E-mail To Our 229 Members Inviting Them To Join The Working Group

[johnkarls]

.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Your Invitation To Join Our Newest Working Group
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sun, June 2, 2024
To: To Each of Our 229 Members One-By-One
Attachments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Each of Our 229 Members One-By-One – for reasons explained in the 4 postings in Sec. 2 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org.


Dear Friends,

Section 8 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org (entitled “Working Groups Currently Underway”) explains –

“During our 19 years of existence, we have had 5-6 so-called Working Groups whenever a particular policy issue (1) may require immediate action on the spur of the moment (rendering addressing it at the next regular monthly meeting impractical), and/or (2) may require long-term attention.”

During the last several days, there have been quite a few inquiries from our members whether we will form a Working Group to decide what, if anything, our organization should do about the NYC trial of Donald Trump whose jury instructions violated U.S. Supreme Court constitutional requirements in several important respects.

[Obviously, the Judge who issued the jury instructions doesn’t care about the inevitable reversal on appeal because, if appeal is confined to working its way up through the NYS court system, the reversal will occur long after the 11/5/2024 election.]

NB: we have always prided ourselves in being a non-partisan public-policy study/action organization.

And yes, taking action (such as requesting each of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices to join in accepting an immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1651(a) with a Writ of Habeas Corpus -- a writ of inquiry, issued to test the reasons or grounds for restraint or detention) would appear to be political and we are non-political.

However, each of the thousands of counties in the country has a District Attorney, and America may never again have a Presidential Election if even a handful of them (on both sides of the political aisle) decide to try to eliminate Presidential Candidates with unconstitutional trials that would be reversed after the election.

*****
If you would like to participate in this Working Group, please reply by this coming Tuesday June 4.

Your friend,

John K.

PS – U.S. Supreme Court Rule 20 entitled “Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ” provides, inter alia –

“1. Issuance by the Court of an extraordinary writ authorized by 28 U. S. C. §1651(a) is not a matter of right, but of discretion sparingly exercised. To justify the granting of any such writ, the petition must show that the writ will be in aid of the Court's appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court.”

“4. (a) A petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus shall comply with the requirements of 28 U. S. C. §§2241 and 2242, and in particular with the provision in the last paragraph of §2242, which requires a statement of the "reasons for not making application to the district court of the district in which the applicant is held." If the relief sought is from the judgment of a state court, the petition shall set out specifically how and where the petitioner has exhausted available remedies in the state courts or otherwise comes within the provisions of 28 U. S. C. §2254(b). To justify the granting of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must show that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. This writ is rarely granted.

“4 (b) Habeas corpus proceedings are ex parte, unless the Court requires the respondent to show cause why the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. A response, if ordered, shall comply fully with Rule 15. Neither the denial of the petition, without more, nor an order of transfer to a district court under the authority of 28 U. S. C. §2241(b), is an adjudication on the merits, and therefore does not preclude further application to another court for the relief sought.”