Home

The Rutherford Institute: Constitutional Q&A: American Community Survey

2 Comments

Resources

PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE

Also available, The Rutherford Institute has developed a form letter that you may use in standing up against the government’s attempt to force you to disclose personal information

© 2017 The Rutherford Institute[1]

In an age when the government has significant technological resources at its disposal to not only carry out warrantless surveillance on American citizens but also to harvest and mine that data for its own dubious purposes, whether it be crime-mapping or profiling based on race or religion, the potential for abuse is grave. As such, any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution.

The American Community Survey (ACS) qualifies as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

Empowered by Congress with greater powers to amass information about citizens, the Census Bureau introduced the ACS in 2005. Unlike the traditional census, which is limited to a simple head count every ten years for the purpose of establishing representation in Congress, the ACS is sent on an ongoing basis to about 3 million homes every year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.[2]

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance. More

Been to a Protest? Then you are an economic terrorist!

Leave a comment

Urgent action needed: a proposed new law would allow authorities to charge nonviolent protesters with “economic terrorism.” Click here to sign the petition to stop this!

This is a disaster. A new law proposed by a State Senator in Washington would allow prosecutors to charge protesters with “economic terrorism,” and slap them with serious felony charges that could lead to jail time, just for making their voices heard. [1]

The outrageous proposed bill would make any form of protest that causes an “economic disruption” a class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. It wouldn’t just apply to people who engage in illegal acts or vandalism, it could be used to prosecute any person or group who organizes a protest that authorities deem as “disruptive.” Broadly interpreted, this law could apply to time honored traditions of nonviolent dissent like boycotts and civil disobedience.

Click here to sign the petition demanding lawmakers drop this dangerous attack on our basic right to free speech and assembly.

Charging protesters with terrorism clearly violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to silence legitimate dissent. Please sign the petition telling lawmakers to reject this dangerous legislation.

We need everyone to speak out right now so we can shut down this terrible proposed legislation before it spreads to other states. This affects all of us. Will you sign the petition to stop it?

Click here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/urgent-new-law-would-charge-protesters-with-terrorism/

We need to remain vigilant. No matter who is in power, protecting our right to dissent is imperative for the future of our society.

Thanks for reading,
-Evan at Fight for the Future

[1] The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/306580-washington-republican-floats-charging-protesters-with-economic-terrorism

Fight for the Future works to protect your rights in the digital age.

Dear Senator Manchin……What’s killing us is people like you who need to be removed from office

1 Comment

new-logo25Marti Oakley

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

**Note: IF congress allows due process protections to be stripped from those on these massive FBI lists, the premise for that will be quickly adopted by other federal agencies, even those with no interest in guns sales. There is no way this will be limited to the purchasing of guns. The recent event in Orlando was the stage show meant to shock the public into forfeiting their constitutional rights.

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

10155281_461153860682070_1662322543_nSenator Joe Manchin (D) appears not to understand the rights contained in the Constitution. Apparently, the right to due process, the constitutional protection against the very things he advocates, is a thorn in Senator Manchin’s hide. As he himself admits, due process is the firewall that prevents agencies such as the FBI, from adding individuals to lists of suspects….no evidence, no crime….they just decided you belonged on one of their lists.

Manchin goes on to say on on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that the right to due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, had made it difficult to pass gun-control legislation denying those on the FBI’s terror watch list the ability to purchase a firearm. I would assume that with the massive non-stop surveillance that is carried on daily this would be virtually impossible to purchase a gun without the FBI, NSA, CIA and assorted other spy agencies knowing about it immediately. All that spying, all that data collection, the mountains of stolen information about everyone in the country……and the FBI couldn’t stop this man from purchasing guns?

Question: How can a man be employed by a security company that protects federal buildings among other things, and still be employed by that company if he is suspected of possible terrorism? More

Warning Against Efforts to Muzzle Citizens & Avoid Transparency, Rutherford Institute Issues 1st Amendment Guidelines for Public Meetings

Leave a comment

For Immediate Release: March 9, 2016

RutherfordHeader_2

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. —Warning that representative government works best when the government’s actions are fully disclosed and citizens are allowed to speak honestly and openly to their elected representatives and other citizens without fear of retribution, The Rutherford Institute has issued guidelines for local boards, commissions and councils to consider and follow in order to best assure that the fundamental First Amendment rights of citizens are respected.

In recent years, numerous local boards and commissions have attempted to establish rules and regulations governing speech at public meetings that limit the content and manner of public expression in an attempt to “dial down” the intensity of these meetings and impose a more “civil” discourse. However, these restrictions on expression often run afoul of the First Amendment, making local officials self-appointed censors and arbitrary arbiters of what speech is and is not proper.

The Rutherford Institute’s Public Meetings Guidelines are available at www.rutherford.org.

“Until recently, local government meetings have remained one of the few legitimate forums available to citizens to personally address their government representatives about decisions that have immediate and substantial impact on their day-to-day lives,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Unfortunately, officials at all levels of government have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents through the use of free speech zones, electronic town hall meetings, security barriers, regulations restricting what is said at public meetings, and other tactics that run afoul of the First Amendment’s safeguards for free speech, public assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These guidelines are intended to empower citizens to push back against those who would stifle the ardor of citizens, arbitrarily silence critics and impede efforts to assure transparency in government.”

The Rutherford Institute issued its guidelines after being contacted by residents of Charlottesville, Va., who were concerned about draconian changes to the City’s public comment rules regarding the content, duration and protocol for making public comments at City Council meetings. The City’s revised procedures include restrictions on video recording, a prohibition on “improper” comments, exclusion of individuals for disruptive or disorderly conduct, and limitations on who may be addressed. In denouncing the guidelines as overly vague and ambiguous, Institute attorneys have advised City officials that the changes to their meeting procedures violate the letter and spirit of Constitution by imposing obstacles to transparency and citizen engagement.

In calling on the Charlottesville City Council to revoke the rules it has adopted in order to ensure that Council meetings remain a forum for free speech, the Institute warned that if the City is serious about being a leader in the fight for open government, it must demonstrate a commitment to public participation in the democratic process. In 2015, Rutherford Institute attorneys advised the Greene County Board of Supervisors (also in Virginia) against rules adopted governing the open forum public comment period during Board meetings that could be used to censor unpopular but constitutionally protected speech.

The Rutherford Institute, a national nonprofit civil liberties organization based in Charlottesville, Va., defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated and educates the public about threats to their freedoms. The Institute has spent more than 30 years advocating for transparency in government and championing the First Amendment right of the citizenry to speak candidly and openly to their elected representatives and other citizens.

This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org.

UNMARKED POLICE CARS, VANS, AND TRUCKS: ALL IN A DAYS WORK

5 Comments

new-logo25Chuck Frank

” Due to increased fines and fees and reduced access to courts, more than four million Californians have suspended driver’s licenses. Once again these suspensions, most which are hardly necessary, make it harder for people to get and keep jobs, thus sending them into forced poverty.

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

For longer than half of a century, traffic tickets, and especially moving violations, gradually entered into the realm of a cost prohibitive-extortionist culture accompanied with exorbitant fines and jail that were not necessarily connected to safety but to a money making machine that lined the pockets of law enforcement and budgets of city and county governments.

1016328_420444734736266_378341861_nIn my attempt to expose the truth of what I am about to share, will be focusing upon selected areas within our nation which have fallen into a most shameful condition to where a victim’s hope is lost which also includes their job as well, while at the same time, families and lives are unnecessarily and essentially ruined to the point of no return.

While even unmarked police cars roam our neighborhoods, my first endeavor here is to expose the continuing criminalization of poverty with regard to minor offenses where small towns in states such as Louisiana prey on motorists to feed their budgets. One town called Baskin collected 87 percent of its revenue from traffic tickets. This northeastern town had 188 people and five police cars. More

The DoJ Dodges a Bullet on Wilson/Brown Decision

5 Comments

strip bannernew-logo25Marti Oakley

______________________________________________

A recent article made the statement that ” When officers are on untitledvvvduty, they don’t know if at the end of the day, they are going home, to the hospital or to the morgue”.  Strange, that is just how the public feels when they are confronted by them.

__________________________________________

The Department of Justice (an oxymoron if there ever was one) just issued its decision regarding the death of Michael Brown at the hands of Ferguson, Missouri police officer Wilson that occurred in November 2014. Like millions of other people, I was not there. I have no idea what did or did not happen other than what was related on the MSM, and you already know 99% of what comes from them is pure BS.

The DoJ determined that Michael Brown’s civil rights had not been violated. So, let me get this straight…… according to grand jury testimony, an officer confronts a man in the street and tells him to get on the sidewalk, they argue, scuffle, then he fires a total of 16 shots at him, two from inside his vehicle, one directly through the top of his head within 6-8 inches…..and the DoJ was concerned with whether his civil rights were violated? That’s what they were investigating?

As an aside:   Thanks to what had to have been careful questioning and very rehearsed answers, Wilson swore under oath that he stopped the men because he recognized their clothing from the description given for the robbery……. a robbery he could not and did not know about at the time he confronted Brown.  Did  Wilson knowingly commit perjury and intentionally lie to the grand jury about what really happened that day?

More

TS Radio: Dr. Sam Sugar on the status of Florida Guardianship Laws

5 Comments

 

painyJoin us Sunday evening February 9th, at 7:00 pm CST!

sand-sculpture5:00 pm PST… 6:00 pm MST7:00 pm CST8:00 pm EST

Listen Live HERE!

Callin # 917-388-4520

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

Dr Sam Sugar joins us to talk about the progress of his group: Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianships  

Board Certified Internal Medical Specialist, Dr. Sam Sugar wil be featured in an in-depth discussion on legislative refrom of the For Profit Guardianship system in Florida, the emergence of AAAPG and the medico-legal issues that often enable “The Rush to Guardianship”

“Sadly, as so many investigations have revealed, there exist in Florida a substantial number of abusive “Professional For Profit” guardians and lawyers who have manipulated the Guardianship system and repeatedly exploited their positions to loot the very estates they are sworn to protect.

It is not just elders who are vulnerable–anyone at any age–can be deemed “incapacitated” –even seemingly healthy independent adults–and become  ” A Ward of the State”

A powerful subgroup of For Profit  Guardians has used loopholes in the law and very weak Court moitoring to wreak terrible harm on Wards and their Families while they enrich themselves with exorbitant fees and horribly abusive tactics. 

Abusive Guardians twist and  subvert the laws giving them total power over the (allegedly) vulnerable in our society and instead of helping the frail among us,  use the power of the law to strip away precious Civil Rights and plunder estates, isolate families who get in the way, and in  the process destroy lives. They use the very laws intended to help people to destroy innocent people and their families.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

To contact us:  ppj1@hush.com

Or call: 320-281-0585 Skype

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/marti-oakley/2014/02/10/ts-radio-dr-sam-sugar-on-status-of-florida-guardianship-laws

FISA secrets: The Court That Lays Golden Unconstitutional Eggs

6 Comments

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:  More

The Absolute Right to a Trial by Jury

2 Comments

strip banner

  new-logo25 Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

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

Mr. Don Bird below is pressing the point with his California State Legislator, with whom he has gained an open door of opportunity.

You see, back in 1969 a plot was engineered by the California Legislators that if they could dispose of the right to a jury in criminal cases, they could expedite cases much faster without the involvement of juries. To pull off this plot against the People of California, they had to “invent” a whole new class of jury less crimes33049_1thm heretofore unrecognized in the Constitution called “Infractions.”

While Don Bird wishes to keep his challenge limited to the State of California Constitution, I am not so limited in my lead-in statements. The fact is, in our U.S. Constitution it is clearly written:

“The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.” Article III, Section 2, Clause 3.

The two controlling words herein are “except,” and “shall.” There is but only one criminal jury trial exception, and that is in matters of impeachment, otherwise there “shall” be a jury trial.

And, yes, the California State Constitution, as well as all states, recognizes that its Constitution and laws are subjective to the U.S. Constitution,

“The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.” Article III, Section I.

Here, I would like to relate to a humorous actual incident of a criminal trial in which I was called upon to appear in court and to answer to the criminal charge involved therein. Pursuant to Article I, Section 16, “Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all,” More

Minnesota DFL’er Alice Hausman: Busy Trashing the 2nd Amendment

2 Comments

new-logo25Marti Oakley  ©copyright 2013 All Rights Reserved

__________________________________________________________________

In my humble opinion, the failure of Representative Alice Hausman (DFL)MN, and other elected officials to honor their oaths of office, to defend the Constitutions, both state and federal, is grounds for recall from office.

Representative Hausman has helped author a bill which is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.  This bill also calls for the violation of due process and establishes police powers far beyond the scope of law.  The last thing any of our communities need is the aggrandizement of power in local law enforcement now that they are under Homeland Security control and exist as para-military organizations, and no longer exist to protect and serve their communities.

Ms Hausman, like so many others in the legislature, is apparently oblivious to standing laws, SCOTUS rulings and the Constitution.  Apparently believing that due to her office, these issues should not concern her, Hausman has authored one of the most egregious assaults on the 2nd Amendment.  Neither does Ms Hausman seem to understand that it is illegal to try to pass ex post facto laws and that just because she does not adhere to any sense of law, does not mean that the rest of us lose our rights.

What it should mean is that she automatically is unseated and removed from office for failing to act in defense of her district and for willingly and knowingly violating her oath of office.  At the very least, Hausman and others are guilty of malfeasance of office:

mal·fea·sance

/mælˈfizəns/ Show Spelled [mal-fee-zuhns] Show IPA

noun Law.

the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust).

___________________________________________________________________

Authored by  anti-gun St. Paul State Representative Alice Hausman, H.F. 241  would:

*** Ban the sale, transfer, possession and  manufacturing of ALL semiautomatic firearms with a detachable magazine and at  least one “characteristic” — which means just about anything that makes a  gun “look scary.
(This includes rifles AND  pistols!) More

Too often, death is the only way out of guardianship gulag

10 Comments

There are many ways elderly, sick and disabled people can wind up in a court-appointed guardianship, where a complete stranger wields total control over their lives and assets. Some are identified as “incapacitated” by paid caregivers. Others are fingered by greedy relatives or rapacious lawyers.But members of the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse, who spoke out last week on Capitol Hill, agree that once a loved one is placed in a guardianship, they are stripped of all their civil and constitutional rights and death is often the only way out.

That was the case for 72-year-old Yvonne Sarhan, the widowed mother of Miami physician Robert Sarhan, who was declared “incapacitated” at a secret ex parte (“one side only”) hearing.

Guardians helped themselves to her $2 million estate while a Florida probate judge ignored her son’s desperate pleas to take her off the schizophrenia drug Seroquel, which is contraindicated for the elderly because it causes electrical disturbances in the heart.

“The word ‘incapacitated’ has no medical meaning,” Dr. Sarhan told The Examiner. “Two board-certified neurologists both agreed my mother was competent. She was a bit forgetful, but she was still able to go to the grocery store and church.”

Yet it continued even after Dr. Sarhan produced documented evidence that the same lawyer representing his mother also represented the court-appointed guardian who was billing her estate. More

Richard Rothschild Battles Local Agenda 21

3 Comments

MorhpCity.com

By Cassandra Anderson
July 23. 2012

Richard Rothschild was the first county commissioner to officially oppose the United Nations’ International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), also known as Local Governments for Sustainability.  In fact, Mr. Rothschild won the November 2010 election in Carroll County, Maryland based on his opposition to ICLEI, which is the local UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development action plan that attacks property and Constitutional rights.

Find out why Rothschild is opposed to Agenda 21 and ICLEI:


More

Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey will host a Constitutional Sheriffs’ Panel

15 Comments

Feb. 15, 2012

Press Release

 Sheriff Lopey to lead sheriffs’ panel

YREKA – Five county sheriffs will participate in the first 2012 Support Rural America Sheriffs Event on Feb. 25, 2012. Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey will host a Constitutional Sheriffs’ Panel starting at 2 p.m.

The event will be held at the Siskiyou Golden Fairgrounds in Yreka, California at the top of the State. Take exit 773 off I-5 in Yreka. The fairgrounds are on the East side of the freeway. There is plenty of parking and motels nearby. Admission is free. 

Joining Sheriff Lopey on stage will be Modoc County Sheriff Mike Poindexter, Trinity County Sheriff Bruce Haney, Lassen County Sheriff Dean Growden and Oregon’s Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson. These sheriffs recently attended the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Assoc. Convention in Las Vegas with Sheriff Richard Mack and Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpiao.

Sheriffs will share information on the Constitution as it relates to their position as county sheriff and discuss issues in their areas. Time will be available for questions and answers.

The gate to the fairgrounds will open at noon. Groups with info tables will be setting up and available to the citizens. 

This is the first in a series of monthly events that will be hosted by sheriffs in various counties in the North State. For dates of events that have been set, go to Support Rural America.com on the web. Youtubes of Constitutional Sheriffs are also available at that website or on the “sheriffs” page of Pie N Politics.com 

This event is sponsored by Scott Valley Protect Our Water, Yreka Tea Party, Siskiyou Water Users Assoc. and Redding Tea Party.

For more information, contact Liz Bowen at 530-467-3515.

 

Slo County Sheriff’s deputies violate 4th amendment rights of Matt Hart KCCN.tv

1 Comment

San Luis Obispo, California:

Even after illegally entering this man’s property without warrant or cause, then seizing guns the sheriff personally desired to keep, the courts did little to protect the rights of Mr. Hart.  Even after all charges were dismissed, and with Hart only pleading guilty to a misdeamnor..the sheriff still refuses to return the guns he stole from Hart.    

We can longer trust law enforcement to enforce the law. 

This sheriff’s department operates outside the law.  No warrants. No Cause.

for parts 2 & 3: More

Oregon man: confined to a mental hospital for purchasing firearms

3 Comments

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/Outrage.html

                          OUTRAGE!

“David broke no law. He committed no crime and threatened no one. Yet, with no warrant and no probable cause, David was dragged off into the night by heavily armed troops with no legal authority to do so and he was given none of the protections a common thief would get from the legal system.”

________________________________________

Imagine your telephone ringing in the middle of the night.  The caller informs you that he is a police officer. He wants to “get you the help and appropriate resources you need.” But wait, you have not asked for any help, don’t need any help, and certainly don’t want this “help” in the middle of the night. More

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: