Saturday, May 30, 2020

Notice To Walmart and the MCSO: Violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)

TO: Todd Maufroy, Manager
9570 SW Highway 200
Ocala, Florida 34481
Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO)
Southwest District Office
9048 SW State Rd. 200

Ocala, Florida 34481 

TAKE NOTICE that each of you are in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. ch. 126 § 12101 et seq.

My name is Neil J. Gillespie. I am disabled with type 2 diabetes. This morning at approximately 9:05 AM I was waiting in line at the pharmacy of the Walmart Supercenter #5326 to purchase one vial of type N insulin used to treat diabetes. While waiting in line I was approached by MCSO Deputy J. Williams who verbally trespassed me from the Walmart Supercenter #5326, where I have shopped since 2005, about 15 years. When I asked why I was being trespassed, all I can recall Deputy Williams said Walmart does not need a reason to trespass me, and I should ask Lt. Welch about the trespass. I left the store without being able to purchase insulin.

As a person with a disability, type 2 diabetes, insulin is a lifesaving medication. I believe the collaboration of Walmart and Lt. Welch to deny me insulin is a threat to my life.

Fortunately I was able to go to the Walmart Neighborhood Market, 7855 SW State Rd 200, Ocala, FL 34476 where at 9:27 AM today I purchased one vial of type N insulin for $24.88.

 Deputy Williams failed to provide me with a written trespass warning, which is required by law. Williams’ failure to act lawfully is, inter alia, evidence that Lt. Welch operates the MCSO SW Substation as his own private business, a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization in violation of the RICO Act, 18 USC §§ 1961-1968 and in violation of Fla. Stat. ch 895.

SPECIAL NOTICE TO WALMART: Preserve your store’s surveillance video of this incident today May 30, 2020 at 9:05 AM for use in expected litigation.

Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie

Also see: Civil Rights and ADA Disability Complaint Walmart

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

Cease and Desist, UPL of Marty Stone, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce LLP

Marty Stone
Cease and Desist, UPL of Marty Stone, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce LLP
Justice Network
By Neil J. Gillespie
May 27, 2020

The Florida Bar accepted a cease and desist affidavit from Marty Stone, then the Florida operator of McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC (MRLP), in the Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation of Marty Stone File No. 20191041 (17A). In December 2018, Neil J. Gillespie filed an unlicensed practice of law (UPL) complaint against Marty Stone.

Gillespie alleged on The Florida Bar UPL complaint form in part:


"None of the named owners of McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce LLC (MRLP) are members of The Florida Bar. Marty Stone, Manager, is not a member of The Florida Bar."

"A person not a member of The Florida Bar is a nonlawyer. McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce LLC can not lawfully operate as a law firm in Florida when it is owned and managed by nonlawyers."


On January 14, 2019 Algeisa Vazquez, Branch UPL Counsel wrote Gillespie in part:
RE: Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation of Marty Stone
File No. 20191041 (17A)
Your unlicensed practice of law complaint against Marty Stone which you sent to The Florida Bar in Tallahassee was forwarded to me in the Ft. Lauderdale Branch because the complaint form lists a Ft. Lauderdale address for the respondent. I have opened the above-referenced file at staff level to evaluate your complaint. 
Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of The Florida Bar. You will be notified of the final disposition.
On August 6, 2019 Ms. Vazquez wrote Gillespie in part:
This is to notify you that I have completed our staff level evaluation of your unlicensed practice of law complaint against the above-referenced individual and have now referred the file to the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Unlicensed Practice of Law Committee "A" for further investigation and resolution. The investigating committee member assigned to the file may contact you with questions or a request for information. You will be notified of the final disposition of this matter.
On April 29, 2020 Ms. Vazquez wrote Gillespie in part:
RE: Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation of Marty Stone
File No. 20191041 (17A)
In December 2018, you filed an unlicensed practice of law complaint against the above referenced individual. The Seventeenth Circuit Unlicensed Practice of Law Committee "A" closed the case based on the acceptance of an affidavit. The affidavit does not require the individual to admit any wrongdoing, however, the individual agrees not to engage in any activities which constitute the unlicensed practice of law under existing decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida.
The affidavit required by The Florida Bar amounts to a cease and desist affidavit from Mr. Stone, then the Florida operator of McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC (MRLP). The full public record is on Scribd.

**Follow-up Inquiry to Ali Vasquez re The Florida Bar UPL investigation of Marty Stone manager and CEO of MRLP

Monday, May 25, 2020

BAD COP: Lt. Charles Welch, MCSO

Lt. Charles Welch, MCSO
BAD COP: Lt. Charles Welch, MCSO
South-Marion District Commander
Southwest District Office                
9048 SW State Rd. 200                  
Ocala, FL 34481

Mr. Wilson/Judge Craggs Violation of Fla. Stat. § 817.568(8)(a) Criminal use of personal identification information, etc.

Begining on page 11: APPELLANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLEE’S "REPLY", CASE NO. 5D19-3479, Fifth District Court of Appeal, Gillespie v. RMS

21. On or about June 13, 2019 I personally met with Marion County Sheriff’s Office Lt. Charles Welch, the South-Marion District Commander, at 8:00 AM in his office at 9048 SW State Rd. 200, Ocala, FL 34481 to request criminal charges against Judge Ann Melenda Craggs for violation of Fla. Stat. § 817.568(8)(a) Criminal use of personal identification information; and related crimes together with Curtis Wilson, Esq., in the wrongful foreclosure of my Fla. residential homestead. My written request to the MCSO appears at Exhibit 9. MCSO Deputy Hunter McMurray, badge 6015, attended the meeting.

22. Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson violated Fla. Stat. § 817.568(8)(a) Criminal use of personal identification information, used as trial evidence in the foreclosure. Fla. Stat. § 817.568(8)(a) states:

(8)(a) Any person who willfully and fraudulently uses, or possesses with intent to fraudulently use, personal identification information concerning a deceased individual or dissolved business entity commits the offense of fraudulent use or possession with intent to use personal identification information of a deceased individual or dissolved business entity, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

23. My mother, Penelope Gillespie, died on September 16, 2009. RMS alleged so in paragraph 5 of its Verified Complaint To Foreclose Home Equity Conversion Mortgage. Penelope Gillespie was dead on July 18, 2017 when Mr. Wilson submitted trial evidence in violation of § 817.568(8)(a),

Notice of Default and Intent to Foreclose
Date Admitted As Evidence: 07/18/2017
Evidence ID: PL-4

because the Notice of Default and Intent to Foreclose is dated June 8, 2012 to "Penelope Gillespie" and "Dear Penelope Gillespie". The Evidence List appears at Exhibit 1. The Notice of Default and Intent to Foreclose appears at Exhibit 2 and is signed by Judge Craggs.

24. The Notice of Default and Intent to Foreclose does not inform "Penelope Gillespie" because she died on September 16, 2009. A deceased person cannot own property, or respond to this notice. This notice is defective.

25. A HECM foreclosure must commence within 6 months. 24 C.F.R. § 206.125(d)(1). Borrower Penelope Gillespie died September 16, 2009. The Plaintiff did not commence this foreclosure until January 9, 2013.

26. Because the Plaintiff missed the time to bring a foreclosure, it has relied on false documents showing Penelope Gillespie is still alive, including its notice of foreclosure, and routine correspondence addressed to "Penelope Gillespie".

27. The Plaintiff’s (RMS) envelope to the NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND INTENT TO FORECLOSE (Exhibit 2) shows different names for U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail, and is therefore fraudulent, because the Notice begins, "Dear Penelope Gillespie:" and not,

"Dear Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie as Co-Trustees of the Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement dated February 10, 1997"

In fact the trust is not mentioned at all. Mark Gillespie was not provided a Notice of Default at his home in Fort Worth, Texas.

28. Therefore service on Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie, is fatally flawed. The Trust was not sued. Penelope Gillespie was not sued. The Estate of Penelope Gillespie was not sued.

29. On information and belief, the Plaintiff sued the wrong party in suing "Neil J. Gillespie and Mark Gillespie as Co-Trustee of the Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement Dated February 10, 1997", see the Foreclosure Benchbook 2013 "Parties to the Foreclosure Action", "Necessary and Proper Defendants" page 16:

1. The owner of the fee simple title - only indispensable party defendant to
a foreclosure action. English v. Bankers Trust Co. of Calif., N.A., 895 So.
2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Foreclosure is void if titleholder omitted...

30. The titleholder on January 9, 2013 when the case was filed was the "Gillespie Family Living Trust Agreement Dated February 10, 1997". The Plaintiff failed to sue the only indispensable party. Therefore, the foreclosure is void. See Filing # 83954243 E-Filed 01/27/2019 11:53:01 PM

31. Judge Craggs and Mr. Wilson violated related laws, such as, (See Exhibit 9)

  • F.S. § 837.06 False official statements
  • F.S. § 838.022 Official misconduct
  • F.S. § 839.13 Falsifying records
  • Chapter 825, Abuse, Neglect, And Exploitation Of Elderly Persons and Disabled Adults. I am an elderly person [825.101(4)] and a disabled adult as defined by Chapter 825.
  • Judge Craggs is a public officer who corruptly used her official position as judge to secure a special benefit (corrupt foreclosure) for Mr. Wilson. F.S. § 112.313(6) Misuse of Public Position, (6) MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION
  • Judge Craggs is a public servant as provided by the Fla. Const., Art. V, who violated her Oath of Office, see Art. II, sec 5(b).

32. Lt. Welch said the MCSO will not investigate or refer for prosecution crimes committed by lawyers and/or judges if committed during the course of their professional practice. I reminded Lt. Welch that 817.568(8)(a) pertains to "Any person" and that includes lawyers and/or judges whether or not in their personal or professional life. Lt. Welch disagreed; he referred me to the FDLE and/or the FBI.

33. "Basic rights.—All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law..." Art I, sec. 2, Fla. Const. Lawyers and judges are "natural persons" and equal before the law, including 817.568(8)(a) that Lt. Welch refused to enforce, and pertains to "Any person" - including lawyers and judges.

The People’s Bar, an unincorporated assn., Art. I, Sec. 2, Fla. Const.

34. Appellant’s Responses to Notice of Appellant Responsibilities appears at paragraph 5, page 2, DOC-205 Case 3:19-bk-00808-JAF, US Bankruptcy Court, and here at Exhibit 10, and states in relevant part:

5. This chapter 13 bankruptcy has been compromised by a number of issues:

a. The unconstitutional HECM reverse mortgage program;

b. The wrongful foreclosure of my home on a HECM reverse mortgage by the foreclosing plaintiff, Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.;

c. Violation of criminal law by the foreclosing plaintiff, Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., and its counsel, n.k.a. McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC.;

d. The contemporaneous 2019 Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of Ditech Holding Corporation, parent company of the foreclosing plaintiff, Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.

e. Corruption by The Florida Bar (a private lawyers guild, an unincorporated association, and a unified bar association) of the US legal system, including the US Supreme Court* and all inferior federal and state courts, the US Department of Justice, and US Trustee.

*An exception is Justice Thomas who granted the Appellant’s applications to
extend time on three separate occasions.

Ultimately this is the result of lawyer-judges (the US does not have professional judges) and lawyers who are members of unified bar associations (about 75 percent; undermining the lawyer's independent exercise of professional judgment, from the client and the interest of justice, to serving the bar to keep his/her bar card, the license to practice) as members of the judicial branch of government, who usurp the constitutional separation of powers, and enter the legislative branch (congress) and the executive branch (president, DOJ). In Marion County Florida, the Marion County Bar Association, Inc. undermines the rule of law by, inter alia, rigging cases (or suggesting outcomes) and bribing lawyer-judges with food, entertainment, and promised rigged public elections (by and through the assurance of no opponents), and other bar-bench schemes concocted at the exclusive and private Golden Ocala Golf and Equestrian Club in Ocala, Florida and elsewhere.

35. Therefore, a "People’s Bar", is needed, perhaps modeled after The Florida Bar as an unincorporated association, because under Art. I, Sec. 1, Fla. Const.:

SECTION 1. Political power.—All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.

State Attorney Brad King: Announcement of No Information in Sarah Thompson case

Brad King, State Attorney 
Brad King, State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial District Florida, filed Announcement of No Information in case #2020-CF-000516-A-X, State of Florida vs. Sarah May Thompson, Agency # MCSO S202806

Charge:
I Possession of Methamphetamine
II Drug Possession - General
III Possession of Cannabis - 20 Grams or Less
IV Possession of Paraphernalia

Announcement of No Information

Comes now the State of Florida, by and through its undersigned Assistant State Attorney, and announces that it will file no information on the above entitled cause bases on the following grounds:

Based on the facts and circumstances of this case and a review of the available evidence, the State announces a No Information in the above case, If new evidence, such as fingerprints, is discovered, the State will reconsider filing the above charges.

DATED this the 3 day of March, 2020

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above has been furnished to Sarah May Thompson, Defendant, Pro Se, 14445 SW 34th Terrace Road, FL 34473, by hand or mail delivery or electronic service this 3 day of March, 2020.

BRAD KING
STATE ATTORNEY
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA

BY /s/ Robert Kyle Lambert
Robert Kyle Lambert
Assistant State Attorney
Fla. Bar # 1002488
110 NW 1st Avenue, Suite 5000
Ocala, FL 34475
(352) 671-5800
EServiceMarion@sao5.org

Case related documents:

Friday, May 22, 2020

Woman caught with drugs in Dunnellon traffic stop

Sarah May Thompson
Woman caught with drugs in Dunnellon traffic stop
Ocala-News.com
February 13, 2020
By Jim Cheesman

A New Port Richey woman as arrested on drug charges early Thursday during a traffic stop in Dunnellon.

Sarah May Thompson, 34, was a passenger in a white Ford station wagon that was pulled over for having a stolen tag on SW 81st Street. During the traffic stop, a Marion County sheriff’s K9 conducted an open-air sniff and alerted deputies to narcotics in the vehicle, according to the sheriff’s office report.

A search of the vehicle turned up a black zippered bag under Thompson’s seat that contained a small clear jar containing a green leafy substance that tested positive for marijuana, a jar containing a white rock-like substance that tested positive for methamphetamine, and 1 ½ pills identified as methadone, the report said.

A deputy also found a brown sunglasses case under Thompson’s seat that contained a glass pipe. The pipe contained a residue that field tested positive for methamphetamine. Thompson refused to speak to deputies about the items found in the vehicle, according to the report.

Thompson was charged with possession of methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance without a prescription, possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. She was taken to the Marion County Jail, where she was released Friday on $6,000 bond. No court information was available. Read more

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Happy Birthday Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.






























Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Civil Rights Era in the United States of America - A Brief History



Martin Luther King, Nobel Peace Prize 1964

African American civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent resistance to racial prejudice in America. At 35 years of age, the Georgia-born minister was the youngest person ever to receive the award. History

Born: 15 January 1929, Atlanta, GA, USA
Died: 4 April 1968, Memphis, TN, USA
Residence at the time of the award: USA
Role: Leader of "Southern Christian Leadership Conference"
Prize share: 1/1
For Civil Rights and Social Justice

Martin Luther King dreamt that all inhabitants of the United States would be judged by their personal qualities and not by the color of their skin. In April 1968 he was murdered by a white racist. Four years earlier, he had received the Peace Prize for his nonviolent campaign against racism.

King adhered to Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence. In 1955 he began his struggle to persuade the US Government to declare the policy of racial discrimination in the southern states unlawful. The racists responded with violence to the black people's nonviolent initiatives.

In 1963, 250,000 demonstrators marched to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, where King gave his famous "I have a dream" speech. The following year, President Johnson got a law passed prohibiting all racial discrimination.

But King had powerful opponents. The head of the FBI, John Edgar Hoover, had him placed under surveillance as a communist, and when King opposed the administration's policy in Vietnam, he fell into disfavour with the President. It has still not been ascertained whether King's murderer acted on his own or was part of a conspiracy. Read more

Tuesday, December 24, 2019

Happy Christmas, War is Over

Message from Yoko Ono Lennon,

Dear Friends,

The WAR IS OVER! campaign was once a tiny seed, which spread and covered the Earth.

John and I believed it helped many people to stop their wars. Since then, every WAR IS OVER! campaign has impacted the world as powerfully as the first one.

Start yours tomorrow, and you will see that it spreads and covers the world very fast and, meanwhile, makes you a Small Pebble Person.

Small Pebble People are people who know that small pebbles, when they’re dropped in the ocean, will immediately affect the ocean of the whole wide world.

Don’t throw a big stone. It scares people and creates repercussions.

Just drop a small pebble.
We’ll keep doing it. Together.


That’s how the world gets changed…by Small Pebble People.
We change, and the world changes.

Happy Holidays.

I love you!

Yoko Ono Lennon
11 November 2018


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/


http://imaginepeace.com/warisover/

Saturday, November 9, 2019

ABA Legal Fact Check: Trump’s Fight with Congress Will Likely Test Separation of Powers

ABA Legal Fact Check: Trump’s Fight with Congress Will Likely Test Separation of Powers

Separation of Powers
American Bar Association
ABA Legal Fact Check
Posted 10/29/2019

In this era of divided government, opposing views originating from one branch of government and volleyed at another are often construed as threats to the separation of powers. The perceived threats cross party lines. President Barack Obama was heavily criticized for calling out the U.S. Supreme Court at his State of the Union address in 2010 for its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. In late 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked President Donald Trump after the president referred to a judge who delivered an unfavorable ruling as an "Obama judge."

For most of this year, President Trump has resisted efforts by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to investigate his official conduct and business dealings, challenging the delicate balance that is the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. After a White House meeting on Oct. 16, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., reflected House leadership frustration, saying, "Never have I seen a president treat so disrespectfully a co-equal branch of the government of the United States."

While hyperbolic rhetoric and name-calling are seldom acceptable in a civil society and engender otherwise avoidable disrespect, the legal guideposts that sustain separation of powers are rooted in the U.S. Constitution and case law.

The American structure of government is not the global norm; 104 nations — a majority of democratic governments — have a parliamentary system where the legislative branch is paramount, and the executive has no independent constitutional base of authority. The U.S. Constitution’s first three articles created three co-equal branches of government: the legislative (Congress), executive (headed by the president) and judicial (Supreme Court and lower federal courts). All of the state constitutions similarly provide for these three branches in their state government, and 40 of them explicitly require a separation of powers.

The federal structure reflects the collective thinking of the Founding Fathers, who melded their political philosophy as colonial Americans with their experiences as English colonists. As James Madison wrote in 1788 in The Federalist Papers No. 47, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Through two centuries, this arrangement has produced its fair share of conflict, notes a 2016 Congressional Research Service report. While the Constitution created a separation of branches, it also provided for overlapping responsibilities, such as giving the president a veto over legislation and giving the Senate approval of executive and judicial nominations made by the president. "Most powers granted under the Constitution are not unilateral for any one branch; instead they overlap," the CRS report pointed out.

Over time, power has flowed increasingly to the executive branch, a fact many scholars and commentators attribute to strong presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt rather than to any constitutional provision, statute or court ruling. After 9/11, for example, President George W. Bush adopted particularly assertive ideas about his authority as chief executive. This led to warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens’ phone calls and emails, and Bush’s signing statement declaring his authority as commander in chief to override the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, with its absolute prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of prisoners.

When these types of practices are challenged, the courts referee. In the first three years of the Trump administration, for instance, federal judges have halted numerous proposed changes under immigration laws, prompting the White House to issue an Oct. 11 statement titled, "Activist Judicial Rulings Block the Administration From Enforcing Our Nation’s Immigration Laws." Many of these cases are on appeal.

The most enduring U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with the balance between executive and legislative authority came after President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 10340, which placed all U.S. steel mills under federal control during the Korean War. In 1952, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer  that Truman had overstepped his authority because he attempted to make law rather than clarify an existing piece of legislation.

Justice Robert Jackson, in a concurring opinion, put forth a three-part test that is still relied upon by courts today in navigating conflicts between executive and legislative authority. Jackson said the president’s powers were at their height when he had the direct or implied authorization from Congress to act; at their middle ground or "a zone of twilight," as he put it, when acting without either a congressional grant or denial of authority; and "at its lowest ebb" when a president acted against the expressed wishes of Congress.

Two decades later, President Richard Nixon attempted to block a special prosecutor’s attempt to secure presidential recordings as part of the Watergate investigation. His attorneys argued both separation of powers and confidentiality. But in U.S. v. Nixon, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that "neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

"Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide," the court ruled.

The extent of presidential power in foreign and military matters remains largely undefined. In Zivotofsky v. Kerry  in 2016, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional mandate that allowed a person born in Jerusalem to record the place of birth on a U.S. passport as "Israel." The court said this section in a State Department authorization act constituted an infringement of the separation of powers, because the president’s power to recognize foreign sovereigns is exclusive and overrides Congress’s authority to regulate passports. The court also noted that in separation-of-powers cases it puts "significant weight upon historical practice."

The separation-of-powers argument is likely to move to the public forefront in the coming months as battles between the executive and legislative branches regarding oversight and impeachment play out in the courts. In these cases, judges would be expected to consider legal precedent and the continued viability of Justice Jackson’s enduring three-prong test. Read more

Friday, November 8, 2019

House resolution outlines public phase of impeachment inquiry, gives GOP subpoena powers

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff 
House resolution outlines public phase of impeachment inquiry, gives GOP subpoena powers

USA TODAY
Christal Hayes and Bart Jansen
October 29, 2019

Left: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff says President Donald Trump's administration is "building a powerful case" for impeachment as a former White House national security adviser defied a subpoena on Monday. (Oct. 28) AP, AP

WASHINGTON – Democrats leading the House of Representatives released an eight-page resolution Tuesday that outlines how the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump will operate, offering both sides of the aisle subpoena power as committees embark on public hearings.

The resolution from Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., could be voted on as early as Thursday. It makes clear that information gathered by the six committees that have been conducting oversight into Trump would funnel to the House Judiciary Committee – the panel that has traditionally been charged with impeachment.

"None of us came to Congress to impeach a president – but each of us took a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution," McGovern said. "While the president and his allies try to obstruct our investigation and cover up his wrongdoing, the House will continue to do its job and uncover the truth for the American people."

The Thursday vote on the resolution will mark the first time House members will be forced to vote on the inquiry after weeks of intense criticism by the GOP and put several moderate Democrats and Republicans under close scrutiny as the 2020 election approaches.

The rules appear tailored to meet complaints that Republicans have made for weeks about closed-door depositions that three key committees – Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform – have been holding with witnesses from the State Department and national security offices. Republicans argued that Democrats were holding secret impeachment hearings in the basement of the Capitol.

But it wasn't enough to appease concerns and Republicans in leadership urged their colleagues to vote against the measure. GOP lawmakers argued the resolution did not include additional resources for conservative lawmakers leading the committees where impeachment would take place and failed to detail whether the president and his attorneys could be present for the hearings, offer evidence or cross-examine witnesses.

The White House denounced the measure in a statement by Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, saying the resolution continues the impeachment "scam" without allowing "any due process for the President."

"The White House is barred from participating at all, until after Chairman Schiff conducts two rounds of one-sided hearings to generate a biased report for the Judiciary Committee," she said. "Even then, the White House's rights remain undefined, unclear, and uncertain – because those rules still haven’t been written."

Later on Tuesday, Democrats released a three-page summary that outlined the role of the president and his counsel once impeachment moves to the Judiciary Committee. It includes that both the president and his counsel may cross-examine witnesses, offer evidence and craft a closing presentation.

But it all comes with a caveat — all requests would have to be approved by Democrats and would be rejected should the administration block witnesses or documents from being made available.

The resolution broadly outlines the plan for public hearings to take place in the House Intelligence Committee, which has led the investigation into Trump asking Ukraine to investigate political rivals – the central focus of the impeachment investigation.

Both Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. and Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the committee, would have subpoena power and be given up to 90 minutes together to question witnesses during public hearings – or have staffers ask questions.

But subpoenas from Nunes, R-Calif., would first have to be approved by Schiff, who can reject such requests. Any rejection could be brought to the full committee for a vote, the resolution notes.

The measure also directs the Intelligence Committee to craft a report on its findings and offer it to the House Judiciary Committee, which under the resolution would also offer subpoena power to both parties on the panel – Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican.

The resolution says the inquiry would continue under six committees: Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means, all of which have been investigating the president.

Three committees – Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform – have been holding closed-door depositions with State Department and national security officials to learn more about Trump’s demand for Ukrainian investigations while he withheld nearly $400 million in military aid for the country.

But other committees have continued work on other aspects of the investigation, which the resolution says would also be funneled to the Judiciary Committee.

The chairmen of the four most active panels – Schiff; Nadler; Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., at Oversight; and Rep. Eliot Engle, D-N.Y., at Foreign Affairs – issued a joint statement saying that the inquiry "has collected extensive evidence and testimony, and soon the American people will hear from witnesses in an open setting."

"The evidence we have already collected paints the picture of a President who abused his power by using multiple levers of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election," the chairmen said. "Following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries, the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the American people will learn firsthand about the President’s misconduct."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., declared a formal impeachment inquiry Sept. 24 amid reports that Trump urged Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, while withholding military aid. White House counsel Pat Cipollone notified Pelosi Oct. 8 that the administration wouldn’t cooperate for lack of a full House vote. Read more

Read the resolution:

Legal Experts Dumbfounded by Kevin McCarthy’s Impeachment Defense: ‘Like Legal Doctrine Mad Libs’

Kevin McCarthy
Legal Experts Dumbfounded by Kevin McCarthy’s Impeachment Defense: ‘Like Legal Doctrine Mad Libs’

Law & Crime
by Jerry Lambe
October 29th, 2019

Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Tuesday attacked Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, calling it  "an entire sham." Unfortunately, in his diatribe against the investigation into Trump’s alleged abuse of power, McCarthy used several legal terms that he clearly did not understand — or, at the very least, failed to correctly employ. Legal experts were quick to respond.

McCarthy, who has Bachelor of Science and Master of Business Administration degrees but no legal training, got off to a rocky start when he misused the term "due process," which, in short, refers to the fundamental principle of fairness in legal proceedings. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

"You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. A due process starts at the beginning. It doesn’t affirm a miss, sham investigation all the way through," McCarthy said, before broaching an even more abstruse legal doctrine known as "fruit of the poisonous tree."

The term, first coined in 1939, is a legal metaphor used to describe illegally obtained evidence that must be excluded at trial.

"If you were in the legal term, it’d be the fruit from the poisonous tree; it’d be a mistrial. None of this information would go forward," McCarthy said.

Professor Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law was quick to point out McCarthy’s errors, writing, "I could ask my first-year law students to identify everything that’s incorrect or misleading in [McCarthy’s] statement here, but it would be too easy," he wrote before providing a multi-faceted explainer.

Vladeck began by clarifying why the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in not applicable to the current proceedings.

"Fruit of the poisonous tree is about evidence obtained unlawfully being inadmissible—and (a) only results in suppression of evidence; and (b) has lots of exceptions," Vladeck explained. "No one is arguing the House has violated [President Trump’s] Fourth Amendment rights," he wrote, before delving into McCarthy’s "mistrial" comment.

"A mistrial is what happens when, in the middle of a trial, some uncorrectable error has occurred. There’s nothing remotely resembling a trial here—and there won’t be until and unless this goes to the Senate," he wrote. "Even then, most mistrials don’t actually invalidate the entire proceeding; they just require the case to start over. So even [McCarthy’s] preposterous analogy doesn’t actually lead him to where he wants to go," Vladeck said, concluding that McCarthy’s argument was part of a larger attempt to distract from the substantive issues surrounding impeachment.

Several other legal experts were equally amused by McCarthy’s bumbling press conference and failed attempts to employ legal doctrines.

Sasha Samberg-Champion, a former senior appellate attorney for the Department of Justice, said McCarthy’s press conference was nonsensical in a throw it at the wall and see if it sticks kind of way.

"This is like legal doctrine mad libs. Plug in some random legal term and pretend it applies," he tweeted. Read more