WHEN LETHAL FORCE IS LEGAL AND MORAL

By KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

The defining standard in law for determining whether lethal force is legally justified is as follows: if a person has a reasonable belief that his life (or another’s) is in jeopardy, he can use lethal force to protect his own life or another’s life. This legal standard is also the same moral standard. It is natural law. It is an inherent right of justice. It is a right of self-defense that pertains to all people; it is not just applicable to the profession of law enforcement…Was lethal force justified in the Kenosha, WI shooting? At this point, we do not have enough information to reach a conclusion because politicians are withholding evidence as a part of a diabolical scheme to further the civil unrest occurring in cities throughout the U.S. Here’s what we do know:

The police lawfully responded to a call related to alleged domestic violence. They encountered the suspect, Jacob Blake, who they apparently had probable cause to arrest. Blake violently resisted arrest. He had told the police officers that he had a knife in his car. He quickly rushed into his car, reaching for something. It is unclear from the videos what items were in the immediate vicinity in the area of the vehicle where he was reaching. A police officer shot him several times. A knife was later recovered under a floorboard in the vehicle. Blake has a substantial criminal history, including violent crimes and sex crimes.

Does the fact that Blake – an individual with a violent criminal history – violently resisted arrest legally (or morally) justify the police officer using lethal force?

Absolutely not…Why?…Because such would not lead a person to have a reasonable belief that his life (or another’s) was in jeopardy.

In adding to the equation that Blake told the police that he had a knife in his car – plus that he quickly rushed to the car and reached in – do those cumulative facts render a reasonable belief that a person’s life is in jeopardy?…Perhaps (depending upon what additional evidence may exist)…First, the obvious: it’s wholly logical that any normal-thinking person, under those very specific circumstances, would form a reasonable conclusion that Blake was reaching for the knife. Given that particular police officer’s very close proximity to Blake, he could have quickly and easily been stabbed to death. That said, should the officer have been that close to Blake? Should he have let Blake run to the car and stepped back, wherein he was at such a distance that Blake could not immediately stab him (thus removing the possibility that his life was in danger from a knife)? Those questions seem plausible, but a quick analysis renders the following rational conclusions:

In the balancing test, the police officer should, indeed, have followed Blake to the car for not only his own protection, but the protection of the other police officers on site and, more so, all of the civilian bystanders. In that moment, if he had let Blake go into the car unchecked, several terrible things could have occurred (by this known man with a violent criminal history, who had violently resisted arrest – and who had told police he had a knife in the vehicle). Blake could have grabbed that knife and came out quickly slashing (at one of many people) and stabbed someone before police could subdue him. Worse, who is to say that a knife is the only weapon he had in the car? Although it turned out that no other weapon was found, any logical-thinking person would conclude that this individual could have had a gun as well. Accordingly, under the totality of the circumstances, it was not only lawful for the police officer to follow Blake to the car and attempt to stop him from entering, but it was the right choice as well. But does this all mean that he was ultimately justified in shooting Blake?

Is knowing that a man (1) with a violent criminal history; (2) who was violently resisting arrest; (3) who told police he has a knife in the car; and (4) who quickly rushes into the car to grab something – enough factors for the officer to use lethal force? Do the totality of those circumstances – without any additional factors – result in a person having a reasonable belief that his life (or another’s) is in jeopardy, where he is justified to shoot to kill? While it is understandable that the police officer would, naturally, be frightened in that circumstance, the answer is “no.” The police officer had the legal right to follow Blake to the car, to try to stop him from entering the car, and to try to prevent him from grabbing something in it. However, if there were no indicia that he was reaching for a knife, gun, or other deadly weapon, then the police officer was not justified in shooting him.

All that said, no one yet knows if the police officer saw something that a reasonable person would believe was a deadly weapon. If it turns out that this one additional piece of evidence exists (which it may), then the police officer would have had a reasonable belief that his life (or another’s) was in jeopardy and, thus, the shooting was justified. For example, if, in Blake’s immediate reach was that knife (or something that looked like a knife or gun at a quick glance) then, under all of those circumstances, the police officer would have that reasonable belief. It should be noted that it is irrelevant – both legally and morally – if the item turned out to be harmless (e.g., a flashlight or cell phone). As tragic as it is – IF – under the totality of those circumstances, a person reasonably concluded that the flashlight/cell phone was a lethal weapon, then the shooting would be justified…And there is other additional evidence that could have made the shooting justified.

What if while Blake was rushing to the car, he said something to the extent of that “I’m getting that knife and killing you” or “I’m grabbing my gun and blowing someone’s head off” or one of many similar terroristic threats? Under the totality of the circumstances, where there is a man (1) with a violent criminal history; (2) who was violently resisting arrest; (3) who told police he has a knife in the car;  (4) who quickly rushes into the car to grab something – PLUS who reaches for something that a reasonable person believe looks like a deadly weapon and/or who simultaneously threatens to use a deadly weapon to kill someone – is that enough to render a reasonable belief that the officer’s life (or another’s life) is in jeopardy? The answer is “yes” – of course it does…Please note the fact that Blake was shot in his back is obviously irrelevant in this analysis. Where else would he be shot under these circumstances? If a person had a reasonable belief that he was grabbing a deadly weapon under these specific circumstances, the back is exactly where he would be justifiably shot; if not, he could have quickly and easily turned around with the deadly weapon and killed the officer or another person.

But…

No one knows, yet, if either of those above-described additional factors exist. If they do exist, the shooting was justifiable (legally and morally) self-defense. If they do not exist, then the shooting was not justifiable because, under all the circumstances, he would not have held the requisite reasonable belief that his life (or another’s) was in jeopardy. In such a case, he would be guilty of an aggravated assault; if Blake had died, the police officer would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter or manslaughter because the killing would be a reckless act.

Why race has been brought into this matter is mind-boggling. There is ZERO evidence that the police officer’s actions in this matter – lawful or not – were rooted in racism. Any rational – and honest – person would conclude that the officer would have acted in the exact same manner if Blake was brown, white, yellow, black, red, etc—because there is nothing to indicate otherwise. I have written multiple highly-researcher articles where I provide the FACTS and STATISTICS showing that there is absolutely NO evidence that police shootings are grounded in racial intent; the few unlawful police shootings are rooted in power abuse which is race-blind (see another article of mine, Power Abuse, Not Racism, Is the Cause of Unlawful Killings; Race-Baiters Making Wrongful Accusations Against Entire Law Enforcement Community, if you are interested in the truth)…Plastic elected officials, muddled mainstream media, and the intellectually devoid at educational institutions are, with evil, agenda-driven intent, exploiting certain, hand-picked shootings and attempting to propagandize the public (the real people) into believing falsehoods. Their goal is a frightening, unsavory one of seeking separatism and divide; it is one designed to perpetuate a race war. This is a fictitious race war: and that is because the vast, vast majority of Americans (including police officers) are NOT racists. That said, there is, of course, racism that exists in all people (of all races) – and in equal amounts. All of it is to be condemned. Let’s jointly condemn it and, at the same time, not allow the race-baiters to succeed in their propaganda.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

Kenneth Del Vecchio is the author of some of the nation’s best-selling legal books, including a series of criminal codebooks published by Pearson Education/Prentice Hall and ALM/New Jersey & New York Law Journal Books. He is a former judge, a former prosecutor and a practicing criminal/commercial litigation attorney for 25 years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases; he is partner in the prestigious law firm, Stern, Kilcullen & Rufolo.  Mr. Del Vecchio is also an acclaimed filmmaker who has written, produced and directed over 30 movies that star several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees. His films are distributed through industry leaders such as Sony Pictures, Lionsgate, NBCUniversal, Cinedigm, and eOne Entertainment. He has starred in numerous movies, as well. A best-selling political thriller novelist, he penned his first published novel at only 24-years old. Additionally, Mr. Del Vecchio is the founder and chairman of Hoboken International Film Festival, called by FOX, Time Warner, and other major media “One of the 10 Biggest Film Festivals in the World.”  A regular legal and political  analyst on the major news networks who has appeared on hundreds of shows, Mr. Del Vecchio formerly served as the publisher and editorial page editor for a New Jersey daily newspaper. 

MASKS ‘R US: MEDICAL FACTS SAY OTHERWISE

By KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

Fearmongers – comprised of plastic politicians, the misinformation mainstream media, Hollywood hoaxsters, and so-called academic elites – have orchestrated an organized effort to make people believe that the wearing of masks, in public places, is necessary in the battle against the coronavirus. Their fraudulent posturing, however, is not grounded in any science or medicine; contrary to their propaganda, the vast majority of medical doctors and scientists state that masks do, literally, nothing to protect wearers from being infected with COVID-19. A simple, thorough Google search will result in easily obtaining this uniform, critical information.

The proposed mask-wearing mandate is so farcical that even the government’s propounded chief epidemiologist expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, told the public, on March 8, that masks do almost zero – anyone can watch his refutation of masks commentary here in a CBS “60 Minutes” interview, where he affirmatively said, “There is no reason to be walking around with a mask.” It is indeed correct that Dr. Fauci, like in so many other matters, later reversed himself. His reversal, however, is quite notable in that he specifically stated, in this NBC News TV appearance, “Early on, when we were in a situation in which there was a real concern about the lack of personal protective equipment on the part of the health providers who needed it who put themselves in harm’s way every day to take care of people who were ill with this virus that we were thinking we would run out of masks and other things for them so the recommendation was not to wear a mask because of the shortage of it…”

Dr. Fauci, accordingly, has told the American public that on March 8 (when he proclaimed “There is no reason to be walking around with a mask”), he actually thought that masks were necessary for all people–but that he hid such from Americans because he didn’t want a mask shortage for medical personnel to occur? This clear-cut contradiction renders a complete lack of credibility in his words about masks. It’s not as if the doctor claimed that he later learned something “new” about mask-wearing; rather, he simply told America that he, initially, purposefully provided inaccurate information…Whoa…The bottom line: the wearing of masks, obviously, cannot, in reality, be necessary in Dr. Fauci’s view. If they were truly needed, would the country’s top government-employed epidemiologist – a man who appears to be a good human being – actually advise the masses that masks do almost nothing and are unnecessary? Nah, the in-your-face reality is that he, simply, believes what he told everyone on March 8–that masks are not needed.

More so, nearly every non-government doctor (i.e., doctors who are not involved in politics) have refuted the notion that masks assist in protecting the wearers from contracting the coronavirus. The masks have the same effect against the coronavirus as they do for the flu and other diseases that are transmitted from person-to-person. The coronavirus and the flu should both be taken seriously. That said, Americans do not, and should not, don face masks because of the existence of the flu (or other similar viruses prevalent in society). Likewise, Americans should not be compelled to strap face coverings across their heads because of the coronavirus, a disease that, factually, has turned out to have a lower death rate than the flu. The detriments in wearing face masks far supersede any purported benefit in the compulsion of wearing them.

Aside from the overwhelming medical and scientific data that face masks do not act to inhibit wearers from contracting COVID-19, it is vital to explain that face masks cause many people to suffer debilitating symptoms and to be infected with other diseases that are at least equally problematic to human beings as the coronavirus. A significant percentage of people wearing face masks become disoriented, confused, and fatigued. They suffer from dehydration, and, most palpably, they are continually breathing in excessive amounts of their own carbon dioxide, which, so obviously, creates health problems. These detrimental health issues caused by individuals being forced to wear masks have been documented by voluminous, unbiased physicians and scientists, wherein examples of such reports can be found in the below articles and TV appearances:

Reality Check with Ben Swann: The Science Behind Why Face Masks Don’t Work

River City Reader – Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy – by Denis Rancourt, Ph.D, a former professor at University of Ottawa and current researcher at Ontario Civil Liberties Association:

LivingwitnessTV.com – 7 Long Term Side Effects of Wearing Face Masks – this video encapsulates information first provided by MSN.com:

London Real – Why You Shouldn’t Wear Facemasks: Media Misinformation Will Make People Sick – by Dr. Rashid Buttar

Laura Ingraham on The Ingraham Angle on Fox News Channel

Very sadly, the confounding dubious activities of the plastic politicians, the misinformation mainstream media, Hollywood hoaxsters, so-called academic elites – and mindless social media warriors – have fruited in otherwise thoughtful, intelligent people believing that masks are a benefit. The factual scientific data, ultimately, should lead such individuals away from the propaganda-wielding politicos and back to rationale. The agenda of the politicos is one that is simply rooted in their underlying namesake, to wit, “politics.” Beyond all else, it is unnerving that, like multiple times in nefarious history, when politicos sought to “mark” their populations with a symbol or item, all said populations succumbed to being ruled over by dictatorships.

A summary in layman’s terms:

Masks are not only unnecessary, but they are detrimental to people’s health – and they are awful scary.

Kenneth Del Vecchio is the author of some of the nation’s best-selling legal books, including a series of criminal codebooks published by Pearson Education/Prentice Hall and ALM/New Jersey & New York Law Journal Books. He is a former judge, a former prosecutor and a practicing criminal/commercial litigation attorney for 25 years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases; he is partner in the prestigious law firm, Stern, Kilcullen & Rufolo.  Mr. Del Vecchio is also an acclaimed filmmaker who has written, produced and directed over 30 movies that star several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees. His films are distributed through industry leaders such as Sony Pictures, NBCUniversal, Cinedigm, and eOne Entertainment. He has starred in numerous movies, as well. A best-selling political thriller novelist, he penned his first published novel at only 24-years old. Additionally, Mr. Del Vecchio is the founder and chairman of Hoboken International Film Festival, called by FOX, Time Warner, and other major media “One of the 10 Biggest Film Festivals in the World.”  A regular legal and political  analyst on the major news networks who has appeared on hundreds of shows, Mr. Del Vecchio formerly served as the publisher and editorial page editor for a New Jersey daily newspaper. 

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

10TH AMENDMENT IS GUIDING IN TODAY’S CRAZINESS AND ALWAYS

By TEMPLE LI

As many states’ governors have turned the 10th amendment on its head, asserting states rights in an undeniably reckless manner, in handing down stay at home and other liberty-limiting orders in the Covid-19 crisis, it is a good time to evaluate the usual issues that arise via the use/misuse of this often forgotten constitutional provision. Although in today’s strange world liberals are invoking the 10th Amendment’s tenets (ordinarily, they are all for an expansive federal government and attempt to shirk valid 10th Amendment arguments), conservatives have been the longstanding proponents of states’ rights.

There is a 13-letter Latin motto, used on the Great Seal of the U.S., representing the 13 original states uniting under one government—“out of many, one.” It is instructive

Fast forward to 2020, 50 states and the District of Columbia in chaos and crisis, hardly united under a corrupt political system of politicians, many of whom have remained in the government far too long for the purpose of personal profit, financial gain and power grabs.  Fifty states are at lager heads with the government and among themselves on major issues which affect the moral fiber of our country, failing to find common ground and reach any consensus.   This is clearly demonstrated by looking at the wide divide when it comes to policies on marijuana, sanctuary cities and abortion.

The country is currently facing a major opioid epidemic, which has grown over the last 20 years since “pain” became the 5th vital sign.  Proponents of medical marijuana usage would have you believe that is a substitute for opioids in relieving pain.  According to the Missouri State Medical Association in their May-June, 2018 Journal of Missouri Medicine, marijuana is a companion drug to opioids and does not result in the decrease of opioid usage.  In 2017, Colorado reported a record number of deaths from opioids, including heroin; yet they have had a medical marijuana program in place since 2001. The current body of evidence supporting cannabis as a treatment for pain is based on 28 studies comprised of 68 reports and 2,554 patients.  Contradictory evidence based on the study of 33,000 people demonstrates that cannabis contributes to opioid overdosing.

Regardless of your belief as to marijuana medicinal attributes, it is abundantly clear that both the medical and recreational use of marijuana have substantially increased the coffers of those states where it is legalized.  In California, with a state tax of 15% on marijuana as both a recreational and medical drug, the state boasts $2.75 billion in sales.  Given that kind of revenue it is understandable that state legislatures would turn a blind eye to any body of evidence which support the negative results of marijuana usage. Despite many states’ acceptance of cannabis for medical use and others for recreational use as well, under federal law, it is still illegal and treated as any other controlled substance, including heroin and cocaine.   According to a map developed by DISA Global studies, twelve states currently have laws making marijuana illegal; 28 states have legalized marijuana for medical use and 13 of these states have reduced penalties related to its recreational use, while 11 states have fully legalized cannabis both for recreational and medical use.

What about “sanctuary” cities?  Those cities, counties and states which have polices and laws preventing local and state law enforcement agencies from cooperating with Federal agents related to the harboring of illegal immigrants are considered as “sanctuaries” for these aliens.  This then makes it more difficult for the Federal government to enforce immigration laws; often results in harm caused to American citizens and encourages the continued influx of illegal immigrants into the U.S.  According to CNN Politics, 6/14/2018, currently, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee have banned sanctuary cities, while California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington are pro sanctuary states.

Finally, abortion, which through Roe vs Wade, a legal decision made in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court striking down a Texas law banning abortion, made this procedure legal in the United States  and protected under Federal law.  However, according to a Marist Poll taken in mid-February, 2019, equal numbers of those polled—47% each– were pro-life or supported abortion.  This was a dramatic difference from the same poll done in early January which showed 55% were pro-abortion and 38% pro-life.  According to Barbara Carvalho, poll director, in media release from the Knight of Columbus, the poll sponsor, “current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced, and very measurable, way,” Additionally, the poll reported “that among Democrats, the gap between people who identify as pro-life and those who support abortion was cut in half from 55 percent to 27 percent. The number of Democrats who identify as pro-life stood at 34 percent, up from 20 percent in January. Similarly the number of Democrats who said they support abortion fell to 61 percent from 75 percent.”  According to NPR, nine states have passed laws to outlaw abortion—Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia—while nine state have passed laws with no limits on abortion– Illinois, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont, along with D.C.

E Pluribus Unum?  Hardly!

Temple Li is the news editor for Empire State News, where she frequently authors her own editorials (just because she feels like it). She graduated at the top of her class at a mediocre college, infuriating her professors with her conservative wit and sultry charm. Empire State News allows Ms. Li to make a living, and to have a platform to tell people what she thinks. What could be better than that?

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.             

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

POWER ABUSE, NOT RACISM, IS THE CAUSE OF UNLAWFUL KILLINGS; RACE-BAITERS MAKING WRONGFUL ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ENTIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY

By KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

The Minneapolis police officer who killed a forgery suspect is guilty of a homicide. The video evidence is conclusive. While, thus far, there is no evidence that the victim resisted, it should be understood that it is absolutely irrelevant if he had resisted earlier in the arrest. The neck-breaking misconduct by this officer was not only wholly unnecessary, but it was an act of pure, power-abusing evil. This man was properly arrested and appropriately charged (it looks to be a manslaughter rather than murder, but the evaluation of more evidence is required to make that distinction). The police officers who stood by and did nothing in the way of stopping their counterpart’s illicit behavior may be guilty of crimes as well, but , in any case, they should be fired.

All that said, people should not be condemning law enforcement officers, as a group, for the horrid act of this one officer (and the uncaring, negligence of those who watched). Yes, there are a certain percentage of law enforcement officers – and those in careers of my own (prosecutors and judges) – who are, in layman’s terms, bad people—who abuse their power. Most police officers, prosecutors, and judges, however, are good people—who seek justice and to better others’ lives.

A few critical FACTS:

(1) In the last year, 19 unarmed white people – and 9 unarmed black people – were killed by police officers;

(2) Overall, significantly more white people (armed and unarmed) were killed by police officers in the last year – and every year for decades;

(3) White people are killed at a higher rate by white police officers than black people are killed by white police officers. Meaning, black people are not killed at higher rate by WHITE police officers than white people who are killed by white police officers;

(4) Black people are killed at a higher rate by NON-white police officers than by white officers;

(5) There were approximately 1,000 people who were killed by police officers in the last year, the great majority of which were white. The vast majority of those killed were armed – and the killings were justified by self-defense or defense of others (in other words, protecting others’ lives);

(6) 12 per ONE MILLION is the ratio of whites killed by ALL police officers (NON-white & white)…and 30 per ONE MILLION is the ratio of blacks killed by ALL police officers (NON-white & white)…thus constituting statistically equivalent figures;

(7) While there were approximately 1,000 people killed by police officers in the past year, THOUSANDS more black people were killed by other black people (by NON-police officers). Similarly, THOUSANDS more white people were killed by other white people (by NON-police officers);

(8) There are over 325 MILLION people in the United States – and yet only approximately 15,000 people were evil enough to commit homicides last year (the vast majority of which were black-on-black and white-on-white homicides).

Accordingly, race is NOT the factor – and it is power abuse where law enforcement is involved. And power abuse does not discriminate; it crosses all racial and ethnic lines.

Now, where do all those above-cited FACTUAL statistics come from?…They come from THE WASHINGTON POST – one of the most liberal newspapers in the country.

Conclusion: People have been lied to by propagandist politicos. A fictitious race war has been created by these hateful people whose goal is to cause separatism and divide among the races. In face of these FACTS, anyone who claims that racism is the basis behind police killings is a racist himself/herself or a complete and utter idiot; they are not idiots or racists, of course, had they not evaluated the above FACTS – but, if they now know them, and choose to ignore them, they are racists and/or idiots.

Defunding the police is not the answer. It is a wildly insane idea. The vast majority of police work is the obvious: protection of the people in the communities they serve. It’s responding to complaints of criminal activity, uncovering criminal activity through investigative measures, stopping criminal activity while it is in progress, and answering calls where individuals’ lives are at jeopardy (not just from crimes, but for emergencies of all types). Police officers SAVE thousands upon thousands of lives yearly, while, some, at times, actually put their own lives in jeopardy. Who would do this in their stead? Some pot-smoking, jobless, untrained anarchists? While adjustments can – and should – be made in policing (and in the prosecution and judiciary fields), defunding the police is the categorically inapposite to the best interests of ALL Americans.

Plastic elected officials, muddled mainstream media, and the intellectually devoid at educational instructions are, with wrongful, agenda-driven intent, exploiting a tragedy and attempting to propagandize the public (the real people) into believing falsehoods. Their goal is a frightening, unsavory one of seeking separatism and divide; it is one designed to perpetuate a race war. This is a phony race war: and that is because the vast, vast majority of Americans are NOT racists. Of course, racism exists, in small percentages, in all groups of people (of all races) – and in equal amounts. All of it is to be condemned. However, Americans should not allow the race-baiters, in either direction, to succeed in their propaganda. Instead, Americans should seek to prosper together, as a free, liberty-based group of human beings. A group who seek justice. And justice in this case is seeing the power-abusing police officer from Minneapolis face a homicide prosecution, while not inciting and perpetuating another bogus race battle (and instead coming together, rather than dividing).

Kenneth Del Vecchio is the author of some of the nation’s best-selling legal books, including a series of criminal codebooks published by Pearson Education/Prentice Hall and ALM/New Jersey & New York Law Journal Books. He is a former judge, a former prosecutor and a practicing criminal/commercial litigation attorney for 25 years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases; he is partner in the prestigious law firm, Stern, Kilcullen & Rufolo.  Mr. Del Vecchio is also an acclaimed filmmaker who has written, produced and directed over 30 movies that star several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees. His films are distributed through industry leaders such as Sony Pictures, NBCUniversal, Cinedigm, and eOne Entertainment. He has starred in numerous movies, as well. A best-selling political thriller novelist, he penned his first published novel at only 24-years old. Additionally, Mr. Del Vecchio is the founder and chairman of Hoboken International Film Festival, called by FOX, Time Warner, and other major media “One of the 10 Biggest Film Festivals in the World.”  A regular legal and political  analyst on the major news networks who has appeared on hundreds of shows, Mr. Del Vecchio formerly served as the publisher and editorial page editor for a New Jersey daily newspaper. 

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

POLL INDICATES THAT STALWART CANDIDATE ANNE MARIE GENNUSA IS HEADING FOR VICTORY IN PUBLIC DEFENDER CONTEST

By CANDY STALLWORTH

Going into Tuesday’s election for Public Defender in Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit, Anne Marie Gennusa has a commanding lead in the polls over her rivals. In the most recent poll, which was posted on the St. Johns County Chamber of Commerce website, the results were as follows:

Anne Marie Gennusa – 51.20%

Matt Metz – 27.33%

George Burden – 21.47%

The above numbers were for the entire 7th Judicial Circuit. The results for just St. Johns County were nearly identical, with Gennusa netting 49.51% of the votes; Metz obtained only 27.76% of the tally, with Burden getting just 22.73% of the votes.

The poll had a sizable sampling for a contest of this size: 1127 votes were cast in this poll. Thus, this is likely a good indicator that Gennusa will be victorious in the election on Tuesday. Several Facebook posters have noted that they already have cast votes for Gennusa (there has been early voting) and others have stated that they will be voting for her on Tuesday.

If Gennusa wins, she will be the first woman ever elected as public defender in Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit. She would also be the first-ever St. Johns County resident to win the position.

Empire State News has been following this election, previously reporting the following:

In 1999, Gennusa moved to Florida, where she started a renowned criminal defense/family law practice after a short stint with the state attorney’s office. For the last 20 years, she has been one of the most recognizable legal faces in the courts of Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit. Unlike her competitors (Burden and Metz), Gennusa brings a wide-ranging legal skill set into this contest. While she has considerable public defender experiences, she is not a career staffer; this is very beneficial in ultimately becoming the leader of a public defender’s office. In having handled thousands of cases in total (and trying hundreds of those cases), she has covered, with superior expertise, a breadth of matters in private criminal and family law matters, as well as being proficient in multiple other practice areas. This has resulted in Gennusa becoming an eminent member of the Florida bar, who is familiar to a large range of lawyers. In being the Public Defender, that leadership position requires much more than just a knowledge of the office. Most career staff workers do not have the requisite legal – and business – range to head such a large office. Gennusa, with both the public defender office and private representation pedigree, over 25 years, is the only candidate in this race with such qualifications.

Candy Stallworth, an Empire State News staff writer, whipped her way through a doctoral education at the finest of American higher ed institutions, noting how unoriginal, inept, and annoying many of the schools’ professors were in their robotic attempts to maintain a politically correct narrative. BTW: she hates words like “narrative”, “optics”, and “gaffe.” Other than that, her turn-offs include non-masculine men, women who hate men, men who hate men, phonies, disloyal people, and overflowing garbage cans. She likes New England clam chowder better than Manhattan clam chowder, but prefers Manhattan to New England.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

THE MEDIA CARES MORE ABOUT SAVING THEIR ANTI-TRUMP NARRATIVE THAN ALL THE LIVES HE HELPED SAVE FROM THE VIRUS

By ROBERT ROMANO

When the national lockdown began about a month ago, with the federal, state and local governments, the military, the private sector and the American people all combining resources to win the war on the Chinese coronavirus, the predictions could not have been more dire.

If nothing was done, more than 2 million Americans, mostly elderly, would die. Without testing, the pandemic would quickly spread beyond control. There were no effective treatments. We would soon run out of hospital beds and ventilators.

Instead, thanks to the effective leadership of President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and the task force, timely action by state governors to close schools and non-essential businesses, private sector mobilization on testing, new treatments and war-time production of needed medical equipment including ventilators, and military coordination to bring in Navy hospital ships, medical supplies and additional medical personnel on the ground locally where the virus was surging, none of that has happened. But can the media admit President Trump did a good job?

To be certain, the toll has already been great, with more than 40,000 who have tragically perished. But not because we ran out of supplies.

As noted by New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo on April 6 as New York, the hardest hit state, was approaching its own peak in hospitalizations, “The challenge is to make sure that we don’t lose anyone who could’ve been saved if our healthcare system was operating fully. Don’t lose anyone who you could save. That is a legitimate, ambitious goal of government. And that we have done so far. That we have done so far. Have we saved everyone? No. But have we lost anyone because we didn’t have a bed or we didn’t have a ventilator or we didn’t have healthcare staff? No. The people we lost are the people we couldn’t save.”

Cuomo added on April 19, saying it was the combined efforts of everyone, from federal to the states to the people, that had worked, “What the federal government did working with states… was a phenomenal accomplishment. We bent the curve, we flattened the curve. Government did it, people did it… We had to double the hospital capacity in New York State, that’s what all the experts said. [The] President brought in the Army Corps of Engineers, they built 2,500 beds at Javits… It was a phenomenal accomplishment. Close to a thousand people have gone through Javits. Luckily, we didn’t need the 2,500 beds, but all the projections said we did need it, and more, by the way. So, these were extraordinary efforts and acts of mobilization and the federal government stepped up, and was a great partner, and I’m the first one to say it. We needed help and they were there.”

These two clips were played at the White House coronavirus task force press conference by President Trump on April 19, and you would think, based on the reporter reactions, that the news was not that hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved, directly linked to the unprecedented actions that have been undertaken by President Trump, his team, the military, states, doctors and nurses and the American people, but that President Trump might get his share of the political credit for it in November.

That’s right, the politically motivated Tokyo Rose mainstream media is more concerned about preserving its anti-Trump narrative to help Joe Biden win the election this year than about reporting accurately on all the lives that have been saved. They just want to demoralize people and attempt to control public attitudes towards the President.

The thing is, by contributing to the public panic and mass hysteria surrounding the virus, the media helped to set the national agenda on this issue, and then by pitting it as a choice between the economy or lives, primed the issue and the standards by which the President would be evaluated on it. President Trump chose to save lives every step of the way.

In the meantime, with 22 million jobs already lost on account of all the government-directed closures, perhaps not just the media but the entire country should hope the President at least gets a little credit for these efforts. Next time, the virus might target children instead of the elderly. This has to be economically and politically sustainable, or it will never be attempted again. Something to think about.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. You can read more of his articles at www.DailyTorch.com. 

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

HOW NEITHER TRUMP NOR BIDEN HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES

By KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

With the farcical impeachment debacle now long over, and a presidential race that is ultimately featuring Donald Trump versus Joe Biden, it makes sense to analyze their alleged Ukraine misdeeds as, no doubt, these matters will re-surface over and over again during this campaign season. That said, if one REALLY cares about justice, please review the following: A U.S. elected official (e.g., president or other top leader) can legally withhold aid from a foreign country if the foreign country refuses to perform one of countless mandates made by that elected official. In other words, contrary to what the uninformed (or liars) are saying, a quid pro quo is perfectly lawful in numerous circumstances. For example, a president could legally say to a foreign leader that he will withhold a billion dollars in aid: (1) if you don’t return an American fugitive who had committed a crime in the U.S. and fled to a foreign country; OR (2) if you don’t release a wrongfully convicted American citizen from your prison and return him to the U.S.; OR (3) if you don’t eliminate tariffs on U.S. goods; OR (4) if you don’t investigate an American who we believe may have committed a crime in your country; OR (5) if you don’t legalize gay marriage in your country; OR (6) if you don’t cease the development of nuclear weapons; OR (7) if you don’t criminalize heroin use; OR one of numerous other matters.

Get the picture? A quid pro quo is perfectly legally in voluminous situations. Specifically reviewing the Trump and Biden matters again, the following explains how each of these matters are crimes – and how they are not crimes:

If Joe Biden, as Vice President of the U.S., had a good faith, reasonable belief that a Ukrainian prosecutor was illegally investigating his son and/or his son’s company – and he instituted an actual quid pro quo, whereby he threatened to have the U.S. withhold billions of dollars in aid unless the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor – then there is NO crime. It is irrelevant that Biden, in that circumstance, derived a benefit (i.e., the cessation of the investigation into his son/son’s company) from the firing of the prosecutor. The fact that he had another – legally valid – reason (i.e., a good faith, reasonable belief that the prosecutor was committing a corrupt act in illegally investigating his son/son’s company) to have the prosecutor fired, afforded him the legal authority to institute the quid pro quo and thereby refuse to have the U.S. turn over the billions of aid unless the prosecutor was fired. If, however, Biden did not have a good faith, reasonable belief that the prosecutor was illegally investigating his son/son’s company, then the quid pro quo would be unlawful. In that scenario, he would be guilty of a crime for using his power as vice president to threaten that the U.S. would withhold billions of aid unless the prosecutor is fired. There, Biden would be solely extracting a personal benefit (the cessation of an investigation into his son) in exchange for using his elected official powers to provide billions of U.S. government dollars.

The same exact analysis is legally accurate in Donald Trump’s matter. If Trump, as President of the U.S., had a good faith, reasonable belief that Joe Biden committed a crime (by threatening to withhold billions of dollars unless the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor investigating his son) – and he instituted an actual quid pro quo, whereby he threatened to have the U.S. withhold billions of dollars in aid unless the Ukrainian government investigated Biden – then there is NO crime. It is irrelevant that Trump, in that circumstance, may derive an ancillary benefit (i.e., that a potential political opponent may be “politically damaged”) from the investigating of Biden. The fact that he had another – legally valid – reason (i.e., a good faith, reasonable belief that Biden was committing a crime by threatening to withhold billions in aid unless the prosecutor was fired) to have Biden investigated, afforded him the legal authority to institute the quid pro quo and thereby refuse to have the U.S. turn over the billions of aid unless Biden was investigated. If, however, Trump did not have a good faith, reasonable belief that Biden had committed a crime, then the quid pro quo would be unlawful. In that scenario, he would be guilty of a crime for using his power as president to threaten that the U.S. would withhold billions of aid unless Biden was investigated. There, Trump would be solely extracting a personal benefit (the investigation and “political damage” of a potential political opponent) in exchange for using his elected official powers to provide billions of U.S. government dollars.

A few critical notes:

*A qualitative difference between the Biden and Trump matters is that in the Biden case, there was indeed a definitive quid pro quo. Biden can be seen on video explicitly bragging about that the quid pro quo: (a) that he he threatened to withhold billions in U.S. aid if the Ukrainian government didn’t fire the prosecutor; and (b) that the quid quo pro deal was actually consummated, whereby the prosecutor was fired – and the billions in U.S. aid was thereafter paid.  In Trump’s matter, there is no such evidence of a quid pro quo. It’s mere, unsupported speculation. There is no evidence that Trump said anything like, “If you don’t do this (e.g. – investigate Biden), then the U.S. government won’t do that (e.g. – provide billions in aid)”…In any case – whether it is Biden or Trump – as detailed above, the existence of a quid pro quo does not legally mean that a crime has been committed. It MIGHT mean that a crime has been committed (it depends upon the circumstances).

*It is a complete fabrication – and not supported by any law whatsoever – that an elected U.S. official (president, senator, or anyone) cannot ask a foreign government (or the U.S. government) to investigate someone, including a political opponent. A person doesn’t become immune from a president (or any elected official) seeking an investigation into him merely because he declares that he is running for office against that official. Aside from such an argument simply not being rooted in any law, it is, in layman’s terms, completely silly. If Trump had a good faith, reasonable belief that Biden had committed murder or stolen millions of dollars in the Ukraine, he certainly would have the legal right to ask the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden (regardless of Biden’s status as a potential political opponent of his). The nature of the possible crime (murder vs theft vs bribery vs abuse of power) is irrelevant. Any argument to the contrary is, plainly, meritless.

*As an additional note: Biden isn’t even Trump’s opponent. He is a POTENTIAL opponent. Right now, although he is the “presumptive” nominee, he is an opponent of other Democrats in a Democrat primary; when President Trump’s hyped-up conversation with the Ukranian president occurred, there were a slew of Democrats running in the primary, with Biden being just one of them. But, as aforesaid, the “opponent” issue is legally irrelevant under the law.

*Some information about the failed Obstruction of Congress impeachment charge: (1) it is neither a high crime nor misdemeanor; and (2) more so, it was a hoax. Worse, it was an abuse of power by the congressional members who voted for this article of impeachment. Why? Because the alleged Obstruction of Congress charge was based upon Trump’s refusal to respond to subpoenas UNTIL or UNLESS he was ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. There are three branches of the government, not one. When the executive branch disagrees with the legislative branch (as happened here), the dispute – according to the separation of powers defined by the U.S. Constitution – shall be resolved by the third branch of the government (i.e., the judiciary). By Congress not only seeking to deprive President Trump of this constitutional right, but punishing him for it via an impeachment charge, those congressional members have themselves engaged in an abuse of power.

Above and beyond all else, a very dangerous slippery slope has been underway, wherein criminal law is being misused for political gain. People are either wholly ignorant of the law, or worse: they are lying about it. The underpinnings of this impeachment inquiry – that Trump committed a crime in this Ukrainian matter – is legal lunacy. It’s also immoral, as it’s the use of criminal law at its worst. This misuse of criminal law is something that, so unfortunately, has happened countless of times over the years.

All that said, the only time that an elected official or a member of the media – or any member of the public – should claim that someone has committed a crime (or seek a criminal investigation into someone) is where he has a good faith, reasonable belief, rooted in actual evidence, that a crime has been committed. For all other matters, criminal law should not be invoked. Most Americans understand this: any matters, political or otherwise, where criminal law is not applicable, it should not be employed. Arrogance, mixed with stupidity (a very bad combination) has led some people to this misuse of the law.

As many hardworking lawyers and law enforcement personnel have stated many times: falsely accusing someone, forwarding cases based upon unfounded investigations without requisite evidence, carrying out arrests/prosecutions without probable cause, and conducting hearings, etc rooted in inadequate, specious claims are not only violative of our most fundamental constitutional precepts and protections, but has, in recent times – rightfully so – been resulting in the illicit investigators/accusers being investigated and facing legal troubles themselves. This all can stop – for everyone – by simply ending the improper conduct, wherein all can walk into the sunset. That’s the smart move for all; for anyone with commonsense.

Kenneth Del Vecchio is the author of some of the nation’s best-selling legal books, including a series of criminal codebooks published by Pearson Education/Prentice Hall and ALM/New Jersey & New York Law Journal Books. He is a former judge, a former prosecutor and a practicing criminal/commercial litigation attorney for 25 years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases; he is partner in the prestigious law firm, Stern, Kilcullen & Rufolo.  Mr. Del Vecchio is also an acclaimed filmmaker who has written, produced and directed over 30 movies that star several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees. His films are distributed through industry leaders such as Sony Pictures, NBCUniversal, Cinedigm, and eOne Entertainment. He has starred in numerous movies, as well. A best-selling political thriller novelist, he penned his first published novel at only 24-years old. Additionally, Mr. Del Vecchio is the founder and chairman of Hoboken International Film Festival, called by FOX, Time Warner, and other major media “One of the 10 Biggest Film Festivals in the World.”  A regular legal and political  analyst on the major news networks who has appeared on hundreds of shows, Mr. Del Vecchio formerly served as the publisher and editorial page editor for a New Jersey daily newspaper. 

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

STATE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS SHOULD END

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

Short and to the point.

The government, through numerous state edicts, have obliterated Americans First Amendment rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Not being able to move about freely not only sucks, but the current orders that restrict such do not stand constitutional scrutiny. The reasons that state governments have provided for these unprecedented closures have failed from the onset, and monumental evidence has now proven that they are not necessary, not constitutionally lawful, and not wanted by the voters.

Aside from the massive civil rights intrusions, the restrictive orders are, by everyone’s account, destroying the economy. The orders are also causing more health problems and deaths than they are alleged to be preventing.

A few very revealing truths about the coronavirus, which help detail why the state mandated stay at home orders should be lifted, with business and freedoms going back to normal (which is in concert with what most Americans want): 

Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson lays out the reality regarding the actual death rate of the coronavirus: that it is commiserate with the flu. Here is a clip from a recent show, where he is speaking to a Stanford medical doctor, who explains the evidence:

In a recent segment from Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox News, she speaks with Dr. Phil  McGraw, who explains that the amount of deaths caused by the government stay at home/shutdown orders will significantly supersede the deaths caused by the coronavirus itself. 

Daniel Sonninshine is an Empire State News staff writer, who is in search of greatness. A 20-something smart fellow, he is now lifting weights in an effort to obtain more power. If that doesn’t work, he will ask to write more editorials for Empire State News and less fact articles. He also dabbles in film reviews. Favorite flicks include The Godfather, Blazing Saddles, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, It’s a Wonderful Life, and The Passion of the Christ.

CHRISTOPHER SUPRUN IS A TRUE ROCK STAR

By CANDY STALLWORTH

Has anyone ever hit three grand slams in a single baseball game? How many people have climbed Mount Everest in an hour? Count the number of individuals who have:

Won $10,000,000 in a poker game.

Earned $100,000,000 in a movie where he played the lead role.

Designed the largest three buildings in the world.

Scored 10 touch downs in a football game.

Painted a mile-long bridge in three hours.

Swam across the Atlantic – and back – in less than 24 hours.

Well, Christopher Suprun has one it all. He is a real rock star (he’s sung a few thousand sold-out concerts too).

Candy Stallworth, an Empire State News staff writer, whipped her way through a doctoral education at the finest of American higher ed institutions, noting how unoriginal, inept, and annoying many of the schools’ professors were in their robotic attempts to maintain a politically correct narrative. BTW: she hates words like “narrative”, “optics”, and “gaffe.” Other than that, her turn-offs include non-masculine men, women who hate men, men who hate men, phonies, disloyal people, and overflowing garbage cans. She likes New England clam chowder better than Manhattan clam chowder, but prefers Manhattan to New England.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

STANDOUT ATTORNEY ANNE MARIE GENNUSA BEST FOR JUSTICE AND TAXPAYERS IN FLORIDA’S 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT PUBLIC DEFENDER ELECTION

By CANDY STALLWORTH

Not too long ago, Democrats fancied themselves as the protectors of civil liberties. They trumpeted freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. They affirmed that they were leaders in the fortification of the First Amendment. They claimed to fight with rigor against cruel and unusual punishment, citing the power of the Eighth Amendment. They sounded the bells for due process. They argued an American citizen’s rights grounded in the Fifth Amendment: the unconditional right to remain silent and never be compelled to testify in any manner that could incriminate oneself. They asserted that the Fourth Amendment shields against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. They embraced the tenets of the Sixth Amendment, in the sacred democratic-societal right to be represented by counsel. They – they said – were the champions of the criminal defendants.

Yes, Democrats, for so many years, waved – or so it seemed – the flag of the civil libertarians. And wore the cape for those who were in need of criminal defense representation.

Of course, at no time, were Democrats actually any more in favor of  protecting Americans’ constitutional rights than Republicans. Democrats never truly safeguarded civil liberties at any level greater than Republicans. They never, in reality, defended those criminally charged with more fervor than their Republican counterparts. At best, through the history of modern American times, Democrats and Republicans were tied in this regard.

No doubt, however, in today’s world, things have changed. Democrats, in large part (though, in fairness, not all) have shifted to be the hangmen of America. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination process was just an example, albeit a very high-profile one, where Democrats fought – with the greatest of passion – to toss away all constitutional protections in favor of, let’s say, a dictator-type process.

“Innocent until proven guilty” has been abandoned by many in the donkey party. Thrown to the wayside by these blue-bellies, alongside “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unfortunately, the most precious of fundamental constitutional rights have, in recent years, been banished by many Democrats.

Republicans have now stepped up to be the near-full-force defenders of civil liberties. Republicans have shined, in the most high-profile cases, as the voices for the wrongfully criminally charged. And they have stood out, in the least-known of matters, as the advocates for the improperly accused. Republicans have come forward as the strongest men and women in the criminal defense bar. In private practice, as well as for the indigent.

A candidate for Public Defender in Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit is a Republican who embodies, at the highest level, all that is good – and just – in the protection of individuals’ constitutional rights and civil liberties. A woman with 25 years of experience as a criminal defense and family law attorney, St. Augustine lawyer, Anne Marie Gennusa, is the real deal in caring for the rights of defendants who face criminal allegations – as everyone in America shall, indeed, be considered innocent until proven guilty. More so, colleagues describe her as a true, passionate fighter. One who never – ever – gives up. And one who wins, consistently.

In Florida, each judicial circuit has a public defender’s office. Each circuit’s office covers a huge land area and population, quite similar to that of a congressional district. Each office is headed by the “Public Defender.” In Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit, the Public Defender oversees almost 90 lawyers. It’s a job that requires top skill both in lawyering and in management. The best candidate is one who dually understands how to succeed in a courtroom and in budgeting a large amount of money.

Taxpayers care about not only shielding those from wrongful prosecutions and convictions, but the same being done by a fiscally responsible leader who doesn’t bloat the public defender’s office with unnecessary economic fat. A “less government” type of leader is the best type of leader in both regards. Accordingly, a traditional Republican is the best candidate for this post.

Maybe that’s why three Republicans are running for Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit Public Defender post, in an effort to obtain the seat being vacated by longtime Public Defender Jim Purdy, who is retiring when his current four-year term ends later this year. Purdy has held the position for over 15 years.

Gennusa’s opponents are not bozos. They are well-credentialed attorneys. George Burden, a 60-year-old veteran public defender, who nowadays works in the office’s appeals division, is vying for the top spot. A politician who served on the Daytona Beach City commission for four terms, he also previously served for that city’s housing authority. Matthew Metz, 33, has experience with the  7th Judicial Circuit Public Defender’s Office as well; he worked there as an intern and then, upon graduation from law school, he has continued his work at this office. Now a felony division chief, to date, Metz has practiced law for approximately nine years.

While Burden and Metz bring public defender office practice to the plate, so does Gennusa. A hard-punching attorney, she worked as a public defender in one of the toughest outfits in the country for over four years: in the Bronx, New York. Initiating her career at that office, Gennusa was immediately thrown into the legal world’s most blazing fire, in handling a case load of hundreds of cases at once. There, she tried an inordinate number of cases, covering nearly every type of criminal matter. Her clients were indigent and, often, those who had been most abused by the system.

In 1999, Gennusa moved to Florida, where she started a renowned criminal defense/family law practice after a short stint with the state attorney’s office. For the last 20 years, she has been one of the most recognizable legal faces in the courts of Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit. Unlike her competitors (Burden and Metz), Gennusa brings a wide-ranging legal skill set into this contest. While she has considerable public defender experiences, she is not a career staffer; this is very beneficial in ultimately becoming the leader of a public defender’s office. In having handled thousands of cases in total (and trying hundreds of those cases), she has covered, with superior expertise, a breadth of matters in private criminal and family law matters, as well as being experienced in multiple other practice areas. This has resulted in Gennusa becoming an eminent member of the Florida bar, who is familiar to a large range of lawyers. In being the Public Defender, that leadership position requires much more than just a knowledge of the office. Most career staff workers do not have the requisite legal – and business – range to head such a large office. Gennusa, with both the public defender office and private representation pedigree, for over 25 years, is the only candidate in this race with such qualifications. But this background, alone, is not what makes her stand out so far from the field.

It’s what some may call an intangible.

Or a special type of character.

Or a unique form of respect.

It’s not that Metz and Burden are ones who do not deserve respect for their work; they do. It’s simply, however, that Gennusa has that rare “star power” character and respect. She’s one who captivates. A person who others feel comfortable around, yet protected. She inspires. Gennusa, in short, is a leader who actually leads. And that’s rare.

And, Gennusa also has something else above and beyond those opposing her: she is the only one with chief executive experience, as identified on her campaign website:

“[Gennusa] is the only candidate with real chief executive experience. She has owned and operated two successful businesses other than her law firm. She has created budgets, created jobs, hired and fired, and lived within that budget. “[Gennusa] is the ONLY candidate with two Master’s Certificates, one in Human Resource Management and a second in Government Contracting. That is important for this job. The Public Defender is the chief executive of an office that oversees attorneys, staff and a budget of over 10 million dollars. We deserve someone that doesn’t need on the job training, someone who can hit the ground running and serve the people.”

Anne Marie Gennusa is an impressive, strong person, with an impressive, strong background. She’s a Republican who cares, at the utmost level, for the protection of individuals’ constitutional rights; she believes, at her core, in “innocent until proven guilty” and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” She won’t be bullied by the Democrats who once purported to believe the same – and many of whom have now abandoned those key principles. Gennusa is also a Republican who understands other paramount Republican principles: to not waste taxpayers’ money, but, rather, to save them money. To that end, she can bring integral budgeting skills to the office. As a bright, resilient – and multi-faceted, experienced attorney and leader – Gennusa is the right choice to be the next Public Defender in Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit.

Given the Democrats’ considerable departure from the civil-liberties-protection arena, the Republican Primary is the crucial election date for this elected office (the Public Defender is elected in Florida, not appointed like in many other states). Since, currently, there are just three candidates who are running for this post – all of whom, as aforementioned, are Republicans – the GOP primary, on August 18, will determine the ultimate winner. Anyone, from any party and those who are unaffiliated, can vote in the GOP Primary. The winner of this Republican Primary, on August 18, will be the winner of the election (as there will be no subsequent “general” election) and, thus, that winner will be the next Public Defender in Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit. And that winner should be Anne Marie Gennusa.

Candy Stallworth, an Empire State News staff writer, whipped her way through a doctoral education at the finest of American higher ed institutions, noting how unoriginal, inept, and annoying many of the schools’ professors were in their robotic attempts to maintain a politically correct narrative. BTW: she hates words like “narrative”, “optics”, and “gaffe.” Other than that, her turn-offs include non-masculine men, women who hate men, men who hate men, phonies, disloyal people, and overflowing garbage cans. She likes New England clam chowder better than Manhattan clam chowder, but prefers Manhattan to New England.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.