Legale§e

Today on Legalese we have the second half of my series on the Brunson case, more properly known as Brunson v Adams & also referred to as Docket: 22-380 On The last episode we looked at the Facts of the case, its judicial history and broke down the contents of a cert petition and his Question Presented. Today we finish going over his cert petition as we read the Statements of the Facts of The Case. We discuss why this case makes a mockery of Brunson's stated claims of "Defending the Constitution"... The Constitution is indeed under attack, but not by Congress (at least not any more than usual) It is under attack by Raland Brunson who seems to believe the only way to save the Constitution is destroy it himself before anyone else gets the chance to. Find Part One in my Brunson Case Series here: https://youtu.be/o9i-x-QRfh8 Supreme Court Docket for 22-380 (All filing and documents) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html Case text of district court opinion - https://casetext.com/case/brunson-v-adams Tenth Circuit order and judgement - https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110749788.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 636 - https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-28-judiciary-and-judicial-procedure/part-iii-court-officers-and-employees/chapter-43-united-states-magistrate-judges/section-636-jurisdiction-powers-and-temporary-assignment The Brunson Brothers Home Page - https://brunsonbrothers.com/ Rule 14. Content of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_14 Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today on Legalese we are going to be examining the case of Brunson v Adams (Also commonly referred to at Docket 22-380). Raland Brunson is suing 388 members of Congress, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris & Mike Pence seeking to kick them out of office then declare them traitors by judicial fiat and put Trump back in office immediately because he believes the election was stolen. This case is fascinating for many reason and I want to share those reasons. Whether you support this case, vehemently oppose it, or have simply never heard of it. Every one has something to gain from listening. Supreme Court Docket for 22-380 (All filing and documents) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html Case text of district court opinion - https://casetext.com/case/brunson-v-adams Tenth Circuit order and judgement - https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110749788.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 636 - https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-28-judiciary-and-judicial-procedure/part-iii-court-officers-and-employees/chapter-43-united-states-magistrate-judges/section-636-jurisdiction-powers-and-temporary-assignment The Brunson Brothers Home Page - https://brunsonbrothers.com/ Rule 14. Content of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_14 Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today on Legalese, we examine the recent claims made by Joe Biden regarding guns and gun owners and scrutinize every single claim to comprehensively explain why Democrats should reject the Democratic Party's message on gun control. Some clips Icame from The Babylon Bee video: "Frightening But 100% True Facts About Guns" (Full Video) - https://youtu.be/YmyyEbvDgr8 Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow Check out my new book Constitutional Sleight of Hand: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Follow on Amazon to get new release updates and improved recommendations: https://www.amazon.com/~/e/B0BLHX5MDZ Bob@legaleseshow.com - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today on Legalese we will be taking a look at the legalized armed robbery that constitutes "Equity Asset Theft" - a legal action that is nothing more than the lesbian sister of "civil asset forfeiture". Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to grant cert on the merits for the case "Tyler v. City of Minneapolis". This case challenges the constitutionality of a Minnesota state law empowering local governments to seize the entire value of a property in order to pay off a much smaller delinquent property tax debt. The property owner in the case—93-year-old widow Geraldine Tyler—argues that this kind of uncompensated seizure of home equity violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires government to pay "just compensation" anytime it takes private property, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. So how does home equity theft actually work? How does the government justify this policy which stands in clear contravention to the 5th and 8th amendment's takings clause & excessive fines clause (respectively). We will discuss the likely outcome of the case as well as the broader implications that this potential landmark 5th amendment case will have. Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today on Legalese, we will be discussing the recent case of Cargill v. Garland handed down by the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals. This case was a big win for gun rights and a well-deserved kick in the teeth for unaccountable Administrative State Agencies. We will discus the case, what it means moving forward and look at several other important implications that can be deduced by researching this case. Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016 (5th Cir. 2023) - https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Our latest installment in today in Supreme Court history looks at the landmark case of Printz v. United States. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs) to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of this interim provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona respectively. •My Condensed Case Brief - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/ •Full Case Brief - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/ •Oral Arguments Audio and Transcript - https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1478 •Syllabus - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/#tab-opinion-1960202 Check out my new book “Constitutional Sleight of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” - https://www.amazon.com/~/e/B0BLHX5MDZ Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow Contact Me: legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today on Legalese we will be discovering the common law origins of the 4th Amendment Check out my new book “Constitutional Sleight of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” - https://www.amazon.com/~/e/B0BLHX5MDZ Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today on Legalese we are going to be discussing a little known area of constitutional law known as the state legislature doctrine that will play a major role in a landmark case the Supreme Court will be hearing this term. This is Moore v Harper, almost certainly it has already become the most controversial case the Court will be hearing for their Fall 2022 term. Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today we have the latest installment of my series "Ignorance of the Law". . This where we take come time to highlight stupid, pointless, hypocritical and useless laws passed by the government. To point out that, while the government will be quick to tell you ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, they clearly consider ignorance IS an excuse when making and enforcing the law. This episode actually has 3 examples of ignorant laws being ignorantly enforced. First we look at the foster care system in the State of Maine and their regulations regarding bunk-beds; and we share the story of some sweet old grannie taking care of her grandkids and how Maryland's laws are bunk-fucking grannie with their rules against foster children sleeping in bunk beds. Md. Code Regs. 07.05.02.10 - Foster Parent's Home, Equipment, and Supply Requirements D. Sleeping and Living Quarters. (3) Each child shall have adequate bedding and an individual bed which may not be a cot, sofa, sofa bed, double-tiered bed, bunk bed, or any type of portable bed. Second, we look at a case from Minnesota where the 8th circuit Court of Appeals has granted qualified immunity to a government employee who exercises police powers despite not being a policeman and answer the question: "what are you supposed to do when a government employee who is not a police officer pulls you over, detains you for hours, and tries to perform a traffic stop, despite having no authority to do so?" Finally I discuss why certain Halloween costumes just might make any child wearing it a potential felon. Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today on Legalese we have my fall Supreme Court Roundup. Of the cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this upcoming term I have focused on 5 which I believe have a high likelihood of becoming landmark cases in constitutional law jurisprudence. Including on case dealing with the State Legislature Doctrine, based on Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution. As well as 2 commerce clause cases, one dealing with the Indian Commerce Clause and another dealing with the dormant commerce clause as well as anti-commandeering doctrine under the tenth amendment. Finally we have 2 cases regarding Section 230, the statute often referred to as the Internet's first amendment. Moore v Harper – independent state legislature doctrine https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-harper/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-harper-2/ Haaland v Brackeen – Indian Commerce Clause case https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/haaland-v-brackeen/ National Pork Producers Council v. Ross –Dormant Commerce Clause https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-pork-producers-council-v-ross/ Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh – Section 230 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-taamneh/ Gonzalez v. Google LLC – section 230 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-google-llc/ Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today's videos is not your typical podcast episode. It's a project. In fact its a project I could use your help on. David Hogg, the darling of the anti-gun movement has a habit of trying to shoe-horn his personal opinion that guns are bad into the Second Amendment and into American Law all the time & while he often says he is willing to discuss why he believes that with gun right advocates he doesn't seem to ever actually do it. I have tried reaching out to him twice in the past year to offer a chance to change my mind about guns and get no reply. So I am Hoping all of you lovely people out there will take just a moment and head over to David Hogg's Twitter page and to a specific tweet he recently since that I respond to in this video & I am hoping you will share this video with him and respectfully ask him to find the time to join me here on the Legalese Podcast so we can have a discussion about the second amendment and about the morality of gun control David Hogg on Twitter: - https://twitter.com/davidhogg111 David Hogg's Tweet - https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1567529570966065153 The Largest Ever Survey Of American Gun Owners - https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/?itm_source=parsely-api Defensive Gun Use Study – https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4109494 Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Episode #23 In this episode we discuss a really stupid and porly written and executd law in New York that is meant to ban people under 21 from buying whip cream chargers Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

There is all kinds of misinformation currently floating around about monetary inflation. Such as those who desperately try to convince you, in spite of all evidence to the contrary: Inflation is caused by rich, corporate fat cats who aren't "paying their fair share in taxes"… Or gas prices are up because those greedy corporate fat cats running oil and gas companies all suddenly got extra-greedy at exactly the same time somehow and are just price gouging us. Obviously neither of those things are true and the politicians selling that bullshit are just desperate to put the blame somewhere, anywhere other than where it belongs. Because where it belongs is with those politicians. They have to lie, because an honest appraisal would lead to the inevitable conclusion that they are at fault and that the only way to return to long-term prosperity will require a heavy dose of short term pain and they simply have too much to lose to actually admit that. I, on the other hand, have nothing to lose by being honest and can merely state the facts. In this video we will discuss the real definition of inflation, the real cause of inflation and the only cure for inflation. Economic Policy: Inflation (Ludwig von Mises) - https://mises.org/library/inflation Inflation: An Unworkable Fiscal Policy (Ludwig von Mises) - https://mises.org/library/economic-freedom-and-interventionism/html/p/123 Monetary Inflation and Price Inflation (Bob Murphy) - https://mises.org/wire/monetary-inflation-and-price-inflation How Inflation Hides Inflation (Robert Blumen) - https://mises.org/wire/how-inflation-hides-inflation An Inflation Primer (Melchior Palyi) - https://mises.org/library/inflation-primer Defining Inflation (Frank Shostak) - https://mises.org/library/defining-inflation The Cure for Inflation (Henry Hazlitt) - https://mises.org/wire/cure-inflation Inflation as a Policy (Henry Hazlitt) - https://mises.org/wire/inflation-policy Constitutional Sleight Of Hand Announcement: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/exciting-announcement?r=jkc76&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web Order your copy of my upcoming new book: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/constitutional-sleight-of-hand-book?r=jkc76&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web Follow & Support Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Locals - https://www.locals.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal - https://paypal.me/categoricalimperativ?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

Today on Legalese we will be discussing the full scope of the natural right of armed self-defense codified in the second amendment. Too often, the modern debate over the second amendment has to do with whether, and to what extent, may people engage in individual self-defense when the government is either incapable or unwilling to adequately protect people. However, they never question the legitimacy of the government's assertion of their monopoly on the use of violence. Moreover, should the types of arms individuals may own and carry be limited to those weapons suitable only for individual self defense. Constitutional Sleight Of Hand Announcement: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/exciting-announcement?r=jkc76&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web Order your copy of my upcoming new book: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/constitutional-sleight-of-hand-book?r=jkc76&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

Today on Legalese, we finish our discussion on the Democrat's new "Assault Weapon" Ban bill (HR 1808) We discuss, in greater detail what the ramifications of this legislation would mean for the future of the natural right of armed self-defense, codified in our Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, as well as gun rights and gun culture. We watch all the anti-gun democrats on the House Judiciary Committee beclown themselves in their frantic attempt to prove they know (quite literally) NOTHING about firearms, especially technical & tactical distinctions; making them the very last people who should be writing legislation about the thing they have proven they know nothing about. We also discuss a challenge in Federal Court on the New York "Assault Weapon Ban" Watch Part 1 - https://youtu.be/GDtNFQMHbtA Stop The "Assault Weapons" Ban - GOA Form Letter To Send To Your Representatives and Senators - https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net/messages/edit?promo_id=17533 HR 1808 - Full Text of Legislation - https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1808/BILLS-117hr1808ih.pdf NYSRPA v Bruen (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Vanchoff V James Case Docket - https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyedce/2:2022cv04075/482488 Vanchoff v James (Firearms Policy Coalition Complaint) - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6540/attachments/original/1657660295/Vanchoff_v_James_Complaint.pdf?1657660295

The House Judiciary Committee has a new assault weapons ban they plan to vote on next week. This new bill makes the 1994 AWB that was in place for a decade look downright libertarian by comparison. HR 1808 seeks to ban all semi-automatic sporting rifles, semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic shotguns as well as a ban on many types of triggers and silencers. All weapons which are in common use for lawful purposes. While this bill specifically exempts the very "weapons of war" it claims to be aimed at banning. This assault on our natural rights acts with a breadth never before imagined. In This episode we go through the bill to tell you everything you need to know about this bill. HR 1808 - Full Text of Legislation - https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1808/BILLS-117hr1808ih.pdf NYSRPA v Bruen (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Vanchoff V James Case Docket - https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyedce/2:2022cv04075/482488 Vanchoff v James (Firearms Policy Coalition Complaint) - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6540/attachments/original/1657660295/Vanchoff_v_James_Complaint.pdf?1657660295

Today on Legalese, as part of my ongoing series "Ignorance Of The Law" where we laugh at the fact that ignorance of the law may not be an excuse for breaking the law, but it's often an excuse for making an enforcing the law. Today we discuss the ignorance of Rent Control by looking at a recent John Oliver segment talking about the need for rent control and we look at a series of rent control laws passed in the Twin Cities that are considered to to be the strictest Rent Control Laws in the country. Studies and Related Links The Atlantic - We need more luxury housing, not less https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/theres-no-such-thing-luxury-housing/618548/ Rent Control is fashionable again. But still a bad idea - https://reason.com/2021/12/10/rent-control-is-fashionable-again-its-still-a-bad-idea/ Increasing Acceptance of Housing Vouchers Among Landlords: A Piece of the Affordability Puzzle - https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/increasing-acceptance-of-housing-vouchers-among-landlords-a-piece-of-the-affordability-puzzle/ Landlord Participation Study - https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-research-052819.html Does Affordable Housing Make the Surrounding Neighborhood Less Affordable? - https://reason.com/2022/06/13/does-affordable-housing-make-the-surrounding-neighborhood-less-affordable/ Affordable homes don’t increase crime or dent Orange County property values, says UCI study - https://www.ocregister.com/2022/06/02/uci-study-finds-affordable-homes-dont-dent-oc-property-values-or-increase-crime/amp/ Developers Halt Projects, Mayor Demands Reform After St. Paul Voters Approve Radical Rent Control Ballot Initiative - https://reason.com/2021/11/10/developers-halt-projects-mayor-demands-reform-after-st-paul-voters-approve-radical-rent-control-ballot-initiative/ America's Most Controversial Rent Control Law Is Getting a Hasty Makeover - https://reason.com/2022/03/22/politicians-scramble-to-define-amend-repeal-the-nations-most-controversial-rent-control-law/ Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? The Redistribution of Wealth Caused by Rent Control https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4061315 Wealthy, Older Tenants in Manhattan Get Biggest Boost From Rent Regulations - https://www.wsj.com/articles/wealthy-older-tenants-in-manhattan-get-biggest-boost-from-rent-regulations-11560344400 NMHC Rent Control Update: Multifamily Firms Reconsider Investments in Rent Control Markets - https://www.nmhc.org/news/nmhc-news/2022/nmhc-rent-control-update-multifamily-firms-reconsider-investments-in-rent-control-markets/ Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

Today by special request, we have a great episode that asks How can Substantive Due Process rights be transferred to the privileges and immunities clause. We look at the history of "Privileges & Immunities" from its common law and colonial American beginning, to the Articles Of Confederation, Article 4, Corfield v Coryell and reconstruction era civil rights legislation to inform us of what the Privileges or Immunities clause was understood by those who gave it legal force. We also discuss a general framework under which enumerated and unenumerated rights protected under the due process clause could be transferred to the privileges or immunities clause. Case Briefs and Legal Resources Dobbs v Jackson Whole Women's Health - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/19-1392/ McDonald v. Chicago: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/ Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/489/ Slaughterhouse Cases :: 83 U.S. 36 (1872) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/ United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/ McDonald v Chicago Amicus Briefs - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago/ Clarence Thomas McDonald v Chicago Opinion (Edit) - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/clarence-thomas-mcdonald-v-chicago?r=jkc76&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web Past Episode Mentioned In This Episode Constitutional Revolution of 1937 - https://youtu.be/5CyUMQeEgqA Roe v Wade - Roe v Wade (1973) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6yb3H54Y7A Planned Parenthood v Casey - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OB_ehOL6Uc Clarence Thomas Is Right - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of2X3eRjSPI Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

12:50 CORRECTION - Utility Air 573, U.S. is NOT a regulation. It refers to the case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, (2014) Today on Legalese, we are looking at 2 recent Supreme Court Opinions that curbed the legal doctrine in administrative law known as Chevron Deference. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf And how in both cases the Court finally made meaningful changes to begin to curb the seemingly endless power assumed to be delegated to Executive Agencies under Administrative Law. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/302/ 42 U.S. Code § 1395l - Payment of benefits - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395l 42 U.S. Code § 7411 - Standards of performance for new stationary sources - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411 And we bid a fond farewell to Justice Steven Breyer! Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

Stare Decisis is a Latin phrase, commonly used in law that roughly translates to: “Let wrong decisions of the Warren Court stand” Regardless of your personal opinion in the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate , Roe v Wade was a terrible opinion bereft of even a modicum of legal merit and substantive due process is a garbage legal doctrine invented out of thin air by the Warren Court a century after the 14th amendment was ratified. The only people who could disagree with that statement are people who have never read the actual case brief for Roe v Wade and never bothered to so much as read the 14th amendment, much less earnestly try to give it a good faith interpretation. Full Case Brief - Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/ Today In Supreme Court History - Roe v Wade (1973) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6yb3H54Y7A The 14th Amendment & Incorporation Doctrine - https://youtu.be/LUY7eRa3iVk Clarence Thomas was right to say as much in his concurrence in Dobbs. This is a position He (and much less importantly I) have held for many years. A careful reading of Thomas’ opinion is, in many respects, less detrimental to the protection of unenumerated rights, secured by substantive due process than either Justice Alito’s majority opinion and Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion. This is because he is the only one who suggests how the 14th amendment could be used in its original public meaning to secure many of the unenumerated rights that have been created with the imaginary theory of substantive due process , through the original public meaning of the 14th amendment’s Privileges & Immunities Clause AMENDMENT XIV, SECTION 1 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.... In this episode we briefly discuss why Thomas is right and why those on the left who have turned into violent racist bigots over this decision are demonstrating a new low in their pursuit of political ends through mostly peaceful violence and mostly non-racist racism Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

WE have an opinion in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen concealed carry case, and the news is VERY, VERY good!!! Clarence Thomas came through with an incredible majority opinion that will spell the end of the restrictive "May Issue" licensing schemes in States like New York that say the right of self-defense is not reason enough to be able to exercise your right to armed self defense. In This video I go through the Court's primary holding and pull out the key information from the Majority Opinion from what is a 135 page case brief, that I read so you don't have to. (Actually everyone really should read it. But for those on the go I give you all the important information to understand the ruling in this case and its legal significance.) Read the full NYSRPA v Bruen Opinion Here - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Past Videos of Mine About The Bruen Case: Tim Pool Doesn't Get The Bruen Case - https://youtu.be/8wotWTZlMl4 Disarming Gun Control: An Open Letter To Gun Control Advocates - https://youtu.be/uMDHCR8Kt80 Disarming Gun Control: An Open Letter To Gun Control Advocates (Part Two) - https://youtu.be/drwI3X3rz80 The Second Amendment Is Going Back To Court - https://youtu.be/gIMSj8qz5R0 The Supreme Court vs The Second Amendment (Supreme Court Roundup: The Good, Thee Bad & The Ugly) - https://youtu.be/QizuUeT7p6w Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

The other day on Twitter the notable YouTuber and world-class milquetoast fence sitter, Tim Pool tweeted about the upcoming Supreme Court Opinion in Jackson and Bruen. Saying if the Court overturns Roe and Casey and also rules on Nationwide Constitutional Carry there will be less rioting. While there are myriad problems with this tweet the one that really grinds my gears was his insistence the court could rule on nationwide constitutional carry. After reaching out to Tim to verify if this was meant to be ironic or if it was a genuine statement and it became clear that not only he, but his many followers all genuinely believe this is the most likely outcome, despite the fact this is a constitutional and procedural impossibility. After trying to explain and finding 240 characters not being nearly enough to refute such a complicatedly wrong belief I decided to make this video. Not only will it hopefully explain to the thousands of people espousing this with nothing but an assumption it must be correct why it is LITERALLY impossible for the court to make any ruling about constitutional carry and LITERALLY impossible the outcome of Bruen will be a nationwide anything, its also a great primer for those who are interested in this case to help explain what the case is about or to remind you of the importance facts, issues, the question presented and the potential judgement so when the case comes out you will have a fresh understanding of the arguments that were made in the cert petitions and oral arguments heard last November. See Related Episodes From The Past: Disarming Gun Control (Part One) - https://youtu.be/uMDHCR8Kt80 Disarming Gun Control (Part Two) - https://youtu.be/drwI3X3rz80 Second Amendment Goes Back To Court - https://youtu.be/gIMSj8qz5R0 Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Roundup - https://youtu.be/QizuUeT7p6w All Gun Control Is Unconstitutional - https://youtu.be/38PowOyMN4M What The Heller? - https://youtu.be/1yqvw3E5mvA What Is An Assault Weapon? - https://youtu.be/FHt1hER8Las Cooper v Aaron - https://youtu.be/5PM4cEzkxzc Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

Today on Legalese we begin with a Supreme Court Roundup, where we will be going over all the major decision from the Court that they have been putting out since late May and will continue to put out until, at least, their final scheduled sate for this session, July 2nd. Today we look at two recent opinions regarding issues of criminal justice reform. These Include Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-1009/ and Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf Shinn was a 6th amendment case to define the role of Federal Habeas Relief in an appeal of a State criminal law conviction. Despite the fact two men on death row in Arizona and are seeking appeal on the merits based on new exculpatory evidence of incompetent representation in the state trial and post conviction as well as exculpatory evidence of actual innocence, the court ruled that for procedural reasons there is no valid cause of action for the kind of federal appellate review being sought. Egbert v Boule dealt with a man seeking relief for an alleged violation of his 1st and 4th amendment rights by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent under the precedent set in Bivens v Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents (1971). In Bivens claims, private individuals may sue FBI agents for violating their Fourth, Fifth, and/or Eighth Amendment rights. This case was also denied on procedural grounds that Boule's remedy sought under the Federal Tort Claims Act was in a new and distinct context than the precedent set in Bivens, a case whose propriety has been controversial for many years and has had 11 cases seeking relief under the Bivens claim were denied review and only two have been accepted, but in both cases the appellant lost on the merits. I do my best to give you a recap with all the necessary information to understand case's basis in fact and law in a way that will be helpful for people whether these areas of federal law are entirely foreign to you, if you are having trouble with two cases that are very complex and hard to truly sort out without a background in the study of relevant jurisprudence. You will understand the decision, how it was reached and what the implications of these cases may likely be as precedent in the future. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___ (2017) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-1358/ Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U. S. ___ (2020) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/589/17-1678/ Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

Episode #11 We just found out that the Senate has finished drafting its bipartisan gun control law and are being told by both parties they have the 60 votes needed to pass it. While we don't have the bill text yet one thing we can be very sure of is that it contains a red flag modeled after Jerry Nadler's 2019 House bill. What does that entail, and what crucial piece of information about red flag laws have media and politicians completely overlooking that you should know before deciding on the wisdom and efficacy of this proposed bill. Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture House Judiciary Committee drafts Red Flag Law - https://rollcall.com/2022/05/31/house-judiciary-committee-sets-vote-on-gun-control-proposals/ Why this policy has bipartisan appeal? - https://www.npr.org/2019/08/20/752427922/poll-americans-including-republicans-and-gun-owners-broadly-support-red-flag-law Do Red Flag Laws Work? - https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/ Red Flag in Buffalo shooting - https://reason.com/2022/05/18/the-buffalo-massacre-illustrates-the-inherent-limitations-of-red-flag-laws/ New York Red Flag Law - https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/6341 Rand Corporation Mass Shooting Study - https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html 2012 DOD Study - https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a565355.pdf Alexander Scherr Hastings Law Journal - http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hastlj55&div=3&g_sent=1&collection=journals Jerry Nadler 2019 Red Flag Bill - https://reason.com/2019/09/12/this-awful-house-bill-would-promote-gun-confiscation-without-due-process/ ►00:00 Introduction ►03:41 Red Flag Law Essential Facts ►28:50 Baker Acts ►33:25 Conclusion and Upcoming videos ►39:07 Nadler Advocates For Mass Murder ►40:20 Closing and Credits