Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Many Three Forks property owners are finding out how bureaucrats can violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution by taking private property without due process of law and without just compensation. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration) and DNRC (Montana Department of Natural Resources) are doing this by redrawing the 100-year flood maps for the Jefferson River.

The maps distinguish between the flood plain and the floodway, the former being land that can be developed under certain regulations and the latter being land on which no new construction is allowed and no building can be remodeled or rebuilt if destroyed. The new maps do not give the actual acreage added to the floodway, but an eye-ball estimate suggests it is at least 3,000 acres. That is a non-trivial amount of land to be put off limits to any development.

Before rolling over and playing dead, the first step for all property owners and for Three Forks officials should be to protest the maps which must undergo a public comment and appeal period. This will occur in 2022 or 2023, so there is plenty of time to get the maps right.

The maps are being redrawn based on better topographic data from satellites and on new hydrological models. These models are like a black box where we cant see what is inside. In the review process, all parties should ask what is behind the models. Is there evidence of greater water flows? Is there evidence of more ice dams, the main cause of Jefferson River flooding? In fact, given predictions of global warming, it seems more reasonable to expect less precipitationi.e. lower river flows--and higher temperaturesi.e. fewer ice dams.

Models are only useful if they can predict. In this case they are predicting a 1 percent chance in any given year of flood waters covering the floodway with 1 foot of water. Given there has been no such flood in recorded history, a better prediction would be that there is a zero percent chance of a 1-foot flood in any given year. As the saying goes amongst modelers, garbage in, garbage out.

To date, Three Forks officials have responded to the draft maps by seeking money to mitigate the predicted potential flooding. Along with an engineering firm and a nonprofit policy group, both of which have vested interest in getting federal money, the city wants to build a 3-mile long, 100-feet wide, 5-feet deep channel to divert the predicted, but never observed, flood waters.

Building the channel raises many questions. First and foremost, how will the city get permission from affected landowners to build the channel? The proposal calls for easements across private property, but the city has not talked to landowners about their willingness to sell easements. What if they refuse to sell, a real possibility given that landowners always worry that easements come with calls for public access? If they refuse to sell easement, the city would have to go through a costly and contentious eminent domain process, condemning the property and forcing a negotiation. Only the lawyers win in such contests.

Second, who will pay for the $5 million project? If the city is successful in getting federal funding, it will only cover $3.78 million, leaving $1.26 million to come from taxpayers. Put another way, Three Forks taxpayers generally will foot the bill to protect a few property owners from problematic flood risks.

Third, what will the channel look like when it is not carrying predicted flood waters? A computer-generated photo in the proposal shows beautiful, grass-covered banks and bed, but anyone familiar with the area knows that grazing land will become river rock after the channel is dug.

Finally, will the channel become a swamp during the summer? The water table in the area is 2 feet or less. That means a 5-feet deep channel will always hold water in the summer, making it a mosquito infested swamp. In the winter it will be frozen over, making it less useful for carrying any flood waters.

Rather than accepting the redrawn FEMA flood maps and letting the bureaucracy dictate where and how development occurs, it makes more sense for citizens to hold their employees accountable. The redrawn maps reduce property values with little evidence that they reduce flood risks. Chasing federal dollars to fix this imbalance adds to the general tax burden and turns productive ranch lands into a swamp, all in the name of development for a few.

Terry Anderson is a Senior Fellow at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution, Professor Emeritus at Montana State University, and a property owner in the Three Forks area.

Read the original:
Guest opinion: New Jefferson River flood maps are all wet - Belgrade News

But people like Kinzinger have not been the ones shaping the reputation of Christianity in America over the past four years. Trumps supporters have. Even after everything thats happenedTrumps attempt to overturn the election, his cheerleading for the attack on the Capitolsome influential evangelical leaders are still defending the president: Shame, shame, Franklin Graham, the evangelist and son of the famous pastor Billy Graham, wrote about the 10 Republicans who voted for impeachment. It makes you wonder what the 30 pieces of silver were that Speaker Pelosi promised for this betrayal. In the metaphor, the Republican dissidents are cast as Judas, who is said to have betrayed Jesus in exchange for 30 coins. Trump plays the role of Christ.

Read: The evangelical reckoning begins

Looking to political personalities rather than Jesus for salvation is the worst kind of mistake a Christian can make, Kinzinger said. There are many people that have made America their god, that have made the economy their god, that have made Donald Trump their god, and that have made their political identity their god. The problems that led to the January 6 insurrection are not just political. Theyre cultural. Roughly half of Protestant pastors said they regularly hear people promote conspiracy theories in their churches, a recent survey by the Southern Baptist firm LifeWay Research found. I believe there is a huge burden now on Christian leaders, especially those who entertained the conspiracies, to lead the flock back into the truth, Kinzinger tweeted on January 12.

Read: A Christian insurrection

As a kid growing up in a Baptist church, Kinzinger was constantly in Sunday school, and his dad ran ministries that served the hungry and the homeless. Politics was a natural part of this world: Kinzinger attended meetings of the Christian Coalition, the evangelical advocacy group, and learned about the importance of advocating against abortion. But over time, as the tie between Republican politics and evangelical Christianity got tighter, he began to see conservative policies used as a litmus test for whether people were true Christians. Kinzinger believed that Republican ideas were superior to Democratic oneshe first got elected to the county board in McLean County, Illinois, as a 20-year-old local-government advocate. But it bothered him that many Republicans viewed their political opponents as evil enemies, rather than people who might even share their faith. We get wrapped up in thinking that every little political victory that we do [that] has an impact on an election is actually fighting for God and the truth, he said.

Kinzinger first got elected to Congress under Barack Obama, and over the past decade, he has watched his party transform. No longer does policy actually matter. Its all about: Do you support Donald Trump, or dont you? Do you want to own the left, or dont you? he said. Although he stated publicly that he wouldnt vote for Trump in 2016, he did vote for the president in 2020, citing a desire to build on the administrations policy successes. Unlike some Republicans, he has not spent the past four years on the front lines of the Never Trump resistance; he generally supported Trumps agenda in Congress, voting in line with the presidents goals roughly 90 percent of the time. But unlike other members of the GOP, Kinzinger was unwilling to keep fighting for Trump after it was clear that he had lost the election. Im embarrassed by some of my Republican colleagues on the floor. They have defaulted to political points for fame and have failed to rise to this moment, he tweeted on January 6. He later joined Democrats to encourage Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment and remove Trump from office.

More:
Betraying Your ChurchAnd Your Party - The Atlantic

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: I`m so glad that you did, Rachel, because I was going to read it if you didn`t. The good news in it is the FBI knows everything these people are up to at the moment and seems to have a good eye on them. I think their possible success at their schemes is probably close to zero at this point with the amount of attention they already have from the FBI.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST, "TRMS": Yeah, I was also interested to see, and this is a rare thing that you don`t see papers don`t say very often, that "The Post" says, withholding details outlined in the intelligence report at the request of the FBI to avoid revealing intelligence-gathering methods or specific security vulnerabilities.

So, the FBI is going to "The Post" and saying, don`t report this stuff, it`s going to let them know how we`re surveilling them. And how they know - - how they might be able to figure out what we`re doing. How we know what they`re doing. That`s a sign of active investigations.

O`DONNELL: Yeah, it reminds me of the arrests of the gang in Michigan whose scheme was to kidnap the governor. About half of the people involved were either FBI informers or FBI agents, themselves. There was just a stunning amount of them so that at any given moment, when you were talking to someone in that plot, you were talking directly to the FBI. And that may very well be the case with all these people tonight.

MADDOW: Yeah, it may be. Man, this next two days, I`m both looking forward to it and really excited about it being over.

O`DONNELL: It will be over very soon, Rachel.

MADDOW: Yeah. Thanks, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Thank you, Rachel.

Well, Mary Trump is going to join us with at this point about 38 hours left in her uncle`s presidency. She is the person who I think can give us some idea about what to expect in those 38 hours and what Donald Trump`s life is going to be when he becomes a private citizen on the golf course. And this is this country`s 35th Martin Luther King Day.

Professor Eddie Glaude will join us at the end of this hour to consider what Dr. King`s final speech should mean to Americans today.

And so Donald Trump leaves the presidency the same way he entered it, with the overwhelming disapproval of a majority of the American people. A substantial majority of Americans disapproved of Donald Trump on the very first day of his presidency and every single day of his presidency and now in the final days of his presidency, 61 percent disapprove of Donald Trump and that`s before America has had a chance to see all of the pardons that Donald Trump will grant and what are now his final 38 hours in office.

A Quinnipiac poll today shows that 59 percent say Donald Trump should not be allowed to hold elected office in the future. 55 percent approve of the vote to impeach Donald Trump in the House last week. 54 percent say that Donald Trump should be convicted in his trial in the United States Senate. 59 percent say that Donald Trump is, indeed, responsible for inciting the violence that occurred in the invasion of the Capitol on January 6th.

That same poll also shows that Donald Trump and the Fox Channel`s relentless bombardment of propaganda lies has done grave damage to Republicans` ability to distinguish fact from fiction and 67 percent of Republicans think that the Biden/Harris election victory is not legitimate but always remember when you see a poll of Republicans, you must remember that only 25 percent of American voters are Republicans and so 67 percent of Republicans is only 16 percent of us, the American people.

Even if Donald Trump pardons himself, he is going to spend the next few days and possibly many more years as a defendant. First, he will be in effect the defendant in the Senate impeachment trial where the evidence continues to mount against him in the form of statements made by people who have been arrested for invading the Capitol, and they say that they did it because Donald Trump told them to. That is proof of incitement of insurrection, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The statements of many of those people who are now criminal defendants, themselves, will surely be used in the impeachment trial against Donald Trump. And so, the people who might turn out to be the most effective witnesses against Donald Trump in his impeachment trial in the Senate are the very people who love him so much that they invaded the Capitol for him. They love him so much that they committed federal crimes for him. And they love Donald Trump so much that they murdered a police officer for him.

Donald Trump is already a defendant in civil lawsuits that will progress much more quickly now that he`s not president starting on Wednesday afternoon. E. Jean Carroll is suing Donald Trump, saying Donald Trump raped her in New York City in the 1990s. Donald Trump`s niece, Mary Trump, is suing her uncle and will be testifying in legal proceedings against him. Mary Trump will join us later this hour.

Donald Trump and his children who are involved in this business could become criminal defendants in an investigation currently under way by the Manhattan district attorney. Donald Trump might become a criminal defendant in Georgia accused of violating state election law by asking the Republican secretary of state to find votes for him.

"The New York Times" is reporting that Donald Trump is contemplating more than 100 possible pardons, along with the White House counsel Pat A. Cipollone and advisers including Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, his daughter and son-in-law. Mr. Trump has spent days sifting through names and recommendations, assembling a list that officials say he intends to disclose on Tuesday. His last full day in office.

Don`t trust the list. Do not believe the list when it comes out because Donald Trump can grant pardons secretly that would never be revealed publicly until that person is charged with a federal crime. And only then would that pardon -- would that pardon reveal what Donald Trump had granted it, and that pardon would then be presented so that the charges would be dismissed against that person.

That could be how Donald Trump pardons himself. He might pardon himself and not reveal it publicly so that he doesn`t provoke a negative reaction to the pardon, to his self-pardon, in his Senate impeachment trial. "The New York Times" reports, White House officials also believe that any consideration he is giving to granting himself a pardon could also turn more Republicans against him in his coming Senate impeachment trial.

Not if he keeps his self-pardon a secret. He might keep pardons to his children a secret unless and until they are charged with a federal crime. Do not trust the Trump pardon list when it is publicly revealed. There is no reason to believe that Donald Trump will make every pardon he grants in his final hours of his presidency public.

It seemed like every hour today there was a new report from another news organization about who is on and who is slipping off the Trump pardon list, but none of those reports included the fact that Donald Trump can keep some of his pardons secret and his Senate impeachment trial gives him a huge incentive to that.

A lawyer for at least one of the people who invaded the Capitol is already asking for a pardon from Donald Trump. The lawyer for this guy wants a pardon for him saying that he only entered the Capitol because Donald Trump told him to.

Donald Trump will spend all of his waking hours -- the waking hours remaining in his presidency trying to figure out how best to protect himself with pardons. And when he does that, his poll numbers will not be going up. Donald Trump`s life beginning Wednesday afternoon will, in his mind, be the life of a loser. The only thing that might remain constant in his life is the number of hours he spends trying to play golf. Many national security experts are hoping he doesn`t have any new intelligence information with him on the golf course.

Sue Gordon was Donald Trump`s principal deputy director of national intelligence for the first three years of his presidency and she says that Donald Trump, the president she served, cannot be trusted with any more intelligence briefings as is traditional for presidents after they leave office. Sue Gordon writes in the "Washington Post," my recommendation as a 30-plus-year veteran of the intelligence community is not to provide him any briefings after January 20th with this simple act which is solely the new president`s prerogative, Joe Biden can mitigate one aspect of the potential national security risk posed by Donald Trump, private citizen.

Donald Trump, private citizen, doesn`t have a single good day in his future.

Leading off our discussion tonight, Nicholas Kristof, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for "The New York Times", and Yamiche Alcindor, White House correspondent for "PBS NewsHour" and an MSNBC political analyst.

Yamiche, your friends in the White House press corps have been issuing new reports every hour at different news organizations about who`s on the pardon list, who`s slipping off the pardon list. Is Steve Bannon going to get one? Is Rudy Giuliani going to get a pardon? How much money -- how big are the bags of money being dragged into this process to pay the people like Giuliani and others who might be trying to secure pardons for others?

And it seems at this point tomorrow might be the day when we learn of at least some of these pardons.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: That`s right. The reports are that President Trump who has finally turned a tornado corner, and realizes that he`s going to have to leave the White House has now turned his attention to pardons.

The understanding is and reporting shows that he might issue as many as 100 pardons all at once. At one point, there was supposed to be two batches of pardons. He was obsessed with the idea he was going to try to win back the election, the Electoral College count, they couldn`t get him focused no on the pandemic, but even -- not on the pardons, as a result, we`re seeing this now.

What it says about the Trump presidency, at the very end of this presidency, he`s wrestling with a marred and tarnished legacy that could get even more controversial and, frankly, more stained tomorrow given who he ends up wanting to pardon. This is now a president who may, as you said, secretly pardon himself because the legal problems are mounting, if you watch closely Michael Cohen who, of course, was -- was convicted of a crime that he committed with President Trump, he said that he`s been in contact with federal authorities, with state authorities, who`ve been reaching out to him.

So what we see here is president Trump weighing all of the different legal challenges of other people but also weighing his own personal legal challenge which, of course, are many.

O`DONNELL: And, Nick Kristof, there are reports indicating that there have been discussions about possibly pardoning the invaders of the Capitol, but Donald Trump has been advised against doing that. And with the impeachment trial looming, these pardons could create a more dynamic problem for him than otherwise because he does have that Republican Senate jury that he has to hold on to.

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah. He`s finally running into a measure of accountability. I mean, when he said way back when he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and nobody would pay attention, well, today it does seem finally that has caught up with him and see his poll ratings going down after there had been this floor, nothing seemed to move them.

Now those floorboards are wearing out as you noted. A Pew Poll found him even lower at 29 percent. Then, of course, that`s going to affect the impeachment calculations.

I would say aside from the question of who`s on all those lists that are coming out and how reliably we should view those, there`s also the question about the process and even if the names end up being names that, you know, that don`t send our eyebrows soaring, the process should. This has not gone through Justice Department with a scrutiny, the review, that is customary and is traditional.

And I think, you know, we should find that offensive even if the particular names in the end do not offend us.

O`DONNELL: Yeah. Yamiche, the pardon office in the Justice Department was set up so that to depoliticize the pardon process. Donald Trump has jumped that and made all of his pardons political including ones that he may include tomorrow of worthy cases that are deserving of pardon, of people he doesn`t know so that he can put some things in there that look like reasonable choices that another president could have made.

KRISTOF: Yeah.

ALCINDOR: That`s right.

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOF: Go ahead, Yamiche.

O`DONNELL: Sorry, let`s go to Yamiche. Go ahead, Yamiche.

ALCINDOR: Well, one, Nick Kristof, I love your point so much, I`m going to make this brief. I think for me when you look at that, the list could include people that are criminal justice cases that are cases that advocates are pushing for, but we know just by what we can see in the past that some of these names are likely to raise eyebrows. Let`s remember that this was a president who pardoned people that were involved in killing civilians in Iraq, little children in Iraq. He has pardoned Scooter Libby, he`s pardoned Roger Stone. He`s pardoned people that were close to him as well as people that he didn`t know.

And the feeling is, yes, maybe he`ll have some people who maybe are deserving of pardons who are people who maybe have been wrongfully convicted in all sorts of things or maybe have seen a sort of change. There are probably going to also be people that are politically motivated, that are about sending a message. He`s wanted to kind of argue that he was a target of a hoax, the target of an unfair prosecution in all sorts of ways, unfair investigations.

So, I can just imagine based on my conversation there are also going to be people especially in the Republicans` conservative cause celebre that are going to make eyebrows definitely raised.

O`DONNELL: Nick Kristof, you look down to 2021, Donald Trump may have been living the life of the weekend golfer who spends the weekday in courtrooms or answering interrogatories or depositions in civil cases. How do you think Donald Trump is going to look in our politics, say, at the end of the first year of the Biden administration?

KRISTOF: So, I think it`s encouraging that those floorboards are beginning to drop out on his public support. I think it`s also encouraging that we`re seeing some signs that the Republican Party is willing to try to -- some people within the Republican Party are going to try to move beyond him. But I -- you know, I think it`s really too early to tell whether we`re going to see what happened, you know, with Nixon, for example, where Nixon had job approval ratings only a hair below where they are for Trump right now, about 25 percent, and then he became, you know, stigmatized by everybody across the country, or whether Trump is going to continue to maintain this hold over the Republican Party partly because of a fear that people have of being primaried, partly because his base remains much more loyal so far to him than they do to any other Republican officials.

O`DONNELL: Yamiche, the year after Richard Nixon left office was very hard to find anyone who could remember voting for him. It just became something that people weren`t willing to admit. There may be some erosion like that with Donald Trump, but his supporters seem to be more strongly attached to him than Richard Nixon`s were.

ALCINDOR: That`s the case right now. There are a lot of Trump supporters who are wanting to talk about how proud they are that they stood up for the president, stood by him as he lied about election fraud and lied about the election being stolen from him.

But I think that this -- the racial reckoning that we`re going through, this idea that people are starting to finally realize the threat of white supremacy, that white supremacy literally crashed and attacked our U.S. Capitol, that that might give some people some cause when you ask them whether or not they supported the president. I will say this is Martin Luther King Day. There are a lot of people who are sharing quotes from Martin Luther King who are talking about his ideals, but who don`t actually really talk about the radical change that he wanted, doing away with discrimination.

And I think those people are going to have to really contend with their support of president Trump and they may start to not want to associate with it.

O`DONNELL: Yamiche Alcindor, Nick Kristof, thank you very much for starting off our discussion here in the final hours of the worst presidency of American history. Really appreciate you joining us tonight.

KRISTOF: Good to be with you.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

YAMICHE: Thanks.

O`DONNELL: Up next, Chuck Rosenberg will join us to consider the legal technicalities of the Trump pardon spree and the strategic difficulty Donald Trump is going to have in trying to protect himself through pardons of himself and other people. Some pardons could hurt Donald Trump more than they help him legally. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: To pardon or not to pardon. That is the question facing Donald Trump every minute of his remaining time in the presidency. That`s what`s keeping him awake tonight. There are political implications to some of his pardon choices that could make him even less politically popular than he is now.

But there are also some very important legal strategic issues that matter to Donald Trump because protecting himself is the really central matter in the pardons for him. That`s what he cares about. Protecting himself.

Consider the example of Allen Weisselberg, the longtime accountant of the Trump company. Donald Trump might want to relieve Allen Weisselberg of any federal criminal risk involving the Trump company tax returns and Donald Trump`s personal tax returns, but "The New York Times" reports that Allen Weisselberg might not receive a preemptive pardon. Quote, in part, out of fear that Mr. Weisselberg may forfeit his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

So some of the choices Donald Trump could make in pardoning people to try to protect himself could actually create more legal danger for Donald Trump.

To discuss more of the legal complexities of the looming Trump pardon spree, we are joined now by Chuck Rosenberg, former U.S. attorney. Chuck is now an MSNBC legal contributor and host of the podcast, "The Oath."

So, Chuck, let`s just begin on a pardon checklist of questions. Does this question of can you grant a preemptive pardon to someone who has not been accused of a crime, as happened with Richard Nixon? But the Richard Nixon pardon was never tested in court so we never got an opinion on the validity of that pardon.

Do we have in our history some other Supreme Court opinion on the validity of a pardon, a blanket pardon, for someone who has not actually yet been accused of a federal crime?

CHUCK ROSENBERG, MSNBC LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: No, but we have other precedents, Lawrence. It`s a great question. Washington issued a preemptive pardon for those who partook in the Whiskey Rebellion. As you pointed, President Ford issued preemptive pardon to Richard Nixon. President Carter issued preemptive pardons to individuals who evaded the draft. So while it hasn`t been tested, we do have precedent.

O`DONNELL: And what about pardoning a business? Can the Trump company get a federal pardon?

ROSENBERG: That is such an interesting question. So let me answer it with about a 90 percent confidence integral, Lawrence. My surmise is, yes, you can issue a pardon to a business organization.

There are only two restrictions in the constitution on the president`s pardon power. It has to be for a federal offense and it cannot be in a case of impeachment. Corporations can commit federal offenses. They can`t be put in prison, of course, but they can be fined, they can forfeit property, they can be put on probation, they can be ordered to pay restitution to victims.

So corporations can more or less be treated as individuals. So my surmise, my 90 percent confidence integral answer is yes, you can issue a pardon to a business organization.

O`DONNELL: It sounds to me, Chuck, like that is worth it for Donald Trump, to issue a pardon to the company, let them spend -- if they get accused of federal offenses, let them send a year in the appeals cycle with it and buy a year of time. And the same thing with the Donald Trump self-pardon. Professor Tribe has convinced me the Supreme Court would rule against him.

But Donald Trump would say in that a minimum of a year delay of self- pardoning himself so that that would have to be litigated to the Supreme Court.

ROSENBERG: Sure. It would have to be litigated at the federal level, but, again, remember, you cannot pardon, or at least the president cannot pardon, for a state offense. So while a business organization that received a pardon or president that granted himself a self-pardon could litigate in federal court, it would have no value and no effect in a state prosecution.

And we know that the Manhattan district attorney, a state prosecutor, has an open investigation of the Trump organization and many people affiliated with it.

O`DONNELL: Well, you see the -- that challenge of if you pardon Donald Trump Jr., he loses his Fifth Amendment rights. If you pardon your accountant, he loses his Fifth Amendment rights. Does Donald Trump if he pardons himself lose his Fifth Amendment rights?

ROSENBERG: Not entirely, at least not in my view because, again, you have state criminal jeopardy. So when you talk about the Fifth Amendment, think about it in two different buckets. There`s the federal bucket and the state bucket.

And as long as he is still at least theoretically exposed in the state criminal system, he still has some vestiges of his Fifth Amendment privilege remaining. So I think you`re quite right. You may lose it, it may be stripped in the federal context, but you could still assert it.

And to your earlier point, Lawrence, and it`s such an important one, by merely asserting it, you can get to litigate it. Even if you lose in the end, you still get to litigate it which means you`re running the clock.

O`DONNELL: Yeah, Donald Trump as a litigant has always been a believer in running the clock as long as you possibly could to avoid the day of reckoning.

But, Chuck, if he doesn`t have a federal pardon, on day one, he becomes criminally liable in the southern district of New York where he was identified in court as directing Michael Cohen to commit the federal crimes that sent Michael Cohen to prison. That exposure is so clear to Donald Trump as he sits there tonight, it`s hard to imagine him leaving office without writing that little note to himself with that pardon.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, I think that`s also exactly right. You know, he not only has exposure there, but he has exposure in the District of Columbia for inciting an insurrection. Also a federal offense.

And so -- and, by the way, the phrase you just used is so interesting. Writing a little note to himself. There`s absolutely no requirement in the constitution that a pardon be made public. Or that it even be in writing. It could be oral, I guess, or it could be stuck away in his drawer to be pulled out if he needs it down the road.

Again, the Constitution only places two limitations. Cannot be for a federal offense and cannot be for cases of impeachment. Otherwise, the power is broad and the Constitution is silent.

O`DONNELL: We will know a lot more about this tomorrow night.

Chuck Rosenberg, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Always appreciate it.

ROSENBERG: Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

Coming up, Mary Trump`s last word here on THE LAST WORD during the last hours of her uncle`s presidency. Mary Trump joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: With less than 38 hours left in her uncle`s presidency, we turn now to Mary Trump for her expert guidance on what to expect in those remaining hours and what Donald Trump will be feeling the next time he goes to play golf as a private citizen.

Joining us now is Mary Trump, author of "Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World`s Most Dangerous Man". Mary Trump, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

And I want to just clarify something because as we -- before the commercial when we were jumping over to here, I said something like, Mary Trump`s last word on THE LAST WORD. It doesn`t mean you will not be begged to come back in the future on some Trump madness day or for other reasons. It`s just this is your last word during the Trump presidency here on THE LAST WORD.

And it feels like a significant moment to us because you have helped so many of us guide us through this final year of the Trump presidency, and I think reduced properly the level of surprise at some of the things we`ve seen happen because I don`t get the sense that you`ve been surprised at anything that you`ve seen happen.

MARY TRUMP, AUTHOR: Yes, unfortunately, I wish I had been wrong or my assessments had been considered melodramatic in retrospect. But unfortunately, Donald has been true to form all along which is why, unfortunately, we can`t let our guard down yet. 38 hours is a really long time.

O`DONNELL: I want to get -- you can tell us, what`s been going through your mind, as I know, I`m sure you have been reading these press accounts of your cousin, Ivanka Trump in the Oval Office with Donald Trump, with Jared Kushner, going over the pardon list. Discussing Trump family members, should we pardon, should we not pardon. This apparently had been going on for days. This no doubt will keep Donald, as you call him, up late tonight.

When you`re imagining those scenes of the Trumps discussing the pardon list, what goes through your mind?

M. TRUMP: They`re going to do as much damage as they can on the way out. And when I heard how many people were on that list, it gave me a sinking feeling because we`ve already seen some horrific pardons. And if he`s giving out another 100 or 200, there`s a lot of room for him to do things that are even more horrific.

But we need to remember a couple things. First of all, part of their motive here is to demoralize and enrage the rest of us. So we need to just -- it`s going to happen no matter what. What hopefully will happen, though, is he`s going to overstep because as you and I have talked about before, he`s increasingly desperate. I mean. there may only be a day and a half left. That doesn`t mean that it`s all going to be over for him and he`ll just, you know, take his toys and go home.

He`s freaking out and these pardons are also designed to get him out of any future trouble as you and Chuck Rosenberg just discussed.

See original here:
Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 1/18/2021 - MSNBC

The executive order issued Jan. 20, 2021, to withdraw the Keystone XL pipeline was a win for liberty. Granted this was not the intention of the administration. The U.S. government granted a right of way without consulting First American reservations to give the tribes advance notification and a chance to comment in violation of treaties as well as U.S. law. The government granting the right of way through First American's land is the equivalent of eminent domain, the government taking use of a private citizen's (or tribe's) land without their consent. The policy of eminent domain in this case was taking the rights of the First American tribes and giving use of it to a privately-held company. A privately-owned, foreign-owned company at that.

The First Americans are not the only ones affected by this policy, the procedure was recently started against 80 residents in Nebraska, many of them farmers, in order to use the land for the same pipeline.

The ability of the government to take private property is enshrined in the taking's clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. I believe that most Americans would agree, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit government power and reach, and in this case, they limited the government taking for the public use (examples of which are canals or highways). When we start taking private property or the use of private property to give it to another private entity, we enable the government to determine the haves and the have nots.

Here, in Minnesota, we have already seen what happens when the politically powerful are given too much power and they make decisions that determine who can open for business and who must close. In eminent domain, we give those same powerful politicians the ability to not only determine that they can take public property for public use, but they also have the power to determine what is public use. The courts for the most part have given legislatures a wide leeway to make these determinations.

When we allow governments to determine that furthering economic development is a justifiable public use, we enter into a very slippery slope. This can result in taking from those who have little to give to those who are already affluent, as governments see them being more able to develop the property.

In 2005, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it very clearly in her dissent in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London: The beneficiaries [of eminent domain] are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

The revoking of the Keystone XL pipeline was the right call, even if they did not have this in mind. But in order to prevent further erosion of property rights, we need to elect representatives willing to enact legislation to very narrowly define what is public use.

Travis Bull Johnson lives in Beltrami, Minn.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

Excerpt from:
Letter: Halting the Keystone Pipeline is a win for liberty - INFORUM

Four years ago, psychiatristsand authorsDr. Robert Jay LiftonandDr. Bandy Lee, among others, felt a duty to warn the country about dangerous possibilities stemming from a man who lacked the mental fitness to be president.With Dr. Lee as editor, theyjoined with other experts to publishTheDangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Professionals Assess a President. The book went on to become an instant number one bestseller in 2017 anda second edition added ten additional chapters. The authors have also writtenhundreds of articlesand spoken out in thenews media about the continuous crisis that was the Trump presidency

As a bookend to the Trump era, one of the books contributors, psychotherapist Harper West, compiled excerpts from each of the essays in the original book. Even these brief selections show that at a time when few were speaking out about Trumps pathological personality, these experts were extremely prescient in their predictions about a wide range of aspects of Trumps behaviors, including the psychological impact on the country.

As you read these, remember the authors were writing four years ago and yet their statements sound as if they could be describing Trumps most recent behaviors. Clearly, he did not become more presidential. In fact his behaviors all worsened, as was predicted. We can take heart, however, that the authors offer not only a roadmap to preventing future authoritarians, but also words of advice for moving forward past Trumpism.

Foreward: Our Witness to Malignant Normality, by Robert Jay Lifton

[Trump] has also, in various ways, violated our American institutional requirements and threatened the viability of American democracy. Yet, because he is president and operates within the broad contours and interactions of the president, there is a tendency to view what he does as simply part of our democratic process that is, as politically and even ethically normal. In this way, a dangerous president becomes normalized, and malignant normality comes to dominate our governing (or, one could say, our antigoverning) dynamic. (p. xvi-xvii)

Prologue, by Judith Lewis Herman, M.D., and Bandy X. Lee, M.D., M.Div.

A man can be both evil and mentally compromised which is a more frightening proposition. Power not only corrupts but also magnifies existing psychopathologies, even as it creates new ones. Fostered by the flattery of underlings and the chants of crowds, a political leaders grandiosity may morph into grotesque delusions of grandeur. Sociopathic traits may be amplified as the leader discovers that he can violate the norms of civil society and even commit crimes with impunity. And the leader who rules through fear, lies, and betrayal may become increasingly isolated and paranoid, as the loyalty of even his closest confidants must forever be suspect. (p. 7)

Introduction: Our Duty to Warn, by Bandy X. Lee, M.D., M.Div.

Possibly the oddest experience in my career as a psychiatrist has been to find that the only people not allowed to speak about an issue are those who know the most about it. Hence, truth is suppressed. Yet, what if that truth, furthermore, harbored dangers of such magnitude that it could be the key to future human survival? (p. 11)

Unbridled and Extreme Present Hedonism, by Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., and Rosemary Sword

In Donald Trump, we have a frightening Venn diagram consisting of three circles: the first is extreme present hedonism; the second, narcissism; and the third, bullying behavior. These three circles overlap in the middle to create an impulsive, immature, incompetent person who, when in the position of ultimate power, easily slides into the role of tyrant, complete with family members sitting at his proverbial ruling table. Like a fledgling dictator, he plants psychological seeds of treachery in sections of our populace that reinforce already negative attitudes. (p. 44)

Pathological Narcissism and Politics, by Craig Malkin, Ph.D.

When it comes to the question of whether or not someone whos mentally ill can function, danger is the key to self or others. This is where pathological narcissism and politics can indeed become a toxic, even lethal mix. When peace at home and abroad are at stake not just the feelings of coworkers, friends, or partners pathological narcissism unchecked could lead to World War III. (p. 60)

I Wrote the Art of the Deal with Donald Trump: His Self-Sabotage is Rooted in his Past, by Tony Schwartz

Trump can devolve into survival mode on a moments notice. Look no further than the thousands of tweets he has written attacking his personal enemies over the past year. In neurochemical terms, when he feels threatened or thwarted, Trump moves into a fight-or-flight state. His amygdala is triggered, his hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activates, and his prefontal cortex the part of the brain that makes us capable of rationality and reflection shuts down. He reacts rather than reflects, and damn the consequences. This is what makes his access to the nuclear codes so dangerous and frightening. (p. 72-3)

Trumps Trust Deficit is the Core Problem, Gail Sheehy, Ph.D.

The narcissism and paranoia are issues, but the bigger concern is that Donald Trump trusts no one. This will be his downfall maybe ours. (p. 75) Beneath the grandiose behavior of every narcissist lies the pit of fragile self-esteem. What if, deep down, the person whom Trump trusts least is himself? The humiliation of being widely exposed as a loser, unable to bully through the actions he promised during the campaign, could drive him to prove he is, after all, a killer. In only the first four months of his presidency, he teed up for starting a war in three places, Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea. It is up to Congress, backed by the public, to restrain him. (p. 81)

Sociopathy, Lance Dodes, M.D.

Donald Trumps speech and behavior show that he has severe sociopathic traits. The significance of this cannot be overstated. While there have surely been American presidents who could be said to be narcissistic, none have shown sociopathic qualities to the degree seen in Mr. Trump. Correspondingly, none have been so definitively and so obviously dangerous. Democracy requires respect and protection for multiple points of view, concepts that are incompatible with sociopathy. The need to be seen as superior, when coupled with lack of empathy or remorse for harming other people, are in fact the signature characteristics of tyrants, who seek the control and destruction of all who oppose them, as well as loyalty to themselves instead of to the country they lead. Mr. Trumps sociopathic characteristics are undeniable. They create a profound danger for Americas democracy and safety. Over time these characteristics will only become worse, either because Mr. Trump will succeed in gaining more power and more grandiosity with less grasp on reality, or because he will engender more criticism producing more paranoia, more lies, and more enraged destruction. (p. 91-2)

Donald Trump Is: a) Bad b) Mad, c) All of the Above, by John D. Gartner, Ph.D.

Lets put these two moving parts together, bad and mad. Trump is a profoundly evil man exhibiting malignant narcissism. His worsening hypomania is making him increasingly more irrational, grandiose, paranoid, aggressive, irritable, and impulsive. Trump is bad, mad, and getting worse. He evinces the most destructive and dangerous collection of psychiatric symptoms possible for a leader. The worst-case scenario is now our reality. (p. 107)

Why Crazy Like a Fox versus Crazy Like a Crazy Really Matters: Delusional Disorder, Admiration of Brutal Dictators, the Nuclear Codes, and Trump, by Michael J. Tansey, Ph.D.

If, in fact, DT harbors an underlying delusional disorder, from a clinical perspective, his delusions would likely be grandiose and paranoid in nature. This would help us to answer once and for all the question of why, during the 2016 presidential campaign and beyond, DT has repeatedly and openly expressed admiration for Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Iraqs Saddam Hussein, and especially Vladimir Putin. There is considerable evidence to suggest that absolute tyranny is DTs wet dream. The unopposed dictator is the embodiment of the ability to demand adulation on the one hand and to eradicate all perceived enemies with the simple nod of the head on the other. (p. 115-116)

Cognitive Impairment, Dementia, and POTUS, by David M. Reiss, M.D.

No reasonable person would want someone with compromised cognitive/intellectual functioning to serve as POTUS. However, to date, there is no process or procedure (beyond voluntary release of medical records) that provides the public with any reliable knowledge regarding whether a candidate for the office of POTUS suffers from cognitive impairment or is at high risk for cognitive degeneration. (p. 133)

Donald J. Trump, Alleged Incapacitated Person: Mental Incapacity, the Electoral College and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, by James A. Herb, Esq.

Once, when I tuned in to watch a Trump rally on TV, he was reciting lyrics from a song titled, The Snake, about a tenderhearted woman who rescues a half-frozen snake, only to be fatally bitten by it once it has revived. The snake says, You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in. I thought Trump was speaking about himself, and the American people were the tenderhearted woman. It turned out he was speaking about immigrants as being vicious snakes. (p. 137-8)

Should Psychiatrists Refrain from Commenting on Trumps Psychology? By Leonard J. Glass, M.D., M.P.H.

Donald Trumps presidency confronts the psychiatric profession and, much more important, our country with the challenge of dealing with an elected leader whose psychological style (marked by impulsivity, insistence on his own infallibility, vengeful retaliation, and unwarranted certainty in uncertain circumstances) is a profound impediment to sound decision making and presages the erratic and ill-considered exercise of enormous power. (p. 158)

On Seeing What You See and Saying What You Know: A Psychiatrists Responsibility, by Henry J. Friedman, M.D.

A paranoid, hypersensitive, grandiose, ill-informed leader such as Donald Trump, who has surrounded himself with a Cabinet and a set of advisers who either are unable to bring him out of his paranoid suspicions and insistences or, worse, identify with his positions, represents a multidimensional threat to our country and the world. (p. 166)

The Issue is Dangerousness, Not Mental Illness, by James Gilligan, M.D.

If we are silent about the numerous says in which Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened violence, incited violence, or boasted about his own violence, we are passively supporting and enabling the dangerous and nave mistake of treating him as if he were a normal president or a normal political leader. He is not, and it is our duty to say so, and to say it publicly. He is unprecedentedly and abnormally dangerous. (p. 178)

A Clinical Case for the Dangerousness of Donald J. Trump, by Diane Jhueck, L.M.H.C., D.M.H.P.

As the ultimate representative of our nation, Donald J. Trump is normalizing previously outrageous behaviors, negatively impacting everyone from leaders of other nations to our own children. He exhibits extreme denial of any feedback that does not affirm his self-image and psychopathic tendencies, which affords him very limited ability to learn and effectively adjust to the requirements of the office of president. Rather, he consistently displays a revenge-oriented response to any such feedback. Holding this office at once feeds his grandiosity and claws at the fragile sense of self underneath it. His patterns of behavior while in the role of president of the United States have potentially dire impact on every individual living not only in this nation but across the entire globe. Trump is and has demonstrated himself to be a danger to others not just one person or a few, but possibly to all others. (p. 193)

Health, Risk, and the Duty to Protect the Community, by Howard H. Covitz, Ph.D. A.B.P.P.

Donald Trump has displayed, frequently, all six of the characteristics that I and many other mental health professionals associate with severe character pathology. I believe it is my ethical responsibility to work within the confines of the law to have Mr. Trump psychologically and psychiatrically examined or in the absence of his willingness to do so, to have him removed from office. (p. 206-7)

New Opportunities for Therapy in the Age of Trump, by William J. Doherty, Ph.D.

The boundary between the personal and public has ruptured in the age of Trump [B]efore Trump, we therapists who felt comfortable in the mainstream of a democratic society could assume that our therapist hat and our citizen hat were separate. (p. 207) [T]o truly fulfill the potential of our professional role in a democracy, we have to be active outside our offices. I feel passionately that were healers with something important to offer our neighbors and communities. Heres a short definition of the concept of the citizen therapist: A citizen therapist works with people in the office and the community on coping productively with public stress and becoming active agents of their personal and civic lives. Citizen-therapist work is not separate from the traditional practice of psychological and interpersonal healing its integrated with it. (p. 215)

Trauma, Time, Truth, and Trump: How a President Freezes Healing and Promotes Crisis, by Betty P. Teng, M.F.A., L.M.S.W.

Looking through the lens of trauma treatment, it is of particular concern that we find ourselves in a perfect storm where we have, as our U.S. president, a narcissist fixed on broadcasting his own unilateral and inconsistent versions of reality in a climate driven by Internet media channels that produce information so quickly that they privilege falsehoods over truth. It is a tenet of trauma therapy to validate our patients truths. (p. 229) Thus, it is traumatizing to have, in the White House, a president and an administration intent on confounding full communication by manipulating the truth to serve their own ends. (p. 230) In trauma therapy, we see the corrosive long-term effects upon the human spirit when an individuals truth and reality are denied, particularly when those individuals grapple with traumas that take away their sense of subjectivity and self-efficacy. In his constant attempts to redefine the truth against the wrongdoings he has enacted, Donald Trump behaves like an aggressive perpetrator who fundamentally has no respect for the rights and subjectivities of those in American society who disagree with him. He shows this through his insistence on overpowering and shaming individuals who will not bend to his opinion or his will. From my stance as a trauma therapist, it is heartbreaking to see the damage Donald Trump is wreaking upon American society. It is a perpetration, creating deep wounds from which, I fear, it will already take us years to heal. (p. 231).

Trump Anxiety Disorder: The Trump Effect on the Mental Health of Half the Nation and Special Populations, by Jennifer Contarino Panning, Psy.D.

Symptoms associated with Trump anxiety disorder include: feeling a loss of control; helplessness ruminations/worries, especially about the uncertain sociopolitical climate while Trump is in office; and a tendency toward excessive social media consumption. In fact, the polarization that this has created has caused a deep divide between families and friends of differing political beliefs. Trumps specific personality characteristics, and his use of psychological manipulation tools such as gaslighting, lying, and blaming, are described as contributing factors to Trump anxiety disorder. (p. 237)

In Relationship with an Abusive President, by Harper West, M.A., L.L.P.

A fundamental problem with a Trump presidency is not merely that his poorly thought-out policies may harm us. It is that his character defects will normalize immoral Other-blaming behaviors and encourage their full expression among those who may have previously been held in check by expectations of socially acceptable behavior. If the recent uptick in racial violence is an indicator, Trump has given his followers a green light to act out.Just as the trauma of witnessing domestic violence damages children, an emotionally immature president can affect the future of our nation regarding moral behavior, cultural stability, and psychological wellness.

Other-blamers can be restrained only by prompt, calm boundary setting and enforcement of moral and social norms. Without these influences, Other-blamers grow in boldness and their presumption of power. Other-blamers will take as much ground as they can get.

We must resist, not only to contain Trumps behaviors, but also to signal to his followers that abusive behavior is not appropriate. Unfortunately, now that millions of Other-blamers have been encouraged by Trump to misbehave, it may be impossible to get that genie back in the bottle.(p. 256-7)

Birtherism and the Deployment of the Trumpian Mind-set, by Luba Kessler, M.D.

It remains our challenge to right the political, civic, and interpersonal relations needed for the mutual benefit of the present and future American generations: white, black, and any Other. In order to rise to the challenge, we need the courage of truth and awareness. We need to question rationalized public policies that maintain segregation and inequality; be it at the voting booth or in judicial or police protection. We need to tune into and question habits of prejudice and bigotry. We need to probe better the stereotypes of our culture and of ourselves. Such an examination will inoculate our civic consciousness against the lies masquerading as truth. We will choose worthy leaders aware of their responsibility to represent the integrity of this nations essential values. Birtherism shows Donald Trump not only as unworthy but as dangerous to the nations central tenet: E pluribus unum. It is not negotiable. (p. 266)

Trumps Daddy Issues: A Toxic Mix for America, by Steve Wruble, M.D.

As I observe President Trumps behavior, I imagine that there is a good chance he identifies with his fathers aggressive business style and parenting, and is now employing that orientation to his role as president. In psychology, this is called identification with the aggressor. At first, it may appear counter-intuitive to identify with an aggressor who has abused his position of power to take advantage. However, our brains often use this early relationship as a template to shape our future behaviors. We are attracted to the power we witness from our powerless position. We can be hungry for the same power that we originally resented or even fought against. (p. 273)

Trump and the American Collective Psyche, by Thomas Singer, M.D.

[O]ne of the most disturbing thoughts about the Trump presidency is that he has taken up residence not just in the White House but in the psyches of each and every one of us. We are going to have to live with him rattling around inside us, all of us at the mercy of his impulsive and bullying whims, as he lashes out at whatever gets under his skin in the moment with uniformed, inflammatory barbs. (p. 294)

Who Goes Trump? Tyranny as a Triumph of Narcissism, by Elizabeth Mika, M.A., L.C.P.C.

The tyrants narcissism is the main attractor of his followers, who project their hopes and dreams onto him. The more grandiose his sense of his own self and his promises to his fans, the greater their attraction and the stronger their support Through the process of identification, the tyrants followers absorb his omnipotence and glory and imagine themselves as powerful as he is, the winners in the game of life. This identification heals the followers narcissistic wounds, but also tends to shut down their reason and conscience, allowing them to engage in immoral and criminal behaviors with a sense of impunity engendered by this identification. (p. 305)

The Loneliness of Fateful Decisions: Social Contexts and Psychological Vulnerability, by Edwin B. Fisher, Ph.D.

Reflecting the interplay of personal and social, narcissistic concerns for self and a preoccupation with power may initially shape and limit those invited to the narcissistic leaders social network. Sensitivity to slights and angry reactions to them may further erode it. Those left tend to be indulgent of the individual and to persist for other gains. Either way, the advice and counsel they provide are liable to be guided by their motives for persisting. (p. 336)

Hes Got the World In His Hands and his Finger on the Trigger: The Twenty-Fifth Amendment Solution, by Nanette Gartrell, M.D., and Dee Mosbacher, M.D., Ph.D.

All in all, Mr. Trumps hostile, impulsive, provocative, suspicious, and erratic conduct poses a grave threat to our national security. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses presidential disability and succession We (Drs. Gartrell and Mosbacher) call on Congress to act now within these provisions to create an independent, impartial panel of investigators to evaluate Mr. Trumps fitness to fulfill the duties of the presidency. We urge Congress to pass legislation to ensure that future presidential and vice-presidential candidates are evaluated by this professional panel before the general election, and that the sitting president and vice president be assessed on an annual basis. (p. 348)

Compiled by Harper West

See more here:
Selections from The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump BillMoyers.com - BillMoyers.com

Following the death of George Floyd during his arrest in Minneapolis, Minnesota, America experienced months of civil unrest throughout the country. It was during these protests that some began to assert that civil society in America was beyond repair and advocated for breaking the shackles of an allegedly oppressive and racially insensitive government. It was from this belief that the idea of establishing autonomous zones free from civil authority and independent from the United States was born. For the first time since 1861, calls for secession were acted upon, and protestors began to commandeer and blockade neighborhoods in major U.S. cities, thereby creating bubbles of autonomous rule within the United States. Protestors denied emergency responders and civil authorities entry to these autonomous zones, and prevented property owners from quietly enjoying their homes and businesses. For days, or even weeks, local and state governments ceded civil authority to the mob before being able to regain a semblance of control over these areas. The Red House Autonomous Zone in Portland, Oregon, demonstrates the negative impact autonomous zones can have on protecting a lienholders collateral assets. The property in question, called the Red House on Mississippi by activists, was owned by the Kinneys, an African American/Native American family. Following a default on their mortgage, the noteholder foreclosed on the property, and it was sold to a developer as a non-judicial foreclosure in 2018. The Multnomah County Circuit Court issued a writ of execution for eviction following a non-judicial foreclosure, and the sheriffs office served the Kinney family in September 2020. Thereafter, activists in support of the Kinney family occupied the house and denied the new owner access to the property. When the sheriff's department and Portland Police Department attempted to evict the activists in December 2020, the activists violently repelled law enforcement and established a three square block autonomous zone around the property. The creation of the autonomous zone impacted the entire neighborhood and not just the Kinney property. The activists defending the Kinney home were not local residents, but instead activists squatting on the Kinney property. The result was that the Kinneys neighbors, who did not ask to be part of the autonomous zone, were forced to become unwilling participants in the protest. Even though the City of Portland was able to negotiate an end to the autonomous zone, the activists still occupy the property and the city has taken no further action to evict them. Thus, the new owner, who has a court-issued eviction order, is unable to gain access to its property due to the governments refusal to utilize its civil authority to enforce the eviction order.Even though local governments were eventually able to regain relative control of these autonomous zones, a lasting impact remains. Emboldened by the lack of repercussions for defying civil authority, the establishment of autonomous zones is now seen as a viable protest tool. Moreover, in the case of the Red House on Mississippi, the local government is now unwilling to enforce court orders to forcibly evict unlawful squatters out of fear of creating unrest, thereby denying the holder of legal title to the property and its rights to quietly enjoy the property. In light of this, lienholders need to be aware of their options to mitigate the risk of losing a collateral asset if it becomes part of an autonomous zone. This article discusses considerations lenders should take into account if they are contemplating targeted lending policies to mitigate the risk that their collateral assets will be encompassed within an autonomous zone. Additionally, we discuss the recourse lienholders have if their rights are damaged due to the existence of an autonomous zone that results in the loss of a delinquent collateral asset.Underwriting Risk Mitigation PoliciesSome areas of the country are more susceptible to the establishment of autonomous zones than others. Lenders may be considering employing risk mitigating policies directed at areas deemed more susceptible to autonomous zone control in order to prevent the loss of their collateral assets. Possible risk mitigation policies may include:

While a lender may want to adopt these risk mitigating policies, careful consideration of federal and state law must be made before any such policy is implemented.While state consumer credit protection laws compliment the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, the state law may be more stringent than the federal statute. Therefore, the lender is required to not only conduct an examination of the proposed policy against the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, but also against the state consumer credit protection laws in each state in which the lender intends to implement the policy. Failure to examine the proposed risk mitigation policy against applicable consumer credit protection laws may result in costly litigation in the future. If the risk mitigation policy is permissible pursuant to federal and applicable state consumer credit protection statutes, then the lender must also ensure that the policy is not discriminatory against a protected class. Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), implemented through 24 C.F.R. 100, lenders cannot disparately treat individuals based on their race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 24 C.F.R. 100.5(a). Meanwhile, under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), implemented through 12 C.F.R. 202, lenders cannot disparately treat individuals due to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract); to the fact that all or part of the applicants income derives from a public assistance program; or to the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. 12C.F.R. 202.1(b). While the above referenced risk mitigation policies are neutral in nature insofar as they are directed at localities where state and local governments have historically ceded civil authority to protestors and are not directed at a protected class, lenders must be careful that these policies do not create a disparate impact on members of a protected class. If a lending policy has a disparate impact on a protected class, then it is impermissible, and may result in a discrimination claim, or worse a class action lawsuit, against the lender. Courts have held that [t]o establish a disparate impact claim, a plaintiff must show an outwardly neutral policy or practice that has a significant adverse or disproportionate impact on members of a protected group. Taylor v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1062, 1068 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (analyzing disparate impact under both the FHA and ECOA). Additionally, [t]o establish a prima facie case under a[n ECOA] disparate impact theory, a plaintiff must identify a specific policy or practice which the defendant has used to discriminate and must also demonstrate with statistical evidence that the practice or policy has an adverse effect on the protected group. Powell v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 310 F. Supp. 2d 481, 487 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). Moreover, an analysis of a policys disparate impact is critical because it is anticipated that the incoming Biden administration will increase disparate impact enforcement. Therefore, lenders considering instituting targeted policies to mitigate the risk of the loss of collateral assets as the result of them potentially becoming part of an autonomous zone must conduct a careful disparate impact analysis before implementing the policies.Below are our recommendations to lenders who want to be proactive to protect their collateral assets from loss as a result of becoming part of an autonomous zone:

Thus, lenders should proceed with caution when considering implementing policies targeting areas where collateral assets may be at heightened risk of being annexed into an autonomous zone.Post-Autonomous Zone Recourse for Delinquent Collateral AssetsIf a lienholder finds that its delinquent collateral asset is now part of an autonomous zone, or if its collateral asset becomes delinquent as the result of its inclusion in an autonomous zone, all is not lost. The lienholder has recourse against the governmental entities that permitted the establishment of the autonomous zone, including a Fifth Amendment takings claim and/or an inverse condemnation claim under state law. Which claims are available to the lienholder is dependent on the status of the foreclosure proceeding, and the jurisdiction where the claims are filed.Government inaction or encouragement of autonomous zones frustrates the rights of those who have interests in property that becomes ensnared in the autonomous zone. This frustration of rights can give rise to a viable takings claim against the governmental entity that is impinging on the property owner's rights. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Under the Fifth Amendment, property owners may bring a takings claim when government action frustrates their use, enjoyment, and rights associated with the property, without providing just compensation. If the government is found to have engaged in an improper governmental taking by allowing the establishment of an autonomous zone, then the individuals and entities whose property rights were infringed upon are entitled to just compensation.Recent legal precedent indicates that a lienholder can bring a Fifth Amendment takings claim at any point during the foreclosure process if the government infringes on its interest in a delinquent collateral asset by allowing the formation of an autonomous zone. In HMC Assets, LLC v. City of Deltona, 2018 WL 647452 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that a mortgagee could proceed with its Fifth Amendment takings claim and its procedural due process claim. In HMC Assets, the mortgagee foreclosed on a parcel of real estate, and before a final judgment of foreclosure was obtained, the city demolished the building on the property without notice of the demolition or ordinance violations and fines leading to the demolition. As a result of the destruction of the structure by the city, the court held that the mortgagee was entitled to assert a Fifth Amendment takings claim against the city due to the resulting diminution in the value of the collateral property. The court reasoned that the United States Supreme Court has held that taking of a mortgagees rights without compensation can violate the Takings Clause. In addition, [u]nder federal law, a mortgagee possesses a legally protected property interest in the premises for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Thus, HMC Assets suggests that mortgagees likely have standing to bring a Fifth Amendment takings claim and procedural due process claims against the government if the establishment of an autonomous zone infringes on a lienholder's interest in a delinquent collateral asset.There is precedent now available regarding the viability of a Fifth Amendment takings claim against the government related to the establishment of an autonomous zone. In Hunters Capital LLC, et al. v. City of Seattle, No. 2:20-cv-00983 (W.D. Wash. June 24, 2020), the plaintiffs, including residents, tenants, property owners, and small businesses in Seattles Capitol Hill neighborhood that have been harmed by CHOP, brought Fifth Amendment takings and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City of Seattle related to the city's alleged inaction and encouragement of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. The city attempted to have these claims dismissed on the basis that (a) the partial and temporary loss of property did not constitute a taking; (b) the plaintiffs failed to show direct harm caused by the city; (c) the due process clause did not require the city to exercise discretion to prevent private actors from harming other people; and (d) the city did not directly place plaintiffs in danger. However, the court sided with the plaintiffs and denied the citys motion to dismiss. The court held that Plaintiffs plausibly assert that the Citys endorsement of, and the provision of material support to, CHOP set in motion a series of acts by certain CHOP participants, who the City knew or reasonably should have known would deprive Plaintiffs of protected property interests . . . These allegations support the claim that the Citys conduct was causally related to [the] private misconduct and it was sufficiently direct and substantial to require compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Hunters Capital is still pending and the final resolution is unknown. However, the holding Hunters Capital, together with the holding in HMC Assets, suggest that lienholders have a viable Fifth Amendment takings claim against the government if it can be shown that the lienholder was deprived of a protected property interest as the result of the governments endorsement and material support of the establishment of an autonomous zone.In addition to a Fifth Amendment takings claim, a lienholder also can bring an inverse condemnation claim under state law if the government infringes on the lienholders property rights once it has legal possession of the delinquent property. Like a Fifth Amendment takings claim, those with sufficient property interests can file a state law inverse condemnation claim when the government takes their property without providing just compensation. Pursuant to the holding in HMC Assets, wherein the court held that under Florida law, a mortgagee such as HMC lacks standing to bring an inverse condemnation claim, lienholders likely will lack standing to bring a state law inverse condemnation claim before receiving a foreclosure order. Jurisdictions may vary on this issue depending on each jurisdictions interpretation of the scope of interests that grant standing to bring an inverse condemnation claim. However, once that order is received, and the lienholder has legal title to the property, then it can certainly bring this claim. Moreover, in relation to the Red House on Mississippi, the owner of the property is entitled to bring a Fifth Amendment takings claim and/or an inverse condemnation claim against the City of Portland.An aggrieved lienholder who has its interest in a collateral asset infringed upon by the government due to the establishment of an autonomous zone can bring its Fifth Amendment takings and due process claims directly in federal court. This would allow the lienholder to circumvent local state courts that may be less sympathetic to the lienholder's claims. In 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 204 L. Ed. 2d 558 (2019), that a property owner may immediately bring a Fifth Amendment takings claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to federal court once the property has been taken without just compensation. Knick overruled earlier precedent that required property owners to proceed through state court first. Specifically, [w]e now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it. Additionally, [t]he availability of any particular compensation remedy, such as an inverse condemnation claim under state law, cannot infringe or restrict the property owners federal constitutional claim. Thus, Knick allows circumvention of the home cooking of state courts, which is beneficial for lienholders. Federal supplemental jurisdiction allows the lienholder to also bring any viable state court claims, including an inverse condemnation claim, in federal court together with the lienholder's federal constitutional claims. This allows the lienholder to avoid the possible biases held by local state court judges, and provides for a hopefully more objective evaluation of the lienholder's claims. ConclusionThe birth of autonomous zones has led to uncertainty regarding the protection of a lienholder's collateral assets, and raises new considerations that lienholders never had to consider in the past. Lienholders wishing to implement targeted risk mitigation policies for areas at heightened risk of autonomous zone control should proceed with caution prior to implementing such policies and should follow the steps outline above. The good news is that recent case law on this new issue suggests that a lienholder likely has a viable takings claim against the government, which can go directly to federal court, if municipal inaction and encouragement of autonomous zones frustrates the lienholders interests in a delinquent collateral asset.

Read the rest here:
Mitigating the Risk of Loss of a Delinquent Collateral Asset in the Era of Autonomous Zones - JD Supra

REGARDING my Jan. 11, 2021 editorial titled Pence could have rejected the contested electoral votes, tarklejr audaciously quipped, Mr. Pangelinan, once again your ignorance in all matters govern-mental (both Federal and local) is glaringly blatant for all to see. Long ago I suggested that he should be hired as a dishwasher at the Imperial Pacific International casino and resort because that is the only job that at most he is qualified for, but then again maybe he is not. Maybe he should be hired as a trash collector, because everything he says is all trash and he should pick up every trash he says.

In my last article to this paper, I said that Vice President of the United States Mike Pence, as the President of the Senate, presiding over the January 6, 2021 joint session of Congress under the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S Constitution, elected not, which was perfectly within his discretion as the presiding officer, to exercise the powers he had, which I said every parliamentarian knows (seems tarklejr does not know.

He said Mike Pence was prevented from doing that because: Federal law and the Constitution PROHIBITED Pence from discarding, changing, amending or taking ANY action over Electoral College ballots (votes) other than simply COUNTING them. In reading the Twelfth Amendment there is NOTHING there that prohibits the President of the Senate from doing otherwise from what the dingbat said. In fact I said, that even a dumb parliamentarian knows that the chair or the presiding officer calls the shots if anything is called into question, over something that is not written anywhere whether it be in the federal Constitution, law or procedural rule. And, there is even no federal law that specifically prohibits Pence from exercising the powers I above mentioned 3 U.S.C. 15 basically paraphrased the relevant Twelfth Amendment provision. And, actually Title 3, Section 15 of the United States Code is the federal law that Pence was acting on, which in his discretion he was always free to choose what to act on.

Then tarklejr went on to say that U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and not the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, comes next in line to act as the acting president. What Nancy Pelosi was pushing was that Vice President Mike Pence should invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not the Twentieth Amendment. The Twentieth Amendment, however, says something differently that Pelosi and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer would not want to do, resign from their post, and even from their respective legislative house to become acting president of the United States the amendment authorizes Congress under Section 3 and 4 to enact legislation dealing with succession to the presidency. In other words, under 3 U.S.C. 19, implementing the Twentieth Amendment, if there should be a vacancy in the presidency the House Speaker succeeds, but must resign the Speakership and from the House of Representatives likewise with the Senate president pro tempore (Senate Majority Leader). It is extremely unlikely that both relinquish their powerful position in Congress, so next comes the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, under 3 U.S.C. 19(d)(1) and after him the Treasury Secretary, etc. this is laid in the order that the offices were first established by Congress when it was organizing the federal government early on in the eighteenth century.

But in the final analysis, however, this is all academic because the Twentieth Amendment comes into play only when there is a vacancy in the offices of the president and the vice president, which is not the case here at this time. Trump, however, might invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, without resigning, telling both houses of Congress that he is incapacitated to allow Pence (Trump can do this) to act as president and then Pence in turn, as acting president, pardons Trump from any and all wrongdoing which would really rattle the Democrats in the House and Senate of the U.S. Congress that would eventually dispense for the need to impeach Donald J. Trump! Trump doing this, without resigning, removes himself from powers of the presidency while remaining the president of the United States until his term ends on January 20, 2021. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are not too smart to outwit Trumps supporters. When this happens, Trump telling Congress that he is incapacitated and Pence taking over under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment would drive CRAZY Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the entire Democrats in both houses of Congress Washington, D.C. loony asylum will be filled by them.

I challenge traklejr anytime on any field or subject, even in his field of so-called expertise. Call me tarklejr if you want to come up to the challenge, through Marianas Varietythey have my number. Or, write a column or letter or opinion to the editor and duke it out here. I am a local and I know the local laws and history and U.S. laws and history. Ask attorney Janet H. King of the King Law firm how ignorant I am on federal and local laws.

The writer is a resident of Kagman, Saipan.

Follow this link:
OPINION | Trump might invoke the 25th Amendment without resigning - Marianas Variety

In his inaugural address, President-elect Joe Biden could announce that he is pardoning Donald Trump. It would raise a furor on the Left. But it would also allow Biden to declare that he is following through on his pledge to unite America.

Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by Trump, is supporting the idea. In an interview on BBC Newsnight, Comey stated, he should at least consider it. Donald Trump, hes not a genius, but he might figure out that if he accepts a pardon, thats anadmission of guilt, the United States Supreme Court has said, so I dont know that he would accept a pardon. Comey added that it would serve as part of healing the country and getting us to a place where we can focus on things that are going to matter over the next four years.

Biden would be able to handle the blowback that he would get from an enraged Democratic base. Given the gravity of the crises that he facesa slowing economy, a spreading pandemic, and a mounting loss of American international credibilityBiden enters office in a commanding position within his own party. A pardon, as Gerald Ford stressed, does not imply innocence. It implies acceptance of guilt.

Its also the case that Trump would continue to face a welter of potential criminal charges at the state level that a federal pardon would not cover (though a federal pardon would cover Washington, DC). The Southern District of New York appears to be avidly pursuing him for perpetrating financial crimes, including tax fraud and money-laundering. Now that William P. Barr has resigned, federal prosecutors are moving quickly to arraign Trump. Small wonder that Trump himself is apparently consumed with worries about what looms ahead once he exits office.

Still, Trump himself might seek to act preemptively by pardoning himself and his children. A self-pardon, however, would be a dicey move indeed as it could simply ratify his guilt and be overturned by the Supreme Court. The notion that a president can pardon himselfand essentially declare himself above the lawhas never been tested. Its not a test that Trump would want to flunk. Yale legal scholar William N. Eskridge notes, The original meaning of granting a pardon assumes someone granting the pardon who is distinct from the person receiving it. So does the original purpose of a pardon, namely, forgiveness bestowed by an authority on a rule-breaker. Though a priest may pardon sinners, he may not absolve himself. A former Justice Department official says, It almost certainly wouldnt work. It would make matters worse. It would be a red flag for the Justice Department.

A further wrinkle is that the Constitution impedes the ability of a president to issue pardons if he has been impeached. Article II, Section, Clause 1 says that the president can issue pardons except in Cases of Impeachment. But in his capacity as president, Trump, who has never been overly concerned about constitutional niceties, might seek to ignore this provision. It would not impinge upon his ability to pardon his children or advisers such as Rudy Giuliani. But pardoning his children would mean that they would forfeit their Fifth Amendment protections before a Grand Jury. They could be compelled to testify. By contrast, Giuliani would presumably have protections under the attorney-client privilege.

The most likely course is that Biden will depute any investigation of Trumps conduct on January 6 to his Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland would probably conduct a lengthy investigation of Trump before deciding that a federal prosecution of Trump would curtail the freedom of speech of future presidents. But the safest path for Trump would be if Biden pardoned him. Trump would receive direct benefits from a pardon, while Biden could adopt a Churchillian stance. In victory, magnanimity; and in peace, good will.

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest.

Image: Reuters.

Read more:
Will Joe Biden Issue a Pardon to Donald Trump? - The National Interest

The past few weeks have been a tumultuous time in US politics and a historic second impeachment for President Trump could be on the cards at the end of a presidency that has often been hard to predict. Taken fromImpeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know ,we look at some of the key questions surrounding such an action to remove him from office:

There is a general expectation that most issues pertaining to a presidents performance in office are to be dealt with through the electoral process (if the president runs for re-election) and the other checks recognized as applying to presidential conduct, such as popularity, the press, the judgment of history, and congressional oversight. Impeachment is a last resort for handling misconduct that cannot be dealt with by other means and that involves misconduct sufficiently serious to constitute treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Instead of being subject to a statutory mechanism like the Judicial Discipline and Disability Act, presidents are subject to the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which was ratified in 1967. It provides a mechanism for handling a presidents becoming subject to some disability that prevents him from doing his job, such as a major stroke or serious mental illness. This mechanism seems better suited than impeachment for dealing with incompetence resulting from some mental or physical disability.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment has four sections. The first section codifies the precedent set by John Tyler, which clarified who became president when a president died in office. Tyler claimed that the presidents death automatically elevated him from the vice presidency to the presidency. The Twenty-fifth Amendments first section now makes that practice a constitutional directive.

Section 2 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provides a procedure for replacing a vice president who resigns, dies, or is incapable of further performing the duties of his office. If any of those things happens, the president is empowered to nominate a replacement, who has to be approved by a majority of each chamber of Congress.

Section 3 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provides a procedure for temporarily empowering the vice president to take over the responsibilities and duties of the presidency. It provides that when a president transmits a written declaration to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House that he is unable to perform his duties, the vice president assumes those duties until the president sends another written communication to the same officials declaring that he is capable of resuming his duties.

The fourth section of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provides a procedure to be followed if the president becomes disabled but is unable to produce the written communications required in Section 3. This procedure allows the vice president, together with a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such body as Congress may by law provide, to declare the president unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office through a written declaration submitted to the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate.

Section 4 is the only section of the Twenty-fifth Amendment that has never been invoked. Sections 1 and 2 were invoked three times during the Watergate scandal and Section 3 has been invoked three times to appoint vice presidents as acting presidents all for medical reasons.

The short answer is that it depends on the facts, but as we know from the plain language of this section, it comes into play if the vice president and a majority of the cabinet (or some other authority that the Congress has designated by statute) determine that the president has become disabled because of some mental illness or other problem.

This analysis cannot be a substitute for the kind of fact-finding that would have to be undertaken if this portion of the amendment was ever invoked. We know, from the congressional debates on the Twenty-fifth Amendment that these provisions were intended to address mental or physical incapacitation, as well as situations where a president might be out of reliable communication or kidnapped. We know as well that the purpose of this section is not to provide a means for a no-confidence vote but is designed to provide clarity and therefore some safeguards on circumstances when presidential incapacity requires putting his second in command in charge of the government, at least temporarily. The requirements themselves suggest a high threshold for its implementation, depending on the presidents own allies and appointees to come together to a significant degree for the sake of the country.

If Congress has to determine a Section 4 dispute between the vice president and the president, the Constitution makes it highly likely that the president will win (as he should, given the likelihood that he is the one who has been elected to the office). The requirements (1) for the acting president and a majority of the cabinet to send a second declaration that the president is incapacitated in response to the presidents issuing a challenge within four days of their initial declaration and (2) for two-thirds of each chamber of Congress within twenty-one days to express their agreement with the second declaration of the presidents incapacity (as a prerequisite for the vice presidents continuing to serve as acting president) are powerful checks on the vice president and cabinet stealing the office from the president. The acts high thresholds create a default rule that the president remains in office unless they can be met.

Whether that two-thirds support actually exists would of course depend on the facts and public perception at the time as well as the congressional and public perceptions of the vice president and the cabinet. If, for example, the vice president and the majority of the cabinet were widely considered to be acting out of the best motives and perceived to have been loyal and credible, the public and members of Congress, particularly the presidents partisan allies, might be more receptive to the determination of the need to replace the president temporarily. The presumption underlying the structure is that if the two-thirds threshold were met there must be compelling or strong evidence to declare the president incapacitated and thus unable to perform his duties.

Featured image by Alejandro Barba.

Link:
Questions on a Trump impeachment and invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment - OUPblog

HIDALGO COUNTY, Texas (KVEO) More than 20 relatives of people buried at the Eli Jackson Cemetery have joined in a lawsuit to stop border wall construction near the gravesite.

On Friday, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas heard arguments on whether to approve an emergency temporary restraining order filed from the relatives to momentarily stop Southwest Valley Constructors Co. from constructing the border wall near the cemetery.

According to the relatives, Southwest Valley Constructers are causing damage to the cemetery as well as to the church building and cemetery at the nearby Jackson Ranch Church and Cemetery.

The restraining order asks construction to not take place within 500 feet of the cemetery.

The construction company argues in court documents that damages at the site were present before construction began. They state there is no legal reason to halt construction for the restraining order or for the lawsuit in general.

However, the relatives claim the construction near the cemetery violates the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 19 and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as they have a property interest in the cemetery that would be harmed by the border wall.

While the court did hear the argument on Friday and faced evidence from both parties, court documents do not show that a conclusion was made on the restraining order.

The Eli Jackson Cemetery and Jackson Ranch and Cemetery are located about a mile from the Rio Grande River in a remote part of Hidalgo County south of Pharr.

Border wall construction is taking place north of the cemetery, which would leave the gravesite in a no mans land facing Mexico. Family members and visitors would have to pass through the wall in order to reach the cemetery if construction is completed.

The ranch was founded in 1857 by Nathaniel Jackson and Matilda Hicks who originally traveled from Alabama. The pair migrated to south Texas to escape the prejudices of interracial marriage found in Alabama.

Jackson used the ranch as a refuge for enslaved people who escaped from Texas or other parts of the south.

When Jackson died in 1865, his son Eli established the location as a cemetery as well. Veterans of the Civil War, Korean War, World War I and II, among others, were later buried at the site.

The Jackson Ranch and Cemetery were certified by the Texas Historical Commission in 1983. The Eli Jackson Ranch was certified in 2005.

Read the original:
Restraining order filed in lawsuit to stop border wall construction near Eli Jackson Cemetery - KGBT-TV