Video introduction to Episode 56
Podbean audio introduction to Episode 56
Episode 56. August 21, 2020
CLP Topic: Democrat Police State Socialism
What Happens to the Nation if Judge Sullivan is Successful In His Prosecution of General Flynn? Marxist Critical Legal Theory as The Judge, The Jury, and The Prosecution.
Introduction.
Our Citizens Liberty News Network podcast today is titled, What Happens to the Nation if Judge Sullivan is Successful In His Prosecution of General Flynn? Marxist Critical Legal Theory as The Judge, The Jury, and The Prosecution.
We explore the significance and political implications of Judge Sullivan’s refusal to grant a dismissal in the Flynn case by placing his behavior into the larger context of systemic judicial black racism.
We argue that judicial black racism is a sub-category of Marxist Critical Legal Logic.
The unifying principle of all Black judicial racists is that the entire American society is governed by “white supremacy,” and that the job of Black lawyers and jurists is to use the judicial system to implement their ideology of communism, in order to eradicate the existing ideology of American individualism.
The term “systemic” is used to mean that the white racism is a permanent institutional part of the American society, which existed before the country was organized.
Because the white racism is systemic, it cannot be eradicated by policy changes.
The only way to rid the society of systemic white racism is to eradicate the society and start over, as a communist nation.
The moral logic of the critical legal communist ideology is provided by a Black Marxist writer for The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates. In his February 8, 2016, article, he states that his end goal for America is based upon his assumption that communism is a better mode of social organization than individualism.
Oddly, he criticizes another socialist writer, Cedric Johnson, for not supporting reparations, because Johnson is skeptical that reparations would overcome racism.
Coates states,
“Johnson denigrates recompense (reparations) by asserting that the demands for reparations have not “yielded one tangible improvement in the lives of the majority of African Americans. This is also true of single-payer health care, calls to break up big banks, free public universities, and any other leftist policy that has yet to come to pass. For a program to have effect, it has to actually be put in effect. Why would reparations be any different?”
Coates states his unverified assumption about the moral superiority of communism by stating that communism would be a better world,
“white supremacy is a force in and of itself, a vector often intersecting with class, but also operating independent of it. I think a world with equal access to safe, quality, and affordable education; with the right to health care; with strong restrictions on massive wealth accumulation; with guaranteed childcare; and with access to the full gamut of birth-control, including abortion, would be a better world.”
Like all Marxists, Coates assumes that he has the moral authority to declare that communism is superior to individualism. Because he possesses moral authority, he, therefore, has the moral arrogance to impose his view on non-socialists.
This perspective of elite superiority to make decisions on behalf of all citizens is common to all forms of Marxism. The common way of stating this proposition is that communist elites know better than the common citizens what is in the best interests of the common citizens.
In Coates’ application, he “knows” that communism is better than individualism, and he is willing to use his superior intellect to impose communism on common citizens.
Whereas, Coates criticizes Johnson for opposing reparations, Coates promotes a communist system that has been implemented, and has failed miserably to improve the lives of common citizens, throughout history.
Paradoxically, for Coates, the evidence in support of reparations does not exist because it has never been tried, whereas the moral superiority of communism is contradicted by the evidence that does exist, wherever it has been tried.
His criticism of Johnson is based upon a distinction among Marxists about the importance of racism versus the Marxist emphasis on capitalist class exploitation.
Coates states,
“Johnson doesn’t reject reparations because he doesn’t think they would work, but because he doesn’t believe specific black injury through racism actually exists. He favors a “more Marxist class- oriented analysis” over the notion of treating “black poverty as fundamentally distinct from white poverty.”
Coates continues his criticism of Johnson by stating,
“whiteness confers knowable, quantifiable privileges, regardless of class—much like “manhood” confers knowable, quantifiable privileges, regardless of race. White supremacy is neither a trick, nor a device, but one of the most powerful shared interests in American history.”
For Coates, the most important enemy is White supremacy, not capitalism.
This important distinction between Coates’ emphasis on white supremacy, and Johnson’s Marxist class exploitation is important to understanding Judge Sullivan’s behavior in prosecuting Flynn.
Using Coates’ distinction between Marxism and Black racism, Sullivan would be called a “Black racist,” who uses his judicial position to extract revenge on Flynn, a White supremacist enemy, who is aligned with a White supremacist President, Donald Trump.
Sullivan is not a Marxist, like Johnson, but a Black racist, like Coates.
Sullivan deploys Marxist critical legal theory from the bench to target his White enemies.
We conclude that the ideological differences between Marxist critical legal logic and the legal logic of individual natural rights are irreconcilable.
Coates does not aim at implementing simple universal social programs, as does Johnson, to alleviate racism, he aims at eradicating the entire white supremacist American society, in order to implement his version of communism.
The BLM Handbook on White Supremacy, “me and white supremacy workbook,” explains that white racism is endemic to the functioning of America.
No social programs are capable of alleviating the original sin of slavery and the ensuing mindset of white supremacy.
The BLM Handbook states,
“The legal abolition of slavery did not abolish the slavemaster’s mindset. People of colour are suffering daily from the effects of historic and modern colonialism. White supremacy is an ideology, a paradigm, an institutional system, and a world view that you have been born into by virtue of your whiteness. I am not talking about the physical colour of your skin being bad. I am talking about the historic and modern legislating, societal conditioning and systemic institutionalising of the construction of whiteness as inherently superior than people of other races.”
Sullivan, like the other Black judicial racists cited below, is a warrior in the war against natural rights individualism. Their unifying code language is “systemic white supremacy”, as actualized in the violence and riots of Black Lives Matter.
Their target is the eradication of individual rights.
The meting out of justice, for a Black racist, depends on the Black racist political ideology of the judges, not on the law and the facts.
For example, in one case, the two conservative Republican D. C. Court of Appeals judges who heard the Flynn mandamus appeal, ruled that Sullivan should dismiss the case.
In a concurrent case, the two socialist Democrat D. C. Court of Appeals judges who heard the Judicial Watch mandamus case against Hillary, ruled that Hillary could escape further testimony.
The difference in the judicial opinions in the two cases is based upon the difference between the collectivism of Marxist critical legal theory and the individualism of natural rights law.
Our podcast is the introduction to a much longer article, available at www.clpnewsnetwork, for free for one week.
Our entire historical archive of articles and podcasts is available for an annual subscription of $30.
The other sections in this podcast are:
Section 1. Systemic Judicial Black Racism.
Section 2. The Linkage Between Judicial Systemic Black Racism and Marxist Critical Legal Theory.
Section 3. Sullivan’s Refusal to Dismiss as A Black Judicial Racist.
Conclusion: America, As You Know It, Is Over.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the Citizens Liberty Party News Network, for August 24, 2020.
Section 1. Systemic Judicial Black Racism.
Systemic judicial black racism is used by Black judges and lawyers to correct the sins of slavery. The use of the law as a weapon against white supremacy turns the formal natural rights legal logic of “innocent until proven guilty” into “guilty before the fact.”
The job of Black Judicial Racists is to end white supremacy, as captured by the public school teacher, in the BLM Handbook, who states,
“I’m a white woman and a public school teacher. I was passionate and social-justice oriented before, but the challenge helped me see and be real about how I am part of the problem, the ways in which I reinforce the system of oppression, and how I need to be more aware of what I do and say that reinforces it. My job is powerful in ending white supremacy or perpetuating it.”
For example, Benes Aldana, president of the National Judicial College, which trains Black judges in court procedures, states,
“Courts must speak out “clearly” against systemic racism in our criminal justice system and make much needed corrections…Systemic racism has afflicted our justice system for far too long. Accountability has been lacking. The work to correct attitudes and prevent further discrimination, pain and death must begin now…As judges and lawyers, we are called to keep the promise engraved in the West Pediment of the U.S. Supreme Court: EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.”
Benes Aldana, President of National Judicial College.
Aldana supports his opinion of the existence of systemic white racism by releasing the results of his survey, that “proves” the existence of white systemic racism, throughout the entire judicial system.
He reports that,
“The majority of judges believe that racism is systemic in the United States’ criminal justice system, according to the NJC’s monthly survey of its alumni.”
Aldana states, .
“The National Judicial College conducted an unscientific poll showing that 65 percent of the judges polled found they believe systemic racism exists within the criminal justice apparatus, which includes police, courts, prosecutors, prisons and probation.”
In the same way that Aldana suggests that white racism is system-wide, in the police, courts, prisons, and probation, Aldana uses his survey to demonstrate that systemic judicial black racism also exists system-wide in the judicial community of Black judges and lawyers.
The U. S. judicial system is infected, system-wide, by Black judges and lawyers who embrace the Marxist ideology of using the judicial system to eradicate systemic white racism and “white supremacy.”
Louisiana Supreme Chief Justice Bernette Joshua Johnson links the justifiable violence and riots of Black Lives Matters to her interpretation of white systemic racism.
Johnson states,
“As Chief Justice and chief administrator of our state’s courts, I readily admit our justice system falls far short of the equality it espouses. And I see many of its worst injustices meted out in the criminal legal system. Inequities there range from courts being funded with fines levied on poor, disproportionately African American defendants, to our longtime use of Jim Crow laws to silence African American jurors and make it easier to convict African American defendants. We need only look at the glaring disparities between the rate of arrests, severity of prosecutions and lengths of sentences for drug offenses in poor and African American communities in comparison to those in wealthier White communities, to see how we are part of the problem. Is it any wonder why many people have little faith that our legal system is designed to serve them or protect them from harm? Is it any wonder why they have taken to the streets to demand that it does?”
Louisiana Supreme Chief Justice Bernette Joshua Johnson
New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore cites the repeated injustices and institutional racism of the judicial system as justification for the New York violence and riots, by noting,
“The death of George Floyd, and the issues it has brought into harsh focus, are a painful reminder of the repeated injustices and institutional racism that have long undermined the values and unity of our nation.”
New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore.
The Illinois Supreme Court issued a statement on white racism, stating,
“Racism exists, whether it be actualized as individual racism, institutional racism or structural racism, and it undermines our democracy, the fair and equitable administration of justice, and severely diminishes individual constitutional protections and safeguards of full citizenship with the attendant rights and benefits sacred to all. People of color have no less expectation of fairness, equity and freedom from racial discrimination than others, yet they are continually confronted with racial injustices that the Courts have the ability to nullify and set right.”
The proof of the existence of systemic white racism is never given by the proponents of systemic judicial black racism. They state their ideology as a matter of irrefutable fact. They deeply believe that systemic racism exists, but because of their moral arrogance, they are not required to document its existence.
While Black judges and lawyers never document the existence of systemic racism, they often point to economic disparities between Blacks and Whites, and assume that all observers can see the truth of their purported relationship, as self-evident.
NAACP President Derrick Johnson explains that the evidence of systemic racism is self-evident, much like Jefferson said that the existence of natural rights were self-evident.
Johnson states,
“This is not about one incident. (the killing of Floyd).This is about the systemic and pervasive nature of racism in this nation that must be addressed…Systemic racism, also called structural racism or institutional racism, are the systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantages African Americans.”
In linking his idea of systemic racism to economic disadvantage, Johnson provides the linkage between the allegation of white supremacy of Black racists and Marxist critical legal theory.
Marxist critical legal theory posits a relationship between capitalist class exploitation of common citizens by the economic elite. Marxist theory, with its priority of capitalist economic exploitation, subsumes systemic judicial black racism.
For example, Shayanne Gal, et. al., in their Business Insider article titled, “26 simple charts to show friends and family who aren’t convinced racism is still a problem in America,” uses economic data to make their case of the existence of “white supremacy.”
They begin by describing systemic racism.
They state,
“It’s called “systemic” racism because it’s ingrained in nearly every way people move through society in the policies and practices at institutions like banks, schools, companies, government agencies, and law enforcement…Extensive academic research and data collected by the federal government and researchers has documented numerous ways that Black Americans experience life in the United States differently from their white counterparts… These 26 charts show the extent of racial disparities in America, in areas like employment, wealth, education, home ownership, healthcare, and incarceration.”
One of their charts describes unemployment rates between all Black workers and all White workers.
They state,
“The unemployment rate has also spiked for all racial groups in the US during the coronavirus pandemic, and is especially high for Black Americans.”
Their chart is reproduced below:
The 2% difference in unemployment rates in 2018 is taken by Black racists as irrefutable evidence of systemic white racism. To deny that reality and interpretation of the chart is considered to be even further evidence of white racist supremacy.
Another chart describes the difference between Black and White workers in professional and managerial employment.
They explain that the differences in occupational employment are due to systemic racism,
“This, in part, can be explained by racist hiring practices that kept Blacks out of business for decades under Jim Crow. It can also be explained by more subtle forms of prejudice today.”
In the logic of judicial Black racism, the White people did not “earn” their occupational positions, they stole their positions as a result of white privilege.
In the language of the BLM Handbook, all White people are complicit in perpetuating white supremacy, and all White people are, therefore, guilty before the fact.
As noted by the BLM Handbook,
“White privilege is unearned advantages that are granted because of one’s whiteness or ability to ‘pass’ as white. White privilege is separate from, but can intersect with, class privilege, gender privilege, sexuality privilege, age privilege, able-bodied privilege, or any other types of privileges. You (White people) have been complicit in a system that has been purposely designed to benefit you through unearned privileges, at the expense of BIPOC (Black people, Indigenous people and People of Colour).”
It is this moral absolutism and moral arrogance of Marxist Critical Legal Theory that allows a Black judge like Sullivan to become the judge, the jury, and the prosecution because of his interpretation of his role to extract revenge on White supremacists.
In Sullivan’s interpretation of the rule of law, Flynn is White, and he is, therefore, guilty.
The judge in the Flynn case is Sullivan. The jury in this case is Sullivan. The prosecution, in the absence of the DOJ, is Sullivan.
Sullivan, as a Black racist, possesses a unique perspective of the law, simply and solely because of his moral arrogance that Flynn is White, and therefore, the case cannot be dismissed until revenge for white supremacy has been extracted.
Section 2. The Linkage Between Judicial Systemic Black Racism and Marxist Critical Legal Theory.
Black systemic judicial racism is a component of a bigger legal movement in America called Marxist Critical Legal Theory, or “crit” for short.
As noted above, Marxists disagree among themselves which comes first, white supremacy or capitalist class exploitation.
The Marxist perspective is more encompassing that systemic judicial black racism, and allows for the language of Marxist legal theory to be used by both ideological camps.
We argue that Judge Sullivan, and the 6 Democrat judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals who will decide the Flynn dismissal case are Marxists legal critical jurists.
Critical legal theory claims that the capitalist class uses laws, and the judicial system, to maintain American capitalist power structures.
The mission, or job, of crit is to use the judicial system to create a more “humane, egalitarian, and democratic society.”
In their logic, the term “democratic” does not mean citizen participation in self-government. Rather, it means democratic equality in economic exchanges.
The main criticism of Marxist critical legal theory is that the formal rules of judicial civil procedure and legislative process vary, according to the ideological predisposition of the participants.
Crits claim that the neutral language and institutions, operated through civil law process and procedures mask relationships of power and control.
The emphasis on capitalist society individualism within the law similarly hides patterns of power relationships while making it more difficult for Marxists to summon up a sense of community and human interconnection, called “class consciousness.”
Crits believe that legal decisions are variable and capricious, based upon maintaining the power of the capitalist class. In Marxist legal theory, Black people are an identity group oppressed by the capitalist class.
According to Marxist Black judicial racists, the legal decisions of judges and lawyers reflect the predominate influence of white racism, and the all-encompassing white supremacy, which is a component of power of the capitalist class to maintain its privilege.
Proponents of Crit believe that the law supports the interests of the capitalist class, who create the law to benefit their own class interests.
The link between systemic judicial Black racism and Marxist critical legal theory is that the laws created by the capitalist class create permanent disadvantages for Black people.
According to the Harvard Law School publication, the Bridge, this linkage can be seen as:
“(Combining progressive political struggles for racial justice with critiques of the conventional legal and scholarly norms which are themselves viewed as part of the illegitimate hierarchies that need to be changed. Scholars, most of whom are themselves persons of color, challenge the ways that race and racial power are constructed by law and culture. One key focus of critical race theorists is a regime of white supremacy and privilege maintained despite the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.”
In Marxist legal theory, the wealthy and the powerful use the laws and the entire judicial system as an instrument for oppression in order to maintain their place in the capitalist hierarchy.
Like judicial Black racists, the Marxists want to eradicate the entire hierarchical structures of capitalist society and they use the law, in a jujitsu fashion, as a tool in achieving this goal.
The strategy of the Crits is to use language that is common to the history of judicial procedure to mean something entirely different, like the term “democratic.”
Roberto Unger calls this strategy the “deviationist doctrine,” which can involve transferring arguments and practices that are familiar and accepted in one context to a different context where they could produce dramatic change.
Unger uses the term “workplace democracy” as an example; the wide appeal of democratic norms and practices in politics are transferred to the workplace in hopes of implementing a communist society.
In their use of the term, workplace democracy means communism.
According to the Harvard’s the Bridge, the use of Unger’s transference strategy allows Marxist legal activists and Black racist judges, to use the judicial system to produce social change and social justice.
Their target is to destroy the jurisprudence of individual rights and replace individual rights with collective group rights, which inure to members of disadvantaged groups.
One reason that the Gorsuch decision in Bostock departs from the traditional equal rights before the law is that Gorsuch deploys the Marxist critical legal logic definition of rights.
His logic is that “because of” sex redefines the concept of individual natural rights.
Prior to Gorsuch, natural rights inured to individual citizens, because they were citizen members of the United States.
After Gorsuch, rights inure to gays and trans people because they are members of collectivist identity group, defined by Marxist theology as “oppressed” by the capitalist system. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, The Republican Party After Gorsuch., Episode 52. CLP News Network, June 29, 2020. https://clpnewsnetwork.com/).
According to the Harvard publication, The Bridge, the concept of individual natural rights “stunts people’s imagination and mystifies people about how law really works.”
Harvard cites the work of Peter Gabel and Jay Fineman, in Contract Law as Ideology, in The Politics of Law, (Basic Books: New York 1998).
In their Marxist legal view, individual rights,
“conceals the coercive system of relationships with widespread unfairness in contemporary market-based societies. The system of rights renders invisible the persistent functional roles such as landlord, tenant, employer, and individual consumer of products produced by multinational conglomerates, that themselves reflect widely disparate degrees of economic and political power.”
The crit goal is to eradicate the American system of individual natural rights. The Harvard Law publication continues,
“Using the language of rights reinforces the individualistic ideology and claims of absolute power within individuals’ spheres of action that must be undermined if progressive social change is to become more possible. The language of rights perpetuates the misconception that legal argument is independent of political argument and social movements. Through rights language, those in power often grant strategic concessions of limits sets of rights to co-opt genuinely radical social movements. Progressives who use the language of rights thus lend support to the ideology they must oppose.”
Harvard’s The Bridge cites the work of Patricia Williams, in Alchemical Notes: Reconstructed Ideals From Deconstructed Rights, 22 Harv. Civil Rights-Civil Liberties L. Rev. 401 (1987).
Williams writes,
“For blacks, therefore, the battle is not deconstructing rights, in a world of no rights; nor of constructing statements of need, in a world of abundantly apparent need. Rather, the goal is to find a political mechanism that can confront the denial of need. The argument that rights are disutile, even harmful, trivializes this aspect of black experience specifically, as well as that of any person or group whose genuine vulnerability has been protected by that measure of actual entitlement which rights provide…Conventional rights discourse reflects and produces isolated individualism and hinders social solidarity and genuine human connection.”
In Sullivan’s application of Marxist critical legal theory to Flynn, Flynn is not seen as an individual, with natural rights, but a member of a hated, White supremacist group, aligned with a hated White supremacist President.
The crit communist end goal for society is provided by by Rafael Khachaturian, in his article, Critical Legal Thinking . Marxist Legal Theory: The State. (June 29, 2020.)
He notes, that under a communist system, the capitalist state would simply wither away.
“the alienated and mystified universality of the political state would disappear, for the constitution and the law would rest on the unalienated and direct “self-determination”of the people.”
From the perspective of Marxist critical theory, it is the capitalist “law” itself that must be abolished to usher in the communist nirvana. Alan Hunt, in his article, The Theory of Critical Legal Studies, (1986), states,
“It is the law’ itself that is ‘the problem’; law is not conceived as being capable of resolving the problems that it apparently addresses. Rather law is seen as a significant constituent in the complex set of processes which reproduces the experience and reality of human subordination and domination; thus the wider concern with the conditions and possibility of human emancipation forms the extended political perspective of the (communist) movement.
In the case of Flynn, getting rid of the “law” allows Sullivan to assume the triple-headed role of the judge, the jury, and the prosecution.
Aided and abetted, of course, by the wider community of Black judicial racists, and Democrat Marxists, who sit on the D. C. Court, and share Sullivan’s racist ideology, as well as his hatred of Trump.
Section 3. Sullivan’s Refusal to Dismiss as A Black Judicial Racist.
The motive for Judge Sullivan’s refusal to dismiss have not be revealed. The closest reason for his motive is given by Sidney Powell, Flynn’s attorney, who gently suggests that Sullivan has lost his “neutrality.”
According to Breitbart News,
“Sidney Powell, the attorney for former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.), told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Tuesday that Judge Emmet G. Sullivan lost his “neutrality” and should be dismissed from the case.”
We provide a more comprehensive, and robust theory of Sullivan’s motive, which both explains his behavior, and predicts the outcome of this case, for the continued unity of the Nation, if he is successful in his prosecution of Flynn.
Powell noted in her filing with the DC Court of Appeals, that the case against Flynn originated in the Obama administration. She noted that the case was fraudulent from the get-go. She states,
“The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution weighing as it should off of factors that go into that including the provision of extraordinary exculpatory evidence that came to light from an independent review… It can not go on any longer. This is the quintessential case for mandamus because we have both issues of judicial usurpation of executive prerogatives and a clear abuse of discretion. The judge has no authority to do anything further in the case.”
In her recent interview with Hannity, she demurred about Sullivan’s motive, and expressed bewilderment at his behavior. She noted,
“I wish I knew what was going on with Judge Sullivan. I can’t say that I do, other than he has gone way out into left field by himself, as we say in our mandamus petition, [with] this notion that he can appoint an amicus for himself and solicit other amicus briefs and not rule on our motion on the government’s motion to dismiss.”
She explained that Sullivan’s behavior is unprecedented in American jurisprudence, and contradicts a recent U. S. Supreme Court case, directly on point to the motion for the Flynn dismissal.
Powell writes,
“The law is clear. There’s a new Supreme Court decision unanimously decided just within the last two weeks that makes it clear he cannot invite the amicus brief. So he … doesn’t have that authority as a district court judge. The case is over and his bias is so egregious, he should be removed from the case.”
We explain that what is new in American jurisprudence is the entry of a new, alien legal tradition of systemic Black racism. Sullivan, in the older tradition of individual natural rights, would have been compelled, by the DC Court, to dismiss the Flynn case.
In the new American Marxist Critical Legal Logic, Sullivan can appoint himself the judge, the jury, and the prosecution. He is granted the moral authority to pursue his White enemy because Sullivan is a Black social justice warrior.
In her January, 29, 2020, motion to dismiss the Flynn case, Powell noted that the Obama DOJ prosecutors had used their power to frame Flynn.
She stated,
“This Court should dismiss this prosecution because of the government’s outrageous and egregious misconduct directed specifically against Lt. General Michael T. Flynn (Retired). “[I]t is unconscionable, contrary to public policy, and to the established law of the land to punish a man for the commission of an offense of the like of which he had never been guilty, either in thought or in deed, and evidently never would have been guilty of if the officers of the law had not inspired, incited, persuaded, and lured him to attempt to commit it. Sorrells, 287 U.S. at 444-45(quoting Butts, 273 F. at 38).”
Our theory of Marxist Critical Logic encompasses the behavior of the former Obama DOJ lawyers who framed Flynn. They believe that they possess the moral arrogance to use the law to target their White enemy, if it may eventually lead to their bigger White enemy, Trump.
After the DOJ dismissed the prosecution of Flynn, Sullivan appealed the decision to a three judge panel on the DC Court of Appeals.
In the Politico socialist rendition of the news, they reported that:
“A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit split 2-1 along ideological lines as it backed Flynn’s unusual bid to strong arm U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan into accepting Attorney General William Barr’s move to pull the plug on the case against President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser. The court’s active bench is currently made up of seven Democratic appointees and five Republican ones.”
Politico noted that Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, issued a strong dissent. They stated,
“Wilkins, an Obama appointee, issued a sharply worded dissent. The government’s U-turn in the case, he said, was so abrupt that a judge could reasonably question it.”
Politico quoted part of Wilkins’ dissent:
“It is a great irony that, in finding the District Court to have exceeded its jurisdiction, this Court so grievously oversteps its own. The government never actually filed an appeal of its own, the majority’s ruling shutting Sullivan down seems to rest not as much on Flynn’s rights as on the impact on the government of Sullivan’s continuing scrutiny of Barr’s decision.”
Judge Robert Wilkins, D. C. Court of Appeals.
In her argument on behalf of the DOJ to dismiss the Flynn case, Neomi Jehangir Rao, gets to the heart of our legal theory by suggesting that Sullivan should not have a personal interest in pursuing the prosecution of Flynn.
Rao states,
“Why continue to scrutinize dismissal? Does that make him a party to the case? What precisely is the judge’s interest?”
A second DOJ attorney, arguing for dismissal. Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor general, agreed with Flynn’s defense that it may be appropriate to reassign the case away from Sullivan.
Wall stated,
“Sullivan’s actions suggest a “problematic” degree of investment in the case, and he should not be allowed to prolong a harmful, unnecessary and “intrusive inquiry into the Justice Department’s motivations. We have reluctantly come to the view that there is now at least a question about the appearance of impartiality.”
As the attorneys for Flynn argued to dismiss, they noted,
“Judge Sullivan doesn’t have legal standing to seek rehearing because standing requires a “personal stake” in the case. But a judge does not have — and under the Due Process Clause — cannot have — such a stake… the district judge, first through his contemplation of extended and intrusive proceedings on the government’s motion to dismiss and now through his petition for rehearing en banc, insists on keeping the litigation going.”
Our argument to explain Sullivan’s behavior is that he does have a personal interest in keeping the Flynn case alive. His personal interest is explained by systemic judicial Black racism.
Sullivan seeks to keep the litigation going in order to extract revenge on his White racist enemy in his effort to destroy his bigger White racist enemy, Donald Trump.
In the prior legal era of natural rights individualism, federal prosecution was exclusively an executive-branch function, under the Constitution.
In the new era of Marxist Critical Legal Theory, the use of illegitimate power to punish political enemies is morally justified because it promotes the advancement of communism.
Conclusion: America, As You Know It, Is Over.
Our theory of systemic judicial Black racism offers both an explanation of Sullivan’s behavior, and a prediction about the future of the nation.
We conclude that the ideological differences between Marxist collectivism and natural rights individualism are irreconcilable. The United States cannot continue to exist, as one nation, under two distinct theories of justice.
We agree with the analysis of the socialist writer. Cristian Farias, of Vanity Fair, in his article The Flynn Battle Is About the Trump Era’s Two-Track Justice.
Like Farias, we also see two tracks of justice, one for Hillary and agents of the deep state, who perpetrated the coup, and one for white supremacist, like Flynn, who are targeted by Black judicial racists.
Farias cites white supremacy, fraud and corruption in Trump’s DOJ, as the reason for the DOJ dismmisal. He states,
“What if there’s a corrupt motive underlying the DOJ’s dismissal? Shouldn’t a court probe the mind of a prosecutor where, say, he is paid a bribe to drop a case? Or if white supremacy is guiding prosecutorial leniency? Or more to the point: if the president of the United States wants to play favorites with one of his cronies? Does a judge simply throw up his hands?”
Farias states his belief that Trump and the DOJ preside over two tracks of justice. He states,
“In the Trump era, that there are two tracks of justice—one for the friends of the president, who get compassionate release from prison in the face of COVID-19, and another for those who can’t get the same kind of simple justice. As the former judges put it: “To require a district court to simply dismiss a criminal case, without further inquiry, when the judge believes or suspects that doing so may undermine public confidence in the equal and impartial administration of justice, would be ‘abhorrent’ indeed.”
We agree with the question Farias is asking: What if there is a motive for Sullivan’s behavior?
We answer: The motive for Sullivan’s behavior is explained by the systemic judicial Black racism of Sullivan and the Obama DOJ??
Joe Hoft, of Gateway Pundit, summarizes one side of the two-track justice system, using the Flynn case. He states,
“General Michael Flynn was lied to, set up multiple times before and after the Trump inauguration, excessively and to the point of illegally unmasked, targeted, ambushed in the White House, falsely accused, threatened with his son being indicted, provided corrupt legal counsel (the same firm where corrupt Obama former AG Eric Holder works), harassed for 3 years, belittled, slandered, besmirched by the judge, harassed by the judge, and then the attorneys going after him were the same attorneys who represented the corrupt Sally Yates who lied and told President Trump General Flynn lied.”
The two tracks of justice reflect two incompatible ideologies about the future of America, a collectivist communist ideology, where elites can assume the role of judge, the jury, and the prosecution, and a natural rights individualism, where individuals are presumed innocent, until proven guilty.
We agree with John Adams:
“A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” John Adams, Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife.”
We conclude that the judicial system in America is infested with the Marxist ideology of Critical Legal Theory, and is beyond redemption.
We conclude that the DOJ and deep state agents are corrupted by their ideology that communism is better than individualism. Nothing will ever make the communists abandon their ideology and suddenly embrace individual natural rights and the procedures of natural law.
We conclude that Judge Sullivan is hiding behind his mask of deceit of judicial impartiality. He is infected with the virus of Black racism, and he will never change.
The system of justice is corrupted by Marxism, the agencies of government are corrupted by Marxism, the public schools and universities are corrupted by Marxism, and the Democratic Party is corrupted by Marxism.
The Nation, as you know it, is over. The Marxists were successful in subverting the government.
The differences are irreconcilable, and unresolvable, under Madison’s Constitution. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
We conclude that Madison’s representative republic should be replaced by a democratic republic, based upon the state sovereignty framework of the Articles of Confederation.
We conclude that the only peaceful, non-violent pathway for socialists, like Farias, and natural rights conservatives, is a civil dissolution of the states, into two new nations, the Social States of America and the Democratic Republic of America.
We outline our principles of government of the Democratic Republic of America, here.
—–
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network
Our constitutional principles of government are on our Democratic Republic of America website.
You can follow our daily commentary on twitter https://twitter.com/ltvtoo and at Parler https://bit.ly/2C3NgWf
You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year, at our website.
You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com
You can learn more about the federalist, state sovereignty framework of the new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America at GABBYpress.com