Newsletter | December 29, 2022
Here are a handful of the sample questions:
There can be no debate. Sexualizing children in corporate advertisements is despicable and so, too, are groups or communities that allow children to witness costumed drag queens strutting across stages espousing deviant behavior, then call it appropriate “entertainment” for children.
Silence about child exploitation, abuse, and trafficking must end. There is no turning away as the innocent lives of precious children are destroyed by these horrendous acts of evil.
Since America’s Future announced the launch of Project Defend & Protect Our Children (PDPC), many media outlets have welcomed our Executive Director Mary O’Neill to their shows to encourage our call to action for the public to get involved in this important initiative. We are grateful that hundreds of people from across the country have responded to join the PDPC network.
As our professional experts of PDPC’s Little Flower Advisory Board continue working on developing materials and tools to share with the public through our educational resources, please continue to sign up to be a part of exposing and eradicating child exploitation, abuse, and trafficking in America. Children are the future of America. They hold the promises and dreams of our nation.
To learn more about PDPC, watch our media interviews, and sign-up to join the network and receive our e-bulletins, visit PDPC.AmericasFuture.net.
On December 27, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) bailed out the Biden Administration for now by granting an Emergency Application for Stay in favor of nineteen non-party states that jointly applied for relief in Nancy Gimena Huisha-Huisha, et al. v DHS, et al, SCOTUS Dkt No. 22A592.
Briefly, the Emergency Application for Stay was submitted to the SCOTUS by the nineteen non-party states arguing they were aggrieved by a December 16, 2022, D.C. Court of Appeals court order denying the states’ request to intervene and join a class action lawsuit originally filed in January 2021 by a group of illegal alien plaintiffs against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal government officials with respect to the lawfulness of Title 42 public health expulsion policies.
The alien plaintiffs in this class action are seeking to prohibit the U.S. federal government from expelling illegal aliens out of America based on Title 42 public health expulsion policies claiming the policies to be arbitrary and capricious.
The nineteen states are requesting that the SCOTUS suspend all orders and legal proceedings in the case to consider the states’ position that the D.C. Court of Appeals must be reversed, and the states be permitted to join the ongoing class action lawsuit and litigate the issues.
In their well-reasoned briefs, the states contend that they absolutely can demonstrate all three requirements necessary to prevail on a motion to intervene in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 24, which provides: 1) A motion to intervene must be timely filed; 2) The non-party must have protectable interests in the case and its outcome; and 3) No existing party to the litigation adequately represent the non-party’s protectable interests.
Through briefs, the states inform the SCOTUS, as follows:
1. Timeliness. Their motion to intervene and join the litigation is proper and was timely filed with the trial court, initially, and timely filed at each opportunity, thereafter.
2. Protectable Interests. The states have “obvious protectable interests” with respect to this case which focuses on the ongoing invasion onto American soil at our southern border, foreseeably resulting in severe economic and administrative impairment to the states and intolerable risks of serious harm to their residents, to wit the federal government appears to have forsaken its duties. The states explain, “the termination of Title 42…would unleash a catastrophic shock to the states social services and law-enforcement systems…which will inflict substantial economic harms.”
3. Not Adequately Represented. The states’ obvious interests in the issues and outcome of this case are not adequately represented by any party. The states further advise the SCOTUS, “the position of [the federal government defendants] is that they can wantonly inflict harms on the states simply because they choose…harming [the states] gratuitously. That is not merely specious but represents a fundamental abuse of power.”
States, particularly border and red states, are on the front lines in the fight for our national sovereignty and the safety and security of all American citizens. Our southern border is being invaded. The numbers are staggering and continue to climb. In fact, data published by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Protection (CBP) demonstrate that during October and November 2022, there were 561,291 encounters between our CBP and illegal aliens, up from 385,689 encounters reported for the same months one year prior (Oct – Nov 2021). And looking back on the same months just two years ago (Oct – Nov 2020), encounters have more than doubled from 179,657. How quickly these numbers are climbing is offensive.
As usual, the administration blames Congress, Republicans, and the previous administration for the calamities they create and the catastrophes they own. Their failures are remarkable and yet they play the blame game even with American lives and the lives of victims of human trafficking at stake.
The reckless decisions and dangerous political posturing by this administration are absurd and have inflicted unacceptable injury to our great nation. By their own words, including written proposals, the President’s Executive Orders, DHS regulations, and verbal promises and invites to illegal aliens and even terrorists, this administration has overtly encouraged and given aid and comfort to the millions of illegal aliens that have flooded our nation and continue to do the same.
This last-minute reprieve by the SCOTUS offers the Biden Administration at least a couple of months to course correct. Let’s hope they take advantage.
For further background on this case and the fragile state of our national sovereignty, visit our website’s Knowledge Center to read “End of Title 42 Expulsions Pending.”
To keep our readers up-to-date and well-informed, we continue our series focusing on cases currently in front of SCOTUS during its new October 2022 term. This week we turn to a case set for January 9, 2023, oral arguments focusing on the scope of the Attorney-Client Privilege. The case is In Re Grand Jury, Dkt. No. 21-1397 and the docket is located here.
The litigants in this case will come before the SCOTUS to present their respective positions on the following question presented to the SCOTUS by the Petitioner, who is not identified in the legal filings.
Whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege where obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication.
Most states have adopted a nuanced variation of the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 1.6 of Professional Conduct, governing ethical rules attorneys must comply with regarding how to properly handle and protect (from unauthorized disclosure) communications made in confidence for purposes of securing or furthering legal representation.
The attorney-client privilege is one of those vital rules of law with an established and deeply ingrained history. Some legal scholars believe it originated in England during the mid-1500s when Elizabeth I reigned as Queen of England and Ireland.
It is a recognized evidentiary privilege principled attorneys take extremely seriously. In fact, any attorney who does not hold sacred those confidential communications has no business practicing law in the first place. The rule is so deeply embedded in our society and so ingrained into the legal minds that it serves to safeguard our American notion of “equal justice under the law.”
This evidentiary privilege, when properly invoked and not otherwise waived, causes communications between an attorney and a client to be shielded from disclosure and remain confidential no matter how relevant the content of those confidential communications might be to the truth of the matter.
Based on an inherent conflict between nondisclosure of relevant facts and getting to a correct outcome, the attorney-client privilege, like all evidentiary privileges are disfavored and can be waived inadvertently, partially, entirely, mistakenly, based upon facts and circumstances and sometimes without even realizing it (e.g. an attorney or their staff accidentally sending a facsimile of a print-out of a privileged document to a third party unknowingly may waive the privilege thus permitting disclosure to the opposing party and the court).
The attorney-client privilege has been reliably recognized by courts, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a 2019 opinion on the issue, as necessary to, “foster a free and open exchange of relevant information between the lawyer and client.” Further, treatises on the subject matter state, “the privilege is grounded in a policy entirely extrinsic to protection of the fact-finding process; instead, the interest of trusting, open, and honest attorney-client communications is paramount.”
SCOTUS is set to hear arguments regarding a situation that attorneys often find themselves in – that is, managing communications that are mixed and not entirely or solely meant to further legal representation. One of the most common examples is when a client seeks both legal and business advice from his or her attorney. The legal advice communications are protected but what about the business advice sought? And what if both are within the same email or facsimile or during the same phone call? This type of fact-specific and fact-intense situations are historically handled by courts with the utmost care and concern and any single fact or circumstance may just change the outcome of the issue.
It will be very significant when the decision in this SCOTUS case is published. The question presented to the court describes a circumstance attorneys must carefully manage on a routine basis.
Each term, the SCOTUS accepts and resolves roughly 70 cases. Most decisions are issued at the end of the term, i.e., in June of the following year. As of today (December 29, 2022), the SCOTUS has accepted 59 cases, placing two “on hold” pending outcomes of other similar cases.
To access the SCOTUS website for more information, visit https://www.supremecourt.gov.
This is the seventeenth article in our series on the nation’s premier law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and its self-destruction over time.
There was a time when most Americans naively believed the primary activity of the FBI was to uphold federal laws. Over the course of the last four weeks of 2022, the American people have been shown, beyond a doubt, that one of the FBI’s primary activities has been knowingly to violate the federal Constitution to ensure the Deep State’s continued control over the nation.
During December 2022, the American people learned why the Deep State and its media friends have been so distraught by Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter. It turns out those dark forces that run our nation were not just worried about Musk allowing differing political opinions on his Twitter platform. Their greater concern was that the American people would learn how the FBI and other Deep State agencies have worked for years to control public debate on controversial issues and influence federal elections.
Under Musk, Twitter granted access to several reporters to investigate its internal files so they could independently report on what secrets they contained. The only condition imposed on the journalists was that any news stories had to be released first on the Twitter platform. In agreement with this condition, the select reporters made “data dumps” releasing documents demonstrating the degree to which the Deep State has conspired with Big Tech to suppress the views of its critics and promote the views of its friends.
This proof of Deep State manipulation of American politics started to unfold on December 2, 2022, when independent journalist Matt Taibbi began reporting on the “Twitter Files,”, which was followed by a second installment by journalist Bari Weiss on December 8, 2022. Among the initial revelations was how the Deep State pressured Twitter to suppress the New York Post’s October 14, 2020 coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story showing Biden family corruption involving Ukraine.
On December 16, 2022, Taibbi released “The Twitter Files: Part Six — Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary.” It revealed how Twitter’s head of “Safety and Trust” Yoel Roth was in frequent contact with the FBI, particularly an agent in San Francisco named Elvis Chan. Chan was used by Washington as the primary conduit for sending its directives to Twitter.
This communication developed into a partnership where the FBI could send offending tweets or entire accounts to Twitter claiming that they should be examined for violations of Twitter’s terms of service. Although Twitter employees frequently could not identify specific violations, they were pressured by the FBI into suppressing dissident voices.
Not only was Twitter working with current FBI employees, but it also acted as a revolving door to former FBI employees. Twitter’s Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker had been FBI General Counsel where he was a major figure in the Russiangate Hoax pushing false information from the Hillary campaign to investigators inside the agency. He ultimately left the FBI after he was caught leaking information to corporate press. “As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees — ‘Bu alumni’ — working at Twitter that they had created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals.”
On December 19, 2022, reporter Michael Shellenberger posted “Twitter Files: Part 7 — The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop.” Those files demonstrated how the FBI knew about Hunter Biden’s laptop in December 2019 when they acquired a warrant and seized the laptop from the Mac repair shop in Delaware. In other words, fully 11 months before the November 2020 election, the FBI knew that the Hunter Biden laptop was real, but decided not to investigate.
The FBI also knew that a copy of the laptop had been provided to lawyers and journalists, so the FBI began an operation to prepare Twitter and other Big Tech companies to expect “Russian disinformation” in the form of a fake Hunter Biden laptop dump. Mark Zuckerberg has stated in an interview that the FBI conducted the same type of preparation for Facebook. In September 2020, FBI and other agencies even conducted a table-top exercise for a hypothetical hack-and-dump operation of, just for example, a Hunter Biden laptop!
The FBI’s psychological operation worked. By the time the New York Post published its story on the laptop on October 14, 2020, Big Tech was already on the lookout for this supposed Russian activity and was more than happy to take the FBI’s word for it so that it could help the Biden campaign. The FBI conducted a classified briefing to none other than FBI alum Jim Baker to assure Twitter employees that the Hunter Biden laptop story wasn’t real, so they should take action to suppress it.
And that’s what Twitter did. “[W]ithin hours, Twitter and other social media companies censor [sic] the NY Post article, preventing it from spreading and, more importantly, undermining its credibility in the minds of many Americans.” By this one action, the FBI, working with Twitter and other social media companies, likely elected Joe Biden President.
Why are Twitter and other Big Tech companies doing the bidding of the FBI? Although most of them are glad to help their cronies on the Left, they are also under pressure to keep their immunity from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And both candidate Biden and the Biden Administration threatened to remove that liability to get Big Tech to toe the line. On December 7, 2022, America’s Future explained all this in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google.
And how did the FBI respond to Twitter’s revelations? The FBI used one of the standard plays from its worn out playbook claiming to be the victim, putting out a statement: “The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public… It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”
Before the release of the Twitter Files, any discussion of federal government involvement in the censorship of users by Big Tech was decried as “conspiracy theory,” but what had been called “conspiracy theory” has now been proven to be “conspiracy fact.”
It would be difficult to imagine a more serious violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition against “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” than what has been revealed in the “Twitter Files.” Since many of those whose dissident views were suppressed were conservative Christians, the prohibition on interference with the “free exercise” of religion was also breached. The FBI also prevented the ability of Americans to “assemble” together online, as well as petition government “for a redress of grievances.”
And we now know that it was not just rank-and-file Americans whose views were suppressed by Twitter. President Trump was banned the day after former First Lady Michelle Obama pressured Twitter, demanding: “Now is the time for Silicon Valley companies to stop enabling this monstrous behavior — and go even further than they have already by permanently banning this man from their platforms and putting in place policies to prevent their technologies from being used by the nation’s leaders to fuel insurrection.”
The FBI has no respect for the American people, the U.S. Constitution, or the rule of law. If the FBI is allowed to continue to exist, there is little hope for fair elections, or the survival of our Constitutional Republic.
To read the entire series of articles, please click here.
Reminders & Updates
AMERICA’S MONDAYS WITH MARY: Tune in every Monday morning at 9 a.m. (ET) to watch our Executive Director Mary O’Neill report out on the comments and insights submitted via our weekly Reader Survey and listen to updates about America’s Future activities and what’s ahead at America’s Mondays With Mary.
STAY CONNECTED: You’ll find America’s Future on your favorite social media platforms. Thank you for remembering to follow us and please share our posts.
Support America’s Future
America’s Future is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All donations are tax-deductible to the full extent of the law.