Featured Image

(American Thinker) — Jack Smith wants to put Donald Trump in jail because Trump aggressively interpreted aspects of the Electoral Count Act. However, other people (not connected to Trump) were far more aggressive. They decided to completely ignore a constitutional requirement that had been firmly settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Who were those lawbreakers? They were revered justices of the Supreme Court of Hawaii. Will Jack Smith or Merrick Garland put those justices in jail? Will the Hawaii bar association suspend their licenses? Will anyone even comment on their defiance? Don’t hold your breath.

READ: Julian Assange’s show trial could determine the future of press freedom in the West

The ‘Spirit of Aloha’ legal standard

In Hawaii, a man named Christopher Wilson was charged with a felony for violating three gun laws, but the charges were dismissed by a Hawaii circuit court in 2022. The court reasoned that the charges against Wilson violated his right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Recently, however, the circuit court’s ruling was reversed by the Hawaii Supreme Court. According to the Epoch Times, the high court of Hawaii decided the case based upon a new legal standard:

Article I, section 17 of the Hawaii Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, ‘we read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.’

The court explained its defiance by citing the Spirit of Aloha standard.

Hawaii’s historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaii Constitution… The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.

I had never heard of the Spirit of Aloha doctrine because I am not an educated justice or attorney. Without a doubt, however, many other states will soon adopt the Aloha standard, and our law schools will incorporate the doctrine in their curricula, along with coursework on micro-aggressions, DEI transgender rights for toddlers, and climate-friendly cuisine.

To me, these Hawaii justices are no more than thugs, and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, we see criminals in black robes every day and, were we to add in the many corrupt prosecutors who choose the cases heard by justices, we could probably fill a good-sized auditorium with them.

Consider how many judges (and prosecutors) violate the Constitution with regard to the recusal requirement. Recusal is not just a matter of ethics: It is a constitutional requirement.

According to the Cornell Law School.

The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution require judges to recuse themselves from cases in two situations:

  1. Where the judge has a financial interest in the case’s outcome.
  2. Where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the judge’s decision will be biased

In either case, it does not matter whether or not the judge is actually biased. What matters is that even if the judge is not biased, the high probability of bias still damages the integrity of the judicial system. Any party in a lawsuit may request that a judge recuse him or herself.

READ: Proposed Canadian law could see Christians jailed for quoting the Bible

If a judge knowingly ignores these requirements, he or she is flagrantly depriving the defendant or litigant of his or her constitutional rights. To me, that makes the judge a criminal. Let’s examine the recusal issue with respect to a few other judges and prosecutors.

Tanya Chutkan

Trump’s attorneys formally asked Judge Tanya Chutkan to recuse herself in a September 2023 motion filed with the court.

“Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying.”

As an example, the attorneys cited Chutkan’s own words with regard to the January 6 riot:

This was nothing less than an attempt to violently overthrow the government, the legally, lawfully, peacefully elected government, by individuals who were mad that their guy lost… it’s blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.

This case has not even gone to trial, yet Chutkan has expressed regret that Trump is not in jail! It does not take a legal scholar to understand that the judge has violated the Constitution with regard to the recusal requirement.

Letitia James

Attorney General Letitia James ran for office with this promise: “We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well.” She also called Trump “an illegitimate president,” and promised that “Donald Trump’s days of defrauding Americans are coming to an end. We can spot a carnival barker.” Mind you, James said all of this prior to performing a single hour of investigation.

This attorney general charged Trump with manipulating his property values to defraud his lenders. Then she took the case to the courtroom of Judge Arthur F. Engoron.

Judge Engoron

Engoron should have thrown out this case on day one – just because of the stink of bias coming from James and her associates.

However, Engoron is equipped with his own, personal prejudices. I believe his biases started with politics, but are now centered on saving face and protecting Engoron’s ego.

Engoron is an arrogant and hate-filled man, who is totally lacking financial, real estate, or accounting experience. Nevertheless, before hearing a single witness, or identifying a single victim, Engoron found Trump guilty of fraud, and fined him $350 million. Now, however, those early and precipitous decisions have led to problems.

When an appeals court ruled that the statute of limitations barred the prosecution of Trump with regard to several early years, Engoron should have dismissed the case, but that would have been embarrassing. So the judge found a way to partially circumvent the appeals court decision. He authorized James to support her case with information from those pre-statute years. James was happy to comply.

READ: Harvard among dozens of colleges still imposing COVID jab mandates on students: report

Then, Engoron was struck by disaster. A highly respected and qualified expert witness testified forcefully on behalf of Trump. New York University professor Eli Bartov, who has extensive accounting and financial experience, testified that the entire case was nonsense: Trump had done nothing wrong or unusual. In addition, bank officers testified that they had not been defrauded in any way.

After hearing that testimony, a less biased judge would have dismissed the case. Instead, Engoron raged like a lunatic, and he attacked the expert witness!

Bartov is a tenured professor, but all that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say.

In point of fact, Bartov was paid $877,500, which is a great amount of money. However, it was for countless hours spent analyzing many years of financial information and appraisals for numerous properties and companies. Engoron is a disgraceful little man for attacking the integrity and ethics of Bartov – without a shred of evidence to support his slander.

Now, Engoron is in a quandary. He can’t dismiss the case entirely: that would be too embarrassing. On the other hand, he doesn’t want to get smacked by an appeals court.

Four justices on the Colorado Supreme Court

By a vote of 4 to 3, Colorado’s highest court voted to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot. A junior high student would have known better. The U.S. Supreme Court will probably rule 9 to 0 against the Colorado justices. To be fair and accurate, I am not sure this silly ruling had anything to do with bias: perhaps it was just plain stupidity.

Lewis A. Kaplan

For hundreds of years there have been lawsuits in America, where one side wins and the other side loses. In the past, the loser retained his First Amendment right to express his disagreement with the ruling. It was taken for granted. That changed in the court of Judge Kaplan, who presided over the defamation lawsuit of E. Jean Carroll. A less biased judge would have thrown this case out immediately. We can only hope that the appeals process will result in a more reasonable decision.

Numerous others

I am sure that we can all think of other disreputable, lawbreaking judges. It is going to take a new Justice Department and several other changes to get these criminals out of our courtrooms.

To begin the process, we must start by electing a new U.S. president.

Reprinted with permission from American Thinker.