Dr. Nass, Just want you to know that I appreciate all the info you provide through your emails. You seem to have the perfect knack to simplify complicated issues/language in order for us to comprehend. You've been instrumental in waking me up to many issues I never realized we are facing. I hope you never tire in doing what you do! You're the best!!
Everything that happens in all branches of government hinges on the Constitution.
If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law it is no law at all. So how does the SC make judgement on law that is null and void of law?? The Constitution clearly says the SC hears CASES. But they should only hear cases related to the 18 enumerated powers in Art. 1 Sec. 8. This is why Roe v Wade (which was never a law) was overturned. It is also why many of the decisions from the SC should never be brought to the SC in the first place. IE marriage, education, health, environment. The majority of the agencies are also unconstitutional. IE HHS, CDC, FDA, NIH, EPA, DoE, DoEd and many more. All branches violate the Constitution on a daily basis.
Wrt Monday's article on this Substack, "The USDA's Biosecurity Agenda is (in part) intended to get small farmers, like small countries, in a debt trap," dare I hope that this door and others like it are opened; that is, will farmers have the opportunity to challenge USDA tyranny in court?
Dr. Nass, you certainly produce a lot of wows. What you accomplish is amazing! If we ever get out of this mess with our freedom in tact, we should have a big party to celebrate.
Don't forget the other decision, the one that says executive agencies must bring their cases into real courts and practice due process. The two decisions are synergistic!
How many agencies actually have their own courts? This decision was the first I heard of that and I suspect the practice is quite limited. Maybe you can help explain ?
Many agencies have their own courts. Securities and Exchange Commission, this one may be appealable to a real court (Did Martha Stewart end up in a court?). The PREP act unfunded "compensation" office for C-19 vaccine injuries, their decision is final with no recourse. That quasi-governmental group you are so fond of in Maine is an example of such an agency at the state level that is probably out of reach of the SCOTUS decision. How do you win an argument with FDA over an EUA? That IS affected by the new decision. OSHA? The DoAgriculture dispute about raw milk in Pennsylvania? I think the typical example is the CICP(?) thing in the PREP act is more typical of the scale of these Administrative Courts rather than covering an entire cabinet department. Though EPA is well versed in tying people in knots (would it be better to say "tying them in nots"?), I don't think you get to try for redress from a jury of your peers if they decide that seasonal mud puddle is a wetland.
you are correct: while DHHS does not call the adjudication of CICP claims a legal proceeding, it basically is. They call it an administrative procedure and a flunky in DHHS gets to decide your claim with no redress outside the agency. Jeff Childers just filed suit the other day against this process. VICP does have its own courts with 9 (last I knew) Special Masters who are judges that adjudicate claims.
Boards are a different story, and you can appeal their decisions to a court, but overcoming their immunity is a challenge. And whether there is $ in the end--usually there is none, so who wants to fight?
I am DEFINITELY thinking about raw milk, FDA and USDA--the Chevron decision opens the door wide for a challenge here.
Thank you ! This is good information. In spite of how bad things look God proves His Sovereignty through the millions of little unseen things. Good journalism /commentary right here.
Holy Toledo, Batperson -- are you saying that The Swamp is Drained by this single judicial act of removing Chevron? That this makes it possible now to discuss The Science in court? Well, I'm not a lawyer either (and must admit I found the legal situation you so kindly explained too tangled even to read properly, mea culpa). But, but ... doesn't this removal of Chevron just have the effect of transfering the power from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch?? I mean, according to my imperfect understanding, roughly this situation already exists in NZ. And in my experience (a) The Swamp just hires compliant (no, let's skip the euphemism -- bought) "scientists" to tell the court whatever The Swamp wants the court to believe and (b) Judges are at least as incompetent to extract the real science out of the mess that published science has lately become as are the Swamp Creatures. Hence judges routinely accept whatever the most credentialed scientific witness says. You may realise from this somewhat jaundiced view that I personally have never been the most credentialed scientific witness, having been thoroughly squashed throughout my scientific life by political agencies that disliked my opinions! (You, of course, are now similarly squashed by the malactions of the Maine State Medical Board). So ... nice try, Dr Nass -- but I fear your lovely congenital optimism may be unwarranted in this particular instance. As the title of your piece says, Y'Can't Beat City Hall.
What this means imho is that judge that threw out our appeal would actually have to go further than the word "deference" and think about the case. We may not agree with how they think. But the really crazy agency decisions can now at least be examined in a courtroom.
Doc, this goes deeper than your trial judge's pretrial decisions, all the way through to who can testify at the trial with "expert" opinions and how they qualify themselves as experts. First, some historical context.
SCOTUS affirmed Chevron deference when the EPA claimed that oil spills have associated toxicity hazards, and the Chevron Oil Company tried to play dumb.
The excuse Chevron made is, "Look, your honor, we don't sell poisons. We don't sell rat poison. We don't sell roach poison. None of our customers ask us to sell them poison, so we never study toxicology!"
Trouble was that Exxon had seen the legal risks of being unprepared, and actually hired one toxicologist. So Exxon had actual intelligent discussions with EPA regulators but Chevron did not. When Chevron ended up in litigation with EPA over oil toxicity, Chevron used the "we know nothing about poisons" gaffe one too many times, and the trial court allowed the EPA witness to testify as an expert, meaning he could discuss opinions and beliefs as well as known facts. Chevron appealed and wound up with the Chevron deference doctrine, a concept that nicely fit the original case but poorly fits everywhere else it is used. Basically the trial court ruled that Chevron had to accept EPA's expert opinions because Chevron never bothered to study toxicology. After running through the Ninth Circuit, the appeal reached SCOTUS, who concurred.
Trouble began immediately, once a precedent was set. If a federal agency has experts on staff, they can appear at trial. Worse yet, their opinions outweighed the facts.
So basically, an expert swindler can con a federal agency into naming him an expert on any case at bar, and may get away with it. That, however, does not make the expert swindler into an expert on any other subject.
This ruling, allowing the trial court to review "expert" opinions de novo, will end the free ride lobbying firms got from Chevron deference. A lobbyist could approach any regulatory worker with a "retire at 50 and come work for us" pitch. Could lobbyists buy drafts of regulations for their clients in advance? Even if not, it is ethically troubling that days after regulating a corporation, the retired regulator could assist the corporation at prevailing in court.
De novo review, to establish if an expert's opinion had a factual basis or not, may help turn the tide of medicines that make us sicker, bank regulations that make us poorer, and regulations on aircraft construction that go unheeded until doors blow off the plane.
Thank you Meryl, for this wonderful piece of news. Our courts are truly our last bulwark for the Constitution. I pray that Kennedy becomes President and that he will name the next batch of Federal Judges. Make it so!
Wow, this is huge!!
Dr. Nass, you are awesome!!
BREAKING: The Chevron Doctrine's 40-Year Reign of Terror & Control Comes to an End
The Supreme Court finally ended the little-known doctrine that allowed unelected bureaucrats to rule over the American people.
https://reinettesenumsfoghornexpress.substack.com/p/breaking-the-chevron-doctrines-40
Dr. Nass, Just want you to know that I appreciate all the info you provide through your emails. You seem to have the perfect knack to simplify complicated issues/language in order for us to comprehend. You've been instrumental in waking me up to many issues I never realized we are facing. I hope you never tire in doing what you do! You're the best!!
Everything that happens in all branches of government hinges on the Constitution.
If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law it is no law at all. So how does the SC make judgement on law that is null and void of law?? The Constitution clearly says the SC hears CASES. But they should only hear cases related to the 18 enumerated powers in Art. 1 Sec. 8. This is why Roe v Wade (which was never a law) was overturned. It is also why many of the decisions from the SC should never be brought to the SC in the first place. IE marriage, education, health, environment. The majority of the agencies are also unconstitutional. IE HHS, CDC, FDA, NIH, EPA, DoE, DoEd and many more. All branches violate the Constitution on a daily basis.
This sounds like some MASSIVELY GOOD NEWS!!!! Thank you for your clear explanation! I'm feeling optimistic on this fine morning.
Wrt Monday's article on this Substack, "The USDA's Biosecurity Agenda is (in part) intended to get small farmers, like small countries, in a debt trap," dare I hope that this door and others like it are opened; that is, will farmers have the opportunity to challenge USDA tyranny in court?
YES and I hope to be part of that... that is my intention for Door to Freedom.
Dr. Nass, you certainly produce a lot of wows. What you accomplish is amazing! If we ever get out of this mess with our freedom in tact, we should have a big party to celebrate.
Thanks for your work Dr Nass. So appreciate your expertise and the sharing your offer all of us.🙏🏻
Don't forget the other decision, the one that says executive agencies must bring their cases into real courts and practice due process. The two decisions are synergistic!
How many agencies actually have their own courts? This decision was the first I heard of that and I suspect the practice is quite limited. Maybe you can help explain ?
Many agencies have their own courts. Securities and Exchange Commission, this one may be appealable to a real court (Did Martha Stewart end up in a court?). The PREP act unfunded "compensation" office for C-19 vaccine injuries, their decision is final with no recourse. That quasi-governmental group you are so fond of in Maine is an example of such an agency at the state level that is probably out of reach of the SCOTUS decision. How do you win an argument with FDA over an EUA? That IS affected by the new decision. OSHA? The DoAgriculture dispute about raw milk in Pennsylvania? I think the typical example is the CICP(?) thing in the PREP act is more typical of the scale of these Administrative Courts rather than covering an entire cabinet department. Though EPA is well versed in tying people in knots (would it be better to say "tying them in nots"?), I don't think you get to try for redress from a jury of your peers if they decide that seasonal mud puddle is a wetland.
you are correct: while DHHS does not call the adjudication of CICP claims a legal proceeding, it basically is. They call it an administrative procedure and a flunky in DHHS gets to decide your claim with no redress outside the agency. Jeff Childers just filed suit the other day against this process. VICP does have its own courts with 9 (last I knew) Special Masters who are judges that adjudicate claims.
Boards are a different story, and you can appeal their decisions to a court, but overcoming their immunity is a challenge. And whether there is $ in the end--usually there is none, so who wants to fight?
I am DEFINITELY thinking about raw milk, FDA and USDA--the Chevron decision opens the door wide for a challenge here.
👍🏼👌🏽😁👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🙏
Thank you, Dr. Nass, for everything you do.
This is really encouraging. Out with 'deference' and in with democracy!
Thank you ! This is good information. In spite of how bad things look God proves His Sovereignty through the millions of little unseen things. Good journalism /commentary right here.
Holy Toledo, Batperson -- are you saying that The Swamp is Drained by this single judicial act of removing Chevron? That this makes it possible now to discuss The Science in court? Well, I'm not a lawyer either (and must admit I found the legal situation you so kindly explained too tangled even to read properly, mea culpa). But, but ... doesn't this removal of Chevron just have the effect of transfering the power from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch?? I mean, according to my imperfect understanding, roughly this situation already exists in NZ. And in my experience (a) The Swamp just hires compliant (no, let's skip the euphemism -- bought) "scientists" to tell the court whatever The Swamp wants the court to believe and (b) Judges are at least as incompetent to extract the real science out of the mess that published science has lately become as are the Swamp Creatures. Hence judges routinely accept whatever the most credentialed scientific witness says. You may realise from this somewhat jaundiced view that I personally have never been the most credentialed scientific witness, having been thoroughly squashed throughout my scientific life by political agencies that disliked my opinions! (You, of course, are now similarly squashed by the malactions of the Maine State Medical Board). So ... nice try, Dr Nass -- but I fear your lovely congenital optimism may be unwarranted in this particular instance. As the title of your piece says, Y'Can't Beat City Hall.
What this means imho is that judge that threw out our appeal would actually have to go further than the word "deference" and think about the case. We may not agree with how they think. But the really crazy agency decisions can now at least be examined in a courtroom.
Doc, this goes deeper than your trial judge's pretrial decisions, all the way through to who can testify at the trial with "expert" opinions and how they qualify themselves as experts. First, some historical context.
SCOTUS affirmed Chevron deference when the EPA claimed that oil spills have associated toxicity hazards, and the Chevron Oil Company tried to play dumb.
The excuse Chevron made is, "Look, your honor, we don't sell poisons. We don't sell rat poison. We don't sell roach poison. None of our customers ask us to sell them poison, so we never study toxicology!"
Trouble was that Exxon had seen the legal risks of being unprepared, and actually hired one toxicologist. So Exxon had actual intelligent discussions with EPA regulators but Chevron did not. When Chevron ended up in litigation with EPA over oil toxicity, Chevron used the "we know nothing about poisons" gaffe one too many times, and the trial court allowed the EPA witness to testify as an expert, meaning he could discuss opinions and beliefs as well as known facts. Chevron appealed and wound up with the Chevron deference doctrine, a concept that nicely fit the original case but poorly fits everywhere else it is used. Basically the trial court ruled that Chevron had to accept EPA's expert opinions because Chevron never bothered to study toxicology. After running through the Ninth Circuit, the appeal reached SCOTUS, who concurred.
Trouble began immediately, once a precedent was set. If a federal agency has experts on staff, they can appear at trial. Worse yet, their opinions outweighed the facts.
So basically, an expert swindler can con a federal agency into naming him an expert on any case at bar, and may get away with it. That, however, does not make the expert swindler into an expert on any other subject.
This ruling, allowing the trial court to review "expert" opinions de novo, will end the free ride lobbying firms got from Chevron deference. A lobbyist could approach any regulatory worker with a "retire at 50 and come work for us" pitch. Could lobbyists buy drafts of regulations for their clients in advance? Even if not, it is ethically troubling that days after regulating a corporation, the retired regulator could assist the corporation at prevailing in court.
De novo review, to establish if an expert's opinion had a factual basis or not, may help turn the tide of medicines that make us sicker, bank regulations that make us poorer, and regulations on aircraft construction that go unheeded until doors blow off the plane.
Absolute trust is absolutely corrupting.
Thank you for this knowledgeable post. I fell like the swamp is about to undergo a little bit of draining.
My friends,
I need your help to share THE FIRST Film EXPLOITING THE CORRUPTION OF COVID by Michael Angel Loayza Jr.
https://youtu.be/1KjgGgaJBaE?si=eXTF9vGpcnlc7J2r
Please, reach out, Like, Subscribe on YouTube and Instagram so I can continue to create this content:
Awakening Society With Purposeful Entertainment
Thank you Meryl, for this wonderful piece of news. Our courts are truly our last bulwark for the Constitution. I pray that Kennedy becomes President and that he will name the next batch of Federal Judges. Make it so!
I pray that Kennedy become President and will Drain The Swamp -- properly this time!
This is a big deal thanks for posting. And I’m so impressed with all the work you’ve done I had no idea. Thank you.