A Presidential Pardon does not take effect unless the suspect accepts it. That according to a little known, 1915 ruling from the Supreme Court, once accepted, the pardon serves as an “imputation of guilt,” or what’s more commonly known as an admission. Because accepting the pardon is “essential to it’s validity,” I am demanding the Biden family, Dr. Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, the members of the J6 Committee and everyone else Biden unsurprisingly pardoned declare their acceptance of the pardon publicly. Because, according to the Supreme Court, it would also serve as a declaration of guilt.
Tag: scotus
He Lost the Title to His Home Over a Small Property Tax Debt. Years Later, He’s Finally Getting It Back.
A Nebraska man whose house title was seized over a modest property tax debt has finally gotten it back, ending a yearslong legal battle that almost saw him lose his home and all of its value in excess of what he owed the government.
In 2014, Kevin Fair was unable to pay his $588 property tax bill after quitting his job to care for his dying wife, Terry, who had been diagnosed with a debilitating case of multiple sclerosis. The next year, the Scotts Bluff County government quietly sold that debt to a private investor, Continental Resources, which continued to satisfy the Fairs’ property taxes—until 2018, when the company sent the couple a bill for $5,268.
The family would have to pay that total—their tax debt, along with interest and fees—within 90 days, or lose their house. They would also lose all of their equity, even though their home was worth about $55,000 more than what they owed.
That was business as usual in Nebraska, which was one of many states engaging in legalized home equity theft. “People are shocked about how the law actually operates,” Jennifer Gaughan, chief of legal strategy at Legal Aid of Nebraska, told me in 2023. The law was indeed shocking: Local governments were permitted to sell tax debts to investors, without sending correspondence to the debtors. Three years later, as in the Fairs’ case, the investor would mail the property owner the new bill, which, of course, had grown substantially, with 14 percent interest and other fees. If the owner couldn’t pay within 90 days, then the county treasurer would give the title of the house to the investor, who would then take the home, sell it—and keep the change.
“It’s usually elderly people…people who own their homes outright who don’t have a mortgage, and there’s usually some kind of intervening situation,” said Gaughan. “It’s not just poverty. It’s illness, or something happens in their lives….And then they don’t have notice of it. And then [the home] is being taken.”
The Fairs sued, arguing that losing the equity in their house in excess of what they owed violated the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause, which promises that the government cannot take private property “without just compensation.” The pair lost multiple times, including at the Nebraska Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court considered the issue in 2023. The plaintiff in that case, an elderly woman named Geraldine Tyler, accrued a $2,300 property tax debt on her condo in Hennepin County, Minnesota, after some neighborhood incidents, including a nearby shooting, prompted her to move to a retirement community. Unable to finance both her rent and her debt—the total bill came to $15,000 with penalties, interest, and fees—the local government seized her condo, sold it for $40,000, and kept the $25,000 profit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that was fine.
The high court’s justices unanimously disagreed. “A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.” Tyler was 94 years old when the decision came down.
With that ruling in mind, Nebraska’s top court reconsidered its previous decision and ruled that Fair would not have to sacrifice the additional equity in excess of his debt. Whether or not he would be able to retain his title, however, remained unclear, until late last month when he came to an amicable agreement with Continental Resources.
Supreme Court Justices ‘Sound Likely to Uphold TikTok Ban’
According to reports, the Supreme Court justices “sound likely” to uphold the TikTok ban, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 19.
President-elect Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to delay the ban, which will begin one day before his inauguration unless it is sold to a new non-Chinese owner.
TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, has indicated it is not open to a forced sale.
On Friday, the Supreme Court heard over two hours of arguments about whether banning the app would violate Americans’ freedom of speech.
The justices, including conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, seemed skeptical of the claims and said, “The law doesn’t say TikTok has to shut down. It says ByteDance has to (sell TikTok).”
“It doesn’t’ say, ‘TikTok, you can’t speak,’” liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson added, according to a New York Daily News report.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to accept that the ban is an effort to prevent Chinese indoctrination of young Americans.
“That seems like a huge concern for the future of the country,” Kavanaugh said.
Trump’s nominee to be solicitor general, John Sauer, filed an amicus brief with the court in December.
The brief argued, “President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history.”
A SWAT Team Destroyed an Innocent Woman’s House. The Supreme Court Won’t Hear Her Case.
The Supreme Court last month declined to hear a case from an elderly woman whose house was destroyed by a SWAT team, leaving open the question of whether or not innocent people are constitutionally entitled to compensation when law enforcement lays waste to their property in pursuit of public safety.
In July 2020, while chasing a fugitive, police arrived at Vicki Baker’s home in McKinney, Texas. They threw dozens of tear gas grenades inside, used explosives to break the front and garage doors, and drove a tank through her backyard fence, although Baker’s daughter, Deanna Cook, had supplied them with a key to the home, a garage door opener, and the back gate code.
The suspect, Wesley Little, had previously worked for Baker as a handyman and barricaded himself inside her home while on the run from police. He had kidnapped a teenage girl, whom he released after the cops arrived. But Little himself refused to exit, prompting law enforcement to ravage the house. (He ultimately killed himself.)
Baker, who was in Montana when her house was destroyed, never contested that police acted in the best interest of the community when it sought to extract Little from her home. She took issue, however, with the subsequent response from the government, which refused to compensate her for the more than $50,000 in damages. Her homeowners insurance likewise declined to pay, as many policies explicitly do not cover damage caused by the government.
“I’ve lost everything,” she told me in 2021. “I’ve lost my chance to sell my house. I’ve lost my chance to retire without fear of how I’m going to make my regular bills.” Baker, who was undergoing treatment for stage 3 breast cancer when we spoke, had been preparing to retire with her husband in Montana. After the house was ruined, a buyer predictably withdrew. The government said she did not qualify as a “victim.”
She is not the only person with such a story. At the core of the case and those like hers is whether or not the Constitution legally obligates the government to repay people who are not suspected of criminal wrongdoing but whose property is nevertheless destroyed by police in an attempt to protect the community. The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment promises that private property cannot be taken for public use “without just compensation,” though some lower courts have ruled that actions taken by police in stories like these operate under an exception to that rule.
‘Wildly Off-Base’: New Push for Supreme Court to Reverse Case That Allows Property Confiscation
Ruling denied ‘the core protections of individual citizens.’
The U.S. Supreme Court bizarrely ruled in 2005, in the Kelo case, that a government could take privately owned property from one owner to give it to another, just, well, just because.
That original ruling came down to dollars and cents, when the city of New London, New York, used eminent domain to confiscate a home belonging to Susan Kelo to give it to Pfizer for one of its business operations.
She sued, but the Supreme Court said a procedure to use eminent domain “to transfer land from private owner to another private owner” did not violate the Constitution.
Actually, the authority vested in eminent domain would be for purposes of taking property to build a highway, or some similar public benefit.
That New London scheme actually failed, as the company was unable to obtain financing for its plans, and the site remained an undeveloped empty lot.
The move already has prompted 47 states to strengthen their own eminent domain laws, and now it’s time for the national precedent to be reversed, according to constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution, but has represented members in court.
He said that one case, Kelo, “has long stood out for me as wildly off-base and wrongly decided.”
He explained, “There is now a petition before the Supreme Court that would allow it to reconsider this pernicious precedent. The court should grant review in Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency precisely for that purpose,” he explained.
“Many of us expressed outrage at the actions of the city leaders of New London, Connecticut, when they used eminent domain to seize the property of citizens against their will to give it to the Pfizer corporation,” he said. “This anger grew with the inexplicable decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London to uphold the abusive action. After all the pain that the city caused its own residents and the $80 million it spent to buy and bulldoze the property, it came to nothing. Pfizer later announced that it was closing the facility — leaving the city worse off than when it began.”
He said the new case involves New York developer Bryan Bowers who challenged the decision of a county redevelopment agency to condemn his property and then give it to another developer to use as a private parking lot.
Turley noted that Justice Chase, shortly after the Bill of Rights was written, explained the injustice.
Federal Judge Violates Judicial Code While Lecturing Justice Alito on Ethics in New York Times Essay, Forced to Issue Apology for Misconduct
Senior U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor of Massachusetts openly criticized Justice Samuel Alito’s ethics in a New York Times guest essay, violating the sacred trust of impartiality expected from the judiciary.
The conservative advocacy group, the Article III Project, filed a formal complaint against Ponsor, leading to a misconduct finding and a public apology from the senior judge.
The complaint, filed in May 2024, stemmed from an op-ed authored by Judge Ponsor and published in The New York Times.
The article discusses the controversy surrounding Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s display of an upside-down American flag and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his properties, which some media outlets tied to Trump supporters during the events of January 6, 2021. Ponsor declared the flags as symbols of partisanship and questioned Alito’s ethical judgment.
Despite lacking direct evidence of ethical violations or pending cases involving the flags, Ponsor’s essay implied that Alito’s actions warranted recusal from cases related to January 6, casting doubt on the Supreme Court justice’s impartiality.
“To me, the flag issue is much simpler. The fact is that, regardless of its legality, displaying the flag in that way, at that time, shouldn’t have happened. To put it bluntly, any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have realized immediately that flying the flag then and in that way was improper. And dumb,” Ponsor wrote in the essay.
“The same goes for the flying of an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at Justice Alito’s vacation house along the New Jersey shore. Like the upside-down flag, this flag is viewed by a great many people as a banner of allegiance on partisan issues that are or could be before the court.”
Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a scathing rebuke of Ponsor’s actions.
“The essay expressed personal opinions on controversial public issues and criticized the ethics of a sitting Supreme Court justice. Such comments diminish the public confidence in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary in violation of Canons 1 and 2A.” said Diaz in the filed reply.
Justice Thomas Revives Emergency Injunction in Case to Halt Doctor Investigations Over COVID-19 Criticism
The US Supreme Court is set to once again consider a request to issue an injunction in the Stockton v. Ferguson case, that would prevent the Washington Medical Commission from investigating and sanctioning – effectively, censoring doctors because of their criticism of Covid policies.
The application was originally submitted as part of a lawsuit brought by basketball legend John Stockton, several dozen doctors affected by this censorship, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (CHD), only to be rejected on November 20 by Justice Elena Kagan.
Two days later, the plaintiffs filed the injunction application again, addressing it at Justice Clarence Thomas, who then decided to schedule a Supreme Court private judicial conference for January 10, 2025.
We obtained a copy of the application for you here.
The justices will decide whether to approve the injunction or deny it, while another possible outcome is that oral arguments will be scheduled, with the case proceeding in that way.
The Washington Medical Commission is investigating the doctors, treating their publicly expressed opinions regarding the controversial measures as “potentially dangerous misinformation” that the state has the right to regulate (a 2018 Supreme Court ruling, however, says that this is not the case).
The doctors, meanwhile, argue that the First Amendment speech protections apply to them as well, regardless of their status as licensed medical professionals, including when their views clash with “medical orthodoxy.”
Supreme Court Stunner: Secret Gender Transitions at Schools Allowed to Continue
Lower court said parental rights were not affected when teachers in stealth encouraged children to be transgender.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that subjugates parental rights to school politics.
The ruling that had come out of the 7th U.S. District Court of Appeals in a Wisconsin fight claimed that parental rights were not affected when schools secretly encouraged children to be transgender, so the parents had no standing to bring the case.
Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas would have granted the petition, according to the court announcement, as it’s an issue that is coming up more and more.
Alito explained, “This case presents a question of great and growing national importance: whether a public school district violates parents’ ‘fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of’ their children…when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process.”
Thomas joined in the statement that added, “We are told that more than 1,000 districts have adopted such policies.”
It is the transgender ideology, which puts its faith in the science-defying concept that boys can become girls and girls can become boys, that has been promoted literally around the globe by the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris regime in Washington. Actually, being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level and does not change.
The situations involving schools, activist employees, teachers and administrators repeatedly getting caught encouraging children to pursue the transgender ideology and keeping those actions secret from parents.
SCOTUS Justice Alito Obliterates Notion Of Allowing Trans Surgeries & Drugs For Kids
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito destroyed the idea of allowing minors to undergo sex change operations and take gender-bending drugs as he made oral arguments in the United States v. Skrmetti case.
Citing the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, Alito pointed out the risks of puberty blockers and “gender-affirming” treatments outweigh “the expected benefits” of the treatments.
He continued to point to a UK report which found a lack of evidence that the benefits of the treatments outweigh the risks.
After referring to the two foreign studies, Alito asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar if she’d like to take back her previous statement that there is overwhelming evidence the treatments have benefits that outweigh the risks and dangers.
Prelogar stood by her claim as she argued on behalf of the Biden administration.
Meanwhile, liberal SCOTUS justices made bizarre comparisons during their arguments in favor of allowing children to undergo sex operations and take sex change drugs.
Justice Sotomayor Compares Risks of Transgender Hormone Therapy for Minors to “Taking Aspirin” as She and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Blast Bans as ‘Sexist’
Obama Justice Sonya Sotomayor made an idiotic and dangerous analogy during Supreme Court oral arguments on Wednesday in a case regarding the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that bars puberty blockers and hormone therapy for so-called transgender minors.
Twenty-four states currently have laws similar to Tennessee’s dealing with ‘gender-affirming’ care for children. There is no meaningful push to bar adults from mutilating themselves at the moment.
A federal judge in Arkansas ruled last year for the Biden regime and its allies and struck down the Tennessee law. The judge claimed the law ‘discriminates based on sex and targets transgender people’ and that the ‘benefits’ of the health care outlawed by the law are ‘well-established.’
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit quickly reversed the lower court’s decision and allowed the law to go into effect, leading to the Supreme Court taking up the case.
The Supreme Court is expected to render a final decision on the case in June 2025.
During the hearing, Sotomayor likened the risk of irreparable harm, including mental and physical harm and the loss of fertility, from chemical castration on minors to that of “taking aspirin.”
“There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm,” said Sotomayor while trying to make the point that children should be able to alter their biological and chemical makeup with synthetic hormones.
Sotomayor may almost be as dumb as Biden Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, who later piggybacked on Sotomayor’s claims that banning the use of hormones without a legitimate medical purpose is discriminatory on the basis of sex.
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.