We have obtained a secret agreement between 14 blue states, left wing groups, and NYC law firms to conduct coordinated lawfare against DOGE and Elon

WorldWatcher said:
[PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT]

It is not illegal to conspire to commit legal actions, it is only against the law to conspire to commit crimes.

RICO applies to groups conspiring to commit crimes.

Contrary to popular beliefs in some circles it is not a crime to go against Trump and attempt to intervene in his illegal activities.

We know they want to make opposition a crime but we are not there. Yet.

WW

[/PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT]
Click to expand...
~~~~~~


Read: Lawfare: Both an Existential Threat to the International Rule of Law and an Indispensable Tool of American Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century – Penn State Law Review
XXXXXXXXXX​
www.constitutionalcoalition.org

Combatting a Dangerous Trend – “Lawfare”

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court rejects the use of "lawfare" to prosecute political opponents and reinforces presidential immunity for official acts.C.S. Lewis's Warning about BureaucracyIn his 1959 preface to The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis wrote, “I like bats more than...
www.constitutionalcoalition.org www.constitutionalcoalition.org
XXXXXXXXXX​
abovethelaw.com

Extreme Political Lawfare Is Deleterious To The Republic And Both Sides Need To Stop Using It - Above the Law

The only people who win in extreme political lawfare are the lawyers.
abovethelaw.com abovethelaw.com
XXXXXXXXXX​

Seditious Conspiracy Is the Real Domestic Terrorism Statute

To answer the question of whether the United States needs a new domestic terrorism statute, we first have to explore how well, if at all, seditious conspiracy is
www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org
 
Last edited:
JoeB131 said:
Numbers below expectations....

Unemployment going up.

Labor participation rate down.

Welcome to the Second Trump Recession.
Click to expand...
1741389424319.webp
 
j-mac said:
Didn’t get what you wanted to see did ya?
Click to expand...

Only because they stop counting in the mid month, and most of the government layoffs happened in mid month.

They also adjusted January down.

Unemployment jumped to 4.1%

Labor Participation dropped to 62.4%

The economy is so boned.
 
excalibur said:
This is explosive. It may well be a violation of Federal laws, including conspiracy laws.

RICO, anyone?

Click to expand...


Yawn.....

Maybe. But did you know the Conservative Right ALSO has a "Secret Agreement"?

It's called the "Always Submit, back down and Do Nuffin, no matter what they do to you...... Pact"
 
JoeB131 said:
Only because they stop counting in the mid month, and most of the government layoffs happened in mid month.

They also adjusted January down.

Unemployment jumped to 4.1%

Labor Participation dropped to 62.4%

The economy is so boned.
Click to expand...
Again, I say, didn’t get the numbers you were hoping for…
 
JoeB131 said:
Only because they stop counting in the mid month, and most of the government layoffs happened in mid month.

They also adjusted January down.

Unemployment jumped to 4.1%

Labor Participation dropped to 62.4%

The economy is so boned.
Click to expand...
~~~~~~
I smile at you and your fellow Neo-Marxist Democrat travelers. You're all up in the air with your hair on fire because Trump is using Musk and his whiz kids to uncover the corruption that exists in the Washington swamp.
This conspiracy will not get far. Bondi and Patel can put an end to it lawfully.
Musk is following the money trail and finding all ways money is siphoned off. cheating the America tax payers.
​
 
justoffal said:
Well certainly that is true but this is different.
This is an agreement that openly encourages subversion based on deceptive legal practices.
What makes it worse is that it is a group effort reaching over state lines. It's a very dangerous game to play and they could very easily find themselves in front of a federal judge looking at penitentiary time.
Click to expand...
It's common practice....not unusual at all, for states to join with other states in suits...

Republicans do it all the time?

I don't understand why you would think this is dangerous or even remotely criminal?
 
Care4all said:
It's common practice....not unusual at all, for states to join with other states in suits...

Republicans do it all the time?

I don't understand why you would think this is dangerous or even remotely criminal?
Click to expand...
Oh I agree that states can form legal coalitions...
However this is a coalition of subversion openly suggesting the use of obstructive legal tactics.
In this case as in other cases now pending it would be proper for the federal government to require a high-value bond in order to access the federal court system. A bond that would be non recoverable should the lawsuit prove to be specious. $10 million would not be out of line.

It comes dangerously close to being sedition.
Depending on how they word it and how they move forward it may even cross that line.

The express purpose of the coalition is to put a blockade on legal executive Federal actions not to contest their legality. Understanding that those actions are legal then making an effort to obstruct and obfuscate using the law improperly as a barrier.
 
15th post
justoffal said:
Oh I agree that states can form legal coalitions...
However this is a coalition of subversion openly suggesting the use of obstructive legal tactics.
In this case as in other cases now pending it would be proper for the federal government to require a high-value bond in order to access the federal court system. A bond that would be non recoverable should the lawsuit prove to be specious. $10 million would not be out of line.

It comes dangerously close to being sedition.
Depending on how they word it and how they move forward it may even cross that line.

The express purpose of the coalition is to put a blockade on legal executive Federal actions not to contest their legality. Understanding that those actions are legal then making an effort to obstruct and obfuscate using the law improperly as a barrier.
Click to expand...
Only the judge can approve and give an injunction bond....and only the judge determines the amount.

They will contest on LEGAL and Constitutional grounds, or the case would be thrown out by the overseeing judge before it gets off the ground, is my understanding of our law on this....

The judge determines the amount, if they choose to require the bond, based on what financial cost there would be to the DOJ if the doj wins the case....from what I have read up on injunction bonds...

It is not just randomly done, like a $10 million dollar bond that was mentioned by a poster.

The govt can't try to bully citizen or state groups from suing, or further groups from suing, if it is a legally sound case, by an injunction bond so expensive with the amount too high.... That would be what breaking our right to redress grievances.
 
Care4all said:
Only the judge can approve and give an injunction bond....and only the judge determines the amount.

They will contest on LEGAL and Constitutional grounds, or the case would be thrown out by the overseeing judge before it gets off the ground, is my understanding of our law on this....

The judge determines the amount, if they choose to require the bond, based on what financial cost there would be to the DOJ if the doj wins the case....from what I have read up on injunction bonds...

It is not just randomly done, like a $10 million dollar bond that was mentioned by a poster.

The govt can't try to bully citizen or state groups from suing, or further groups from suing, if it is a legally sound case, by an injunction bond so expensive with the amount too high.... That would be what breaking our right to redress grievances.
Click to expand...
However.... The government can protect itself from specious lawsuits and force those who bring them to pay their own way.
 
Care4all said:
Only the judge can approve and give an injunction bond....and only the judge determines the amount.

They will contest on LEGAL and Constitutional grounds, or the case would be thrown out by the overseeing judge before it gets off the ground, is my understanding of our law on this....

The judge determines the amount, if they choose to require the bond, based on what financial cost there would be to the DOJ if the doj wins the case....from what I have read up on injunction bonds...

It is not just randomly done, like a $10 million dollar bond that was mentioned by a poster.

The govt can't try to bully citizen or state groups from suing, or further groups from suing, if it is a legally sound case, by an injunction bond so expensive with the amount too high.... That would be what breaking our right to redress grievances.
Click to expand...

Funny...

Bullying vendors with lawfare was just Trump's style with vendors. Stiff them from the money they earned, make them sue, then bury them in legal costs because they didn't have the resources to fight.

WW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ric Grenell just revealed that his predecessor at the Kennedy Center was making 1.4 million...

< Previous Thread

Republicans’ shocking about-face on Russia

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Doc7505
Josh Hawley Launches Investigation Into Coordinated Unrest Targeting ICE — Demands Records from Pro-Immigration Group, Threatens for Noncompliance
Replies
7
Views
455
Doc7505
Doc7505
FDR_Reagan
DATE: November 28, 1941: Hitler meets Arab-Muslim Nazi "palestine" leader Mufti al-Husseini: "the Jews are yours"
Replies
14
Views
1K
Deadstick
Deadstick
munkle
Trump supporter and ex-Bush Sr. official Catherine Austin Fitts sounds alarm: Elon Musk is using DOGE data to build AI totalitarian control grid
2 3
Replies
47
Views
2K
hobelim
hobelim
Foxfyre
100 Days of Hoaxes
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
6K
Foxfyre
Foxfyre
berg80
The top 20 worst things the trump admin has done so far.
10 11 12
Replies
227
Views
4K
mudwhistle
mudwhistle

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom