A California court voids Newsom’s pre-election orders, likely compromising a huge number of ballots; two key pieces of advice for an embattled Donald Trump; and the arrival of Imperial Overstretch.

A California Court Upholds The “Liberty Key” Doctrine Against Gavin Newsom

…striking down as unconstitutional all his general application executive orders, and raising big questions about the validity of all mail-in votes in the state last week.

ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, California Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman ruled in Gallagher and Kiley v. Newsom that Gavin Newsom’s executive order commanding the distribution of mail-in ballots to all registered California voters– the specific focus of the suit– is unconstitutional and void. The language used in that finding, and the reasoning behind it, apply equally to nearly all of Newsom’s executive orders issued under the purported auspices of the California Emergency Services Act (CESA), to include “masking” and “social distancing” and “lockdown” orders.

The court found the CESA capable of being Constitutional only when invoked to suspend the action of an existing statute or make “orders and regulations” which are not of general scope and effect and do not change existing law, or make new law.

The ruling essentially duplicates in substance the ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court last month finding all of Gretchen Whitmer’s edicts since April 30 (and all going forward) unconstitutional and void.

Indeed, Heckman went so far as to expressly enjoin Newsom from any further pretense of authority to “amend, alter or change existing statutory law, or make new statutory law or legislative policy” as he has previously attempted to do in more than 50 C19-related “executive orders”– all of which are now, by the reasoning and conclusions of the court, void ab initio:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 256

I hope the people of California think this through: Your businesses and livelihoods and well-being and dignity have all been destroyed this year by a bunch of ILLEGAL ORDERS from Gavin Newsom and Co. Everyone harmed by these illegal orders– as described above, and through the loss of loved ones to suicide and alcoholism and other pathologies attendant upon isolation and oppression– should be storming the statehouse, figuratively, if not literally.

FURTHER, AND OF INTEREST to the nation as a whole, the nature of Heckman’s ruling raises serious questions about the validity of every vote mailed-in by any Californian who had not previously and properly made application for an absentee ballot. If an executive order was needed to provide for the mailing-in of such ballots (and an order riddled with versions of “notwithstanding any contrary provision of state law”), California’s actual laws probably don’t allow for them.

In fact, the ruling raises questions about the validity of many California votes cast in other forms, as well. Newsom’s order— which is, remember, void ab initio– purported to free California election officials from all manner of legal requirements, which must be assumed to have therefore been ignored…

Maybe California’s legally-cast votes actually gave the state to Trump, or Jorgensen (and changed the composition of the House and the Senate, too). Wouldn’t that be something?

Maybe the same kind of “Covid-crank” executive overreach was done in other states, too, now that I think of it…

HECKMAN’S RULING can be found here. A detailed discussion of why the limits on executive power (and the prohibitions of delegation of legislative power) are what they are, see this.

H/T to the excellent Scott Rovelli for bringing this California court ruling to my attention.


P.S. IT’S GETTING TOWARD THAT TIME OF YEAR… I took advantage of unseasonably warm weather this weekend to put up Christmas lights, and that prompted these very serious questions:

What’s it to be, my fellow Americans? Are you going to let the “COVID cranks” steal Christmas from your kids this year? Are you going to accede to no happy smiles in the stores and the parks and the churches, and instead all those sweet little faces covered with fear masks?

Are you going to let your children’s joyful play together be spoiled, with all of them instead sidling away from each other and keeping their distance lest they catch their deaths, as they’ve been grotesquely told by monsters in government and the media?

Are you going to pretend to be ok with no bustle in the local shops, no wassailing, no caroling, no hugs– ’cause, “if it saves one life”, the death of life as we know it and love it is supposedly “worth it”?

If so, you don’t deserve the high office of American citizenship.

If you own a business and you compel your customers to abide by any of this crap, you deserve to be boycotted and have your business fail.

If you are a pastor or a priest and you don’t welcome your congregants in, barefaced and unafraid and in proper, uninhibited community with one another, you don’t deserve to have a congregation.

At the very beginning of the autocratic usurpations by governors in certain states, I shared the following with you all, which was suited at that time, when the total insignificance of this C19 event was less apparent, and is much more so now, when the facts have shown that the danger from this disease is as slight as it is:

MY WISE AND WELL-READ FRIEND JONESY sent around a wonderful quote from the always excellent C.S. Lewis earlier today that, as Jonesy observed, speaks well to all this panicky nonsense. Here it is (from the 1948 essay, ‘On Living in an Atomic Age’, but Jonesy and I trust everyone will recognize the fit and just substitute “Coronavirus” for “atomic bomb”):

“In one way we think a great deal too much of the atomic bomb. “How are we to live in an atomic age?” I am tempted to reply: “Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.

“In other words, do not let us begin by exaggerating the novelty of our situation. Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways. We had, indeed, one very great advantage over our ancestors; anesthetics; but we have that still. It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty.

“This is the first point to be made: and the first action to be taken is to pull ourselves together. If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things; praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts, not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.”

Pull on your big boy and big girl pants, people! It’s time to shake it off and be done with this hobgoblin nonsense.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

-William Pitt

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”

-Thomas Jefferson

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

-Edward R. Murrow

CARE TO COMMENT on this article (which is permalinked at this address)? Click here.

Aren’t able to do so? Click here to learn how to earn that privilege.

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Set a brushfire– E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents


I’m No Fan Of Donald Trump, But I’ve Got Some Advice For Him, Nonetheless…

…because I AM a big fan of the rule of law, and at this point, helping the one importantly supports the other.

DONALD TRUMP HAS TWO PRODUCTIVE PATHS toward salvaging his presidency, or at least minimizing the harm looming before him personally and America itself at the hands of his enemies if he loses it. Both offer big positives for the rest of us, as well as for Trump himself.

I’ll discuss them each in turn.

FIRST, TRUMP SHOULD ISSUE a couple of pardons right away, starting with a pardon of Julian Assange. That’ll not only be a big blow to the Deep State, but will offer the best chance that all the “Russiagate” hoax (and crimes) evidence will see the light of day. It also offers the best chance that the C19 hoax evidence will be exposed.

These two narrative attacks have been devastating for Trump, and will continue to be. His best hope of regaining the upper hand in all of what’s going on and what lies in store for him and his friends is to see the truth about both laid bare to the light of day. Wikileaks is the proven master of that sort of exposure.

Also in the cards would then be the airing of the Biden influence-peddling crimes. This, too, offers big benefits to Trump and his supporters, as well as to everyone who values the rule of law and real accountability.

And, of course, the corruption and fraud deployed in the election will also be very much on Julian Assange’s radar screen.

THE PARDON SHOULD BE STRAIGHT UP, full and unencumbered. No attempts at securing quid pro quos or saving face.

It’s the right thing to do, and any demand for a “deal” would pollute the atmosphere and be of no value, anyway. Assange will expose the truth because it needs to be exposed, and exposing it is the right thing to do. That’s what he does.

So, DO IT, Orange Man! Release the truth-Kraken!!

And do it NOW, before your enemies can figure out some way of thwarting you.

THERE’S NOTHING TO THINK ABOUT, here. You’ve got the the ultimate weapon against all your persecutors bottled up and useless, and for the foulest of reasons.

After all, Assange committed no crimes. Every honest observer knows this.

Set this paragon of real journalism loose to do what he does best, and which you very much need done. You’ve had nearly the whole “mainstream” media against you from the start, and that’s been a major factor in how things have gone. Julian Assange outpunches all of them combined, and his blows against their corruption will be blows on your behalf, even though he doesn’t give a damn about you personally.

EDWARD SNOWDEN SHOULD GET PARDONED, too. His righteous exposure of real crimes by the NSA has been recognized by Congress and courts across the land for years now.

Snowden’s no longer in a position to do the heavy-lifting on revelations of wrongdoing, but he’s an articulate and very well-informed spokesman for openness and honesty.

Further, like Assange, Snowden is a #1 nemesis of the “intelligence community” which has been chewing on you, Donald, since even before you took office. Pardoning Snowden will stick in that community’s craw like a sideways chicken-bone.

And again, issuing pardons of these good and outrageously persecuted men will not only raise your moral stature and let you hold your head high regardless of what happens going forward while also being a vicious kidney-punch to your foes. It will also be a very high-upside-potential tactical play.

Do it.


HERE’S MY OTHER PIECE OF ADVICE, Donald: Challenge Kamala Harris’ qualification for office. If what is on record about the particulars of her birth is correct, she doesn’t make the cut.

DON’T ROLL YOUR EYES! Don’t shake your head. READ WHAT FOLLOWS, completely and carefully, including all linked materials.

I know that the issue of so-called “birthright citizenship” has been aired in the past, and hooted down by your opponents. But this is not because they are right; it is because they know they are not.

Those opponents hoot down the issue in hope that the whole matter can be deep-sixed without an airing– and hope this even more strongly now that you have a Supreme Court with a majority of law-respecting jurists on board.

Don’t let their calculated and manipulative derision dissuade you.

I’M GOING TO REPOST below my observations on this issue made in this space a few months ago, and trust that this time they will get to you somehow, or that you will this time pay attention:

I’VE RECENTLY SEE CLAIMS that Kamala Harris, while born in the USA, is the child of non-citizens in America merely on student visas. If so then she is not qualified to be vice-president, or even senator, for that matter.

A child of non-citizen parents does not acquire citizenship simply by being born on American soil– myths about so-called “birthright citizenship” notwithstanding. The law on this is perfectly clear and unambiguous; see it laid out and explained here.

AS NOTED IN THAT ABOVE-LINKED ARTICLE AND ANALYSIS, the Wong Kim Ark ruling by the Supreme Court in 1898 which is relied-upon by advocates of the mistaken “birthright citizenship” as supporting their notions, is wrongly decided. The court in that case failed to recognize the distinction between United States and state citizenship that is the heart of the 14th Amendment provision in question– perhaps due to poor briefing by the litigants in the case.

But even if Wong were soundly decided, it would not avail Harris in her claim, if indeed her parents were merely in America on student visas at the time of Harris’ birth.

The Wong court reached its conclusions in Wong’s favor based solely on the legal residency of Wong’s parents, who were found by the court to have been “permitted by the United States to reside here” and to, in fact, have “permanent domicil and residence in the United States”. The court reasoned that in seeking and establishing legal residency Wong’s parents had affirmatively and deliberately relinquished their former allegiances and become allegiant to the USA, thus– and only thus– bringing them under the relevant provisions of the 14th Amendment.

If Harris’s parents were in the country merely on visas, as I understand to be the case, this would not meet the standard laid down by the Wong court.

“Resident” is a condition of specific legal meaning, as stated here, in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856:

RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall’s Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.

Obtaining or being in the country by virtue of a student visa is merely visiting on a deliberately and declared temporary basis, and not for purposes of, or with permission to, establish permanent residency. Entry into a country on a student visa involves no relinquishment of prior national allegiance and replacement of it with allegiance to the USA either affirmatively and deliberately or even casually and by accident, and being here on such a visa does not constitute legal residence.

In fact, particular legal steps must be taken by student visa holders in order to convert their status to one with the potential for lawful residence of the sort on which the Wong court rested its decision. See this for some professional discussion of the subject.

In sum, even if it were not incorrect overall in its finding of a “birthright citizenship” right on behalf of Wong Kim Ark (as it is), on its terms the Wong ruling offers nothing on behalf of Kamala Harris’ claims. If the student visas thing is sound, the Senate should initiate proceedings to evict Harris (and I suppose it should consider examining its votes during the time she has been seated against the possibility that the outcomes of some of the squeakers should be reversed…).

TO ADD A BIT TO THE FORGOING, let me point out the particular importance of a correct understanding of the “birthright citizenship” issue in the context of the citizenship qualification for high Constitutional office (such as is involved in the case of Kamala Harris). That qualification requires that a Vice President or President be a natural born American citizen (at Article II, Section I) for a very good reason.

It is the wise intent of the Founders and Framers that such significant offices be held only by a person meaningfully immersed from birth in the American culture. Only one born to and raised by American parents– themselves immersed from birth in our unique traditions, principles and perspectives; or born again through formal naturalization in love, respect and firm allegiance for those traditions, principles and perspectives– can be qualified to such high positions of trust and honor.

Based on the facts of her birth as I understand them to be, Kamala Harris isn’t qualified to be Vice President (and, since she doubtless has never sought citizenship, is also not qualified to be a Senator, the lesser standard for which nonetheless requires nine years of citizenship prior to holding the office).

SO, DONALD, GET YOUR PEOPLE GOING on this issue. It actually has much to offer America even beyond the simple matter of the validity of the “Biden/Harris” ticket, but that alone should be enough to get you going.

As noted above, opening this can of worms will call down on your head a tornado of opposition.

But don’t worry about that. Just order your lawyers to READ THROUGH EVERYTHING AT THIS LINK (and everything in the foregoing discussion).

Then make them read it again after their mutterings of “That can’t be right” have died away. Then one more time so all the mistaken notions are pushed out, the actual facts are settled in, and they can begin realizing how to make their case.

You actually have it within your grasp to establish a real stature to your presidency, just by pursuit of this important issue alone. Plus, of course, it could pull your chestnuts out of the fire they’re in right now.

CARE TO COMMENT on this article (which is permalinked at this address)? Click here.

Aren’t able to do so? Click here to learn how to earn that privilege.

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Set a brushfire– E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents