Communism breeds atrocity. Revolutions in China, Russia, and elsewhere were bloody, then followed by far more bloody purges of political enemies, which were in turn followed by death-dealing stupidity and waste. When Germany adopted socialism in the form of the socialist Nazi party, they rapidly developed a reputation for sadistic cruelty. Their trespasses against mind, spirit, and body were at a scale that is hard to imagine. Despite that, the good people of Germany did nothing to stop the proportionately smaller number of bad people for over a decade. When they were stopped, it wasn’t by the responsible citizens of Germany, but citizens of other countries who had come together to destroy the Nazi menace.
Communism also breeds fear. It is difficult to defend oneself, or to oust an unwanted, ungodly, dangerous usurper, when paralyzed by fear. The antidote is courage. Without it, fear wins. And what is fear but lack of faith. Lack of faith in oneself, one’s friends and protectors, maybe even lack of faith in God.
Does a Godly man or woman passively witness the ongoing commission of sadistic crimes, waiting for God to supernaturally intervene? Or do they trust God to support them when they intervene? Righteous people, even children, have little tolerance for unrighteousness, nor should they. If nothing else, the history of strife in our world tells us that those are the times when the righteous must stand up for the weak, to protect them from humiliation and destruction, and to destroy evil to prevent further harm.
Yesterday, I listened to the oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the Murthy v. Missouri case. Based on the questions asked by several justices, including all of the women (a coincidence, I’m sure), it seems as if several of the justices, particularly Ketanji-Brown, had no concept of what justice is, or they simply delighted at the prospect of perversely ruling against free speech in America. I hope they don’t represent the full court, but I am horrified that any member of the Supreme Court, let alone several members, could even contemplate overturning free speech protections. The Supreme Court is supposed to be filled with courageous and ferocious protectors of rights designed to prevent tyranny, not quislings to tyranny.
Later, I read that Donald Trump can’t put up the $464 million bond demanded in the sham conviction in New York’s transparently illegal case against him for fraudulently inflating his estimates of value used as collateral for loans. How on earth did that situation develop? Every person in the chain of the prosecution may as well be cashing paychecks from Hell Incorporated. Trump made good faith estimates, the banks involved did their due diligence, revised the numbers, made the loans based on their estimates, not Trump’s figures, got paid back on time with interest, and want to do more business with Trump. And yet, the largest bond in the history of our country has to be posted so that he can appeal the decision? How much crazy do we need before we can’t take any more?
This morning, I saw that Trump advisor Peter Navarro was about to go to jail for doing his job as a Trump advisor. Then, that lawyer Stefanie Lambert was arrested for reporting what she perceived as an ongoing crime to Michigan sheriff Dar Leaf. If the crime had been something else, like a jaywalking conservative, she might have been treated like a saint, but for reporting evidence of election fraud, she was arrested. Even liberal law professor Jonathan Turley is starting to realize there is something wrong with American justice—it isn’t “just.”
Our country has laws to protect its people from harm. We have law enforcement to ensure the laws are followed so that we may enjoy the benefits of a society free from evil. Our judiciary is supposed to protect citizens against error and the malicious use of laws and law enforcement. Thanks to recent events, we now know we can’t trust our judiciary, though we can hope they do the right thing, nor can we expect fairness in law enforcement at the prosecution level.
Our “protectors” were hired for the express purpose of preventing what they are now doing themselves. Have they abdicated their authority in so doing? I believe they have. And what of us, are we cowards? Or will we refuse to allow the usurpation of the very God-given rights that allowed our country to become a beacon of hope to the world?
When lawyers are jailed or lose their right to practice because they follow the law, citizens are jailed or persecuted for exposing criminality, and judges participate in these crimes either passively or actively, there is no justice system. there is only injustice, and that only leads to destruction. We have reached the point where the widespread and continuous abuse of power by officials cannot be denied, and the realization that it will not stop of its own accord.
Courage is needed now, because we face a formidable opponent, but it must be defeated. What we face in America today is no less than the evil foisted on the inhabitants of other countries, possibly worse because there is no coalition of neighbors in a position to save America. This is up to us.
The requirement for posting a bond (or delivering property to the court) pending an appeal grew out of a desire/need to protect plaintiffs, who have been harmed and who have won a judgment at trial, from losing the ability to collect the judgment during the time it takes to go through the an appeal by the defendant.
In Trump's NY state case, there is no victim who has been defrauded, and there is also no risk that the state of New York cannot recover money from Trump's NY State businesses after the time required for an appeal.
A process designed to preserve the opportunity to do justice is being misused to do injustice.
The large judgment against Trump was obtained under a law (NYS 63(12), see https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/executive-law/exc-sect-63/) that allows the Attorney General of NY State (when read and interpreted broadly) to sue for "fraud" on the basis of mere repeated misrepresentations (in business)--independent of anybody being defrauded (actually relying on any misrepresentation, and actually suffering any loss as a result).
This is way beyond the bounds of "fraud" as known and developed in common law. To state a claim for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation under (normal) New York law, a plaintiff must show: “(1) the defendant made a material false representation, (2) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff[s] thereby, (3) the plaintiff[s] reasonably relied upon the representation, and (4) the plaintiff[s] suffered damage as a result of their reliance.” Swersky v. Dreyer & Traub, 643 N.Y.S.2d 33, 36 (1st Dept. 1996) (quoted from https://www.melnick-law.com/pleading-fraud-in-new-york-an-overview-2).
There are similarities here with the Jan. 6 prosecutions that include counts for "corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so" under a law originally aimed at destruction of evidence during a federal investigation. (Wiped, like with a cloth?) In both proceedings, statutory language is being interpreted very literally, as broadly as its grammar will allow.
Not sure how long the NY law has been in place, but it is an example of gross overreach (or uncareful wording) by the legislature of NY state, and/or gross overreach by the attorney general and the courts. According to commentators and news reports, the law has never been used before in this way--in a case without an actual victim and an actual loss.
The New Yorker celebrates this "powerful law" that "finally brought Trump to book" and discusses how and when the law was passed here: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-powerful-new-york-law-that-finally-brought-trump-to-book. I am reminded of the famous scene from A Man For All Seasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk. (The New Yorker seems to have no such worries.)
There are reasons that the common law requires/required a showing of reliance and of loss for proof of fraud. Preventing injustice to the accused is one.