Opposition Leaders Against Governments Political Prosecutions

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.