What Supreme Court Justices Said About Mexico’s Lawsuit

Mexico's case against U.S. gun manufacturers is being heard before the Supreme Court. 

Instead of taking responsibility for their lack of prosecutions against drug cartels, Mexico is trying to hold gun manufacturers liable.

America's 1st Freedom reported:

On March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments from opposing attorneys in Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, a civil suit in which Mexico—with the help of U.S. gun-control proponents—is suing American gun companies for $10 billion because of violence committed by Mexican drug cartels on Mexican citizens.

This case is so obviously founded upon anti-gun politics that, in an amicus brief to the Court on the case, the NRA states, “Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish America’s.”

Gun-control groups and politicians who embrace gun bans and other anti-gun efforts are supporting Mexico’s suit.

The politics of the anti-Second Amendment groups and individuals supporting this lawsuit are so clear that the justices began by attempting to determine what law or statute the American companies had allegedly broken.

This led to legal discussion on a “predicate exception” to a 2005 law—the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)—that specifically bars frivolous suits that attempt to hold a lawful manufacturer, distributor or seller of a firearm responsible if that product was later used in a criminal manner by a third party.

The attorney representing gun makers, Noel Francisco, pointed out early on that if “Mexico is right, then every law-enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and [according to this illogical deduction’] Budweiser [would be] liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash.”

As the hearing went on, some of the justices echoed this concern.

To read more, go here. 

California Sides With Mexico Against US Gun Industry

Besides turning California into a hellhole cesspool, radical Democrat liberals have been trying to diminish Second Amendment rights.

Gun control radicals are siding with Mexico against gun manufacturers and the Second Amendment.

According to the Buckeye Firearms Association:

The willingness of some in the U.S. to aid a foreign power in an assault on American industry and Americans’ Constitutional rights is sad and disturbing.

On Jan. 17, California Attorney General Rob Bonta proclaimed his support for Mexico’s position in the ongoing case Smith & Wesson Brands Inc, et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The case, now at the U.S. Supreme Court, is an attempt by the Mexican government, working with U.S.-based gun control advocates, to undo the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), make the U.S. firearms industry a scapegoat for Mexican lawlessness, and impose billions of dollars in liability on American gun manufacturers for violence perpetrated by violent criminals south of the border.

Readers should know that the PLCAA was enacted in 2005, with broad bipartisan support, to protect the firearms industry from frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits. In the mid-1990s, gun control advocates, big city politicians, and trial attorneys teamed up to use the courts to bilk the gun industry for millions and force them to agree to gun control measures that gun control supporters were unable to enact in Congress. The suits sought to hold members of the industry liable for the criminal behavior of those who misused their products.

I, for one, am glad that I moved out of Commiefornia. This coming week will mark seven years since I did so.

To read more, go here.

 

Biden Gun Control Proposal Could Bankrupt Firearms Industry

The Democrats never give up. 

By hook or crook, they aim to take away our Second Amendment rights.

The latest is Joe Biden's proposal to do away with federal legal protections for gun manufacturers.

According to Breitbart:

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s plan to do away with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) could bankrupt the entire firearms industry.

President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA into law in 2005 as a way of protecting firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. But Biden campaigned on opening up firearm manufacturers to suits tied to the criminal misuse of the products they make.

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s plan to do away with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) could bankrupt the entire firearms industry.

President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA into law in 2005 as a way of protecting firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. But Biden campaigned on opening up firearm manufacturers to suits tied to the criminal misuse of the products they make.

That's why it is imperative that the GOP retain control of the U.S. Senate to block such dangerous legislative proposals.

To read more, go here. 

Bernalillo County D.A. Files Lawsuit Against New Mexico Civil Guard

It looks like Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez wants to be New Mexico's answer to California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a noted radical leftist imbecile.

Torrez has filed a lawsuit against the New Mexico Civil Guard.

KOB 4 News reported:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.- The Bernalillo County district attorney filed a lawsuit Monday against the New Mexico Civil Guard, a group that has showed up at protests in military-like uniforms, carrying guns, and telling people they are there to protect property. 

"When you have self-appointed police officers and military units out there advancing their own form of justice, there is no democratic accountability," District Attorney Raul Torrez said.  

The lawsuit asks a judge to order the New Mexico Civil Guard to stop representing itself as a police force. 

"What is affected is their ability to organize, train and operate as an unlawful group," Torrez said.  

The lawsuit also claims the group's "presence fostered and encouraged violence by counter-protestors." It specifically mentions Steven Baca, who is accused of shooting someone at a protest of a Juan de Oñate statue, and is not affiliated with the group. 

New Mexico Civil Guard leader Bryce Provance said in a KOB 4 phone interview that city leaders are trying to divert the blame away from law enforcement over how the protest was handled that night. 

"They are deflecting," he said. "The mayor and deputy chief ordered their officers not be in an area so that violence could be carried out against property against counter protestors and it backfired. Somebody got shot, and then we had to disarm the shooter, form a perimeter around him and hold him until police arrived and because of the mayor and deputy chief's ineptitude, they are going to deflect and try and charge us and sue us whatever they are going to do."

I don't see how the New Mexico Civil Guard represents themselves as a "police force". Torrez's frivolous lawsuit will likely fall flat on its face.

To read the full article, go here.

Democrats Sue Russia, Wikileaks and Trump Campaign

The Looney Left Report

Well, the Democrat Party is suing the Trump campaign, Wikileaks and the Russian Federation for "conspiring to disrupt" the 2016 campaign.

According to CNBC:

The Democratic Party on Friday sued President Donald Trump's presidential campaign, the Russian government and the Wikileaks group, claiming a broad illegal conspiracy to help Trump win the 2016 election. 

The multi-million-dollar lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court says that "In the Trump campaign, Russia found a willing and active partner in this effort" to mount "a brazen attack on American Democracy," which included Russian infiltration of the Democratic Party computer network. 

The Trump campaign, according to the lawsuit, "gleefully welcomed Russia's help." 

The suit says that "preexisting relationships with Russia and Russian oligarchs" with Trump and Trump associates "provided fertile ground for [the] Russia-Trump conspiracy." 

The common purpose of the scheme, according to the Democratic National Committee, was to "bolster Trump and denigrate the Democratic Party nominee," Hillary Clinton, while boosting the candidacy of Trump, "whose policies would benefit the Kremlin."

This is all an exercise in stupidity. If anyone has more of a cause of action it would be the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee for the phony dossier and other Democrat collusions and dirty tricks.

I envision that the GOP side will counter-sue. The Democrats are opening a big can of worms!

To read more, go here. 

Leftist Loon Xavier Becerra and National Park Fee Proposal

The Looney Left Report

California's leftist loon Attorney General Xavier Becerra is leading a group of mainly Democrat attorneys general of 10 states to threaten legal action if a proposed national park fee hike (to deal with a $11 billion backlog of projects and maintenance) goes through.

SF Gate reported:

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra led top attorneys from 10 states Wednesday in threatening legal action against the Trump administration for planning to more than double national park entrance fees. 

A letter drafted by Becerra and signed by representatives of the mostly blue states says the proposal to increase the price of admission at Yosemite and 16 other marquee parks — to $70 per vehicle during the busy season — is not only unfair to many less affluent Americans but is inconsistent with national park policies. 

“Our goal as a nation should be to make our national parks supremely inviting and encourage more families to visit them,” Becerra said in a prepared statement. “Instead, the Trump administration proposes the complete opposite.”

Gee, where was Becerra when his party jacked up the gasoline tax and increasing the cost of vehicle registrations in California? That will put more of a damper on the "less affluent American's" means to visit national parks. What do you say to that Mr. Becerra? Does jacking up registration fees and the gas tax even bother you?

I am not in favor of the fee proposal in dealing with the backlog, but it seems that these lunatics are always willing to spend taxpayers' money on politically-driven legal actions. Hypocrites!

To read more, go here.

Whatever You Do, Document Everything

As a retired claims adjuster, I've pretty much seen it all.

I have seen many instances of insurance fraud and have obtained convictions against the perpetrators. The main reason why I have obtained those convictions (and have received cash bonuses for them from grateful employers) was because I thoroughly documented my files. While many plaintiffs are stupid, it is also surprising to see almost as many stupid and dishonest attorneys who try to game the legal system.

I could easily spot false statements because I was armed with the "ammunition" to shoot them all down in my claims files. They ran the gamut from phony police reports to court filings.

I have also seen false accusations made in court filing documents. The most stupid thing someone can do is to make false statements or accusations when the "other side" has the documented proof that those statements are false. I have recently read one by a person who filed a Petition filled with fabrications. (I enjoy reading court cases such as these that are posted online or published by lawyer associations. We used to get them regularly at the insurance companies I worked at.) Many of the fabrications were so ridiculous that they were laughable. One has to wonder, "Why do they even bother?" The motivation by the petitioner was likely vindictive retaliation over a complaint.

The respondent, luckily for him, had the proof that those false statements made by the petitioner to successfully refute them in court.

It really doesn't pay to take legal action unless "one has all his ducks in a row" and are true. It could also lead to perjury charges in many instances. That is why I am so opposed to frivolous lawsuits. They are one of the reasons why the courts are over-burdened with an enormous backlog of pending cases. Many of them are just bogus. It is a waste of time and resources to have to shoot them down.

As such, it has always been my policy to press for prosecution for fraud.

I have never lost a Small Claims lawsuit, personally or professionally, because I documented everything. I even beat the Southern California Edison Company for property damages caused by a power surge from their equipment. The jaws of the representatives for Edison practically hit the floor when the judge ruled in my favor as they were in such shock.

So, keep all this in mind. It just may save you a mess of trouble.

Palin Should Counter-Sue The Legal Abusers

Above, Palin should take aim against those who abuse the legal system.

Palin Should Counter-Sue The Legal Abusers

by Armand Vaquer

When Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced her decision to resign as governor (effective this coming week), the pundits said that she was making a big political error.

It is possible. But they don't know the Alaskan governor.

A few days after her announcement, she told ABC News:

"You know, conditions have really changed in Alaska in the political arena since Aug. 29, since I was tapped to run for VP. When that opposition research -- those researchers really bombarded Alaska -- started digging for dirt and have not let up. They're not gonna find any dirt," she said. "We keep proving that every time we win an ethics violation lawsuit, and we've won every one of them. But it has been costing our state millions of dollars. It's cost Todd and me. You know the adversaries would love to see us put on the path of personal bankruptcy so that we can't afford to run."

The state's ethics laws are such that even though she's an elected official, she has to personally incur much of the legal costs to defend against these lawsuits, no matter how phony or frivolous they may be.

None of the ethics charges have been proven true, but she and the state still has to incur the expense in defending against them. That, plus the time wasted in defending herself, took a toll.

From CNN:

"It doesn't cost the critics anything to file frivolous lawsuits or ethics violation charges. It costs our state such a great deal -- thousands of staff hours, millions of dollars in public resources that aren't going to things that it should be going to," Palin told CNN earlier this month. "We haven't violated the ethics code."

She said her family is facing more than $500,000 in legal fees and has set up a legal defense fund to help defray the costs.

Although the governor and her supporters have criticized the investigations, Andree McLeod, who has filed six complaints against Palin, thinks they are appropriate.

"I don't really care what other people think. I am holding the governor accountable. Other people's ignorance is not going to stymie me," McLeod told CNN, surrounded by stacks of state documents she has collected from filing information requests and ethics complaints.

"I am exercising my right to get these public records to discover what Sarah Palin is up to," she said.

McLeod, a registered Republican, has filed several complaints since Palin announced her decision to step down, including the one regarding gift disclosures. She has also filed two lawsuits, including one regarding whether it was appropriate for state business to be discussed using private e-mail addresses.

When ethics complaints are filed against the governor or her staff, the state has to hire an independent counsel to investigate the claims to avoid a conflict of interest.

Among other claims against Palin cite her wearing an Arctic Cat logo on a piece of clothing during a snowmobile race as a conflict of interest and another saying that an interview she did after the presidential election in her state office was inappropriate. Those were dismissed.

James Muller, a political science professor at the University of Alaska Anchorage, told CNN that, "Some of [the complaints against Palin] are clearly fanciful, farcical.

"I think most of these ethical complaints are trivial. Almost all have been dismissed by the various levels of review that have taken them on," Muller said.

There's even been frivolous ethics charges against Palin over the defense fund.

Once Palin leaves office and becomes a private citizen again, she should counter-sue these wackos for malicious abuse of the legal system, then they'd have a taste of their own medicine. Let them rack up legal expenses and see how they like it! After all, turnabout is fair play.

Why are these people filing such frivolous lawsuits? One, some are members of an Alaskan political machine who was once dominant in the state. They are seeking revenge over their loss of power. Second, some are left-wingers who are deathly afraid of Palin. You can always tell how effective a political figure is by the attacks they attract. The left is adept in the "politics of personal destruction."

What the future holds for Palin is an open question. It depends upon how she handles things in the next few months. She is to speak at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on August 8. Maybe she has something to announce then.

Stay tuned!