strip banner

new-logo25Marti Oakley        © copyright 2014 All rights reserved

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Legal v Lawful:  Weasel word swapping at its finest

Weasel word swaps are those words and phrases that sound as if they mean a certain thing and, most of you have been conditioned to believe mean something specific, when in fact, they do not. The recent ruling by U.S. District Judge William Pauley III who took it upon himself to violate the Constitutional rights of every American citizen when he decided that the unwarranted and illegal  NSA spying on virtually everyone, was LEGAL (he did NOT say lawful).  The swapping of the word legal as opposed to lawful requires a closer look.

Definition of legalize:

To make legal or lawful; to confirm or validate what was before void or unlawful; to add the sanction and authority of law to that which before was without or against law.  

In other words, the NSA Spying without probable cause, without obtaining a warrant  is and was1441183_401318466665654_1752838926_n unconstitutional and therefore, unlawful.  Pauley, who knew exactly what he was doing, attempted to by-pass the Constitutional prohibitions against exactly this kind of unfettered and lawless activity by the government and its incorporated agencies to make an otherwise Constitutionally prohibited activity appear to be lawful.

Law Dictionary:

Definition of Legal:  Blacks Law Fifth Edition page 803, column 1, para: 9

Conforming to the law; according to the law; countenanced by the law; good and effectual in law. Not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law.

This contrasts with a ruling earlier this month by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon who ruled that the spying was in fact, unconstitutional and unlawful.

Here’s a clue: 

Both cases arrived in separate district courts almost simultaneously and, in record time were heard by the courts.  The two opposing opinions rendered within those courts were not accidental.  The two vastly differing opinions set the stage for a hearing by the United States Supreme Court, to settle the issue.

SCOTUS has become increasingly infamous for ruling against the Constitutional rights and protections of the people, and in this case, will do just exactly that.

The most recent and notoriously offensive ruling issued by Chief Justice Roberts, declared that Obamacare was a tax bill, and therefore constitutional, regardless of the facts that it was in all actuality a takeover of health care and access and violated the rights of the people to decide for themselves.  The title of the bill says it all:

An Act

Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Nowhere in the title does it say “115 new Taxes Act”.  No where does it say the focus of this act is new taxes.

And what is a legislative ACT?  It is a statute or law that forces compliances.  To write a bill as an Act, is a declaration that you will be forced to comply whether you want to or not; whether it is lawful or not; whether it violates your rights or not.

This is assuming of course, that you could decipher the rambling, convoluted and twisted language in the ruling which Roberts seemed unable to explain himself.

The Supreme Court typically hears cases when there are conflicting decisions across the country on a particular issue.  They will not however, hear cases where the ruling was based on differing state laws regarding a particular issue……so they say.  Yet the history of this court indicates that this is not really the case.

The question here is: Were the rulings rendered by Leon and Pauley, based entirely on state laws or state constitutions, that were similar to those in the federal constitution? If so, then  supposedly the Supreme Court could not hear the case.  Not that this will stop them from doing so as they have on numerous occasions done just exactly that.

Secret Courts and re-writing laws from secret benches

Section 215 of the Patriot Act, a bill that viciously attacked our rights and freedom to “keep us safe”, was supposedly “re-interpreted” in a secret court.  We have no real idea of just how extensive and unlawful this reinterpretation was, but here is the actual text as it was in the Patriot Act.

Section 215 Patriot Act: Cornell  :

a) Application for order; conduct of investigation generally

(1) Subject to paragraph (3), the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall—

(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  (Read entire section here)  (emphasis mine)

Doctrines:  re-writing laws inside a government agency

Agency generated doctrines are the re-writing, re-arranging and re-interpreting of standing laws.  Generally, agency doctrines are developed and used to assume power and authority not intended by congress.  But don’t expect anyone in congress to stand up and say so, especially when many of the laws that have been passed in recent decades indicates congress has ceded authority to these agencies and agents that congress itself did not possess.   Agency doctrines are not the same as doctrines of law.

In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said.”

The FISA court legalized the internal agency doctrine of “special needs” for NSA, and the other spy agencies operating inland, here in the U.S., to begin the disassembling of the 4th Amendment.

The FISA secret court also did one other thing that must be noted although it is not apparent at first glance.  This secret court which re-interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act, claiming that it really meant something other and far more than what it did say, declared each and every one of us a suspect terrorist, a threat to the government and therefore, subject to wholesale spying and information gathering.  If this were not true, the court would not have delivered the golden egg ruling that sanctioned the constitutional violations, and legalized the  unlawful spying on absolutely everyone; without due process, without probable cause, without any evidence of wrong-doing.

If what has been done in this court is legal, lawful or constitutional, why is the court a secret?  If they have nothing to hide they should be more than willing to answer questions. And if they refuse to answer, we are going to think they are guilty of something.

Anyway, that’s what they would tell us if we invoked the 5th Amendment and kept silent and refused to answer questions intended to make us appear guilty.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-district-judge-pauleys-ruling-in-aclu-vs-clapper/723/

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0851-48

http://thelawdictionary.org/legalize/#ixzz2okmSiOIv

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Section 215 Patriot Act: Cornell  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/legalize/#ixzz2okmSiOIv

Here are some recent examples of weasel word-swapping you may be familiar with:

 ~~~~~ Vaccines Efficacy v Efficiency. 

Efficacy means that if a vaccine is given to a hand picked group of individuals, carefully selected because they are most likely to respond positively to the vaccine, a certain number will.  That number is the Efficacy quotient. Even with careful selection of ideal candidates, efficacy rarely passes the 35% marker.  Meaning even in an ideal group of recipients of these vaccines, 65% will receive no benefit from the vaccine and are likely to suffer adverse reactions and the possibility of death.

Efficiency means that a vaccine is broadly administered across the board without filters, and this is the actual efficiency quotient of the vaccine.   Applied broadly, efficiency percentages are usually in the 10-15% markers.

Meaning 85-90% receive no benefit or are adversely affected or die from the vaccine.

~~~~~~ “Trade Agreements” v Constitutional Treaty’s. 

A trade agreement is corporate contracting between incorporated governments and/or agencies; agreements that you are not party to and are not subject to.

A Constitutional treaty must be ratified by the Senate at which point it becomes the supreme law of the land, and you are bound to comply with it.

About these ads