by Ashe in America | Feb 19, 2024 | Feature Story Bottom Left
ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION
Oral arguments in Anderson v. Griswold took place on February 8th, and for the first time since the trial court, the public is speculating that this decision may be 9-0 for the intervenors — for Trump. The question before the court is:
Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in their ruling to remove President Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot?
As the party petitioning for Supreme Court review, President Trump’s attorneys went first, and they made multiple interrelated and distinct arguments for overturning the CO high court’s decision. The justices asked about the evidentiary record, specifically the lower court’s decision to admit the objectively biased January 6 Report and Professor Simi’s minority-reporting pseudoscience. The justices challenged many of Trump attorney Jonathan Mitchell’s arguments, which he handled expertly.
The Colorado petitioners had a rough time during oral arguments, fielding tough questions from even the most liberal justices. Ketanji Brown Jackson pontificated about insurrection — but even she had real issues with petitioner attorney Jason Murray’s 14th Amendment argument. She single-handedly rebuked Murray’s talking points that the text of the amendment is unambiguous.
JUSTICE JACKSON: “But doesn’t that at least suggest ambiguity? And this sort of ties into Justice Kavanaugh’s point. In other words, we had a person right there at the time saying what I’m saying, the — the language here doesn’t seem to include president, why is that? And so if there’s an ambiguity, why would we construe it to — as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out — against democracy?”
Murray’s response was a variation of “because we really want you to!” His case was revealed as hysterical nonsense about an insurrection that hasn’t been litigated, and the petitioners were exposed as calling on the court to usurp the powers of the state and federal legislatures.
Murray and the petitioners’ flimsy arguments that adorn this case were exposed and shredded by Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch had one of the toughest exchanges for Murray, who clerked for Gorsuch on the appellate court before clerking for Kagan in SCOTUS.
- MURRAY: “I’m imagining a situation where, for example, a former president was — you know, a — a president was elected, and they were, and they were ineligible to hold office —”
JUSTICE GORSUCH: “No. No.”
- MURRAY: “— but, nevertheless, they were put into that office —”
JUSTICE GORSUCH: “No. No. We’re talking about Section 3.”
- MURRAY: “And —”
JUSTICE GORSUCH: “Please don’t change the hypothetical, okay?”
- MURRAY: “I’m —”
JUSTICE GORSUCH: “Please don’t change the hypothetical. I know. I like doing it too, but please don’t do it, okay?”
Alito specifically dissected the inclusion of hearsay and criticized the findings of insurrection. Barrett focused on the Constitutional nuances of the arguments, as she usually does. Even Roberts and the leftie justices were conflicted by Murray’s arguments which, as I’ve discussed at length, comprise novel legal theory intended only to demonize and persecute President Trump and his supporters.
Secretary of State Jena Griswold was given 10 mins of time, which was argued by Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson. She objected to Justice Thomas, which was weird. Justice Roberts challenged her to defend the determination of “insurrection” and asked her to better define the standards. Stevenson struggled to articulate how a state disenfranchising just their own voters in a federal election — violating equal protections — can remain a constitutional act.
The one high point for Stevenson was that she urged the justices to review the findings of fact and conclusions of law with regards to “insurrection.” I have been consistently in favor of this request, as the evidentiary record does not hold up outside of the biased Colorado courts.
Justice Kavanaugh put a fine point on the lack of due process in this case, highlighting CO Justice Samour’s famous line in the dissent:
“There was no fair trial either … I have been involved in the justice system for 33 years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.”
It’s unlikely that the high court will uphold the lower court’s ruling, but it remains unclear how far they will go with the insurrection findings.
The decision is expected quickly as many other states have similar cases in limbo, awaiting this decision, and clarity is required before the Colorado primary on March 5. As of press time, unconfirmed “leaks” claim that the decision in chambers was, in fact, 9-0, but we are unable to confirm prior to press time.
My key takeaway from the entire 14th Amendment saga is that it appears the Constitution is still in effect. What a welcome surprise.
Ashe Epp is a writer and activist. You can find all her work at Linktree.com/asheinamerica
by Ashe in America | Jan 19, 2024 | Feature Story Bottom Left
ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION
The tone was set for the 74th Colorado General Assembly, when on its very first day, Palestinian protesters disrupted an official government proceeding with shouts for a ceasefire in Gaza. It’s unclear what the mob expects the Colorado state legislature to do about the war between Israel and Gaza, but you can bet virtue signals will decorate the 2024 session.
As Republicans have been impotent in the legislature for years, many of the GOP’s state reps find value in using the well to practice their messaging for the campaign trail.
House Minority Leader Mike Lynch attempted a commanding posture when he urged his colleagues to remember the people of Colorado, stating, “We are easily tempted to put party over the people and service takes a second seat to our personal ambitions.”
This is funny because Lynch’s personal ambition is to be my congressman in CD4. He faces a crowded field that includes a bunch of other establishment republicans as well as former State Senator Ted Harvey, entrepreneur Deborah Flora, and political newcomer Trent Leisy. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert entered the race as well for some unknown reason.
I had the opportunity to ask Representative Lynch some questions during an AssembleXCO space on X earlier this month, and he told me about his priorities for the 2024 session. The space is recorded, and you can listen at the link below. My discussion begins at the 45 minute mark. I’m one of the hosts of AssembleXCO, and we are interviewing all candidates and state figures who aren’t afraid to step into the arena. Follow the account on X at @AssembleXCO, and join the conversation!
Tell Me How You’re Different
“My biggest fight down there is with fentanyl,” Lynch said when I asked him about his legislative priorities. In terms of solutions, he spoke of increased possession penalties and strong deterrents. Tell me you’ve never met an addict without telling me.
When I asked him about his political calculus for prioritizing fentanyl over homelessness, taxes, the sanctuary crisis, and other important issues to Colorado voters, he said, “That’s an area that I’ve worked on my entire legislative career… but primarily, it’s because it’s killing people. It’s the one issue — you know, property tax is a pain in the butt, and it’s gonna run some people out of the state, but it’s not going to kill them.”
Suicide rates are at all time highs under Bidenomics and the current state government. I dispute the idea that the tax crisis isn’t going to kill people. It’s a contributing factor that already is killing them in the mental health crisis. I’d argue most Colorado voters would prioritize mental health and Colorado quality of life before criminalizing addiction and attempting, yet again, to win the war on drugs. Also, you can’t address the fentanyl problem without addressing the border and pretending you can is silly and wasteful.
For my last question set, I asked him pointedly, “Do you believe January 6 was an insurrection?” He said, “I do not,” but did not elaborate. When I asked him about the weaponization of government, he said he believed the real problem was that law enforcement has been too hamstrung because of, “the government taking away our ability to enforce laws.”
Oh dear.
I asked him about the JTTF and Rebecca Lavrens, the praying grandmother, being shackled in Denver, he told me of those federal and state collaborations, “I don’t really see that as law enforcement.” That’s more the agencies, he said, and we need President Trump to come back and fix it.
He’s the House Minority Leader in our state. What’s that old adage about evil and good men?
Back to the first day of the legislative session, “I implore you to remember it is not you that sits in those seats, it is the thousands of people who put you there. Those voices are important, as well,” Lynch said.
Those voices aren’t important “as well.” Those voices are important. The voices of those in the seats may be important “as well” but only inasmuch as they speak for those who sent them.
The Colorado primary will be conducted on Super Tuesday, March 5, 2024, with the 2024 Colorado Republican Assembly and Convention scheduled for April.
Ashe Epp is a writer and activist. You can find all her work at Linktree.com/asheinamerica
by Ashe in America | Dec 15, 2023 | Feature Story Bottom Left
ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION
There are 22 states with 14th Amendment, Section 3 challenges to President Trump’s 2024 candidacy. Six states — Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, and Rhode Island — have declined to prevent President Trump from being on the ballot.
Other challenges underway have yet to be decided: Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
In Colorado, District Judge Sarah Wallace issued a criminal finding in a civil trial, prompting President Trump to appeal the judge’s seemingly favorable ruling. On December 6, 2023, the Colorado Justices heard arguments in the case from Jason Murray and Eric Olsen for the petitioners, and Scott Gessler for the intervenors.
There were two matters before the court:
- Does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment apply to the President?
- Was January 6 an insurrection?
Most of the time was devoted to the 14th Amendment with minimal time being devoted to the nature of January 6. There was extensive discussion about Confederate President Jefferson Davis; a tacit comparison of January 6 to the Civil War, which is appalling when you really think about it.
The biggest concern for Colorado Republican voters in this case is the matter of equal treatment. That is, if President Trump is allowed on the ballot across the nation, but not in Colorado, are Republican voters truly able to participate in the election. On this, Eric Olsen declared that President Trump is disqualified, because Judge Wallace said so, and that President Trump’s inclusion on the ballot would dilute the votes of Republicans.
“We’re worried about our clients, who are Republicans and Independents who filed the suit because they want a fair shot in the Republican primary to vote for a qualified candidate and have their support for a qualified candidate not be diluted through votes for a candidate who would definitely be disqualified,” Olsen said. “The pro-democracy, pro-Colorado voter perspective, which is, I think, what we’re looking at here” is to declare Trump ineligible before election, “so that the ballot reflects those who are qualified, and the will of the voter can be honored.”
Hearing Eric Olsen pretend to care about the rights of Republican voters, while unapologetically engaging in election interference against the most popular Republican candidate — by a wide margin — was particularly nauseating.
For his part, Scott Gessler briefly argued that J6 is more “properly categorized” as “a riot” than an “insurrection.” Unfortunately, one of the justices stated that, because Gessler didn’t brief the court on counter arguments about the insurrection, they don’t have much to go on, to dispute the District Court’s ruling.
My heart sank at this exchange, particularly because the insurrection findings were the entire reason for President Trump’s appeal. The Justice seemed to be implying that Gessler had dropped the ball on making the argument, and that may be enough wiggle room for the high court to uphold Wallace’s flawed decision.
What are the potential outcomes? There are several, and the case is expected to be appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
For the 14th Amendment, if the court upholds Judge Wallace’s determination that Section 3 of the 14th doesn’t apply to the President, then the petitioners will likely appeal.
For the matter of insurrection, if the court upholds Judge Wallace’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection, President Trump and the GOP will likely appeal.
There is also the possibility that they will uphold one part of the ruling and overturn the other. For example, uphold that J6 was an insurrection and that President Trump incited it — and overturn Judge Wallace’s decision that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to the President. Simply, they could decide to keep President Trump off the ballot.
Alternatively, the CO Supreme Court could uphold the 14th Amendment ruling but overturn the findings about insurrection. In my view this is the right call, but I am not holding my breath in the Colorado courts.
The appeals will move quickly. According to Secretary Griswold’s posted election timeline, citing Colorado statutes 1-4-1204(1.5) and 1-1-106(5), December 29 is the “Last day a person whose name has been certified to be placed on the ballot of the March 5th Presidential Primary.”
Stay tuned.
Ashe Epp is a writer and activist. You can find all her work at Linktree.com/asheinamerica
by Ashe in America | Nov 15, 2023 | Feature Story Bottom Left
ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION
The state of Colorado heard arguments of unprecedented lawfare in late October, in a lawsuit by six Colorado voters in September. The Colorado case was filed with the help of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and similar cases are being pursued around the nation. The inception of this novel legal theory goes back to 2021 and the 14Point3 campaign of Free Speech for People, a leftist lawfare outfit.
Notably, earlier this month, the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a similar case, declining to become the first state in history to prevent someone from running for the presidency. Colorado has no such qualms.
The petitioners argue that President Trump is ineligible to hold office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The respondent in the case is Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who has declined to make arguments or present evidence in the case other than allowing Deputy Elections Director Hillary Rudy to testify on behalf of her office. Intervening on behalf of Colorado voters are President Trump and the Colorado GOP.
On day one of the trial, two former capital police officers were called, out of hundreds, and both have become influencers on the left in the years since J6. They were highly coached, and, like the J6 Committee, the petitioners declined to call former Capitol Police Chief Stephen Sund.
Speaking of the J6 Committee, their highly politicized report comprises most of the evidence in the petitioners’ case, joined by a handful of witnesses — the two officers, Eric Swalwell, and two academics — and, of course, President Trump’s tweets.
The second day of the trial was surreal as the petitioners called sociologist Pete Simi who “specializes” in “far right extremism.” Simi testified that:
- Far Right Extremists are those who believe that corruption is a significant problem. Notably, according to the NY Times and Siena College, that includes 68% of the nation.
- Signs of escalating extremist behavior include posting in all caps on social media and speaking about 1776. Yes, really.
- President Trump knowingly incites violence using doublespeak; in other words, when President Trump says, “peacefully and patriotically,” he really means to incite violence — and far right extremists know this.
Simi presented no evidence of President Trump inciting anything. Rather, his testimony was that, in his expert opinion, the seemingly non-violent speech from the former president was secret coded messaging to far right extremists — which, again, he defined as people who are concerned about government corruption.
The second “expert” witness to testify was a self-described “Homeland Security expert,” though he admitted that he has never advised a government executive branch, state or federal, and he has never actually been in responsive position during a real crisis — but he has simulated a bunch of them in an academic setting. That is, the petitioners were unable to find a Homeland Security expert with actual experience to testify.
According to the petitioner attorneys, at least four witnesses decided not to testify since the start of the case, ostensibly to protect their credibility. The witnesses who did testify embarrassed themselves, revealed their politicization, and exposed their disdain for the Bill of Rights.
In a wild turn of events, a J6er named Treniss Evans has sued the petitioners, claiming that Olson and team doctored the timeline of events and defamed him — Evans — in the process. According to the filing, the attorneys altered timestamps of when Mr. Evans spoke to link him to violence at the Capitol. He has requested to intervene in President Trump’s case as well.
On the third day of the trial, the petitioners finished up and the intervenors — President Trump and the CO GOP — called Kash Patel as their first witness. Some excitement followed that made me part of the story, but that’s unimportant theater and will be dealt with accordingly.
The intervenors presented an ironclad case, meticulously refuting every claim by the petitioners. The judge is expected to hear closing arguments on November 15. The matter must be resolved by December 29, according to the Colorado election timeline, and whoever loses is expected to appeal.
The First Amendment and the Will of the People are on trial in this case. Every Colorado voter should pay attention.
Ashe Epp is a writer and activist. You can find all her work at Linktree.com/asheinamerica
by Ashe in America | Oct 20, 2023 | Feature Story Bottom Left
ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION
Last month, I published “Winter is Coming for Vulnerable Navajo Communities Near Cortez, Colorado,” about the Democrat City Council of Cortez wedging itself in between a life-and-death agreement between two indigenous parties. As politicians signaled virtuous support for indigenous peoples on October 9, their incompetence is creating a double energy crisis for some of the most vulnerable indigenous people in the region.
And they’re calling it an environmental win.
Tony Moore and Mary Lancaster, owners of Industrial Log Company (ILC), attempted for over two years to relaunch their log home manufacturing business in Tony’s hometown of Cortez, Colorado. Local ignorance of city officials and old baggage with local activists created headaches for Tony and Mary, including lost revenue and false allegations. Read the full story here: https://asheinamerica.substack.com/p/winter-is-coming-for-vulnerable-navajo.
When the city rejected the ILC zoning, the Cortez Journal and The Four Corners Free Press claimed the decision was a victory in environmentalism.
What Is A Double Energy Crisis?
The Navajo community on the reservation, the Dine’, live traditionally, with the land. They use seasoned firewood for heat in the winter. They used to use coal until the environmentalists succeeded in getting the local coal mine closed some years back. Firewood must be seasoned, or aged, and then gathered, split, and delivered to the many communities on the reservation.
But for many on the reservation, transportation is also an issue. The lack of access to fuel (wood) combined with transportation limitations, is what researchers refer to as a “double energy crisis.” Many elderly Dine’ don’t have family to manage the wood deliveries, making them some of the most vulnerable residents of the region. According to locals, it’s not uncommon to see elderly woman by the side of the road in mid-winter, gathering twigs for their primitive stoves.
When some indigenous U.S. veterans joined Tony for a tour of his operation, these two stories collided.
Byproduct Or Commodity?
ILC’s log home manufacturing yields an important byproduct: Firewood. The product is already seasoned, and ILC has the operational capabilities to split and deliver enough wood for all 20 Chapter Houses, meeting the critical needs of the vulnerable Dine’ elders.
Tony is a registered tribal Cherokee, and he and Mary know the struggles for the Navajo created by the double energy crisis. They had been working on contracting with the Chapter Houses to deliver their byproduct as firewood, and both sides were excited about the deal.
There was only one problem. The white City Council members demanded that, since the byproduct was now going to be considered firewood, that Tony and Mary’s property needed to be rezoned as industrial. So, why they can’t just re-zone the property and get on with it?
City zoning often results in unintended consequences, but this zoning dispute is creating a humanitarian crisis. Tony and Mary planned to fulfill the contract with the Navajo as a tax-deductible nonprofit activity delivered through Tony and Mary’s for-profit company. They cannot run the firewood distribution charitably since the zoning fiasco; public notice timelines for permits now prevent it.
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person, acting under color of any law, to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege. One such protection is “use by right,” and it applies to the normal course of business activities between ILC and the Navajo. Title 18, Section 242, is a federal law, but it explicitly applies to local governments. It’s a matter of civil rights.
Rachel Marchbanks, a City of Cortez staff member, filed a police complaint against ILC on April 29. This was a Saturday, outside of working hours, and she used her official title. It also appears that there are two co-conspirators, also acting under color of law to obstruct the native’s use by right.
Marchbanks used her official authority, outside of business hours, to interfere with “use by right” protections of two indigenous parties engaging in the normal course of business. She acted under the color of law — her official authority — with catastrophic winter consequences for those on the reservation.
But I’m sure they had lovely virtue signals on indigenous people’s day.
Ashe Epp is a writer and activist. You can find all her work at Linktree.com/asheinamerica
