Thomas Jefferson Declaration of Independence

 

THE HERALD PRINTS INCOHERENT GIBBERISH ON PABLO KISEL BAR CLOSINGS

The Trial by Franz Kafka is all anyone needs to read to understand Due Process.  It is short.  It is basically the journey of a clerk through the legal system, without ever being told what he did wrong.  How do the bar owners appeal the closing of their bars without specific notice of what they did wrong?

Now I have desperately tried to get access to the notices to see if they comply with due process.  No one seems to want to post the notices in a readable form. 

It appears, but I will not claim, the notices the city put on bar doors does not specifically state which codes were violated and when.  If this is true, then the city will be liable for damages.

But I will not call it.  I need to be able to see the notices to form an opinion.

The Herald certainly has the technology to post a link to the notices but chose not to.  They certainly have the ability to report on the claims in the lawsuit, and TRO.  The Herald chose not to.

I have contacted several bar owners for information concerning the lawsuit and TRO.  One messaged me and asked why I am suing the city.  I told him in the message I sent him. That is going nowhere. 

There appears to be a very clear Due Process problem, but I will not call it without the documents.  This is why so many people rely on the BV2.  They know I will hold on a story until I see the key documents. 

 

CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS STRUGGLING TO READ THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DECISION

On the issue of whether the 14th Amendment bars Trump from enforcing his EO on birthright citizenship the vote was 5/4.  Four Justices voted Trump's EO DOES NOT VIOLATE the 14th Amendment.

Enforcement of Trump's EO fell short by one vote.  If any of the 5 who voted Trump's EO violated the 14th Amendment were to die during the next 2 1/2 years Trump could appoint the 5th vote.

This is what I reported as key to the story.  The 5/4 is dangerous.

The mainstream media got it all wrong, because they cannot read a simple opinion.

This is a good summary of how the decision is being read as 6/3, based on statutory language and not the 14th Amendment.

"More importantly for the future, while three justices outright dissented, a fourth (Brett Kavanaugh), joined dissenters in finding no 14th Amendment violation. (Kavanaugh signed onto the majority decision blocking Trump's executive order but based his view on a violation of immigration statutes dating to 1940 and 1952.)"

Kavanaugh was desperate to send a message with one more Justice appointed by Trump birthright citizenship can come to an end.

Late last night analyst finally started to report what really happened.

 

DID TRUMP'S EMERGENCY DOCKET DENY JUSTICE TO AVERAGE JOES

The news media seems challenged on deciding how many people had their case denied by the Supreme Court during the 2025-2026 Term.

You can click here to see the order's list which has case numbers assigned when filed during the Term.  You decide.

This Term, it is not disputed, the Court only issued 68 opinions.  This is shameful. Click here to see history of opinions by year.

Before any modern technology the Court easily issued 200 plus opinions and once over 300.  The Court is clearly not upholding its oath of office.

Was the Court just so busy approving Trump's agenda to get to the average Joe's case?

BUT A REAL CASE WHICH REOPENS JOHN DOE'S CASE AGAINST LUIS SAENZ AND GABBY GARCIA

Today the Supreme Court remanded a lot of cases filed by inmates claiming their Plea Bargain is unenforceable. 

The Supreme Court held that an appeal waiver in a plea agreement is unenforceable if enforcing it would result in a miscarriage of justice.

"We principally hold that an agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice—meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute."

See Hunter v. US

Do not forget, John Doe was forced to sign a plea bargain under oath stating he had no history or mental illness, while the motion to find him mentally incompetent was pending before the court.

 

EXACTLY AS PREDICTED JUSTICE ROBERTS AUTHORED THE OPINION

I did not have to open the opinion to know the result.  I saw the R for Roberts as the author and knew the result.  

This is not complex.  Roberts has an ego.  It was 100% predictable he would close out the term with the final opinion.  

THE NEWS MEDIA IS STILL NOT REPORTING THIS DECISION WAS 5/4.  THAT IS SCARY

Thomas as was expected leads the dissent.  His issue is, temporary workers or visitors do not intend to stay in the US, so the 14th Amendment does not protect them.

"By definition, temporary visitors to this country do not choose to make a permanent home here, and their children thus cannot claim the privilege of citizenship. Because the executive order is lawful at least to this extent, respondents’ facial challenge must fail"

What he is saying is a challenge to Trump's EO in its entirety is overbroad.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE THOMAS SHOWED HE REALLY DOES NOT BELIEVE IN ORIGINAL INTENT.

Thomas wants to add language to the 14th Amendment to get to his result.  The authors of the 14th Amendment could have qualified born here with intent to stay.  They did not.

"The Fourteenth Amendment provides: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they re side.”

TRANSGENDER ATHLETES:

The decision was 9 zip that schools can separate athletes based on "biological sex."  All 9 Justices agree "biological sex" is sex assigned at birth.

My issue has always been Transgender advocates argue there are more than two genders but then want mixed players based on different genders.

So much time has been lost arguing over this.  The money needs to be raised and spent to promote transgender athletes. Now that is the real case.  Can a school district which separates athletes based on transgender status not fund Transgender athletes?

All Justices agreed on the result, but three felt the Court went too far.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed concurring opinions. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part

When I read the above, I knew that as to the judgment the result was unanimous. 

We needed this result.  But it is not over.  Science will continue, and overtime science will decide how we decide gender.  During this period while science reviews gender, society will adjust to the changes.

But now the three liberals by agreeing with the application of Title IX, secured the ruling school districts mut fund athletic for Transgender student.  I am okay with the decision.

I have not read the entire opinion, but the elephant in the room seems to have been ignored.

We all have different hormone levels.  Some women have very elevated testosterone.  There have been calls to ban them from sports.  Really, so now people want to look to hormone levels and not just gender assigned at birth.  

This question needs to be addressed.  It is either at birth, or later in life when we change gender identity based on hormone levels.

TODAY'S OPINION PUTS THE COURT'S PREVIOUS FINANCE DECISION, CITIZENS UNITED ON STEROIDS

The political parties are now free to spend, spend, spend in coordination with political organizations.  

'  

MY APPPLICATION FOR STAY AGAINST THE CITY OF BROWNSVILLE

This latest filing has to be filed by tomorrow morning.  I am working on it.  My diabetes is not under control.  My BS is everywhere.

My left numb foot is getting worse and last night I noticed two sores.  I have to get caught up so I can get to the doctor.

If the sores are diabetes related, I could end up in the hospital again given my history of antibiotic resistance.

STRATEGY:  If you follow the Supreme Court and who authors the opinions, you know for sure, the immigration opinions seem to be assigned to Alito.  We could see he was short on his allotment of opinions going into last week, hence three immigration cases in one week authored by Alito.

Now is not the time to put a new issue before Alito.  Tomorrow seems to be the last day of the Term with 4 Opinions remaining.  The key Citizenship case will be decided.  if Alito is the author we will have the most explosive Supreme Court case in its history.  If John Roberts is the author in favor of citizenship, Alito will be very angry.

By mid-July the Stay docket will still be active because of Trump.  Each Justice will have more time to review any filings.  That is when I will put the Stay before Justice Alito.  If he uses his discretion to not take the case, it will be filed in federal court in Austin.

GEOFENCE CASE:  This is the case asking if it is constitutional for tech companies to turn over to law enforcement the phone numbers of people in an area where a crime occurred.   How the government narrowed the users to just two is not clear in the opinion. There has to be something in the process which allows the officers to narrow the search.  Nonetheless, the process violates the Fourth Amendment.

It is interesting to me the news media covered this case last, although not the last opinion of the day.

"For all those reasons, we hold that police officers invade a cell-phone user’s reasonable expectation of privacy when they access his Location History. It does not matter if the time period scrutinized was only two hours. Nor does it matter that the materials obtained were handed over by a third-party tech company. When the government “accesses historical cell phone” location information—Location His tory as much as CSLI—it “conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment.” Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 300."

Supreme Court Opinion

MAIL BALLOT CASE:  TRUMP IS VERY CONFUSED IN BLAMING CONGRESS WHEN THE LAW HE OPPOSES WAS PASSED INTO LAW BY THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE OF MISSISSIPPI

This morning the Supreme Court upheld Mississippi's mail ballot law which says if postmarked by election day, they can be counted up to 5 days after the election.

Mississippi is basically Trump country, and it was their legislature who pass the law Trump opposes. 

This case is so important in ways which have nothing to do with mail ballots.  The Republican controlled legislature responds to the people of Mississippi, and not Trump.  This is lost on Trump.  What we see here is the Republican legislature in Mississippi following the demands of the people while rebuffing Trump.

This is a very important analytical tool in predicting elections and how to conduct elections. 

At the state legislative level Democrats need to campaign on the question of, do the state Mississippi legislators answer to Trump or the people of Mississippi.

This decision is a great insight into "all politics are local."

BECAUSE OF A LACK OF REPORTING SKILLS, WE REMAIN CLUELESS AS TO WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING WITH THE BAR DISTRICT ON PABLO KISEL

I believe I have read most of what is out there on the issue.  I have read nothing specific enough to allow me to form a qualified opinion.

This is in part why I no longer send letters to the editor with the Herald.  They will always run from any story which speaks to the incompetence of the city of Brownsville.

I do not doubt the claims about how dangerous the area may be.  It is unacceptable if the city can prove its numbers.  But the law does not look to results but, process.  Every bar owner deserved a notice of which codes they violated, before they were shut down.  This is basic law.  

Now I can imagine an urgent situation wherein the city can prove the bars were specifically warned about violations of the new code, and chose to not act, while leaving the patrons in the area in a very dangerous situation.  In law this is known as exigent. 

So even if the claim the area is very dangerous is true, the city had a constitutional duty to tell the bar owners of their specific code violation, before the bars could be closed. 

I do have legal experience on this issue.  Over 20-years ago Dallas was going through the same thing, which eventually led to a Red-Light district.  I did a lot of the consulting work on legal issues.

If all I go on is the social media posts, then I am to believe the City of Brownsville just closed these bars without warning.  Well, that would be a black and white violation of the constitution.  I need to see the evidence before I make such a claim. When regulations are enforced in a random and arbitrary fashion it violates due process.

I want to see the lawsuit and exhibits of what was posted on the doors of the establishments before I form an opinion.

The social media coverage gives me no information as to the judge who signed the TRO.  We are in Cameron County where the practice of law is discretionary.  Once I see the pleadings, I will be shocked if they are in order.  But I would not be shocked if the city violated the due process rights of notice and opportunity to respond, afforded the bar owners.

IN MY CASE THE CITY IS IN COURT STATING CODE ENFORCEMENT IS DISCRETIONARY

The defense by the city is so bizarre because it opens a response, they are enforcing the city code in a random and arbitrary way. 

This is where the bar owners need to focus their claim.  They can use the pleadings in my case to show the city as a matter of policy has opened a policy of random and arbitrary enforcement of the code.

IF SOMEONE CAN GIVE ME THE STYLE OF THE CASE, CASE NUMBER, PARTIES, I CAN DO A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

send it to bobbywc58@yahoo.com