The Eyes And Ears Of The People:

Court Says "No" To Trump

By Jennifer Pinnock, LPO Owner

Edited By Theodore Arthur Pinnock, JD

May 28, 2019

Disclaimer:

Each morning (as in early morning), my husband and I have a habit of

talking about anything under the sun. It was the same, but quite different,
Saturday morning, May 25, 2019. It was different because this time he has
to train me on how to analyze a case. My first case is the Donald Trump
Sr.’s case against Congress. Donald J. TRUMP, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM OF the U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, et al., Defendants.Case No. 19-cv-01136 (APM).
Signed May 20, 2019, 2019 WL 2171378.

Below are the key facts on this matter.

1. The Chairman of the Oversight Committee wrote a letter to the

President's personal attorney requesting documents.

2. The personal attorney did not produce the documents.

3. The Oversight Committee heard the testimony of Michael Cohen.

4. Based upon Cohen's testimony, the Chairman wrote a letter to the

accountant of the President.

5. The accountant refused the request relying upon various rules.

6. The Chairman notified the Committee that he intended to subpoena

the financial information and provided the subpoena to all of the
members.

1
 7. One member of the Committee objected.

8. The subpoena was served on the accountant and they had 48 hours
to provide the documents.

For the reasons above, the President and his many other legal entities filed a
complaint alleging that the subpoena issued by the Oversight Committee is
not valid.

The main issues of this matter are the following.

1. Did the Oversight Committee exceed its constitutional power to

investigate?

2. Did the Oversight Committee use its power to analyze the

effectiveness of federal laws?

3. Did the Oversight Committee use its power to investigate making

new laws or adding to existing laws?

4. Did the Oversight Committee use its power to formulate changes

to existing laws?

5. Was there a legislative purpose when the Oversight Committee

issued a subpoena?

After less than a month since the complaint was filed, the Court decided the
case.

DECISION:

1. The Judge decided to consolidate the motion for preliminary

injunction and the trial on the merits (summary judgment).

2. The Court decided that there was only one issue in this case. The
issue is did the Oversight Committee properly use its power to issue
the subpoena.

3. The Court decided that the Oversight Committee has the power to
make legislation pursuant to Article I of the Constitution. Article I

2
does not state that Congress has the investigative power but the Court
ruled that the power to legislate includes the power to investigate
based upon 400 years of history going back to the United Kingdom.

4. The Court decided that Congress has the informing function (the
Eyes and Ears of the People Function) The purpose of the function is
to let the constituents know what is happening with the government.

5. The power of Congress is very broad.

6. The Congress' power to investigate is limited. The limits are:

a. Congress cannot act as a Court.

b. Congress cannot act as the executive.
c. Congress cannot violate the individual rights protected by
constitution without a legislative purpose.
d. Congress cannot expose information for the sake of
exposure.

7. The Court must assume that Congress has a legislative purpose.

8. The Court must not test the motive of the members.

9. The Court decided that if the investigation could result in

legislation then Congress properly exercises its power.

10. The Court cannot be influenced by politics.

11. The Court decided that Congress had the legislative power to
investigate the financial affairs of the President to verify compliance
the ethics act and the emoluments clause of the constitution.

12. The Court decided that even if the Committee's investigation

results in the exposure of criminal activity it does not mean that the
Congress exceeded its power to investigate.

13. The plaintiffs' argument that the Committee cannot investigate the
financial affairs of the President was not valid because the
investigation can lead to new legislation.

3
 14. The Court decided that the plaintiffs' argument that the Committee
was interfering in the private affairs of the President was not valid
because it had a facially legislative purpose.

15. The Court decided to reject the plaintiffs' pertinency argument.

The Court defined pertinency as related to the legislative inquiry. The
Court decided that the financial information related to the inquiry
because the information can show the necessity for a new legislation.

16. The Court rejected the argument that the proposed legislation
violated the constitution because the Court has no power to interfere
with the legislation process and must wait until the process is
completed.

We notice that the Court decided this matter quickly. The Court stated the
reason why and it was clear and reasonable. The Court cannot delay a case
that can help the Congress to legislate. In my opinion, the Court decided
fairly and accurately this matter. The courts are still an independent body
that cannot be politically influenced by anyone.