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.