>http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2597.htm
worth reading, even if some are skeptical of the source.
notable
the meat of the sorcha article about the WV SC judge indictments is that Noname wrote the forward to that guy's book … then onward to Manafort and Mueller:
While Trump loyal forces continue churning out “sealed indictments” by the thousands, this report continues, an equally mysterious legal process is playing itself out in the US Federal Court—and whose central figure is the President Ronald Reagan appointed Senior United States District Judge Thomas Selby Ellis III—who is pitted against the President Obama appointed United States District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in deciding the fate of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
With Judge Jackson being described as a “criminal in a robe” who has thrown Manafort into solitary confinement without his being convicted of any charges, this report details, Senior Judge Ellis, nonetheless, has accurately described Manafort’s prosecution as being political with his declaring “even a blind person can see Mueller is using Manafort to target Trump”.
In seeking to extricate the US Federal Court from being a party to what is in essence a coup against President Trump, this report says, Senior Judge Ellis, this past week, released his decision denying a motion filed by Manafort against the “expanded powers” used by Special Counsel Mueller to charge him—but whose true reason for doing so can be plainly seen by his going out of his way to say that his decision should not be read as approving the appointment of a special counsel.
Most critical to note about Senior Judge Ellis’s decision, this report notes, is that Manafort’s attorneys didn’t even ask him to rule as to whether Special Council Mueller’s appointment was legal—thus allowing Senior Judge Ellis to provide for them (and anyone else charged by Mueller) the exact legal basis to challenge Mueller’s appointment—and whose road map to do so Senior Judge Ellis laid out clearly by his twice citing in his ruling one of America’s top constitutional lawyers, Northwestern University Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law Steven G. Calabresi.
Most important to note about US Constitutional Professor Calabresi, this report says, is that aside from his having been a close friend and legal collaborator with the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, he is, also, the co-founder of the Federalist Society from whose list President Trump choose US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, and will pick the replacement for the retiring US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy—and whose two cited works by Senior Judge Ellis to use to destroy Special Counsel Mueller are the Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 18-14 legal reference document used by US Federal Courts titled “Opinion on the Constitutionality of Robert Mueller's Appointment”—and its for public use counterpart article published in the Wall Street Journal titled “Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line”—and wherein he plainly states:
Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional.
But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded.
At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent.
Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”
Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including—as in Mr. Manafort’s case—ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have.
Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.
Rehnquist’s majority opinion has never been overturned. n Edmund v. U.S. and in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, the justices said that an officer cannot be inferior unless he has a boss—as Mr. Mueller does in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him. But that’s not a sufficient condition.
As a principal officer, Mr. Rosenstein could legally have brought all the indictments Mr. Mueller has. But he may not delegate that authority to Mr. Mueller, any more than President Trump could delegate his veto power to Mr. Rosenstein.
Armed with Federalist Society co-founder Professor Steven Calabresi’s legal roadmap to challenge the constitutionality of everything Special Counsel Mueller has done, this report continues, the American attorneys representing the Russian firm Concord Management charged by Mueller in a “joke indictment” have now filed a motion in US Federal Court challenging his authority—and whose merits of will be ruled on the President Trump appointed US Federal District Judge Dabney Friedrich.
Likewise, this report notes, a further challenge to Special Counsel Mueller’s constitutional authority following the roadmap laid out by Federalist Society co-founder Professor Calabresi is being made by the long time Trump backer Roger Stone’s former aide Andrew Miller, through his attorneys from the Federalist Society aligned non-profit conservative legal organization National Legal and Policy Center, to quash a Mueller grand jury subpoena—but whose merits of will be heard by the President Obama appointed Chief United States District Judge Beryl A. Howell.
With President Trump appointed Federal Judge Friedrich expected to side with the Federalist Society legal determination that Special Counsel Mueller’s appointment is un-constitutional, after which President Reagan appointed Senior Federal Judge Ellis will quickly follow suit once Manafort’s attorneys file a motion for him to do so, this report concludes, a titanic legal war will then erupt because President Obama appointed Chief Federal Judge Howell and Federal Judge Jackson will, most certainly, rule the exact opposite—thus leaving the United States Supreme Court to be the final determiner of this issue—and whose Federalist Society members include Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Samuel Alito and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch—and is why the coup plotters against President Trump have become so enraged after Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement—as the soon to be Trump appointed next Federalist Society nominee for the United States Supreme Court will hold the fate of Trump, and their country, in his or her hands—but none of whom have ever gone against their societies founder Professor Calabresi’s determinative constitutional legal opinions.