Keeping Democracy Alive 2024

Most left-leaning academia like Hedges are left-wing ideologists and hold the belief, that democracy of the free-market system and capitalism is dysfunctional and has no proper competition with reasonable rules, but what are his alternative suggestions for proper completion and reasonable rules that are required under his ideals and theories of spiritual enlightenment for a socialist utopian collective community based on wealth distribution?

On a pragmatic and philosophical ground, the important point is that the pursuit of happiness is on an individual basis, not a collective right, as my dreams are different from yours and someone else’s is completely different from both of ours.

For example, the political holy grail of progressive socialized liberalism and some feminists is that the government should control, and taxpayers should fund childcare, daycare and cradle-to-grave benefits. Others hold the opinion that it is not the children who require liberating from the family but perhaps the mother should be liberated from the child. It is not only the fathers who are supposed to guide their youth but the mothers, fathers and grandparents of their offspring who are directly responsible for the youth of today and their upbringing, not governments or political parties.

The responsibility for sheltering, raising, feeding, and clothing is the direct responsibility of those who decide to conceive or adopt a child. 

Government-run hand-out programs and mass social herding formulas for housing, rent, childcare and unsustainable subsidies or socialism/communism is not the answer as history has shown.

It is however a worldwide failure and has done nothing other than create ghettos of segregated warehouses of poor people living in misery.

For myself, I believe, any fair-minded individual would not dispute the political reality that today the core agenda of progressive domestic social liberalism relates to the support for a welfare state, abortion and the racial identity politics of multiculturalism-based redistribution of wealth through class warfare and the concept of open borders.

An unmanageable national debt aggravated by spending and borrowing for unsustainable entitlements and handouts has both caused and exacerbated the burden of an inequitable system of taxation whereby 10% of the US population pays 80% of all taxes and 43% of Americans account for 20% of paid federal taxes while 47% of the US population pay NO federal taxes?

Thus, the so-called wealthy in the US already pay the brunt of taxes while 47% pay no taxes. In Canada, 33.4% of citizens pay less than $2 in federal taxes. Therefore 66.6% of Canadians are subsidizing 33.4% of the population. A fair share, in Canada and the US, should mean that all citizens pay an equal amount of taxes as opposed to paying NO federal taxes at all.

Any mischief, based on an excessive desire to acquire and possess more than what one needs or even deserves especially for material wealth, did not originate from nor is it limited to that of the Wall Street or Bay Streets of the world. It all began with the greed of Union leaders as well as their members be it auto workers, teachers, hospital workers, government employees, political appointees’ etc. along with politicians; corporations and the shareholders of publicity traded companies. Such firms and organizations also represent companies in the resource development sector for green energy solutions and other special interest groups publicly traded around the globe.

Because of our now excessive and numerous government regulations and attempts to micromanage the free enterprise system through government controls and outright nationalizations of industries or corporations combined with excess wage, benefit and pension demands by all guilty parties’ businesses go to China, India, South America, and other countries around the world to find a less expensive workforce and less government.

Unfortunately, the leaders today, be they politicians or union leaders, seem far more concerned with raising political donations or union dues through new members for their re-elections and play fast and furious with our money for their success and prosperity at the expense of those who actual pay taxes or union dues.

It is not only individuals like Hughes who feel they are entitled to receive handouts from others or the wealthy.

It’s politicians, academia, artists, academics, students, bureaucrats, corporations, unions, special interest groups, it`s your neighbours and those that pay little or no federal income taxes all of whom fanatically believe they are entitled to their entitlements at other people’s expense.

This is not freedom or democracy but a resurgence of progressive totalitarian socialized liberalism. If anything, occupying pressure groups protesting the Wall Streets or Bay Streets of the world or individual achievements and wealth without any pronounced alternatives suggest anarchy. Perhaps as most academics preach, they wish for a return to Fascism, Maoism, Maoism, Communism or 21st-century totalitarian socialism.

History has documented for us all that unexpected power by revolutions throughout the world are prone to arrogance, disrespect, intrusive, and short-lived freedoms for the people at the expense of law and order, liberties and freedoms. For example, the French Revolution, given the benefit of history, "it's difficult to understand why anyone doubts the fascist nature of that revolution. It was totalitarian, terrorist, nationalist, conspiratorial and populist.

And it produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre, and Napoleon. The paranoid Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and crueller than the king they replaced. Over fifty thousand people died in the terror of that revolution."

The Russian Revolution and its later day revolutionary leaders were responsible for the deaths of more than 40 MILLION people in the name of that revolution.

The Chinese Revolution under Mao saw over 65 MILLION people killed in the name of that revolution. The Cuban revolution saw close to 50 thousand kicked, tortured, and terrorized and thousands of political prisoners remain in jail for daring to speak up against Castro and his brother.

Unfortunately, today’s elected career politicians and bureaucrats within this new world consist mostly of blame passers who never take responsibility or come to grips with their refusal to stand up and be held accountable.

Money left in the hands of taxpayers is far more productive than putting it in the hands of career politicians, special interest groups and unelected bureaucrats.

Democracy yes, yet anarchy, class warfare and revolutions have been shown to destroy freedom; liberties and countries not build them.

Quebec's Language Bill 96 and Others All Unconstitutional

When if ever shall the electorate have a political party and its leaders with enough sense and fortitude to stand up for Canada and its citizens by using the disallowance power under the existing Canadian Constitution i.e. Constitution Act, 1867 – the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982? It remains part of the Canadian constitution as protection for minority rights and from discriminatory laws passed by provincial governments i.e., Quebec’s Bill 96 and others.

Quebec's language Bill 96 is deemed unconstitutional, and the Prime Minister must invoke the disallowance power, an integral aspect of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what is written in the Constitution remains in force, NO matter if such powers written within the Constitution are often used or not. They remain part of the Constitution until the Constitution is amended by the Canadian Constitution amendment procedures and NOT by the Supreme Court of Canada.

When will we see a political party and its leaders with the wisdom and courage to defend Canada and its citizens by utilizing the disallowance power entrenched in the existing Canadian Constitution? This power, enshrined in the Constitution Act, of 1867, remains vital for safeguarding minority rights and preventing the enactment of discriminatory laws by provincial governments, such as Quebec’s Bill 96.

It is a fundamental principle that provisions within the Constitution retain their legal force regardless of whether they are frequently exercised. They persist until modified through the prescribed Canadian Constitution amendment procedures, not through decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

While scholars may engage in academic discourse about the legitimacy of constitutional powers that lie dormant, it is essential to recognize that such discussions do not alter the constitutional framework itself. The disallowance power, explicitly outlined in the Constitution Act of 1867, remains valid unless formally renounced through established conventions.

As no Prime Minister has officially declared the disallowance power obsolete, it retains its legal validity as a crucial component of Canada's constitutional framework. Therefore, it can and should be employed to ensure all provinces adhere to the principles outlined in the Canadian Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

Moreover, debates among academics concerning whether a constitutional convention can nullify a written law present complex legal questions. It is challenging to argue that a lack of exercise could invalidate a constitutionally established power, particularly given legal precedents such as the 1990 court ruling that upheld the appointment of eight additional senators, despite the previously unused section of the Constitution Act of 1867 being invoked.

Background:

1.        https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/TeachersInstitute/ConstitutionalConventions.pdf

2.      https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/reservation-and-disallowance/?print=print-search

3.      https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-bill-96https://nationalpost.com/opinion/quebecs-latest-assault-on-the-english-language-must-not-stand

 

 

New York Executive Law § 63(12) Felonious?

 

In challenging the constitutionality of New York Executive Law § 63(12), several aspects of substantive due process should be implicated.

Privacy Rights: If the law infringes upon individuals' fundamental right to privacy without a compelling government interest and lacks narrow tailoring, it conceivably raises substantive due process concerns.

For instance, if it enables the Attorney General to target individuals or businesses without adequate justification, privacy rights are at risk.

Property Rights: Substantive due process safeguards property rights by demanding that government actions affecting property be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. If the law permits the Attorney General to pursue injunctions or remedies against individuals or businesses without due justification, it might infringe upon property rights and thus be subject to challenge.

Liberty Interests: Substantive due process protects against arbitrary or unreasonable government interference with individual liberty interests. If the law excessively restricts individuals' lawful business activities or encroaches upon their liberty without sufficient justification, it conceivably faces challenges on substantive due process grounds.

Overbreadth and Vagueness: Substantive due process mandates that laws be clear and narrowly tailored to their intended purposes. Should New York Executive Law § 63(12) contain overly vague or broad language, or if it criminalizes constitutionally protected conduct to a significant degree, substantive due process concerns conceivably arise. If the language of the law is overly vague or broad, it could lead to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement and thus violate the principles of due process. Additionally, if the law sweeps too broadly and criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, it might be considered overbroad.

Additionally, concerning excessive fines, laws or actions imposing penalties disproportionate to the offence committed can be deemed unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. 

Cases such as United States v. Bajakajian (1998), Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989), Austin v. United States (1993), and Timbs v. Indiana (2019) illustrate how the Supreme Court has addressed such issues, underscoring the principle that fines must not be grossly disproportionate to the offence and that property cannot be confiscated without due process of law.

In addition, the New York Executive Law § 63(12) could be considered unconstitutional depending on various factors, including how it is applied and interpreted in practice, and whether it conflicts with constitutional provisions or principles. Here are some potential areas where constitutional concerns might arise:

Due Process: The law allows the Attorney General to seek injunctions and other remedies against individuals or businesses engaging in fraudulent or illegal acts. In applying such remedies, it's essential to ensure that affected parties receive due process rights, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

First Amendment: If the law restricts speech or expression in a manner that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, it could raise First Amendment concerns. For example, if the law is used to target protected speech or political expression, it might be subject to challenge on First Amendment grounds.

Equal Protection: The law must be applied in a manner that does not discriminate against individuals or groups based on improper classifications such as race, gender, or religion. Unequal treatment in enforcing the law could potentially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Separation of Powers: Depending on how the law interacts with the powers of other branches of government, particularly the judiciary, concerns about separation of powers might arise. If the law grants the Attorney General excessive discretion or authority without sufficient oversight, it could raise separation of powers issues.

State Constitutional Concerns: It's also possible that the law could be challenged under the New York State Constitution, which may provide additional protections or impose different requirements compared to the U.S. Constitution.

The "general principle of proportionality" is a legal doctrine often applied in various contexts, including constitutional law and international law. It essentially states that any government action or restriction on individual rights must be proportionate to the legitimate aim it seeks to achieve. 

In other words, the means used by the government should not exceed what is necessary to accomplish its objectives and was this case brought against the former US President by a political hatchet job by one political party member seeking a higher public office?

 

 

 

 

USA No Beacon For Democracy

 

USA No Beacon For Democracy

Today in the USA, the legal entanglements of Donald Trump by his political enemies embedded in the deep state of government’s nonelected bureaucrats and the opposition democratic party during and after his presidency offer a contemporary example of the complexities of political prosecutions within a so-called democratic framework. Facing a barrage of legal actions ranging from alleged financial misconduct, with no injured parties, to alleged interference in democratic processes, Trump's legal battles have laid bare the fault lines of partisan politics in America.

Further, today in the USA, the legal entanglements of Donald Trump by his political enemies embedded in the deep state of government’s nonelected bureaucrats and the democratic party during and after his presidency offer a contemporary example of the complexities of political prosecutions within a so-called democratic framework. Facing a barrage of legal actions ranging from alleged financial misconduct, with no injured parties, to alleged interference in democratic processes, Trump's legal battles have laid bare the fault lines of partisan politics in America.

None of these very questionable weaponized legal proceedings can be conceived as essential checks on executive power, they are all politically motivated attempts to undermine a duly elected leader or a candidate for election against the ruling political party. The debate surrounding Trump's legal woes underscores the inherent tension between accountability, partisanship and weaponization of institutions in much-heralded democratic governance by those in power.

The weaponization of democratic values against dissenters represents a betrayal of the very principles upon which democracy is built. Freedom of speech, equality before the law, and protection of minority rights are not mere slogans but the bedrock of democratic governance. When these principles are subverted to serve partisan agendas or suppress opposition voices, the health and vitality of democracy are called into question.

At the heart of these disparate narratives lies a fundamental question: What does it mean to uphold democratic principles in an imperfect world?

The answer, perhaps, lies in a nuanced understanding of the delicate balance between justice and politics before this weaponization of government institutions and supported by the media and social media corporations who do not have a legal right, in my view, or constitutional right to curtail free speech. All these social media platform communities stipulated that they wanted your voices to be heard and that is how they got you all to sign up to their various forms and platforms of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Amazon, Google etc.

Yet, when all these tech companies/private corporations and media believe that their rights, along with governments, to control the users (inhabitants) of these various public internet communities, (domains) platforms, and forums, then they are in fact coextensive with the right of that (user)/ inhabitant/homeowner to regulate or censor its guests (users/members) is legally NOT an acceptable contention under existing laws and constitution.

When the institutions of justice, from law enforcement to the judiciary, or media and social media private Teck companies become weapons in the hands of political actors and a political party fully supported and non-questioned by a so-called free press, democracy itself hangs in the balance.

In confronting the challenges of political prosecutions and maintaining democratic health, vigilance is paramount. Civil society must remain steadfast in its commitment to defending democratic norms and holding those in power accountable. A free and independent media, robust checks and balances, and an engaged citizenry are indispensable bulwarks against the erosion of democratic values. Ownership, by any private corporation, does not always mean it is their absolute dominion. The more these private Tech companies (owners), for their own advantage to make money off those using their domains for the advantage of a specific political party, or ideology, they have opened up their  (domains), platforms, forums, and media communities (property) for use by the public in general and worldwide, and thus, legally then, their so-called private corporation rights become circumscribed by the statutory, legal, and constitutional rights of those who use it.

As such, these private tech companies, or the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes railroads or airplanes may NOT operate them as freely as a farmer does with his farm. These facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public by wanting the public's voices to be heard and to engage other members of the public in sharing feedback and open dialogues. Since all these private tech company operations are essentially a public function, they all are subject to State, Federal and Constitutional regulations, and laws already on the books.

Based on the text of the New York Executive Law 63(12), it appears to grant the attorney general of New York broad authority to seek injunctions against individuals or businesses engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal activities. However, the language used in the law raises potential concerns regarding due process rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution: State laws must be compatible with and incorporate the individual guarantees provided by the U.S. Constitution. This principle is known as the doctrine of "constitutional supremacy." According to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), federal law, including the Constitution itself and treaties made under its authority, is the supreme law of the land. This means that state laws and state constitutions must conform to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

As we navigate the murky waters of politics and justice, let us remember that democracy is not a destination but a journey—a journey fraught with challenges and pitfalls, but one worth embarking on, nonetheless. In the face of adversity, let us stand united in defence of democracy, for it is only through collective action and unwavering commitment that we can safeguard the principles that define us as free and equal citizens.

FACTS:

Based on the text of the executive law, it appears to grant the attorney general of New York broad authority to seek injunctions against individuals or businesses engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal activities. However, the language used in the law raises potential concerns regarding due process rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution:

The provision grants the attorney general of the state of New York the authority to seek injunctions against individuals or entities engaged, without ever having prior convictions or charges, for repeated unfound fraudulent or illegal acts or demonstrating persistent unfounded fraud or illegality in business transactions conceivably are unconstitutional at least.

Restitution and Damages: The law allows the court to order restitution and damages, which are common remedies in civil cases involving ACTUAL fraud and VICTIMS or illegal conduct and VICTIMS. However, the imposition of such penalties based on a political prosecutor who ran for office on “Charging Trump” without a prior criminal conviction raises concerns about double jeopardy or the imposition of punishment without a proper finding of guilt. While civil remedies like restitution and damages serve different purposes than criminal penalties and can be justified based on the need to compensate victims in this case NO victims are sighted or came forward other than the prosecutor who sought office on the unethical basis of going after a specific person nothing else.

Requirement of Prior Conviction: The law does not explicitly require a prior conviction for the attorney general to act and this absurdity must be challenged in law.  Instead, it allows for action based on repeated yet unfounded fraudulent or illegal acts or persistent fraud or illegality in business transactions. While due process typically requires a criminal conviction before imposing certain penalties or restrictions, civil actions like injunctions have different standards of proof. Injunctions are preventive measures aimed at stopping ongoing harm, and they can be sought without a prior criminal conviction based on purely political status or political association.

Scope of "Fraud" and "Illegality": The law defines "fraud" and "illegality" broadly to include various deceptive practices and unlawful conduct in business transactions. Such broad definitions could potentially raise concerns about vagueness and overbreadth, which are constitutional issues. Laws that are too vague or overly broad conceivably violate due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct or by potentially infringing on constitutionally protected activities.

Judicial Oversight: The law requires the attorney general to apply to the Supreme Court of New York for an injunction. This judicial oversight helps ensure that any action taken under the law is subject to review by an independent judiciary, which is a fundamental aspect of due process. Yet all judicial appointments are politicly made.

The Politicization of law enforcement: When law enforcement agencies are used to target individuals or groups based on their political beliefs rather than their actions, it undermines the rule of law and undermines public trust in the justice system.

Manipulation of the media and social media Teck companies: When media outlets are controlled or influenced by a particular party or ideology, they propagate biased or misleading information, stifling dissenting voices and shaping public opinion in favour of those in power.

The Undermining of democratic norms: When democratic norms and institutions are disregarded or undermined in pursuit of political gain, it weakens the foundations of democracy and can pave the way for authoritarian rule.

In Conclusion:  While the law grants significant authority to the attorney general to combat fraud and illegal conduct in business transactions, its constitutionality would ultimately depend on how it is applied in practice and whether it adheres to fundamental principles of due process, including notice, judicial oversight, and protection against overly vague or broad restrictions. Any challenges to the law would likely involve careful consideration of all ethical and constitutional principles by the courts.

 

Navalny, Oppenheimer; Trump Opposition Leaders Against Governments

In the intricate tapestry of the USA and global politics, the thread of justice often seems frayed, with cases of political prosecutions serving as stark reminders of the fragility of democracy in the USA and elsewhere. Recent events involving figures like Alexei Navalny, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and former President Donald Trump cast a spotlight on the complexities and challenges of maintaining democratic principles in the face of power struggles and partisan agendas in the USA. No longer, should one honestly say that the USA is a beacon of democracy, in my view.

Navalny's relentless battle against corruption in Russia culminated tragically in his untimely demise, underscoring the dangers faced by political dissidents in authoritarian or democratic regimes, when it comes to holding onto power by a political party or its leaders. His poisoning and subsequent imprisonment epitomize the lengths to which governments will go to silence opposition voices and maintain their grip on power. The parallels between Navalny's ordeal and the struggles of other opposition leaders around the world, including Trump in the USA or others in Iran, China and beyond, highlight a troubling trend of injustice and suppression.

J. Robert Oppenheimer's story offers a different lens through which to examine the intersection of politics and justice. As the architect of the atomic bomb and a key figure in the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer found himself ensnared in the web of Cold War paranoia, suspicion, and power. His security clearance hearing, marked by trumpeted-up allegations of communist ties and political intrigue, serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers of conflating scientific innovation with political dissent for the sake of government power over others. While Oppenheimer's case may not align neatly with contemporary notions of opposition leadership, it underscores the broader challenges of navigating political minefields in pursuit of truth and progress against the weaponization of political party power.

Today in the USA, the legal entanglements of Donald Trump by his political enemies embedded in the deep state of government’s nonelected bureaucrats and the opposition democratic party during and after his presidency offer a contemporary example of the complexities of political prosecutions within a so-called democratic framework. Facing a barrage of legal actions ranging from alleged financial misconduct, with no injured parties, to alleged interference in democratic processes, Trump's legal battles have laid bare the fault lines of partisan politics in America.

None of these very questionable weaponized legal proceedings can be conceived as essential checks on executive power, they are all politically motivated attempts to undermine a duly elected leader or a candidate for election against the ruling political party. The debate surrounding Trump's legal woes underscores the inherent tension between accountability, partisanship and weaponization of institutions in much-heralded democratic governance by those in power.

At the heart of these disparate narratives lies a fundamental question: What does it mean to uphold democratic principles in an imperfect world? The answer, perhaps, lies in a nuanced understanding of the delicate balance between justice and politics before this weaponization of government institutions and supported by the media and social media corporations who do not have a legal right, in my view, or constitutional right to curtail free speech. All these social media platform communities stipulated that they wanted your voices to be heard and that is how they got you all to sign up to their various forms and platforms of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Amazon, Google etc.

Yet, when all these tech companies/private corporations and media believe that their rights, along with governments, to control the users (inhabitants) of these various public internet communities, (domains) platforms, and forums, then they are in fact coextensive with the right of that (user)/ inhabitant/homeowner to regulate or censor its guests (users/members) is legally NOT an acceptable contention under existing laws and constitution.

When the institutions of justice, from law enforcement to the judiciary, or media and social media private Teck companies become weapons in the hands of political actors, a political party fully supported and non-questioned by a so-called free press, democracy itself hangs in the balance.

The weaponization of democratic values against dissenters represents a betrayal of the very principles upon which democracy is built. Freedom of speech, equality before the law, and protection of minority rights are not mere slogans but the bedrock of democratic governance. When these principles are subverted to serve partisan agendas or suppress opposition voices, the health and vitality of democracy are called into question.

In confronting the challenges of political prosecutions and maintaining democratic health, vigilance is paramount. Civil society must remain steadfast in its commitment to defending democratic norms and holding those in power accountable. A free and independent media, robust checks and balances, and an engaged citizenry are indispensable bulwarks against the erosion of democratic values. Ownership, by any private corporation, does not always mean it is their absolute dominion. The more these private Tech companies (owners), for their own advantage to make money off those using their domains for the advantage of a specific political party, or ideology, they have opened up their  (domains), platforms, forums, and media communities (property) for use by the public in general and worldwide, and thus, legally then, their so-called private corporation rights become circumscribed by the statutory, legal, and constitutional rights of those who use it.

As such, these private tech companies, or the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes railroads or airplanes may NOT operate them as freely as a farmer does with his farm. These facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public by wanting the public's voices to be heard and to engage other members of the public in sharing feedback and open dialogues. Since all these private tech company operations are essentially a public function, they all are subject to State, Federal and Constitutional regulations, and laws already on the books.

As we navigate the murky waters of politics and justice, let us remember that democracy is not a destination but a journey—a journey fraught with challenges and pitfalls, but one worth embarking on nonetheless. In the face of adversity, let us stand united in defence of democracy, for it is only through collective action and unwavering commitment that we can safeguard the principles that define us as free and equal citizens.

FACTS:

Based on the text of the executive law, it appears to grant the attorney general of New York broad authority to seek injunctions against individuals or businesses engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal activities. However, the language used in the law raises potential concerns regarding due process rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution:

The provision grants the attorney general of the state of New York the authority to seek injunctions against individuals or entities engaged, without ever having prior convictions or charges, for repeated unfound fraudulent or illegal acts or demonstrating persistent unfounded fraud or illegality in business transactions conceivably are unconstitutional at least.

Restitution and Damages: The law allows the court to order restitution and damages, which are common remedies in civil cases involving ACTUAL fraud and VICTIMS or illegal conduct and VICTIMS. However, the imposition of such penalties based on a political prosecutor who ran for office on “Charging Trump” without a prior criminal conviction raises concerns about double jeopardy or the imposition of punishment without a proper finding of guilt. While civil remedies like restitution and damages serve different purposes than criminal penalties and can be justified based on the need to compensate victims in this case NO victims are sighted or came forward other than the prosecutor who sought office on the unethical basis of going after a specific person nothing else.

Requirement of Prior Conviction: The law does not explicitly require a prior conviction for the attorney general to take action. Instead, it allows for action based on repeated yet unfounded fraudulent or illegal acts or persistent fraud or illegality in business transactions. While due process typically requires a criminal conviction before imposing certain penalties or restrictions, civil actions like injunctions have different standards of proof. Injunctions are preventive measures aimed at stopping ongoing harm, and they can be sought without a prior criminal conviction based on purely political status or political association.

Scope of "Fraud" and "Illegality": The law defines "fraud" and "illegality" broadly to include various deceptive practices and unlawful conduct in business transactions. Such broad definitions could potentially raise concerns about vagueness and overbreadth, which are constitutional issues. Laws that are too vague or overly broad conceivably violate due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct or by potentially infringing on constitutionally protected activities.

Judicial Oversight: The law requires the attorney general to apply to the Supreme Court of New York for an injunction. This judicial oversight helps ensure that any action taken under the law is subject to review by an independent judiciary, which is a fundamental aspect of due process. Yet all judicial appointments are politicly made.

The Politicization of law enforcement: When law enforcement agencies are used to target individuals or groups based on their political beliefs rather than their actions, it undermines the rule of law and undermines public trust in the justice system.

Manipulation of the media: When media outlets are controlled or influenced by a particular party or ideology, they propagate biased or misleading information, stifling dissenting voices and shaping public opinion in favour of those in power.

The Undermining of democratic norms: When democratic norms and institutions are disregarded or undermined in pursuit of political gain, it weakens the foundations of democracy and can pave the way for authoritarian rule.

In Conclusion:  While the law grants significant authority to the attorney general to combat fraud and illegal conduct in business transactions, its constitutionality would ultimately depend on how it is applied in practice and whether it adheres to fundamental principles of due process, including notice, judicial oversight, and protection against overly vague or broad restrictions. Any challenges to the law would likely involve careful consideration of these constitutional principles by the courts.