JOIN OUR ADVOCACY ELECTION GROUP

Step-by-Step Guide to Forming an Advocacy Group

1.     Define Your Mission and Goals

• Clearly outline the objectives of your group.
• Define your specific goals, such as raising awareness, lobbying for action, or funding legal challenges.

2.     Choose a Name

• Select a name that reflects your mission and goals.
• Ensure the name is unique and easy to remember.

3.     Establish a Legal Structure

• Decide on the legal structure for your group. Options include forming a nonprofit organization (501(c)(4) for advocacy), a political action committee (PAC), or a social welfare organization.
• Consult with a lawyer to ensure compliance with federal and state laws.

4.     Create a Board of Directors

• Recruit a board of directors who are passionate about your cause.
• Ensure your board includes individuals with diverse skills, such as fundraising, legal expertise, and public relations.

5.     Develop a Strategic Plan

• Create a detailed plan outlining your strategies for achieving your goals.
• Include fundraising plans, advocacy tactics, and communication strategies.

6.     Register Your Organization

• Register your organization with the appropriate state authorities.
• Obtain an Employer Identification Number (EIN) from the IRS.

7.     Set Up Financial Systems

• Open a bank account for your organization.
• Implement a system for tracking donations and expenditures.
• Ensure transparency and accountability in financial matters.

8.     Build a Website and Social Media Presence

• Create a professional website to inform the public about your mission and goals.
• Use social media to engage with supporters and spread your message.

9.     Launch a Fundraising Campaign

• Develop a comprehensive fundraising strategy.
• Use online fundraising platforms, email campaigns, and events to solicit donations.

10.  Engage with the Public and Media

• Reach out to media outlets to gain coverage for your cause.
• Organize events, rallies, and other public engagements to raise awareness.

Article Draft

Here's a draft for an article to ask the public to contribute to your cause:

---

Title: Stand Up for Justice: Help Us Restore Integrity to the Supreme Court and Protect Our Democracy

In recent years, we have witnessed unprecedented challenges to the integrity of our democratic institutions. Among the most concerning are the actions of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, whose decisions and conduct have raised serious ethical questions. Additionally, the potential threat posed by the re-emergence of Donald Trump as a candidate for public office cannot be ignored.

Why We Need Your Help

Our mission is clear: to hold Justices Thomas and Alito accountable and to ensure that our democracy remains intact by urging President Biden to declare Trump ineligible for future office. This is not just about politics; it's about preserving the principles upon which our nation was founded.

The Actions We Are Taking

1. Raising Awareness: We are launching a nationwide campaign to inform the public about the ethical breaches and misconduct of Justices Thomas and Alito.
2. Legal Challenges: We are funding legal efforts to push for the resignation of these justices.
3. Political Advocacy: We are lobbying the Biden administration to take a definitive stand against Donald Trump's eligibility.

How You Can Help

Achieving these goals requires resources. We are calling on concerned citizens like you to contribute to our cause. Your donations will fund:

• Public awareness campaigns
• Legal fees for ethical challenges
• Advocacy efforts in Washington, D.C.

Donate Today

Every dollar counts in our fight to restore justice and protect our democracy. Join us in this critical mission by donating to our cause. Together, we can make a difference and ensure that our democratic institutions remain strong and fair.

Conclusion

Now is the time to act. We cannot afford to stand by while the integrity of our highest court is compromised and our democracy is threatened. Please contribute today and be a part of this vital movement.

---

Call to Action

Visit our website at YourOrganizationWebsite.com to donate and learn more about how you can get involved. Share this message with your friends, family, and social networks to help us spread the word. Together, we can bring about the change our country needs

 

  

HOLDING JUSTICES ACCOUNTABLE

Legal action against Supreme Court Justices, such as Justices Thomas and Alito, is highly complex due to their significant legal protections and lifetime appointments. However, there are some avenues that could be considered outside of impeachment, though each has its challenges:

1. Ethics Investigations

• Ethics Violations: An investigation into potential ethics violations could be pursued. Although the Supreme Court justices are not bound by the same code of conduct as other federal judges, pressure can be applied through public and political avenues to adhere to higher ethical standards. Congressional hearings could be called to investigate potential ethical breaches.

2. Congressional Oversight

• Congressional Hearings: Congress can hold hearings to investigate alleged misconduct or unethical behavior. This could involve subpoenaing records, calling witnesses, and gathering evidence to present to the public. The goal would be to create public pressure and highlight any misconduct.

3. Legal Challenges

• Recusal Motions: If there are cases before the court where a justice has a clear conflict of interest, motions can be filed to force recusal. This approach relies on demonstrating a direct conflict of interest or bias.

4. Public Campaigns

• Public Advocacy: Launching public advocacy campaigns to raise awareness about any alleged misconduct can create public pressure. This could involve working with the media, civil society organizations, and the general public to highlight the issues and push for accountability.

5. Referral to Law Enforcement

• Referral to the Department of Justice: If there is evidence of criminal conduct, it could be referred to the Department of Justice for investigation. This route is less likely to succeed due to the high threshold for criminal behavior and the political implications.

Steps to Consider:

1. Gather Evidence: Collect all relevant evidence of misconduct or unethical behavior.
2. Legal Analysis: Perform a thorough legal analysis to determine the best approach based on the evidence.
3. Build a Coalition: Work with other groups, legal experts, and possibly members of Congress to strengthen the case.
4. Media Strategy: Develop a comprehensive media strategy to highlight the findings and apply public pressure.

While none of these alternatives are guaranteed to succeed, they can complement broader efforts to hold justices accountable and maintain the judiciary's integrity.

When considering potential crimes that Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Alito may have committed, it’s essential to approach this carefully due to the high threshold for proving criminal behavior and the significant legal protections they enjoy. Here are some potential areas where their actions could be scrutinized for criminal behavior:

1. Failure to Disclose Financial Interests

• Federal Law Violations: Justices must disclose their financial interests and gifts. Failure to disclose significant financial interests, such as lavish gifts, travel, or other benefits, could violate federal disclosure laws.
• Potential Crimes: Non-disclosure of significant financial interests might lead to charges of false statements or omissions under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which prohibits making materially false statements to the government.

2. Bribery

• 18 U.S.C. § 201: Bribery involves giving or receiving something of value in exchange for an official act. If there is evidence that a justice received gifts or payments in exchange for favorable rulings, this could constitute bribery.
• Quid Pro Quo: The key element would be proving a quid pro quo arrangement, where a justice accepted something of value with the explicit understanding that it would influence their judicial decisions.

3. Fraud

• Honest Services Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346): This statute criminalizes schemes to defraud citizens of their right to honest services. If a justice was found to be making decisions based on undisclosed financial interests or benefits, it could potentially be argued that they deprived the public of their honest services.
• Mail and Wire Fraud: Using mail or wire communications to further a scheme to defraud could also be covered by federal fraud statutes.

4. Conflicts of Interest

• 18 U.S.C. § 208: This statute prohibits federal officials from participating in matters where they have a financial interest. If a justice failed to recuse themselves from cases where they had a financial interest, it could be a criminal violation.
• Improper Influence: Even if not directly criminal, significant conflicts of interest could be used to build a case for ethical violations and public censure.

5. Obstruction of Justice

• 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512: If a justice attempted to interfere with an investigation into their conduct by destroying evidence or tampering with witnesses, it could constitute obstruction of justice.
• Tampering with Judicial Processes: Actions taken to impede the administration of justice or influence the outcome of an investigation or proceeding could fall under this category.

6. Perjury

• 18 U.S.C. § 1621: If a justice lied under oath during congressional testimony, judicial proceedings, or any official inquiry, it could result in perjury charges.
• False Statements in Financial Disclosures: Providing false information in mandatory financial disclosure forms could also be considered perjury.

7. Insider Trading

• Securities Violations: If a justice used non-public information obtained through their position to benefit financially in securities trading, this could violate insider trading laws.

Next Steps for Legal Action:

1. Conduct Investigations: Thoroughly investigate potential financial dealings, communications, and decisions that might indicate criminal behavior.
2. Collect Evidence: Gather substantial evidence to support any allegations, including financial records, communications, and witness testimonies.
3. Seek Legal Counsel: Work with experienced legal professionals to evaluate the evidence and determine the viability of potential charges.
4. Engage Oversight Bodies: Present findings to relevant congressional committees, the Department of Justice, or other oversight bodies to pursue further investigation or legal action.
5. Public Advocacy: Use public advocacy to build awareness and support for holding the justices accountable.

Given the complexity and high stakes involved, pursuing these avenues would require meticulous preparation and a solid foundation of evidence.

 

 

AMENDMENT 14 SECTION 3 IS SELF-EXECUTING

Amendment 14, Section 3: A Self-Executing Constitutional Provision

The United States Constitution, through its amendments, provides a robust framework for protecting the rights and ensuring the integrity of the republic. One such amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, is particularly significant in its broad implications for citizenship, equal protection, and the privileges and immunities of citizens. Within this amendment lies Section 3, a provision designed to address issues of loyalty and rebellion, specifically barring individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office. This article argues that Amendment 14, Section 3, is self-executing, meaning it does not require any implementing statute or regulation to be enforceable.

The Text of Section 3

Amendment 14, Section 3 states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

This provision, crafted in the aftermath of the Civil War, aims to ensure that individuals who have betrayed the Union cannot assume positions of power within the government. The language is clear and direct, delineating both the criteria for disqualification and the conditions under which this disqualification can be lifted.

Self-Executing Nature

A self-executing provision is one that is effective immediately upon enactment, without the need for further legislation or administrative action. Several key points support the argument that Amendment 14, Section 3, falls into this category:

1. Clarity and Precision: The language of Section 3 is precise and unambiguous. It specifies who is disqualified, the nature of their disqualifying actions, and the mechanism for removing the disqualification (a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress). This level of detail indicates that the provision is meant to operate automatically, without the need for additional statutory interpretation or enforcement mechanisms.
2. Historical Context: The historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment supports its self-executing nature. In the wake of the Civil War, there was an urgent need to address the issue of former Confederates potentially returning to power. The framers of the amendment intended to create an immediate and enforceable barrier to such individuals, reflecting the pressing need for stability and loyalty in governance.
3. Judicial Interpretation: The judiciary has recognized the self-executing nature of certain constitutional provisions in various rulings. While there has been limited litigation specifically regarding Section 3, the principle that clear constitutional mandates are self-executing is well-established. The Supreme Court has affirmed this notion in cases where constitutional provisions contain direct and enforceable commands.
4. Absence of Implementing Legislation: The practical application of Section 3 historically did not rely on additional legislation. During the Reconstruction era, various individuals were disqualified from office based on this provision alone, without the need for supplementary laws. This precedent indicates that Section 3 was understood and treated as self-executing.

Implications of Self-Execution

Recognizing Amendment 14, Section 3 as self-executing has significant implications for the integrity of public office and the enforcement of constitutional norms. It ensures that individuals who have demonstrated disloyalty through insurrection or rebellion are automatically barred from positions of power, thereby protecting the government from internal subversion.

Moreover, the self-executing nature of Section 3 simplifies the enforcement process. It allows for the direct application of constitutional principles without the delays and complications that can arise from the legislative process. This immediacy is crucial in maintaining the stability and security of the government, particularly in times of crisis.

Conclusion

Amendment 14, Section 3 of the United States Constitution stands as a clear and enforceable provision designed to safeguard the government from those who would undermine its foundations through insurrection or rebellion. Its precise language, historical context, judicial recognition, and historical application all support the argument that it is self-executing. By requiring no additional legislation or regulation to be effective, Section 3 embodies the framers' intent to create a direct and immediate barrier against disloyalty, ensuring that only those who uphold the Constitution can serve in positions of authority. This self-executing nature is essential to preserving 

PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION

The Executive Branch: Guardian of Law and Constitution

The United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, delineates the framework for the federal government and enumerates the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Central to this framework is the doctrine of separation of powers, which allocates distinct responsibilities to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. Among these, the executive branch holds a unique and pivotal role: it is tasked with enforcing all laws, including the provisions of the Constitution. This article explores the vital function of the executive branch in upholding the rule of law and ensuring the Constitution's principles are implemented and respected.

The Constitutional Mandate

Article II of the Constitution vests the executive power in the President of the United States, who is sworn to "faithfully execute the Office of President" and to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." This oath underscores the President's responsibility to enforce the laws passed by Congress and uphold constitutional provisions.

Moreover, the Take Care Clause, located in Article II, Section 3, explicitly states that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This clause is a cornerstone of the executive branch's duty, ensuring that federal laws are implemented effectively and consistently. The phrase "laws" here encompasses both statutory laws enacted by Congress and the Constitution itself, affirming the executive branch's role as the primary enforcer of the nation's legal framework.

Enforcement Mechanisms

The executive branch enforces laws through a vast network of federal agencies and departments, each with specific mandates and areas of jurisdiction. These entities include the Department of Justice (DOJ), which plays a critical role in legal enforcement, from prosecuting federal crimes to representing the United States in legal matters. The DOJ, led by the Attorney General, ensures that the Constitution and federal laws are applied uniformly across the nation.

In addition to the DOJ, other executive agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), contribute to the enforcement of laws within their respective domains. These agencies operate under the President's authority, carrying out directives that align with constitutional mandates and legislative statutes.

Constitutional Protections and Checks

While the executive branch holds significant power in law enforcement, it operates within a system of checks and balances designed to prevent any single branch from overstepping its authority. The judiciary, for instance, has the power to review executive actions and determine their constitutionality. This judicial review acts as a safeguard, ensuring that the executive branch enforces laws without violating constitutional rights.

Moreover, Congress exercises oversight over the executive branch through its legislative and investigative powers. This oversight includes the ability to pass laws that define and limit executive actions, conduct hearings, and, if necessary, initiate impeachment proceedings to hold the President and other executive officials accountable for unlawful conduct.

Historical Context and Contemporary Relevance

Throughout American history, the executive branch has played a crucial role in enforcing laws and upholding constitutional principles. From the enforcement of civil rights laws during the 1960s to the implementation of environmental regulations in recent decades, the executive's actions have shaped the nation's legal landscape.

In contemporary times, the executive branch continues to navigate complex legal and constitutional challenges. Issues such as immigration enforcement, national security, and the protection of civil liberties illustrate the dynamic and evolving nature of the executive's enforcement responsibilities. The current and future administrations must balance the enforcement of laws with respect for constitutional rights, a task that demands vigilance, integrity, and a steadfast commitment to the rule of law.

Conclusion

The executive branch's role in enforcing all laws, including the provisions of the Constitution, is fundamental to the functioning of American democracy. Entrusted with the power to implement and uphold legal standards, the executive branch ensures that the principles enshrined in the Constitution are not mere ideals but active, living components of the nation's governance. As guardians of the rule of law, the President and executive agencies must continually strive to execute their duties faithfully, honoring the Constitution and the democratic values it embodies. Through vigilant enforcement and adherence to constitutional mandates, the executive branch upholds the integrity of the nation's legal system and fortifies the foundation of American democracy.

STAY CURRENT WITH SECURITY AWARENESS

Ensuring Your Security Awareness Training Program Aligns with Industry Best Practices

In an era where cyber threats are becoming increasingly sophisticated, having an effective security awareness training program is essential for any organization. To ensure that your security awareness training program aligns with industry best practices, consider the following key strategies:

1. Conduct a Needs Assessment

Before developing or updating your security awareness training program, perform a thorough needs assessment. This involves:

• Risk Assessment: Identify the specific cyber threats your organization faces.
• Audience Analysis: Understand the knowledge level and roles of your employees.
• Regulatory Requirements: Ensure compliance with relevant laws and industry regulations.

2. Develop Clear Objectives

Establish clear, measurable objectives for your training program. Objectives should align with your organization’s overall security strategy and address identified risks. Examples of objectives include:

• Reducing the number of phishing incidents.
• Ensuring compliance with data protection regulations.
• Increasing employee reporting of suspicious activities.

3. Create Engaging Content

Security awareness training should be engaging and relevant. Use a variety of content formats to cater to different learning styles:

• Interactive Modules: Use simulations and interactive scenarios to teach employees how to recognize and respond to threats.
• Videos and Webinars: Create visually appealing and easy-to-understand video content.
• Quizzes and Assessments: Reinforce learning through quizzes and practical assessments.

4. Tailor Training to Specific Roles

Different roles within your organization may face different security challenges. Tailor your training content to address the specific risks and responsibilities of various roles, such as:

• Executives: Focus on strategic risks and decision-making.
• IT Staff: Provide in-depth technical training on security protocols and incident response.
• General Staff: Cover basic security hygiene and recognizing common threats like phishing.

5. Promote a Security-Aware Culture

Creating a culture of security awareness involves more than just training sessions. Encourage a security-first mindset throughout the organization by:

• Leadership Involvement: Have senior management actively participate in and endorse the training program.
• Regular Communication: Share regular updates on security trends and tips via emails, newsletters, and intranet posts.
• Recognition and Rewards: Recognize and reward employees who demonstrate good security practices.

6. Use Real-World Examples

Incorporate real-world examples of security breaches and incidents to illustrate the importance of security awareness. Discuss recent high-profile breaches and their impacts on organizations to make the training more relatable and impactful.

7. Implement Continuous Training

Security threats are constantly evolving, so your training program should be ongoing rather than a one-time event. Implement continuous training by:

• Regular Refreshers: Schedule periodic refresher courses to keep security knowledge current.
• Updates and Alerts: Provide updates on new threats and vulnerabilities as they emerge.
• Ongoing Assessments: Conduct regular assessments to measure the effectiveness of the training and identify areas for improvement.

8. Evaluate and Improve

Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of your security awareness training program. Use metrics such as:

• Incident Reports: Track the number and type of security incidents reported by employees.
• Phishing Test Results: Measure how well employees identify and avoid phishing attempts.
• Feedback Surveys: Collect feedback from participants to identify strengths and areas for improvement.

9. Leverage Technology

Use technology to enhance your training program. Learning Management Systems (LMS) can help manage and deliver training content, track participation, and assess knowledge retention. Additionally, consider using:

• Phishing Simulations: Test employees’ ability to recognize phishing emails in a controlled environment.
• Gamification: Use gamified elements to make learning more engaging and fun.

10. Stay Informed

Stay up-to-date with the latest industry best practices, standards, and guidelines. Participate in industry forums, attend conferences, and subscribe to relevant publications. This will help ensure your training program evolves with the changing threat landscape.

Conclusion

Aligning your security awareness training program with industry best practices requires a proactive and comprehensive approach. By conducting a needs assessment, setting clear objectives, creating engaging content, and fostering a security-aware culture, you can significantly enhance your organization's security posture. Continuous training, regular evaluation, and leveraging technology are also crucial to maintaining an effective program. Ultimately, a well-designed security awareness training program not only protects your organization but also empowers employees to be the first line of defense against cyber threats.

  

LITIGATION EXPERIENCE MATTERS (4)

Even when a government claim is involved, the government's strategy is to delay as much as possible. So, what is the contractor's prudent method for moving the case?

1. Always file the Complaint with the Notice of Appeal.
2. Try to get opposing counsel to agree to a discovery schedule and trial date.
3. Ask the judge to help negotiate the discovery schedule and trial date.
4. Try getting opposing counsel to agree to ADR before discovery.
5. Conduct ADR if the government agrees.
6. Truncate discovery as much as possible. Use rifle, not shotgun shots.
7. Discovery is a constant negotiation of scope. Enlist the judge's help if possible.
8. Depositions are essential but move them along quickly. Experts in particular.
9. Keep your eye on the prize. You win on the trial and briefing. 
10. Try to keep the judge engaged in status conferences to keep the case moving.

LITIGATION EXPERIENCE MATTERS (3)

In claims under the Disputes Act of 1978 that covers all contractual disputes, you will not have a jury, and:

1. There will likely be no opening statement or closing oral argument.
2. No expert witness testimony will be allowed on contract interpretation issues.
3. The case will be won on your post-trial brief strength.
4. Expert testimony on the delay claim critical path analysis will be required.
5. The judge presiding at the trial may not write the opinion.
6. It will likely take a year or more after the last brief is filed for a decision to be issued.
7. Stay across the street at the Homewood Suites by Hilton for ASBCA trials and have lunch catered there. (The ASBCA will most likely move soon.)
8. The record consists of the Rule 4 File, the trial transcript, and any exhibits admitted at trial.
9. The case will be decided on that record.
10. Do not file a motion for summary judgment unless you know the relevant facts are undisputed.        

LITIGATION EXPERIENCE MATTERS (2)

 ON HOW TO WRITE BRIEFS:

1. Be brief.
2. Edit to eliminate unnecessary words, phrases, cliches, and unpleasant tones.
3. Writing must be mellifluous. Fun to read, easy to read.
4. Short paragraphs and short sentences.
5. Never argue in the alternative, as it signals they both are wrong. Pick one and stay with it.
6. Avoid footnotes as they interrupt the flow and seldom help win. If it is worthy of saying, say it in the body of the brief.
7. Use plain language and let the strength of your substantial position speak for you. Do not try to use words and phrases designed to move the reader emotionally.
8. Never use boldface type. 
9. Use italics rarely to emphasize a particular word.
10. Leave plenty of white space on the page. Again, short paragraphs and sentences. This is not a vocabulary contest.

LITIGATION EXPERIENCE MATTERS (1)

This is the first in a series of litigation tips and treasures.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

To those of you paying attention to the Trump trial (I am not), you will see a lesson in how not to cross-examine a witness. The time-honored, hard-and-fast rules of the cross are: (1) Do not try to prove your case through the other side's witnesses; (2) Do not ask a question that gives the witness a chance to reiterate the case against you; (3) Only ask a leading question; (4) only ask a question you know how the witness will answer, and it helps you; and (5) be sure you have the backup for any fact you wish the witness to address.

Out of over a hundred criminal and civil trials, we have only won two, primarily based on cross-examination. A handwriting expert was so arrogant he invited a thorough inquisition regarding his opinion that my client was guilty. I walked him through each word and each letter of each sentence. The jurors unanimously decided my client was not guilty as they could tell the witness was full of himself, and their opinion was just as plausible as his.

The other was a government contracts case where the DCAA auditor was also arrogant and was playing lawyer interpreting regulations he had no business addressing. When I pointed out on the cross that the critical language was disjunctive, not conjunctive, the witness collapsed, and the government's claim against my client went with him.

Some lawyers think they are so skilled that they eventually will score big points with the fact finder if they drone on and on trying to make their case through cross-examination. The witness they are trying to "break" is hostile. Why not present evidence from a friendly source? I've received a great benefit from not crossing the other side's witness than from adding to my burden by trying to make their witness mine.