Encourage these Senators to reject the "Dems’ Keep Families Together Act is better called the Child Trafficking Encouragement Act,"
Cotton said: “Show up at border with a minor & call him your child, then you get released into the US! Children will be abducted & sold to drug cartels & slave-traders as a free ticket into US."
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Sen. John Boozman (R-AR)
Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK)
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
President Trump has asked Congress to enact his plan, which would allow border-crossing children to be detained with their guardians and parents for extended periods of time. This plan would speed up the asylum and immigration hearing process, and allow the family unit to be deported together back to their native country. WHY is this at the cost of the American tax payer? THEY managed to get here without our money, they can figure out how they will get back home!
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 7, 2018
Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Harris, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Carper, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Casey, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Warner, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Hirono, Mr. King, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Warren, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Udall, and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To limit the separation of families at or near ports of entry. (This doesn't address those illegally crossing the border at places OTHER than ports of entry!)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.
SHORT TITLE: This Act may be cited as the "Keep Families Together Act".
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE SEPARATION OF FAMILIES.
(a) In General.— An agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian, at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States, unless one of the following has occurred:
(1) A State court, authorized under State law, terminates the rights of a parent or legal guardian, determines that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian, in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89), or makes any similar determination that is legally authorized under State law.
The united States has NO jurisdiction SOUTH of the border, let alone 100 miles!
IF they are parents or 'legal' guardians of the children they are claiming, WHERE is their documentation? Blows the whole 'undocumented' aliens theory all to bits, doesn't it!?!
Considering the criminal illegal invaders are NOT subject to united States law this can NOT be enforced on the criminal illegal invaders!
(2) An official from the State or county child welfare agency with expertise in child trauma and development makes a best interests determination that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian because the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to herself or others.
Again, criminal illegal invaders are NOT subject to US laws! This clearly states that children can NOT be removed from parents simply because the parent(s) are incarcerated. WHY are the children NOT being sent to prison WITH the parents? BTW: that is a rhetorical question - the answer is obvious!
(3) The Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director in their official and undelegated capacity, authorizes separation upon the recommendation by an agent or officer, based on a finding that (A) the child is a victim of trafficking or is at significant risk of becoming a victim of trafficking;(B) there is a strong likelihood that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian of the child; or(C) the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to themselves or others.
Official and 'undelegated' capacity? WHAT?!! If it is the area port director's official capacity it can NOT be 'undelegated'!
HOW is ANYONE going to make a determination of whether the child is in danger of neglect, abuse, or at risk of becoming a victim of child trafficking? It is not likely anyone will admit they abducted a child for the purpose of entering the US illegally, and their plan to sell that child to child traffickers!
The rest of the 'bill' is just as ridiculous! Read the full text here
The ’72 Types of Americans Considered Potential Terrorists’ – Are You on the Watchlist?
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
The groups of people in the list above are considered “problems” that need to be dealt with. In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.
There are over 200,000 Federal laws that apply to the citizens of America. Nobody knows how many laws for each local, county, and state there are. Do YOU think you are not committing at least one felony a day? Think again!
People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 Georgia at 93.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW NULL & VOID
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).
Statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. Hoke vs. Henderson,15, N.C.15, 25 AM Dec 677(1983)
.
RIGHT TO TRIAL
By the law of the land is more clearly intended the general law, a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat, U.S. 518, 4 ED 629.
DUE PROCESS
Law in it's regular course of administration through courts of justice is due process. Leeper vs. Texas, 139, U.S. 462, II SUP CT. 577, 35 L ED 225.
"The phrase as used in the Constitution does not mean a statute passed for the purpose of working the wrong. That construction would render the restriction absolutely nugatory. The people would be made to say to the houses: 'You shall be vested with the legislative power of the state, but no one shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a citizen, unless you shall not do the wrong unless you choose to do so." per Bronson,J., in Taylor v Porter, 4 Hill (N.Y.) 140, 40AM, DEC 274.
If laws that violates the Constitution are passed
Then someone is convicted of violating that law is that still considered 'due process'?
TAKING OF PROPERTY
The meaning of the above words, is that no man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense. Kinney V. Beverly, 2 Hen. & M (VA) 381, 336.
SURRENDER OF RIGHTS INTOLERABLE
We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another. Simmons vs. U.S. 390, U.S. 389 (1968).
DUE COURSE, DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Due course of law, this phrase is synonymous with "due process of law" or "law of the land" and means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542.
DUE PROCESS
In Brown v. Levese Com'rs, 50 MIS 479, it is said that these constitutional provisions do not mean the general body of the law as it was at the time the Constitution took effect; but they refer to certain fundamental rights which the system of jurisprudence of which ours is derivative has always been recognized; if any of these are disregarded in the proceedings by which the system of jurisprudence of which ours is derivative has always been recognized; if any of these are disregarded in the proceedings by which a person is condemned to the loss of property, etc., then the deprivation has not been by due process of law, and it has been held that the state cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law through a constitutional convention anymore than it can through an act of legislature.
FIFTH AMENDMENT
Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States provides: "No person shall---be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A similar provision exists in all the state constitutions; the phrases "due course of law", and the "law of the land" are sometimes used; but all three of these phrases have the same meaning and that applies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indicated by parliament; Davidson V. New Orleans 96 U.S. 97, 24, L Ed 616.
FIFTH AMENDMENT - GOOD FAITH
This 'willful" qualifications fully protects one whose refusal is made in good faith and upon grounds which entitle him to the judgment of the court before obedience is compelled. Federal Power Commissions v. Metropolitan Edison Co. 304 U.S. 375. and ...."To penalize the failure to give a statement which is self incriminatory is beyond the power of Congress." U.S. v. Lombardo, 228 F 980.
STATES MUST OBEY CONSTITUTION
The United States Supreme Court stated further that all rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal constitution are equally applicable in every State criminal action, "because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law." William Malloy vs. Patrick J. Jogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489, argued Mar 5, 1964, decided June 15, 1964.
EXERCISING A RIGHT CANNOT BE CRIME
The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489.
EXERCISE OF RIGHTS
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights. Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973).
KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT
You can, and must keep your mouth shut for protection under the 5th Amendment. Belnap vs. U.S. et al., Dist Court, (Utah), No. c. 149-71.
FIFTH AMENDMENT SHIELDS ALL
The Constitutional privilege was intended to shield the guilty and imprudent, as well as the innocent and foresighted. Marchetti vs. United States, 390 U.S. 39 at page 51.
FIFTH IS NOT JUST VERBAL
The privilege is not limited to testimony, as ordinarily understood, but extends to every means by which one may be compelled to produce information which may incriminate. Boyd vs. United States, Supra" Brown vs. Walerk, 161, U.S. 591; Distinguishing Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43; Wilson vs. U.S. 221, U.S. 612; United Station vs. Sischo.262 U.S. 165; McCarthy vs Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34; United States vs. Lombardo, 228 Fed. 980; United States vs. Dalton, 286 Fed 756; United States vs. Mulligan, 268 Fed 893; United States vs. Cohen Grocery Co., 225 U.S. 81; United States vs. Sherry, 294 Fed, 684
FIFTH MUST BE CLAIMED
The privilege must be specifically claimed on a particular question and the matter submitted to the court for its determination as to the validity of the claim. Heligman vs. United States 407 F. 2D 448.
SELF INCRIMINATION ILLEGAL
The adoption of the XIV amendment completed the circle of protection against violations of the provision of Magna Carta, which guaranteed to the citizen his, life, liberty, and property against interference except by the "law of the land", which phrase was coupled in the petition of right with due process of law. The latter phrase was then used for the first time, but the two are currently treated as meaning the same. This security is provided as against the United States by the XIV and Vth amendments and against the states by the XIV amendment. Davidson vs. Orleans 96, U.S. 97, 24 L ED 161.
FIFTH IS RESTRAINT ON GOVT.
"It is not a little remarkable that while this provision has been in the Constitution of the United States, (Fifth Amendment)....as a restraint upon authority of the federal government....see Lent vs. Tillson 140, U.S. 316,10 SUP. Ct. 324, 33 L. ED 722.
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, protected by the IV Amendment, are those arising out of the nature and essential character of the federal government, and granted or secured by the Constitution; and due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government. Duncan vs. Missouri, 152, U.S. 382,14 SUP. CT. 570, 38 L. ED. 485.
TAKING OF PROPERTY
It implies conformity with the natural inherent principles of justice and forbids the taking of one's property without compensation, and requires that no one shall be condemned in person or property without opportunity to be heard. Holden vs. Hardy, 169, U.S. 366, 18 SUP. CT. 383, 42 L ED. 780.
NOTICE & OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND
The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend; Simon v. Craft, 182, U.S. 427, 436, 21 SUP. CT. 836, 45 L. ED 1165; "In determining whether such rights were denied, we are governed by the substance of things and not by mere form; ID.; Louisville & N.R. CO. v. Schnidt,177 U.S. 230, 20 SUP. CT. 620 44 L ED 747.
INSPECTORS MUST HAVE WARRANT
See v. City of Seattle 387 U.S. 541 (1967) Citizen was arrested for not allowing a fire inspector inside without a warrant. Ruling was in favor of Mr. See. The inspector has to have a search warrant, describing the particular type, thing and date.
OBJECTION TO STATEMENTS ON RETURN
If the form of the return provided, called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return,but could not on that account, refuse to make any return at all. U.S. vs Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 at 263.
ADMISSIONS THAT TEND TO INCRIMINATE
Whether such admissions by themselves would support a conviction under a criminal statue is immaterial and that the privilege also extends to admission that may only tend to incriminate. Empak vs. U.S. 349 U.S. 190.
COURT CANNOT DECIDE INCRIMINATION
He must be the sole judge of what his answer would be. The court cannot participate with him in this judgment because they cannot decide on the effect of his answer without knowing what it would be; and a disclosure of that fact to the judges, would strip him of the privilege which the law allows, and which he claims. Issaacs v. U.S. 256 F 2D 654 (1958).
PRIVACY
Right of privacy-----Boyd vs. U.S. 116, U.S. 616, 630, 29 LED 746, CT 524, 1886.
MIRANDA - PRIVACY
Privilege against self-incrimination is in part individual's substantive right to private conclave where he may lead a private life. Constitutional foundation underlying privilege against self-incrimination is the respect of the government, state or federal, must accord to dignity and integrity of its citizens. Fifth Amendment provision that individual cannot be compelled to be witness against himself cannot be abridged. Miranda vs. State of Arizona, 380 US 436 (1966) See all keys, also see par 26, this brief.
MIRANDA
The Miranda Decision: Ernesto A. Miranda v. State of Arizona, United States Supreme Court, decided June 13, 1966.
Key 12: Government seeking to punish individual must produce evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his mouth.
Key 15: Privilege against self-incrimination is fulfilled only when person is guaranteed right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in unfettered exercise of his own will.
Key 18: Defendant's constitutional rights have been violated if his conviction is based, in whole or in part, on involuntary confession, regardless of its truth or falsity, even if there is ample evidence aside from confession to support conviction.
Key 23: Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and services to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed, from being compelled to incriminate themselves.
Key 28: Prosecution may not use at trial fact that defendant stood mute or claimed his privilege in face of accusations.
Key 43: Once warnings have been given, if individual indicates in any manner,at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, interrogation must cease.
Key 45: Any statement taken after person invokes Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be other than product of compulsion.
Key 56: Any evidence that accused was threatened, tricked or cajoled into waiver will show that he did not voluntarily waive privilege to remain silent.
Key 73: Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.
TRIAL BY JURY
A trial by jury is granted by the 7th Amendment and Georgia vs. Brailsford, 3 Dall 1, 1974.
Right to trial by jury; Dairy Queen vs Wood 369 U.S. 469, 2S CT,. 894, 8 L ED 2 44 1962. Also 369 U.S. at 470, 82 S CT AT 896.
Jury trial is a right! Hill vs Philpott, 445 F 2 D 144; Juliard vs. Greenmen, 110 U.S. 421; Kansan vs. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, (1907); Reisman vs. Caplan, 375, U.S. 440, (1964); U.S. vs. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (1993); U.S. vs Tarlowski, 305 F. SUPP 112 (1969).
TAKING OF PROPERTY
No man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense. Kinney vs. Beverly 2 HEN. & M(VA) 318, 336.
CIVIL RIGHTS - DISTRICT COURT
Civil Rights..."Civil action for deprivation of rights, 28 U.S.C 1343, gives U.S. District court original jurisdiction.
SECURITY OF LIFE LIMB & PROPERTY
Security of life, limb, and property. Davidson vs. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 24 L. ED. 616....Lent vs. Tillson, 140 U.S. 316, II SUP CT. 825, 35 L ED 419; Palmer vs. McFarland, 1330, U.S. 660, 10 SUP CT., 324, 33 L. ED. 722.
FIFTH AMENDMENT ON RETURN
If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refused to make any return at all. U.S. vs. Sullivan 274 US 259 Page 263.
LEGAL TO DECREASE TAXES
The legal right of a tax payer decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means within the law permits, cannot be doubted, Gregory vs. Helvering, 293, US 465.
DECISIONS AGAINST W4, W4E AND 1040
The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met, therefore,if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of this court. U.S. vs Bishop, 412, U.S. 346 (1973) at 2017.
Like the 14th Amendment, the 16th Amendment was NEVER properly ratified by two thirds (2/3) of the states, by popular vote.
TIPS ARE GIFTS - NOT TAXABLE
Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable. Olk vs. U.S., February 18,1975, Las Vegas, Nevada. (Wendell Olk) Judge Thomas W. Clary.
TWO YEAR LIMIT ON IRS COLLECTIONS
Due process of law.....Simon vs. Craft 182, U.S. 427, 436, 21 SUP CT. 836,45 L ED 1165; Louisville & N.R> CO., Vs Schmidt 177 U.S. L 30 20 SUP CT 620,44 L ED 747.
Waiver, through oversight, Internal Revenue Service did not send notice, thus notice of amount due exceeded 2 year limitations. Miller vs. U.S., July 11, 1974, 43 LW 2042 CA 2.
COOPERATION WITH IRS
Who would believe the ironic truth that cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his Constitutional rights. U.S. vs. Dickerson 413 F 2D 1111.
IRS CANNOT GET RECORDS
The chief error in defendant's position is his blanket refusal to answer any questions on the returns relating to his income or expenses for the years in question. United States vs. Daly, 481 F 2D 28, (1973).
FIFTH OVERRIDES STATUTES
We are clearly of the opinion that no statute which leaves the party or witness subject to prosecution, after he answers the incriminating question put to him, can have the effect of supplanting the privilege conferred by the Constitution of the United States...In view of the constitutional provision, a statutory enactment, to be valid, must afford absolute immunity against future prosecutions for the offense to which the question relates. Counselman vs. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547.
FIFTH - RARE TAX PAYER KNOWS IT
Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to Internal Revenue Service agents. United Station vs. Dickerseon, 413 F 2D 1111.
FIFTH - CORP HAS NO RIGHT - INDIVIDUAL DOES
...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. He has no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of this life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights...an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute... Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at page 74.
FIFTH & IRS
Mr. Long of Missouri. "Mr. President, I invite the Senate's attention to certain correspondence I have had with Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Sheldon S. Cohen with respect to the legal obligations of citizens to keep records, produce records, and answer questions relating to tax liability.
Criminal cases have been veiled in civil clothing to obtain information illegally. Taxpayers have been bullied and threatened, especially small taxpayers and those without legal assistance.
What should taxpayers do when faced with such a situation? Do all lawyers even know what the obligations of taxpayers are as to record keeping, record producing, and question answering?
The answer seems to be "no." For this reason, I wrote to Commissioner Cohen on April 17, 1967, and received his reply on July 7, 1967. As his reply is most instructive and will help Congress, as well as taxpayers, their lawyers and accountants, I ask unanimous consent that the correspondence be printed in the record." The following are excerpts from the Commissioner Cohen's reply, which was prepared by Chief Counsel Lester R. Vretz, and demoniated U. S. Government memorandum CC:CL0003487:
"Good faith challenges in the form of Constitutional and other federally recognized privileges are of course recognized by the service. For example, the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment may be a basis by an individual taxpayer for refusing to answer specific questions or to furnish his records."........before recommending prosecution under Section 7201 or 7203, the service must usually develop enough information to show a substantial tax liability that was not met in addition to criminal intent. The constitutional rights and other legal rights of all persons will be fully respected and observed.
FIFTH DOES NOT ELIMINATE NEED TO FILE RETURN
....The quick solution to the plaintiff's claimed desire to file a federal income tax return is to either file an honest return or if the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return, but he could not on that account refuse to make any return at all, we are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld..it would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in a crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the governments blank would bring him into danger of the law. United States vs. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927) Holmes J.
GOVT. CANNOT DECLARE INFO PUBLIC
....the government's anxiety to obtain information known to a private individual does not without more render that information public; if it did, no room would remain for the application of the constitutional privilege. Nor does it stamp information with a public character that the government has formalized its demands in the attire of a statue; if this alone were sufficient, the constitution's privilege could be [sic] entirely be abrogated by any act of Congress. Page 57, 390 U.S. 39.
RELYING ON SUPREME COURT IS NOT A CRIME
Degrees of negligence give rise in the tax system to civil penalties. The requirement of an offense committed "willfully" is not met therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this court. United States vs. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263-263-264 (1927) Holmes J.
FIFTH ALSO APPLIES TO CIVIL TRIALS
The government insists broadly that the Constitutional privilege against self incrimination does not apply in any civil proceeding. The contrary must be accepted as settled. The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the notice of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, whenever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility he who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.
It protects, likewise, the owner of goods which may be forfeited in a penal proceeding. McCarthy vs Arndsten (CF Counselman vs. Hitchock, 142 U.S. 547, 563, 564, 352 ED 110, 114 e inters, COM., REP, 816, 12 SUP. CT. REP 195)
FIFTH COVERS LINKING FACTS
The Supreme Court declared that "the privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime...the claimant is not required to prove the precise danger since by so doing he would be forced to disclose those very facts which under the privilege protects. Hoffman vs. United States (CF 341U.S. 479, 486, 71 CT. 814, 818, 95 L ED 1118.)
FIFTH OK IN ROUTINE MATTERS
The Supreme Court argued that the IRS could not use material gained by IRS agents under a routine questioning for what purported to be a routine audit. "The difference between a routine and a criminal investigation was too minor to justify departure from the Miranda Doctrine." Justice White drew a mandatory conclusion, "Indeed, he added," the Black opinion suggested that the Miranda warnings are required through the immensely broad area of investigations which frequently lead to criminal inquiries." The Mathis Decision, (No. 726, May 6, 1968, 3 910 S.) (Winterhaven, Florida).
"Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."
United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 758 (1966).
See Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849) (Taney, C. J.);
Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 43-44 (1868);
Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (1869);
Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160 (1941);
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 126 (1958);
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 629-631, 634 (1969);
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S., at 237 (separate opinion of BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ.), 285-286 (STEWART, J., concurring and dissenting, with whom BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN, J., joined).
And it is clear that the freedom to travel includes the "freedom to enter and abide in any State in the Union," id., at 285. Obviously, durational residence laws single out the class of bona fide state and county residents who have recently exercised this constitutionally protected right, and penalize such travelers directly. We considered such a durational residence requirement in Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, where the pertinent statutes imposed a one-year waiting period for interstate migrants as a condition to receiving welfare benefits(which is a privilege, NOT a right). Although in Shapiro we specifically did not decide whether durational residence requirements could be used to determine voting eligibility, 339*339 id., at 638 n. 21, we concluded that since the right to travel was a constitutionally protected right, "any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional." Id., at 634. This compelling-state-interest test was also adopted in the separate concurrence of MR. JUSTICE STEWART. Preceded by a long line of cases recognizing the constitutional right to travel, and repeatedly reaffirmed in the face of attempts to disregard it,
see Wyman v. Bowens, 397 U. S. 49 (1970),
Wyman v. Lopez, 404 U. S. 1055 (1972),
Shapiro and the compelling-state-interest test it articulates control this case.
The fact that the illegal alien parents of a baby born in America are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof and owe allegiance to a foreign power they can NOT produce an American citizen! To put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing NO allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
The criminal act of entering a country uninvited, unannounced, and in violation of that country's laws is NEVER rewarded with citizenship!
There is NO such thing as an anchor baby!
ELK v. WILKINS
Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924
Before the Civil War, citizenship was often limited to Native Americans of one-half or less Indian blood. In the Reconstruction period, progressive Republicans in Congress sought to accelerate the granting of citizenship to friendly tribes, though state support for these measures was often limited. In 1888, most Native American women married to U.S. citizens were conferred with citizenship, and in 1919 Native American veterans of World War I were offered citizenship. In 1924, the Indian Citizenship Act, an all-inclusive act, was passed by Congress.
The assemblywoman has been indicted and faces 30 years if convicted for a slew of crimes associated with a long-running scam to siphon off funds meant for victims of Hurricane Sandy – and her benefits go far beyond medical and dental insurance!
Harris, 57, defrauded the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of $25,000 using the money to pay for cruise vacations, shopping – and Victoria Secret lingerie.
The Democrat has been charged by the Department of Justice with wire fraud, making false statements, bankruptcy fraud, witness tampering and obstructing justice for defrauding after the hurricane swept through New York and New Jersey wiping out infrastructure and damaging, sometimes destroying, homes and businesses, forcing residents to rebuild or relocate.
Mayor Bill de Blasio will sue the country’s five biggest oil companies alleging climate change and global warming led to Hurricane Sandy and its catastrophic fallout and the companies should pay for the city’s resiliency upgrades.
The de Blasio administration will announce Wednesday that the city will sue for reparations and force the companies to pay for the city’s resiliency efforts, which have taken years to complete, when the storm, in 2012, devastated the city, killing 53 people across the state costing more than $19 billion.
The mayor will also call on several of the city’s pension funds to divest from oil companies, two sources with knowledge of the announcement confirmed to POLITICO, a 'source' that is known to be less than accurate!
WHY does America continue to destroy the environment with drilling, fracking, and mining?
There are two types of biofuel: biodiesel and ethanol.
Ethanol is made from grains (corn, barley, wheat, etc) or sugar cane, but can also be made from the inedible parts of most plants. It is frequently used as a biofuel, but usually blended with petrol. Cars designed to run on petrol can only tolerate a 10% addition of ethanol to petrol; flexible fuel cars can use an up to 80% ethanol mix. In Brazil, where vast amounts of sugar cane are grown for biofuel, some cars can run on 100% ethanol.
Biodiesel is a renewable, biodegradable fuel manufactured domestically from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant grease. It is a cleaner-burning replacement for petroleum diesel fuel. Biodiesel meets both the biomass-based diesel and overall advanced biofuel requirement of the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Hemp oil can and should replace both Ethanol and biodiesel.
Scientific Name: Cannabis sativa
Common Name: Hemp
Family: Cannabaceae
Why? The hemp plant can be completely processed. Every part can be used to replace every product created with fossil fuels, and even make plant-based plastics, durable paper and military grade fabric.
Hemp can yield 3 to 8 dry tons of fiber per acre - Four times more than an average forest can yield. Hemp cultivation requires no chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizer.
How? It does so by way of Phytoremediation… a natural decontamination from plants. Hemp is really good at this, especially when it comes to radiation. Hemp is more efficient and effective, than other plants, at removing, breaking down, and neutralizing harmful contaminants.
Growing hemp filters and decontaminates the soil, it also helps to replenish the nitrogen and nutrients found in soil that plants need to grow and thrive.
High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) - The European Union called the project a global concern and passed a resolution calling for more information on its health and environmental risks. Despite those concerns, officials at HAARP insist the project is nothing more sinister than a radio science research facility.
The American Meteorological Society policy statement on planned and inadvertent weather modification, dated October 2, 1998, indicates, "There is no sound physical hypothesis for the modification of hurricanes, tornadoes, or damaging winds in general, and no related scientific experimentation has been conducted in the past 20 years." In the absence of a sound hypothesis, no Federal agencies are presently doing, or planning, research on hurricane modification.
This weapon was brought into the world over a hundred years ago by Nikola Tesla and patented by Bernard Eastlund. US Patent #4,686,605 - For example, in the late 1950's and early 1960's both the United States and U.S.S.R. detonated a series of nuclear devices of various yields to generate large numbers of charged particles at various altitudes, e.g., 200 kilometers (km) or greater. This was done in order to establish and study artificial belts of trapped electrons and ions. These experiments established that at least some of the extraneous electrons and ions from the detonated devices did become trapped along field lines in the earth's magnetosphere to form artificial belts which were stable for prolonged periods of time. For a discussion of these experiments see "The Radiation Belt and Magnetosphere", W. N. Hess, Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1968, pps. 155 et sec.
Still another approach is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,042,196 wherein a low energy ionized gas, e.g., hydrogen, is released from a synchronous orbiting satellite near the apex of a radiation belt which is naturally-occurring in the earth's magnetosphere to produce a substantial increase in energetic particle precipitation and, under certain conditions, produce a limit in the number of particles that can be stably trapped. This precipitation effect arises from an enhancement of the whistler-mode and ion-cyclotron mode interactions that result from the ionized gas or "cold plasma" injection.
The technology is covered under US Patent 4,686,605 on the “Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and/or Magnetosphere.”
An increase of 1 Celsius in the atmosphere is more than enough to initiate a significant weather perturbation. Bear in mind that all gases move from high to low pressure, and gas pressure is directly proportional to its temperature. Colorado admits it has a weather modification program. The most recent weather modification policy statement of the American Meteorological Society (AMS 1998) states that, "Whereas a statistical evaluation is required to establish that a significant change resulted from a given seeding activity, it must be accompanied by a physical evaluation (emphasis added) to confirm that the statistically observed change was due to the seeding." Texas also has a weather modification program - does your state? Nebraska has a weather modification 'injury' law!
The European Union requested an investigation of HAARP to establish "its legal, ecological and ethical implications before any further research and testing." The United States has repeatedly refused such an investigation on the grounds of 'national security.'
The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP, is a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere. Operation of the research facility was transferred from the United States Air Force to the University of Alaska Fairbanks on Aug. 11, 2015, allowing HAARP to continue with exploration of ionospheric phenomenology via a land-use cooperative research and development agreement. The USAF claimed this facility was closed in 2015.
Don't believe they are controlling the weather?
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2O-DVgcvWQ (posted May of 2014) from about 3:00 to 3:20 of the video Dr. Walker admits the HAARP devices were designed to control the ionosphere and they have moved on to others ways of controlling it!
With that in mind, here are the extreme weather patterns in North America, primarily the US, since 1896.
There is plenty of information on Youtube look for HAARP, Ionospheric Heaters, or air force controls the weather! It's not a conspiracy theory - they have admitted they are 'experimenting' with Earth!
They can create earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and devastating weather!
1) Mu Radar – 1 megawatt facility in Japan (34°51'14.80"N 136° 6'19.45"E).
2) Arecibo Observatory – 2 megawatt facility in Puerto Rico (18°20'38.97"N 66°45'9.77"W).
3) HIPAS – 70 megawatt facility east of Fairbanks, Alaska (64°52'21.18"N 146°50'18.78"W).
4) Sura – 190 megawatt facility in central Russia (56° 7'10.32"N 46° 2'4.41"E).
(you can copy and paste the coordinates into google maps)
1896 Eastern North America heat wave killed 1,500 people in August 1896.
1901 eastern United States heat wave killed 9,500 in the eastern United States.
1936 – The 1936 North American heat wave during the Dust Bowl, followed one of the coldest winters on record—the 1936 North American cold wave. Massive heat waves across North America were persistent in the 1930s, many mid-Atlantic/Ohio valley states recorded their highest temperatures during July 1934. The longest continuous string of 100 °F (38 °C) or higher temperatures was reached for 101 days in Yuma, Arizona during 1937 and the highest temperatures ever reached in Canada were recorded in two locations in Saskatchewan in July 1937.
1950s – A prolonged severe drought and heat wave occurred in the early 1950s throughout the central and southern United States. In some areas it was drier than during the Dust Bowl and the heat wave in most areas was within the top five on record. The heat was particularly severe in 1954 with 22 days of temperatures exceeding 100 °F (38 °C) covering significant parts of eleven states. On 14 July, the thermometer reached 117 °F (47 °C) at East St. Louis, Illinois, which remains the record highest temperature for that state.
1972 – The heat waves of 1972 in New York and Northeastern United States were significant. Almost 900 people perished; the heat conditions lasted almost 16 days, aggravated by very high humidity levels.
1980 – An estimated 1,000 people perished in the 1980 United States heat wave and drought, which impacted the central and eastern United States. Temperatures were highest in the southern plains. From June through September, temperatures remained above 90 °F (32 °C) all but two days in Kansas City, Missouri. The Dallas/Fort Worth area experienced 42 consecutive days with high temperatures above 100 °F (38 °C), with temperatures reaching 117 °F (47 °C) at Wichita Falls, Texas on 28 June. Economic losses were $20 billion (1980 dollars)
1983 – During the Summer of 1983 temperatures over 100 °F (38 °C) were common across Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, Nebraska, and certain parts of Kentucky; the summer of 1983 remains one of the hottest summers ever recorded in many of the states affected. The hundred-degree readings were accompanied by very dry conditions associated with drought affecting the Corn Belt States and Upper Midwest. The heat also affected the Southeastern U.S. and the Mid-Atlantic states as well that same summer. New York Times represented articles about the heat waves of 1983 affecting the central United States. This heat wave was associated with the I-94 derecho.
1988 - intense heat spells in combination with the drought of 1988, reminiscent of the dust bowl years caused deadly results across the United States. Some 5,000 to 10,000 people perished because of constant heat across the United States although-according to many estimates-total death reports run as high as next to 17,000 deaths.
1995 – The 1995 Chicago heat wave produced record high dew point levels and heat indices in the Chicago area and Wisconsin. The lack of emergency cooling facilities and inadequate response from civic authorities to the senior population, particularly in lower income neighborhoods in Chicago and other Midwestern cities, lead to many hundreds of deaths. A series of damaging derechos occurred on the periphery of the hot air dome.
1999 – a heat wave and drought in the eastern United States during the summer of 1999. Rainfall shortages resulted in worst drought on record for Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The state of West Virginia was declared a disaster area. 3,810,000 acres (15,400 km2) were consumed by fire as of mid-August. Record heat throughout the country resulted in 502 deaths nationwide. There were many deaths in urban centers of the Midwest.
2000 – in late Summer 2000, a heat wave occurred in the southern United States, breaking many cities' all-time maximum temperature records.
2001 In early August an intense heatwave hit the eastern seaboard of the United States and neighboring southeastern Canada. For over a week, temperatures climbed above 35 °C (95 °F) combined with stifling high humidity. Newark, New Jersey tied its all-time record high temperature of 41 °C (106 °F) with a heat index of over 50 °C (122 °F).[10]
2002 April a summer-like heat wave in spring affected much of the Eastern United States.
2006 A North American heat wave affected a wide area of the United States and parts of neighboring Canada during July and August 2006. Over 220 deaths were reported. Temperatures in some parts of South Dakota exceeded 115 °F (46 °C). Also, California experienced temperatures that were extraordinarily high, with records ranging from 100 to 130 °F (38 to 54 °C). On 22 July, the County of Los Angeles recorded its highest temperature ever at 119 °F (48 °C). Humidity levels in California were also unusually high, although low compared with normal gulf coast/eastern seaboard summer humidity they were significant enough to cause widespread discomfort.[12] Additionally, the heat wave was associated a series of derechos that produced widespread damage.
2008 - The eastern United States experienced an early Summer heat wave from 6–10 June 2008 with record temperatures. There was a heat wave in Southern California beginning late June,[17] which contributed to widespread fires. On 6 July, a renewed heat wave was forecast, which was expected to affect the entire state.
2010 From 4 to 9 July, the majority of the American East Coast, from the Carolinas to Maine, was gripped in a severe heat wave. Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, Washington, Raleigh, and even Boston eclipsed 100 °F (38 °C). Many records were broken, some of which dated back to the 19th century, including Wilmington, Delaware's temperature of 103 °F (39 °C) on Wednesday, 7 July, which broke the record of 97 °F (36 °C) from 1897. Philadelphia and New York eclipsed 100 °F (38 °C) for the first time since 2001. Frederick, Maryland, and Newark, New Jersey, among others topped the century mark (37.8 Celsius) for four days in a row.
2011 The North American heat wave brought record heat to the Midwestern United States, Eastern Canada, and much of the Eastern Seaboard.
2012 In March, one of the greatest heat waves was observed in many regions of North America. First very warm air pushed northward west of the Great Lakes region, and subsequently spread eastward. This air mass movement was propelled by an unusually intense low level southerly jet that stretched from Louisiana to western Wisconsin. Once this warm surge inundated the area, a remarkably prolonged period of record setting temperatures ensued.[31] NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) reported that over 7000 daily record high temperatures were broken over the U.S. from 1 March thru 27 March.[31] In some places the temperature exceeded 30 °C (86 °F) with anomalies up to +22 °C. Temperature records across much of southern Canada were also demolished.
2012 In late June, much of North America began experiencing a heat wave, as heat spread east from the Rocky Mountains. During the heat wave, the June 2012 North American derecho (one within a series) caused violent storms that downed trees and power lines, leaving 3 million people in the eastern U. S. without power on 30 June. The heat lasted until Mid-August in some parts of the country.
2013 In late June, an intense heat wave struck the Southwestern United States. Various places in Southern California reached up to 122 °F (50 °C).[38] On 30 June, Death Valley, California hit 129.2 °F (54.0 °C) which is the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth during the month of June. It was five degrees shy of the world record highest temperature measured in Death Valley, which was 134 °F (57 °C), recorded in July 1913.
2013 Around Canada Day, the same heatwave that hit the Southwestern United States moved north and hit southern British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. Temperatures in BC hit 40 °C (104 °F) in Lytton on 1 July 2013, and on 2 July 2013, the city of Penticton hit 38 °C (100 °F), with both Summerland and Osoyoos hitting the same. The Tri-Cities in Washington were among the hottest, with temperatures around 110 °F (43 °C)
2015 Between June 28 – July 3, in The Northwest United States, and southern British Columbia, a heat wave
2016 During June, record heat appeared in Arizona, southern Nevada, and southern California. Burbank, California reached 111 °F, Phoenix, Arizona reached 118 °F, Yuma, Arizona reached 120 °F and Tucson, Arizona reached 115 °F, its warmest temperature in more than 20 years, on June 19. Riverside, California reached 114 °F, Palm Springs, California reached 122 °F, Las Vegas, Nevada reached 115 °F, Death Valley reached 126 °F, Needles, California tied its all-time record high of 125 °F while Blythe, California set a new all-time record high of 124 °F on June 20
2017 In June, the North American heat wave grounded more than 40 airline flights of small aircraft, with American Airlines reducing sales on certain flights to prevent the vehicles from being over the maximum weight permitted for safe takeoff[56] and Las Vegas tying its record high at 117 degrees Fahrenheit.
2017 In September a heat wave affected a large portion of the Eastern United States; it is notable for producing unusually hot temperatures the latest in a calendar year in places. The heat wave also affected parts of Eastern Canada.
Do you still believe these are 'normal' weather patterns?
US Patent #0462795 on July 16, 1891 – Method Of Producing Rain-Fall to US Patent #8373962 on February 12, 2013 – Charged seed cloud as a method for increasing particle collisions and for scavenging airborne biological agents and other contaminants
(1) Ionospheric Modification Theory; G. Meltz and F. W. Perkins;
(2) The Platteville High Power Facility; Carrol et al.;
(3) Arecibo Heating Experiments; W. E. Gordon and H. C. Carlson, Jr.; and
(4) Ionospheric Heating by Powerful Radio Waves; Meltz et al.,
all published in Radio Science, Vol. 9, No. 11, November, 1974, at pages 885-888; 889-894; 1041-1047; and 1049-1063, respectively, all of which are incorporated herein by reference.
In such experiments, certain regions of the ionosphere are heated to change the electron density and temperature within these regions.
