For the U.S. Treasury Department to ask me – a disabled designer – to further define Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concise dissent in Connick was to ask me to surrender to one of their surreal circular say-much-do-nothing attacks on ordinary people – which they conduct in lockstep with the IRS and almost every other federal agency. There was only one appropriate response … General Anthony C. McAuliffe‘s “NUTS.”
In her dissent on Connick, Notorious RBG made it clear that Chief John Roberts’ majority was giving prosecutors and their supervisors immunity from prosecution for neither knowing nor caring what they were doing and acting with deliberate malice, and that this was an expansion of the immunities previously granted to public attorneys by the United States Supreme Court in Imbler v Pachtman, Van de Kamp V Goldtsein, Brady v Maryland, etc.
If SCOTUS intended anything but continuing unequal justice for public attorneys – up to and including intentionally leaving killers on the streets while innocents served their sentences, including death sentences – surely John Roberts himself would have seen to it that Harry Connick Sr and his staff were taken to task by Bar associations, per Imber and Van de Kamp. But no one ever asks that Bar associations to do anything to earn their very existence, let alone their unearned tax exemptions. Not even the Innocence Industry.
Dear Major Banks,
Nuts.
Sincerely,
Susan Chandler
TIGTA complaint no. 55-1106-0136-C
Wobbly Warrior's Blog 