7-29-2014 Intel Guru Bluwolf The three key positions that had to be seated are to the fact, once it is published in the Gazette it will be official and the international release shall be a given, all banks worldwide are now expectant of this issue so be prepared. We are already there, I can't furnish anymore details for I was asked not to reveal such information at the present.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S LOW APPROVAL RATING EXPLAINED
I spoke to a friend of mine on the phone
this morning and at some point in the conversation, President Obama’s approval
rating came up. (40% - Latest Gallup poll)
My friend couldn’t seem to understand why
the President’s approval rating was so low. Really!
Well, first of all my friend, a resident
of North Carolina and just like many Americans, is not heavily into the
alternative media scene, and if your idea of fair and balanced news is Fox,
ABC, NBC, CNN et al, you know what you’re gonna get – Only what they want you
to know!
I then proceeded to explain to my friend
why Obama’s approval rating would be so low.
Now, Obama became President of the US
riding on waves of “Hope” and “Change you can believe in” I can choose to
believe anything I want, but it doesn’t necessarily make it so. All the Obama
fans went crazy when their man was sworn in, thinking “Yes, now for some real
change”.
Not too long after that, reality has begun
to dawn on the unsuspecting masses that Obama is just another politician, who
makes promises that he can’t deliver. Will the voting masses ever learn? When
will the people understand that the solution to their problems is NOT in a new
President but in CHANGING THE SYSTEM?
Here are a few reasons that just might
explain why Obama’s approval rating might be so low.
1. Unemployment – Some
sources claim that the real unemployment figures in the US might be as high as
20% or more,as the official government figures don’t factor in those
individuals who have given up looking for a job or don’t receive any government
handouts.
2. Homelessness – Millions
of Americans have lost their homes since the crash of 2008 and the show goes
on. Veterans are sleeping rough, committing suicide and can’t get the help they
need from the very government that sent them into battle.
RT has done a great job im shedding some
light on the problem of homelessness in their documentary titled “Tent City,
USA” linked – http://rt.com/shows/documentary/170404-tent-city-us-homeless/
3. Israel – The Obama
regime continues to send billions of dollars a year to Israel while ignoring
pressing domestic issues like poverty and homelessness. Which leads me to point
number four.
4. Poverty – The website
Zerohedge back in May 2014 published an interactive map showing “Americas 49
million Hungry”
Zerohedge goes on to say that “As of 2012, the most recent year for which data are available, there were
about 49 million Americans who, sadly, describe themselves as "food
insecure," meaning they have
limited access to sufficient amounts of food, according to the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Interviews with several food banks around the country suggest
things haven't really improved since then. A new report from the hunger relief
charity 'Feeding America' throws the nation’s struggle with hunger into an even
starker light. The
report, titled "Map the Meal Gap 2014," breaks the USDA’s data down
county by county, giving a more nuanced picture of food insecurity. As the
Interactive report below reveals,
HuffPo notes that there are 16 counties in the U.S. with more than
100,000 "food insecure" children -- a number you might expect to see
in a developing country rather than the world’s wealthiest nation”.
Here’s the link to the
original article - http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-08/where-are-americas-49-million-hungry-interactive-map
5. “US Defense Budget” – As it’s called. Defense against what if I may ask?
Just another excuse to squander money where it’s not needed and for the major
Defense contractors to continue to rake it in. And the American masses continue
to be screwed by their own government.
6. Obama regime sponsorship
of Terrorist Groups in Syria – On June 26th 2014 according to a
report by RT President Obama requested $500 Million from congress to aid Syrian
rebels in the overthrow of President Bashar Al Asad. There is a lot of evidence
that shows that these “rebels” are factions of Al Qaeda and their close pals –
Al Nusra Front. Link to RT report here - http://rt.com/usa/168720-obama-syrian-rebel-fund/
This is absolutely insane. HALF A BILLION TO GIVE TO SYRIAN
REBELS??? I’ll say no more on this in
order to prevent profanity.
There are a myriad of other issues that I won’t get into as it would take
a book to address all of them. The Federal Reserve (Private Bank), IRS,
Ukraine, Boston Marathon, Sandy Hook, NSA spying and “Open Borders” just to
mention a few.
So, for anyone who still doesn’t understand why President Obama’s
approval rating is so low, what you’ve just read are a few things that might
explain it. Do you ever wonder why they don’t address these things in the mainstream
media?
Enuff said.
Ukraine Fascist Bankster Puppet Yatsenyuk Resigns?
The Rumor Mill News Reading Room
Ukraine Fascist Bankster Puppet Yatsenyuk Resigns?
Posted By: Lion [Send E-Mail]
Date: Tuesday, 29-Jul-2014 16:57:02
Date: Tuesday, 29-Jul-2014 16:57:02
|
Newshound Guru Mailman17
7-29-2014
Newshound Guru Mailman17 THE U.S, WORLD BANK AND
IMF ARE JOINED AT THE HIP...ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL. WITH THE
EMERGENCE OF A VERY FAST MOVING BRICS...THIS THREESOME IS IN SERIOUS
TROUBLE. THEY NEED TO ACT FAST...REAL FAST TO AT LEAST QUELL THIS BRICS
MOVEMENT. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A 86 CENT MAN...BUT...THEY JUST MAY HAVE
TO UP THE ANTE...IF THEY ARE TO SURVIVE THE ONCOMING STORM. THE EU NEEDS THIS DINAR TO BACK
THEIR RESERVE VALUE AS WELL AS THE U.S. JUST POSSIBLY 86
CENTS AINT GONNA DO IT...THEY MIGHT HAVE TO GO HIGHER...WE SHALL
SEE...EITHER WAY...THEY
NEED IT NOW...AS IN YESTERDAY...JMO.
MUST SEE!! Senator Sessions declares OBAMA to be LAWLESS INSANE Megalomaniac
MUST SEE!! Senator Sessions declares OBAMA to be LAWLESS
INSANE Megalomaniac
Awsome Pictures
To: "V.K. Durham"
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:45:21 AM
Subject: Fwd: Had to send these Awsome Pictures.
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:45:21 AM
Subject: Fwd: Had to send these Awsome Pictures.
Enjoy!
some of these will make you smile!
Enjoy
Thomas
Begin forwarded message:
I COULD CARRY A CAMERS FOR 100 YEARS AND NEVER SEE ANY OF THESE PICTURES TO TAKE. THAT IS PROBABLY WHY I NEVER CARRIED A CAMERA AND TRIED TO TAKE PHOTOS.
Subject: Awsome Pictures.
Phenomenal Pictures.
Have a great day!
Omegaman: i want my santa.
Omegaman: i want my santa.
the number game has nothing to do with it all. The TRNs will
be announced when the PM is officially announced; we believe TOMORROW, or shall
i say, tonight late Pacific, imo;
this does not mean PBX, however, the bonds can finally do
their thing...according to PT and others, we're looking at Thurs for PBX (
public exchange), and that looks pretty good imo; could be friday
though...we'll find out; remember this is omo not confirmed; don't blame me if
it dont happen this week...i only attempt to piece together my various sources
of intel into a cohesive unit.
Challenging a red-light ticket on constitutional and due process grounds just became more difficult 29 July A.D. 2014
From: legal_reality
Subj: FW: Challenging a red-light ticket on constitutional and due process grounds just became more difficult
29 July A.D. 2014
Regarding format and original content of the note below, the first note in the thread is left as is. Individual (email) addresses and names are deleted. The word-wrap feature needed some extra attention to get it to activate.
The note sent to this author has been modified only slightly. It has also been placed here so as to introduce the content that follows.
The original note below talks about red-light camera jurisprudence in CALIFORNIA. The legislature has adjusted the law of evidence in that community to allow the photo-evidence. The "target" of that STATE's case lost, ultimately in that STATE's high court, and it's that ruling that prompts the email discussion.
Here's the basic question posed to this author:
Regarding format and original content of the note below, the first note in the thread is left as is. Individual (email) addresses and names are deleted. The word-wrap feature needed some extra attention to get it to activate.
The note sent to this author has been modified only slightly. It has also been placed here so as to introduce the content that follows.
The original note below talks about red-light camera jurisprudence in CALIFORNIA. The legislature has adjusted the law of evidence in that community to allow the photo-evidence. The "target" of that STATE's case lost, ultimately in that STATE's high court, and it's that ruling that prompts the email discussion.
Here's the basic question posed to this author:
'Does this mean we no longer have the right to "travel"
on the roads now? In Texas the posted speed signs as listed in the Texas
Transportation Code say the speed signs are for "Commercial"
vehicles? Or is this just another Law of the Sea since the constitution
no longer exists?'
As a place to start, there is no "right to travel" in "this state," a/k/a "United States." The original concept of "right to travel" may not have existed in any of the States, either, but there's no question that there's no "right to travel" in any of the STATEs, which are but "counties" within "this state." "Right to travel" has relevance, if any, in the "INTER-State" context. To make a long discussion short, there is no "INTER-State" anything, these days. There is only "INTRA-state." Everything that is practical and relevant to the analysis of the "transportation" setting occurs within "this state." Within any "state," it's long been our reality, even before the change in "choice of law" circa 1965, that the "right to travel" within a State hasn't really existed. It's always been an inter-State concept (and in inter-national concept). Intra-State (pre-1965) "right to travel" has never existed. Intra-STATE (starting circa 1965) "right to travel" has also never existed.
We distinguish "travel" from "transportation," just the same, because not all activity of getting from one place to another has a commercial component. So, while there's no "right to travel," there is also no way that any STATE (or the U.S. either) can/may compel anyone to engage in that commercial activity known as "transportation." Thus, those who are "tagged" by that system have somehow "volunteered" to being regulated under that system.
As for Law of the Sea, everything about "this state" is maritime in nature, for it is most certainly not based on the Common Law.
Regarding "constitutions," at the national level, of course, we do not now have and have never had a "constitution." That language has never been "admissible evidence of law." At the State level, Texas is one of two States that may actually have activated the democratic law-making procedures and produced a "constitution." However, even presuming that such happened, there's the conflict among the States, initiated by Northern Aggression, of course, which side Texas supported "lost," and then, of course, there's the change in choice of law circa 1965 that no Common Law system survived. So, at present, the only parts of any "constitution" that mean anything are those that have been recognized by the high courts of the relevant jurisdictions, and then it's the judicial opinion that has the legal authority, not any jot or tittle of anything called a "constitution."
Regarding Law of the Sea and maritime law, what is an issue for many is that where the term "law" shows up or comes to mind, the application of that idea is that where something is in print, it has authority for that reason alone, namely that it's in print. We can start that way with judicial opinions, but even those have their limits. Where we're talking about legislation, that was a pretty good rule of thumb for some types of legislation in the pre-1965 "place(s)." In the present "place," which is "this state," a/k/a "United States," if it's not printed in a penal code, and if it's not structural in nature, then it applies if and only if there's an agreement that it applies. So, where we "think" "Law of the Sea," where we "think" maritime "law," we'll benefit if we'll also "think" Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" Said another way, laws of agreement apply only where there first exist an agreement. What constitutes an agreement is also determined by the principles about agreements, so we've got to have those principles in mind. But, again, just because a concept is printed here or there, by that fact of printing, alone, doesn't mean that it applies or carries any authority. It may very well carry authority, but if it does, it's because it's been agreed to.
As a practical matter, we can operate well by treating penal code language as operable and applicable by the sole reason that such language is in print under that title/label. However, by contrast, where we get to "transportation" codes, we're 100% into Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" Even then, it takes a pretty foundational view of that system to avoid "consenting." It's designed as a trap, and it takes a substantial study of that system and its operational principles to see the traps and to avoid them. It's 100% possible to do; it just takes some work, and that work starts with some rather wicked paradigm shifts.
With that as the segue, and to address one of two key concepts of the "transportation" enforcement mechanism, while Due Process is always, always, always an issue that is worth analyzing and raising where appropriate, it's also one of the easiest concepts to waive. To guess, this author expects that every "transportation" system in "this state" is 100% designed around waiver of Due Process. It's a real "knock down, drag out" affair to compel any "transportation" enforcement system to recognize and apply Due Process. (For example, in most STATEs, the published procedures very deliberately skip over some extremely major procedural steps. Out of sight--out of mind. Very, very literally, nothing shy of risking one's Liberty, having an extremely solid foundation in "what must be," and otherwise appearing to be God's gift of asshole-ness, in the sense of stubborn-ness (not vulgar-ness or unruly-ness) is going to crack that aspect of the "transportation" enforcement mechanism.) It's just too expensive for the "transportation" enforcement systems to comply with Due Process. For that reason, waiving Due Process in that particular mechanism is as easy as falling off a wet log backwards.
That said, there are certain aspects of Due Process that cannot be waived, and to have in mind what the STATE has no discretion about and cannot depend on waiver to produce is to have in mind those aspects of Due Process that may make all the difference for the successful defense.
The second concept is the substantive nature of the "transportation" defense. Anyone going into a "transportation" matter as a "target" who expects that there's anything relevant beyond the issue of "transportation" will save one whale of a lot of time, "money," and energy by paying the fine and going home. The system deals with "small" amounts in controversy, and what that translates into in most people's minds is that it's fairly straightforward in its procedure and evidence and "law."
As it turns out, it's one of the more complicated systems designed. There's a reason for that, and that takes us into understanding the "money supply" management function, which has been discussed in other notes, and may be again in future notes, but to go down that path here is to distract from the basics posed by the red-light-camera scenario. It is sufficient to say that because the "transportation" enforcement system has a "banking" function, that system is designed to make sure that the banking function it serves is not easily upset. Think "income tax" to get a picture of why a system might be set up as complicated and enforced "brutally." The "income tax" is the poster-child system for "money management" in "this state," which is just to say that the "enforcers" are vicious, and "ugly," and over-bearing, and unreasonable, etc., all by design. The "income tax" "collection" mechanism serves a banking function that, in the opinion of the bankers, is sacro-sanct, and our "touching" those systems isn't ever going to be treated lightly, and that's why. In sum, the "transportation" defense isn't as straightforward a matter as would be nice, and the reason is that it serves a "banking" function. That means that it's designed to be confusing and to be enforced "without mercy" (in appearance), so as to keep as much of the curiosity as possible completely beyond the reach of the super-vast majority of those "targeted" by that system.
Probably because they see "law" (which we're not dealing with in the traditional sense of the concept) and because they don't see "banking function" (which understanding puts the entire mechanism into very crisp focus), what the very vast majority of "targets" in that system have yet to reflect upon is that "federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement." "Federal" is not a concept that describes a "level" of government. "Federal" does not mean "national." "Federal" is also not a substitute term for "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement."
The "transportation" enforcement mechanism is a "federal" mechanism. Those not in a position to talk to the "gotcha agreement" on which that system depends may still find a way to prevail, but they're as rare as those who prevail arguing that the "income tax" is "un-constitutional."
To study into the actual mechanism on which the "transportation" system depends is to know how to defend against any "transportation"-based claim. The "target" in that case in CALIFORNIA took the traditional "patriot" approach to things and, as usual, got handed his hat. (And, even with that CALIFORNIA legislation that addresses the admissibility of the camera's photos, it is still what it has always been and will always be -- no one can compel anyone into "transportation." Thus, those being tagged by that form of regulation have "volunteered" into being so regulated.) Once the mind makes/survives that paradigm shift out of the myth and lies on which we've all been raised and into the understanding that we're dealing with a "federal" system, which depends on a "federal" mechanism, i.e., Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!", then we're in a competent position to defend ourselves in such matters as "transportation" matters.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
As a place to start, there is no "right to travel" in "this state," a/k/a "United States." The original concept of "right to travel" may not have existed in any of the States, either, but there's no question that there's no "right to travel" in any of the STATEs, which are but "counties" within "this state." "Right to travel" has relevance, if any, in the "INTER-State" context. To make a long discussion short, there is no "INTER-State" anything, these days. There is only "INTRA-state." Everything that is practical and relevant to the analysis of the "transportation" setting occurs within "this state." Within any "state," it's long been our reality, even before the change in "choice of law" circa 1965, that the "right to travel" within a State hasn't really existed. It's always been an inter-State concept (and in inter-national concept). Intra-State (pre-1965) "right to travel" has never existed. Intra-STATE (starting circa 1965) "right to travel" has also never existed.
We distinguish "travel" from "transportation," just the same, because not all activity of getting from one place to another has a commercial component. So, while there's no "right to travel," there is also no way that any STATE (or the U.S. either) can/may compel anyone to engage in that commercial activity known as "transportation." Thus, those who are "tagged" by that system have somehow "volunteered" to being regulated under that system.
As for Law of the Sea, everything about "this state" is maritime in nature, for it is most certainly not based on the Common Law.
Regarding "constitutions," at the national level, of course, we do not now have and have never had a "constitution." That language has never been "admissible evidence of law." At the State level, Texas is one of two States that may actually have activated the democratic law-making procedures and produced a "constitution." However, even presuming that such happened, there's the conflict among the States, initiated by Northern Aggression, of course, which side Texas supported "lost," and then, of course, there's the change in choice of law circa 1965 that no Common Law system survived. So, at present, the only parts of any "constitution" that mean anything are those that have been recognized by the high courts of the relevant jurisdictions, and then it's the judicial opinion that has the legal authority, not any jot or tittle of anything called a "constitution."
Regarding Law of the Sea and maritime law, what is an issue for many is that where the term "law" shows up or comes to mind, the application of that idea is that where something is in print, it has authority for that reason alone, namely that it's in print. We can start that way with judicial opinions, but even those have their limits. Where we're talking about legislation, that was a pretty good rule of thumb for some types of legislation in the pre-1965 "place(s)." In the present "place," which is "this state," a/k/a "United States," if it's not printed in a penal code, and if it's not structural in nature, then it applies if and only if there's an agreement that it applies. So, where we "think" "Law of the Sea," where we "think" maritime "law," we'll benefit if we'll also "think" Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" Said another way, laws of agreement apply only where there first exist an agreement. What constitutes an agreement is also determined by the principles about agreements, so we've got to have those principles in mind. But, again, just because a concept is printed here or there, by that fact of printing, alone, doesn't mean that it applies or carries any authority. It may very well carry authority, but if it does, it's because it's been agreed to.
As a practical matter, we can operate well by treating penal code language as operable and applicable by the sole reason that such language is in print under that title/label. However, by contrast, where we get to "transportation" codes, we're 100% into Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" Even then, it takes a pretty foundational view of that system to avoid "consenting." It's designed as a trap, and it takes a substantial study of that system and its operational principles to see the traps and to avoid them. It's 100% possible to do; it just takes some work, and that work starts with some rather wicked paradigm shifts.
With that as the segue, and to address one of two key concepts of the "transportation" enforcement mechanism, while Due Process is always, always, always an issue that is worth analyzing and raising where appropriate, it's also one of the easiest concepts to waive. To guess, this author expects that every "transportation" system in "this state" is 100% designed around waiver of Due Process. It's a real "knock down, drag out" affair to compel any "transportation" enforcement system to recognize and apply Due Process. (For example, in most STATEs, the published procedures very deliberately skip over some extremely major procedural steps. Out of sight--out of mind. Very, very literally, nothing shy of risking one's Liberty, having an extremely solid foundation in "what must be," and otherwise appearing to be God's gift of asshole-ness, in the sense of stubborn-ness (not vulgar-ness or unruly-ness) is going to crack that aspect of the "transportation" enforcement mechanism.) It's just too expensive for the "transportation" enforcement systems to comply with Due Process. For that reason, waiving Due Process in that particular mechanism is as easy as falling off a wet log backwards.
That said, there are certain aspects of Due Process that cannot be waived, and to have in mind what the STATE has no discretion about and cannot depend on waiver to produce is to have in mind those aspects of Due Process that may make all the difference for the successful defense.
The second concept is the substantive nature of the "transportation" defense. Anyone going into a "transportation" matter as a "target" who expects that there's anything relevant beyond the issue of "transportation" will save one whale of a lot of time, "money," and energy by paying the fine and going home. The system deals with "small" amounts in controversy, and what that translates into in most people's minds is that it's fairly straightforward in its procedure and evidence and "law."
As it turns out, it's one of the more complicated systems designed. There's a reason for that, and that takes us into understanding the "money supply" management function, which has been discussed in other notes, and may be again in future notes, but to go down that path here is to distract from the basics posed by the red-light-camera scenario. It is sufficient to say that because the "transportation" enforcement system has a "banking" function, that system is designed to make sure that the banking function it serves is not easily upset. Think "income tax" to get a picture of why a system might be set up as complicated and enforced "brutally." The "income tax" is the poster-child system for "money management" in "this state," which is just to say that the "enforcers" are vicious, and "ugly," and over-bearing, and unreasonable, etc., all by design. The "income tax" "collection" mechanism serves a banking function that, in the opinion of the bankers, is sacro-sanct, and our "touching" those systems isn't ever going to be treated lightly, and that's why. In sum, the "transportation" defense isn't as straightforward a matter as would be nice, and the reason is that it serves a "banking" function. That means that it's designed to be confusing and to be enforced "without mercy" (in appearance), so as to keep as much of the curiosity as possible completely beyond the reach of the super-vast majority of those "targeted" by that system.
Probably because they see "law" (which we're not dealing with in the traditional sense of the concept) and because they don't see "banking function" (which understanding puts the entire mechanism into very crisp focus), what the very vast majority of "targets" in that system have yet to reflect upon is that "federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement." "Federal" is not a concept that describes a "level" of government. "Federal" does not mean "national." "Federal" is also not a substitute term for "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement."
The "transportation" enforcement mechanism is a "federal" mechanism. Those not in a position to talk to the "gotcha agreement" on which that system depends may still find a way to prevail, but they're as rare as those who prevail arguing that the "income tax" is "un-constitutional."
To study into the actual mechanism on which the "transportation" system depends is to know how to defend against any "transportation"-based claim. The "target" in that case in CALIFORNIA took the traditional "patriot" approach to things and, as usual, got handed his hat. (And, even with that CALIFORNIA legislation that addresses the admissibility of the camera's photos, it is still what it has always been and will always be -- no one can compel anyone into "transportation." Thus, those being tagged by that form of regulation have "volunteered" into being so regulated.) Once the mind makes/survives that paradigm shift out of the myth and lies on which we've all been raised and into the understanding that we're dealing with a "federal" system, which depends on a "federal" mechanism, i.e., Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!", then we're in a competent position to defend ourselves in such matters as "transportation" matters.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
-----Original Message-----
From: paycheck-piracy@mail-list.com [mailto:paycheck-piracy@mail-list.com] On Behalf Of Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:37 PM
Subject: Challenging a red-light ticket on constitutional and due process grounds just became more difficult
Paycheck Piracy does not accept any liability or responsibility for the information provided by others. It is your duty to verify the accuracy and the legality of any information accessed via the Internet.
Please note: This message was sent from an auto-notification system that cannot accept incoming e-mails. Please do not reply to this message.
Paycheck Piracy:
- Does not rent, sell, use or abuse the list of subscribers.
- Does not insert any ads nor pop-ups into your message.
- Does not send HTML email ('tracking' messages with different colors,
fancy fonts, or pictures).
- Does not track whether subscribers opened their email (requires HTML
email).
--------------
From: National Motorists Association
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 8:01 AM
Subject: NMA E-Newsletter #283: He Said, She Said, It Said?
NMA E-Newsletter
Issue #283
NMA E-Newsletter #283: He Said, She Said, It Said?
Challenging a red-light ticket on constitutional and due process grounds just became more difficult thanks to the California Supreme Court.
In a recent ruling (California v. Goldsmith) the court concluded that red-light camera evidence does not constitute hearsay, which is defined as second-hand evidence about a statement made by a person. The court also ruled that "evidence" compiled by ticket cameras "has the presumption of authenticity," This means that camera evidence is considered valid unless the driver can successfully show otherwise.
The decision stems from the case of Carmen Goldsmith, who was convicted of a red-light camera violation in Los Angeles Superior Court in 2009. The only witness against her was an Inglewood police officer who had not personally witnessed the incident. Instead, the officer offered standard testimony about the facts of the case, based on the visual record supplied by the red-light camera. Goldsmith objected, arguing that the officer's testimony amounted to hearsay, but the court disagreed.
The court used the California Evidence Code to define hearsay as "evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated." The court reasoned that since a "statement"
must be made by a person (according to the evidence code), and since a red-light camera is not a person, the evidence it provides does not constitute hearsay.
But the court wasn't finished. It went on to say that because the red-light camera evidence is not hearsay, the defendant's right to confront the witness presenting the evidence (as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution) does not apply "[b]ecause, unlike a person, a machine cannot be cross-examined."
Let's go through that again: "because, unlike a person, a machine cannot be cross-examined." Isn't that the problem in the first place? Shouldn't the fact that there is no live witness to the event be the real issue in this case? Apparently the California Supreme Court can't be bothered with such details. (It's worth noting that in a previous red-light camera case, the California Court of Appeal sided with the defendant who made arguments similar to Goldsmith's.)
The court can't take all the credit, however. The California Legislature laid the groundwork for this ruling in 2012 when it passed Senate Bill 1303 which states specifically that data from a red-light camera does not constitute hearsay. There is ample evidence to show this bill was written with help from Redflex lobbyists who inserted the hearsay language to specifically thwart Goldsmith, whose case was working through the lower courts at that time.
It's a slick plan, a template used over and over around the country:
Camera company lobbyists use their considerable resources to influence lawmakers who write legislation favorable to the camera companies. When legal challenges arise, courts, following the letter of the law, rule in favor of camera company interests. And motorists get the short end of the stick.
Please don't misunderstand. If you get a red-light camera ticket, fight it. Raise all of the constitutional/due process arguments you can. You may prevail. These people did.
But looking at the big picture, the NMA believes the most effective way to fight red-light cameras at the state or national level is to attack the revenue stream. Our push for longer yellow lights at camera-equipped intersections does just that. After Loma Linda, California, lengthened yellow-light times by one second, red-light running violations dropped 92 percent. The revenue dried up and the cameras soon went away. Some Florida communities are shutting down their camera programs after the Florida Department of Transportation mandated longer yellow-light times last year. The reason? They're no longer profitable.
The camera companies and their policymaker accomplices have the resources to fight lengthy court battles on multiple fronts, but they are still vulnerable where it counts: on the bottom line.
National Motorists Association
402 W 2nd St
Waunakee, Wisconsin
53597 USA
=============================================
A consortium of services for people and companies.
http://www.preferredservices.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a one-way announcement list. Only the list moderators are able to post a message.
To subscribe: <mailto:Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com>
To unsubscribe: <mailto:Paycheck-Piracy-off@mail-list.com>
To change your email address: <mailto:Paycheck-Piracy-change@mail-list.com> with your old address in the Subject: area To research the free archived files: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy
mail-list.com 1302 Waugh Dr. #438 Houston, Texas 77019 USA
RT: US threatens that relations with Israel could worsen over Kerry criticism
RT:
US threatens that relations with Israel could worsen over Kerry criticism
Published
time: July 28, 2014 17:26
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (AFP Photo / Win McNamee)
On
Friday last week, Sec. Kerry reportedly presented Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu with a draft proposal calling for a seven-day halt of
fighting in Gaza, where more than 1,000 Palestinians — mostly civilians — have
been killed in the last month; in that same span, the Israeli Defense Forces
have suffered nearly 50 deaths but have continued an onslaught that the United
National Security Council formally opposed early Monday.
The
“Framework for Humanitarian Cease-Fire in Gaza” presented by Kerry failed to
impress Netanyahu’s office, however, and Israel has since embarked on a
campaign to condemn the secretary of state’s efforts by saying the US proposal
did not do enough to stop Palestinian militants with the group Hamas from furthering
its own, comparatively less successful campaign against the IDF.
According
to Barak Ravid, a correspondent for Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, the draft “shocked” local politicians because it “placed Israel and Hamas on the same level.” Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livini told
JTA the proposal was “completely unacceptable” and “would strengthen extremists in the region,” and other officials reportedly considered
agreeing to the terms a “surrender” to Hamas. The Times
of Israel
wrote that “Kerry’s
mistakes are embarrassing,”
and on Monday a new column in Haaretz accusied Kerry of “ruin[ing] everything” and warned “Very senior officials in Jerusalem described
the proposal that Kerry put on the table as a ‘strategic terrorist attack.’”
In
response, the Associated Press reported Monday afternoon that US officials say
their relationship with Israel could be put in jeopardy if criticism of the
secretary continues to emerge from one of America’s most closely held allies.
Unnamed officials, the AP reported, “said the personal attacks on Kerry crossed
a line and were particularly disappointing at a time of active conflict.”
And even
after both Hamas and Israel agreed to put a hold on fighting briefly over the
weekend, experts fear a prolonged end is a faint possibility at best.
“There is nothing to suggest that either side
is particularly desperate for a cease-fire,” Robert Danin, a fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations and a former State Department official, told the New
York Times
this week. “Neither
side believes a cease-fire will be the end of the conflict, and they are
looking at a truce as a way to position themselves for the next round of
fighting.”
Following
urging from the UN early Monday to halt the killings, Netanyahu fired back by
accusing the international body of siding with Hamas, “a murderous terrorist
group that attacks Israeli civilians.”
“It’s a matter of their political will. They
have to show their humanity as leaders, both Israeli and Palestinian,” responded UN Secretary-General Ban
ki-Moon, according to Reuters. “Why these leaders are making their people to
be killed by others? It’s not responsible, (it’s) morally wrong.”
Meanwhile,
Palestinian leaders are reportedly not too keen on the American statesman at
the moment either. A senior Palestinian Authority official and an Israeli
counterpart apparently mocked Kerry’s proposal during a weekend phone call, the
Times of Israel reported, and an unnamed PA official told the Saudi-owned
Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that Kerry’s plan would “destroy the Egyptian bid” for a ceasefire — the groundwork of which
was used for the State Dept.’s own draft proposal.
MONSANTO ORDERED TO PAY $93 MILLION TO SMALL TOWN FOR POISONING CITIZENS
MONSANTO ORDERED TO
PAY $93 MILLION TO SMALL TOWN FOR POISONING CITIZENS. FORWARDED BY ERASMUS OF
AMERICA - JULY 29, 2014
___
Sent: Monday, July 28,
2014 11:33 PM
Subject: FWD: Monsanto
Ordered
|
|
by
Christina SarichJuly 25th, 2014Updated 07/25/2014 at 2:05 am Big wins can
happen
in small places. The West Virginia State Supreme Court finalized a big blow to the biotech giant Monsanto this month, finishing a settlement causing Monsanto to pay $93 million to the tiny town of Nitro, West Virginia for poisoning citizens with Agent Orange chemicals. [.. |
__
|
COMMENT BY ERASMUS OF AMERICA: Many
people thought Monsanto Chemical was so big that it could not be successfully
sued. This news item show thats Monsanto Chemical can be successfully sued
and won against!
The following
website shows how deadly is the GMO food threat to America and the world
created by the aggressive tactics of Monsanto Chemical Co. to push this
nationally and worldwide. http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/facts.shtml Use this
link to see very shocking facts about the GMO food crops pushed by Monsanto
Chemical Co. are threatening you!
I consider this
GMO food so dangerous for farms to raise that I have committed my Omni Law
Drive to create a full investigation into this GMO food issue once our Omni
Law is passed and if as I figure this investigation shows that GMO food
seeds, etc. including pollination of other crops by GMO food is a lethal
threat to the agriculture of America and the world and the food produced by it
should be withdrawn from the market as dangerous for consumption by humans, I
will push for a national referendum by the American people to carry out legal
actions that will stop this threat to the agriculture and lives of Americans
and other people across the world. Also, this investigation contrary to
politician run investigations through Congress lasting for years and years
and then ending up with watered down results or else no action at all which
is typical for a corrupt Congress, this investigation will be fast, fair, and
thorough. If the results are as I expect, I will then commit all my weight to
end this threat to the farming and food of America and all the other nations
in the world. Monsanto Chemical has enough money for political ends to buy off
Congress, etc., but those 10 national legal trustees over the federal
government appointed by authority of the Omni Law will be honest and cannot
be bought off. If Monsanto Chemical can prove that their GMO agricultural
technology is not a threat to mankind, they can survive. If the scientific
evidence goes against them as I assume it will because of preliminary
scientific evidence I have seen, I will go against them like the Wrath of God
and with the authority of the Omni Law (full name "The Omnibus Civil
Rights Act For America" as shown on our national website, I will press
and I assume the other 9 national legal trustees will agree with me that this
GMO technology is too dangerous to be used in agriculture and theatens the
potential survival of the human race on earth if not stopped before it is too
late!
Congress
is too political and corrupt to be able to conduct an honest investigation
into this GMO food issue which appears to me to threaten the survival of the
human race if not stopped in time. If the critics cannot prove their case,
Monsanto will survive in this investigation. But if the critics prove their
case as I assume they will, Monsanto Chemical will have to cease marketing
this GMO technology for agriculture, No politics! No games! The truth
regardless which side will come out the winner and all the American people
know the truth! Then they vote by national referendum whether to outlaw this
GMO food technology as used today or else let it survive! The purpose of the
Omni Law is to give the American people the final authority over the federal
government any time they want it or it is necessary for the survival of the
American people or America as a nation. Even though I have strong opinions on
this GMO issue at this time, I am still a fair man and will see that a fair
investigation is started once the Omni Law is passed. Unless Monsanto
Chemical Co. can prove that their GMO food technology is not dangerous to
mankind as pushed by them commercially, I will push for the likely total
suppression of this agricultural technology which as far as I can see could
end up wiping out the human race on earth if not stopped in time! The Omni
Law gives the American people the right of national referendum over the
federal government when the American people want it! That makes Wash., D.C.
become the servant instead of the master over the American people as arrogant
politicians practice today towards you the American people!
Congress
and federal agencies do not have the honesty nor the moral backbone to
conduct such an investigation and if they tried it, they overwhelmingly lean
towards suppression of important facts or else misrepresentation of important
facts as they are politicians first and their moral integrity is not beyond
question when important issues and pressure is involved.
Both parties
were heavily paid off with GMO political contributions which has the
appearance of trying to buy off all opposition from Congress so regardless
which party was in power, Monsanto Chemical Co. should have nothing
to worry about things going against them if it should.
If the
critics are sound in what they are charging, the human race may be in peril
of extinction like the dinosaurs if this GMO matter is not investigated
fully, and with honesty and intelligence to find the truth needed to be shown
to the American people. Congress is too pathetic to do an investigation like
this and do it right! Pass our Omni Law and now and you will have 10 legal
trustees over Wash., D.C. who will be dedicated to you the American people
and not to politics or any party instead of you and see that you are in
control over Wash., D.C. and not Wash., D.C. in control over
you! When you really want it, they can set up national referendums so
you the people instead of the politicians set up by your authority and not
theirs the laws and policies you want to live under in America!
And on a
brighter side, statistics you have not seen indicate the possibility through
the Omni Law that we can eliminate the official national debt of America and
maybe end the need for federal and state income taxes in America. Don't
forget that until the federal income tax was passed, for most of American
history, Wash., D.C. did not have an official federal income tax. Once the
politicians get ahold of your money, they have a mad desire to spend it
instead of ending the reasons for their decreed taxes. If we can eliminate
income tax in America, this might be in effect a pay increase for all working
people in America and a bigger national market for American businesses to
sell to! I am not going to show it yet, but I have a possible idea how we
could generate big income for government without need of taxes. I studied
under six of the most brilliant economists of America and Europe including
one endorsed by Albert Einstein as teaching the only true economic science in
the 20th century. I was trained to be the successor to this German economist
endorsed by Albert Einstein. I know angles of economics that members of
Congress do not!
Pass this
report around to all of Americans as our news media is too much bought off
and paid for and censors and distorts key facts from the American people when
the power elite want this policy practiced over the American people in order
to control them.
Our
website is www.fastboomamericaneconomy.com
Our email is fastboomamericaneconomy.com@gmail.com
Our mailing address for orders and payments sent by mail instead of through
our website is NIFI, P.O. Box 1465, Seneca, SC 29679 . Make checks, etc. out
to NIFI and tell us what the payment is for whether a product or else our
loan program the Omni Law Loan Program all of which helps finance our Omni
Law Drive to pass the Omni Law even this year of 2014. If the Omni Law is
soon passed because the American people will not vote for any political
candidate not supporting it, we have one potential shot at maybe suddenly
making America an income tax free nation the easy way. Certain events coming
up could play into our hands. Rely on Congress to do the right thing and you
are living in fantastyland and not reality!
Yours For
God And Country, Erasmus Of America (pen name for that American economist the
corrupt love to hate because they don't want their corruptions ended in
America, in Wash., D.C., etc. I am the archchampion of free enterprise in
America and Marxist socialism is not the economic answer as it is an
argument that if we steal enough from others then society will be a great
paradise to live in across the nation and world. We harness the talent and
resources that America has today and America will skyrocket in prosperity as
a nation then. Let the politicians try their dumb versions of economics they
learned from law textbooks if even that far and you are letting the stupid
lead the stupid as you would be stupid as to think they would be the right
leaders to make the American economy boom then! And a question of common
sense. If you take corrupt and evil leaders and make them leaders of America,
why do you expect a good and smart national government from
such degenerate leaders to lead Wash., D.C. and America?!!)
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
