Clear and Present Danger? Trump and Biden Convictions Spell a Danger to our Constitution

Donald Trump is now a convicted felon, Hunter Biden is now a convicted felon. If we think this wasn't political, think again. This begs the question, how far is too far when vague statutes are used to wage political warfare with jail as a consequence? Ron takes you into executive expansion, agency power, vagueness in criminal statutes and the several cases up this term before the Supreme court that will determine if the Supreme Court has elected to protect our constitution or destroy it.

Quote: "As this term progresses and you start to see the Supreme Court strike down the overly broad interpretation of Sarbanes Oxly  800 January 6th defendants will have their convictions impacted..." 

Check out Ron's Book Discussing Executive Overreach:  https://ronaldwchapman.com/book

Contact Ron Here: httys://ronaldwchapman.com


 

Transcript

Ronald Chapman:  

Let's hope all goes well. But if anything, let's hope that everybody stays safe. Well, we're up on the mountain. I wanted to jump on, principally because I had a little bit of free time, too, to get on and chat with you all about what's been going on. But there's a there's a fair amount to cover. Not necessarily Supreme Court related. We still got a few cases, too, to wind up that I'm sure I'll do future episodes on. But let's talk about. That Donald Trump conviction as well as the most recent Hunter Biden conviction. I really wanted to get through the Hunter Biden trial before I spoke out on all of these, because I think that both convictions are really important for the political process moving forward. And yesterday I was on Scripps News and I was asked a question that really caused me to think about both Donald Trump and Hunter Biden's convictions and whether or not we're going to start seeing more political prosecutions. And in the meantime, we've seen this this phrase lawfare pop up. And I think lawfare is the phrase colloquially that people have used to describe the political use of these sorts of statutes. And this is something near and dear to my heart and something I feel very strongly about and something that really a Supreme Court issue. Incredibly important, and that is the idea of executive expansion. Some of you may not know what executive expansion is. Other people may be living it. I'll say for those federal criminal defense attorneys out there who might be listening to this, I'm sure you are well aware this is something that I think Scalia was hot on the heels of when he was on the bench. And many conservatives have been relatively concerned about, but unfortunately haven't really done that much about it until this current Supreme Court. Now, to a lot of observers, the current Supreme Court appears to be politicized. It appears that they're making decisions that benefit the Republicans. And some of that may very well be true. I mean, Alito was just recently recorded making some statements that impacted the view of his objectivity, certainly. But there's a more fundamental principle that they stand for and that they're making decisions on right now, and that is limiting executive overreach. So most textualist, those who believe that the text of the Constitution needs to be followed. In fact, I think every Supreme Court justice on the bench right now would consider themselves a textualist. That's not very controversial. The opposite of that would be, you know, the idea that the Constitution is this living, breathing document requires much more interpretation That's not something that survived very well. So most justices, if not all, are textualist. The importance of textualism is when we look at the Constitution and we look at statutes that they are what they say they are. And it's not the Supreme Court's position to read into them or add things or to try to mold them in a way that give you no benefit to Congress when passing these statutes or give benefit to the Constitution. Certainly, the Constitution has a little bit more wiggle room here. But when we look specifically at statutes and we expect Textualist to follow those statutes. If there is a statute, a federal statute that says if you enter a property at night and commit a felony in that property, you've committed burglary and you could be subject to up to 20 years in jail a judge. Presiding over a trial where somebody was accused of that. Who's asked to rule on a a motion would. A motion to dismiss would look at the statute. Look at the facts that were presented and determine whether or not the prosecutor has met at least the burden that. That judges. Is designed to. To consider. Now, what if there was a question about what is a felony inside? Is that a state felony? Is that a federal felony? What what constitutes a felony? What about a high misdemeanor? Misdemeanor that's punishable by a year in jail? Is that constitute a felony? There's all these strange questions. There's some interpretation that would be allowed there. But what a justice can't do or a judge can't do is look into that statute and say, well, I don't know that the at night requirement is that important. So I'm going to determine that this is sufficient, even though we clearly have this conduct during the day. So textualism is a very important position. Now, textualism gets eroded when Congress creates statutes that are vague and ambiguous, and it also gets eroded when Congress creates statutes that rely on agency interpretations and decisions in order to criminalize conduct We see this primarily in the health care arena as well as the SCC. But we've also started to see that in cases like Simonelli, where government contracting has been targeted for some of these, in fact, these cases are starting to pop up anywhere. Anybody has a specific interaction with the government. And essentially what we're seeing is that the very broad and vague wire fraud statutes, conspiracy statutes, bank fraud, mail fraud, health care fraud, many of the fraud statutes and many of the conspiracy statutes are so broad in the way that they're written, and they're even more broad in the way that they're applied, because in many instances, we're starting to see the violation of some administrative regulation becoming essentially a criminal offense. Now, administrative regulations are created by agencies, not by Congress. And you think that somebody can only be convicted by violating a law that was passed by Congress that everybody knew about and ordinary people don't know about agency regulations. But unfortunately, Congress has had the nasty habit. Of. Creating laws that defer to agencies interpretation. Of what is considered permissible conduct the opiate prescribing realm. The controlled substance prescribing amount was a perfect example. If you prescribe outside the usual course of professional practice for other than a legitimate medical purpose, you can be convicted of unlawful distribution. What is outside the course of professional practice? The government is arguing and receiving jury instructions that would permit a conviction where a physician violated DEA regulations, regulations, not laws OC criminal conviction for violation of regulations. That's ultimately what we're coming down to. Now, the textualist judge has a difficult time with that because technically the law is written and it says if you do this, you will get a certain amount of time in jail. Right? You will get convicted. And it's very difficult for the Supreme Court to strike down that entire statute as being vague, because as it's applied here it is considered relatively vague. And so the end result of that is. The Executive. The entity that has the power over agencies, all agencies, the EPA, the FDA, the DEA, regulatory bodies across America that are really running our country. We are we are ruled by agencies. These agencies now have power, which means the president has the power to shape the criminal laws by shaping agency regulations. That's a very dangerous thing. We have a system that separates power. Between the legislative, judicial and executive branches and textualism is the backstop to that separation. Judges decide whether or not something has violated the text of a statute. But where the agency gets to decide what the law is as opposed to Congress, we see the executive becoming both the legislative body and the prosecution body. And that is the dangerous position that we found ourselves in. So. As this term progresses. And you start to see the Supreme Court strike down the overly broad interpretation of Sarbanes Oxley. In the Fisher case, United States versus Fisher. That's going to have a benefit to a lot of January six defendants. Why? Because potentially 800 of them could have convictions reversed related to this 800 January six defendants could have convictions reversed as a result of Fisher versus the United States. And the reason for that is because they decided to charge a catch a portion of the Sarbanes-Oxley statute, the statute that was passed after Enron, that related to obstruction of an official proceeding. And they argued that these people violated that provision of the statute by obstructing an official proceeding. But that statute, that's not what that was intended for. What that statute was intended to do was prevent people from destroying documents that may impact a later proceeding or investigation against them. And so this is a gross misapplication of Sarbanes-Oxley and a tremendous amount of executive overreach. And the Supreme Court is going to stand in the way of that because their decisions have been trending against executive overreach. We have Simonelli last term, that was a case that I've talked about a lot. I think it was one of the most important cases recently. And that essentially said that where we have a case like of government contracting, the government doesn't have the right to control. The contract. And if there's a breach of contract, it's a breach of contract. But the right to control the contract is not an independent theory of fraud. You need to deprive somebody of money or property. Okay, that's what Simonelli stood for. And I can go into that case in a bit more detail. There's a article on my website, Ronald Chapman Tor.com, that you can read. Related to Seminole, if you want to see a bit more on that. Markazi a big decision coming up. We'll do an independent episode on that. But just by way of a preview, kind of waiting for this decision to come out before I address it. CHERKIS We were asked to to file a brief on behalf of the Administrative Law and Judges Conference. Thousands of administrative law judge has asked us to file this brief and and argue on behalf of the administrative law judges, because one of the issues was whether or not judges should be protected by four cores, two layer removal, complicated concept. But what it really means is should administrative law judges be replaced as soon as the president changes because they serve at the pleasure of the president, or should they be immune from being replaced? And the reason why that's really important is because the executive is supposed to be controlled by the executive. When we elect a president, we expect that the cabinet will be replaced and include people that that president wants because our vote counts. If the old executive is allowed to keep people in place and prevent them from being removed, then the prior president still has some control. Now some branches. The President appoints a Supreme Court justice. That Supreme Court justice stays on the bench until they want to get off the bench or they pass away. But. That's the way that system was created with the executive branch. They get replaced. Preet Bharara The the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York tried to fight being replaced when Donald Trump took office, which was quite comical because every United States attorney resigns unless there's a subsequent appointment by. The the new president at the time, the incoming president. And it was kind of strange. It made it sound like like this isn't a normal process. But now most U.S. attorneys change out when there's a new administration, just like most executives. But administrative law judges are protected a little bit more. And I believe the executive wants them replaced. And that's really what should happen. If the executive wants to change agency regulations, they can appoint their own administrators and administrative law judges and make those changes consistent with their administration and the vote of the people and the will of the people. This prevents agencies from becoming their own branch of government, which many would argue they absolutely have. Why am I spending so much time on agencies? Because that's where our system of government is going and that's where the Supreme Court is going to potentially attack first. There's been a couple of cases, West Virginia versus the EPA, that have limited agency power. But Diakiese is a really important one because in Jacuzzi they decided to find Jacuzzi who is a financier, stock trader or whatever. I'm not too sure about the specific name that this or title that this person held, but Jacuzzi was fined a significant amount of money by the SEC in an agency proceeding. Now, you don't get the full rights of a trial before an agency. In fact, some would say. Some would say it's a kangaroo court. I've certainly had those experiences with administrative law judges where it does appear as if you don't get the rights to confront witnesses, you don't get equal rights to access to evidence. It doesn't seem like you get the full due process that we really should get in a proceeding like this where such an important thing is at stake. Your ability to trade as a stock trader, your ability to prescribe as a physician, your land acquisition, and whether or not you can use the property that you might have spent your life savings purchasing. All of these things can be up to agency adjudication, but you don't get a jury of your peers, you get a judge selected by an executive and maybe not even the one that's currently in office right now. That's quite strange. And Jacuzzi thought that that was strange, too. So he said, you don't get the chance to find me. And he filed a lawsuit and it went all the way through the Circuit Court of Appeals. And finally, I think this case had been batted around for quite a while, but it was finally accepted by the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court's going to decide whether or not Jacuzzi should have received the benefit of a jury trial for this type of adjudication. And I filed my my brief, and I will stand on my brief on behalf of the administrative law judge as related to removal. But what I will say is that I anticipate the Supreme Court to tailor back agency power, to adjudicate, to hear some of these cases. So keep an eye on your Kasi. It's already been argued, and it's going to be very interesting as that decision comes out. It's going to come out towards the end of the term, I anticipate. Obviously got the immunity decision. I'll touch on that later. No need to go on that now. But let's get on to the Donald Trump New York trial as well as as well as Joe Biden's federal prosecution in Delaware. Let's start with with Donald Trump so that we don't have to. Wander too far here because we're already talking about the Supreme Court. We're already talking about agencies. You might as well talk a little bit about principles of federalism. And this is the strange environment that's being created by Donald Trump's prosecution and subsequent conviction in New York. Donald Trump is absolutely a federal official. He's a former president of the United States. He doesn't hold any current federal title, but he's a candidate for a federal title. And one of the concerns that the framers would understandably have is if a state or a colony could. Impact federal law and federal action by subjecting somebody running for office to a political prosecution, jailing them and preventing them from becoming the executive, you would have the state usurp the will of the people, which is not something we want happening. And this is the battleground that we have created before us. We have Judge Mershon, who is going to decide whether or not Donald Trump goes to jail. We have a conviction on state charges that. Arguably are outside of the statute of limitations if they're a misdemeanor and they're not sufficient if they're a felony. Almost everybody is agreeing with this principle except for the judge and I suppose the prosecution. These are odd charges. They come at an odd time. They raise very odd theories. And there are too many firsts in this case to really think it's anything other than political that that doesn't seem to be too controversial of a position. So we have this battleground created. What happens if Judge Mershon puts Donald Trump in jail? Well, I would imagine there would be something called a habeas petition filed with the federal court and I imagine Southern District of New York, because that's where the trial happened. And it would go something like this. Donald Trump is a candidate for presidential office and he's the party's frontrunner and certainly part of a contested election, in fact, leading in many of the polls as a result of that. And he jail time by this state judge would impact Donald Trump's ability to serve in that position as a candidate as well as to take office as the potential next president of the United States. If if he loses the election, this is a moot point. He could be sentenced to whatever. And so the argument would be that this should at least be stayed until the conclusion of all federal duties. Or potentially reversing the entire trial. Now, I think that that is a possibility no matter what happens if this judge puts Donald Trump under any bond conditions. I would imagine that as a result of that, Donald Trump will file this habeas petition in federal court so that he can climb up to the Supreme Court. But I think before that happens, the Supreme Court is going to talk about this. When they talk about presidential immunity, I think they might as well wrap all of these up, even though it's not specifically the question presented. I think you can deviate when you need to when it's a logically related issue. They can certainly discuss this without specifically holding it. But you need to resolve what happens in this situation where we have a phony Willis or an Alvin Bragg trying to jam up a leading party's candidate. Listen, I'd be making these same statements if if Texas was trying to convict Joe Biden of keeping classified records in his garage Not not really a state offense. And it didn't happen in Texas. But let's just say Texas wanted to charge him with conspiracy to engage in human trafficking by allowing undocumented migrants over the border who have passed away and caused the state a lot of money, cost the state a lot of money and and use of the National Guard. Certainly, you could plausibly argue that, you know, Barack Obama, this was argued during oral argument on the immunity case that Barack Obama, with a drone strike on a U.S. citizen, committed what would be considered a murder. Now, I think it was sanctioned by the Office of Legal Counsel. And so Barack Obama had some legal cover. But I think that some scholars have argued and even during my graduate studies, I was one of those folks arguing that some due process should have been afforded. Even if you are an enemy combatant, that was a big deal. Now, Barack Obama very well could face prosecution for that by a president later on or potentially even by a state prosecutor, depending on where the conduct occurred. We simply can't have that as a nation and we need a court to come in and provide some sensible rule so that we can figure out what to do when we have a colorable issue. With a presidential candidate, president or former president? That might require a prosecution and we need to figure out who gets to deal with that going around and prosecuting former presidents. And highly politicized prosecutions is just not sustainable for this country. Hunter Biden is a fantastic example for why this is not sustainable. When one side strikes, the other one will strike back. Next thing you know, we are no longer engaged in a peaceful transition of power. While we're not dealing with a coup, we are dealing with significant prosecutions occurring later, plus the cost to this country in terms of our goodwill as well as our dollars excessive. The January 6th committee cost a lot. All of the congressional hearings related to this political infighting costs a ton of money, a ton of taxpayer dollars, and that's just unsustainable. So what is the Supreme Court to do? I think this is pretty easy to deal with. I think that if you commit a offense that is part of your presidential duties, you will receive immunity unless you are impeached by Congress, in which case you could face. Prosecution for that post impeachment if it was determined that that wasn't considered an official act of the president of the United States. So impeachment first. And then needs to be considered by a court, an unofficial act, personal act. The example that was given during the oral arguments was Trump, I think shooting somebody on the street. That's not an official act. There is no law that sanctions Trump in doing that. And he's not providing for the welfare or he's not raising up the the military. He's not doing anything that's afforded by the Constitution. And so he can face prosecution for that. After he's impeached, you need to remove the person from office. So we have the peaceful transfer of power pursuant to the rules established by the body that is responsible for that. The Senate and the House are both involved in impeachment. So we're not dealing with just one party. And then you can move on prosecution later on. Now, what do we do about these state issues? Well, federal officials, office of the presidency is is vast because it's a single person. So interpreting what is an official act very difficult because this single person is required to do a lot of things. This isn't kind of a bunch of disparate individuals engaging in very specific conduct. This is a figurehead. Right. What are the duties of the Queen of England? What are the duties of the Prime Minister of of England? We have those two bodies in one in our president of the United States. So what do we do when you want to retrospectively? Charge him for something. But in the state court, that happened before he was elected. Well, you can't give him federal immunity. Of state issues. But what you can do is prevent that prosecution from occurring while that person is related to or serving in an official capacity. All right. So related to running for office or serving in an official capacity. Now, I suppose anybody could run for office provided you get the signatures. I imagine that there would be some requirement that the campaign be meaningful so that people aren't just committing crimes and then pretending to run for office so they can get some form of immunity. But I think there should really be a test to determine whether or not a state prosecution is interfering with a prospective federal officials ability to do their job. Let's say the president is, you know, has nominated an ambassador for employment appointment before they're confirmed. And that some state prosecutor decides to drag up charges against that individual to prevent their confirmation. These things are wrongful. They should not happen. You put a hold on those things until after told the statute of limitations. Who cares until after that person serves? Right. We don't have laws on the books that specifically say this, but we do have a Supreme Court that is hearing the limits of immunity for a president, which I imagine would deal with the limits of immunity for executive officials. And it makes 1,000% complete common sense for both parties if you make it that a state cannot impact the administration of. The Federal government by prosecuting an executive official, including the president. Unless they first wait until after the end of those official duties. Now, the federal government could certainly prosecute a federal official. The federal government could attempt to prosecute a president provided like I said, they're not engaged in an official act in Congress doing their job first. But these barriers need to be in place for both sides. God forbid, if the Supreme Court does not give Donald Trump immunity, we are going to see virtually every president engaged in prosecution. Do you know? Look. Look at the book. Three felonies a day. I think it's called When You Live a Complicated Life of a Public Official. How many tax violations are potentially in there? How many potentially classified records might be in the boxes that you're carrying away? How many times you might have spoken to somebody who you didn't understand the context of their background or maybe authorized a certain action that somebody could have considered to be part of a conspiracy. What about engaging in covert military action? What do we do there? How many potential criminal activities could a potential president engage in? And are we willing to create a system and allow a system? Where you can be prosecuted. Based on these statutes. While you're in office, after you're done with office, nobody's going to want that job as president of the United States. Nobody qualified is going to want that job. The only person who's going to want that job is a person who can't take risks. A person who doesn't try. A person who doesn't care about the country enough to break a few eggs. I think about our founding fathers in these moments. And they broke a lot of eggs to give us the system that we have to stop the tyranny and oppression that the British were asserting on us. They risked their lives. In fact, many of them lost their lives. The ones that we talk about are the ones that lived through that process. But the reality is those patriots did not have it easy. Those patriots risked it all for us and the least we could do. Is continue to have a system. Where these matters are handled peacefully and jailing our political opponents. As the last thing we intend to do. This is the breakdown of civility. And the Supreme Court has the opportunity to right the ship on civility. Prevent executive overreach. And we go full circle here. I talked a lot early on about executive overreach. I spoke about the statutes and how they are sort of leading to this idea of executive overreach. And this is really important from this presidential immunity context, because when we have very vague statutes that don't require much other than the interpretation of the Department of Justice to be considered violated, we now have a lot of power centralized in the new president. And if there's no immunity, they can wield it easily against the old president. Analyze their stock trades, analyze their tax returns, analyze their statements and the recordings that were made in the White House, analyze their interactions find a crime. In the book, three felonies a day. The argument is that everybody commits about three felonies a day. I don't know if it's that many, but I do know that if you are handling as many types of things as a president tends to handle. That's. Probably it's not going to be very difficult to accuse you of criminal activity, regardless of if you are a Republican, if you're a Democrat. If you're an independent. If your green party. You have culpability and. That sword can be turned against you. So it's a sword that we should put down. The Supreme Court should do that for us. People will be. Mad. They will assume the Supreme Court is political, but I think that they are likely going to do their best to save our country and make a reasoned decision. I just hope that it's unanimous so that it may cause some people to stand down on attacks against the Supreme Court. I think we have a good Supreme Court right now. There are decisions that I don't agree with, but I think I understand where they're going. I think they're taking back executive power. I think they are trying to allow this system to breathe a little bit before we move forward as a nation. And I think that they're doing a pretty good job consensus building on the court despite the broad range of personalities. So finally, let's get to it. I've got problems with this case. It's just as bad as Trump's. I think Trump's case is pretty bad, but I think Joe Biden's case is possibly even worse. Does the First Amendment not exist anymore? And we just had young thug's attorney thrown in jail, I think it was yesterday for contempt of court because he found out about an ex parte hearing. This is state court in Georgia. Ex party hearing in young. The attorney found out about it and said, hey. That's bullshit. You can't have this hearing without me being present, the judge said. How did you find out about that? Tell me or I'm going to throw you in jail. So he threw him in jail because young thug's lawyer would not agree to tell him. As a result, ten weekends in jail, in the middle of a trial that's been going on for like a year. Tragic. Have we forgotten about the First Amendment? Donald Trump charged for essentially inciting January six by Jack Smith for statements, including statements that he made. That, according to Jack Smith, caused people to break into the Capitol. A lot of people hotly debate that. But these statements, I don't see them qualifying as hate speech or qualifying as something that would trigger an exception to the First Amendment. And now we go to Hunter Biden's statement on this application, where apparently you have to fill it out and indicate, yes, if you want to exercise your right to bear arms. Now, I believe in common sense gun reform as a practical matter, but I also believe in the Constitution. So I have a bit of conflict in my mind. I think that the right to bear arms. Is it right the support in the Constitution? But I think practically there should be some limits on that. But what I think doesn't really matter what the Constitution says is what really matters. What the case law says is what really matters. And what that says is it shall not be infringed. Hmm. It shall not be infringed. Does it say it shall not be infringed? Except if you want to ask about whether or not somebody suffers from a drug addiction or a mental health disorder. Do we not have a Fifth Amendment right? And are you pitting somebody's rights against each other? When you say you must give up your Fifth Amendment right and tell on yourself in order to exercise your Second Amendment right. And then you can be prosecuted for your First Amendment. Your First Amendment right. I mean, this is just the strangest thing ever. Now, a lot of people will say, well, getting a gun is a choice and you don't have to get a gun yet. Sure. But it's a constitutional. Choice. You're protected by the Constitution and making that choice. So. How do we keep guns out of the hands of people who are addicted to drugs and dangerous? Well, my hope was that the family would take care of that. Right. That that cases like the Ethan crumbling case didn't actually exist and that family members would look out for each other. And if somebody was possessing a gun and they shouldn't have done the right thing, what happened? And I think that's exactly what Hunter Biden's brother's wife was doing in throwing this gun out, taking it from the home, throwing it out. And that's how it ended up in an A trash can. Big problems for Biden. But. I have problems with this form and I have problems with criminally prosecuting somebody for what's put on that form. I think you can have the box there and I think that somebody can fill it out or they cannot fill it out. And if they don't fill it out, then the gun store owner gets to decide whether or not they want to continue with the transaction. That's that's fine. A gun store owner does not have to sell a gun to you. Right. But the government. Doesn't have the right to force you to say something about drug use or addiction. Violate your Fifth Amendment right. Just so that you can exercise your First Amendment right. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me and to make this a criminal offense. Just seems very, very strange, excessive, over-the-top, doesn't make sense. And then to actually prosecute somebody for it, there's a lot of criminal statutes out there that don't get prosecuted or they might be misdemeanors, but to actually prosecute somebody for a violation of this just seems even worse. And the way this whole thing went down smells. I mean, they were really looking at Hunter Biden for what's behind door number two for Burisma, for the taxes. Yeah, but other issues and those cases haven't come to fruition. We'll see what happens or if there even is a viable case. I'm not a guessing type person. I'm a facts person. And I don't know whether or not there's enough there, but we shall see in short order. But what I will say is this prosecution should have never happened. It's a bit embarrassing for our country. And so I'm I'm standing firmly on the side of Trump should not have been prosecuted in any of these cases and Hunter Biden certainly shouldn't have been prosecuted. And I'm a bit disgusted at the political use of our statutes. And I'm hopeful that in the next few cases, which I hope you stick with me for, that the Supreme Court will do the right thing. And I will be here to analyze those cases and to walk through them and to let you know whether or not the Supreme Court actually did help us or whether they muddied the waters. That's that remains to be seen. But each one of these cases, the Fisher case, the Jacuzzi case. As well as the immunity case. Very important. We are eagerly awaiting the decision here. And I think that the future of our country is really, really riding on it. So thanks for hanging out with me for a little bit. Again. Let me know if that intro is a little too long. Drop it in the comments. And if you have anything else that you're really excited to talk about, you have any questions? Feel free to message me or throw them in the comments section of wherever you listen to this, whether it's YouTube, Spotify and would be very helpful to leave a review if you happen to get some value out of those. I've got little time and lots to do, and so if people aren't really getting value out of this, then happy to move on and try something a little different. But again, thanks for hanging out. I'm Ron Chapman. This is DiNovo and keep clicking refresh on that Supreme Court site because some very interesting things are going to happen in the next several weeks.