Post

Carter: "This administration is not content with the Rule of Law." The government put "violence on the streets" with "3,000 masked heavily armed agents" engaged in "violent illegal conduct." "That has to violate the 10th Amendment."

Carter calls the surge and violence another method of trying to strong-arm the state to give up voter data, a fight they've lost in the courts. There's a pending fight in MN. "I'm fairly confident that they will lose. They have lost all of these cases."

Carter turns to the voter roll demand, which they lost in the courts. Per Carter, the government responds: "We don't care. We're going to put violence and chaos in the streets and we're going to force it with illegal conduct." "If THAT doesn't violate the 10th Amendment...."

Carter floats a hypothetical of an anti-gun admin deploying 3,000-4,000 masked federal agents engaging in pervasive, illegal conduct. Under the crime-fighting banner, the gov't says: "If you just legislate, get rid of your carry statute, we'll go away." "It's the same thing."

To support my journalism, and learn when my story goes up, please consider becoming an All Rise News subscriber. I'll be reporting live from Nashville this week for the evidentiary hearing in Kilmar Abrego Garcia's motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution. www.allrisenews.com/subscribe

allrisenews.comSubscribe to All Rise NewsFearless journalism about the law, your rights and your powers to effect change in the Trump era. Click to read All Rise News, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.

Carter: "It is personal animosity. It is retribution. Literally, the President of the United States" said in the middle of this "chaos": "Minnesota, you day of retribution is here." "That's CRAZY. How can that NOT violate the 10th Amendment?"

Carter: "If this is not stopped right here, right now, I don't think that anybody seriously looking at this problem can have much faith in how our Republic is going to go in the future."

Carter: "We just had a leaked memo that rather shockingly suggests that ICE agents can conduct warrantless entries" into people's home. Judge: "I'm not being flip here... but where's the lawsuit on that?"

Judge: You're asking me for a TRO. What does it say? I'm not being flip here. What exactly do you think these 10th Amendment claims let me order? Carter: The easiest thing would be to end this Operation Metro Surge.

Judge: "I can detail the number of agents. I can pick and choose about who to arrest[...] I can tell them to take off masks and wear bodycams. I can do all that?!"

Note: The 8th Circuit paused this judge's modest order blocking the federal agents' violation of protesters' rights. Minnesota's requested relief is MUCH more sweeping.

Judge Menendez asks what if she denies a TRO now and develops the record more before the preliminary injunction question. Carter responds that the state needs relief now. 10-15 minute recess

Analysis: Judge Menendez appears skeptical of her power to order immediate relief in this unprecedented situation. But her comments about developing an evidentiary record COULD suggest receptiveness to the state's anti-commandeering args down the line.

Judge: The goal of the surge is not to get [the state and cities] to change their policies? Mayers: No, your honor, the goal is to enforce federal laws.

13 reposts293 likes

Wait, the letter from the United States Attorney General, Pam Bondi directly refutes that statement doesn't it? 'We will end this if you...' Change multiple policies. And give access to information that a court has already determined the state doesn't have to.

Those demands do not enforce Federal Law. The voter roll demands threatens the US Constitutional tradition that elections are conducted by the states.

I hope judge's follow up to whatever DOJ answers here is: "isn't this a factual question to be resolved later and shouldn't I presume plaintiff's facts as alleged and read this letter at face value?"

Judge reads a quote: "If you want less officers on the street, let us in the jail." "Doesn't that say there will be less officers in the street if you change the policy?" She says that Bondi's letter "strongly suggests" the surge is contingent on the policies.

Strongly suggest? You're actually saying this out loud in a courtroom to a judge when the actual letter is evidence that demands "if you want less officers on the street let us in the jail" holy crap.

It'll probably fail, and we'll probably do nothing --because we are the stupidest country and stupidest people in the galaxy-- but my *god* is Pam Bondi a *moron*. These people, along with being the most vile human beings you can imagine, are just so fucking dumb it's *astonishing*.