who as American minister to France had been presented with a bejeweled snuff box by Louis XVI and, not wishing to offend the king, asked Congress for permission to keep it (permission was granted).

Although there has been some debate regarding the exact meaning and scope of the foreign emoluments clause, nearly all scholars agree that it applies broadly to all federal officeholders, appointed or elected, up to and including the president. That interpretation is supported by the historical record, such as it is, of the Constitution’s drafting as well as by the past practice of presidential administrations and Congresses. Thus Edmund Jennings Randolph, one of the Framers, remarked at the Virginia ratifying convention that the clause protected against the danger of “the President receiving Emoluments from foreign powers,” even asserting that a president who violates the clause “may be impeached.” There was no recorded dissent from Randolph’s view. From at least the early 19th century, presidents who were offered gifts by foreign states routinely requested Congress’s permission to accept them, and foreign rulers were politely informed (sometimes by the president himself) of the constitutional restriction regarding gifts. (The sole exception seems to have been George Washington, who accepted a print from the French ambassador without consulting Congress.)

The foreign emoluments clause also broadly encompasses any kind of profit, benefit, advantage, or service, not merely gifts of money or valuable objects. Thus, it would prohibit a federal officeholder from receiving special consideration in business transactions with a foreign state (or with a corporation owned or managed by a foreign state) that gave the officeholder a competitive advantage over other businesses. Arguably, as the legal scholar Laurence Tribe and others have suggested, the clause would forbid even competitively fair transactions with foreign states, because the profit accruing to the officeholder would fall within the ordinary meaning of “emolument,” and because such arrangements would threaten exactly the kind of improper influence that the clause was intended to prevent.

Election cheats: DNC RNC Consent Decree and RNC’s violations including Kemp purges and Kobach Crosscheck

2010 Consent decree definition, 3rd Circuit

The term “ballot security” is defined in the 2009 modification as follows: (3) . . . any program aimed at combatting voter fraud by preventing potential voters from registering to vote or casting a ballot. Such programs include, but are not limited to,6 the compilation of voter challenge lists by use of mailing or reviewing databases maintained by state agencies such as motor vehicle records, social security records, change of address forms, and voter lists assembled pursuant to the HAVA7;

Veasy v Abbott

(Intent finding on Remand from 5th Circuit) https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/2017-04-10_Order_Intent.pdf)

“5. Legislative Drafting History Proponents touted SB 14 as a remedy for voter fraud, consistent with efforts of other states. As previously demonstrated, the evidence shows a tenuous relationship between those rationales and the actual terms of the bill.

NAACP v McCrory

Governor Patrick L. McCrory signed Session Law 2013-381,

  1. Voter Information Verification Act, S.L. 2013-381, 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws 1505 (codified as amended in scattered sections of N.C. Gen. Stat.).which required several changes to the state’s voting procedures by 2016.

The law accepted a limited pool of photo IDs for in-person voting, reduced the number of early voting days from seventeen to ten, eliminated same-day registration, eliminated preregistration for sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, and banned out-of-precinct provisional voting.

Before ratifying the law, the state legislature had requested and considered racial data showing that black Americans disproportionately relied on all of the voting procedures the law eliminated or restricted and disproportionately used forms of identification the law excluded.

Voter ID

These efforts to implement a voter ID program- explicitly and obviously- a ballot security measure which the Republican party has agreed not to participate in. Further difficulties in obtaining specific or strict ID’s does represent a real restriction on poor folks. Plaintiff would be required upon changing addresses- to travel to his birth place, across several states, pay for it and back, again, for one identification point necessary to obtain an ID that would work even in relatively non-strict voter ID states. The cost would be approximately $120 dollars.  For women who changed their name, the birth certificate itself might need to be changed, after a name change requiring in person trips to multiple locations, sometimes in different states, and thus possibly in the realm of $200+ dollars.

Here is an incomplete list of the Federal cases which are expressly ballot security initiatives in 2013-2016

                                One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen

Feldman v. Arizona

Lee v. Virginia Board of Elections

Common Cause v. Rucho

Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute and NEOCH v. Husted

League of Women Voters v. Newby

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. The North Carolina State Board of Elections

Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner

Common Cause v. Kemp

Shelby vs Holder

Crosscheck

Kris Kobach of Kansas, is unquestionably a Republican and should be considered one for the sake of comparison to the Consent Decree.  The initiation of the Crosscheck program in 2013- with several other Republican Secretaries of State- ostensibly to prevent the dubious threat of double voting-  is clearly a ballot security initiative, creating voter challenge lists. It eventually grew to 29 states, 100 million records, and 7.2 million matches on their list.   To be clear- at every level of the court system- by Democratic and Republican appointed judges alike have questioned the validity of wide spread voter fraud-  an issue never demonstrated to be of valid or compelling state interest.   Instead, it seems to be a rebranded mode of the same voter caging techniques used in the original Consent Decree and an area they agreed- multiple times- to stop.

It also put the voting records of no less than 100 Million Americans in the hands of an individual who has repeatedly ignored court orders. At a time when it is believed that campaigns microtargeted Facebook users, using illegally obtained data.. this is a question mark that should be examined.

 

Mitch McConnell and President Obama on Constitutional Appointment duties.

Chart of US Federal vacancies

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/qCRkQka9Fj0″ frameborder=”0″ allow=”autoplay; encrypted-media” allowfullscreen></iframe>

Joe Biden set Constitutional Duty interpretation for Supreme Court Appointements with some off hand remarks? I don’t remember Majority leaders or any other name for the scheduler of votes in the Constitution. So I don’t know why I hear the name of this small state Senator of no particular great works.

A record Obstructionist, with filibuster record, judges blocked, Supreme Court blockages. I don’t know why he thinks he can just not schedule a vote and then blow up the filibuster for Gorsuch. The 79 Judgeships this man held up until he could get Republican picks must be answered for and the violation of the Civil rights of the Senate, the President and the independent Judiciary. A mandate to object to judicial pick abuses by the Declaration of Independence itself, the founding document of the United States of America.

This is a clearly un Constitutional power grab, done for corrupt purposes, as a conspiracy in which they decided the Senate business without the Democratic members. Same talking points they got their story together. Text book conspiracy to control the President’s appointments to the Supreme Court until he liked the Presidents picks. Not the Senate, by vote. Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority leader a position of no Constitutional distinction. A Senator who’s job is to write votes on to the schedule.

PowerfulRights heads to Washington DC for Kavanaugh hearings and protests

Kavanaugh, Trump's pick is a 1505 criminal

Brett sent me down in a last ditch effort to get Democratic Senators to take some kind of legal action to stop the proceedings for the Supreme Court Nomination., after weeks of run arounds, and un returned emails. We talked to Menendez, Booker,  Feinstein, Tina Smith(took over Franken’s seat, ), Gillebrand and emailed Merkely, Hirono, Klobouchar, and Leahy.  Nada in return.

We also reviewed Senator Merkley’s case against Trump, which was filed the day the original vote was to be scheduled. It was filed without any motion to expedite or TRO- we shot an email to the lead attorney- who shot back an email with the TRO, just filed, literally 48 hours before the vote was scheduled. It was very well written, but there was no time for a hearing, let alone time to appeal rulings from the district, which of course happen nearly instantaneously for Senators.

 

From the:

*hiding documents

*releasing documents at the last second

*limiting FBI investigations

*felony perjury and obstructing Congressional investigations

There was plenty of material to get injunctions on the process; but frankly, Congress does not seem to want to take extra steps or listen when others urge other steps.

 

 

Forget Kavanaugh, here’s why we will be talking about Merrick Garland nomination

Kavanaugh, Trump's pick is a 1505 criminal

The Senate has the power to reject nominees. Neither Charles Grassley nor Mitch McConnell is the Senate, and cannot speak alone for the Senate, nor reject Presidential appointed nominees to hold open spaces for Judges of his choosing. By filibustering 79 judges, and 1 Supreme Court Justice, he refused a constitutionally mandated duty on behalf of the entire Senate, violating their civil rights, that of the President of the United States, and held up the proceedings of the entire United States Judiciary until he could select judges of his choosing, thus managing to violate separation of powers, and Constitutionally mandated process, and the civil rights and Authority of all 3 sovereign branches of American government.

the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article III establishes the Authority of the Court as:

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;

10

—between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

As the Presidential Appointment is a Power specifically created by Constitution, and certainly individuals vested with the Sovereign Powers of the United States are Parties;

Some question whether Senate rules can be reviewed. This seems silly; they can certainly review if the Senate executed it’s own rules, and the Senate rules cannot supercede a Constitutionally described and mandated duty for the Senate. The Senate’s advice and consent is required, and without votes the Senate’s will cannot be determined. It is highly unlikely that a single Senator is meant to determine the course of a Presidential nomination. On video, Mitch McConnell is heard to say that he did so because he did not want Obama to seat another Justice, and to fufill his civil right, and Constitutional Power. He did not schedule hearings, and conspired to refuse them, because HE BELIEVED THE SENATE WOULD HAVE CONFIRMED MERRICK GARLAND. In this sense, he obstructed the Authority of not only the President but that of the whole Senate, and deliberately nixing the Constitutionally mandated Advice and and Consent Authority.

Taken as a single count of 18 USC 1505

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

This seems like a question. When you consider the 79 judicial filibusters by Mitch McConnell’s Senate, more than the 59 previous judicial filibusters, and you have clear attempt to obstruct government processes, measurable by the normal rates, complete stoppage of activity- an 11 month strike, refusing to seat Judges.

in the Declaration of Independence, this behavior is described as a reason for valid over throw of your present government,

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

The Senate has always accepted that for cause and in time of great need in pursuance of the people’s goals protest and slowing of processes occurs. There comes a point in which

There is no reason to doubt Jurisdiction or in this case judicial Power and Authority.

In terms of crafting remedy,

The All Writs Act gave the “Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress” the authority to issue writs of mandamus “in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

Further, 28 U.S. Code § 1361 gave federal district courts “original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”

So the judicial Power to correct a corruptly managed process would have to be pretty extensive, much like tainted prosecutions from tampered with evidence

 

#StopKavanaugh becomes #WithdrawKavanaugh becomes #Kavanaugh1505Criminal

Kavanaugh, Trump's pick is a 1505 criminal

Brett Kavanaugh must be disqualified as he committed perjury to Congress, a likely 1505 violation, a predicate to RICO statutes.

Lying to Congress is a disqualifier for the Supreme Court membership. Brett Kavanaugh is a candidate for 5 years of hard time in federal prison.

 

Rachel Maddow Breaks it down, and the statute below:

18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 770; Pub. L. 87–66
, § 6(a), Sept. 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 551; Pub. L. 91–452, title IX, § 903, Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 947; Pub. L. 94–435, title I, § 105, Sept. 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 1389; Pub. L. 97–291, § 4(d), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1253; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, § 6703(a), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3766.)

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

 

Darrell Prince

Darrell Prince is the Vice President for Communications, for Powerful ConstitutionalRights.org, responsible for overseeing website development, copy, social media, while maintaining his own portfolio of cases.

He started off in Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance, which is really a function of CFR regulations, testing with laser precision (literally)and accuracy that each

A little about my motivations when I was in DC and met Brett Sablosky to begin my involvement in PowerfulConstitutionalRights