Joseph Stalin - Meet Alvin Bragg and Leticia James

Rule #86: A Guide to Disputes and Surrendering to the Majority – Or, Get Over It Already! "In disputes, be not so desirous to overcome as not to give liberty to each one to deliver his opinion and submit to the judgment of the major part, especially if they are judges of the dispute." promotes respect for due process. WOW! Has the Biden Administration shredded rule #86.

Let's start at the beginning. One of the most critical aspects of the Constitution was the Supreme Court, established in 1789:Established by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court began to take shape with the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and has enjoyed a rich history since its first assembly in 1790. When Congress first met on March 4, 1789, one of the first business items was to fulfill the requirements of Article III, section 1, of the Constitution. Article III, section 1, provides that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The First Congress responded by enacting the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established 13 district courts in major cities, three circuit courts, and a Supreme Court comprised of a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices."

The first Supreme Court Justices were often Founding Fathers themselves, and they did not always see eye-to-eye on the interpretation of the Constitution. The early Supreme Court focused on broad topics related to "corporate personhood", corporate rights and how corporations have been granted certain constitutional protections over time. An article in the Columbia Law Review titled The Founders’ Forfeiture by Kevin Arlyck (vol 110, No. 10) shows that the Court was firmly focused on corporate rights and, more importantly, property rights. The Court was very cautious when dealing with property forfeiture:

Based on original research into more than 500 unpublished federal forfeiture cases from 1789 to 1807, this Article shows—for the first time—that forfeiture at the Founding was significantly constrained. But not by judges. Instead, concern over forfeiture’s abusive potential spurred Alexander Hamilton and the First Congress to establish executive-branch authority to return seized property to violators who lacked fraudulent intent. What is more, Hamilton and subsequent Treasury Secretaries understood themselves to be obligated to exercise that authority to its fullest extent. The result was an early forfeiture regime that was expansive in theory, but in practice was constrained by a deep belief in the impropriety of taking property from those who inadvertently broke the law.

Hmmm, inadvertently broke the law, isn’t that Trump? Well, maybe his payments to Stormy Daniels weren’t inadvertent, but it was a misdemeanor past the statute of limitations and already a failed argument in the John Edwards case? So, how about Alvin Bragg’s charges? Well, one might say overstating asset value for a fully paid loan is an inadvertent breaking of the law…if one could find an actual law that has been broken. As Jonathan Turley points out, Alvin Bragg, like Letitia James, ran for election on a pledge of "selective prosecution" against Trump rather than specifying what actual laws he had broken. Turley said James "literally ran on a pledge of selective prosecution" and that "she didn't even bother to say what it would be. She just said, 'I'll get Trump.'" Turley argued that this approach has damaged the reputation of New York's legal system, making it appear that "politics plays such a major role in how you are treated."

Oh my,the General would surely be turning in his grave if he knew how badly Rule 86 has been twisted and abused in the Administration of Uncle Joe Biden. Uncle Joe Biden has been acting more like Uncle Joe Stalin lately. It was the satirical newspaper The Onion that gets credit for first referring to Biden as Uncle Joe, however his comportment is more like Uncle Joe Carson of Petticoat Junction fame than that of the murderous dictator from Russia. After all, I don’t believe Biden is capable of murder unless, of course, you’re an unborn child. But what was Uncle Joe Carson like? Joe Carson was known for his bumbling and clumsy behavior. Sounds like Biden! Joe Carson was portrayed as a well-meaning but accident-prone handyman at the Shady Rest Hotel. He was often depicted as being rather dim-witted and making silly mistakes. This sure sounds like Joe Biden.

Beginning with being caught on a hot mike telling President Obama "This is a big f______ deal”, referring to the Affordable Care Act. How about this Feb. 6, 2009, gem of Biden, speaking to members of the House Democratic caucus who were gathered in Williamsburg, Va., for their annual retreat.; "If we do everything right if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it wrong."  And who can forget his infamous Jan. 31, 2007, description of then candidate Obama, a remark he made the same day Biden filed the paperwork to launch his presidential campaign. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." It’s a good thing our future President was clean, otherwise he would be mistaken as a commoner in the Life of Brian!

Ok, you say, if Biden is like Joe Carson, how could you dare compare him to Stalin. Well, there is hyperbole in the body count, but not in the abuse of the system. Let’s connect the dots.

In Allied countries, Stalin was increasingly depicted in a positive light over the course of the war. In 1941, the London Philharmonic Orchestra performed a concert to celebrate his birthday, and in 1942, Time magazine named him "Man of the Year". When Stalin learned that people in Western countries affectionately called him "Uncle Joe" he was initially offended, regarding it as undignified." Yikes, a man who murdered millions of his own countrymen was worried about looking dignified!

Stalin was the longest-serving leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 until he died in 1953. He was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1941–1953). After the Bolsheviks seized power in the October Revolution and created a one-party state under the new Communist Party in 1917, Stalin joined its governing Politburo. Serving in the Russian Civil War before overseeing the Soviet Union's establishment in 1922, Stalin assumed leadership over the country following Lenin's death in 1924. Under Stalin, socialism became a central tenet of the party's ideology. As a result of his Five-Year Plans, the country underwent agricultural collectivization and rapid industrialization, creating a centralized command economy. Severe disruptions to food production contributed to the famine of 1930–33. To eradicate those deemed "enemies of the working class," Stalin instituted the Great Purge, in which over a million were imprisoned, mainly in the Gulag system of forced labor camps, and at least 700,000 were executed between 1934 and 1939. By 1937, he had absolute control over the party and government.

 But why talk about Stalin, and how is Joe Biden acting like him? Well, for two reasons. First Rule # 86 promotes the principles of democracy, free speech, and respect for due process and what is happening today in our Justice Department is just downright scary. It has definite parallels to Uncle Joe's systemic purging of his political rivals. As I write this, Donald Trump, the Republican Nominee for President, is sitting in a New York Court under an indictment for Election Fraud, a Federal Crime that the Federal prosecutors declined to pursue but one the state was all too eager to chase, even if it has no standing in the matter. Noted legal scholar Jonathan Turley in a New York Post article dated March 24, 2023, lays out the problem with Alvin Bragg’s, a George Soros minion, case against Trump. The problem is that Bragg has been searching for a crime in the criminal code to fulfill his pitch during his campaign that he was the man for voters who wanted to bag Trump. So he goes after an already settled, post statute of limitations misdemeanor. Turley explains:

 “The falsification of business records in reference to the $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels might have been a possibility, but it lacked two things. First, it expired as a chargeable misdemeanor after two years — and that was roughly five years ago. Second, it was a mere misdemeanor that could be brushed off by Trump even if they succeeded. Prosecutors then created a Rube Goldberg approach and suggested that the misdemeanor was committed to conceal a federal election law violation — a crime that the Justice Department declined to charge. That theory has been widely ridiculed, even by many on the left. The bootstrapping of a federal crime under this statute appears unprecedented and likely unsustainable.

The reason that the Justice Department likely declined the case was that it had previously tried to show that hush money paid to bury an affair was a federal campaign expense. It failed in the case of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards”.

DA Bragg is famous for overseeing a reign of violent crime directly related to politicians dangerous “bail reform” and his office's penchant for supporting the rights of violent perpetrators over the rights of victims. Alvin Bragg's "Day One Policies and Procedures" memo as the newly elected Manhattan District Attorney included limiting the types of cases in which his office would ordinarily seek prison sentences, such as for armed robberies, guiding prosecutors on exercising discretion in charging and sentencing recommendations

prioritizing alternatives to incarceration, such as diversion programs and community-based resolutions, for certain non-violent offenses. The memo sparked significant backlash, with critics arguing Bragg was being "soft on crime" and that his policies would endanger public safety, and Bragg, for his part, merely shrugged his shoulders and said you’re not lawyers so you don’t understand. “The memo was intended for our internal lawyer audience, “ said Alvin. So, I guess only lawyers understand it?  A New York Post article by Nicole Gelinas published Jan. 11, 2022, explained why Braggs memo was so frightening.

“There is what I think is obvious,” Bragg told Lehrer. “Of course, the person that goes into the store with the loaded gun or unloaded and waves it around, that’s a robbery.”

 On the other hand, he continued, there are “dangerous instruments, which can be almost anything. If I pick up a pork chop and throw it at you, that could be considered a dangerous instrument. We were trying to get rid of a category . . . which aren’t the gun cases.”

 Nope. Let’s take the memo apart, point by point. Since Bragg is trying to hide behind legalese, you’ll have to read it. Bragg laid out five sections of law that cover armed robberies — and tells his staff not to prosecute them.

“An act that could be charged under PL 160.15 (2, 3, or 4), 160.10(2b), or 160.05 that occurs in a commercial setting should be charged under PL 155.25 if the force or threat of force consists of displaying a dangerous instrument or similar behavior but does not create a genuine risk of physical harm,” the memo reads.

 OK, then, let’s start with the first three, 160.15 (2, 3 and 4). What do those parts of the state law say — exactly?

160.15 overall is first degree robbery, a serious felony.

Provision #2 of this law defines a person eligible for a first-degree robbery charge if he is “armed with a deadly weapon.”

#3 is for when a suspect “uses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument.”

But #4 of this law is the most important. It covers loaded guns, and only loaded guns. A person faces a 160.15(4) charge if he “displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm.” An “affirmative defense” against this charge is that “such pistol . . . or other firearm was not a loaded weapon.”

To be absolutely clear: 160.15(4) mentions no other type of weapon except for a loaded gun. You can’t be charged with this count unless you allegedly rob someone with a loaded gun.

Let’s now consider the fourth provision Bragg included in his do-not-prosecute directive: second-degree felony robbery, 160.10(2b). 160.10(2b) says one thing, and only one thing. A person is guilty of second-degree robbery when “in the course of the commission of the crime” (the “2” section), he “displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm” (the “b” section), loaded or unloaded.

Fifth and finally, Bragg tells prosecutors to drop all charges under “160.05” — third-degree robbery, or when a suspect “forcibly steals property.”

To review: Bragg calls out five provisions of criminal law.

Two of the provisions cover only gun crimes.

The third covers only “deadly weapons,” like knives (not pork chops).

The fifth covers only the actual use of physical force, not the threat of physical force.

Then, Bragg told his lawyers not to prosecute these crimes.

Instead, suspects “should be charged under “155.25,” which is misdemeanor larceny.

In short: If you hold a gun to a clerk’s face and ask them to empty the cash register, it’s a misdemeanor, with a theoretical year in prison, but, in practice, no real punishment.

Back to Rule 86 and why the General would be rolling in his grave as we find yet another New York example of the trolling of “due process”.

How about Leticia James. She also ran on and was elected on a campaign promise to “get Trump”. She didn’t know at the time of her campaign promise what charges she might bring; she just knew she could bring charges so she would bring charges, and she set out to find them. Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast. Leticia James charged Trump with fraud because on a loan application he “overstated” the value of his real estate portfolio. We’re talking about loan applications to the world’s largest banks, applications supported by audited financial statements, applications where the banks used their own professional services firms and internal underwriting departments, loan applications that the financial institutions were more than happy to approve for loans that were fully paid back, with interest either on-time or early and business transactions that the banks would like to repeat as often as Trump would like. No victims, no lost funds. So, what happened? This non-jury trial was quite the farce. Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump guilty BEFORE the trial began and assessed a fine of $450 Million dollars!

Forget that, at times, Trump comes off as a blowhard and puts yourself in the shoes of any businessperson who builds a business, uses bank debt, and pays it back with interest and on time, and for that, he is fined $450 million. Clearly a sobering fact for anyone doing business in New York State. In fact, any Blue State. It’s long been known by Private Equity firms and individual investors to avoid investing in California, Oregon and Washington. Their taxes make it too expensive, their regulatory environment makes it more expensive…and too slow to react and its political environment such that, if you’re not woke, they’ll make you go broke.

So Trump sits in court, facing a legal system that is trying to take his business from him (Engoron’s ruling prevents any Trump family member from running a business in NY for three years) take all his cash so he can’t execute his campaign strategy ( James was poised to begin seizing assets to fulfill the $450 million penalty) and put him in jail (Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Each count is classified as a Class E felony in New York, with a maximum penalty of 4 years in prison...more than Bragg would ask for in an armed robbery...even if it was with a pork chop).

Merrick Garland, meet Lavrentiy Beria. Joe Biden, meet Joe Stalin.

So what do we make of the General’s council in 2024? It’s always good to start with all Americans, including Presidents, are innocent until proven guilty so, due process of the law is something every American should cherish. Secondly, the General implores us to reserve judgment until all voices are heard and, finally, respect the judges' decisions.

In a time where Trump regularly attacks judges, and democrats blather on about packing the Supreme Court or demonizing any jurist or decision they don’t like, such as Chuck Schummer telling the Supreme Court justices they “sow the wind and reap the whirlwind,” it is hard, just like in the case of rule #86, how we as a nation get back to a justice system that is blind! But that is the General’s admonition, and Lord knows we must find a way to get there.