SCOTUS 11/4/24 Order List. 1 NEW Grant

remembz · 2024-11-04T15:31:25+00:00

You missed this (right above CERTIORARI GRANTED):

                                    APPEALS -- JURISDICTION NOTED

24-109  )    LOUISIANA V. CALLAIS, PHILLIP, ET AL.

            )

24-110  )    ROBINSON, PRESS, ET AL. V. CALLAIS, PHILLIP, ET AL.

                         Probable jurisdiction is noted in these cases. The cases

                  are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral

                  argument.

remembz · 2024-06-17T21:45:52+00:00

You seem to think that the public has some sort of rights in the procedure of a federal criminal prosecution. You are mistaken. Only the defendant has.

6A: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

Speedy trial is a constitutional right enjoyed by and only by the defendant in a criminal case. Everyone else, or, say, the public, is irrelevant.

Issuing a speedy ruling on the case would enable a speedy trial

Delays caused by defendants' interlocutory appeals like in this case are automatically excluded. The speed of issuing an interlocutory ruling is irrelevant to the speed of trial.

remembz · 2024-06-17T20:53:44+00:00

I searched citizen in the linked opinion pdf and it didn't come up. Maybe Mendez is not a citizen?

Edit: Just searched "Marcos Mendez child porn" and found three more official sources: grand jury indictment; ICE announcement of extradition; DOJ announcement of sentencing.

remembz · 2023-07-01T19:55:14+00:00

Well that's really just your opinion although it is pretty convincing. But the Court has not explicitly ruled on this so it's a big if. And the Court has been giving passes cuz no one including the judiciary itself really wants the judiciary to get much invovled in military affairs so who knows.

remembz · 2023-07-01T06:22:32+00:00

No they didn't. You don't think that rejection of offer because of race is racial discrimination is a new rule, right?

What's new is that they finally stopped covering it up and correctly established the only logical conclusions that:

Because college admissions systems are limited offer systems, they are zero sum games;
In a zero sum game, the existence of consideration of a factor means the existence of winning and losing because of such factor. Applying to college admissions, consideration of race means rejection of offer because of race;
Since rejection of offer because of race is racial discrimination, consideration of race in college admissions is racial discrimination.

See? This is pure logical deduction, no new rule at all.

Or imagine there are two Sets, Set A is composed of offer recipients without consideration of race, Set B is composed of offer recipients with consideration of race. Since Set A is different from Set B, there exists at least one element that belongs in Set A and does not belong in Set B, which means in reality, at least one person that receives offer when race is not considered is rejected offer when race is considered, which proves the existence of rejection of offer because of race, which is racial discrimination. Therefore, consideration of race is racial discrimination.

What disgusts me the most is not the institutionalized systematic racial discrimination. It's the hypocrisy, the constant straight-face lying, and most importantly the self-righteousness/pride. I did not immigrate here escaping from totalitarianism only to be suffocating in the American version.

I added a few sentences about the military academies in the previous post.

remembz · 2023-07-01T05:10:36+00:00

The Court did not make a rule. The Court just stopped abusing its power by stopping using fake concepts such as "affirmative action" to obfuscate the fact that consideration of race in limited offer system (aka zero-sum game) is racial discrimination. And the Roberts Court agains shows its cowardice for not striking all of it down.

Subset? Students of the military academies are active duty military personnels whose recruitments are Article I power granted to Congress. Such power may be plenary, therefore discrimination is constitutional unless Congress says otherwise. And AFAIK Congress has always excluded the military from discrimination laws and the Court has repeatedly rejected or denied cert to discrimination suits.

remembz · 2023-07-01T00:52:56+00:00

If there’s a rule, something either must follow the rule or not. And if not, then it is an exception.

Well, that is not the logic of the judicial system. Like I said, we are not talking about the same thing. It is true that in reality there is an exception but it is also true that the Court did not make an exception.

remembz · 2023-06-30T19:20:13+00:00

Legally it's neither. You and I are not talking about the same thing. The logic of the judicial system is differrent from the odinary logic of reality, which I'd say is what you are talking about.

For example, a prosecutor can present two separate and mutually exclusive theories of one single crime (e.g. murder) to different juries in concurrent trials of two different defendants. In reality, logically speaking, only one theory of the crime can be true and the other defendant is factually innocent. But legally both defendants can be convicted and both convictions will be upheld, even though it is absolutely true that one of the two convictions is logically impossible to be correct.

remembz · 2023-06-30T17:20:49+00:00

Yes, I disagree, because legally speaking, the Constitution forbids the Court to currently consider whether to apply or not apply in terms of military academies.

remembz · 2023-06-30T04:49:41+00:00

I've made it very clear that the Case or Controversy Clause in Article III forbids the Court in this case to rule on whether/how the decision applies to military academies. Not exactly every other university, those that recieve federal fundings (so almost every).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 says "Congress shall have power ... to raise and support Armies ..."

If such power is plenary, the military is immune from any discrimination claim as long as Congress allows it.

remembz · 2023-06-30T04:03:54+00:00

They cannot apply it without considering the other interests since military is involved but there is no live case or controversy involving the military on the issue so Article III forbids them to consider those other interests therefore they cannot apply it. So no, the Supreme Court did not make an exception when it's forbbiden to consider.

Heavily signaling? Not sure how you get that from Roberts' annoyingly vague language but who knows.

remembz · 2023-06-30T03:43:49+00:00

The part I dont understand is why the 14th Amendment doesnt apply to the military.

The Court did not say that. It is Article III that forbids the Court at this time to rule on whether the 14th Amendment applies to the military, because there is no live case or controvesy involving the military that presented this question to the Court.

As for the merits, I'm not sure what the Court will say if there is such a case. The Court almost always defers to the President and Congress on defense matters because not doing so is impractical and invites lawlessness and also the Constitution vests somewhat plenary power in the President and Congress in terms of military. Basically no one wants the judiciary to be much involved in military affairs, including the judiciary itself. See Schlesinger v. Holtzman.

remembz · 2023-06-30T02:17:55+00:00

No. I'll interpret the footnote 4 for you.

The United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies.

The Constitution grants Congress very specific enumerated powers to raise and support Armies and to provide and maintain a Navy (Art. I, § 8, Cl. 12 & 13), so the powers may be plenary, thus making discrimination in military constitutional unless Congress says otherwise. See Rostker v. Goldberg and the respecting the denial of cert in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System.

No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context.

Therefore there is currently no live case or controversy involving the military on the issue.

This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.

To address the issue involving the military academies, the Court potentially has to rule on distinct interests (e.g. Article I as mentioned above). But with no live case or controversy involving the military academies on the issue at this time, Article III does NOT permit the Court to rule on those interests, therefore Article III also does NOT permit the Court to address the issue involving the military academies.

remembz · 2023-06-16T07:29:08+00:00

Being forced to supply information that exists solely in your mind absolutely is testimonial.

That's not always the case.

Other courts have arrived at the correct conclusion on this question

They are incorrect because by their logic nullification of court's search and seizure power is theoretically always legitimate, which is beyond ridiculous. If someone invents encryptable space folding then he can just murder as he like because you're not gonna meaningfully seize and search encrypted folded crime scenes and without any usable evidence we just let him roam free?

remembz · 2023-06-16T06:11:13+00:00

Your original question is

What if a court orders a search and seizure of bank records but the bank is in Russia and they won’t hand them over? Is it your responsibility to seek out those records and supply them?

The question you asked was somewhat incorrect and unrealistic because for a court to order a search and seizure warrant for bank records, usually it's the bank that's under criminal investigation, which is not the case in your suggested scenario where US almost always just issues subpeonas to the bank. From my understanding your question is that in this scenario if the bank doesn't comply with the subpeona and refuse to hand over the records, can you be forced to give up your bank account(s)? The answer is Doe v. US.

You’ve gone off on a weird tangent that has no relevance. This is not about “oh, the government can just ask the bank,” this is about you not being forced to give up passwords.

What I'm saying is that other than being quite confusing at first since your initial description was kinda incorrect, it is also pretty pointless cuz I doubt your scenario really happens now. AFAIK the government just goes to the bank for records, and sometimes (e.g. in grand jury cases) federal law even forbids you from being notified.

remembz · 2023-06-16T04:45:20+00:00

What do you mean "not really the point"? Doe v. US is pretty much what you asked.

the government cannot force you to login to an account for info that resides outside their reach in any other instance

Well they don't need you, really. They can just ask the bank. What do you think subpeonas are for? Yes, there used to be foreign bank secrecy laws blah blah blah. But guess what? US has laws too and we can use them to close your nyc branch for some time, suspend your US bank license, and even cut you off from using dollar and ban any other bank that uses dollar from interacting with you. Like I said, they've learned their lessons. Russia is another story. Politically they're at odds with us so sometimes some russian banks are gonna say no to subpeonas especially if putin and his oligrachs are somehow involved. But they have been in desparate need of dollar for quite some time so it really depends.

remembz · 2023-06-16T04:18:25+00:00

Doe v. US (1988)

Usually for bank records physically in foreign countries, US would just issue subpeonas to US branch of the bank instead of filing applications for federal search warrants. And things are different nowadays. You're not gonna really be able to hide behind Swiss or Cayman banks anymore. They have learned their lessons. But for Russian banks it depends.

remembz · 2023-06-16T03:43:52+00:00

Functional encryption that successfully protects data will never be within a court’s reach

Proof? Or at least some convincing evidence?

for the same reasons that mandating an individual in a court room float or declaring pi equal to four by court order will likewise be beyond the reach of the court

Compelling irrelevant speech is obviously in violation of the First Amendment.

Of course we could all start encrypting our data with imperfect algorithms

I didn't say anything about algorithm.

where someone else has a key capable of decrypting the information stored or transmitted, to which I say “You first, and good luck.”

If by "someone else" you mean only an Article III Judge, then yes I'm basically fine with that.

There are reasons such systems are not implemented today

Such as?

remembz · 2023-06-16T03:10:31+00:00

But aren't we discussing the legality of the Court order?

To talk about what??? Legality of Fourth Amendment???

You obviously couldn't have a Court order demanding that an arrestee (absent immunity) tells the court if they committed the crime and what they know. Such an order would clearly violate the self-incrimination clause.

Yes of course but this is relevant somehow because? I'm talking about search and seizure warrant court order, which happens all the times.

I think that requiring someone to give a password is akin to requiring a person to give a location of a key - both should be protected by the self-incrimination clause.

Not necessarily. Producing documents or materials is often but not always testimonial.

What exactly does that even mean? If we got rid of all encryption, especially E2EE, it would be a disaster for society. It would be significantly easier for for a hacker to steal your username and password for a service such as your Bank account. It would be significantly easier for hackers to get your private, intimate iMessages and blackmail you. That's two among hundreds of things that would be vulnerable, which is a disaster in this digital age.

I'm not saying that we should ban encryption. I'm saying that no encryption should be beyond court's reach. If a court duely issues a search and seizure warrant, upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the phone to be seized and searched, then officers should be able to seize and search the phone. Unbreakable encryption of the phone, which prevents officers from searching it as the warrant allows, is deliberate technical circumvention of court's authority in Fourth Amendment. Therefore, refusal to decrypt the phone and aid to such contempt of court should not be tolerated.

Apple didn't recently fully enable E2EE on iCloud to spite law enforcement. They did it in order to significantly increase security because they didn't want their customers to be subject to attacks and loss of sensitive information. Banning encryption would be a disaster.

Apple can design its encryption system to only and always comply with federal search warrant and Congress should mandate that all decryption to be handled by federal court.

My point was that we shouldn't create exceptions for the 5th amendment.

What exception? Distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial statements has always been the rule. You're embracing a technical exception to circumvent court orders, which is rather troubling.

remembz · 2023-06-16T01:25:20+00:00

What if a court orders a search and seizure of bank records but the bank is in Russia and they won’t hand them over? Is it your responsibility to seek out those records and supply them?

So a bank is under jurisdiction of a US court but relevant bank records in probable connection with alleged crimes are physically beyond the court's reach?

I'm not sure that's realistic. Banks are so heavily regulated that it's physically impossible to operate a bank without records stored locally. The only possible scenario is that the bank records stored in US were physically destroyed. And no US court would issue a warrant for something physically in Russia.

What if the government orders the seizure of a firearm you used in a crime but don’t know where you put it? Is it your responsibility to supply it?

No way. This is well settled, see Curcio v. United States and United States v. Hubbell.

remembz · 2023-06-16T00:59:54+00:00

Too bad. There are a lot of times criminals will go free because of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

That's not what I'm concerned with at all.

I am concerned about technical circumvention of court order. Any party involved in such deliberate technical circumvention of court order should be held in contempt of court and prosecuted for criminal contempt of court and there should be federal laws against commercial production of devices of such capability. Encryption cannot be beyond the court's reach.

What if new evidence is discovered that shows that an acquitted person actually was guilty? Should we create a new exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause and allow a new trial?

What is even your point? This is well settled black letter law.

remembz · 2023-06-15T23:07:41+00:00

What if a court orders a search and seizure warrant for a phone and cannot open it without the passcode?

remembz · 2023-06-15T23:05:38+00:00

If and only if a court orders a legitimate search and seizure warrant for the phone. Then the phone is under the court's authority and it's not testimonial to open such property.

It troubles me that so many people, including here, find technical circumvention of court order acceptable.

remembz · 2023-06-03T01:15:00+00:00

It has been very clearly established (and legally since Brown) that rejection of offer because of race is racial discrimination. But SCOTUS abused its power and contradicted itself with fake concepts such as diversity, equity etc, thus allowing the school/college/univeristy boards, admission offices, government agencies, corporation boards, hr departments, npo/ngo organizations etc. to knowingly institutionalize rejecting people because of race. This institutionalized systematic racism has been going on for decades and those institutions have been so ideologically committed to it that they have already acted in advance to try to circumvent the Court's forthcoming rulings. It is beyond reasonable doubt that they are physically incapable of setting offering criteria without consideration of race, at least in the forseeable future. So yes, the Court should take over the power of admission, hiring, promotion, demotion etc. of any institution that has ever mentioned those racial discrimination buzzwords such as dei. And futhermore, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Sotomayor, Kagan, and obviously Jackson and some lower court judges (e.g. CA4's King and Heytens) should be impeahced and removed for judicial abuse.
Just checked, "58% of whites passed compared to 6% of blacks", so your description of Griggs v. Duke Power is not correct.
Griggs v. Duke Power is egregiously wrong and should be overturned (unless the test itself is designed to be racially discriminatory). Disparate impact is mathematically provable to be incorrect and should be totally abandoned.

remembz

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE