NLPC “blows the whistle” on government officials and interest groups engaged in questionable activities. NLPC has filed formal Complaints with a variety of authorities and regulators, including the Federal Election Commission, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Congressional Ethics Committees.
NLPC supports government integrity in two additional ways: by promoting the First Amendment as the basis for campaign finance reform, and by promoting use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for November 8, two days after the midterm elections, on the challenge by Andrew Miller to the constitutionality of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
On Friday, September 28, Mueller filed a 71-page brief making many of the same flawed arguments he made at the District Court level. A reply brief by Paul Kamenar, Miller’s attorney, is due on October 9. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center and its supporters around the country.
Mandatory “gender equity” on corporate boards may seem a far-fetched idea, but in one state it soon may become law. Several weeks ago, the California legislature passed a bill, SB 826, that would require every public company headquartered in the state to have at least one woman on its board of directors by the end of 2019. Larger companies also would have to place at least two women on their boards by the end of 2021. There would be stiff fines for noncompliance. The bill awaits the signature of Gov. Jerry Brown (in photo). It’s yet another example of how affirmative action is driven by political shaming, not by sensible economics or constitutional law.
Feminists long have set their sights on breaking the “glass ceiling,” that metaphorical barrier established by male employers to discourage women from advancing to top positions. As a corrective, these activists increasingly are calling for requiring … Read More ➡ “California to Impose Gender Quotas on Businesses?”
On September 11, 2018, constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar filed his brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals on behalf of his client Andrew Miller, a witness in the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Miller is declining to honor a subpoena to appear before a Grand Jury and is challenging the constitutionality of Mueller’s appointment.
Miller lost at the District Court level, allowing his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Oral arguments in the case are expected to take place in October. In his brief, Kamenar makes a compelling case that Mueller’s appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be ruled invalid. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center, and its supporters around the country.
In an op-ed in The Hill, Law Professor Steven Calabresi says that U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell erred in upholding the constitutionality of the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Her decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Briefs were due yesterday and oral arguments will take place in October.
Andrew Miller, a witness in the case, is challenging Mueller’s constitutionality. Constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar, who is supported by the National Legal and Policy Center, represents him. Here’s the op-ed:
In its decision in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, egged on by a power-crazy acting attorney general, reached two startling and alarming conclusions in order to uphold the legality of Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel.
The matter involved concerns the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution, which provides:
Some of the worst travesties of justice occur when a lawbreaker manages to convince the public that he or she is actually the victim. This, in fact, appears to be the real story behind accusations that Donald Trump violated federal election laws by ordering “hush money” to be paid to stripper/porn star Stormy Daniels during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign to conceal the fact of their one-night stand a decade earlier. The reigning media view is that the $130,000 payment, transacted by President Trump’s then-personal attorney Michael Cohen, was a threat and thus a basis for Trump’s impeachment. Far closer to the truth, however, is that Ms. Daniels tried to blackmail Mr. Trump. Her current attempt to nullify a nondisclosure agreement underscores her self-serving motives.
The Left may have shifted their main focus from class to race, but they haven’t forgotten about their original mission of taming capitalism. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., certainly hasn’t. On August 15, Senator Warren introduced a bill, the Accountable Capitalism Act, to rein in companies that are “making the rich even richer.” Among its features, the measure would force corporations with annual revenues of at least $1 billion to obtain a federal charter and mandate that at least 40 percent of the board members of such companies be chosen by employees. Warren assures skeptics that she believes in markets. Yet even if her profession is genuine, her proposal is a recipe for undermining them.
This article by ABC News digital reporter Ali Dukakis appears on the ABC website under the title, “The Conservative DC Legal Group Behind a Challenge to the Mueller Probe:”
The latest legal challenge to special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, now heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals, is being steered by a veteran Washington legal group that has a history of taking on Democrats and is bankrolled, in part, by longstanding Republican donors.
The National Legal and Policy Center is backing a subpoena fight launched by Andrew Miller, a former associate of Trump confidant and political provocateur Roger Stone, who has refused a demand from prosecutors to appear before a grand jury. He is objecting, the lawyers said, in order to mount a broad legal challenge to the legitimacy of the special counsel probe.
During his six terms in Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., often has been described in less than flattering terms. “Abuser” is a new one. Last Saturday, Ellison, who also is the deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was accused by the adult son of a former girlfriend of committing extreme domestic abuse during the relationship. The son posted a comment on Facebook during which he referred to a video allegedly showing Ellison dragging the woman, Karen Monahan, off a bed and screaming obscenities. The congressman, who this Tuesday won his party’s primary for Minnesota attorney general, denies all allegations. “This video does not exist because I have never behaved in this way, and any characterization otherwise is false,” he stated. Yet the body of evidence might not work in his favor. And there is a second female accuser with a story to tell.
Late this afternoon, a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was filed seeking review of the contempt order issued against Andrew Miller for not appearing before Special Counsel Mueller’s grand jury on Friday, August 10, 2018. The appeal will seek review of the court’s decision and opinion of July 31, 2018, upholding the constitutionality of Special Counsel’s appointment.
“This case is likely to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Paul Kamenar, Mr. Miller’s attorney, shortly after filing the appeal. To those, like Chris Cuomo of CNN who interviewed Mr. Kamenar on the case on Friday, August 10, who say this case is a distraction from Mueller’s investigation, Kamenar’s response is, “the constitution is not a distraction.” The Mueller challenge is being supported by NLPC.