The new postal rules if allowed to take effect, would give unprecedented authority to the USPS to assume the role of gatekeeper of ballots. Clearly, this would violate the constitutional principles of separation of powers and give discretionary authority to postal employees. Such “new rules” would provide these workers the color of authority to restrict delivery of mail. That in itself is unjustifiable, and could potentially be seen as tampering with the delivery of mail - a federal crime for those workers - that is, if a federal judge failed to intervene.

And most importantly, we cannot forget the purpose of this “Executive Branch” endeavor: to delay and disenfranchise voters who use mail in ballots - something Trump has vociferously claimed for years, without any proof that mail in voting fosters fraud.

Operational Independence

• Postal Reorganization Act of 1970: Congress transformed the old Post Office Department into the United States Postal Service (USPS), an independent entity within the executive branch.

• Board of Governors: The USPS is run day-to-day by an 11-person Board of Governors, including the Postmaster General. The President appoints the governors with Senate approval.

• Self-Funding: The Postal Service operates mainly on revenue from postage and services, not taxpayer dollars

Crimes for Interfering with the Delivery of US Mail (Penalties):

• Mail Theft/Tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1708): Up to 5 years in federal prison and up to $250,000 in fines.

• Mailbox Vandalism: Up to 3 years in jail and fines up to $250,000 for damaging federal property.

• Obstruction of Mails (18 U.S.C. § 1701): Up to 6 months in prison and fines.

• Limits on Control

  • No Direct Interference: Congress and the President do not manage daily operations, set local postal rates directly, or fire the Postmaster General.

  • Regulatory Oversight: The independent Postal Regulatory Commission oversees postal rates and compliance with federal laws

List of plaintiffs in this case:

League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, are the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

In response to the Court’s order, counsel and plaintiffs released the following statement:

“The Administration previously dismissed plaintiffs’ ongoing harms from the executive order as speculative, but the newly finalized rule confirmed what plaintiffs have been saying all along. The Rule implements the Executive Order’s unprecedented attempt to usurp electoral authority from the states and Congress at the expense of voters. We welcome the court’s order, which recognized the immediate need to protect the entire electorate from the damaging impacts of this unlawful final rule in the lead up to November’s general elections. This is an important step towards affirming the public’s confidence in the system of mail ballots, which thousands of eligible voters nationwide rely on as a core method of democratic participation.”

Litigation Timeline:

• On Aug. 11, 2026, the court issued an order in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, blocking USPS from implementing Section 3 of the executive order, regulating mail voting, for the upcoming Nov. 3 midterm elections.

• On Aug. 24, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed a another court order issued in the separate Trump v. California case which blocked the implementation of the executive order: the Supreme Court’s reasoning, was that it was premature for the California plaintiffs to bring that case before USPS issued a final rule implementing the order. (Even though the rule was ready to be put in motion).

• On Aug. 26, 2026, the district court vacated the injunction in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts based on the Supreme Court’s stay decision, but allowed plaintiff organizations to amend their complaint to reflect the fact that USPS has now issued the final mail ballot rule. Plaintiff organizations then supplemented their original complaint to meet this requirement, while adding challenges to the newly finalized mail ballot rule, in addition to seeking immediate emergency relief on those claims.

Plaintiff’s Arguments

The plaintiff organizations argued a number of important issues that are hard to ignore. One is that the Postal Service’s newly-finalized mail ballot rule:

1. Violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, which put the states and Congress in charge of election rules, not USPS or the president.

2. The final rule also violates a number of the laws that govern how USPS operates.

3. The plaintiffs sought emergency relief because these violations are causing irreparable harm to plaintiff organizations, their members, and the voters they serve each day that USPS is allowed to proceed with the new mail ballot rule, which is all the more severe as there are now fewer than 70 days before the November midterm elections.

4. Temporary Restraining Orders are Regularly Granted When the Threat of Immediate and Irreparable Harm is imminent, and that harm greatly outweighs the balance of equities - meaning cannot be fixed by money damages.

The Ruling by the Boston, Massachusetts Federal Judge

The court agreed that plaintiff organizations were likely to succeed in their claims that USPS lacked the authority to issue the final rule and that the final rule unconstitutionally imposed election requirements on the states. Noting that the “record continues to lack any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting.”

The Court emphasized, “USPS’s interest in correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement of citizens who need access to mail ballots in order to vote.”

Because of the grievous nature of immediate and irreparable harm, the Court granted “emergency relief,” - it ordered the defendants to take no steps to prepare, implement, or enforce several sections of the final rule for 14 days. In the meantime, the plaintiffs will prepare their briefs for their Request for a Preliminary Injunction - the next step in the legal hurdles that remain. A hearing on that motion has been set for Sept 3, 2026.

Notes:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2026/08/29/trump-postal-service-mail-in-voting-supreme-court-marc-morial

Judge’s Order: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/08/TRO.pdf

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

The Section of the US Code that Trump recently invoked, as opposed to those previously struck down, is on a contrived statement that Canada has been harming the sale of American goods by unfair trade practices. Let’s delve into the legal issues this needless and retaliatory scheme will exact, once again - on the American people.

Trump signed a proclamations (July 20, 2026), invoking Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to impose an additional 50% tariff on select Canadian-origin goods, covering dairy, paper & pulp, alcohol, (including wine, spirits, & seltzers), and motor vehicle sectors. Providing only a three-day suspension, these duties took effect on August 22, 2026.

What Does Section 338 Do to Tariffs With Our Canadian Neighbors?

First, it assess a “targeted tariff” (duty) on Canadian goods. (Section 338 has never been used before for tariffs.)

It sets an exorbitant rate of 50% ad valorem (a Latin phrase that means "according to value.)" In finance and law, ad valorem describes a tax or tariff charged as a percentage of the estimated or assessed monetary value of an asset, product, or transaction, rather than as a fixed flat fee. So in other words, the sky is the limit!

Effective Date of New Tariff Imposition on Canada

It took effect on August 22, 2026, and has no expiration date at the present time. Alarmingly, it applies to “covered goods” whether or not they qualify under the USMCA (US/Mexico/Canada Agreement).

What is the USMCA?

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is a “free trade” agreement among the named three nations that took effect on July 1, 2020 (under the first Trump administration), to replace NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) which was negotiated under the first Bush administration, tweaked under Bill Clinton, and put into effect in 1994. The purpose of USMCA, was to update the rules for digital trade, regional commerce, labor rights, and automotive manufacturing. Yet it has recently been put in jeopardy under Trump 2.0 by his newly imposed, escalating tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

Rolling Threats

Trump severely strained and altered the framework of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) through recurrent tariff threats, continuous shifting of exemptions, and his steadfast refusal to renew the USMCA on its original 16-year terms.

U.S. Demands

It appears the Trump administration looks to address what he believes are “trade deficits” and push for stronger domestic manufacturing provisions, higher U.S. content requirements for automobiles, and tighter rules regarding outside supply chains.

The Result

The effect is to alienate our best trading partners, causing retaliation of their own. This administration has ignored the fact that these nations can also inflict economic pressure on the US and harm the US economy. Such areas as automobile, hydro-electricity, dairy, farm equipment, paper, textiles, minerals - not to forget, Canada is now prohibiting the sale of “Jack Daniels” whiskey, which enjoyed a healthy market in our northern neighbor. Notably that whiskey is a product of the now missing, “Mitch McConnell, and the GOP controlled state of Kentucky.

Retaliation by this administration for perceived slights have direct consequences for American voters - notably in their pocketbooks. So where’s Mitch and the GOP on all this? I guess we’ll have to wait and see…

Fact: Canada Runs a Trade “Surplus” with US - Meaning It’s a Big Market for US Goods That Trump is Eviscerating

According to the OEC, the Observatory of Economic Complexity, which has its historical and analytical roots at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) finds the following as appearing in the graphic below:

So what will Trump achieve by pushing against our US northern ally, friend, and steadfast trading partner?

The answer is anyone’s guess…none of it good…

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

It is shocking, but not unexpected that a president whose grift is his currency would start his own bank. The shock is, that it is all out in the open. Even the mafia did shady currency exchanges under cover, with secret money laundering in backrooms, and in locales strewn about town. But this grift reaches new heights and extremes, bridging the national and international arena, something the local mafia could have only dreamed.

And then there were the Swiss Bank Accounts…

With the Trump banking endeavors, the “Swiss bank account” era all seems almost quaint. For those not privy to the process, these Swiss accounts were historically known across the globe for their financial privacy, strict client confidentiality - using "numbered accounts" in place of names - where names were replaced by digits. This anonymity was structured by Swiss law - the Swiss Banking Act of 1934, which made Switzerland a global hub for wealth management, tax shelters - making it a stalwart of monetary privacy. But at the same time that the law made sharing client data a criminal offense, criminals took notice with the intent to exploit.

Swiss Bank Accounts Harbored Tax Evaders & Illicit Funds

Soon after the Banking act of 1934, Swiss Bank Account Reputation and Controversy soon followed. Tax evaders of those laundering money were soon attracted to it. Of course, there were some who legitimately wanted anonymity, but more than that, international tax evaders, organized crime syndicates, and authoritarian despots across the globe found the Swiss bank account structure more than appealing.

International Pressure Made a Difference Before

Countries around the globe recognized the danger in the regulatory policies of Swiss banks and leveraged the Swiss government to adopt “international transparency standards” and to provide automatic information sharing through agreements. This practice did end what had been “absolute” banking secrecy - but not completely.

Swiss Banking Today

Currently, Swiss banks are known for their global wealth management, asset protection, and stability - not absolute banking secrecy as in decades prior. While these accounts still offer high confidentiality, it is the international tax compliance agreements (such as the automatic exchange of tax information) that have been mostly dismantled to remove any hidden offshore tax evasion from occurring.

Trump Plan Makes Swiss Banking Look Quaint

In comparison, the Trump-linked cryptocurrency business World Liberty Financial has made the Swiss Bank account appear like a dinosaur looking to hide its eggs. Because of the current self-dealing in this administration, the Trump Crypto business has taken to a spotlight of its own making. To do so, it has been “granted” conditional approval by Trump’s own people in the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). That office “granted” the Trump’s preliminary conditional approval for a national trust bank charter to their crypto business World Liberty Trust Company as a bank. So what could go wrong?

Not only is this banking establishment a blatant act of self-dealing - clearly visible to citizens and powerful people around the world, it sends a message of anonymity for sale. All of it clearly visible, according to watchdogs including one of Trump’s most vocal critics, Senator Elizabeth Warren as a blatant “pay to play” scheme cooked up and put in place by America’s Grifter-in-Chief.

According to Senator Warren, ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement. “This is the most brazen act of self-dealing our financial system has ever seen.”

Additionally, government ethics disclosures, Donald Trump brought in more than $1.4 billion from cryptocurrency ventures. The scale of this enormous digital asset income, certainly pushed his total net worth to an estimated $6 billion. In essence it helped to triple his wealth since returning to office.

Breakdown of Crypto Income

Meme and Celebration Coins: Over $635 million via entities like CIC Digital LLC from sales and royalties connected to Trump-themed digital tokens.

World Liberty Financial: More than $500 million generated from governance tokens and operations in the family-led crypto project.

Bank Charter Expansion: World Liberty Financial advanced plans into traditional banking frameworks via a preliminary national trust charter under federal oversight.

Is There Ever a Good Time to Deal Oneself a Bank?

They say timing is everything. So it would appear to speak volumes that Trump and his sons co-founded their crypto business World Liberty Financial just before taking office in late 2024. Soon thereafter, the digital coin business was launched amid the time of the January 20 presidential inauguration. To add more insult to injury, sources suggest this crypto operation has generated over $1.2 billion for the Trump family since the elder Trump took office in January 2025. Other sources report more.

The Big Losers

What is most noteworthy, these crypto currency “investors” experienced huge losses - but that is what one would expect in a “pay to play” scheme. Investing in the president, may make good business sense, that is, if your organization wants to get on his good side, or get in line for lucrative government contract. All of this is made possible without anyone knowing who the “players” are, and what national security threat they represent.

Will Congress or the Courts Counter Blatant & Illustratively Illegal Self-Dealing?

I wouldn’t want to hold my breath until they do. In the meantime, “crypto” is changing hands, and we have no idea whose hands are in whose pockets. But we can be certain the motive is pure greed, power and exploit. So will Congress act to stop this executive overreach from happening? Or will litigation ensue, revealing blatant self-dealing and corruption before US courts? We will have to wait and see. But one thing is for sure, Swiss bank accounts got some stiff competition these days - from the likes of an unscrupulous and unpopular president. But for those seeking anonymity and presidential favor, it appears those investors found the right place.

Notes:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/feb/22/how-swiss-banking-secrecy-global-financial-system-switzerland-tax-elite

https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/17/investing/trump-crypto-bank-world-liberty

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/us/snplus/politics/2026/07/01/trump-filing--1-2-billion-crypto-businesses

https://occ.gov/topics/charters-and-licensing/interpretations-and-decisions/2026/cd1385.pdf

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmv98ez3zo

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/trump-money-crypto-business-filings

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/30/donald-trump-reports-1-4bn-in-cryptocurrency-income-in-government-filing

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/08/17/treasury-trump-owned-world-liberty-financial-bank/91336724007/

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

Discussion delves into psychological profiles of extreme bargainers and how they often can leave money on the table by using the same bargaining techniques over the course of a lifetime. Johnston provides an in-depth look at how and why this occurs, and the results that often emanate from such well-worn strategies.

Fixed Pie vs Expanded Pie Approach to Negotiations & the Concomitant Psychological Profiles Including that of the “Current” President are Explored in Depth.

A fascinating discussion that takes viewers from the Obama years, to the Air Force One Negotiations, to the JCPOA Iran Nuclear Enrichment “Negotiations” & the Recent War.

An in-depth and timely discussion you won’t want to miss.

Subscribe to learn more and see it in its entirety!

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

According to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (ethical rules for attorneys) promulgated by the American Bar Association, and adopted by states, Mr. Blanche has seemingly broken a number of them. So how could he be “considered” let alone be “qualified” to be appointed as US Attorney General?

Well let’s take a look at one of the rules, and compare it to his conduct.

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

Read more

To understand the logic of the temporary restraining order (TRO) granted in this proposed media merger case, a history lesson is in order. In the latter half of the 20th century, specifically in 1984, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was invoked by the courts, breaking up the monopoly known as “Ma Bell” - the communications behemoth that dominated the telephone communications market across the nation. The Bell Telephone Company, colloquially referred to as Ma Bell, had consumed the American communications landscape since its creation in 1877. But in the case of United States v AT&T in 1982, the court ordered divestiture of Ma Bell and its subsidiaries under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. At the time of its break up, the court found that the 106 year old phone giant had grown so large it was stifling competition in the communications field - allowing it to charge higher fees and giving consumers no other place to go. It was a captured market.

The Result of the Bell Divestiture

After court intervention, the break up of this media monopoly quickly allowed spin-offs and other companies to provide consumers with additional choices in communications and pricing structures than in the long captured Ma Bell telephone market. All of this took place as a result of court order to prevent monopolies overtaking the American communications landscape. The anti-trust rules known as the Sherman Anti Trust Act was invoked to make that happen. This Act is a federal law passed in 1890 to ensure free competition, while banning unfair monopolies. A key provision of the Act, prevents contracts that restrain trade and monopolize a market.

What Does the Sherman Act Restrain?

• Section 1: Bans contracts, combinations, or conspiracies that restrain interstate or foreign trade.

• Section 2: Makes it illegal to monopolize, try to monopolize, or conspire to monopolize any part of trade.

• Enforcement: Gives the government power to file lawsuits and criminalize severe anti-competitive behavior.

History and Impact of Sherman Act

• Signed on July 2, 1890: Approved by President Benjamin Harrison and named after Senator John Sherman of Ohio.

• Response to Trusts: Created to stop powerful corporate trusts and cartels from controlling entire industries and fixing prices.

• Later Updates: Expanded by the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act in 1914 to better regulate unfair business methods.

The Clayton Antitrust Act and the Paramount/Warner Bros. Merger Case Today

This FCC and DOJ have already blessed a Paramount Warner Bros. merger to assist the Ellison’s. (Sr. Ellison is Cofounder of Oracle Corporation and a major Trump donor.) His son David Ellison, recently bought Paramount, to get the green light on the purchase of Warner Bros.

But recently a judge has ruled that such a merger should not take place so quickly, that is, when there are multiple issues hanging in the balance. For a moment envision what would happen if that sale and merger actually went through? Those affected who had ties to the film and movie industries, as well as on the American consumer?

The Judge hearing the case believed the merger was not only too risky for those working in the film industry, but in practice, the judge felt, at least initially in granting a TRO (temporary retraining order after weighing the benefits and risks), that consumers would be harmed if the merger were approved - that is when one family - the Ellison’s would own a vast majority of studios and media companies if the Warner Bros. sale were to take place. Currently, the temporary restraining order halts the merger while the court considers a ruling on a preliminary injunction, which would block the merger for the duration of the litigation. Now we need to watch closely if the judge lifts the temporary restraining order regarding the sale, or orders a preliminary injunction to halt it further.

The Clayton Act - the Primary Act in the States’ AG Case

Specifically, the Clayton Antitrust Act addresses certain practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit. This includes mergers and “interlocking directorates” which really means the same identifiable person who is making high-level decisions for companies that are supposed to be competitive. More pointedly, Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly."

The Clayton Act which was amended by the Robinson-Patman Act in 1936, also bans specific discriminatory practices, such as in setting: prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants.

In 1976, the Clayton Act was amended again by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act which requires companies planning large mergers or acquisitions to give advance notice to the government regarding the company’s plans.

The Past is Re-instituting Itself in the Present

Many anti-monopoly practices took place as a result of the excesses of the Gilded Age from the late 1870’s to late 1890’s - where wealthy entrepreneurs took advantage and exploited their workers and consumers alike. Sound familiar? Even though it was called “gilded,” it was only gilded for the ultra-wealthy who reaped substantial profits due to their exploits. Companies such as Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, and J.P. Morgan among others flourished. We recognize some of the old tycoons (known today as “Robber Barons”) names today as the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Goulds - and the like.

Notably, this exploitive period in America took place shortly after the Civil War at the time of a fledgling and vulnerable nation. Ask yourself, who might the “Robber Barons” of today be?

States Policing Monopolistic Behavior While Fed Gov’t Abdicates

As referenced previously, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an antitrust lawsuit and legal briefs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger. A total of twelve state district attorney’s have signed the complaint. To learn more, the details are available on the California Attorney General’s Official website.

Case Background:

• Plaintiffs: Coalition of (12 state attorneys general) includes: California, New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington.

• Defendants: Paramount Skydance Corp. and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. Info from NY Attorney General.

• Core Issue: A $110 billion proposed merger alleged to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act by reducing competition in theatrical film distribution and basic cable markets.

Where to Find the Filings and Updates:

• State Press Releases & Summaries: Read specific state-level announcements, such as the New York Attorney General Press Release or statements from the Connecticut Attorney General.

• Court Dockets: The actual legal briefs, temporary restraining orders, and joint stipulations can be tracked directly through federal court access portals using the case files from the Northern District of California.

Compare Antitrust Case Against Decades Ago That Broke Up AT&T

• The 1974 Lawsuit: The U.S. Department of Justice filed United States v. AT&T in 1974 under the Sherman Antitrust Act, charging the company with monopolization and anti-competitive behavior in telecommunications equipment and services.

• The Resolution: Rather than a court ruling under the Clayton Act, the breakup was finalized through a 1982 consent decree (a negotiated settlement) that led to the official divestiture and splitting of the Bell System on January 1, 1984.

Is History Repeating Itself?

• The Breakup of “Ma Bell” - Prior decades the “Bell” telephone company was prohibited from engaging in any new business other than the provision of common carrier communications services. Compare with proposed consolidations of major legacy media resources today…

• Check out the Federal Judicial Center for more information

• AT&T’s Successful Spinoffs - According to Investopedia, Jan 17, 2025 - AT&T has a tumultuous history dating back to 1885, and was highly profitable as a legal monopoly.

Current Events

Stay tuned as the parties march back into court to see if this judge will issue a permanent restraining order, or dissolve the temporary one recently placed on this proposed merger. Hopefully, the truth will come out, justice will prevail, and opportunistic monopolies will be dissolved, this time, before they are allowed to begin.

.

Notes:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/media/judge-puts-temporary-pause-paramount-warner-bros-merger-rcna587804

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/media/12-states-file-lawsuit-block-110-billion-paramount-warner-bros-merger-rcna587286

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/attorney-general-james-sues-block-paramounts-merger-warner-bros

https://www.fjc.gov/history/spotlight-judicial-history/breakup-ma-bell

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act

https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/hh_1914_10_15_clayton_antitrust/

https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Hammond-Melamed-1989-Antitrust-in-the-Entertainment-Industry.pdf

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-day-the-supreme-court-killed-hollywoods-studio-system

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/346/537/

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-files-lawsuit-block-110-billion-warner-brosparamount

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/paramount-warner-merger-puts-remedy-6624667/

https://www.marklitwak.com/blog/the-paramount-warner-bros-discovery-merger-an-antitrust-case-for-rejection

https://www.fjc.gov/

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

#FirstAmendment #FreedomofthePress #FCC

The US Supreme Court just overturned the rule of Humphrey’s Executor, a rule made by that same body in 1935 - nearly a century ago. That longstanding rule served to “protect” heads of independent agencies made up of leaders on oversight boards: such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and a host of others - from being fired at will by “any” president. But as of June 29, 2026, this US Supreme Court, the same one that bestowed this present “executive” with almost unbridled immunity from exercising a multitude and often unethical and underhanded plans of actions, decided to give the impetuous toddler president even more power than he previously wielded. In its recent ruling, SCOTUS proclaimed the governing precedent of “Humphrey’s Executor” to be dead, and as a result, the core tenets of Humphrey’s eviscerated, now the would be toddler-president can fire at will any all board members - even those with highly specialized knowledge, leading the agencies in a way he “claims” he doesn’t like.

The Supreme Court Shirks Their Duty to Co-Parent

Most mother’s would recognize and take decisive action to stem the negative impulses if they had an impetuous toddler hell-bent on destruction. In fact, most would agree that if their toddler engaged in very destructive or improper behavior, they would conclude their toddler needs more rules, more time outs, punishment of some sort to stem the behavior and quell the problem and eliminate any repercussions. Most parents would not give an unruly child more latitude to be destructive. Most likely, more boundaries would be set and strictly enforced.

Compare, that a negligent parent would likely not do much if anything at all to effectively curtail extremely aberrant behavior, and would likely excuse or ignore it. In fact, it might take a “whistleblower,” someone outside the immediate parental structure to report the child’s aberrant behavior to authorities. As is often the case, such behavior can be indicative of parental indifference or neglect. In such cases, whistleblowers would be justified in contacting local authorities, such as the police or the Department of Social Services (DSS) to follow up.

That is, if a concerned onlooker or concerned neighbor observed an unruly child hell-bent on destruction and took action. Reporting egregious acts such as vandalizing public property, scrawling their names on public buildings, or tearing apart property that is not theirs, and coveting anything they could and calling it their own.

Compare to Trump tearing down the East Wing of the “people’s house” in which he is living as a “guest” of the people, or having engraved images of himself and his name indiscriminately and indelibly scrawled on public buildings like the Kennedy Center, or on money - not much difference.

Let’s not forget his toddler-president’s propensity to pick fights with the kids next door, when the neighbor’s kids had been keeping to themselves, and minding their own business. Yet, this unruly and incorrigible child is hell-bent on instigation and acquisition, not only wanting to play in his own yard and destroy everything in it, but invade and pillage their neighbors’ yard, covet their house, their toys - and perhaps, even their mother too.

The Remedy…

As stated previously, most neighbors would likely report these egregious actions just as they would a child playing with matches to law enforcement, and would rightfully expect a swift result. There would be a dictate to the parents that this child be reigned in, or legal and remedial consequences would flow. Such as removing the child from his house and surroundings, mandate he receive intensive psychotherapy, or if totally incorrigible, placed into institutionalized foster care. No one would expect that DSS would let him stay at home, allow him more freedom to terrorize the neighbors, ramp up his retribution campaign against those who reported him, or direct his parents to sue everyone including the neighbors he personally terrorized next door.

Contrary to logic, this Supreme Court has coddled and cajoled this terrorizing toddler-in-chief - even with proof of destruction laying bare at their feet. And this recent US Supreme Court ruling in Trump v Slaughter, did what no good parent would do. Instead of reigning in and reprimanding the toddler, they gave him more freedom to act, more targets to aim, while determining no punishment was due.

Farewell Stare Decisis

So farewell to our old friend “stare decisis” - it kept us safe for quite a long while.

Wave goodbye to the Humphrey’s Executor who held our independent agencies held nearly untouchable for ninety plus years - meeting its untimely demise on June 29, 2026 in Trump v Slaughter. A ruling which will make loyalty oaths and NDA’s a specialty. No doubt there will be a large “sucking sound,” that will be the sound of specialized talent and institutional knowledge abruptly exiting the door.

Demoting and Demoralizing Everyone & Their Respective Careers & Jobs

Just as the VRA was premised on the “civil rights legislation” providing a means to account and give voice to people of color when voting districts were drawn. Today the court drew another type of line - this one effectively demoting independent federal agency heads to “at will” employees - before getting ready to fire Biden appointees, as that was the motivation after all. Of course this calamity is on the watch of the US Supreme Court, as the placate and cajole a whiny and vindictive toddler-president, by giving him more power to destroy, and more people’s lives to control.

Instead of reigning in this toddler-president-in-chief, this Supreme Court effectively said “nothing to see here.” There’s no malfeasance and no cause for concern - just as that negligent parent would say: nothing of consequence happened, nothing to see here, so there’s no need to reign him in.

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - PAID Subscriptions Allow Us to Keep this Publication Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

It comes as no surprise that the current president wants to stifle speech. Just ask Stephen Colbert and Scott Pelley formerly of CBS who would gladly share some of their insights on the topic. But what do the actual statutes have to say about NDA’s (non-disclosure agreements) and the rights of those who work for the government?

Military Justice and Speech

First let’s take a step back and look at the Mark Kelley case. Senator Kelley who famously spoke out with others in Congress made a video stating that it is lawful to disobey “unlawful” orders. This edict from the Senator - a retired Navy Captain and his congressional colleagues, is simply a restatement of the rule promulgated - “enacted” by Congress as the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

According to lawyers in the field of military justice, citing two of the controlling sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 USC Ch. 47):

service members are legally obligated to refuse manifestly illegal orders. Carrying out an obviously unlawful directive does not shield you from criminal responsibility, and the defense of "just following orders" is firmly rejected by U.S. military law.

Here are two applicable paragraphs from the Code of Military Justice:

§890. Art. 90. Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer

Any person subject to this chapter who willfully disobeys a “lawful” command of that person’s superior commissioned officer shall be punished—

(1) if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct; and

(2) if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 68; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, §5409, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2942.)

and

§892. Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation

Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) violates or fails to obey any “lawful” general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 68.)

What Military Orders are Illegal?

So if military personnel must carry out legal orders, the corollary also must be true. That is, once military personnel identify an illegal order, identifiable “illegal” orders must not be carried out. To recognize this, subordinates - those taking orders, must rely on the code of Military Justice from their training.

Unlawful orders can be a superior ordering a subordinate to engage in a criminal act, requiring that subordinate to violate the Constitution, U.S. federal law, specific international law or treaty.

Historically, Unlawful Military Orders Have Included:

• Intentionally targeting or harming civilians (such as killing unarmed civilians clinging to a boat that was destroyed and hitting them again to kill them);

• Falsifying legal or operational records or recordings (potentially refusing to turn them over upon request to congress)

• Engaging in unauthorized politically motivated/domestic law enforcement actions

• Abusing or torturing detainees.

  The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News is a reader-supported publication. During these trying times, We need your Support; Paid Subscriptions help keep this information flowing your way. Subscribe today!

Non-Military Contract Law - NDA’s - to Control Gov’t Employee Speech?

Now the current US president wants to impose Non-Disclosure Agreements upon all federal government employees - those not in the military, even those that do not handle classified information.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), is working to impose NDA’s (Nondisclosure Agreements) across the board, allegedly to quell leaks. But what it does instead, is chill speech. After all, it was DOGE (Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency) that reportedly uploaded sensitive personal IRS data to unknown servers in foreign countries. So to now point the finger at government workers, seems more than disingenuous.

To unbiased onlookers, the requirement of NDA’s appears to want to stifle speech, curtail dissent amongst the ranks, and instill fear of job loss or retaliation in employees if they speak up to report when something is amiss. Notably, these NDA’s are slated for all those whose jobs include mundane tasks - those who do not have access to, or handle classified or sensitive data or information. Such a scheme would not only stifle speech and strip federal workers of their First Amendment rights of free speech, it would affect their right to report: perceived wrongdoing, complain about harassment, report fraud or abuse by any party. Seemingly the latter two issues this administration repeatedly purports to address.

The bottom line, requiring NDA’s across the government would remove a bright line for federal employees, placing all speech into uncharted and murky territory - that could get employees fired, disciplined or worse.

The AFGE Takes a Stand

In response, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National President, Everett Kelley issued the following statement in response to this proposed NDA rule by the Office of Personnel Management, and published in the Federal Register - the process of making governmental pronouncements official.

The AFGE’s statement appears below:

“OPM continues its efforts to silence federal employees. This proposed NDA is another attempt by the administration to purge the civil service of nonpartisan career employees and replace them with loyalists who won’t speak out against waste, fraud, and abuse. Federal employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they accept federal employment, and the public has a right to know about this administration’s abuses.

OPM claims the form will be ‘optional’ for agencies to use and merely restates existing law. We know that will not be true. OPM will pressure agencies to make the NDA mandatory and then fire employees who refuse to sign it.

Moreover, federal agencies already have extensive policies and procedures in place for preventing the unauthorized release of classified or privileged information. This proposed rule sweeps in an extraordinarily broad category of information, extending restrictions to the very material the public relies on to learn when an administration is causing harm. AFGE will submit comments on the proposed rule and urges OPM to withdraw it.”

Like everything this administration has done so far: from attacking former FBI director James Comey for seashell numbers he photographed on a beach, to Senator Kelly doing a video where he and other former military service members state that current service members do not have to obey illegal orders, to now all federal employees swearing an oath of secrecy - this is how problems fester and go undetected - under the guise of quiet, protection and secrecy.

What Can Be Done?

Contact your US member of Congress - Senators and Representatives - let them know that across the board NDA’s are not okay with the American people. Especially where Trump has eviscerated the jobs of many government agency Inspector Generals - leaving government workers to tow the line - to be the canaries in the coal mine. These workers are now placed on the front lines, with the unenviable task of being watchdogs over rogue government actors and illegal activities.

With workers silenced and speech chilled, no one can ensure that Whistleblowers will be protected if NDA’s become commonplace across the board. So take a stand, speak up and speak out, and vote Blue in the upcoming election. America was built on checks and balances, and this proposal to make NDA’s a requirement across the board will remove that delineation, will impugn first amendment rights of government workers - and will instill fear and silence when people need to speak out, and report government misuse, abuse, fraud, and wrongdoing.

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - PAID Subscriptions Allow Us to Keep this Publication Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

Just recently we watched the White House grounds turn into a UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) that would be heckled by the Roman gladiators of centuries past. Nevertheless, it was a horrific scene to behold, as it not only diminished the prestige and glory of a historic symbol of American colonialism, but it featured a type of baby-oiled gladiator-wannabes who are better left forgotten.

A Court Full of Deplorables

Not only was its presence on the White House grounds a deplorable renunciation of American values - it had the appearance of a carnival on steroids. It seemed everyone in the administration was oblivious to its skeevy appearance; and likewise, no one in the administration seemed to care that its huge presence and light show made it difficult and even dangerous for pilots to navigate above the errant light show.

To make matters even more deplorable than necessary, one of the participant skeevy participants wore a lion on his chest, and found it necessary to summarily disparage former first lady Michelle Obama. And of course, the current occupant of the White House who previously posted photos of the Obamas as apes, didn’t dissuade or rebuke any such comments from being made.

An Indelible Stain on Democracy and the American Experiment

There is no doubt, the indelible stains on American democracy and the American experiment are made bigger with each passing day. The current occupant himself being a blatant stain on the nation, along with the needless war with Iran and warmongering among allies and friends. As Americans we never thought our nation could stoop so low, but everyday with the current occupant at the helm, it goes even lower.

The Power for Change is In Your Hands…

If you are sick of gladiator fights and needless wars with Americans footing the bill in every sense of the word - vote blue across the board in the upcoming elections. It’s the only chance to save democracy, and put a check on a want-to-be-king, his court of jesters, and want-to-be gladiators run amuck.

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - PAID Subscriptions Allow Us to Keep this Publication Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

Those who voted for Trump in the 2024 election cast their ballot for a man who promised to make America great again, to help them afford food and shelter - to make ends meet. What he has done instead, is bring them to the very end of where those ends meet - if not past those ends entirely.

Just the other day while in the oval office, he told reporters, “I love inflation.” in response to their questions. Those remarks were framed by the May Consumer Price Index (CPI). That data revealed that US purchasers of goods were experiencing an annual inflation rate of 4.2% - which is high.

But in usual Trump fashion, he tried to justify his outrageous statement by saying the increase is much lower than expected. Despite his outrageous commentary, most everyone is aware the increase in CPI and hence inflation, is a result of an unnecessary and patently avoidable war with Iran. But like everything else Trump says and does, very little has any basis in fact and truth.

Once the Conflict is Over Things Will Change…

As we have all heard many times, this president claims the inflation rate will drop rapidly once the conflict is over; all while he and his cohorts are playing the stock market and raking in millions if not billions of dollars - all based upon the volatility in the market they in fact create and control. Nevertheless, Trump has told the American people repeatedly, that the Iranian war is not a war at all - just a skirmish - even when he slips and calls it a war. Despite all his nonsensical protestations and tirades, Americans continue struggling to make ends meet - no matter the nomenclature, as his own portfolio derived from “self-dealing”that seemingly aligns with “insider-trading,” grows even larger.

What is the “Ideal Inflation Rate” According to Industry Analysts?

A healthy inflation rate is generally considered to be around 2% annually. Central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, target this level to promote maximum employment and stable prices, ensuring the economy grows steadily without spiraling out of control or triggering deflation.

According to the Federal Reserve:

In its Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy (PDF), the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation of 2 percent over the longer run, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, is most consistent with the Federal Reserve's mandate for maximum employment and price stability. When households and businesses can reasonably expect inflation to remain low and stable, they are able to make sound decisions regarding saving, borrowing, and investment, which contribute to a well-functioning economy and the well-being of all Americans.

What is the “Ideal Inflation Rate” for Consumers?

Most consumers want there to be no inflation - or zero inflation, but that can potentially lead to a stagnant economy and stagnant wages. A zero end game can cause a downward trajectory where consumers put off spending and companies delay, minimize or forgo investment - with deflation being the end result.

As a consequence, with interest rates low, there is very little room for the central bank to stimulate the economy when the economy slides downward. While prices may be lower, deflation can trigger a devastating cycle of reduced spending, wage cuts, higher real debt burdens and increased unemployment - all of which is bad for consumers, bad for business, and bad for the economy as a whole.

Note to Struggling Americans: Does Trump Really Think About You…?

Last month Trump made it clear, he does not think about Americans’ financial situations at all, and that Iran was his top priority. He clarified this awkward retort saying: “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation, I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon”

This remark follows on the heels of blistering statements he made last month on whether he was going to help Americans struggling to afford increasing energy costs and the price of food. In a jaw-dropping reply, he said he is not thinking about American's’ finances “even a little bit.” Such a callous response illuminates his indifference to the plight of the American people. This includes those who elected him who live in rural America and are hit hard by tariffs, skyrocketing energy and fertilizer prices, loss of workers due to deportations - all of it increasing farm bankruptcies, adding to downtrends in the economy, distress in local communities, and with medicaid cuts - rural hospital closures. All of this is a total abdication of his presidential duty - to work in the best interests of the American people who put him in office.

Trump told reporters Tuesday that he wasn’t thinking about Americans’ finances “even a little bit” as he negotiates with Iran to end the months-long conflict, adding that his sole focus is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Lying Then or Now…?

Just this year, the “self-proclaimed” king stated": “Iran they can’t have a nuclear weapon.” Yet in June 2025, he proclaimed victory in response to Operation Midnight Hammer, claiming complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities. This alleged victory was a result of using US made bunker busters and precision guidance systems claimed to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment labs buried deep within the mountains of Iran. Notably, the administration claimed they made a “precision strike.” So the question becomes: Were they lying then, or are they lying now? That is about the existence or destruction of Iran’s highly enriched uranium and centrifuges needed to make a nuclear weapon?

The Real Truth Lies Buried in This Administration

While the real truth evades the American people, in the meantime, Americans must prioritize putting gas in their cars, feeding their children, or paying their rent. Some are reportedly sleeping in their cars to save gas going to and from work. So America, Are you feeling like this president has made America great…again….or was that just a catchy slogan? If you think it’s the latter, you are not alone.

To quote the oft cited legend of French Queen Marie Antoinette in 18th century France - a member of the bourgeoisie wealthy aristocrat class - reportedly out of touch and dismissive of the tribulations of the working “proletariat” class - supposedly stated when apprised of per people going without even a scrap of bread, “Let them eat cake.” This infamous statement - whether true or hyperbole, can be applied to wealthy elites seemingly out of touch with the struggle of everyday Americans. A statement of contempt for the poor - while it is a truism that riches arise from the hard work of unskilled laborers or the skilled labor of the working class. Whether plantation owner, steel company owner, or tech company owner and their CEO’s today.

Who’s Got Your Back?

Surely not those in Congress, as they are lying supine on the House & Senate floor. Remember these truisms when you hear Trump saying, “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: You cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”

Every American should hear in the recesses of their mind, If this American president doesn’t care about our financial well-being, Why does he seemingly care about his own? Why is his wealth and that of his family and enablers increasing exponentially, While most Americans are struggling to just get by…?

The answers to these questions are staring each and every one of us in the face. So hold these thoughts judiciously in your minds when you vote in November. Whether you Vote in Person, or are Allowed to vote by Mail: Vote like your life, livelihood and American democracy depends on it - because it really does.

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - PAID Subscriptions Allow Us to Keep this Publication Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

In the recent case of Louisiana v. Callais, Roberts along with the far-right conservatives on the Supreme Court bench, have destroyed the last leg of the Voting Rights Act. It now appears redistricting to discriminate - to actually remove districts of color, or merge them into other districts, or create new districts to dilute the black vote is okay with this court.

The obvious effect is to disenfranchise people of color so they can never elect a representative of their choosing. All of this takes place under the guise of partisan gerrymandering - even if its effect has a racial basis - as long as that basis remains hidden and unprovable. The Supreme Court has in essence given a green light to state legislatures to draw maps that disenfranchise people of color, preventing them from having representation on the state level, and in the US House of Representatives.

In exquisite detail, Daley takes us through the decades and the iterations of US Supreme Court case, bringing the issues and meaning to the forefront. Through this interview, he helps us understand the depth and breadth of this intentional disenfranchisement of voters of color, the players behind the scenes who put all this in motion - and their unparalleled desire to return the US to the Jim Crow era of vote and minority suppression.

With historical background, Daley allows us to see firsthand the trajectory of Chief Justice John Roberts deliberative decisions to “systematically” disenfranchise people of color, while purposely dismantling democracy as we know it.

Subscribe now

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ ‘Subscribe’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - Consider a PAID Subscription - It Allows Us to Keep High-Quality Information Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

Origins of ‘60 Minutes’

The first TV episode of ‘60 Minutes’ aired on CBS, Sept. 24, 1968. It was a time when television was still in its infancy, and CBS was dipping its proverbial toe into the news magazine business. At that time, cable TV was a rarity due to low quality signal reception, and social media did not exist. During the 1960’s, there were three national TV Networks: ABC, CBS, NBC - with viewers getting three to seven local channels. It was a time when Americans yearned and expected the truth to be reported.

The Beginning of CBS...

The CBS network began as radio on September 18, 1927, just before the Great Depression. At that time, its nomenclature was under the name United Independent Broadcasters, Inc. Not long after, it was renamed the Columbia Phonographic Broadcasting System, and finally the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) in 1929.

Chronology of Events and the Need for Immediate & Truthful Reporting

The Great Depression, triggered by the Wall Street stock market crash referred to as "Black Thursday" on October 24, 1929, and five days later on "Black Tuesday" October 29, 1929, were catalysts to get timely and truthful news about the financial crisis and bank failures to the American people. After all, businesses were shuttering, banks closing, and people losing their homes and livelihoods.

With the finance world sputtering, and the American monetary system in freefall, hysteria deepened. The crisis eventually worsened through the 1930s as more banks failed and industry and jobs declined through the end of the decade - until 1939. This resurgence in the American economy took place as WWII began, and the war stimulated the military industrial complex in the US. The revitalization of the American economy came as jobs and production were increased in direct response to US military supplies needed by embattled allied nations. As the military industrial complex increased, so did the need for Americans to monitor the war - a war which soon expanded to include the United States.

Reporting From the Front Lines

During the war, frontline journalists became almost household celebrities. Daring and revered reporters like Edward R. Murrow did radio broadcasts during the Blitz in London. Other journalists, Eric Sevareid Reported from Paris, London, and Washington; Howard K. Smith Covered the war from Europe and Switzerland; and William L. Shirer Provided early broadcasts from Berlin. These brave journalists brought news of the war home to American families before America was even militarily involved.

By now, CBS had earned a reputation for accurate front-line reporting amidst harrowing wartime conditions. Brave reporters gave their all to bring news to Americans back home, and those in charge of the network made sure reporters had the backing of the network to make it happen.

The First Permanent Evening News Anchor at CBS Made History

Douglas Edwards at CBS, was the first evening news anchor on a nationally televised newscast in America. During that time, his evening newscasts were referred to as simply, CBS Television News.

As a testament to the 1940’s, CBS management had earned a reputation to value and retain its trusted correspondents. Edwards began his career at CBS as an indispensable stateside and European-theater broadcaster, anchoring its nightly The World Today radio program. During that time, Edwards covered the final weeks of WWII from London in 1945, reporting for CBS Radio as a war correspondent alongside legendary journalist, Edward R. Murrow. Following the end of the conflict in Europe in May 1945, Edwards relocated to Paris to serve as the network’s bureau chief.

A Time When Longevity & Dedication were Paramount to CBS Management

For decades, CBS reaped huge profits from advertisers as millions of viewers tuned-into CBS for the news. It was widely recognized by management that seasoned correspondents had built trust with the public spanning decades, and that good-will translated into dedicated viewers and dollars from sponsors. As a testament to longevity at CBS, Doug Edwards had a 46 year tenure at the network, having held that first permanent anchor position at CBS for 14 years - from 1948 to 1962. He was then succeeded by a man who would come into America’s living rooms every evening, and would come to be known as “The Most Trusted Man in America.” That man was Walter Cronkite.

The Most Trusted Man in America Takes the Helm

Walter Cronkite ascended to the anchor chair at the CBS Evening News beginning in 1962. He like Edwards, was already a trusted voice, having spent much of his time during WWII reporting from the front lines as a correspondent for the United Press, (now known as United Press International). That organization predated CBS by two decades.

Cronkite gets the nickname for several reasons…

• His broadcasts from 1962 to 1981, brought an air of calm, resolute and authoritative reporting into American households during a turbulent era - including Vietnam.

• Historic Coverage: He guided the nation through monumental events, including the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Vietnam War, the Apollo moon landings, and the Watergate scandal.

• Impactful Commentary: In 1968, following the Tet Offensive, he famously concluded on-air that the Vietnam War was unwinnable, prompting President Lyndon B. Johnson to remark, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”

• Signature Sign-off: He ended his nightly broadcasts with the reassuring and iconic phrase, “And that’s the way it is.”

The Birth & Metamorphosis of CBS & …”60 Minutes”

The news magazine, 60 Minutes - often referred to as the “Crown Jewel of CBS,” debuted on Sept. 24, 1968 with seasoned correspondents with journalistic integrity, and inquisitory acumen.

The first co-hosts on 60 Minutes were the legendary journalists Mike Wallace and Harry Reasoner. These two reporters not only anchored the broadcast, they set the foundational standards for the “first” news magazine format. Then came Morley Safer and Dan Rather, Ed Bradley and Diane Sawyer, and a number of great and trusted correspondents who were added over the decades - all with impeccable credentials and integrity.

Scott Pelley Joins the Ranks

Pelley has been with CBS since 1989, and with 60 Minutes since 2004. And many of the correspondents like Pelley himself, have been there for decades - until recently. But just this year, CBS was bought by Paramount - and the new owners, Larry and son David Ellison are making big changes.

Notably, Larry Ellison who is a co-founder of the software database behemoth Oracle Corporation, owns a 40% share in Oracle, and are good friends of Trump and his administration.

Money Talks, and Lots of Money Talks Even Louder…

It has been estimated that Larry Ellison’s net worth is between $276 billion to $302 billion, making him the second or third richest person in the world. The vast majority of his fortune is reportedly tied to his roughly 40% ownership stake in Oracle, the enterprise software giant he co-founded in 1977. But most troubling, is where the US Supreme Court has recognized that money can be speech when corporations make it, and when it falls into certain pockets (especially in cases of campaign contributions) to dark money Super PACs. We can also surmise, a minimum of $276 billion can do a whole lot of talking, persuading, and currying favor - especially with a president as transactional as the current White House occupant.

Big Money Purchases Networks, While FCC Looks the Other Way…

It is important to understand that both the CBS television network and CBS News operate under the CBS Entertainment Group, and are now key assets of the broader parent media company Paramount Skydance Corporation.

With his vast fortune as a backdrop, the ownership and leadership structure of Paramount Skydance is as follows:

• Majority Owners: David Ellison (Chairman and CEO) and his father, billionaire Larry Ellison.

• Minority Investors: Key minority equity partners include RedBird Capital Partners, CJ ENM, Tencent, and KKR.

• Current Operations: Following the Skydance acquisition, the company is in the process of a massive expansion, reaching an agreement to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) to merge Paramount’s and WBD’s television and streaming assets; WBD is a enormous global media and entertainment conglomerate. It was formed in 2022 when AT&T spun-off Warner Media and merged it with Discovery, Inc. The company is publicly traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol WBD.

Why These Mergers are Dangerous - and Why Scott Pelly is the Canary in the Coal Mine

Because we have an FCC that rolls over for the Trump administration, it has agreed to the mergers that would before be unthinkable. A monopoly on mainstream TV, leaving viewers with little to no programming that the Ellisons’ - and hence the Trump administration doesn’t oversee. These mergers control the news - and is a kick in the teeth to journalistic integrity and the first amendment - just ask Stephen Colbert.

The Pelley Debacle…

Since the Ellisons’ have taken over CBS, they have installed a woman named Bari Weiss, as its editor in chief, responsible for what programming the American public gets to see. And from what appears to be happening at 60 Minutes, the tact taken does not appear to be advancing the premise of which the news magazine was founded - unbiased and uncensored reporting, on issues of high-viewer interest, import, and value - all despite David Ellison’s claim to value unbiased uncensored journalism and diverse viewpoints. As is often stated, "Whoever controls the media, controls the mind," Jim Morrison.

According to reports, the FCC “did” consider antitrust arguments during its review of the Skydance-Paramount merger….But conveniently for the Ellisons - the primary federal antitrust review falls to the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the FCC just follows along like a well-trained puppy on a leash….not to mention who is really leading the DOJ…

The FCC purportedly evaluated the competition concerns raised by third-party bidders and consumer groups as part of its public interest standard review.

Although the FCC ultimately approved the licensing transaction, the antitrust and competitive effects aspects of the deal involved the following specific details:

• Antitrust Concerns Raised: Objectors, including an unsuccessful bidding group (Project Rise Partners), argued the combination would reduce market choices and diminish the independence of investigative reporting. [

• FCC Findings: The commission (in a 2-to-1 vote) - FCC Chair Brendan Carr and Commissioner Olivia Trusty voted in favor of licensing merger/transfer, and dissenting Commissioner Anna M. Gomez who called the allowance “capitulation over courage” - yet the two votes in favor concluded that the benefits of the transaction outweighed any potential anticompetitive harm.

• Editorial Concessions: Instead of enforcing structural remedies, the FCC’s approval was heavily conditioned on editorial and operational commitments. Skydance agreed to ensure viewpoint diversity across political spectrums, install an ombudsman to address bias complaints, and eliminate certain diversity programs.

Pelly Says the Quiet Part Out Loud

On June 2, 2026, Pelley was fired after an all-hands-on-deck meeting, where he told the newly appointed editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, who has been regularly firing a number of longtime, seasoned 60 Minute correspondents (the most recent just prior to Pelley being Sharon Alfonsi), that Weiss was “murdering” 60 Minutes - the Crown Jewel of CBS. Additionally Pelley stated the new executive producer, Nick Bilton had “slender” qualifications for the job. This backlash comes as Weiss had been severely censoring their reports, and topics of coverage - and according to Pelley, Weiss wanted them to “insert falsehoods and bias” - something his journalistic integrity would not allow.

Subsequent to Pelley’s firing from CBS, he released a statement accusing the new network management, specifically Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss, of “attempting” to force him and others to "inject” both “falsehoods and bias" into a politically sensitive story. To learn more about the state of truth in media, read Pelley’s statement here.

Why Independent Journalism Matters More Now Than Ever

To understand the ramifications of media consolidation and control by billionaires - it becomes more imperative for legal journalists like those at The Legal Edition to bring both the facts and law to light in simple language for people to understand. Your Paid Subscription helps to do just that.

With big media and big money masquerading lies as fact, and bias as law - steady and erudite voices of reason are needed more now than ever.

Subscribe now

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - PAID Subscriptions Allow Us to Keep this Publication Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

Notes:

https://www.britannica.com/money/CBS-Broadcasting-Inc

https://library.cooper.edu/blogs/news/public-broadcasting-services

https://internationalbcc.co.uk/about-ibcc/news/the-blitz/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22457142157&gbraid=0AAAAACgvq_3g-ixhPeYNZSG41ziyV-SYx&gclid=Cj0KCQjwof_QBhCgARIsADaMzOenG-8U-_V8vmVoiMfSuIfOCRLrbm-jxeL7PUEhA7CyCCCLXjM_-78aAvoREALw_wcB

https://www.ourgreatamericanheritage.com/2025/10/eye-witness-to-history-war-correspondents-of-ww-ii-ernie-pyle-robert-capra-lee-miler/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/radio/American-radio-goes-to-war

https://fdr.blogs.archives.gov/2024/06/06/d-day-and-radio-news-a-different-perspective/

https://www.britannica.com/money/Paramount-Global

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2026-06-01/paramounts-delrahim-slams-fear-mongering-partisan-politics-clouding-warner-bros-deal

https://deadline.com/2025/07/fcc-skydance-paramount-anna-gomez-1236468218/

The “president” had a tough week, despite the questionable pronouncement by this doctor that, his heart appears that of someone fourteen years younger….

But the court cases tell a vitally different story. We now know that several have not gone well for him.

Trump’s retaliation and vindictive prosecution vendetta cases against former FBI Director James Comey, Senator Mark Kelley and a host of others where no indictments could be had. Even But most importantly, Judges are starting to take notice around the nation of Trump’s untoward deeds as 35 former federal judges are vociferously making their objections known by filing a motion in the case where Trump sued the IRS and then attempted to “settle” the matter outside of court. The 35 judges allege in their motion that it is their belief, that a “fraud” on the court may have taken place.

The Judges’ state in their motion:

[t]he DOJ implemented all of the actions described above via a document expressly titled “Settlement Agreement,” captioned with this case’s caption, plus a three-paragraph addendum that references that “Settlement Agreement” in its first paragraph and in its third paragraph purports to “forever bar[] and preclude[]” the United States from pursuing claims that could have been asserted “by Defendants against any of the Plaintiffs” in this case. [Citations omitted].

Lending more suspicion, this “settlement agreement” about the forever bar to any investigative or prosecutorial proceedings about Trump and his family was never divulged to the court prior to dismissal of the original action.

Suing the IRS for a Contractor Leaking his Tax Return to the Media

The “crime” of unauthorized disclosure “leaking” of Trump’s tax return to the media has already been addressed with the leaker serving a five-year prison term. Notably for years prior, Trump himself had “vowed” to release his tax returns pending what he dubbed unending IRS audits. Despite his feigned pronouncements, the release of personal tax returns to quiet any inquiries of conflicts of interests or self-dealing, divulging investments, assets and liabilities noted on tax returns has been a regular occurrence by presidential candidates and presidents since the 1970’s.

The Art of the Steal

Nevertheless, not to be obvious - as obvious can be, Trump publicly stated the $10 billion claim for which he was suing the IRS - a federal government agency that is a repository of US taxpayer money - claimed it was necessary to recoup for his reputational damages caused by a government contractor leaking his tax return. However, this president unlike most every other American and president before him, appears not to have paid any income taxes since the late 1990’s; who has since profited handsomely using his position as president to catapult his wealth into several billion dollars - all while in office. Despite the optics that look and smell like grift, he feels entitled to “YOUR” money and makes no bones about it.

To better spin what is terrible optics, he called the money that he insists he was owed, ”charitable” - and dubbed it the “Anti-Weaponization fund.” Despite his exorbitant $10 billion claim for damages - damages that elude each and every one of us - even the judge, he states he will “settle” the case for the paltry amount of $1,776 Billion dollars. Notably, this all encompassing “anti-weaponization fund” would be used to pay off January 6’ers who stormed the US Capitol, attacked and maimed Capitol police, hunted Vice-President Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and erected a noose to hang them on the Capital lawn. Many pled or were found guilty, and sentenced to prison; albeit, given pardons for their felonious assaults and batteries upon police officers and destruction to the Capitol building, by the president himself.

Even more galling than the original purpose and intent of this lawsuit - to extract taxpayer money - the added caveat pushes it over the top. A caveat demanding Trump and his family members be exempt from audit or suit in perpetuity over anything related to their businesses and finances. Such is not only laughable by every legal standard, as well as a novel approach far beyond what average taxpayers have come to experience for misreporting their income. By appearances alone this seems to have all the hallmarks of fraud, self-dealing, embezzlement and extortion from government coffers, and YOU the American taxpayer.

Is a Crime Being Commited?

Could this extortive-like IRS lawsuit scheme being ‘brought and settled’ under color of official right, not only be found to be unethical and fraudulent by a court, but also a crime in violation of the Hobbs Act?

The Hobb’s Act According to the Justice Department Manual:

GENERAL RULE: The usual fact situation for a Hobbs Act charge under color of official right is a public official trading his/her official actions in a area in which he/she has actual authority in exchange for the payment of money.

Question to ponder: Could a sham lawsuit to enrich oneself as a public figure trigger the Hobbs Act?

Both Sides of the “V.”

As most people are aware to bring a lawsuit there has to be at least one plaintiff and one defendant to a court case. To bring a case, there is always someone else or a pseudonym standing in for a real name on the other side of the ‘V.’ This V symbol is the nomenclature that signifies opposing parties. Moreover, there also needs to be a case or controversy that is justiciable - that means a court is allowed by law to decide; and where there is proper jurisdiction for “legal oversight” - the persons or property are within the locale covered by the court, then the cause of action brought by the parties can be adjudicated.

Additionally, a plaintiff who files a court claim must also have “standing” - or in other words, has suffered some type of harm or damages, and that harm or damage - person or property - must have taken place or be located in the jurisdiction where the court case is ultimately filed. It is axiomatic that no claim can be adjudicated if there are no adverse parties, no standing can be conferred, and no jurisdictional prerequisites can be met.

Trump on Both Sides…

Even as Trump himself mused: he appears to be “suing himself” as he has executive oversight over all Executive Branch agencies - including the IRS and DOJ. For even a more conspicuous conflict of interest, he and his former lawyer Blanche, the one he appointed as “Acting DOJ Attorney General,” has an inherent conflict of interest as he represents both the DOJ and his former client now boss. An AG - Acting or not, is supposed to be representing the government and the people. As such, AG’s are tasked with oversight as both the “state” and “people’s lawyer” - with allegiances split as the chief legal representative for government agencies, and as chief protector of the public interest. He is not to be the president’s lawyer. So how can such representation legally occur when this AG is on both sides of the V - working on behalf of his his former client who he sill owes an ethical duty to protect, who is now his boss who oversees the agencies being sued? Not only is there no adverse party, there is no impartial advocate on behalf of the IRS and taxpayer money, who is being sued by Trump while overseeing and likely directing Blanche at the DOJ.

The Public Interest is Being Violated…a Call to Action is in Order

It is a good thing that former Judges are now involved and the trial Judge is taking another look into what appears to be a questionable “settlement” after the case had been dismissed. The whole lawsuit appears to be a sham: just a means and a vehicle to create a settlement when there was no actual case to be settled. There is no doubt the American people are rightfully outraged, as Trump’s polling numbers apparently indicate.

Do American taxpayers want their hard-earned money going to those who stormed the Capitol, Injured Capitol police and threatened American democracy?

I think not. But if someone wants to have a posse of vigilantes and thieves - paid mercenaries at their ‘beck and call’ - this is one way to do it. So if you think the public interest is being violated and your tax dollars exploited - you would be right. So like the retired judges, stand up and take notice, and make your outrage heard. And if you don’t like the optics of virtually no oversight, and are tired of the House & Senate majority laying supine in the halls of Congress instead of doing their job - Vote Blue in all upcoming elections. It is the only way to level the playing field, and have some chance at real investigative justice - consequences for those involved in self-dealing, for those who have been supine, and those willfully breaking the law.

Notes:

https://www.npr.org/2026/05/30/nx-s1-5839989/judge-review-trump-anti-weaponization-fund

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28176766-motion-from-35-former-federal-judges/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/judge-halts-trump-anti-weaponization-fund-jan-6-prosecutor-files-suit-rcna347539

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - Don’t Forget, PAID Subscriptions Allow Us to Keep This Newsletter Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

A president who has grifted more than any other known president, perhaps even more than other banana republics. For a man who is a wanna be king, accountable to “no one” - he tore down the East Wing of the White House and gilded the Oval Office as any good brothel, who has told the American people the “ballroom” would be payed for by independent donors. Now get the news that he wants to spend taxpayer money on that project, not to mention the new grift because he “sued” and “settled” the IRS suit for leaking his tax returns (a suit that is probably invalid ab initio - from the start), and to have a slush fund to pay January 6 rioters because “admittedly by his conduct” they were working for him. That is just part of the ongoing grift and to stay in power - to have a private army ready to call, when and if his attempts at redistricting fail. That is, an army waiting in the wings - that “follows illegal orders” - to prevent Congress from changing the majority party in power.

Now for the Insider Trading…

It used to be the norm that people would be prosecuted for insider trading. But it appears that if you are the president or a cabinet person, you have the green light! It does help to have your own personal lawyer leading what used to be known as the Department of Justice.

SEC Compromised?

And as for we have all come to know as the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), that agency too has been compromised. The new SEC Chair was nominated by Trump, confirmed by the Senate, and sworn in on April 21, 2025.

Currently, Paul Atkins serves as the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Before his confirmation, he was the CEO of Patomak Global Partners - A strategy, risk management, and compliance consultancy. Their clients include: Asset managers, Broker-dealers, Trading firms, Exchanges, Institutional investors, and Publicly traded companies. Additionally Atkins is widely recognized for his support of cryptocurrencies and free-market policies.

Who’s Your Daddy?

According to Patomak Global website, their “overview” states they are known for:

cutting-edge crypto-native companies on how to manage risk and maintain compliance as they launch innovative new products. We also serve as a trusted advisor to traditional financial firms and Fortune 500 companies on how to leverage digital assets for growth.

The clients they serve include:

Cryptocurrency exchanges

DeFi platforms

Blockchain and digital token projects

Fortune 500 companies operating in the digital assets space

Banks and other regulated financial firms operating in the digital assets space

Notice that none of the clients served by this behemoth company, and their former CEO, now SEC Chair, had presided over a company that focused on the portfolio of the average consumer-stock trader as their clients.

Still, if you think that either the SEC or the DOJ might step in to stop Trump and his henchmen from pillaging the US government and conducting insider trading - you would be amiss. Holding Trump and his cronies accountable, is now a job for Congress and for the Courts. For all intents and purposes, we now have an Executive whose grift and market manipulation has made Martha Stewart’s $45k stock tip savings - for which she was prosecuted by the SEC, beyond the pale - and for that she spent one year in jail!

New Laws Required

So until we have new statutes enacted by Congress to update the the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, we are at the mercy of the SEC who is making the rules, the wanna be king will continue to pronounce: “One rule for me, another for thee…” until people revolt and vote every last one of these grifters and enablers out. Until then, the grift continues, and not one average American citizen has a chance of escaping this economy unscathed.

The Wanna Be King Doesn’t Care About You…

Remember, he even said the quiet part out loud: He doesn’t care about the finances of the American people - not even a little bit - only that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon. One that all intelligence agencies stated they never had, and to which Trump had previously proclaimed he destroyed when he used bunker-busters on their nuclear mountain site. Both statements cant’ be true at the same time. But that’s for the American people to figure out!

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - Don’t Forget, PAID Subscriptions Allow Us to Keep This Newsletter Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

Host & Producer, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq.

To learn more: about Law, Business & Public Policy - and what has made America a geopolitical leader among nations over the last 250 years - Subscribe: TheLegalEdition.Substack.com and YouTube.com/TheLegalEdition

#TheLegalEdition

On the day Trump took office on January 20, 2025, he elevated Brendan Carr to the position of “Chairman” of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), tasked to lead the agency. Prior to Carr’s appointment as Chairman, he had been a “Republican” FCC “Commissioner” since 2017, and was known for his "Build America Agenda," emphasizing infrastructure deregulation, boosting the space economy, and promoting wireless leadership. Since his elevation to chairman, it appears he takes investigatory queues from Donald Trump. And the latest directive seems to be, although Carr denies it, to put the telecommunications licenses of ABC television stations - broadcasters of the Jimmy Kimmel, show in peril.

Comedians Notoriously Get Under the Skin of Insecure People

For those who don’t know, the comedian Jimmy Kimmel has been the host of his nightly ABC late-night talk show, Jimmy Kimmel Live! since January 2003. Over those 23 years, we have seen him and most comedians make fun of presidents, and in fact, since the 1980’s, it has become a tradition to “roast a president,” at the annual White House Correspondents’ dinner. We have also seen over the decades that Saturday Night Live does comedic sketches and impersonations of presidents - something the First Amendment protects.

Notably, the late US President Richard Nixon, also had a thin skin about being the butt of satire. Reportedly, he was sensitive about being mocked, and especially sensitive to parody. It seems it is not out of the realm of possibilities that insecure men who find their way to the presidency, seem to have an affinity to create an “enemies list.” In Nixon’s case and in Trump’s, both named specific comedians and media personalities they didn’t like, placing them on a virtual “hit” list.

And now we have thin-skinned Donald Trump. What is more than remarkable about him, he has no shame with insulting reporters - namely women reporters, calling them derogatory names, such as “stupid”, “piggy,” “disgusting” or a “horrible person” while the cameras are rolling. Normally, most high-profile people don’t think it’s a good public relations tact to use condescension or harsh words in the public sphere, or when the cameras are on - but for Trump, it’s a power trip to degrade and insult - and the more people watching, the better.

The Frothing Insult

Yet, the real “tell,” that an insult is forthcoming, is when he doesn’t want to talk about an issue, or the line of questioning appears to be touching on something personal - like Epstein. So his “go to” deflection tact is to throw people off guard, belittling and shaming the questioner, so while everyone is aghast at his insolence, no one pays attention to the smoke screen he created to weasel out of answering.

Remarkably, those “bone-spurs,” seem to act up on queue, irritating reporters, and getting agency heads to comport.

Who’s in Control of the Message…?

As is reported, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), licenses that regulate the airwaves of broadcasters fall under the FCC. Broadcasters that carry comedians Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel, are finding their way to the dog house in this administration. And Trump and his henchmen know, whoever gets control of the airwaves, gets to control the message - and the people. Yet, that pesky First Amendment keeps getting in the way…

How We Got Here

The FCC regulates television stations in the U.S. under the Communications Act of 1934. The “Act” requires stations to operate in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity". Licenses are generally issued for eight-year terms, requiring compliance with technical, ownership, and content standards, including restrictions on obscenity, indecency, and profanity. These comedians have indulged in none of the above, but yet, they are being scrutinized for “offending” the president and his wife.

What Does the FCC Regulate?

The FCC regulates interstate and international communications in the U.S. across radio, television, wire, satellite, cable, and the internet. As a U.S. government agency, it promotes competition, innovation, and infrastructure defense while managing the radio spectrum, licensing broadcasters, and ensuring public safety. However, in December 2025, Carr testified before Congress, that: although the FCC has traditionally been described as an independent agency overseen by Congress, Carr claims the agency is not formally independent because its chairman is removable by the President. Notably, Carr’s interpretation is contrary to all previous interpretations by many legal experts. Nevertheless, Carr has removed the word “independent” from the FCC website - ostensibly so he can continue to do the president’s license review bidding, without intervention by a recalcitrant Congress.

Why Would the FCC Want to Regulate Comedians?

Because a certain president thinks he’s a king and wants to rule and control the thoughts, minds and prejudices of the American people. That same president has elevated a puppet to be FCC Chairman to make every wish a reality. A man who demands person allegiance to him, rather than to the flag, or the US Constitution. There can be no doubt, the ongoing grift is a big part of it all - to keep the people unaware of how they are being fleeced by his majesty and this billionaire cohorts. All of his billionaire buddies vying for their coveted seats as Project 2025 authoritarians at the feet of their king, all of them “never having enough,” seeking ever more wealth and control.

Remember, those who control the message usually win, unless there is a groundswell from the public at large. So Trump and his allies are doing everything to disrupt the message: revoking licenses for broadcasters, taking away funding for NPR, PBS and sanctioning other media outlets the “self-anointed king” doesn’t like, or fail to comport - because it is sacrosanct: in authoritarian societies, people cannot be fully informed.

Those Alleged “Bone-Spurs are Irritating Us All

There is no doubt, those alleged “bone-spurs” are irritating everyone involved. It certainly has irritated Trump by the unveiling of the Epstein files and the calamitous results of his needless war with Iran. With oil prices spiking, higher prices for everyone, and the world now in an uproar, it is justifiably hurting his “good businessman” brand.

This is why this president is attacking the comedians and demanding the FCC engage in broadcaster licensure review. He wants to silence the media like they do in North Korea and Russia, because they the media tell the American people what he doesn’t want them to know. So the best thing that can happen from all this, is for people keep funding organizations like NPR, and PBS, and boycott those who capitulate their airwaves to Trump. The power of the purse wins every time, so use that power wisely, and support broadcasters and independent journalists who fight back and stand up. And the most important act of all, is Voting Blue across the board in all upcoming elections, to restore democratic values, and hold accountable those who have broken all the rules.

Share

Notes:

https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2020/10/21/fccs-authority-interpret-section-230-communications-act

https://broadbandbreakfast.com/is-the-fcc-an-independent-agency-legal-experts-say-yes/

https://www.fcc.gov/

https://www.royaltitles.net/blog/the-difference-between-a-baron-a-lord/

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/12/conservative-attacks-on-npr-and-pbs-continue-with-call-to-take-fcc-licenses/

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - Don’t Forget, PAID Subscriptions Allow Us to Keep This Newsletter Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

The US Supreme Court just ruled on the voting rights/redistricting case we discussed with scholar Walter K. Olson of the Cato institute a few weeks prior. That case is Louisiana v Callais. It was a case once heard before by the “justices” once before, but the litigants were asked to by the court to reformulate their arguments which were reheard in their nuanced state last October.

Now released in a 6 to 3 opinion, all the “conservative” justices, including the long-serving black justice Clarence Thomas, thought the voting rights act is a relic of the past - no longer necessary to give black voters the ability to elect someone to represent their congressional district who looks like them and understands their unique concerns. As outrageous as it seems, J. Thomas and his high-court colleagues did just that.

Think about the dynamics of that for awhile - people of color no longer having the ability to elect someone who looks like them or understands their unique priorities and concerns to best represent them in congress. But that’s what six of the black-robed miscreants just did by this obviously biased opinion.

Your Right to Choose is No Longer…Where Have We Heard That Before?

To simplify this further, think about how one might choose a doctor from a pool of doctors. You might find one whom you believe would best understand your illness or needs - a specialist of sorts, but your healthcare provider tells you that your choice is not available to you. How would you feel? How would you feel if you did not have choice for a very long time?

Of course, by the time people of color finally got some say with their vote, it was 1965 - with the passage of the Voting Rights Act. Then more than six decades later in 2026, more than a half a century later - you once again lose the ability to choose a representative that looks like you and understands your unique concerns. Sound fair? Yet, this is what in essence the six conservatives on the high court, including a black justice seem to believe. I guess all the gifts, graft and special trips and emoluments make them feel special - especially J. Thomas, who appears to be divorced from the black community of his own birth.

Distraught Minority Weigh-in on Effect of Majority Decision

So distraught by the majority opinion written by J. Alito and joined in by the five others in his biased troupe, Justice Elena Kagan spoke for the Minority with her dissent, taking the rare opportunity to read her minority dissent out loud from the bench, a dissent in which JJ. Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in.

Kagan argued that the majority opinion, which narrowed the use of race in redistricting, rendered the Voting Rights Act “all but a dead letter,” representing a major rollback of voting protections allowing states to dilute minority voting power. What the outcome of this majority opinion did was invalidate a Louisiana congressional map in which current GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson, plays a large and pivotal part. This new ruling creates a new framework making it harder to use race as a factor in creating districts, with the purposeful effect of diluting minority voting power. So no matter what any lower court said about creating another district to comport with the large swath of black voters, that simply doesn’t seem to matter.

So if you are looking for justice, as they say, go to church. Or in this instance, lobby your Congresspeople and ensure you vote blue in the upcoming midterm elections. Congress needs to step in and right the wrongs of this Supreme Court. We need a few good and logical people to win the coveted Senate and House seats. Hopefully the American people will be motivated with the price of gas, housing, the war in Iran and everything else - to take the initiative to carefully assess the situation, cast their vote, to help make this democracy work.

Notes:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/literacy-test

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/15th-amendment

https://www.britannica.com/event/Reconstruction-United-States-history

https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/exhibitions/american-democracy/online/vote-voice/keeping-vote/state-rules-federal-rules/poll-taxes

https://guides.loc.gov/reconstruction

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-louisiana-alabama-4e3225083caccda5ec73a98533a79add

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - Don’t Forget, PAID Subscriptions Allow Us to Keep This Publication Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

If you are shrugging your shoulders and wondering how former FBI director James Comey could be indicted again, you are probably thinking about Double Jeopardy and Constitutional safeguards to prevent it. Enter the “fifth’ amendment to the US Constitution. Yet, the last time he was accused of lying to Congress, this time, the government is trying to prove Comey had malicious intent, by posting a seashell arrangement on a beach…sound crazy? So what really does the Fifth Amendment really protect?

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Yet, ”Double Jeopardy” does not apply here, because the government is alleging a “different” crime.

On April 28, 2026, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted once again by a federal grand jury, this time in North Carolina. This “second indictment” stems from a 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged as "86 47." Far-fetched as it is, prosecutors allege that photo that Comey posted online of the seashell arrangement appeared to “spell out” a coded message - a threat to harm President Trump - the 47th president.

So what does Merriam-Webster have to say about all this? According to the source, “86” is used as a colloquial term meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of,” or “to refuse service to.” It doesn’t mean kill or assassinate - but that appears to be what Trump is pushing and “his” DOJ is alleging.

The First Time Wasn’t a Charm for the Trump DOJ

To remind everyone, the “first indictment” of Comey was supposedly for lying to Congress, but that 2025 indictment was thrown out not on the “merits,” but on procedural grounds as the prosecutor put in charge, Lindsey Halligan was found to be unlawfully appointed as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. As a result of her illegal placement, she could not legally prosecute the first Comey case, or any other case in the name of the government.

Different Alleged Crime - Same M.O.

Because Trump likes to punish his “perceived” enemies, and gleefully drag them through the mud, to cause them reputational and monetary expense, he is using the “DOJ” as his own mafia “hit squad” to exact revenge. It appears he garners personal satisfaction by taking sadistic revenge upon those he believes have wronged him. Even though the DOJ really has no case against Comey, the indictment is injurious in and of itself. And it appears Trump’s motto is, “try, try again…” and who knows what can shake out. It is obvious he will try to prosecute others he dislikes again and again, as his narcissism and psychopathy have no obvious end.

Let’s Not Forget How Joe Biden was Depicted “Hog Tied” in Back of Truck by Trump Social Media…

During the last presidential campaign, Trump published on un“Truth” un“Social” a poster depicting then president Biden hog tied in the back of a pickup truck. So the question that now must be asked in light of these new Comey criminal charges, Was Trump promoting harm to then President Biden?

We now understand the “coded” seashell arrangement “86” means to “remove” which can easily be interpreted as impeach or remove under the 25th Amendment. But in the case at hand, there is no indicia that “removal” was intended to mean putting a “hit” on anyone - especially Trump. But I guess, that is what any mobster mentality would think. And only from that deranged perspective, Trump’s interpretation makes perfect sense.

What is clear, is even though in all likelihood this recent indictment against Comey will be dismissed, it is nevertheless meant to be chilling for others to speak out. And that is the real intent. That is, get people to literally “shut up” and not talk about removing a president, even though the Constitution specifically authorizes removal through the full process of impeachment and the 25th Amendment.

So if Trump takes issue with the Constitution, he should take it up with the founders. And as we know that is not at all possible, then he should shut the hell up. And as a monetary deterrent, claims of Malicious Prosecution need to be filed by his intended victims, seeking steep monetary penalties to be imposed by the courts for his egregious abuse of process: dragging numerous people through the mud over and over again. That’s the only way to get a tyrannical and deranged “predator” to curtail the charade of fake prosecutions - hit him in his big fat coveted pocketbook where it hurts the most.

There are Significant Monetary Penalties for Malicious Prosecution

In response to criminal cases, civil lawsuits known as “torts” can be filed by those wrongly targeted and harmed, and as we’ve seen in the E.Jean Carroll case, that can equate to millions of dollars. Damages compensate for attorney fees, lost income, emotional distress, and reputational damage, with potential for “punitive damages” if malicious intent is proven. And with Trump’s announcements of going after his “enemies,” that wouldn’t be hard to prove.

Important Legal Distinctions:

• Civil Action: Malicious prosecution is a civil action designed to compensate for the harm caused by a previous improper criminal or civil proceeding;

• There is No Fixed Penalty or Fine: There is no fixed amount; each case is unique;

• Limitations on Immunity: While prosecutors are often immune, they can be sued if they act outside their authority.

If Comey is Found Innocent: What Damages & Financial Compensation Can he Seek?

• Special Damages known as “Economic Losses” - These include: attorney fees, bail costs, lost wages, and other financial costs;

• General Damages known as “Non-Economic Losses” - This includes compensation for emotional distress, anxiety, damaged reputation, and loss of enjoyment of life - including loss of consortium.

• Punitive Damages: Awarded in cases where malice is clear - these damages are intended to punish the perpetrator who wrongfully brought malicious charges;

• Settlement Examples: Settlements can be significant for a falsely and wrongly accused individual.

Factors Influencing the Penalty Amount:

• Severity of Harm: Longer imprisonment or greater reputational harm leads to higher compensation;

• Nature of the Misconduct: Clear evidence of malicious intent rather than just negligence can provide higher monetary award;

• Litigation Costs: The cost to defend the “initial malicious action” - and here - twice indicted - twice defended - such can be a key component of any damage award.

  If you like this article and want to keep important legal analysis coming your way - Support The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News by being a ‘Paid Subscriber’ today!

The Finale

So as long as the Judicial system in the courts hold up against governmental tyranny - Trump’s Malicious Prosecution should be easy to prove. Still one major hurdle remains: Courts dealing with and overcoming with the US Supreme Court’s broad grant of presidential immunity. In a normal world, that shouldn’t shield Trump from pursuing unbounded personal vendettas in the civil realm. Yet these are not “normal” times - so I guess we will just have to wait and see how this all shakes out….

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - Don’t Forget, PAID Subscriptions Allow Us to Keep This Newsletter Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.

Can an “Executive” Make the Voting Rules?

Importantly, the procedures behind voting cannot be changed by Executive Fiat - or as we’ve come to know as Executive Orders (EO’s). Under the US Constitution, Congress must act to implement any new regulations and changes. As discussed in this interview, Congress has the power - not the President on voting regulations - and state rules govern the time place and manner of voting within their borders. This all means that a president does not have the power to ‘Nationalize Voting’ - no matter how fervently that president may claim it to be his right to do so. The Elections Clause, Article I of the US Constitution makes this all clear.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 - States and Elections Clause:

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 chusing Senators.

Equal Protection and the Fundamental Right to Vote

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 - Voting Rights:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The US Supreme Court has reviewed voter qualification laws, and has invalidated excessive state durational residency and poll tax requirements; at the same time, the high court has upheld state requirements that voters present government-issued photo identification. But race-based disqualification is strictly prohibited, and noncitizens do not have the right - and rarely try to do so, despite what some may claim.

Gerrymandering Your District

Notably, race-based gerrymandering gets the highest level of Constitutional scrutiny by Courts and is prohibited. However, proving the motive of state legislatures in drawing district lines is hard to prove, as any motive to change district lines is often hidden under the guise of partisan gerrymandering. The US Supreme Court has routinely deemed partisan gerrymandering an acceptable form of redistricting, and Constitutional.

Ballot Access - Who Gets to Be On Your Ballot?

With regard to “ballot access” and state requirements for getting one’s name on a ballot, the high Court has determined that if there are reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions on getting a candidate’s name on a ballot, that will trigger a less exacting constitutional review than requirements that appear discriminatory or “race-based” - which gets the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. Currently, voting rights cases are before the US Supreme Court, and decisions are pending pertaining to whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains intact.

To learn more about ‘Making Your Vote Count’ - Watch this Interview with Voting & Gerrymandering Scholar - Walter K. Olson, Sr. Fellow at the Cato Institute's Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Washington, DC.

Don’t forget to ‘Like’ & ‘Restack’ Here on Substack - Don’t Forget, PAID Subscriptions Allow Us to Keep This Publication Coming Your Way! …

Follow The Legal Edition on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, & Bluesky

Copyright 2026, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - All Rights Reserved.