Click to Download!
The “We Build the Wall” campaign calls on the Supreme Court to end the unlawful action the New York government has taken against the agency.
In 2020, within a few days between the Democrat National Convention and the Republican National Convention, the Southern District of New York (SDNY) enacted laws to undermine the politics of the founders of the We Build the Wall and President Trump. The We Build the Wall campaign was trying to build a South Wall while Congress banned the construction. (Note that this was a Republican Congress led by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell for two years.)
Steve Bannon, Brian Kolfage and two others raised funds and began building their own sections of the border wall. The SDNY, which is located near the southern border, decided to punish the builders of the wall, and arrested the leaders on another serious threat to the people who supported President Trump.
New York sent 15 Postal Service Officers to Florida to arrest a Kolfage crippled man three times. They shoved her into their car and forced her into a car with one of her limbs.
SDNY also took funds from We Build the Wall at that time. Leaders of the group are now claiming that SDNY did not have the right to confiscate Timamanga Khoma funds and are asking the Supreme Court to answer their case.
Rule360 reports on the case [emphasis ours]:
When the Second Circuit refused to allow a New York state judge to close three of the campaign’s accounts while the case against supervisors was pending, the We Build the Wall campaign told the judges that the people who accused them were fraudulent. they cannot control it to seize property that they did not own.Download file now!
Click to Download!
“The case … highlights the need, and if it is not addressed, the risks increased use of narcotic seizure law not to seize property that has not been acquitted, but also to seize property that has not been seized and has not been prosecuted, ”the campaign said on Friday in the Supreme Court…
… The Second Council refused to suspend the suspension of the property in June, saying it was not a law, or a final order, that could be appealed as it had been issued under three federal laws. Moreover, the ban had no effect on the final ruling, because the campaign could continue commercial activities, a panel of three judges ruled.
But the petitioner ruled that seven other district courts had ruled that the restrictions imposed by the confiscation law were necessary to appeal.
We Build the Wall also said The Second Circuit demanded that the campaign be made to look like a permanent one To eliminate the cold of goods, and to set high barriers, We Build the Wall argued.
The Second Circuit “rewrote some of the requirements that do not appear in the law – that the foreclosure order could be issued if it ‘closes the business,'” the campaign said, quoting a court of appeal.
That further criticized the group’s finding that it was not damaged and asset cooling. With this plan, the campaign could be barred from entering its account for years, Timanga Khoma said.
The campaign revealed that the prosecutor found that the property had been stopped by someone else and had filed a petition with a New York judge. The the policy barred the campaign from any opportunity to oppose the petition, in violation of its fundamental rights, it said.
“If, as stated in Circuit II, Section 853 allows for the banning of We Build the Wall Clock,” says We Build the Wall, referring to one of the seizure rules the district court used to suspend its bank accounts, “and We Build the Wall must await the decision of Prior to the hearing, the defendants violated Article 853 of the Constitution and ordered that a wall be erected.