Free Republic

You might well be asking yourself, if the FBI withdrew its challenge against Apple, then why are we still talking about FBI v. Apple? Well, the San Bernadino case is over, but there are many, many more cases still pending. The ACLU published an interactive map of locations where the FBI is currently using the All Writs Act to demand assistance from Tech companies. You can view it HERE. So yeah, this matter is far from over.Author’s Note: For an outline of how I think FBI v. Apple will play out, please see HERE.As I’ve written before, there are...

..., Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has been ruled mentally unfit and cannot stop the sale of his NBA team. It was announced late Thursday night that Donald's wife Shelly had reached a deal with former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to sell the Clippers for a record $2 billion. According to ESPN, the papers were signed shortly before midnight.

In their petition challenging the Voter ID ballot question, the petitioners make three main arguments, which are all easily overcome. First, they argue that “[t]he ballot question is unconstitutionally misleading because it states the amendment would require photo identification from ‘all voters,’ when the amendment actually states photo identification is required from those who vote ‘in person.’”[11] There is nothing misleading about “all voters.” Based on the text of the amendment, “all voters voting in person” will need to present photographic identification and those not voting in person will, at the very least, “be subject to a substantially equivalent identity”...

Since my last report, many people have asked why the definition in Minor v. Happersett of a “natural-born citizen” (as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens) is binding legal precedent. The answer is in the Court’s holding that Virginia Minor was a US citizen…because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. That part of the actual holding is listed in the official syallbus of the case. And furthermore, Minor was the first case to hold that women are equal citizens to men. To this day, that case is still cited as...

"US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT. The title of this article is correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States. Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the...

With fighting intensifying between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza, the Arab League on Sunday announced plans to ask the UN to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza. Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305545#ixzz1JDWz1jI1

This could not have been more predictable: The junior partner in the Norwegian government, the Socialist Left Party of Kristin Halvorsen, (Sosialistisk Venstreparti), plans to vote on a measure calling for military action against Israel if it decides to act against the Hamas in Gaza… Here is the less than lucid reasoning behind the motion: The credibility of the world community in its confrontation with the Gadafi regime is undermined when there is no reaction against other states in the region who commit injustices against civil population.

The Garden State has a shield law for journalists, meaning the government cannot force reporters or opinion writers to reveal their sources. There is nothing more vigorously defended among journalists than the right to keep secret one’s anonymous sources in service of “the public’s right to know.” The decades-long secret identity of “Deep Throat” in The Washington Post’s Watergate exposés is the standard of that journalistic principle. But a New Jersey state appellate court last weekruled that a woman named Shellee Hale is not a “real” journalist, but just a blogger, so is not protected by the state’s shield law.

Why don't we start a letter writing campaign to the court to encourage them to give solid, real sentences to these monsters and not give them a slap on the wrist? By doing that we'll ensure that justice is done.

Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point. But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times. But that’s exactly what has happened this week. A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UConn. They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION. They have been sending me good stuff for quite a while now. A wonderful contributor to comments at this blog – Kamira – is part of that...

Back in December, this blog broke the story that former US President Chester Arthur lied – in newspaper interviews with the Brooklyn Eagle – about his parental heritage. These lies covered up the fact that Chester Arthur, at the time of his birth, was a British Subject due to the fact that his father, William Arthur, was not a US citizen at the time Chester was born. This fact, had it been discovered back when Chester Arthur was running for Vice President, would have been an impediment to his nomination. As fate would have it, Chester Arthur became President when...

“We believe that the coup was not legal,” the president told reporters on Monday, “and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there.” The administration has not yet officially designated the overthrow of Zelaya as a coup d’etat, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We do think that this has evolved into a coup.” The official view of the transition makes a difference to the amount of U.S. aid that can be sent to Honduras. Regardless of the official position, however, the president apparently enjoyed saying the word coup, perhaps to show off his...

There has been a lot of debate on the potential prosecution of Bush Administration officials who offered legal opinions supporting waterboarding -- with some even calling for investigations of high-ranking officials like Dick Cheney. However, one thing that hasn't been given the attention it deserves is the precedent it would set if we were to criminalize national security decisions. Hence, I've finally decided to test out the time machine I've been building in my basement. For instance, the following Associated Press story was filed on April 23, 2013, and if it sounds Orwellian, well, it is: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TO...

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JUAN MARTINEZ;BYRON BECK; DAN O'NEIL; STEVE KENISON; RUPERT KINNARD; SCOTT STAPLEY; MARC ACITO; FLOYD SKLAVER; BECKY HANSON; KATHY FLYNN; CRISTINA CARAVACA; SANDRA NARANJO; MICHELLE SNYDER; HEIDI THORSTAD; DIANE GROFF; LIZ CAHILL; TIM SMITH; KENT KULLBY; KELLY BURKE; DOLORES DOYLE; DANIEL E. H. BRYANT; and GLENNA SHEPHERD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THEODORE R. KULONGOSKI, Governor of the State of Oregon; and STATE OF OREGON, Defendants-Respondents, and DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE COALITION PAC, an Oregon political action committee; TIMOTHY NASHIF; MICHAEL WHITE; and DENNIS R. TUURI, Intervenors-Respondents. Marion County Circuit Court 05C11023 A130818 Joseph C....

WASHINGTON - In returning $850,000 to donors associated with a disgraced fundraiser, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sets a significant new standard for how campaigns should respond in the face of potential scandal. Clinton's decision also underscores the price — financial and political — that her campaign is paying for failing to spot trouble with the fundraiser, Norman Hsu, even after receiving a warning. The campaign announced it would now conduct background checks on its fundraisers, an extraordinary and potentially time consuming step. By returning the money, Clinton also puts pressure on presidential rivals and other politicians with rainmakers who have...

A German doctor has been ordered to pay child support to a patient who got pregnant with a contraceptive implant...

It is an article of faith on the Left and among its fellow travelers that the Bush administration stole two elections, made war on Iraq for venal reasons, tortured hapless foreigners, and conducted illegal surveillance of innocent Americans. A corollary of this mindset is that the press, primarily the Washington Post and The New York Times, has a right, indeed a duty, to print whatever they want about the administration—even if the information compromises national security. Not true. The press is not exempt from laws that apply to everyone else. The press is not exempt from laws protecting our national...

From our intrepid correspondent on site down in Texas, Crawford Activist, we have this photo of Cindy Sheehan registering to vote in the local post office last Tuesday: Crawford Activist reports that Mother Sheehan then left Crawford late Tuesday afternoon to attend a conference in Seattle she is headlining. Ms. Sheehan is supposed to return to Crawford Friday morning in time to protest the RNC fundraiser near the President's ranch. Then Cindy is off again to give a speech in Washington, DC on Saturday. It seems she just can't resist those speaking fees.But hasn't our hero mother broken Texas law...

Washington -- Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush has asserted almost unlimited authority to define the rules of what he calls "a different kind of war." And, faced with the Supreme Court's rejection of administration policies on "enemy combatants" Thursday, the White House signaled that it had no intention of backing down. Meeting the Supreme Court's objections required little more than having Congress put its stamp of approval on a system of military tribunals, the White House suggested. And some congressional Republicans quickly agreed.

U.S. Supreme Court SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 442 U.S. 735 SMITH v. MARYLAND. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 78-5374. Argued March 28, 1979. Decided June 20, 1979. The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted,...