I consider this one of the most important "Forwards" I've done yet: PLEASE GET INVOLVED IN IT and while doing so; The attachment is shown in the above link ARE THE VOTING RECORD of EXACTLY WHO GAVE US THIS U. S. Inc. GESTAPO LAW w/ FUNDING TO PUT IT INTO ACTION, IN HOPES YOU MAY WANT TO "EXPRESS YOUR GRATITUDE" TO THEM AT THE POLLS, WHEN YOU VOTE -- IF WE STILL GET TO DO THAT ANYMORE!!!!
PLEASE PUT THIS OUT TO YOUR MAIL-LIST!?!
What Makes Our NDAA Lawsuit a Struggle to Save the US Constitution
August 11, 2012 By Tangerine Bolen ( FULL STORY AT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/ndaa-lawsuit-struggle-us-constitution )
Time after time, Obama’s lawyers defending the NDAA’s section 1021 affirm our worst fears about its threat to our liberty. I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.
In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.
Time after time, Obama's lawyers defending the NDAA's section 1021 affirm our worst fears about its threat to our liberty - Activist and reporter Tangerine Bolen, a plaintiff in the case against the NDAA, speaking to the media after a New York judge enjoined section 2012 of the law. Photograph via Fromthetrenchesworldreport
I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.
In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.
In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.
Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an "associated force", and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.
This past week's hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest's injunction. In other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama's government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them.
To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision had indeed been applied, the United States government would be in contempt of court.
I have mixed feelings about suing my government, and in particular, my president, over the National Defense Authorization Act. I voted for Obama.
But the US public often ignores how, when it comes to the "war on terror", the US government as a whole has been deceitful, reckless, even murderous. We lost nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. Then we allowed the Bush administration to lie and force us into war with a country that had nothing to do with that terrible day. Presidents Bush and Obama, and the US Congress, appear more interested in enacting misguided "war on terror" policies that distract citizens from investigating the truth about what we've done, and what we've become, since 9/11.
I, like many in this fight, am now afraid of my government. We have good reason to be. Due to the NDAA, Chris Hedges, Kai Wargalla, the other plaintiffs and I are squarely in the crosshairs of a "war on terror" that has been an excuse to undermine liberties, trample the US constitution, destroy mechanisms of accountability and transparency, and cause irreparable harm to millions. Several of my co-plaintiffs know well the harassment and harm they have incurred from having dared openly to defy the US government: court testimony has included government subpoenas of private bank records of Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir; Wargalla's account of having been listed as a "terrorist group"; and Hedges' concern that he would be included as a "belligerent" in the NDAA's definition of the term – because he interviews members of outlawed groups as a reporter – a concern that the US attorneys refused on the record to allay.
Other advocates have had email accounts repeatedly hacked, and often find their electronic communications corrupted in transmission (some emails vanish altogether). This is an increasing form of pressure that supporters of state surveillance and intervention in the internet often fail to consider.
I've been surprised to find that most people, when I mention that I am suing my president, Leon Panetta, and six members of Congress (four Democrats and four Republicans), thank me – even before I explain what I'm suing them over! And when I do explain the fact that I and my seven co-plaintiffs are suing over a law that suspends due process, threatens first amendment rights and takes away the basic right of every citizen on this planet not to be indefinitely detained without charge or trial, their exuberance shifts, and a deeper gratitude shines through newly somber demeanors. But this fight has taken a personal toll on many of us, including myself.
My government, meanwhile, seems to have lost the ability to discern the truth about the US constitution any more; I and many others have not. We are fighting for due process and for the first amendment – for a country we still believe in and for a government still legally bound by its constitution.
If that makes us their "enemies", then so be it. As long as they cannot call us "belligerents", lock us up and throw away the key – a power that, incredibly, this past week US government lawyers still asserted is their right. Against such abuses, we will keep fighting.
• This article was commissioned by the Daily Cloudt and appears here by permission of the editors
• Editor's note: the article originally stated that the administration lawyers filed an appeal against the injunction on 9 August; this was amended to 6 August on 10 August, at 1pm ET
AT LEAST SOMEONE IS ON THE PEOPLE’S SIDE!!!! PLEASE FORWARD!!!!
PLEASE PUT THIS OUT TO YOUR MAIL-LIST!?!
What Makes Our NDAA Lawsuit a Struggle to Save the US Constitution
August 11, 2012 By Tangerine Bolen ( FULL STORY AT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/ndaa-lawsuit-struggle-us-constitution )
Time after time, Obama’s lawyers defending the NDAA’s section 1021 affirm our worst fears about its threat to our liberty. I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.
In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.
Time after time, Obama's lawyers defending the NDAA's section 1021 affirm our worst fears about its threat to our liberty - Activist and reporter Tangerine Bolen, a plaintiff in the case against the NDAA, speaking to the media after a New York judge enjoined section 2012 of the law. Photograph via Fromthetrenchesworldreport
I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.
In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.
In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.
Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an "associated force", and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.
This past week's hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest's injunction. In other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama's government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them.
To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision had indeed been applied, the United States government would be in contempt of court.
I have mixed feelings about suing my government, and in particular, my president, over the National Defense Authorization Act. I voted for Obama.
But the US public often ignores how, when it comes to the "war on terror", the US government as a whole has been deceitful, reckless, even murderous. We lost nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. Then we allowed the Bush administration to lie and force us into war with a country that had nothing to do with that terrible day. Presidents Bush and Obama, and the US Congress, appear more interested in enacting misguided "war on terror" policies that distract citizens from investigating the truth about what we've done, and what we've become, since 9/11.
I, like many in this fight, am now afraid of my government. We have good reason to be. Due to the NDAA, Chris Hedges, Kai Wargalla, the other plaintiffs and I are squarely in the crosshairs of a "war on terror" that has been an excuse to undermine liberties, trample the US constitution, destroy mechanisms of accountability and transparency, and cause irreparable harm to millions. Several of my co-plaintiffs know well the harassment and harm they have incurred from having dared openly to defy the US government: court testimony has included government subpoenas of private bank records of Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir; Wargalla's account of having been listed as a "terrorist group"; and Hedges' concern that he would be included as a "belligerent" in the NDAA's definition of the term – because he interviews members of outlawed groups as a reporter – a concern that the US attorneys refused on the record to allay.
Other advocates have had email accounts repeatedly hacked, and often find their electronic communications corrupted in transmission (some emails vanish altogether). This is an increasing form of pressure that supporters of state surveillance and intervention in the internet often fail to consider.
I've been surprised to find that most people, when I mention that I am suing my president, Leon Panetta, and six members of Congress (four Democrats and four Republicans), thank me – even before I explain what I'm suing them over! And when I do explain the fact that I and my seven co-plaintiffs are suing over a law that suspends due process, threatens first amendment rights and takes away the basic right of every citizen on this planet not to be indefinitely detained without charge or trial, their exuberance shifts, and a deeper gratitude shines through newly somber demeanors. But this fight has taken a personal toll on many of us, including myself.
My government, meanwhile, seems to have lost the ability to discern the truth about the US constitution any more; I and many others have not. We are fighting for due process and for the first amendment – for a country we still believe in and for a government still legally bound by its constitution.
If that makes us their "enemies", then so be it. As long as they cannot call us "belligerents", lock us up and throw away the key – a power that, incredibly, this past week US government lawyers still asserted is their right. Against such abuses, we will keep fighting.
• This article was commissioned by the Daily Cloudt and appears here by permission of the editors
• Editor's note: the article originally stated that the administration lawyers filed an appeal against the injunction on 9 August; this was amended to 6 August on 10 August, at 1pm ET
AT LEAST SOMEONE IS ON THE PEOPLE’S SIDE!!!! PLEASE FORWARD!!!!
6 comments:
A distortion of history.
They are not a party to that document.
If they want a constitution, they can write one the same way it was done hundreds of years ago.
People know have just as much right as those then, and a man does not derive his right to life, liberty, nor property from a 200 year old document.
AND they were not citizens of the Federal WHEN they wrote it. They were sovereign states.
Get a Blacks' Law and look up the definition of 'state'. Two words...and powerful.
So they were Free and Independent States and they wrote their public decree establishing for all the KNOWING of their rights.
Sort of like the 'right to remain silent'. Ever tried that when stopped by the cop who wants your ID? Watch him call for backup and two to three more cars will show up and they will surround the private property, one usually gets in front of it to block your movement, and they are liable to 'show authority' by standing around with their hand on their gun.
Yet...the people who declared their independence did not appeal to the King nor a court for that RIGHT.
The deception is being poured on so thick.
It's like a game of Where's Waldo.
Take an article and 'find the truth' in it, and the rest of it is just 'fluff'.
RMN had a response from a post and it seems this NDAA feeds on the same fear. It must be working because they use it a lot...and they only use what is giving them the most return on their investment.
this response to something totally unrelated is truth without distortion and can apply to anything that is being put out there trying to get you to feel insignificant, powerless, or unimportant.
Each of you are important, it would help if you don't sit there and you awake to your own power to change something in your life, be it to show kindness to those that many would think don't need it.
Love is available for all and only conditional love is doled out in bits and pieces. Can't ascend if Love isn't flowing unconditionally and you are pointing fingers at a 'perceived problem'.
The Creator created everything...unless you want to tell the Creator he's created imperfection, then there is perfection in everything created.
Much love to you, and this answer to an unrelated issue on a different website was really 'en.light.ening
(fair use)
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=249116
Since Lincoln declared Martial Law on April 15, 1861, per Proclamation 113, and it HAS NOT BEEN REVOKED because his Assassination, then how is it that We Have Constitutional Rights?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=69993
ASK the Judge what is his authority under Martial Law, or is he to comply with the Authority of the Dictator President even though Congress NEVER Constitutionally Adjourned in 1861!
Which came First, the Chicken or egg?
Does the Congress have Constitutional Authority to Pass the NDAA law in 2011 when Congress back in 1861 NEVER Constitutionally Adjourned and therefore ALL Laws since then ARE Unconstitutional?
Does the Act of 1871 making the corporation THE UNITED STATES, INC. in charge and having the power to order Congress to pass it, but is it a law at all since Congress back in 1861 NEVER Constitutionally Adjourned?
"When the Southern states walked out of Congress on March 27, 1861, the quorum to conduct business under the Constitution was lost."
"when Congress adjourned sine die, it ceased to exist as a lawful deliberative body"
http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html
Some say THE UNITED STATES, INC. has the Authority since the Act of 1871, yet how can it if it was passed under Martial Law AND a NON Adjourned Congress!
Maybe everyone should join together and find out where we stand and NOT just allow these laws to be put in place and then afterwards rely on Martial Law as the Authority!
Arrest George Soros first NDAA will disappear. He owns both republican and democrat party and American people i hope the militia get him first he's one evil sob.
The people are not party to the Constitution, THEY ARE ABOVE IT. The STATES are party it.
Correct
Under the NDAA the States that sent their Sovereignty Notice to the Hague Had NO Authority to do so, WHY?, as those persons supposedly had SSNs and were still under the Authority of the Act of 1871 which Mandates that THE UNITED STATES, INC. has control of their person, or even under the Lincoln Martial Law they could NOT, so therefore they could not work for the states as they so did!
Post a Comment