Brittain: It’s about partisan politics, not the “rule of law”

Very few are willing to take on the Establishment.  Then, how many are willing to take on a County Bar Association?  My good friend Greg Brittain, from the Redlands area is a true patriot.  Unlike others who see things going sideways and are silent, Greg is willing to tell the truth.

“The Dem Party and the Dem Party controlled FBI and Justice Department used a bogus document created by the Hillary Clinton campaign to get a warrant to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016. The FBI leaked the bogus “information” in the document to friendly media and then pointed to the media reports as support for the FISA warrant.

This is not the “rule of law,” but I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

This is an excellent article explaining the numerous ways the legal community has either been silent or have joined the cabal to create lawfare.  The Establishment legal folks have determined the Rule of Law, the Constitution, the use of lawsuits and court rooms to silence and intimidate the public and office holders.

This is an articled that should be circulated.  Oh, Greg Brittain is an attorney—an honest one.

It’s about partisan politics, not the “rule of law”

 Greg Britttain, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  4/16/25    www.capoliticalnewsandviews.com

Dear Board of Directors:

I felt compelled to write this lengthy email, and I hope some of you read it.

The San Bernardino County Bar Association should eschew supporting the ABA’s very thinly disguised partisan attack on President Trump based on a selective and partisan purported concern for the “rule of law” for the following reasons:

1st.         The Bar should stay out of partisan politics.

The San Bernardino County Bar Association is supposed to be a nonpolitical organization. The members include vehement opponents of President Trump, strong supporters, and some in between. There are ample other organizations and venues for members to advocate their political views. This organization should not choose one over the other.

2nd.    “Good and Bad Behaviour.”

Federal judges hold their offices on “good Behaviour.” Article III, Section 1. The Founders chose not to use the standard for impeaching the President, “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article II, Section 4. The Constitution does not define “good Behaviour.” However, at least arguably, judges deciding cases based on their personal political views rather than the law is “bad Behaviour.”

While the Constitution does not specify how to remove a judge who does not exhibit “good Behaviour,” Congress has used impeachment to do so. “Good Behaviour” probably means whatever the House decides is “bad Behaviour” in impeaching a judge and whatever the Senate decides in convicting an impeached judge.

Therefore, impeaching judges exhibiting “bad Behaviour” is clearly constitutional, and, at least arguably, “bad Behaviour” includes deciding cases based on politics rather than the law.

3rd.      “Houston, it sure looks like we have a partisan judge problem.”

Since 1963 through February 2025, Federal judges issued 127 injunctions against Presidents of the United States. Here is the recent breakdown:

Obama: 12

Trump 45: 64

Biden: 14

Trump 47 thru February: 15

92% of the injunctions against President Trump were issued by Democrat judges.

Chuck Schumer bragged:

–“We did put 235 judges, progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump, last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time.”

Judges ruling based on politics and serving as “the resistance” for the Democrat Party is not the “rule of law.”

Democrats would argue it’s all because of President Trump doing unlawful things. Republicans contend it’s Democrat judges ruling based on politics rather than the law. The San Bernardino County Bar Association should stay out of this political fight.

PS

Even if the Republicans mustered a majority in the House to impeach a judge for his/her politicized rulings, there is no chance the Senate will convict, which requires a 2/3 vote.

4th.       The ABA’s purported “concern” for the “rule of law” is highly selective, highly partisan, and highly hypocritical.

By way of examples:

Exhibit A

After the draft ruling overturning Roe v. Wade was illegally leaked, the Democrats organized demonstrations of angry mobs outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices. If there is an angry mob outside your home, you, of course, fear for the lives and safety of yourself and your family. That’s the point of gathering an angry mob outside someone’s home.

This is why such conduct is illegal under 18 USC §1507, which provides:

“Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

The Biden “Justice” Department did not prosecute anyone for this clear violation of §1507.

But the Dems went further. Schumer said,

–“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Schumer tried to backtrack, claiming he meant “politically.” Yeah right. Unless a Dem controlled Congress impeached them, what political price would the justices pay, and how would they be “hit”?

The Democrats also ginned up their crazies, I think intentionally, hoping they would murder one or more of the Supreme Court justices, and one of the Dem crazies tried to do so.

Intimidating judges with fear for the safety of themselves and their families is not even arguably a constitutional remedy for rulings you don’t like. This is not the “rule of law,” but I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning Schumer and the Dem Party for this conduct.

Exhibit B

The Dem Party and the Dem Party controlled FBI and Justice Department used a bogus document created by the Hillary Clinton campaign to get a warrant to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016. The FBI leaked the bogus “information” in the document to friendly media and then pointed to the media reports as support for the FISA warrant.

This is not the “rule of law,” but I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

Exhibit C

The “rule of law” includes “equality before the law,” making prosecutorial decisions based on politics is also not the “rule of law.”

After Donald Trump announced he would run for President in 2024, Democrats in the Federal government and in state and local governments embarked on a “show me the man, and we’ll find a crime” campaign to get the Democrats’ likely 2024 opponent. They obtained and went through all of his business and tax records to “find a crime.” They stretched laws in ways they were never used or interpreted previously or since, and they prosecuted Donald Trump for things they let Regime friendlies off the hook for.

Some examples:

(1)

Hillary Clinton kept emails she sent and received as Secretary of State, some of which had the highest possible classification, on an unsecured server. China, Russia, and other countries were likely reading her emails in real-time. Hillary Clinton also deleted emails, i.e. government documents, and that is also illegal.

However, the “Justice” Department did not prosecute Clinton.

Joe Biden kept boxes of classified documents in his garage and other places. However, he was not prosecuted.

How much would you like to bet Obama has classified documents?

(2)

The New York legislature specially, but only temporarily, extended the statute of limitations so E. Jean Carroll could sue Donald Trump for an alleged sexual assault in a crowded department store for which Carroll had zero corroborating evidence. Carroll said nothing about the alleged assault that she claims occurred sometime in the mid 1990s until after Donald Trump was elected President and when Carroll was trying to sell a book.

(3)

NY Democrat AG Leticia James campaigned on getting Donald Trump. In and of itself, that is not the “rule of law.”

James sued Donald Trump over a commercial loan negotiation where the loan was paid in full and on time, and the bank was happy with the transaction and willing to make future loans to Donald Trump’s company.

No bank takes the borrower’s word for the value of property, even for residential loans. Commercial loans, especially high-value ones in the hundreds of millions of dollars, involve negotiations between sophisticated parties over the value of the property(ies), loan amount, loan-to-value ratio, interest rate, and repayment terms. In any negotiation, one side starts high, and the other side starts low.

Never before or since has James or anyone else I have heard of taken legal action against a borrower in such a situation.

This is not the “rule of law,” but I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

Exhibit D

Again, the “rule of law” includes “equality before the law,” and making prosecutorial decisions based on politics is not the “rule of law.”

2020 witnessed a massive, organized campaign of rioting, looting, and pillaging openly encouraged, aided and abetted by Democrat politicians and the media.

Police in Democrat controlled cities were ordered to stand down and allow the rioting, looting, and pillaging. Democrat DAs declined to prosecute the rioters or gave them lenient plea bargains. Democrat politicians and the media encouraged and defended the rioters. Democrats bailed out the rioters who were arrested.

At the end of May 2020, a mob of BLM(s) and Antifa(s) tried to storm the White House. 70+ Secret Service were injured defending the White House. But the Biden “Justice” Department dropped all charges against the BLM(s) and Antifa(s).

Compare and contrast that treatment with the J6 defendants. Many of them were held for years without trial or bail. They were denied a change of venue from DC where they could not possibly get a fair trial. Many were imprisoned for doing nothing more than peacefully walking through the Capitol through a door held open by a Capitol police officer. Many of the J6 defendant in the DC Gulag were beaten and tortured with cold, sleep deprivation, and horribly bad food.

A friend of mine was convicted by a DC jury. He never entered the Capitol, did not assault any person, and did not damage any property. He never passed a fence or restricted area sign because Ray Epps and crew removed them before my friend and almost all other J6 defendants arrived at the Capitol. The police never announced it was a restricted area, and the protesters needed to leave. He had zero notice that he was not allowed to be where he was.

This is not the “rule of law,” but I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

Exhibit E

The Biden administration abrogated American immigration law, and opened the borders for everyone in the world who stepped across the border. The Biden administration created out of thin air a parole policy that gave illegal aliens advance permission to enter the country so they did not officially count as illegal border crossers. While the law requires asylum applicants to be detained until their cases are decided, the Biden administration ignored the law and adopted “catch and release” with work authorizations. The Biden administration handed out millions of Social Security numbers to the illegal aliens.

The Biden administration then flew the illegals at taxpayer expense, mostly to Republican states and areas. The illegals were allowed to fly without valid IDs required of Americans.

We don’t have the final numbers, but the Biden administration let in 10-20 million illegals (that the Democrat judges are doing everything possible to keep in the country).

This is not the “rule of law,” but I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

Exhibit F

The Founders recognized, as Thomas Jefferson said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” The Founders sought to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” in part through separation of powers, both horizontally, legislative, executive, and judicial branches, but also vertically between the federal and state governments. However, since the 1930s (when Roosevelt and the Dems intimidated the Supreme Court with threats to pack the court), the courts have ignored the constitutional limits of federal authority in Article II and the 10th Amendment.

This is not the “rule of law,” but I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

Exhibit G

Current Democrats also threaten to pack the Supreme Court, either to intimidate the Court or actually do it so, like in Venezuela, where the socialist government packed their Supreme Court, the Democrats will never again lose a case.

If discussing impeaching judges, or actually doing it, is “intimidating judges” and contrary to the “rule of law,” then this conduct by the Democrats is also “intimidating judges” and contrary to the “rule of law.”

I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

Exhibit H

Democrats Eric Holder and Lois Lerner (who used the IRS to hinder Tea Party groups) disobeyed congressional subpoenas. They were not prosecuted.

Republicans Steven Bannon and Peter Navarro disobeyed congressional subpoenas, but they were prosecuted and sent to prison.

The FBI arrested Peter Navarro at the airport and put him in leg irons.

The Biden administration denied Steve Bannon the credits he was legally entitled to under the First Step Act and kept Bannon in prison longer than was legal to keep him out of the 2024 campaign.

This is not the “rule of law,” but I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

Exhibit I

The FBI allowed Whitey Bolger to run his criminal empire under FBI protection. The FBI and then US Attorney Robert Mueller allowed four men to be convicted and languish in prison for a murder they knew Whitey Bolger committed. Two of the men died in prison.

This is not the “rule of law,” but I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

Exhibit J

The FBI admitted to illegally querying databases on American citizens without a warrant hundreds of thousands of times. Of course, there were no consequences for the FBI or the FBI agents who broke the law.

This is not the “rule of law,” but I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

Exhibit K

All across America, Democrat state and local governments and NGOs openly and blatantly aid and abet illegal immigration and subvert the enforcement of America’s immigration laws in clear violation of 8 USC §1324(a)(1)(A), which provides in relevant part:

Any person who—

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v)(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

This is not the “rule of law,” but I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

(Around this point, the judge probably sustains an objection the evidence is cumulative.)

5th.       Irony alert.

The proposed resolution says:

–“We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not.”

As shown in the examples above and in many other cases, this was the operating principle of the Biden “Justice” Department and Democrat AGs and DAs.

I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

The proposed resolution also says:

–“We reject the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule in certain ways.”

However, as reported by Axios, “A dark money group (Project 65) with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights will spend millions this year to expose and try to disbar more than 100 lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuits, people involved with the effort tell Axios.”

Their avowed purpose is to “deter (what they call) right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts to (again what they call) overturn elections.”

Restating their purpose without the spin, the Democrat Project 65 seeks to deter Republican attorneys from representing Republican candidates in election challenges.

Courts have the power to sanction attorneys and parties who bring frivolous cases, but Project 65 seeks to “punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients.”

I don’t recall the ABA or this organization condemning this conduct.

6th.       Everything a judge says or rules is not necessarily the “rule of law.”

If judges make up the law, ignore the law, or decide cases based on politics, that is not the “rule of law. Even Justice Roberts said, “The rule of law is not the rule of lawyers.”

And this leads to my last point.

7th.       “Judicial supremacy” is not in the Constitution, nor is it what the Founders intended.

In recent decades, the notion arose and gained favor that judges and the judiciary are supreme over the other branches of government. This served the interests of the Democrat Party, allowing judges to force policies and make up laws the Democrats could not get through Congress or state legislatures. Elected officials and American citizens, not understanding history and Constitution, acquiesced.

In 2005, the esteemed legal scholar Nancy Pelosi proclaimed after a Supreme Court ruling:

–“It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It’s an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.”

Of course, when the Democrats don’t like a Supreme Court decision, it’s not “as if God has spoken.”

Under judicial supremacy, any five Supreme Court justices can effectively amend the Constitution at will.

But the Founders never intended Supreme Court justices to be Gods or to be able to circumvent the requirements of Article V regarding amending the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson said:

–“Judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 49:

–“The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”

In Federalist No. 48, Madison wrote regarding “practical security for each [branch], against the invasion of the others:”

–“It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers.”

Alexander Hamilton wrote regarding the judiciary:

–“The national legislature will have ample authority to make such exceptions, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences.” Federalist No. 80

–The judiciary is “beyond ““beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” that could “never attack with success either of the other two”. Federalist No. 78

–“There can never be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their

presumption by degrading them from their stations.” Federalist No. 81

John Adams said:

–“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”

That applies equally to judges if they have supremacy and we treat them as Gods.

Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:

–“The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Lincoln went on to defy Supreme Court rulings in Dred Scott and regarding Confederate POWs.

Would the ABA and this organization have condemned President Lincoln for doing so?

During WWII, the Germans landed teams of saboteurs in America by U-boat. They were captured. President Roosevelt ordered they be tried in military tribunals and executed. When the Germans appealed to the Supreme Court, Roosevelt warned the Court not to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus because he would not honor it, and the Court didn’t.

Therefore, judicial supremacy and “deification” is a relatively recent development that does not protect the “rule of law” or our liberty.

Since the Constitution was ratified by sufficient states to come into effect in 1788, we have muddled through. On one hand, we want the judiciary to act as a check and balance on the other two branches, but when judges act as partisans, when they make the law and, in effect, amend the Constitution, and/or when they ignore the law, the judges need to be checked.

As Lord Acton said:

–“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

This is certainly a worthy and interesting area of discussion among lawyers, judges, and American citizens. However, the ABA’s one-sided, nakedly partisan, hypocritical resolution does not advance this worthy discussion, and for the reasons stated above, the San Bernardino County Bar Association should not join in.

Very truly yours,

GREGORY W. BRITTAIN