Home

TS Radio Network: #2 on What are “Courts of Record”..What courts are NOT!

Leave a comment

Join us this evening September 25, 2018 at 7:00 pm CST!

 

5:00pm PST …6:00pm MST,,,7:00pm CST…8:00pm EST

Listen Live HERE!

Call in # 917-388-4520

Hosted by Marti Oakley with Brian Kinter and special guest David Jose

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

Please join me with Brian Kinter of Judicial Accountability Movement, and David Jose who is one of the foremost experts on the system used to illegally steal children from their parents for profit.  This show is  important to all families out there who have been targeted by the human trafficking of children, the disabled and the elderly through these abusive and unconstitutional contract courts.   You would know then better as tribunals.  No crime, no wrongdoing, NO JURISDICTION! But lots of federal and state funding to make it a very lucrative business.

Judicial Accountability Movement

https://www.facebook.com/CoachDavidJose

Child Protective Services and the abuse of these so-called courts will be front and center.  Listen in as David explains what kind of “court” you are actually being subjected to.  As he will explain …it is NOT a court of record.  Neither is probate!  This will explain why they do not adhere to due process, rules of evidence or codes of civil procedure as they would be forced to in a court of LAW.

David will be discussing the use of Title 42 USC statutes used to deploy this system and other resources specifically created to facilitate this system of trafficking on all levels.

Please be sure to tune in and have paper and pen handy to take notes.  The show will be available in Archive also and can be downloaded as an MP3

 

Advertisements

The Battle to Protect Nebraska Land from Big OIL

Leave a comment

 


Make sure your voice is heard. Sign-on to stop Keystone XL.

Marti —

While we are continuing to challenge the Trump administration’s rubber-stamp approval of the federal permit for Keystone XL in the courts, Trump’s State Department recently opened a public comments docket for an “Environmental Assessment” of the new Mainline Alternative route for KXL in Nebraska.

This new route includes land in Nebraska counties that has never before undergone environmental review, and where landowners never knew until now — after all the years of public hearings and submitting comments — that KXL might be plowing through their farms, and had no due process and chance to make their voices heard.

Basically, there’s a huge list of problems with this illegal review. It’s an attempt to shoe-horn a review of private property in Nebraska by a federal agency with no authority over that land, into an illegally outdated environmental review of KXL from 2014, in clear violation of the bedrock National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

But we still need to make our voices heard. Despite this illegal sham review process that’s been set in motion — which we will continue to fight in the courts — it’s critical that Nebraskans especially, but all Pipeline Fighters sign on and tell the Trump administration they are opposed to Keystone XL.

Action: Sign-on to Bold’s #NoKXL comment to Trump’s State Department.

We’ve composed a sample comment you can sign-on to, that covers all the bases on protesting this illegal process with the same arguments our attorneys are using in court, and includes key issues of concern for Nebraska’s land, water and property rights, and sovereign rights of Indigenous nations. You may also edit the language, or add your own personal statement to the comment.

*Important: If you are a landowner on the new “Mainline Alternative” route, please contact mark@boldnebraska.org for assistance with submitting your comment. For instance, if you have water crossings, or known endangered species or wildlife habitat on your land, be sure to include exact locations and detailed information about them in your comments. 

The deadline to submit a public comment is June 25th. 

Act now: Sign on to Bold’s #NoKXL comment.

Thanks for standing with us. 

Mark and the Bold team

P.S. Chip in to support Bold’s work to stop Keystone XL.

@Bold Nebraska on Twitter
Bold Nebraska on Facebook

Bold Nebraska
208 S. Burlington Ave., Ste 103, Box 325
Hastings, NE 68901 US

 

THE AMERICAN DREAM & PROPERTY RIGHTS VS. ASSET FORFEITURE–CODE ENFORCEMENT NO COURT HEARING, NO JURY TRIAL & NO DUE PROCESS

2 Comments

Author, Chuck Frank

You were at home with your family and you had just sat down to have a nice breakfast which included eggs and bacon and a blueberry muffin when there was a knock at the door. You looked out of your window and saw an unmarked car and two people, one of which was wearing camo and you thenwent to the door. It was code enforcement. An undisclosed neighbor had filed an anonymous “complaint” to the county with regard to a vacation rental that had been built which was no larger than an out building and was located above a creek on 37 acres in a small town in Northern California. Code enforcement, a rogue unconstitutional policing unit, introduced themselves as being part of the KGB, excuse my play on words, as I meant to say the Community Development Agency, CDA, which also worked in conjunction with the Building Department, Planning, the Sheriff, his Deputies and a court that favored city and county government, but it became obvious that constitutional and unalienable rights which had been written in stone ever since the early 1800’s, were not included.

The Bill of Rights:
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Code Enforcement was now on a mission with “seizure fever” while the lead person demanded, with no warrant, that they take a look at the building which was located 1,100 ft. down a gentle slope and rested on a foundation and a flat piece of ground. Yet, this was now the beginning of a long fought battle between one family and a bureaucracy that had not one ounce of mercy but only an agenda that can best be traced to a bunch of two bit players benefiting from the glorified welfare state, while most of them were making an extra $100.00 or more per hour dealing with building department and
planning directives.   Yet, at the same time, city and county codes and ordinances were supported with threats and fines for those who were perhaps out of compliance, and thus, the backdrop of the old and brutal Draconian laws of ancient Greece were now in place and running amok, while ruining countless persons dreams and their livelihoods, but not only in the example below, but in many other cases within the same county, where there is an endless train of code enforcers swarming the land while satellite surveillance is in place to help them focus on their next victim. More

U.S. SUPREME COURT GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION OF AMERICANS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

2 Comments

strip banner

 

U.S. SUPREME COURT GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION OF AMERICANS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
04-30-2014 12:47 am – Bob Unruh – World Net Daily
A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” critics of the high court’s ruling said.

The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.

“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team told WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”

WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court.

The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”

Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.

A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: “The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”

The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.

The attorneys are Michael Connelly, Steven J. Harfenist, William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan and Robert J. Olson.

They were adding their voices to the chorus asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the law adopted by Congress.

The brief was on behalf of U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. Dick Black, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Center for Media & Democracy, Downsize DC Foundation, Downsize DC.org, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Western Journalism Center, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation and Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.

Journalist Chris Hedges, who is suing the government over a controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York’s Zuccotti Park.
The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson.

Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.

Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.

It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

Video mania: The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back” on DVD. This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea” DVD.

“It’s clearly unconstitutional,” Hedges said of the bill. “It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.”

Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.

The friend-of-the-court brief warned the precedent “leaves American citizens vulnerable to arrest and detention, without the protection of the Bill of Rights, under either the plaintiff’s or the government’s theory of the case.

“The judiciary must not await subsequent litigation to resolve this issue, as the nature of military detention is that American citizens then would have no adequate legal remedy,” the brief explained.

“Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

“No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker.

“According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists – a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government,” he said.

It’s not like rounding up innocent U.S. citizens and stuffing them into prison camps hasn’t already happened.

In 1944, the government rounded up thousands of Japanese Americans and locked them up, under the approval of the high court in its Korematsu v. United States decision.

The newest authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to jail those “suspected” of helping terrorists.

The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.”

The law specifically allows for the arrests of those who “associate” or “substantially support” terror groups.

“These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities,” Rutherford officials reported.

At the trial court level, on Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.

Obama then appealed, and his judges on the 2nd Circuit authorized the government detention program.

Since the fight started, multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement inside those states. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrest’s ruling underscored “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”

The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”

She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”

“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.

Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”

“The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote. “To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.

“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/supreme-court-green-lights-detention-of-americans/#r3IAig6fLWioaQWy.99 – See more at: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_35369.php#sthash.uo27Loqv.dpuf

new-logo25Bob Unruh – World Net Daily

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

“The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.” 

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

1459169_743562532338888_201663292_nA decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” critics of the high court’s ruling said.

The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.

“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team told WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”

WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court. More

Elder & disabled adult abuse thriving in Washington probate courts

5 Comments

painy    Join us March 24, 2013  at 7:00pm CST!

Patience

5:00pm PST …6:00pm MST7:00pm CST8:00pm EST

Listen Live HERE!

Callin # 917-388-4520

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

Beverly Newman, Elder Advocate, Florida, will co-host this show. More

Danielle Rene Murphy: Victim in Ohio abused by APSI & DODD

11 Comments

NASGA  National  Association to Stop Guardian Abuse

Danielle Murphy is a mildly autistic disabled adult. She lived with her aunt, Nancy Vallone, in Arizona. Nancy provided the best of care and medical treatment for Danielle and even moved to Ohio so Danielle could receive treatment from a the Cleveland Clinic Medical Center in Cleveland, OH. Shortly after the move, the Ohio’s Advocacy and Protective Services Agency (APSI) took control of Danielle’s case. They placed Danielle in a group home where she has been physically and sexually abused. APSI denies Danielle the treatment that Nancy moved to Ohio to receive.

Worst of all, APSI isolates Danielle from receiving any visitors, including her Aunt Nancy.

Following is an open letter to all media and elected representatives in Danielle’s behalf:

To Whom It May Concern:

We are contacting you to shed light on what really occurs in the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities (DODD) and their subcontractor, Advocacy & Protective Services, Inc. (APSI). Unfortunately, this story does not yet have a happy ending because it involves a 24-year-old woman, Danielle Rene Murphy, who has autism and numerous health concerns. She is being held in isolation, segregated from family, friends, school, church, and proper medical care for 5 years. We are fearful because, as we raise questions, her care is not being improved. Unfortunately, the opposite is taking place. Rather than address the facts of her care, we are personally being defamed, and Danielle is being denied care and intimidated by her caretakers at APSI and representatives from the DODD. Danielle’s health is rapidly declining, and we cannot get resolution fast enough from the bureaucracy of government (there are two open investigations T#12-000983 and T#CU12-14778). This is not a theoretical case to debate, but the life of a young woman hangs in the balance. Her aunt, an RN, BSN, MSN, is asking to take Danielle home and properly care for her, but that request is being denied. More

Germ Warfare and Contagious Diseases…A staged meeting to implant the idea in the public’s mind forced incarceration and vaccination should be acceptable.

1 Comment

Forum
Germ Warfare and Contagious Diseases
Constitution Project
Stanford University, Constitutional Law Center
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 204834 04/11/2008 – 2:56 – $29.95

View in Video Library

  Weisberg, Robert Professor, Stanford University, Law School  
  Clarke, Richard A. Coordinator (1998-2003), National Security Council, Infrastructure Protection & Counterterrorism  
  Karlan, Pamela C. Professor, Stanford University, Law School  
  Greenberger, Michael Director, University of Maryland, College Park, Center for Health & Homeland Security  
  Cetron, Martin Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Global Migration & Quarantine Div.  
  Chertoff, Michael Secretary, Department of Homeland Security  
  Chyba, Christopher F. Professor, Princeton University, International Affairs  
  Runge, Jeffrey W. M.D. Chief Medical Officer, Department of Homeland Security  
  Sullivan, Kathleen M. Founding Director, Stanford University, Constitutional Law Center  
  Hamburg, Margaret A. “Peggy” M.D. Senior Scientist, Nuclear Threat Initiative  

 

A panel discussion was held by legal, scientific, and counterterrorism experts on whether certain responses to a major epidemic or biowarfare incident such as forced inoculation, isolation, and quarantines would result in legal challenges, and what responses are consistent with the principles of the U.S. Constitution. Margaret Hamburg made opening remarks. Kathleen Sullivan moderated.

The panel was followed by a keynote address from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=563179697

This “Conference to Address Constitutional Implications of Responses to Germ Warfare and Contagious Disease” was held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

This broadcast on CSPAN2 Was one of those preparatory events that always preceed a national crisis that will be created.  These forums are used to implant acceptance of loss of rights and the coming devastation that is planned…..of course it wil be some vague personage from “over there” who will cause the crisis.  Nevermind that the US is the greatest producer and seller of biological and germ warfare weaponry. 

%d bloggers like this: