Friday [8 to 12]

(0847) Evets on Friday up across the way. Not firing on all cylinders here (heart/circulation) ... a bit of activity might break through it. Much cooler out there today (not in a good way, more in a poisoned atmosphere way). (1120)

12.  IYE across the way

Some good points well made by Mathis in this v short paper.

(Link across the way)

“We Are Already Living In The Matrix”

Excerpt:

Five days ago the Supreme Court ruled that criminal convictions must be unanimous, overruling two states, Louisiana and Oregon, which allowed convictions on divided votes.

As it says at NBC:

“By a 6-3 vote, the court said the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires unanimous
verdicts. The majority opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch traced the requirement back to
English common law. He said the nation’s founders believed verdicts must be unanimous
and noted that the Supreme Court recognized the requirement as early as 1898.”

Well, if the Supreme Court already ruled on this in 1898, why are they having to rule on it again in 2024? In a rational universe, the Justice Department would have just sent Louisiana and Oregon a note back when their legislatures first tried to allow divided jury votes, reminding them of the 1898 ruling, saying this is unConstitutional and therefore will not be allowed. It is beyond belief this would even be coming up 250 years after founding this nation and 800 years after being set in stone in England.

In any case, this newer ruling automatically overturns the convictions of many people in those states convicted with divided juries. In other words, those people don’t have to refile anything. The Supreme Court just voided their convictions, even the ones that weren’t party to this suit. 

That is how Supreme Court rulings have always worked and still work. The decision is not just for those who filed the lawsuit, the decision strikes down a law, and the loss of that law automatically voids a certain class of similar events, in all states.

[Hours later: But what is weird is that the Court ruled on pretty much the same thing in 2020. In fact, the case I quote above from NBC is from 2020, and this newer case is Erlinger v. US, which hit the same topics last week, again quoting the 5th and 6th amendments. They are being mixed up online and you can see why. 

So again, why does the Supreme Court need to rule on the same topic every two years, while admitting it was already decided in 1898 or before?]

But what is weirder is that no one in the mainstream is applying this to the Trump conviction that allegedly made him a felon…..”

Rest of it at the link.

11.  A one off or the shape of things to come?

It's all in the fine print.

10.  Just a few more still sitting in the queue

9.  IYE at NOWP

JH: That's a relief, thought IYE had gone on hols without my saying bye bye. On the topic:

Two comments from me ... one is the "stein" bit ... the second is Obama/Harvard? If he was ever there.  Third thought (yes, an amazing achievement for me) ... why is it always, these days, "stein", as in family name ... or "stan", as in Londonistan etc.?  Asking for a friend.

8.  The three letter sites