Supreme Court Leaves PA Law Barring Under 21 from Carrying Firearms

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, Overturned a Lower Court Ruling from Pennsylvania that allowed Residents under 21 to carry Firearms in Public, though the Justices Declined for now to hear Arguments in the Case themselves.

At issue was a State Law that barred 18-to-20 years olds from Open Carrying Firearms during declared States of Emergencies. The Court’s Decision tosses a Federal Appeals Court Ruling that found the Law Violated the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania, like 31 other States, sets 21 as the minimum age for certain Gun Rights.

Maryland Assault Weapons Ban was Upheld by Appeals Court as sparring over Supreme CourtPprecedent continues.

Three Individual Plaintiffs who wanted to Carry Weapons for Self Defense and Two Gun Rights groups Challenged the Law.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment Decision from 2022, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a divided Three-Judge Appeals Court Panel found that the Law was Unconstitutional because there was Not a similar Law on the books, at the time the Second Amendment was Ratified.

The 2022 Decision generally requires Governments to point to a similar Historical Law in order to Overcome Constitutional Challenges. But the 6-3 ruling, which Split the Court’s Conservative and Liberal Justices, has created significant Confusion in Lower Courts about how exact that Historical Antecedent must be.

Pennsylvania Officials argued that the Lower Federal Court Overread the Bruen Decision. Several Conservative Justices wrote separate Opinions to note that the Court’s Decision said nothing about who may possess a Firearm or the Requirements that must be Met to Buy One.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

GA Must Certify Election Results Regardless of Outcome

No State has taken more Pre-Election steps than Georgia, where Conspiratorial Republican Officials on the Georgia State Election Board have recently created a series of Unnecessary “Reforms” that might very well create Election-Administration Problems next month. That’s not, however, the only area of concern in the Peachtree State.

After the 2020 Elections, several Local Republican Election Board Members Refused to Certify Elections for a variety of assorted and Dubious reasons, and there are plenty of concerns that there will be related Tactics in this year’s cycle. It’s against this backdrop that a Georgia Judge issued a Ruling Rejecting this as a possibility.

Certifying Elections is a Required Duty of County Election Boards in Georgia, and they’re Not allowed to Refuse Finalizing Results based on Suspicions of Miscounts or Fraud, a Fulton County judge ruled Tuesday. Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney Rejected claims brought by Fulton County Election Board Member Julie Adams, who Voted against Certifying this Spring’s Presidential Primary. McBurney ruled that Georgia Law requires Certification, and County Election Boards don’t have any Discretion not to do so.

“If election superintendents were, as plaintiff urges, free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge and so — because of a unilateral determination of error or fraud — refuse to certify election results, Georgia voters would be silenced,” McBurney wrote. “Our Constitution and our election code do not allow for that to happen.”

In other words, there might be Legitimate Questions in some areas in some Elections, but as the State Judge explained, it’s Not up to Local Election Boards to Adjudicate those Questions.

It’s a big deal that McBurney ruled that Georgia Law requires Certification, and the matter is Not Discretionary for Members of Local Election Boards.

CLICK Here for Georgia Election Certification Processes and Guardrails'










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

U.S. High-Speed Rail

Now that a High-Speed Rail project seems to be finally getting off the ground in Texas, another One is already in the works, and it would join Texas with neighboring Mexico.

Officials met in September to discuss the Future of the idea. The Rail line would run Southwest in Texas from Austin to San Antonio and then on to the Texas Border Town of Laredo as well as Monterrey, Mexico. Austin would also be directly connected to Dallas-Fort Worth to the North.

In addition to an Electric Houston-to-Dallas High-Speed Rail based on Japan's Bullet Train, there has been talk about a much Shorter route between the Capital and the Alamo City. These Metropolises are among the most Populous in the Country. The former pair is joined by Interstate 45 and the latter by I-35. Both Highways are notoriously Congested.

The Parties involved in the Meeting included: Bexar County Judge Peter Sakai, Travis County Judge Andy Brown of the Central Texas Passenger Rail Advisory Committee, Nuevo León Deputy Secretary of Economic Development Emmanuel Loo, and Saltillo Mayor-Elect Javier Díaz González.

"We need to come up with creative solutions for passengers who are looking for alternatives to using their vehicles to navigate the congested 80-mile stretch," Sakai said. Though I-35 reaches the Mexian Border State of Tamaulipas, the closest Major City is Monterrey, in Nuevo León.

Last year, Nuevo León Gov. Samuel García asked Texas Department of Transportation Executive Director Marc D. Williams to access U.S. Government Funds to Subsidize the Project. There are Railroads throughout the State, though Union Pacific's Line between Austin and San Antonio presents a potential Roadblock. "The Freight company has historically been reluctant to share its tracks with passenger rail without a separate freight bypass," it stated.

Texas Lawmakers have shown Resistance to allocating Funds for High-Speed Rail, especially given Past Legislation that Prevents State Funds from being used for Rail Projects operated by Private Entities. It added that the State would have to Pay just 20% of the Cost under the Biden Administration's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which allocated $66 billion for Rail Projects.

Texas has another High-Speed Rail Proposal on the table to connect Dallas with Fort Worth, which could be part of a nexus of Trains that links Five of the Nation's 12 biggest Cities.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Trump Campaign Still Owes MN City for July Rally

Trump’s Campaign still Owes St. Cloud, Minnesota, nearly $209,000 for Services related to a July Rally, Officials from the Central Minnesota City say. The Bill is for Services beyond what the City Normally provides.

Trump and running Mate J.D. Vance spoke to a Hockey arena on St. Cloud State University’s campus July 27th. An overflow Crowd watched Trump speak for more than an hour and a half on a Big Screen outside the arena.

Expenses include $63,000 for extra Police work during the Rally, $62,000 to change a Construction Project near where the Rally was held, and close to $2,000 for IT-related Services.

St. Cloud City Administrator Matt Staehling on Monday, said the City Bills the White House for Campaign Stops and other Events that require City Services, such as Half-Marathon Races. The White House is Not Billed for Official Events.

Trump’s Campaign in August paid a $35,000 Bill from St. Cloud State University related to the July Rally, Athletic Director Holly Schreiner said.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

TN Permits On-Hold for Planned Pipeline to Fuel New Natural Gas Power Plant

A Federal Appeals Panel has temporarily halted Two Permits needed to begin Construction on a Pipeline Project in Tennessee, that will supply a Natural Gas Plant.

In a split 2-1 Decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Panel delivered a Ruling Friday that, for now, Prevents Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company LLC from starting to Build its 32-mile (50-kilometer) Pipeline through Dickson, Houston, and Stewart Counties.

The Project would Fuel the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) combined Cycle Natural Gas facility, at the site of the Coal-fired Cumberland Fossil Plant that is being Retired. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company could have begun Construction as soon as Tuesday, according to the Court Records.

TVA, meanwhile, plans to Mothball its Two-Unit Coal Plant in Two stages, One, by the end of 2026, to be Replaced the same year by the 1,450-megawatt Natural Gas plant, and the Second, Shut by the End of 2028, with Options still Open on its Replacement.

“This pause is a crucial opportunity to rethink the risks of fossil fuel development and prioritize the health and environment of Cumberland and our region,” said Emily Sherwood, a Sierra Club Senior Campaign Organizer, in a News release Monday.

TVA’s plans to Open more Natural Gas Plants have angered Advocates who want a Quick Redirection away from Fossil Fuels and into Solar and other Renewables, as TVA plans to Retire its entire Coal Fleet by the mid-2030s.

The Case is set for Oral Arguments on Dec. 10th. If additional Appeals are Filed and Succeed, the Timeline could be Reset again. “We do not agree with the court’s temporary stay and are evaluating our options to ensure this project can be constructed in a timely manner,” the Pipeline Firm's Parent company, Kinder Morgan, said in a Statement Monday.

The Southern Environmental Law Center and Appalachian Mountain Advocates, on behalf of Appalachian Voices and the Sierra Club, asked the Appeals Court in August 2023 to reconsider a Water Quality Permit issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation for the Pipeline. In September, the groups requested an Appellate Review of another Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In the Ruling, Judges Eric Clay and Karen Moore argued that the groups Risk irreparable Harm if Pipeline Construction begins before the Judges decide their Case. The company's Plans would cross scores of Streams and Wetlands, where Construction could do long-lasting Damage to Waterways and Wildlife, the Plaintiffs contend.

Judge Amul R. Thapar, in Dissent, contended the Court lacks Jurisdiction for the State Agency Claim, and that the Plaintiffs haven't shown they would Suffer irreparable Harm or that their Case would likely Succeed. TVA's plans for Expanding its Natural Gas Fleet have drawn additional Lawsuits, including over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Approval of the Cumberland Pipeline.

Another Lawsuit claims that TVA’s Environmental Review of the Cumberland Plant was Perfunctory, in Violation of the Law. A separate Challenge contests the decision-making for a planned 1,500-megawatt Natural Gas facility with 4 megawatts of Solar and 100 megawatts of Battery Storage at the Kingston Fossil Plant, the site of a massive 2008 Coal Ash Spill. Late last month, a Judge Dismissed a different Lawsuit that Challenged TVA's Process to Approve Plans for Gas turbines at a retired Coal Plant in New Johnsonville.

The groups Suing over Gas expansion plans note that TVA is Off-Track to meet the Biden Administration’s Goal of Eliminating Carbon Pollution from Power Plants by 2035 to try to Limit the Effects of Climate Change, even with a Majority of the Board appointed by President Biden. Several of TVA's Proposals for New Natural Gas Plants have prompted Criticism from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including a Warning that its Environmental Review of the Kingston Project doesn’t comply with Federal Law.

TVA CEO Jeff Lyash has said repeatedly that Gas is needed because it can provide Power regardless of whether the Sun is Shining or the Wind is Blowing. He added that it will Improve on Emissions from Coal and provide the Flexibility needed to add 10,000 megawatts of Solar to its overall system by 2035. TVA has a Goal of 80% Reduction in Carbon Emissions by 2035 over 2005 levels and Net-Zero Emissions by 2050.

TVA provides Power to 10 million People across Seven Southern States.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

VA County Officials Refuse to Certify Nov. Election Lawsuit

Virgina's Waynesboro Elections Officials are Refusing to Certify the November 5th Election, without Changes to Virginia Election Policy, in a Lawsuit filed in Waynesboro Circuit Court.

“The Plaintiffs believe that to certify the election under the current legal and administrative regime, therefore, would be a violation of their oaths of office and, absent court intervention, shall refuse to certify the 2024 election,” the Suit says.

The Suit was brought by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Waynesboro County Board of Elections, Curtis Lilly (R) and Scott Mares (R), against Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections Susan Beals (R) and Chairman of the Board for the State Board of Elections John O’Bannon (R).

Lilly and Curtis’s Reasoning: Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of Virginia reads, “Secrecy in casting votes shall be maintained, except as provision may be made for assistance to handicapped voters, but the ballot box or voting machine shall be kept in public view and shall not be opened, nor the ballots canvassed nor the votes counted, in secret.”

According to the Complaint, after the Polls Close, the Ballots are Removed from the Ballot Counters, put in a Box, and Sealed alongside the Election Officer’s Signatures. At this point, the Ballots cannot be Opened again without a Court Order.

In February, The Ballot Counters get Tested in Augusta County. Company staff fed a stack of Test Ballots through each Machine containing a known Number of Votes for each Candidate. If the Machine Displays the Correct number of Ballots for each Candidate in the Stack, it Passes. The Test Ballots are then Removed from the stored Data.

On Election Day, the Ballots are then fed through the Tested Machines, Counting as the Votes are Cast. Sealing the Paper Bllots means the Physical Evidence Cannot be compared to the Machine-Counted Numbers, even if the Machines were previously Tested. Lilly and Curtis argue the Machine Programming could tell the Vote Counters to Change how they Process the Ballots after Testing is over.

“Board members are unable to personally review and verify that: the voting machine program being used to count the ballots is keeping a true and accurate count; the voting machine program being used to count the ballots is recording the true and accurate count; and/or that the voting machine record tape accurately represents the ballots cast,” reads the Complaint.

Because they cannot Check the anonymized Ballots themselves, the Complaint states, “the plaintiffs believe that the voting machine is counting the votes in secret because neither the program counting the votes recorded on the ballots nor the ballots themselves can be examined.”

The Suit was filed on Oct. 4th.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Rudy Giuliani's Coffee Company Comes Under Scrutiny

The Two Georgia Election Workers can go after Rudy Giuliani's Coffee Profits, because the Company involved is Rudy Giuliani's "alter ego," a Legal Expert said.

New York Federal Judge Lewis Liman on Thursday, sharply Criticized Giuliani's attempts to use Company Law to stop Ruby Freeman and Her Daughter, Shaye Moss, from freezing Funds held by Giuliani Communications.

It was while acting as Trump's Attorney during the 2020 Election that the former New York Mayor wrongly claimed that Freeman and Moss could be seen on CCTV adding Ballots for Biden at an Atlanta Count Center. They Sued for Defamation, then a Washington, D.C., Jury awarded them $148 million in December 2023, and they are now seeking to Claim that Money from Giuliani.

Giuliani Communications holds the Profits to Giuliani's Coffee Company, Rudy Coffee. The company wasn't Sued by Freeman and Moss and has No relation to the 2020 Election. Although company Law normally Protects a Limited Liability company (LLC) from unrelated Lawsuits involving One of its Executives, but there are Exceptions.

"Rudy Giuliani's case demonstrates an exception to the rule," according to Eric Chaffee, a Business Law Professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. "Rudy Giuliani organized Giuliani Communications, LLC to receive his profits from Ruby Coffee. The judge in his case has held that the company is the mere 'alter ego' of Giuliani based on how it functions." Giuliani's Image and Name is on each Coffee Package and He has Recorded Online Adverts for it.

"When a company is the mere alter ego of an individual, a court will view the assets of the company as belonging to the individual. That is what is occurring in Giuliani's case," Chaffee said. "While piercing the veil of a limited liability company is a rarity, it does occur. Courts will most commonly do it in instances in which there is little separation between an individual and the entity, and the court views the company as being used to shield assets, rather than to conduct business."

Giuliani Communications receives its Coffee Profits through Parkside Financial Bank and Trust in St Louis, Missouri.

Liman wrote that Giuliani had put forward an "unpersuasive" argument that Parkside was Exempt from the Case and that its Assets should Not be Restrained by the Court. "He asserts, in effect, that the assets being restrained are not those in which he has an interest and therefore should not be used to satisfy the judgment," Liman wrote. "But Plaintiffs' restraining notice does not seek to have Parkside turn over the relevant funds to plaintiffs or to have the court or parkside determine the ownership of those funds." at this time.

Quoting from the Law book, New York Practice, He said that what the plaintiffs are seeking is "a kind of freeze on such of the debtor's assets as the served person may have...It buys time, in other words," He wrote.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker