Elizabeth Lynne Cheney

Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is a traitor.

Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is a traitor.

Elizabeth Cheney is a treasonous politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Wyoming’s at-large congressional district since 2017. Cheney is the House Republican Conference Chair, the third-highest position in the House Republican leadership.

In voting to impeach President Trump, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution by declaring him guilty before due process.

Regarding the mob violence at the U. S. Capitol building, Rep. Cheney stated that the president “lit the flame of this attack.” To be sure, he enflamed the marchers to the Capitol, but he did not incite to a riot. The mob itself chose to do that.

The Constitution does not protect speech that incites a riot. Trump did not tell the marchers to march to the Capitol and engage in violence.

In fact, he stated to them, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Rep. Cheney declared, “Everything that followed” at the Capitol “was his doing.” No, it was not his doing; it was the doing itself of many of the mob. She makes a faulty leap of post hoc, ergo propter hoc: after his comments, therefore because of his comments. The law and the Constitution don’t work that way. Nowhere did the president state or imply that the marchers should next march to the Capitol for violent insurrection.

Rep. Cheney then charges the president with “betrayal… of his oath to the Constitution.” In unwitting irony, it is Cheney who betrays her oath to the Constitution by declaring guilt before due process.

She should have taken the route that Sen. Mitch McConnell carefully did: Wait to see what the evidence says — which implements due process.

On January 17, 2021 the Republican Party Central Committee in Carbon County, Wyoming voted unanimously with 45 votes to censure Cheney for her vote to impeach President Trump.

The Committee declared that “she voted in favor of the Democrats’ rushed impeachment article, denying President Trump due process.” The Committee was accurate in its charge.

It is understandable that one week later State Senator Anthony Boucher tossed his hat into the ring in the Republican primary against Rep. Cheney.

I want to relate a true story that explains the distinction between enflaming people and inciting a riot. These are constitutionally two entirely different things.

In the late ‘60s when I was a college professor at a mid-sized Michigan university, nearly every campus in America was protesting the country’s involvement in the Vietnam war.

One well-known and revered professor at my university decided in a Hyde Park manner to protest the war. He set up a PA system in the center of campus and blasted his protests of the war.

After dark, student mobs destroyed the campus. The destruction got so violent and widespread that military helicopters were flown in to tear-gas the entire campus, dispersing the students.

Was this the professor’s constitutional right to engage in free speech on a public, not private, campus, or did he incite a riot? He enflamed students, but he did not instruct or suggest that they should violently destroy much of the campus.

I take this as the professor’s constitutional right to free speech on a public campus — much as I take President Trump’s right to protest to his followers, even enflame them, but not incite them to mob violence and destruction.

I’ve always liked Liz Cheney’s politics and wish she would have made the critical distinction between Trump’s enflaming comments and incitement to riot.

With unanimous censure by her party leaders in Wyoming, she could lose her seat.


Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg is a traitor.

Mark Zuckerberg is a traitor, not just to this country, but to democracy everywhere.

As the CEO of Facebook, a business that has the attention of billions of people, Mark Zuckerberg has incredible power.

And that’s what makes the Facebook chief executive “the most dangerous person in the world,” New York University Stern School of Business professor Scott Galloway said on “Bloomberg Markets: The Close” on Wednesday, Aug 9, 2019.

Galloway, who teaches marketing and is a self-made millionaire entrepreneur, made the comment while discussing Facebook’s move to integrate the messenger services of the various platforms it owns: WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger. (Facebook bought Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.) While customers will still be able to use all three messenger apps individually, the three services will all be running off of the same back-end technical infrastructure when Zuckerberg’s plan is completed, either by the end of this year or in early 2020.

“Mark Zuckerberg is trying to encrypt the backbone between WhatsApp, Instagram and the core platform, Facebook, such that he has one communications network across 2.7 billion people,” Galloway said in the Bloomberg interview. “What could go wrong?”

Indeed, more than 2.7 billion people use at least one of those Facebook-owned services each month, the company says. And more than 2.1 billion use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, or Messenger every day on average, according to Facebook.

“The notion that we are going to have one individual deciding the algorithms for an encrypted backbone of 2.7 billion people is frightening — regardless of that person’s intentions,” Galloway tells Bloomberg.

That’s because a variety of public voices and perspectives should, at least in theory, help keep the democratic process healthy, Galloway tells CNBC Make It.

A “key safeguard for society is diversity of media/viewpoints, checks and balance,” Galloway says. He adds that people should be concerned by “the notion that one set of algorithms, controlled by one person who cannot be removed from office” would have a significant influence over the platform through which billions of Facebook users around the world consume information every day. Another relevant matter of concern regarding Zuckerberg and Facebook, Galloway adds, is that the social networking giant has already faced high-profile criticism regarding “bad actors” (such as Russian propagandists) using the platform to spread misinformation and sow discord through Facebook and Instagram.

″[Zuckerberg] has not demonstrated ability, or will, to ensure the doomsday machine will not be weaponized (repeatedly) by bad actors,” Galloway says.

Meanwhile, Facebook’s move to integrate its messaging infrastructure could actually be an effort to build a defense against a possible pending antitrust case, Galloway argues.

At the end of July, the U.S. Department of Justice said it was opening an antitrust review of some of the nation’s largest tech companies, and while no companies were named specifically, the DOJ is launching the review based on “new Washington threats” from Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

Zuckerberg wants to get to the point where, if the government were to attempt to break up Facebook, the company would try claim it is not possible without killing the entire social network and taking out the economic benefits with it, Galloway says. “What Facebook is doing is taking prophylactic moves against any sort of antitrust so that [Zuckerberg] could say, ‘It would be impossible to unwind this now,’” Galloway tells Bloomberg.

This argument, though, is not likely to work, antitrust lawyer Steven Levitsky tells CNBC Make It. “No one likes to ‘unscramble the eggs’ of a corporate integration. But when companies have operated separately, and only now become integrated, it’s obvious that they can be separated again,” Levitsky says. “The cost of the separation is one that the defendant would have to bear.”

Facebook may also try to claim that if it were broken into smaller pieces it won’t be able to compete with Chinese tech behemoths, such as the Chinese messaging and mobile payment app WeChat and social media video app Tik Tok, Galloway tells CNBC Make It in a follow-up phone call.

This, Galloway says, is called the “national champions’ argument” in economics: “If you, in any way, diminish our size and power, we won’t be able to defend our shores against the Chinese companies that are coming for us,” Galloway says. He doesn’t by that argument. “Smaller, more nimble, agile companies have shown an ability to be just as effective countervailing forces than large lumbering ones,” he says.

“This is absolutely bad for the planet, bad for society and it is clear where they are going,” Galloway says. He also called the federal regulators’ approval of Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram a “failure.”

“I think we all probably regret that now,” Galloway said. To this, the Federal Trade Commission had no comment, a spokesperson told CNBC Make It.

Facebook did not respond to CNBC Make It’s request for comment.


Additional Information

Mark Zuckerberg’s Pact with the Devil

This is a column about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, but it starts with an old story about Intel and Monsanto from the book Accidental Empires. Stick with me here and you’ll soon understand why…

There was a time in the early 1980s when Intel suffered terrible quality problems. It was building microprocessors and other parts by the millions and by the millions these parts tested bad. The problem was caused by dust, the major enemy of computer chip makers.

Semiconductor companies fight dust by building their components in expensive clean rooms. Intel had plenty of clean rooms, but it still had a big dust problem, so the engineers cleverly decided that the wafers were probably dusty before they ever arrived at Intel. The wafers were made in the East by Monsanto. Suddenly it was Monsanto’s dust problem.

Monsanto engineers spent months and millions trying to eliminate every last speck of dust from their silicon wafer production facility in South Carolina. They made what they thought was terrific progress, too, though it didn’t show in Intel’s production yields, which were still terrible. The funny thing was that Monsanto’s other customers weren’t complaining. IBM, for example, wasn’t complaining, and IBM was a very picky customer, always asking for wafers that were extra big or extra small or triangular instead of round. IBM was having no dust problems.

If Monsanto was clean and Intel was clean, the only remaining possibility was that the wafers somehow got dusty on their trip between the two companies, so the Monsanto engineers hired a private investigator to tail the next shipment of wafers to Intel. Their private eye uncovered an Intel shipping clerk who was opening incoming boxes of super-clean silicon wafers and then counting out the wafers by hand into piles on his super-unclean desktop, just to make sure that Bob Noyce was getting every silicon wafer he was paying for.

There is a business axiom that management gurus spout and big-shot industrialists repeat to themselves as a mantra if they want to sleep well at night. The axiom says that when a business grows past $1 billion in annual sales it becomes too large for any one individual to have a significant impact. Alas, this is not true when it’s a $1 billion high-tech business, where too often the critical path goes right through the head of one particular programmer or engineer or even through the head of a well-meaning clerk down in the shipping department. Remember that Intel was already a $1+ billion company when it was brought to its knees by desk dust.

The reason that there are so many points at which a chip, a computer, or a program is dependent on just one person is that these tech companies lack depth. Like any other new industry, this is one staffed mainly by pioneers, who are, by definition, a small minority. People in critical positions in these organizations don’t usually have backup, so when they make a mistake, the whole company makes a mistake.

Which brings us back to Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook has been getting a lot of bad press lately because its platform has been a particularly effective medium for pushing extreme political positions backed by provable lies. The problem, say Facebook critics, is the company’s resistance to controlling such posters if they are, say, the President of the United States of America. While Facebook might shut down you or me if we tried to do the same thing, they haven’t shut down or edited President Trump, which the company says is all in the interest of free speech.

Yeah, right.

Facebook is under a siege of sorts as advertisers boycott the company’s platform over this issue. Facebook lives or dies by advertising so this is a real threat to the company if it grows and endures. It would be easy to solve the problem if Facebook just took a more rational policy, treating all posters the same, Presidents and paupers alike.

Why doesn’t Facebook just make this problem go away?

One theory is that the company fears President Trump, who is always happy to threaten any outfit he perceives as throttling his political message. If Facebook can just keep shuffling its feet until the election, the thinking goes, then Trump will lose and his threats will lose with him.

But I have a different theory. My theory is that Facebook’s policy on political free speech is entirely — and deliberately — attributable to Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook’s position is Zuck’s position and it will only change when Zuckerberg feels he has made his point, whatever that is.

To understand why this is the case, just look at Facebook’s stock structure. Yes, stock structure.

Facebook has two types of shares identified as A and B. A shares are the common shares the company sold when it went public in 2012. Each A share carries one vote at the company’s annual meeting. Facebook B shares are original founder shares, which aren’t traded on any exchange, but each B share gets 10 votes at the annual meeting.

Through his B shares, Mark Zuckerberg holds 57.9 percent of all possible Facebook shareholder votes. He, as an individual, has voting control of the entire enterprise. He can’t be fired. He can’t even be effectively opposed. Facebook will never face the wrath of an activist investor.

Looking back to that story about Intel and Monsanto, Mark Zuckerberg engineered a lifetime position as Facebook’s key man with every critical path going directly through him. Like de Gaulle said of France, Facebook literally is Zuckerberg.

Jump now to 2020 and we can see that Facebook’s free speech position is Zuckerberg’s position because of this Faustian deal. So why doesn’t he change it and be less of a dick? Because power doesn’t exist if it is not wielded.

Even if Facebook changes policies, it will do so very slowly, because Zuckerberg doesn’t want to look vulnerable.

I don’t know what’s happening inside Facebook, but I’d guess that this is an instance when Zuckerberg wants to remind everyone who is the boss.

That’s how Tony Soprano might have handled it.


Additional Information

Could Mark Zuckerberg be Executed by a Firing Squad?

Legal experts weigh in on the Facebook founder’s legal jeopardy

Many people have suggested lately that Zuckerberg could face jail time for his misleading testimony to Congress over the last few years.
Jail time? Is that really enough?

If it is true that Cambridge Analytica and the Russians had enough data to determine how each and every Facebook use in America was going to vote, and they provided that information to the Trump campaign, then some jurists have suggested that the offense of undermining democracy in America is traitorous and punishable by death.

“But it is highly unlikely a firing squad would be used,” explains one of the Winkelvoss twins, sorry don’t know which, can’t tell them apart. “The firing squad hasn’t been used since 2010 in Utah when Ronnie Lee was executed. But that was by the State of Utah. The federal government hasn’t used the firing squad since the famous deserter Eddie Slovik was executed in 1945 in France by a firing squad for running away from battle.”

Then the other Winkelvoss twin chimes in (man are they tall and handsome and strapping!).

“The traitor of all traitors, Benedict Arnold, was not even executed by firing squad,” says this Winkelvoss. “He in fact escaped and lived out his life in England, but his partner in sedition and treason, Major John Andre, was hanged for his crimes. What Zuckerberg has done is fairly on a par with Andre and Arnold. America’s enemy was the beneficiary in both cases. In Zuck’s case it was Russia.”

But it is highly unlikely that Mark Zuckerberg will be hanged. According to hanging expert Evan Spiegal, “The last time someone was hanged was Rainey Bethea in 1937, for the rape of a 70-year-old woman in Kentucky. This was more or less a lynching. Although the mob is angry at Zuckerberg, I can’t really see them stringing him up.”

But what about the guillotine?

“The guillotine was only used in North America only in the French Carribean, and was discontinued in the 1890s,” says a guy with French accent, who looks suspiciously like Chris Hughes with a fake mustache. “The only people to die of guillotine in the US have been suicides, in which case the guillotines were home-made by the suicides themselves.”
So it’s not likely that Zuckerberg will face the guillotine. What about just the plain axe? Off with his head like they did in England?

“The famous pirate Blackbeard was rumored to have been beheaded in North Carolina for his crimes in 1718 but he was also shot,” says Palmer Lucky, through a virtual reality machine.

“Most of the people beheaded in the British colonies were Native Americans,” continues Mr. Lucky. “Miles Standish, the famous pilgrim, executed the chief Wituwamat by beheading him in 1623 for resisting white settlement. That’s why we dress up as pilgrims and celebrate Thanksgiving every year by cutting the head off a turkey.”

I’m not sure about this Lucky guy — he’s rumored to be a Trump supporter after all. But it does seem unlikely that any of these barbaric methods of execution will be used against the Zuck.

“If he were executed,” says an expert in jurisprudence (always loved that word) Mr. Eduardo Saverin. “It would most likely be by lethal injection.”

Well, there you have it. Mark Zuckerberg may be fined, sternly chastened, or even criminally prosecuted for his corporate misbehavior, but it is highly unlikely that he will be blindfolded, given his last cigarette, and then shot twenty or thirty times.

But at least a few people we interviewed seem like they are kind of hoping for it.


Brian J. Smith

Brian J. Smith is a traitor.

Brian J. Smith is a traitor to our Nation byway of using his position as president and chief operating officer of The Coca-Cola Company. In this role, he is responsible for leading the company’s global field operations into an unconstitutional new world of diversity, inclusion and equity, the acronym DIE aptly applies. In other words, thanks to Brian J. Smith, the Coca-Cola Company has now been forced to adopt this socialist form of left-wing ideology.

Consequently, Coca-Cola has sent out notices to law firms demanding that the company will “require diversity among law firms who bill it for work in the United States and reduce payments if they do not comply.”

Because of pressure from the Marxist, anti-American Black Lives Matter, many Fortune 500 companies have pledged to address alleged racial inequality more aggressively.

In fact, there is almost a competition among firms to see who gets the highest score of diversity and inclusion.  How is this accomplished?

To determine the Best Workplaces for Diversity, Fortune partnered with Great Place to Work® to analyze anonymous survey feedback representing more than 4.8 million US employees.

The Best Workplaces for Diversity list focuses on the experiences of women, people of color, LGBTQ people, employees who are Boomers or older, and people who have disabilities. The ranking is based on what these employees themselves report in a 60-question Trust Index© survey about the trust, pride and camaraderie they experience in their workplace, and how those experiences compare to their colleagues’ reports of the same workplaces. Great Place to Work also consider[s] employees’ daily experiences of innovation, the company’s values, and the effectiveness of their leaders, to ensure they’re consistently experienced, as well.

The remaining 15 percent of the rank is based on the diversity of the company’s overall workforce and its management, senior leadership and board, taking into account industry trends.

Lori George Billingsley.is a traitor.

Coca Cola Company’s Chief Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Officer, Lori George Billingsley, explains how Coca-Cola is creating a culture of diversity and inclusion.

The company that once touted “Red, White, and You,” has come a long way to now being a leading proponent of the racism that is the underbelly of diversity.

Thus, Coca-Cola’s general counsel is urging law firms to “effect real systemic change” by adhering to new requirements that [mandate that] outside counsel allocate a portion of work to diverse attorneys — specifically Black lawyers — or risk losing money or even future legal business.”

Dare I call this blackmail?  Dare I call it racist?

In essence, “Coke said it will require quarterly reporting about the makeup of legal teams that do work for it and self identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Black, women, Hispanic/Latinx, LGBTQ, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander or persons with disabilities. For those working on new matters for Coke, ‘at least 30 percent of each of billed associate and partner time will be from diverse attorneys, and of such amounts at least half will be from Black attorneys.'”

It said the percentages, which are roughly equal to those of the U.S. population overall, will be adjusted over time to eventually hit at least 50 percent of billed time coming from diverse attorneys, with half from Black attorneys.

Firms that fail to meet the targets will be docked 30 percent of their fees, and those who continue to come up short may no longer be considered for Coke work.

Apparently like everything that is radically left-wing, merit does not matter. This is identity politics on steroids.

The fact that there are fewer Black lawyers must be, according to Leftist group think, because of racism. It could never be because fewer Black people choose to enter the legal profession or that because of another brainchild of left-wing philosophy, affirmative action, fewer Blacks succeed in the field.

America already has many protections against discrimination, i.e., the EEOC, and yet the legal profession is now being told it must break the law so that Coca Cola can have the final say in its virtue signaling and its adherence to Black Lives Matter demands.

Of course, the natural result of this is many more people will suddenly self-identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, LGBTQ+, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander or a person with disabilities.”

Heck, I should now claim Hispanic heritage because probably an ancestor of mine was one of the Spanish conversos who were exiled or murdered during the Spanish Inquisition!

Another result will be the deep resentment among different groups because one group is being promoted not based on merit but because of identity politics.

This is just another embodiment of Marxist class warfare now redefined.

This, of course, is always the aim of the Left.  They will mouth diversity, inclusion, and equity.  But anyone who sees through this will note that “equity is not equality. It is a substitute for equal rights. Equity requires the authorities to determine who gets what according to the race, the ethnicity or other status of the beneficiaries. It is updated Marxist claptrap  in which race replaces class.”

This is because the purveyors of this racist ideology couched in alleged empathy and compassion believe that a “lower than population percentage of blacks in any desirable category must be the result of systemic racism.”

What Coca Cola is touting is Critical Race Theory, which is now rampant in schools and businesses in America. Trump banned the use of Critical Race Theory but Biden reinstated it on the first day he issued his slew of executive orders.

We are now in the throes of a hideous left-wing takeover of this country. The term ‘diversity’ now excludes white straight males. Thus, to achieve equity, you first have to take away equality for individuals who were born in the wrong identity group. Merit has no bearing on anything any longer in this country. Consider that 85% of Biden’s new political appointees to the Office of Personnel Management identify as people of color, women or LGBTQ.

It is ironic that businesses, the mainstay of our economic engine, have now taken on the face of tyranny.

I would hope that Americans decide that Coca-Cola is no longer their choice of drink. I would request that these now-designated groups perceive that they are being held to the soft bigotry of low expectations. That to gain a foothold because of something they had no control over such as their race is an abiding insult that lowers self-esteem and pride and worth.

I pray that the legal minds push back hard on Coca-Cola and their dictatorial edicts . I would appeal to the lawyers to stand up and proclaim that such demands are completely contrary to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and are merely more tools in the leftist arsenal to weaken, eviscerate and eventually destroy America.


Drew B. Tipton

Drew B. Tipton is a patriot.

Drew B. Tipton is a patriot.

Drew B. Tipton stymied President Biden’s 100-Day Ban on Deportations.

Drew B. Tipton a patriotic U.S. District Judge in Texas has issued a temporary nationwide restraining order allowing ICE to continue deporting criminal aliens.

In a classic example that serves to prove the old adage “what goes around comes around,” U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, a Donald Trump appointee, on Tuesday, January 26, 2021 issued a nationwide temporary restraining order against Joe Biden’s executive order halting illegal alien deportations over his first 100 days.

Immediately following Biden’s Inauguration Day EO, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton took the new administration to court, contending that Biden’s order would cause “concrete injures to Texas.” Paxton argued, “Border states like Texas pay a particularly high price when the federal government fails to faithfully execute our country’s immigration laws. [President Biden’s] attempted halt on almost all deportations would increase the cost to Texas caused by illegal immigration.”

During the Trump administration, the states of Texas, Arizona, Indiana, and Louisiana signed an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security giving them a 180-day period for consultation before the feds could take any action to “reduce, redirect, reprioritize, relax, or in any way modify immigration enforcement.”

Beyond being a bad idea and a constitutional dereliction, Biden’s EO is in violation of this agreement. Thus, Judge Tipton ruled that the order failed to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, stating, “Here, the January 20 Memorandum not only fails to consider potential policies more limited in scope and time, but it also fails to provide any concrete, reasonable justification for a 100-day pause on deportations.”

Recall that the Administrative Procedures Act was the very same rule used by Democrats to successfully prevent Trump from following through on his EO to end DACA. Two can play this game.

Biden’s order effectively prevents Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting criminal aliens. In fact, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that Biden’s EO blocks ICE from deporting 85% of illegal aliens it had in custody. Of the 185,884 illegal aliens deported last fiscal year, 64% of them had criminal records or pending criminal charges.

This serves as an example of the fruit of Trump’s impressive judiciary record, and the primary reasons many conservatives voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020. Furthermore, this is evidence that GOP state attorneys general will hold to their “save and defend” commitment.


William Kaetz

William Kaetz is a patriot.

William Kaetz is a patriot.

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 – William Kaetz was arrested and charged with threatening a federal judge.

William Kaetz, 56, of Paramus, New Jersey, mailed a message to the judge’s house last month asking that a case he had pending be expedited, asking that the judge be recused and saying that the “excessive delay” was “unacceptable to him,” U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito said.

Less than a week later, Kaetz left a voicemail telling the judge the case should have been decided weeks ago, that he “wanted the judge off his cases and off the bench, and adding that he “would not take ‘no’ for an answer,” the U.S. attorney said.

Then came an email Sunday to the judge’s personal account and to others, including the general address for the U.S. Marshals Service, Carpenito said.

In that message, Kaetz claimed that the judge had been “avoiding and stonewalling” his case, that the judge was a “traitor,” that being a traitor “has a death sentence,” and that “there will come a time to take down those people that fail to do their job,” a complaint on file in U.S. district court says.

Noted that he has pending motions before the judge and that he would try his best “not to harm the traitor” judge but that the “traitor” judge needed to be dealt with, Carpenito said.

Then threatened to publicly reveal the judge’s home address, writing: “God knows who has a grievance and what will happen after that,” he said.

Records show several lawsuits filed in local and federal courts pro se by Kaetz, including one involving child support and another over the purchase of a car.

His arrest comes amid heightened concern for the safety of federal judges.

This past summer, an assailant dressed as a deliveryman killed the son of U.S. District Court Judge Ester Salas and wounded her husband at their Middlesex County home.

Kaetz was scheduled for a video-conferenced first appearance Monday in U.S. District Court in Newark on charges of making an interstate communication containing a threat to injure a person and with threatening to assault and murder a federal judge.

Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI and deputy U.S. Marshals for the District of New Jersey with the investigation and charges, handled by Asistant U.S. Attorney Dean Sovolos of his National Security Unit in Newark.

NOTE: The charges and allegations contained in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.


Additional Information

The following is a glimpse into the self-represented plaintiff, who faces 10 years in prison for allegedly making threats against the judge assigned to the case.

Kautz has previously sued the United States for allowing “Socialists and Muslims” to hold jobs in the federal government.

Another Kaetz lawsuit was dismissed that fulminates over socialism and calls the Coronavirus pandemic a hoax. In turn, federal authorities claim this gives a glimpse into the self-represented plaintiff, who faces 10 years in prison for allegedly making threats against the judge assigned to the case.

The suit by William Kaetz included Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as defendants, and it later added Black Lives Matter, Antifa and the governors of all 50 states.

But on Oct. 18, 2020 Kaetz was arrested based on messages he sent calling the judge overseeing his case a “traitor” who deserved a death sentence.

Kaetz’s suit was dismissed for lack of standing, based on a finding that he failed to show his injuries are “distinct from that suffered in general by other taxpayers or citizens.”

Authorities did not reference the target of his threats at the time his case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Claire Cecchi of the District of New Jersey, who dismissed his pro se lawsuit without prejudice in October 2019.

Kaetz’s amended complaint also takes issue with regulations ordering certain businesses to close due to COVID-19. On Tuesday, Kaetz’s motion to reopen the case and his amended complaint were dismissed by U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty, to whom the case was reassigned after Kaetz’s arrest.

Judge McNulty found Kaetz lacks standing to sue because ”his allegations that his rights and freedom have been injured by the government are insufficient to demonstrate a particularized injury,” and that he failed to show that his injuries are “distinct from that suffered in general by other taxpayers or citizens.”

Many Patriotic Americans agree with Kaetz’s litigation strategy, and that he deserved his day in court, not to mention, a judge that showed qualities of patience, open-mindedness, courtesy, tact, firmness, understanding, compassion and humility. A judge should be able to deal with people calmly and courteously and should be willing to hear and consider the views of all sides of a case.

An effective justice system protects the rights of all citizens against infringement of the law by others, including by powerful parties and governments. . . In our Constitutional Republic, individual judges and the justice system as a whole should be impartial and independent of all external pressures.

Now what are we to do without a fair and unbiased justice system in which all people, regardless of their identities, are treated equitably by law enforcement officers and the courts?


Additional Information

Kaetz’s criminal case is assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy of the Western District of Pennsylvania. Kaetz is represented in the criminal case by Douglas Sughrue, a Pittsburgh lawyer, who did not return a call about the case.