Shifting Legal Precedent Affects Us All...
Are we really litigating due process in courts across America, or is it something else?
Prescott, AZ January 1, 2024… As we leave 2023 behind and enter 2024 we ought to take a moment and reflect on the massive shift in legal precedent we have witnessed since the end of 2022 and throughout 2023. We have seen a seismic shift in the fair treatment of our fellow citizens.
In days gone by, every one of us had the benefit of being assumed innocent until proven guilty. The fundamental process of proving that someone violated a law is known as due process (a fair and unbiased trial), it is a God-given right, and it is codified as a guarantee to every citizen of the United States in our Bill of Rights.
“The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures.”1
“The law” is supposed to be a standard for justice, it’s the operational consent to be governed, and it’s how we govern an equal playing field for all regardless of station in society. But something has happened to “the law” and those who practice it, which the majority of Americans find repugnant.
Your day in court…
Think of the worst crime you can, and then imagine that you are the suspect. You have been publically accused not by law enforcement agents or even prosecutors, but by people who don’t like you just because you are, well you. You have not been charged or arrested for that heinous crime, but government officials exact a penalty on you without a trial. And to make matters worse, those who might defend you in court are barred from helping you because of who you are; essentially you are prevented from facing your accusers and challenging their evidence against you.
Project 65 is but one of the organizations dedicated to what Chris Landau, a former law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and the late Justice Antonin Scalia, calls “lawfare.” But what mystifies us on the outside is how can this be legal; how is it that people engaged in the activity are exempt from frivolous lawsuit sanctions themselves? How can state courts permit clearly political warfare in their courtrooms after denying access to those same courtrooms after the 2020 elections?
This all begs the question, why hasn’t there been an indictment brought against President Trump if there is probable cause to believe that he committed a crime? We all know why, because the charge is ridiculous that it cannot stand the scrutiny demanded by a jury. Moreover, if there were a trial, that would open the door to discovery by the defense, and there my friends is where the bones of truth are buried. You see, if discovery happens, the world will know the skullduggery that has occurred, many who facilitated the coup will be found out, and it would not go well for them. Instead, they will just sit back on the court of public opinion and let democracy do what democracy does.
The new paridigm in American jurisprudence…
Two images come to mind when we hear the term “mob.” One is a group of gangsters engaged in extortion, tax evasion, and even murder. This image conjures up thoughts of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The other is an out-of-control group of people bent on getting their own way, damn the cost. While the former is of grave concern to us all who seek peace and life under the great equalizer known as the law to combat crime, the latter is just as insidious, and perhaps more damaging over the long term because it alters jurisprudence.
In Colorado, the State Supreme Court abandoned the basic due process guarantees of a right to trial, to confront accusers, and to examine evidence. I’ll get back to evidence in a minute, let’s just focus on the trial aspect. Then on her own, again without due process, Jena Griswold, Colorado Secretary of State, a rabid leftist Democrat, tried to block Donald J. Trump from appearing on the ballot.
In Maine, the radical leftist Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows without any trial made an arbitrary and capricious declaration to prevent Mr. Trump from appearing on the ballot. Incidentally, at least one Republican lawmaker there has displayed courage and is vowing to pursue impeachment against Bellows. Despite long odds in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, at least one individual plans to hold her accountable for trying to single-handedly block Maine voters from exercising their Nature’s law franchise.
In Michigan, State Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Welch said that “procedural differences may make the difference in Colorado and Michigan’s election laws. The challengers in the case may renew their legal efforts as to the Michigan general election later in 2024 should Trump become the Republican nominee for President of the United States or seek such office as an independent candidate”. But once again, there has been no trial, no charge, no arrest, no conviction related to the fake “insurrection” facilitated by compromised federal agencies.
It seems odd that the Democratic Party is engaged in the least democratic of actions, what with their marketing campaign using “expand voting rights” and “defend democracy” catchphrases that they hope will be seen as a rallying cry for Democrats everywhere. So how does that work?
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Mark Finchem's Inside Track Substack to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.