Bob Unruh discusses the legal issues involved in our Petition for Certiorari: “They argued a law requiring the secretary of state to put the names of ineligible candidates on the ballot would be unconstitutional. But the California judges shrugged, more or less said “So what?” and dismissed the case.”
SCOTUSblog published a preview of the oral argument in Rodriguez v. United States, and discussed our amicus brief:
“One amicus brief was filed in support of each side. While the parties avoid the question whether a dog sniff is a “search,” the U.S. Justice Foundation argues in support of Rodriguez that the Jardines and Jones decisions should call Caballes into question on this point, and that a dog sniff of one’s car should not be allowed without independent Fourth Amendment justification. Pitching a portion of its argument, apparently, at common-law enthusiasts such as Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, this amicus brief cites political philosopher John Locke from 1690 (about property rights, not cars, of course).”
Today, in an article in The Wall Street Journal entitled “A Monetary Gadfly in an Age of Fiat Money,” Seth Lipsky discusses the amicus briefs we filed for GATA in the government’s case against Bernard vonNotHaus.
“These matters were considered by Judge Voorhees, who has been presiding in the von NotHaus case. They were raised most pointedly in an amicus brief by the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, a charity that fights for a constitutional view of money.
Our comments on behalf of Gun Owners America, Inc. to the Department of Health and Human Services on proposed HIPPA rules were cited in an article by Stephanie E. Pearl, “HIPPA: Caught in the Cross Fire,” published in the Duke University Law Journal, vol. 64, no. 3, p. 559, 565, n. 39 (2014).
The BNA Criminal Law Reporter’s article on the Abramski decision, “Straw Man for Lawful Firearm Purchaser Made Material False Statement on ATF Form,” by Alisa Johnson, used some of our comments on the decision:
William J. Olson, Vienna, Va., who also participated in amicus briefs, characterized “the essence of the majority opinion” as, “if the Supreme Court thinks that interpreting federal law the way it is actually written would defeat Congress’ intent, the court may usurp the legislative power to edit the statute to fulfill its true intent.”
Bill Olson was interviewed by Steve Malzberg today on NewsmaxTV about the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari filed in Hedges v. Obama. Our firm filed three amicus briefs in the Hedges case, one in district court, one in the court of appeals, and one in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the Second Circuit’s opinion leaves standing Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 authorizing the U.S. Military to arrest and indefinitely detain American Citizens without charges, without an attorney, and without trial. (Note: Newsmax used the wrong photo on screen for the interview.)
Bob Unruh’s article discusses the tragedy of the U.S. Supreme Court denial of Chris Hedges’ petition for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. NDAA 2012 allows the U.S. military to arrest and detain, without charges, counsel, or trial, anyone thought by the government to be a threat based on vague standards.
Attempting to deflect public wrath, those Republicans and Democrats in Congress who passed the law, and the Obama Administration which wanted it, have changed their public position repeatedly as to how the law would apply to American citizens. Of course, when legislators want to make a law clear, they know how to do it. When they try to make it murky, that too is on purpose.
The Congressional Research Service today issued a report entitled Executive Orders: Issuance, Modification, and Revocation. That report twice references a study which Bill Olson co-authored entitled Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to Run the Country by Usurping Legislative Power.
The CRS report also references an October 27,1999 hearing in the House of Representatives at which Bill testified on this topic.
Herb Titus was quoted in a Bloomberg Bureau of National Affairs (“BNA”) Criminal Law Reporter article entitled “Aiding and Abetting Use of Firearm Requires Advance Knowledge of Gun.” The article involves the case Rosemond v. United States, in which our firm filed an amicus brief on August 9, 2013.
Herb was quoted as saying that “bare knowledge of the presence of a firearm is sufficient reason to impose an additional mandatory minimum consecutive sentence of five years…. The ruling has the effect of taking from the jury the key question of defendant’s guilt—his intent concerning the use of a firearm [and] upholds the power of prosecutors, not judges, to determine sentences given to thousands of defendants … Prosecutors will continue to have power de facto to impose mandatory minimum sentences — the very sort of sentences that Attorney General Eric Holder claims to oppose.”
Today the New York Times ran an article by its Chief Washington Correspondent Carl Hulse which discussed our brief in the NLRB v. Canning case being argued Monday. The article, entitled “Role Reversals Emerge in Dispute Over Obama’s Recess Appointments,” discussed Bill Olson’s recess appointment by President Reagan in 1981 to be Chairman of the Board of the Legal Services Corporation.
“A lawsuit challenging the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) limits on how much people can contribute to political campaigns is on its way to the Supreme Court, and the Libertarian National Committee is supporting that challenge.”
The WND.com article “Stonewalling on Fast and Furious Challenged” by Bob Unruh discusses Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Open America Stay we filed in the case of Gun Owners Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on behalf of plaintiff Gun Owners Foundation.