Peter Munsing Law Office P.C.
October 2 at 9:59 AM ·
BERKS COUNTY WILL BEGIN MAILING BALLOTS OUT TODAY OR MONDAY.
IF YOU GET YOURS, FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS. HERE'S A VIDEO.
IF YOU REQUESTED A BALLOT BY MAIL BUT NOW WANT TO VOTE IN PERSON, YOU HAVE TO WAIT TO GET YOUR BALLOT. YOU CAN THEN MAIL IT OR DROP IT OFF.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpHR3MM4NuU
Voters should be permitted to go into the election office and ask for a ballot and vote it right there if ballots are available, IF THEY DID NOT ELECT TO RECEIVE IT BY MAIL.
IF A VOTER HAS REQUESTED A BALLOT BY MAIL THEY HAVE TO WAIT TO GET THAT BALLOT. THEY CAN THEN DROP IT OFF IN PERSON IF THEY WANT.
Someone who has not requested a ballot is to be able to do the entire transaction in one trip, apply for mail in ballot, receive it at the office, mark it, seal it into the secrecy envelope, put it in the outer envelope, fill out the declaration and return it there.
IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, LET THE BERKS DEMS OR MYSELF KNOW.
BERKS COUNTY WILL BEGIN MAILING BALLOTS OUT TODAY OR MONDAY.
IF YOU GET YOURS, FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS. HERE'S A VIDEO.
IF YOU REQUESTED A BALLOT BY MAIL BUT NOW WANT TO VOTE IN PERSON, YOU HAVE TO WAIT TO GET YOUR BALLOT. YOU CAN THEN MAIL IT OR DROP IT OFF.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpHR3MM4NuU
Voters should be permitted to go into the election office and ask for a ballot and vote it right there if ballots are available, IF THEY DID NOT ELECT TO RECEIVE IT BY MAIL.
IF A VOTER HAS REQUESTED A BALLOT BY MAIL THEY HAVE TO WAIT TO GET THAT BALLOT. THEY CAN THEN DROP IT OFF IN PERSON IF THEY WANT.
Someone who has not requested a ballot is to be able to do the entire transaction in one trip, apply for mail in ballot, receive it at the office, mark it, seal it into the secrecy envelope, put it in the outer envelope, fill out the declaration and return it there.
IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, LET THE BERKS DEMS OR MYSELF KNOW.
This may be something we need to look at.
BLOOMBERG.COM
Responding to a Contested Election, Step by Step
Cass Sunstein
August 31 at 1:12 PM ·
What if we don't know who's president, after Nov. 3? (First of 2 columns; turns out that some of these issues are really complicated, and hard to wrap one's mind around.)
Cass Sunstein
August 31 at 1:12 PM ·
What if we don't know who's president, after Nov. 3? (First of 2 columns; turns out that some of these issues are really complicated, and hard to wrap one's mind around.)
Well worth reading in these times of battering the foundations of necessary administration in a modern society. The self-identified Ayn Randists that have as acolytes some in the Court system, appealing to the "Original intent" followers rarely give any serious contemplation to the end result of their schemes, if they succeeded in bringing full on deregulation to fruition. (Note the effect they have had shown by the DOJ's recommendations on changing the Administrative Procedures Act).
NYTIMES.COM
Opinion | The Very Structure of Modern Government Is Under Legal Assault
Cass Sunstein
September 15 at 6:10 AM ·
In defense of the modern regulatory state - and the rule of law.
Cass Sunstein
September 15 at 6:10 AM ·
In defense of the modern regulatory state - and the rule of law.
This case is sure to be appealed but given that the census is called for in the Constitution it will be interesting to see how those professing to be "originalists," espousing "original intent of the framers" as the guide can justify shorting the census.
After all, it's Biblical, in a way!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/trump-census-deadline.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20200925&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=cta®i_id=78335973&segment_id=39013&user_id=7af1669c86f83dba908e5499e5092b8d
NYTIMES.COM
Federal Judge Bars Trump Administration From Ending Census Early
This case is important for more reasons than just the visa issue. Here's why:
PROSPECT.ORG
A Win for the Administrative Procedure Act
When a government agency takes action--or fails to act--that can lead to litigation. Here's a roundup of some of the recent Federal cases involving issues of administrative law--the law that governs the actions of agencies, whether they are making rules, changing rules, or ruling on specific cases they have brought or others have brought:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/high-court-rulings-highlight-trumps-administrative-law-stumbles
NEWS.BLOOMBERGLAW.COM
High Court Rulings Highlight Trump’s Administrative Law Stumbles
this should be the focus. We know the Roe dance each side will do--this is getting no coverage, from the press or the Senators.
THEGUARDIAN.COM
The US supreme court may soon become plutocracy's greatest defender | David Sirota
THEATLANTIC.COM
‘Religious Equality’ Is Transforming American Law
WASHINGTONPOST.COM
Analysis | Trump’s effort to retain power is powered by inaccurate and nonsensical jargon
HOME.TREASURY.GOV
Treasury and IRS Issue Guidance Clarifying the Deductibility of Expenses Where a Business Received a PPP Loan | U.S. Department of the Treasury
Peter Munsing
23 hrs ·
Call AND WRITE your Congressperson & both Senators! They can and should stop the IRS from moving the goalposts on small businesses.
Here's the issue: Congress funded PPP (& EIDL ) loans for Small Businesses. But in November, around Thanksgiving, the IRS says "your expenses we told you to use the PPP loans for--no deduction."
This will hammer many small businesses, especially bars and restaurants, that are barely hanging on!
When you think about it it sorta makes sense--but sorta not. Congress could quickly--at no expense--quickly pass a bill to change this and help hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of small businesses.
It would certainly be a good small business/small ag issue for Dems to push. Let the Republicans tell small businesses they should pay more taxes.
The bill would be short--1 to 2 paragraphs. Get it out of the House committee fast, have it put pressure on the Senators. Let Mc Connell tell farmers, horse businesses, small bus in Ky that they get to pay more taxes.
Congress needs to show it can move fast. A few paragraphs is all they need. Tell them to do it now! And then call them. Remember, email, but copy and paste that to a hard copy letter--that has a physical presence, and sacks of mail on this tell the Congressperson or Senator it won't wait!
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1187
Ihttps://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2020/nov/ppp-loan-forgiveness-irs-safe-harbor.html
I don't see the Court taking it. There are significant issues of States rights and justiciability. But there should be a push to have Rudy Giuliani argue the case.
POLITICO.COM
Trump looks to jump into Texas case to overturn election results
POLITICO
December 9 at 9:00 PM ·
Trump is seeking to intervene in a Supreme Court case brought by the Texas AG that tries to toss the results in a handful of battleground states that the president lost.
It's his latest, and potentially last, long-shot legal avenue to overturn Biden’s win.
Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act --however the treatment by the Supreme Court will likely contain language that will find its way to domestic sovereign immunity cases and Federal Tort Claims and other claims against the United States.
DIRECTORY.LIBSYN.COM
The Past, Present and Future of Sovereign Immunity
Lawfare
December 11, 2020 at 7:00 AM ·
This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.
Again it needs to be stressed the court finds 1) no violation of Georgia law 2) NO IRREGULARITIES , 3) NO EVIDENCE
So when Senator Cruz & others say they want to "air the evidence" there isn't anything to air.
NYTIMES.COM
A federal judge in Atlanta denied a last-minute effort by Trump to decertify Biden’s victory in Georgia.
The New York Times
January 5 at 1:40 PM ·
A U.S. judge in Atlanta denied a last-minute effort by President Trump to decertify Georgia’s presidential election results on Tuesday, handing Trump yet another courtroom loss.
An excellent article regarding a decision that erred on the side of the congregation against the health of society. Interesting note: the Israeli courts ruled differently.
NYBOOKS.COM
When Religious Liberty Collides with Public Health
The New York Review of Books
December 8, 2020 at 12:38 PM ·
The law professor and civil liberties advocate Burt Neuborne writes: “The hard First Amendment question raised by the New York case is how sure a reviewing judge must be about the government’s assessment of risk before upholding a regulation limiting indoor worship in a time of a potentially lethal pandemic.”
Given that the cases lacked any foundation I would not be surprised if they were all dismissed without opinion, per curiam. Certainly, I don't see the Supreme Court wanting to get in the middle of a mess before the innauguration.
THEHILL.COM
Supreme Court won't fast-track review of Trump election lawsuits
The Hill
January 11 at 10:15 AM ·
BREAKING: The Supreme Court on Monday denied President Trump's request to fast-track consideration of several lawsuits challenging the election results in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and rebuffed similar suits brought by pro-Trump attorneys. The court announced its determination in an unsigned order that did not disclose the justices' voting breakdown or rationale, which is how the Supreme Court typically handles denials of such requests.
If this gets anywhere--which given the speech and debate clause is unlikely---it will wind up in the courts and I think because it is based on statements outside a court, that no matter how reprehensible disbarment won't be approved.
Now, if either were charged and convicted of a felony, that might be a loss of license.
At best they will receive a reprimand, which is serious but not the loss of the ability to practice law.
THEHILL.COM
Nearly 6,000 lawyers and law students call for disbarment proceedings against Cruz and Hawley
The Hill
January 11 at 11:45 AM ·
A coalition of nearly 6,000 law students and lawyers are calling for Republican Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz to be disbarred for leading an objection to President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory, saying it helped spark the Capitol riot.
“Senators Hawley and Cruz directly incited the January 6th insurrection, repeating dangerous and unsubstantiated statements regarding the election and abetting the lawless behavior of President Trump. A violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol. Five people have died,” the petition reads.
WASHINGTONPOST.COM
Analysis | 199 legal experts say Senate must not acquit Trump over constitutionality issue
Washington Post
February 12 at 1:30 PM ·
The letter, which was signed by several prominent conservatives, follows predecessors which argued the the trial was constitutional and that Trump's First Amendment defense doesn't hold up.
The Trump Team's openings weren't exactly a wow! Tough to argue to that jury that it was a little harmless mischief. What was with arguing it would "disenfranchise" Trump voters? That train left the station in November, when Trump lost bigly!
DIRECTORY.LIBSYN.COM
An Impeachment Trial Preview
Lawfare
February 8 at 7:00 AM ·
The Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump—the sequel—gets underway this week when the House impeachment managers and Trump's new defense team spar on the Senate floor under the gavel of Senator Patrick Leahy. What should we expect from this second round of impeachment trial? For a preview, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Molly Reynolds, Lawfare's congressional guru and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; Lawfare's managing editor Quinta Jurassic; and Lawfare's chief operating officer David Priess. They talked about what rules are going to apply this time and whether they will be different from the last time around, whether there will be witnesses, what will be different with Senator Leahy presiding, how the president is likely to present his defense and how he might scuttle his lawyers' efforts.
t is significant is that neither Justice Amy Coney Barrett nor Justice Cavanaugh --both nominated by the former administration--said the cases should be heard.
As the Court says it does not issue "advisory opinions" the position of Alito, Gorsuch & Thomas is curious.
WASHINGTONPOST.COM
Supreme Court won’t take up challenge to Pennsylvania presidential election results
Given the makeup of the Court it's hard to determine what the position will be. Of interest will be whether the government's attorney--the Solicitor General--decides not to defend, which happened with the former administration.
WASHINGTONPOST.COM
Supreme Court agrees to hear challenges to Trump’s abortion, green-card rules
That's it--hopefully Jim Cox, David Argall and all the others who participated in this farce will now turn to real legislation for our real needs.
WASHINGTONPOST.COM
Supreme Court won’t take up challenge to Pennsylvania presidential election results
Washington Post
February 22 at 10:27 AM ·
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away Republican challenges to the presidential elections results in Pennsylvania, refusing to take up a months-long dispute over extending the deadline in that state for receiving mail-in ballots.
there's now audio coverage of the oral arguments. This one would be well worth the listen!
NYTIMES.COM
A Supreme Court Test for What’s Left of the Voting Rights Act
The New York Times
Yesterday at 11:25 AM ·
As Republican state lawmakers around the nation are working furiously to enact laws making it harder to vote, the Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear its most important election case in almost a decade.
An interesting turnabout as many had been predicting that the Supreme Court would not find that areas where people gather that are private property were so "public" that the First Amendment would apply (think: shopping centers.....and the internet).
This is significant because with the Internet functioning as a public billboard, there is a question of the degree to which people have First Amendment rights and the extent to which their speech can be monitored or excluded.
Here's the Supreme Court opinion itself:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
THEFIRE.ORG
In 8-1 ruling, Supreme Court allows students’ free speech zone lawsuit to proceed
Both the debate about who shall and who may decide content--if anyone--where, and when inform this article. Note my suggestion in the comments.
DIRECTORY.LIBSYN.COM
Content Moderation and the First Amendment for Dummies
Lawfare
March 11 at 7:00 AM ·
On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, the Lawfare Podcast’s miniseries on disinformation and misinformation, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Genevieve Lakier, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School and First Amendment expert. It’s basically impossible to have a conversation about content moderation without someone crying “First Amendment!” at some point. But the cultural conception of the First Amendment doesn’t always match the legal conception. Evelyn and Quinta spoke with Genevieve about what First Amendment doctrine actually says, how its history might be quite different from what you think and what the dynamism of the doctrine over time—and the current composition of the Supreme Court—might suggest about the First Amendment’s possible futures for grappling with the internet.
