Jay Leiderman
By: Jay Leiderman
December 13 2016


In 2012 the cases of Jeremy Hammond and Andrew Aurenheimer were yet to be decided.  Questions abounded about how the law would be applied to these two hacktivist test cases.  The below article by Andrew Blake spoke to the zeitgeist of 2012 with perfection.  The full article can be read here:  http://buffalobeast.com/404-error-justice-not-found/.  Below are only my quotes from the story.


Twice last week, the justice system heard cases related to hacking, and in both instances, information sharing and cyberlaw were dealt a seriously heavy-handed blow. The government was the bully here, and the dorky little hacker had his glasses knocked square off his face.


After details from both the [Andrew “weev”] Auernheimer and Hammond cases came in Tuesday evening, I called Jay Leiderman, a defense attorney from Southern California who has represented a fair share of alleged computer criminals, including some aligned with the Anonymous movement that spawned LulzSec. When Leiderman picked up the phone, he was just finishing a day of lawyering near Los Angeles and had barely heard any news from the East Coast yet.

attorney jay leiderman, ventura california, near los angeles, jeremy hammond, hacktivist, weev, andrew aurenheimer, cfaa, computer fraud and abuse act
Jay Leiderman

“Hammond was told he can’t do house arrest and could be put away for 39 years to life,” I told him. He paused. For a while.

Leiderman suggests there’s no way in hell that Hammond will be put away for life for sharing the Stratfor data, but says that the way his and Auernheimer’s cases were handled say a lot about the justice system.

“The way the government is reading these laws [the computer fraud and abuse act or CFAA] really makes about all behavior criminal,” Leiderman tells me.

In the case of Auerenheimer, Leiderman says, “He didn’t access a protected computer yet he was convicted of it.”

He didn’t access a protected computer yet he was convicted of it

“It is clearly a situation of them striking while the iron is still ambiguous,” he says. For right now, there is a real lack of well-defined cyberlaw.

“At some point the federal courts are going to have a chance to consider these issues and realize the prosecutions that they are currently undertaking are in fact what the laws were designed to prevent,” he says. “But before that happens, the federal government is intensifying their pound of flesh. They are trying to scare everyone and make them think that every time they punch upon that keyboard that they are risking 15 years in federal prison. And for as long as that, it’s nothing but a scare tactic and one that ultimately can’t survive in an era of internet freedom.”


“I do think that Hammond’s prosecution is 100 percent political, not withstanding whatever actions he may have taken,” Leiderman says.

“I think we’ve come to a place in America where we no longer value the political dissident. Where speech that is contrary to government is no longer seen as a valuable thing in society,” he says.

“The way that speech works and the way that free speech works is that if an idea is too radical and if an idea is too far flung and too far fetched—like dumpster diving for your food—it’s going to be rejected by the people in the marketplace of ideas, and that’s the way the marketplace of ideas works. But when it’s the government telling us, ‘Nah, this idea is no good. We need to reject it,’ then it’s no longer free choice in the marketplace of ideas. We’re being told what to think and that’s where it gets scary.”

“It is scary when you put it that way,” I told Leiderman.


“If recent events have taught us anything it’s that Congress is absolutely useless and is not likely to do anything on any issue at any time,” says Leiderman. “They are the most impotent band of individuals on the planet, so we need to leave it to the court to let this shape out. And you know, the courts don’t suffer fools lightly. The courts have historically done a reasonably good job in protecting our freedoms and narrowly circumscribing crimes such that bold behavior isn’t criminal. And the way the government is reading these laws really makes about all behavior criminal.”

For now, says Leiderman, interpretation in regards to computer crimes is weak. While it’s arguable that the justice system will never keep up with the pace of technology, at this rate it could be too late before laws are finally structured in such a way that Hammond and Auernheimer aren’t looking at guaranteed, asinine sentences.

This isn’t what these laws were meant for

Meanwhile, says Leiderman, the state of affairs is ludicrous. “They’ve made a rule so broad, so amorphous and so ambiguous,” he says, “that reasonable people can’t ascertain what conduct is in fact covered.”

“We’re at a point in the history of these prosecutions where the government can literally charge anyone for anything and they seem to be doing that in a very targeted manner. They are going after people they don’t like for speech that they don’t like and they are going to get these convictions up until the point where courts start telling them, ‘Stop it. This isn’t what these laws were meant for.’”

That’s assuming the people have a voice long enough to make that opinion heard.

Blake is a web producer for Russia Today. Follow him on Twitter.



  1. “[T]here are some human rights that are so deep that we can’t negotiate them away. I mean people do heinous, terrible things. But there are basic human rights I believe that every human being has. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the United Nations says it for me. And it says there are two basic rights that can’t be negotiated that government doesn’t give for good behavior and doesn’t take away for bad behavior. And it’s the right not to be tortured and not to be killed. Because the flip side of this is that then when you say OK we’re gonna turn over — they truly have done heinous things, so now we will turn over to the government now the right to take their life. It involves other people in doing essentially the same kind of act.”

    (PBS Frontline: Angel on Death Row)”
    ― Helen Prejean

  2. Hey! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to follow you if that would
    be okay. I’m undoubtedly enjoying your blog and look
    forward to new posts.

  3. “I am convinced that imprisonment is a way of pretending to solve the problem of crime. It does nothing for the victims of crime, but perpetuates the idea of retribution, thus maintaining the endless cycle of violence in our culture. It is a cruel and useless substitute for the elimination of those conditions–poverty, unemployment, homelessness, desperation, racism, greed–which are at the root of most punished crime. The crimes of the rich and powerful go mostly unpunished.

    It must surely be a tribute to the resilience of the human spirit that even a small number of those men and women in the hell of the prison system survive it and hold on to their humanity.”
    ― Howard Zinn, You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times


  4. Your understanding of this subject is astounding.
    It truly touched me and I am pleased I discovered this content.

    Thank you very much.

  5. Final Action

    After careful consideration of all comments, the DEA is hereby amending 21 CFR 1308.11(d) to include a new subparagraph (58) which creates a new code number in Schedule I as follows:

    “(58) Marihuana Extract—7350
    “Meaning an extract containing one or more cannabinoids that has been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis, other than the separated resin (whether crude or purified) obtained from the plant.”

    The creation of this new drug code in the DEA regulations for marihuana extracts allows for more appropriate accounting of such materials consistent with treaty provisions. Such marihuana Start Printed Page 90196extracts remain in Schedule I. Entities registered to handle marihuana (under drug code 7360) that also handle marihuana extracts, will need to apply to modify their registrations to add the new drug code 7350 to their existing DEA registrations and procure quotas specifically for drug code 7350 each year.


  6. In response to the July 5, 2011, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (76 FR 39039), the DEA received six submissions from five commenters. Three of the comments raised issues relating to the medical use or legality of marihuana/cannabis; these comments were not germane to the issues addressed by this rulemaking. A fourth comment was merely a clarification of a comment previously submitted.

    One comment requested clarification of whether the new drug code will be applicable to cannabidiol (CBD), if it is not combined with cannabinols.

    DEA response: For practical purposes, all extracts that contain CBD will also contain at least small amounts of other cannabinoids.[1] However, if it were possible to produce from the cannabis plant an extract that contained only CBD and no other cannabinoids, such an extract would fall within the new drug code 7350. In view of this comment, the regulatory text accompanying new drug code 7350 has been modified slightly to make clear that it includes cannabis extracts that contain only one cannabinoid.

    Another comment from a pharmaceutical firm currently involved in cannabinoid research and product development praised DEA’s efforts to establish a new drug code for marihuana extracts as a means to more accurately reflect the activities of scientific research and provide more consistent adherence to the requirements of the Single Convention. However, the comment expressed concerns that the proposed definition for the new drug code (i.e. “meaning extracts that have been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis and which contain cannabinols and cannabidiols”) is too narrow. The comment suggested that the broader term “cannabinoids” be substituted for “cannabinols and cannabidiols.” The comment pointed out that other constituents of the marihuana plant may have therapeutic potential. The comment further clarified that the broader term “cannabinoid” includes both cannabinol-type compounds and cannabidiol-type compounds, as well as cannabichromene-type compounds, cannabigerol-type compounds, and other categories of compounds.

    DEA response: DEA agrees with the commenter that the term “cannabinoid” would provide for a broader definition of marihuana extract; however, use of the term “cannabinoid” necessitates that the DEA clarify that the new marihuana extract category (drug code 7350) is not intended to include “cannabis resin” as defined in the U.N. Single Convention.

    As discussed in the NPRM, a new drug code is necessary in order to better account for these materials in accordance with treaty obligations. The Single Convention placed “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” under both Schedule I and IV of the Convention, the most stringent level of control under the Convention. While “cannabis resin” is extracted from “cannabis,” the Single Convention specifically controls “extracts” separately. Extracts of cannabis are controlled only under Schedule I of the Convention, which is a lower level of control than “cannabis resin.”

    Accordingly, it is the DEA’s intent to define the term “marihuana extract” so as to exclude material referenced as “cannabis resin” under the Single Convention on Narcotics. “Cannabis resin” (regulated under the CSA as a resin of marihuana) contains a variety of “cannabinoids” and will continue to be regulated as marihuana under drug code 7360. The new drug code for marihuana extracts under 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(58) will exclude the resin. Cannabis resin and marihuana resin remain captured under the drug code for marihuana (drug code 7360), thus differentiating this material from marihuana extracts (new drug code 7350). This will maintain compliance with the Single Convention.


  7. The United States Department of Justice has accused computer science student Justin Liverman of being associated with Crackas with Attitude (CWA), the group that claimed to have accessed emails from the AOL account of CIA Director John Brennan in late 2015 and brought to widespread attention the vulnerability of a variety of US government computer systems to social engineering attacks.

    On 8 September 2016 the FBI arrested Justin. At the time, media reports noted that Justin had gained admission to the Pentagon’s first bug bounty programme, using his skills to secure government systems from bad actors.

    Of five individuals arrested on suspicion of involvement with CWA, he is one of only two – both US nationals – who are facing charges. Justin is expected to be indicted on 28 December 2016 and arraigned in early January in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virgina for violating the notorious Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He urgently needs your support to pay for his legal representation and expenses.

    At a time when standards for the storage of sensitive government information – and high ranking individuals’ compliance with those standards – are the subject of significant and justified public concern, CWA exposed the vulnerability of even the most senior US government officials to non-technical social engineering attacks. In October 2015, selected emails from John Brennan’s AOL account were published by WikiLeaks as the CIA Emails and include drafts of policy documents, legislative drafts, contact details and, most sensitively, Director Brennan’s background security clearance questionnaire.

    Members of CWA claimed to have gained access to a range of US government and law enforcement information by persuading individuals to hand over credentials over the course of late 2015 and early 2016, including the Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal (LEEP), which shares resources between law enforcement, intelligence and other US government agencies. Director Brennan admitted that CWA had shown up just how vulnerable government officials were to attacks that fell well below the sophistication of nation state actors, in part through the use of obsolete online services. In turn, the FBI was obliged to remind government and law enforcement employees about the importance of exercising basic information security standards across their personal email and social media accounts.

    Since Feburary 2016, five people have been arrested in relation to CWA – three in the UK and two, including Justin Liverman, in the United States. Following his arrest in September 2016, Justin is facing potential CFAA charges in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He is represented by Tor Ekeland, Jay Leiderman and Maria Medvin and urgently needs funds to pay for his legal defence and expenses ahead of his forthcoming court dates.


  8. We absolutely love your blog and find a lot of your post’s to be what precisely I’m looking for.
    can you offer guest writers to write content for you?
    I wouldn’t mind creating a post or elaborating on many of the subjects you write concerning here.

    Again, awesome blog!

  9. No man suffers injustice without learning, vaguely but surely, what justice is. ~Isaac Rosenfeld

    Somebody recently figured out that we have 35 million laws to enforce the ten commandments. ~Attributed to both Bert Masterson and Earl Wilson

    I’ve never had a problem with drugs. I’ve had problems with the police. ~Keith Richards

    There is plenty of law at the end of a nightstick. ~Grover Whalen

    In the Halls of Justice the only justice is in the halls. ~Lenny Bruce

  10. Justice is incidental to law and order. ~John Edgar Hoover

    Justice may be blind, but she has very sophisticated listening devices. ~Edgar Argo

  11. Ab initio

    A Latin term meaning “from the beginning.” Used to indicate that some fact existed from the start of a relevant time period.

    civil procedure
    criminal law
    criminal procedure
    legal theory
    civil procedure
    courts and procedure
    criminal law and procedure

  12. “Dynamite Charge” jury instruction

    Allen Charge

    An instruction given by a court to a deadlocked jury to encourage it to continue deliberating until it reaches a verdict. Some states prohibit Allen charges, because they deem them coercive, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their use in Allen v. U.S., 164 U.S. 492 (1896). Also called dynamite charge, nitroglycerine charge, shotgun charge, and third-degree instruction.

    Illustrative caselaw

    See, e.g. Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988) and Allen v. U.S., 164 U.S. 492 (1896).

    See also

    Hung jury
    Jury instruction


  13. Aid and Abet

    To assist someone in committing or encourage someone to commit a crime. Generally, an aider and abettor is criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Also called “aid or abet” and “counsel and procure.”

    Illustrative case law

    See, e.g. Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC, v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. 552 U.S. 148 (2008).

    See also


    1. Sorry for the huge review, but I’m really loving the new artices, and hope this, as well as the excellent reviews some other people have written, will help you decide if it’s the right choice for you.

  14. Abscond

    Leaving a jurisdiction secretly or suddenly, e.g. to avoid service of process, arrest, or prosecution; or leaving with another person’s money or property.

    Illustrative caselaw

    See, e.g. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001).

  15. Aggravating Factor
    Any fact or circumstance that increases the severity or culpability of a criminal act. Aggravating factors include recidivism, lack of remorse, amount of harm to the victim, or committing the crime in front of a child, among many others. The recognition of particular aggravating factors varies by jurisdiction.

    See also Mitigating Factor, Criminal Procedure, and the Death Penalty.

    criminal law
    criminal procedure
    criminal law and procedure

  16. Accessory After The Fact

    Someone who assists another 1) who has committed a felony, 2) after the person has committed the felony, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the felony, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment. An accessory after the fact may be held liable for, inter alia, obstruction of justice.

    Illustrative case law

    See, e.g. Com. v. Dalton, 259 Va. 249 (2000).

  17. Section 1.

    All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    Section 2.

    The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

    No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

    Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

    When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

    The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

    Section 3.

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

    Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

    No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

    The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

    The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

    The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

    Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

    Section 4.

    The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

    The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

    Section 5.

    Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

    Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

    Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

    Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

    Section 6.

    The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

    No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

    Section 7.

    All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

    Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

    Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

    Section 8.

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

    To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

    To establish post offices and post roads;

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

    To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

    To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

    To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

    Section 9.

    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

    No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

    No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

    No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

    No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

    Section 10.

    No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

    No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

    No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

  18. Attorney in Fact

    An agent authorized to act on behalf of another person, but not necessarily authorized to practice law, e.g. a person authorized to act by a power of attorney. An attorney in fact is a fiduciary. Also known as attorney-in-fact or private attorney.

    For example, Person A might give a power of attorney to Person B that allows Person B to manage Person A’s bank accounts. In this example, Person A is the principal, and Person B is the attorney in fact.

    Illustrative caselaw

    See, e.g. Sperry v. State of Fla. ex. rel Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963).

  19. Attorney General

    The chief law enforcement officer of the federal government or a state. The U.S. Attorney General represents the United States in litigation, oversees federal prosecutors, and advises the President and heads of federal, executive departments on legal matters. State attorneys general represent their states in litigation, oversee prosecutors, and advise members of their states’ executive branches on legal matters.

    Illustrative caselaw

    See, e.g. Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass’n, L.L.C., 129 S.Ct. 2710 (2009).

  20. 1) Poroshenko should realize the gravity of what he has done and step down for the good of his country. Trump will hold a grudge against Poroshenko forever, and seek to undermine any government that includes him and his allies. The Kiev junta is over and Ukraine’s only future with America lies in men who have not insulted my President.

    2) Trump admires strength and independence– nationalist militants should fill the ranks of power. Trump is a nationalist and strongly supported Brexit. Trump and his people like independent European nation states and oppose globalism. If you put Pravy Sektor men in power, it will give an image appealing to Western nationalists.

    3) Develop support amongst the alternative right. Trump’s first political support base was far right Internet commentators and reactionary labor movements. It remains his core political base. Oleksandr Muzychko was the only Ukrainian appreciated by the alt-right and he was murdered. Most in the alt-right think he was silenced for his vocal opposition to so many Jews seizing power in Ukraine. Trump’s political base wants to see the kind of spirited resistance to Jewish Communists that Muzychko displayed. Ukraine needs to find more men like him and make sure they adequately communicate their ideals to both Ukrainian and American audiences.

    The clock is ticking. Ukrainian leaders stand idle, waiting to see what changes. Ukraine suffers an ill fate because its leaders backed the wrong horse. Ukraine still may change course, but the shadow of Moscow grows longer every hour. Inaction will lead to ruin.

  21. I am an American. I have lived in Ukraine for over a year now. I love this country and its people so much I decided to stay forever. I have never felt as much at home as when I am in this country. I will be buried within sight of the Dnieper.

    I am a political analyst for a living. I spent the last year making large amounts of money betting on the success of Donald Trump. The writing was on the wall for anyone who understood the American people. I kept telling people here we were electing Trump and I was laughed at. Your media insulted Trump and praised Hillary Clinton. Your leaders attacked Trump in vile and cowardly ways. Your ambassador insulted Trump in public.

    I love my President as much as I love Ukraine. This presents a problem. My President hates your President. Your leaders have made grave mistakes. Just as I warned your country and its media about the impending election of Donald Trump, I will now warn it once more. I worry that war will come. I love my city and will not leave it. I want this place to succeed, and it will need America’s help to do so.

    When your leaders allied themselves with Hillary Clinton, they made themselves part of a coalition of the worst people in America. The kind of people that voted for Hillary Clinton were chiefly homosexuals, childless insane women, drug dealers, pimps, and niggers who wanted free money from our government so they did not have to get a job. The image of Ukraine’s leaders to any red blooded American now is now tainted with the association of Hillary’s sick and degenerate voter base. My American friends talk of Ukraine with contempt in their voice. They only know the men in Kiev who attacked their beloved leader, men they know to be a part of Clinton’s international network of corruption.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *