web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Front Page" (Page 31)

That NYTs Claim That Seven People Corroborated the Ramirez Accusation Against Kavanaugh Turns Out to Be Nonsense

Westlake Legal Group AP_18259666660844-620x414 That NYTs Claim That Seven People Corroborated the Ramirez Accusation Against Kavanaugh Turns Out to Be Nonsense The Washington Examiner The New York Times The Education of Brett Kavanaugh Skewing Facts Seven People Politics media bias Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story fake news democrats Debra Ramirez Corroborated byron york Brett Kavanaugh book

President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 6, 2018, for the third day of his confirmation to replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

It’s amazing how this keeps happening.

As I wrote this morning, The New York Times has covered themselves in glory with their latest attempted hit on Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The original article in question was based on a new book written by Times reporters. Unlike Mollie Hemingway’s brilliant, well researched book, these “reporters” set out with an agenda and did everything they could to form the narrative they wanted to push. That means shifting and molding supposed evidence into what they desire vs. what reality is dictating.

Want proof? One of the claims made in the book is that the Ramirez incident was the “talk of the campus.” They also claimed seven instances of corroboration to prove this, but when you put them  under scrutiny, almost none of it holds up.

Credit to Byron York for researching this further.

Pogrebin and Kelly claim that extensive evidence supports the Ramirez allegation. “At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge,” they write in the article. “Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.”

The article did not, however, discuss what any of those seven people actually said about the alleged incident. Nevertheless, partisans quickly seized on it to support their position on Kavanaugh. There was “substantial corroboration” for Ramirez’s story, tweeted Susan Hennessey, editor of the influential blog Lawfare. For their part, some Democratic presidential candidates — Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg — cited the story as (additional) cause for Kavanaugh to be impeached.

So what’s the truth here? Who were these seven people and did they actually provide corroboration of the account? In a word, no.

None of the seven are able to tie Kavanaugh to the supposed event. Even the account of Ramirez’s own mother leaves more questions than answers.

Something happened at Yale.

That’s literally all she told her mother, who is now being used as corroborative evidence.

Let’s also remember this was 35 years ago on a college campus. There were likely no shortage of stories over the years involving drunk people exposing themselves. Let’s live in reality and admit that college students do stupid things. Some of these claims could be remembering totally different happenings. Regardless, none of this provides any corroboration that Kavanaugh himself did anything untoward.

Despite that, the book says the above is enough to make Ramirez’s claims “ring true.”

That is enough for Pogrebin and Kelly, who conclude, “The claims of Deborah Ramirez, while not proven by witnesses, also ring true.” Perhaps that will convince some readers. For others: When anti-Kavanaugh partisans cite “substantial corroboration” for Ramirez’s allegation, it’s good to keep in mind who really said what.

Since when is “ringing true” a journalistic standard? It’s the same nonsense we heard all through the Russia-gate fiasco. In fact, “ringing true” is often based on one’s own partisan sensibilities. These writers wanted to believe Ramirez, so they carefully sought out evidence to confirm their biases with no thought for whether any of it was true or could be proven. That’s not journalism, it’s activism.

Honestly, and perhaps this will get me in trouble, but I think this entire ordeal is ridiculous. Even if Kavanaugh exposed himself at a party, that hardly disqualifies him for a Supreme Court position 35 years later. College campuses are not bastions of responsibility and morality. The Times trying to dredge this back up and presenting it as far more than it is follows a pattern of senseless, partisan hit jobs being perpetrated on Republicans. From what we’ve seen of this new book so far, it looks to be a dumpster fire of narrative pushing and misrepresentations. No one should take it seriously after how badly these two writers and their work have crashed and burned the last few days.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post That NYTs Claim That Seven People Corroborated the Ramirez Accusation Against Kavanaugh Turns Out to Be Nonsense appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_18270696540839-300x200 That NYTs Claim That Seven People Corroborated the Ramirez Accusation Against Kavanaugh Turns Out to Be Nonsense The Washington Examiner The New York Times The Education of Brett Kavanaugh Skewing Facts Seven People Politics media bias Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story fake news democrats Debra Ramirez Corroborated byron york Brett Kavanaugh book   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section

Westlake Legal Group nyt-building-620x348 ‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section Supreme Court Social Media Sexual Assault Allegations SCOTUS Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times New York Media Judicial journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception

The fallout from the New York Times “bombshell” report that wasn’t continues.

Vanity Fair reports that book writers Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly (who are also reporters at the paper) originally went to the news side of the paper to get their story published – but it was rejected:

Why did the Kavanaugh excerpt end up in the Review? People familiar with how things went down told me that Kelly and Pogrebin initially pitched their scoop to the news side, but the top editors ultimately felt that there wasn’t enough juice to warrant a story there, let alone a big page-one treatment (the type many lefties would have been salivating for). Instead, Pogrebin and Kelly were told that they could pitch the Review, which is entirely independent of the News department. I asked for clarification as to what about the story wasn’t News-pages-worthy, but the Times declined to comment, as did Kelly and Pogrebin. (A Times spokesperson did, however, point out that “it’s not unusual for Opinion or Sunday Review pieces to break news.”)

None of this makes any sense. Why would editors on the news side reject this story, but find it suitable for the Sunday Review side?

Elizabeth Vaughn wrote this morning that Pogrebin and Kelly said Monday night their original report did include the information about how the alleged victim had no recollection of the alleged sexual assault – but that the editors somehow unintentionally removed it during the editing process.

Neither of these stories about the differences in both the news and Sunday Review sides exonerate the New York Times from being guilty of journalistic malpractice (at the very least) by way of removing vital information from the piece before it went to press (assuming what Pogrebin and Kelly said was true), information that called the explosive allegation in to question.

But should we believe the authors were victims of an innocent editing mix-up? An interview Pogrebin gave this morning on WMAL makes the writers themselves look guilty, too:

In her WMAL interview this morning, Pogrebin repeatedly refers to the woman as a “victim.” This word choice is instructive about Pogrebin’s thought process. Calling her a victim would be begging the question if the woman claimed this status for herself. She would then be only an alleged victim. But she isn’t even that. She has made no claim to be a victim, yet Pogrebin describes her as one anyway. This is a case of a reporter overriding her reporting with her opinion. Pogrebin then impugns the woman by saying she was so drunk that her memory can’t be trusted. She also says that “everyone” at the party was massively drunk and that their memories are therefore unreliable.

Does she hear herself talking? If this is true, it means Max Stier was also drunk and his memories also can’t be trusted. (Someone should ask Pogrebin whether she was present at this party about which she knows so much.) By what journalistic standard does a reporter discount what is said by the person with the most direct and relevant experience of a matter — the woman in question at the Yale party — in favor of a drunken bystander?

Hmmm.

We know from past experiences that the paper operates from the Republicans / Orange Man Bad perspective, and to hell with standards. But even with that said, this seems especially egregious and intentional no matter how you look at it, and no matter who ultimately is found to be at fault.

(Hat tip: Twitchy)

Related –>> “Airplanes Took Aim”: NY Times Shamefully Goes The Ilhan Omar Route In Describing How 9/11 Happened

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post ‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group nyt-building-300x168 ‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section Supreme Court Social Media Sexual Assault Allegations SCOTUS Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times New York Media Judicial journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ayanna Pressley Moves Forward With Kavanaugh Impeachment Effort, Even as Senior Senate Dems Balk at the Idea

Even though the “bombshell” New York Times report about an old-turned-new sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh has fallen apart under scrutiny, Squad member Ayanna Pressley has already launched an impeachment effort against the Supreme Court Justice.

Fox News reports:

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., one of the four freshman congresswomen known collectively as the “Squad,” is planning Tuesday to introduce a resolution seeking an impeachment inquiry into Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, despite reluctance from top Democrats to pursue one and concerns about the basis for the latest accusations.

The resolution follows a New York Times report that included a new allegation of sexual misconduct from when Kavanaugh was in college — although an editors’ note later revealed that the alleged victim did not recall it taking place. In a statement, Pressley only focused on the women who came forward during Kavanaugh’s confirmation process.

Here’s what Boston.com journalist Nik DeCosta-Klipa reported from his Twitter account about Pressley’s move:

Unfortunately for Pressley, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is signaling the committee’s hands are too full laying the groundwork for impeaching President Trump to be able to immediately take up the Kavanaugh issue:

The House Judiciary Committee is too tied up with “impeaching the president” to take immediate action on a potential investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said Monday.

“We have our hands full with impeaching the president right now and that’s going to take up our limited resources and time for a while,” Nadler said on WNYC when pressed by host Brian Lehrer.

Nadler said his first move to investigate Kavanaugh would come next month, when FBI Director Christopher Wray appears for a previously scheduled hearing that will now feature a significant focus on the Supreme Court justice’s past — and whether the FBI’s background check was thorough enough. Nadler said his panel’s primary focus would be determining whether Kavanaugh lied to the Senate.

Meanwhile, senior Senate Democrats are telling impeachment-hungry House and Senate members to “get real”:

So the demands by 2020 presidential contenders to remove the Supreme Court justice, on the heels of new reporting about allegations of sexual misconduct, are getting panned.

“Get real,” as Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) put it Monday afternoon.

“We’ve got to get beyond this ‘impeachment is the answer to every problem.’ It’s not realistic,” Durbin said. “If that’s how we are identified in Congress, as the impeachment Congress, we run the risk that people will feel we’re ignoring the issues that mean a lot to them as families.”

[…]

“Mitch McConnell would block any impeachment. So that’s a moot point,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a former Judiciary chairman. He said the lesson to be learned is not to rush lifetime confirmations: “Don’t ever let those mistakes happen again.” Until Democrats take back the Senate, however, there’s little they can do to halt McConnell on nominations.

Who’s gonna break this news to struggling presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris?

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Ayanna Pressley Moves Forward With Kavanaugh Impeachment Effort, Even as Senior Senate Dems Balk at the Idea appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ayanna-pressley-300x200 Ayanna Pressley Moves Forward With Kavanaugh Impeachment Effort, Even as Senior Senate Dems Balk at the Idea washington D.C. The Squad Supreme Court Social Media Sexual Assault Allegations Sexual Assault SCOTUS Politics North Carolina Media Massachusetts kamala harris Jerry Nadler impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump Dick Durbin democrats Culture Courts Congress Brett Kavanaugh Ayanna Pressley Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ayanna Pressley Moves Forward With Kavanaugh Impeachment Effort, Even as Senior Senate Dems Balk at the Idea

Even though the “bombshell” New York Times report about an old-turned-new sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh has fallen apart under scrutiny, Squad member Ayanna Pressley has already launched an impeachment effort against the Supreme Court Justice.

Fox News reports:

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., one of the four freshman congresswomen known collectively as the “Squad,” is planning Tuesday to introduce a resolution seeking an impeachment inquiry into Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, despite reluctance from top Democrats to pursue one and concerns about the basis for the latest accusations.

The resolution follows a New York Times report that included a new allegation of sexual misconduct from when Kavanaugh was in college — although an editors’ note later revealed that the alleged victim did not recall it taking place. In a statement, Pressley only focused on the women who came forward during Kavanaugh’s confirmation process.

Here’s what Boston.com journalist Nik DeCosta-Klipa reported from his Twitter account about Pressley’s move:

Unfortunately for Pressley, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is signaling the committee’s hands are too full laying the groundwork for impeaching President Trump to be able to immediately take up the Kavanaugh issue:

The House Judiciary Committee is too tied up with “impeaching the president” to take immediate action on a potential investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said Monday.

“We have our hands full with impeaching the president right now and that’s going to take up our limited resources and time for a while,” Nadler said on WNYC when pressed by host Brian Lehrer.

Nadler said his first move to investigate Kavanaugh would come next month, when FBI Director Christopher Wray appears for a previously scheduled hearing that will now feature a significant focus on the Supreme Court justice’s past — and whether the FBI’s background check was thorough enough. Nadler said his panel’s primary focus would be determining whether Kavanaugh lied to the Senate.

Meanwhile, senior Senate Democrats are telling impeachment-hungry House and Senate members to “get real”:

So the demands by 2020 presidential contenders to remove the Supreme Court justice, on the heels of new reporting about allegations of sexual misconduct, are getting panned.

“Get real,” as Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) put it Monday afternoon.

“We’ve got to get beyond this ‘impeachment is the answer to every problem.’ It’s not realistic,” Durbin said. “If that’s how we are identified in Congress, as the impeachment Congress, we run the risk that people will feel we’re ignoring the issues that mean a lot to them as families.”

[…]

“Mitch McConnell would block any impeachment. So that’s a moot point,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a former Judiciary chairman. He said the lesson to be learned is not to rush lifetime confirmations: “Don’t ever let those mistakes happen again.” Until Democrats take back the Senate, however, there’s little they can do to halt McConnell on nominations.

Who’s gonna break this news to struggling presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris?

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Ayanna Pressley Moves Forward With Kavanaugh Impeachment Effort, Even as Senior Senate Dems Balk at the Idea appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ayanna-pressley-300x200 Ayanna Pressley Moves Forward With Kavanaugh Impeachment Effort, Even as Senior Senate Dems Balk at the Idea washington D.C. The Squad Supreme Court Social Media Sexual Assault Allegations Sexual Assault SCOTUS Politics North Carolina Media Massachusetts kamala harris Jerry Nadler impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump Dick Durbin democrats Culture Courts Congress Brett Kavanaugh Ayanna Pressley Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Maggie Haberman Admits the Times Had Bombshell Info that Nuked Blasey Ford’s Accusation Against Kavanaugh

Westlake Legal Group Kavanaugh-4 Maggie Haberman Admits the Times Had Bombshell Info that Nuked Blasey Ford’s Accusation Against Kavanaugh The New York Times Supreme Court Politics Omitted media bias maggie haberman Justice Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Exculpatory Evidence democrats Debra Ramirez corrupt christine blasey ford Buried the Lede Brett Kavanaugh book bombshell

The would be hit on Justice Kavanaugh over at The New York Times continues to implode without haste. We’ve already seen them make corrections after omitting key details about a supposed witness. They also reported an allegation without bothering to note that the alleged victim doesn’t even have memory of it happening. In other words, they ran a rehash of discredited accusations from Debra Ramirez while tacking on an even less credible, third hand claim from Bill Clinton’s former lawyer.

Seems legit.

Now, we are starting to find out just how biased the Times was being in their reporting of this story. CBS News went on record late last night with a major revelation that further destroys Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh. Note that Mollie Hemingway put this in her book way back in July as well. She deserves the primary credit.

That’s pretty big news as it turns Ford’s claim on its head. Not only did her “witness” not recall the incident, she didn’t feel it was believable. Worse, Ford’s allies stepped in to try to pressure her to change her story to help complete the take down of Kavanaugh.

Ford, her lawyers, and the Democrats who facilitated the smear were acting with no regards for truth or ethics. They had one goal and that was to blow up Kavanaugh’s nomination. It’s troubling to think of just how close they claim to succeeding.

But here’s the kicker. After CBS reported that, the Times’ Maggie Haberman decided to jump on Twitter and snark that they had the information too.

Well, ok then Maggie. Why wasn’t it reported?

Even though the information was in the book itself, which the article in question was based on, the “reporters” minimized it and presented a different picture anyway.

To summarize, the Times had information that Ford’s account was essentially nuked and discredited. Instead of running that as the lead story delved from this garbage book, they reran old allegations and included a new one which lacked any credibility at all, to the point where even the alleged victim has no recollection of it.

“Journalism.”

Are we supposed to believe that was just an honest editorial decision? Come on. The authors of this book were so partisan, so wrapped up in their own narrative that they did everything they could to frame things in a way to hurt Kavanaugh. It just so happens that they did such an awful job at it that their claims fell apart within hours.

The Times has no credibility left. I’m tired of some on the right insisting we can’t just dump these outlets wholesale. What have they done to earn anyone’s trust at this point? Let this also be a reminder of just how far the left and their enablers in the media are willing to go to take down Republican interests. There are no lines they won’t cross and this was just a preview of what we are going to see in 2020. You can bet they’ve got a whole (new) dossier cooked up to run against Trump and the press will be right there to dutifully regurgitate the talking points without questioning their validity.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Maggie Haberman Admits the Times Had Bombshell Info that Nuked Blasey Ford’s Accusation Against Kavanaugh appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group christine-ford2-300x200 Maggie Haberman Admits the Times Had Bombshell Info that Nuked Blasey Ford’s Accusation Against Kavanaugh The New York Times Supreme Court Politics Omitted media bias maggie haberman Justice Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Exculpatory Evidence democrats Debra Ramirez corrupt christine blasey ford Buried the Lede Brett Kavanaugh book bombshell   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Lies DC Tells – To Steal and Undermine Patents

Westlake Legal Group CapitolBuilding-620x325 The Lies DC Tells – To Steal and Undermine Patents trademark Technology Politics Policy Patents law intellectual property theft Intellectual Property Protections Intellectual Property Front Page Stories Front Page Economy Courts copyright Capitalism

Washington, D.C. is really good at naming bad things well.  So as to obfuscate how bad the things they’re naming – and passing – are.

Obamacare’s actual name was “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

Obamacare assaulted with government hundreds of millions of patients – rather than protecting them.

Included in the government’s assault – was on average doubling insurance premiums and tripling insurance deductibles.  Which is the antithesis of affordable care.

Good name.  Terrible legislation.

Yet another example:

The America Invents Act:

“The law represents the most significant legislative change to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952.”

Indeed it was.  In that it made it exponentially harder for America to invent things:

“The America Invents Act (AIA) was the single worst disaster in the 226 year history of the U.S. patent system. The AIA did very real damage – enough to put many inventors out of business and discourage many others.”

Good name.  Terrible legislation.

The America Invents Act was passed for several phony reasons.

One – was addressing the alleged problem of alleged “patent trolls.”

The anti-patent freaks define “patent trolls” – as anyone besides the person who filed for the patent…owning the patent.

Except inventors – almost never want to manufacture anything they’ve invented.  They’d much rather continue inventing.  So they sell their patents – and plow that coin into their next inventions.

Which, by the way, is exactly what the rest of the planet should want them doing.  We want them in their labs and offices and garages – inventing the next bunches of really cool stuff.

Most inventors sell their patents to other people.  Who then manufacture the products the inventors invented.  Or license the patents to other people who manufacture the products the inventors invented.

These are the people the anti-patent freaks call “patent trolls.”

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what these after-invention patent holders do.  In fact, they are a crucial component of our nation’s continued economic success.

They ensure the patents – reach their maximum potential.

If you’ve ever met a typical inventor – you know they aren’t manufacturing-company-CEO material.  The Inventor skill set and the Manufacturing CEO skill set – have almost no skills in common.

Better to have the Inventor inventing – and the Manufacturer manufacturing.

Amongst many other atrocities – the AIA is a huge boon to patent thieves.

And most of those patent thieves – are huge corporations:

“(T)he Act clearly favors large corporations, particularly those in the financial services, software and pharmaceutical industries, over smaller companies and start-ups.”

Because why would we want to foster the Little Guy Inventor?  They can’t kick in anywhere near the huge political contributions “large corporations” can:

“Of course, it was a great new law for the large multinational corporations who pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into Washington D.C. in the form of political contributions and funding for a massive public relations campaign centered on a patent troll villain.”

Why would large corporations create the “patent troll villain?”  To set the stage – for their massive patent theft from the Little Guy Inventor.

One way the AIA helps huge patent thieves:

“The U.S. has been under a first-to-invent system since the first Patent Act in 1790. Under that system, when two patent applicants each sought a patent on the same invention, in theory a U.S. patent was awarded to the first applicant to have made the invention….

“The U.S. changes to a first-to-file patent system from a first-to-invent system as part of the America Invents Act of 2011.”

Huge corporations have lots of money and lawyers – eternally at the ready to file patents.  All they have to do is get wind of a Little Guy Inventor’s idea – and file first for the patent.

Under the AIA, it matters not at all how much evidence the Little Guy Inventor has that the idea is actually his.  Under the AIA, the idea is no longer his – it is now the huge corporation’s.

This terrible law was also passed in the name of addressing the approval of bad patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Stop right there.

You don’t need to fundamentally transform the US patent system – to improve the USPTO patent approval process.

You simply improve the USPTO patent approval process.

USPTO Needs to Be Forced to Do Its Job and Reject Bad Patents

No legislation at all required.  Just have the Office – do its job better.

But the Office doing its job better – isn’t yet another opportunity for huge corporations to steal patents.

So in the name of creating patent theft opportunities – oops, I mean “addressing bad patents” – the atrocious AIA created the atrocious:

Patent Trial and Appeal Board:

“The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decides issues of patentability.  It was formed on September 16, 2012 as one part of the America Invents Act.”

Except guess who almost always wins the Board’s decisions?  Why, huge corporations – natch.

Who with their huge wallets and packs of lawyers – file avalanches of near-identical-but-slightly-differently-worded PTAB challenges – against Little Guy Inventors.

To wit:

“Bassam Abraham and Roman Chistyakov, two Boston-based engineers, in 2002 created a new technology for depositing metals at the micro scale….

“The two men, joining a longstanding American tradition stretching back to the signing of the Constitution, filed patents for their invention.

“Then their technology drew the attention of several massive, Fortune 500 companies, whom Abraham and Chistyakov would end up taking to court for allegations of patent infringement.

“For just ten patents Abraham holds the PTAB received some 125 petitions, he said, challenging a total of 371 claims (patents are divided into ‘claims’). He noted that those same patents had been granted after review by six different examiners at the PTO….

“The PTAB panel returned its results: of 371 claims challenged, it invalidated all 371. Abraham’s patents, along with the 25-person company he and Chistyakov had grown based on them, were toast.”

Think that outcome is an outlier?  Heavens no.

PTAB sides with the patent thieves – 85% of the time.

And that’s when the Little Guy Inventors can afford to mount a PTAB defense.

Far too often, the Little Guy Inventors are simply swamped and overwhelmed with PTAB challenges – and have to abandon their patents to the huge corporations.

Oh – and those remotely familiar with our Constitution and its separation of powers probably noticed….

Yes, The PTAB is Unconstitutional:

“There is, however, a more fundamental problem with the PTAB run-post issuance proceedings, one that cannot be cured by fine-tuning particular processes.

“The Supreme Court now has before it a case that will consider whether reposing a power to annul vested private property rights in an administrative agency runs afoul of the Constitution’s Article III requirements.”

Article III – of the Constitution’s Seventh Amendment?:

“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish….

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority….”

Which means – the Judicial Branch does all the Judicial stuff.

PTAB – is the Executive Branch pretending to be the Judicial Branch.  Which is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately for the country, patent rights and the rule of law – the Supreme Court ruled against Reality in aforementioned case:

“Inter partes review — which authorizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider and cancel an already-issued patent claim, under 35 U. S. C. §§311–319 — does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.”

Of course, clowns in gowns ruling in defiance of the Constitution and Reality – is not at all an unusual occurrence.

That being said, we can and must rid ourselves of PTAB.

And as much of the rest of the AIA as we possibly can.

And as much of the unilateral Barack Obama Administration actions executed to undermine patents and patent protections.

There are a few bills out there looking to do this.

My favorite?

Rep. Massie Introduces New Legislation to Restore America’s Patent System:

“Representative Thomas Massie introduced the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018 (H.R. 6264). This legislation would reverse many of the harms that have been caused by recent changes to the patent laws from all three branches of government.”

Why is Massie’s my favorite?:

“Section 5 abolishes the PTAB.”

It’s the only bill that does.

And it does a lot of other really good undoing:

“Section 9 reestablishes the previously long-held status of patents as a property right.….

“Section 10 ends the automatic publication of patent applications. This change will allow applicants to keep their inventions secret until they have the security that comes with an issued patent….

“Section 3…returns the United States to a first to invent patent system….

“Section 4 abolishes Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR)….”

And speaking of actually addressing the issuance of bad patents….:

“Section 6 eliminates fee diversion and provides for full funding of the USPTO.  Innovators and the public alike count on the USPTO to perform timely, quality examinations of patent applications in the first instance.”

Make sure the USPTO is thorough in its pre-approval application process.

Measure twice – cut once.

Actually, all we really needed in, say, 2010 – was Massie’s Section 6.

We’d have had all the patent improvement.

And none of the crony huge corporation patent theft – ensconced in law and policy.

And none of the crushing of our entire creation process….

The U.S. Drops Out of the Top 10 in Innovation Ranking:

“The U.S. dropped out of the top 10 in the 2018 Bloomberg Innovation Index for the first time in the six years the gauge has been compiled….The index scores countries using seven criteria, including research and development spending and concentration of high-tech public companies.”

Get those dates?

We passed the awful AIA – in 2011.

And dropped out of the Top Ten for the first time – seven years later, in 2018.

That is not a coincidence.

That is not an accident.

That was the legislation’s intent.

The post The Lies DC Tells – To Steal and Undermine Patents appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group CapitolBuilding-300x157 The Lies DC Tells – To Steal and Undermine Patents trademark Technology Politics Policy Patents law intellectual property theft Intellectual Property Protections Intellectual Property Front Page Stories Front Page Economy Courts copyright Capitalism   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-620x317 AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s Texas Politics North Carolina Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Arizona Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2A 2020 Elections 2020

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke speaks at the Iowa Federation of Labor convention, Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2019, in Altoona, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Beto O’Rourke’s controversial plan to take away certain types of guns should he become elected president has turned out to be as motivating -if not more so – for gun owners than President Barack Obama’s anti-gun stances.

At last week’s Democratic debate, O’Rourke said “Hell yes” in response to ABC News debate moderator David Muir’s question about whether or not he was going to take away people’s guns:

MUIR: Some of the stage have suggested a voluntary buy-back for guns in this country. You have gone further. You said, quote, “Americans who own AR-15s and AK-47s will have to sell them to the government, all of them. You know that critics call this confiscation. Are you proposing taking away their guns and how would this work?

BETO O’ROURKE: I am, if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. If the high impact, high velocity, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body because it was designed to do that so you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers. When we see that being used against children and in Odessa, I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15 and that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time. Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against a fellow American anymore.

In response to Beto’s declaration, one gun store owner in Arizona decided to offer a ‘Beto Special’ on AR-15s and AK-47s – and the response was overwhelming:

When O’Rourke made the claim during Thursday night’s Democrat presidential candidate debate, Alpha Dog Firearms Owner Matt Boggs was outraged, he says in an interview with The HolloNet:

“I saw the comments that he made, and I was kinda like, ‘You know what: the Hell with this guy.’”

Boggs said O’Rourke’s made [him] determined to sell more guns – even if it meant losing money on them. So, the next morning he announced his “Beto Specials” on AR15 and AK47 rifles on his store’s Facebook page:

That evening, the store announced that they had sold out in less than four hours:

UPDATE: SOLD OUT. More deals will be on the website soon. Y’all broke our internet today!!!

Our $349.99 AR deal sold out in less than 4 hours. We’re trying to process the orders and work on getting more special deals for our good friend gun grabber Beto

As Beto gets louder on this issue, look for more gun specials from gun store owners, and a higher demand for the types of weapons he wants to confiscate. As we learned during the Obama administration, tacking to the far left on gun control usually means increased sales at gun stores. These types of threats typically have a galvanizing effect on gun owners and spurs them them to stock up.

This is most certainly not what Beto O’Rourke intended when he announced his gun confiscation policy, but that is what happens when you’re someone like Beto who doesn’t think your policies through.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-300x153 AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s Texas Politics North Carolina Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Arizona Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2A 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-620x317 AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s Texas Politics North Carolina Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Arizona Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2A 2020 Elections 2020

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke speaks at the Iowa Federation of Labor convention, Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2019, in Altoona, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Beto O’Rourke’s controversial plan to take away certain types of guns should he become elected president has turned out to be as motivating -if not more so – for gun owners than President Barack Obama’s anti-gun stances.

At last week’s Democratic debate, O’Rourke said “Hell yes” in response to ABC News debate moderator David Muir’s question about whether or not he was going to take away people’s guns:

MUIR: Some of the stage have suggested a voluntary buy-back for guns in this country. You have gone further. You said, quote, “Americans who own AR-15s and AK-47s will have to sell them to the government, all of them. You know that critics call this confiscation. Are you proposing taking away their guns and how would this work?

BETO O’ROURKE: I am, if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. If the high impact, high velocity, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body because it was designed to do that so you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers. When we see that being used against children and in Odessa, I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15 and that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time. Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against a fellow American anymore.

In response to Beto’s declaration, one gun store owner in Arizona decided to offer a ‘Beto Special’ on AR-15s and AK-47s – and the response was overwhelming:

When O’Rourke made the claim during Thursday night’s Democrat presidential candidate debate, Alpha Dog Firearms Owner Matt Boggs was outraged, he says in an interview with The HolloNet:

“I saw the comments that he made, and I was kinda like, ‘You know what: the Hell with this guy.’”

Boggs said O’Rourke’s made [him] determined to sell more guns – even if it meant losing money on them. So, the next morning he announced his “Beto Specials” on AR15 and AK47 rifles on his store’s Facebook page:

That evening, the store announced that they had sold out in less than four hours:

UPDATE: SOLD OUT. More deals will be on the website soon. Y’all broke our internet today!!!

Our $349.99 AR deal sold out in less than 4 hours. We’re trying to process the orders and work on getting more special deals for our good friend gun grabber Beto

As Beto gets louder on this issue, look for more gun specials from gun store owners, and a higher demand for the types of weapons he wants to confiscate. As we learned during the Obama administration, tacking to the far left on gun control usually means increased sales at gun stores. These types of threats typically have a galvanizing effect on gun owners and spurs them them to stock up.

This is most certainly not what Beto O’Rourke intended when he announced his gun confiscation policy, but that is what happens when you’re someone like Beto who doesn’t think your policies through.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-300x153 AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s Texas Politics North Carolina Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Arizona Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2A 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-620x317 AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s Texas Politics North Carolina Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Arizona Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2A 2020 Elections 2020

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke speaks at the Iowa Federation of Labor convention, Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2019, in Altoona, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Beto O’Rourke’s controversial plan to take away certain types of guns should he become elected president has turned out to be as motivating -if not more so – for gun owners than President Barack Obama’s anti-gun stances.

At last week’s Democratic debate, O’Rourke said “Hell yes” in response to ABC News debate moderator David Muir’s question about whether or not he was going to take away people’s guns:

MUIR: Some of the stage have suggested a voluntary buy-back for guns in this country. You have gone further. You said, quote, “Americans who own AR-15s and AK-47s will have to sell them to the government, all of them. You know that critics call this confiscation. Are you proposing taking away their guns and how would this work?

BETO O’ROURKE: I am, if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. If the high impact, high velocity, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body because it was designed to do that so you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers. When we see that being used against children and in Odessa, I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15 and that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time. Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against a fellow American anymore.

In response to Beto’s declaration, one gun store owner in Arizona decided to offer a ‘Beto Special’ on AR-15s and AK-47s – and the response was overwhelming:

When O’Rourke made the claim during Thursday night’s Democrat presidential candidate debate, Alpha Dog Firearms Owner Matt Boggs was outraged, he says in an interview with The HolloNet:

“I saw the comments that he made, and I was kinda like, ‘You know what: the Hell with this guy.’”

Boggs said O’Rourke’s made [him] determined to sell more guns – even if it meant losing money on them. So, the next morning he announced his “Beto Specials” on AR15 and AK47 rifles on his store’s Facebook page:

That evening, the store announced that they had sold out in less than four hours:

UPDATE: SOLD OUT. More deals will be on the website soon. Y’all broke our internet today!!!

Our $349.99 AR deal sold out in less than 4 hours. We’re trying to process the orders and work on getting more special deals for our good friend gun grabber Beto

As Beto gets louder on this issue, look for more gun specials from gun store owners, and a higher demand for the types of weapons he wants to confiscate. As we learned during the Obama administration, tacking to the far left on gun control usually means increased sales at gun stores. These types of threats typically have a galvanizing effect on gun owners and spurs them them to stock up.

This is most certainly not what Beto O’Rourke intended when he announced his gun confiscation policy, but that is what happens when you’re someone like Beto who doesn’t think your policies through.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-300x153 AZ Gun Store Owner Responds to Beto’s ‘Hell Yes’ by Offering ‘Beto Specials’ – and Sells out of AR-15s, AK-47s Texas Politics North Carolina Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Arizona Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2A 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Meet Andrew McCabe’s Laughable “Character Witnesses”

Westlake Legal Group andrew-mccabe-caricature-620x443 Meet Andrew McCabe’s Laughable “Character Witnesses” swamp Susan Rice Politics Laughable John Brennan james comey James Clapper IG Report Front Page Stories Front Page fired Featured Story FBI Eric Holder doj democrats corruption Character Witnesses Andrew McCabe

Caricature by DonkeyHotey flic.kr/p/Ct4G4K https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

If you’ve been keeping up with the latest news on Andrew McCabe, you know that he’s now facing prosecution for “lacking candor” (lying) to the FBI. In what was the first shoe to drop within the Comey cabal, McCabe’s last minute appeal to not have the law applied to him failed. Keep in mind, lying to the FBI is the same law he, Comey, and Mueller relentlessly used to bludgeon others into submission.

But these people feel like they are part of a special class, and who could blame them? For as long as they’ve been in government, they’ve gotten to play by different rules. Naturally, that means the swamp is going to try to circle the wagons and McCabe has some “character witnesses” he’d like you to meet.

NEW: If Andrew McCabe ultimately does face charges, he’ll have some big names lined up as character witnesses. Over a dozen high-ranking ex-officials have committed to defending him, including Eric Holder, John Brennan, James Clapper and Susan Rice. https://t.co/i6j2G8ctfK

— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) September 16, 2019

This per Politico.

A cavalcade of Obama-era national security leaders have committed to testify on behalf of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe should he face trial over allegations that he misled officials about leaks to the media.

The lineup, detailed in a legal analysis from McCabe’s legal team, the substance of which was provided to the Justice Department, includes a string of former senior officials.

Here’s a good, concise response to this madness.

There is no doubt McCabe broke the law. The Inspector General found ample evidence he lied to investigators in his dealings with leaks to the press. In fact, his story was in direct contradiction to James Comey, which means Comey may be forced to testify against him to avoid charges himself.

Despite the clearness of the situation, these Obama officials are ready to rally around him. Doesn’t that tell us all we need to know about their corruption? That not even a non-partisan IG report from an Obama appointee (IG Horowitz) is enough for them to abandon someone like McCabe? Opposing Trump, even if one is a criminal, covers all sins.

Honestly, I’m thinking these four vouching for McCabe in court only makes things worse for him. They are a group of proven liars. Prosecutors would have a field day with them.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Meet Andrew McCabe’s Laughable “Character Witnesses” appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SAD-mccabe-300x157 Meet Andrew McCabe’s Laughable “Character Witnesses” swamp Susan Rice Politics Laughable John Brennan james comey James Clapper IG Report Front Page Stories Front Page fired Featured Story FBI Eric Holder doj democrats corruption Character Witnesses Andrew McCabe   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com