Thursday, January 24, 2013
Adjusting to Collective Compassion Fatigue and more...
Adjusting
to Collective Compassion Fatigue and more...
Compelled Evidence
Subject: [Lawmen: 5061] Compelled Evidence
If you read the article below, you will understand one reason why
I think the time approaches for a general rebellion against abusive government. As US
Citizens, the people of the land have the responsibility to keep the government
in its box. The people must have effective, easily usable ways of holding
every government employee responsible for obeying the Constitution's limits on
power and enforcing the Constitution's guarantee of rights of the people and
the states, even if that means summary excision of government perpetrators
(Gerps) from government.
Judges have absolute immunity for their corrupt rulings. Prosecutors and cops have qualified immunity. In many ways they operate above the law in an abusive, derelict oligarchy, fouling the very spirit of the word "republic."
I consider this a direct result of failing morality and family values, and the procreation and importation of masses of stupid people who, by their stupidity and irresponsibility, have transformed the United States of America into a third-world, corrupt enterprise. The article below, and the one that follows, will show how the courts have destroyed critically important constitutional protections.
Read them. Then decide what YOU shall do to protect the nation from the influences that corrupt it, starting with bringing a screeching halt to judicial immunity.
Bob Hurt.
Judges have absolute immunity for their corrupt rulings. Prosecutors and cops have qualified immunity. In many ways they operate above the law in an abusive, derelict oligarchy, fouling the very spirit of the word "republic."
I consider this a direct result of failing morality and family values, and the procreation and importation of masses of stupid people who, by their stupidity and irresponsibility, have transformed the United States of America into a third-world, corrupt enterprise. The article below, and the one that follows, will show how the courts have destroyed critically important constitutional protections.
Read them. Then decide what YOU shall do to protect the nation from the influences that corrupt it, starting with bringing a screeching halt to judicial immunity.
Bob Hurt.
Compelled Evidence
(or,
Why don’t we just bring back the Inquisition?)
by
Dick Greb
“No
person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, …”
Article
V, Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States
“In
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, …”
Article VI, Bill
of Rights, Constitution of the United States
In a criminal
case, there are two parties—the prosecutor, and the defendant. The two rights
enumerated above frame two distinct classes of witnesses with respect to an
accused defendant—those whom he has the right to obtain, by compulsory process,
to testify for him, in his defense; and those whom the prosecution has the
authority to obtain, by compulsory process, to testify against him. Or, more
simply, witnesses for, and witnesses against, the defendant.
Comparing these
two rights, it should be noted that the 5th Amendment right pertains to the witnesses
against the defendant, or the prosecution’s witnesses, while the 6th
Amendment right pertains to the witnesses for the defendant. Also, the
6th describes a positive right, while the 5th describes a right by prohibition.
That is, you have the positive right to compel witnesses to testify for you
(even against their will, if need be). On the other hand, the prosecutor has a
nearly identical power, subject to the prohibition of the 5th Amendment, to
obtain his witnesses against you. That prohibition is the difference between
the two powers. The prosecutor can compel any person to testify against you,
except YOU!
The Supreme
Court, in its famous Miranda decision1, characterized
the 5th Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself as
the right to remain silent. It’s at the top of the list of “Miranda rights” the
police are supposed to read to you before any questioning. Silence, of course,
is the only way to guarantee that you are not providing testimonial evidence
which the government will be able to use against you. Particularly today, when
the laws being enacted are so voluminous and complicated that the legislators
themselves can’t (or at least, don’t) even read or understand them, the
smallest bit of information, no matter how innocuous it seems, has the
potential of providing a link to evidence the prosecution can use. Thus,
exercising your right to remain silent, particularly when in custody of the
police, ensures that you will neither unwillingly nor unwittingly become a witness
against yourself.
This right
doesn’t just pertain when you are in custody, either. Any information which the
government is authorized to use as evidence in prosecuting you, cannot be
compelled from you. Now, it may be that the information they seek has little or
no evidentiary value, and so has little or no chance of actually being
used against you in a prosecution, but the issue is not whether or not it will
be used, but only whether or not it could be used. In other words, it
doesn’t matter if the information being compelled actually helps the
prosecution, it is enough that the prosecutor has the authority to use
it. An example might be your name or address. Although such information may
seem completely devoid of legal danger, it should be quite evident that such
information constitutes the testimony of a witness. The proof of this
proposition is found in every courtroom, since the first testimony requested of
every witness, once they have been sworn in, is to state their name for the
record.
Witnesses—the
sole route to evidence
The importance of
witnesses is that there is no other way to introduce evidence into a trial
except through their testimony. For example, if the prosecution wants to
introduce a gun as evidence in a murder trial, it must first lay a foundation
of identification. That is, it must show that said gun was the one used in the
murder—perhaps by having a policeman testify that he recovered a gun from the
suspect’s home and kept it in secure custody since that time; and then a
technician who testifies that he tested the gun and found that it matches
ballistic characteristics with the bullets removed from the victim. In other
words, the former testifies as to obtaining and securing the gun, while the
latter testifies as to the tests that link it to the crime. It is only by this
method that the murder weapon can be introduced into the trial.
One key aspect of
the foundational testimony is authentication—that is, testimony which
establishes that the evidence submitted is really what it is alleged to be. In
the example used above, this would be a major part of the policeman’s
testimony—if the policeman could not verify that the gun given to the
technician to test was the same one which he obtained from the suspect’s home,
then the technician’s testimony is worthless. This is why the ‘chain of
custody’2 is so important. Maybe you have seen a prosecutor on some
television courtroom drama asking a witness if they recognize some document or
another; once they do this (and establish its relevance to the case), then said
document can be offered into evidence. The Supreme Court has used this concept
of authentication as a way to partially mitigate the complete gutting of our
right not to be a witness against ourselves. They recognize that authentication
of evidence can be incriminating (even if it cannot be considered testimonial),
and so they have deigned to allow a 5th Amendment claim against being compelled
to provide such authentication.
Parallel rights
One of the
reasons some people might have a hard time really understanding the right not
to be compelled to be a witness against themselves is because it has often been
characterized as a right against self-incrimination. To be sure, they are
closely related, both being derived from the same 5th Amendment clause quoted
at the start of this article. But there is a critical difference between the
two—the former applies only to the defendant, while the latter applies to ALL
witnesses! That is, nobody can be forced to disclose information which could
implicate them in a crime, even if they can be compelled to be a
witness. And don’t forget, everybody except the defendant can be compelled to
be a witness. So, if a witness, while testifying as to facts about a crime
allegedly committed by you, is asked a question to which the answer would
provide evidence of his own commission of a crime, that witness can assert his
right against self-incrimination, which is nothing more than his right
not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. In other words, a
person can be compelled to be a witness against you, but in doing so, he cannot
be alienated from his right not to be a witness against himself.
Since many
criminal enterprises are undertaken by more than one person, this situation
occurs fairly often, and so has been dealt with many times. The prosecution has
the choice of granting immunity to witnesses who assert said right against
self-incrimination. That is, they can officially alienate their authority to
use the information provided by the witness (in any prosecution of him for his
crime), in order to obtain the information for prosecution of the defendant. Of
course, sometimes the government merely gives some sort of deal to the witness,
whereby he is guaranteed lighter punishment for his part of the crime to
testify against his partners, especially when the lesser participants have been
caught.
One aspect of the
right against self-incrimination is that the courts have asserted the authority
to determine, in any case in which the witness asserts that right, whether or
not he legitimately has any real apprehension of prosecution. This is done by
an in camera3 review by the judge, which basically means that
the judge inquires of the witness his reasons for claiming the right, and
decides whether or not the claim is valid. If the judge decides the claim is
invalid, then he orders the witness to answer the question put to him by the
prosecutor. On the other hand, if he decides the witness has a valid claim, the
witness is upheld in his refusal to answer, unless the prosecutor then grants
him immunity for his answer. The important thing to remember is that the
right against self-incrimination can only be claimed on a question-by-question
basis, and only applies to one who is already a witness, while the right not to
be compelled to be a witness against yourself prevents you from becoming a
witness in the first place.
Part of the
problem today stems from the fact that the courts no longer seem to explicitly
recognize the distinction between these two rights. And since the latter right
is less absolute—not to mention that the judge gets to decide whether you can
assert it or not—it’s not surprising that the courts treat all claims of 5th
Amendment rights as claims of the right against self-incrimination. The two
circumstances which epitomize this situation for Patriots involve summonses and
the filing of tax returns.
Summonses and tax
returns
Let’s start with
summonses. The Courts have pretty consistently ruled that a person who, in
response to a summons, appears at the designated time and place and responds to
each question with a claim of 5th Amendment right, has substantially complied
with said summons. This is because they recognize that the information being
requested by the IRS is incriminatory, and can most certainly be used to
prosecute you for a crime. However, in so ruling, they ignore the more
fundamental right not to be forced to testify at all. They pretend that the IRS
has the power to force you to appear and to give testimony. Obviously, the
testimony they want to extract from you concerns yourself, and can be used in
any prosecution against you. And yet, time after time the courts fraudulently
and unconstitutionally force people, by court order, to be a witness against
themselves. The language used on the summons confirms that its intention is to
force you to be a witness. I personally received a Form 6638, Summons:
Income Tax Return, which states, “You are hereby summoned and required to
appear before _________, an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officer, to give
testimony and to bring for examination the following information related to the
tax liability of the person identified above...” Now, if the person identified
in this particular situation was someone other than me, then this language
would not necessarily make the summons fraudulent on its face. But, it wasn’t
someone else—it identified me as both the person being summoned and the person
to whom the information related. In fact, the first category of documents
requested was “All documents and records you possess or control about
income you received for the years...” (Emphasis added) It alleged that
I was thereby required to be a witness against myself, yet this is
exactly what the 5th Amendment prohibits. Thus, such a summons is
unconstitutional on its face.
Form 6638 is not
the only form of summons the IRS uses. There are also Forms 6637, Collection
Information Statement, and 2039, Summons. While these forms may have
a legitimate application as third-party summonses, whenever they are used as
first-party summonses, they are also unconstitutional.
The second
circumstance of special interest to Patriots is the filing of tax returns. The
Supreme Court has said that one cannot “draw a conjurer’s circle around the
whole matter” and refuse to file any return at all,4 while at the
same time saying that the information given on a tax return is testimonial in
nature. In other words, the Supreme Court Justices spoke out of both sides of
their mouths—admitting that a tax return constitutes the testimony of a
witness, and, in spite of the fact that the 5th Amendment prohibits the
government from compelling a person to be a witness against himself, still
upheld the conviction of a man for failing to file a tax return. Did you get
that? The Supreme Court said that you can be imprisoned for FAILING TO BE A
WITNESS AGAINST YOURSELF, and your inalienable rights be damned. They justified
it by characterizing the return information as “routine financial data,” and
then, by falsely rationalizing that such information wouldn’t be incriminatory,
they concluded that you couldn’t legally refuse to file a tax return altogether
on the basis of your 5th Amendment “privilege against self-incrimination.”
In an apparent
attempt to give this decision some semblance of justice, the Court said that if
you wanted to claim that some particular information would be incriminating,
you could enter a statement to that effect in lieu of the required data.
According to their policy with respect to taxes, you can be compelled to
be a witness against yourself, and required to testify under oath with respect
to highly personal financial activities and records, and all that is perfectly
Constitutional. However, if the answer to some question would implicate you in
a crime, then you could refuse to answer on Constitutional grounds; except
naturally, the refusal itself indicates that you believe you are engaged in
criminal activity. Not to mention that the Court shamelessly reserves to itself
the authority to determine the validity of your claim of self-incrimination,
based upon whether you can prove a realistic danger of being prosecuted. In
other words, if you can show how a particular item of information will
implicate you in a crime or lead to the discovery of evidence of a crime you
committed, then you may be excused from giving them that particular item. Of
course, after proving your claim, they’ll have all sorts of leads by which to
secure that information “on their own.”
In this way, the
Court twisted the protection of the 5th Amendment into a trap. And in that
dereliction of their oaths to defend the Constitution, they advanced the
virtual enslavement of the American people by income taxes. They had a great
opportunity, rather early on in the history of the income tax (1927), to establish
the limits of such taxes by preserving our rights not to be forced to provide
the government any testimony, books, records, or any other evidence that can be
used against us in criminal cases. Instead they trampled the Constitution by
allowing Sullivan’s conviction to stand, clearly violating his right not to be
a witness against himself.
Another way to
look at this travesty is by comparing it to the corresponding situation in a
criminal case. Everyone agrees that the defendant can’t be forced to take the
stand—that choice is his alone to make. But, if the Supreme Court treated this
the same as tax returns, then nothing prevents Congress from enacting a law
which requires all criminal defendants to testify under oath about all manner
of things, except when, in the judge’s opinion, the defendant could show he had
a reasonable fear of prosecution because of his answer to a particular
question. Or since non-criminals couldn’t, by definition, incriminate
themselves, perhaps a law requiring every one of us to file monthly (or even
daily) reports on our whereabouts, activities, and contacts. Following the
seditious reasoning of the Sullivan decision to its logical conclusion, there
is no reason to believe the Supreme Court wouldn’t give such an egregious law
their blessing.
From Star Chamber
to 5th Amendment
Historically, the
right of an accused person not to be forced to testify against himself is
closely related to the right of free exercise of one’s religious beliefs. When
the kings and queens of England claimed that they were the ecclesiastical as
well as the political sovereign, they enacted laws that prohibited anyone from
attending worship services other than those of the official state religion. One
consequence of this situation was that anyone who denied such ecclesiastical
sovereignty was guilty of heresy. Jurisdiction of such ecclesiastical crimes
was conferred on a court known as the High Commission, backed up by the Star
Chamber court. While English common law was followed in the secular courts
for the trial of felonies, the ecclesiastical courts were given virtually free
rein to come up with the procedures by which they operated. The method they
invariably chose was that of the inquisition, by way of the oath ex officio.
The way it worked
was that a prisoner was brought before the court and forced to take an oath,
swearing to tell the truth in all matters into which the court might inquire.
Most of the time, he was not given any advance notice of such matters—that is,
no indictment of any kind. (Of course, most people in those circumstances had a
pretty good idea that it was related to their religious practices.) Once under
oath, he was questioned incessantly, in an attempt to trip him up in details;
ultimately, the questions were geared toward getting him to confess to his
personal religious beliefs and actions—both of which were against the law.
Thus, such prisoners were forced to not only accuse themselves, but to convict
themselves as well. As time went on, nemo tenetur seipsum accusare5 and nemo
tenetur seipsum produre6 became rallying cries in such prosecutions.
Refusal to answer any question was considered an admission of guilt. Refusal to
take the oath ex officio resulted in either indefinite imprisonment or
torture—both designed to convince the prisoner to take the oath. The end result
was that many of the pioneers in the battle for recognition of the right
against such compelled testimony suffered horribly. This brief history does not
do justice to that battle. For an in-depth examination of the history of this
right we hold so dear, read Nobel prize-winner Leonard W. Levy’s book, Origin
of the fifth amendment; the right against self-incrimination.
One of the
principles involved was the preservation of the prosecutorial, as opposed to
the inquisitorial, method of trial. The essential difference between the two is
that in the former, the government must develop its case against the accused
through interviews of victims and witnesses, and other forms of investigation;
in the latter, the government develops its case by coercing (by torture if
necessary) the suspect to provide the necessary evidence. Not only were coerced
confessions seen to be extremely unreliable method of obtaining truth, they
were also recognized to be cruel. Not just cruel in the torture often employed
in obtaining them, but cruel in the sense that it violated his natural rights
to force a guilty man into a position where he must choose between subjecting
himself to earthly punishment by admitting guilt or subjecting himself to the
punishment of God Almighty by falsely swearing to his innocence. This was
especially true when the crime was refusal to recognize the king or queen of
the time as the spiritual sovereign; swearing to your innocence was swearing
that God was not Sovereign—a sure way to bring a fate worse than death.
One interesting
aspect of the history of the right against compelled testimony that was brought
out in Mr. Levy’s book was the continuous expansion of the right. In the early stage,
it centered largely on the cruelty of the oath ex officio—forcing a man
to answer questions under oath concerning matters of which he had been given no
prior notice. That is, no formal accusatorial instrument such as a presentment
or indictment was given to the accused; he was forced to accuse himself.
Eventually though, especially in some of the more celebrated cases of the time,
the defendants were given formal indictments; and then, the arguments
shifted somewhat to encompass the right not to convict himself by his own words
either. Through such expansion of the recognition of our natural rights, the
5th Amendment protected our right not to be compelled to produce evidence
against ourselves.
What went wrong?
Shamefully, we
have (by our inaction at the very least) allowed that trend to be reversed in
just a few short generations. In 1966, the Supreme Court held that neither the
5th Amendment nor the 4th protects a person from having his blood forcibly
extracted from his body (in spite of his explicit protest) to use as evidence
against him for a “driving while intoxicated” charge. The Court, quoting from
Miranda, states:
“All these
policies point to one overriding thought: the constitutional foundation
underlying the privilege is the respect a government—state or federal—must
accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. To maintain a fair
state-individual balance, to require the government to shoulder the entire
load, * * * to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our
accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to
punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent
labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his
own mouth.” 7
That sounds like
the Court is heading in the right direction, but then they go on to say:
“Since the blood
test evidence, although an incriminating product of compulsion, was neither
petitioner's testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or
writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds.” 8
Thus, the highest
court in the land makes a distinction between cruelly compelling evidence from
an accused’s mouth and cruelly compelling evidence from his veins. The former
is forbidden, while the latter is said to be perfectly fine. The absurdity of
such a distinction is sickening.9 But the
unethical black-robed liberty thieves continued to erode our rights in later
cases too. January 22, 1973 was a banner day for all who desire the destruction
of our Constitution. On that day, the Supreme Court handed down two separate
opinions further violating our rights. In the first of these cases, the Court
held that forcing potential suspects (20 of them!) to read into a recording
device the transcript of intercepted conversations from an investigation into
violations of federal gambling laws did not violate their 4th or 5th Amendment
rights.10 They rationalized this travesty by claiming that the voice
exemplar was to be used only to identify the person whose conversation was
intercepted (as if that was not in itself a violation of their rights), but not
for any testimonial or communicative evidence—although naturally, once they
were so identified, the intercepted conversation would be communicative
evidence. Of course, no mention is even made of the fact that the federal
government was never granted any power to enact laws against gambling in the
first place.
In its very next
case, the Court made a similar ruling on handwriting exemplars demanded of one
suspect in an investigation into theft of interstate shipments.11 Again, since the
exemplar was ostensibly only to identify the suspect as the author of certain
writings, the Court claimed that such evidence was not testimonial or
communicative, and thus, not violative of his rights. It is interesting to note
that the above two cases were appeals of contempt convictions for refusing to
give the demanded exemplars. Thus, the Supreme Court condones the imprisonment
of suspects (and even potential suspects) for refusing to provide the
government evidence with which they could be convicted of crimes—the exact
injustice from which the 5th Amendment was designed to protect us. This
“non-testimonial” compulsion which the Court allows also extends to
fingerprinting, photographing, measurements, walking, assuming particular
stances, making particular gestures, and even modeling a particular item of
clothing. Even a blind man can see that the Judiciary is no longer the bulwark
of our freedom from a tyrannical government—if it ever really was.
Where do we go
from here?
So what can be
done about the steady encroachment on this valuable fundamental right? One part
of the answer is judicial accountability. The Judicial branch was supposed to
work as a check against the usurpation of power by the Executive and
Legislative branches; but it has utterly failed in this duty. It has not only
accommodated the destruction of our rights and the limitations imposed on the
government by the Constitution, it has willfully and knowingly swung the wrecking
ball itself. When judges are not slapping gag orders on hapless victims of
wrongful tax prosecutions, barring them from presenting any meaningful defense,
they are busy legislating from their benches, attempting to interpose their own
will for the will of the legislature (which theoretically is the will of the
people, but is now nothing more than the legislators’ own wills). The lack of
accountability for judges’ official actions has emboldened them to stoop to new
lows of sedition and sophistry. It is long past time to bind them again by
their oaths of office and make them accountable for their judicial decisions.
One method designed to reverse this dangerous trend is the introduction of
legislation which will provide for punishment of judges who fail to uphold the
Constitution, or who otherwise violate the liberties of those who come before
them. You can help in this effort by pressuring your legislators to sponsor and
actively work to enact such legislation. Let them know that if they refuse, you
will not only refuse to support them, you will actively work to replace them
with someone who understands the necessity for judicial accountability, and
will encourage everyone else to do likewise. Perhaps when their unlawful
actions have tangible penalties, judges will start respecting the Law of the
Land again. Only then will we be able to enjoy once more the Blessings of
Liberty and Justice for all.
An even more
important part of the answer is education—unless we can convince the general
public of the importance of preserving our hard-won liberties, we will have
nothing to leave our children and grandchildren except a legacy of socialism,
slavery, and totalitarian tyranny. And all of the blood, sweat, and lives spent
by generations of Americans from the founding of this great Republic until
today will have been squandered by our apathy and ignorance. God forbid that we
let that happen. Help educate your fellow Americans by joining with other
freedom-loving individuals in supporting the Liberty Works Radio Network, an
over-the-airwaves media outlet controlled by Patriots, not mega-corporations.
You can become a member of the LWRN Fellowship for annual dues of
$99, or if you prefer, monthly dues of $10. Each member will enable Liberty
Works Radio Network to expand its broadcasting reach that much sooner, so
encourage your family and friends to do the same. You’ll be hard-pressed to
find a more effective means of educating the public for just 27¢ a day! But, of
course, these are only suggestions—do whatever you can think of that will break
the government-induced hypnosis of our fellow citizens. Do it as if the life of
our Republic depends on it, because it surely does.
1 Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966)
2 ‘Chain of custody’ is
the proof of continuous positive control of evidence when in the hands of the
police.
3 According to Black’s
Law Dictionary (6th Ed.): “In camera—In chambers; in private. A judicial
proceeding is said to be heard in camera either when the hearing is had before
the judge in his private chambers or when all spectators are excluded from the
courtroom.”
4 United States v.
Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927). The full quote beginning at the end of page 263:
“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 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 government blank would bring him
into danger of the law.”
5 “No one is bound to
accuse himself.”
6 “No one is bound to
betray himself.”
7 Schmerber v. State of
California, 384 U.S. 757, 762 (1966).
8 Ibid, p. 765.
9 A small ray of hope is
that at least there were dissenting Justices who recognized the specious
reasoning for what it was. Unfortunately, none of those dissenting Justices are
still on the Court.
10 U.S. v. Dionisio, 410
U.S. 1 (1973).
11 U.S. v. Mara, 410
U.S. 19, (1973).
--
 |
Bob
Hurt
P.O. Box 14712 Clearwater, FL 33766-4712 (727) 669-5511 Visit My Home Page · Email Me · Visit My Blog Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary (Buy Now) Stay informed with Lawmen E-letter (Subscribe Free Now) Donate to my Law Scholarship Fund. |
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawmen" group.
To post to this group, send email to lawmen@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawmen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawmen" group.
To post to this group, send email to lawmen@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawmen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Jim Neugent, a Coach In Mena , ARK Writes To ABC Network
Please pass it on after reading to the
end.
|
Jim Neugent, a Coach In Mena , ARK |
Writes To ABC Network
My name is Jim
Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program called 'THE
PRACTICE.' In last nights episode, one of the lawyer's mothers decided she is
gay and wanted her son to go to court and help her get a marriage license so
she could marry her 'partner.' I sent the following letter to ABC yesterday and
really did not expect a reply, but I did get one.
My original
message was:
ABC is
obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer watch any of your
attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK. ' THE PRACTICE' can be
a fairly good show, but last night's program was so typical of your agenda. You
picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was against the idea of his
mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner because he had convictions.
This type of mentality calls people like me a 'gay basher.'
Read the first
chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible); and see what the apostle Paul had to
say about it..... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay bashers'. What if she'd
fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that an alternative life style? (By
the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)
--Jim Neugent
Here is ABC's
reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:
How about
getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by
MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the declaration of
independence (what our nation is built on), where it says 'All Men are Created
equal,' and try treating them that way for a change!
Or better yet,
try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your
lame crutch for your existence. You are in the minority in this country, and
your boycott will not affect us at ABC or our freedom of statement.
Jim Neugent's
second response to ABC:
Thanks for
your reply.From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I will share it with
all whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will
include it in one of their columns and I will be praying for you.
-Jim Neugent-
-
Note:Wouldn't
Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible for a crutch?
Please resend
this to everyone in your mailbox.
Jim
Neugent
I wonder if the person from ABC
considered how many people would eventually read this e-mail!
Please,if you are a Christian,pass this
on to others so they may be aware.
WE NEED TO SAVE WHAT WE HAVE LEFT OF THIS
COUNTRY!
Want An RFID Chip Implanted Into Your Hand?
Want An RFID Chip Implanted Into Your Hand?
RFID Chip Implantation 666 right hand!
Published on Aug 15, 2012
The battery in the RFID charge's off body temp the two places in the body
that change temp the most back of the hand and forehead the battery charge's
off that change in temp!
Over the course of the weekend, Andrew would be one of eight people to
undergo the RFID implantation among the 500 or so attendees of Toorcamp, a
hacker conference and retreat near the northwest corner of Washington State.
Graafstra's "implantation station" was set up in the open air:
Any camper willing to spend $30 and sign a liability waiver could have the
implantation performed, and after the excitement of Andrew's injection, a small
line formed to be next.
And why volunteer to be injected with a chip that responds to radio signals
with a unique identifier, a procedure typically reserved for tracking pets and
livestock? "I thought it would be cool," says Andrew, when we speak
at a picnic table a few minutes after his injection. (The pain, he tells me, was
only a short pinch followed by a "weird feeling of a foreign body
sliding into my hand.")
Graafstra's glass-encased RFID chips ready for implantation.
Following is the SALES PITCH to get people to accept 'the mark.'
The practical appeal of an RFID implant, in theory, is quick authentication that's faster, cheaper and more reliable than other biometrics like thumbprints or facial scans. When the chip is hit with a radio frequency signal, it emits a unique identifier number that functions like a long, ungues sable password. Implantees like Andrew imagine the ability to unclutter their pockets of keys and keycards and instead access their cars, computers and homes with a mere wave of the hand.
The practical appeal of an RFID implant, in theory, is quick authentication that's faster, cheaper and more reliable than other biometrics like thumbprints or facial scans. When the chip is hit with a radio frequency signal, it emits a unique identifier number that functions like a long, ungues sable password. Implantees like Andrew imagine the ability to unclutter their pockets of keys and keycards and instead access their cars, computers and homes with a mere wave of the hand.
See the full story at http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/08/13/want-an-rfid-chip-implanted-into-your-hand-heres-what-the-diy-surgery-looks-like-video/
Rev 13:16 And he (the antichrist) causeth all, both small and great,
rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in
their right hand, or in their foreheads
Is Chase Bank Presenting Forged or Fraudulent Documents to Support Foreclosure on your Home
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Is Chase Bank Presenting Forged or Fraudulent Documents to Support Foreclosure on your Home
On the face the appearance is that Notes, Mortgages, Deeds of Trusts and other loan documents are computer generated copies and not original documents. The bank or its minions appear to be using highly sophisticated software to prepare fraudulent documents. Rumors are rife that the bank or banks or others destroyed all original WAMU loan documents and that originals do not exist.
Do you believe you are a victim of forged or fraudulently prepared documents? Please contact me. Your information will be treated with confidentiality.
FORGERY: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/FORGERY
The creation of a false written document or alteration of a genuine one, with the intent to defraud.
Forgery consists of filling in blanks on a document containing a genuine signature, or materially altering or erasing an existing instrument. An underlying intent to defraud, based on knowledge of the false nature of the instrument, must accompany the act. Instruments of forgery may include bills of exchange, bills of lading, promissory notes, checks, bonds, receipts, orders for money or goods, mortgages, discharges of mortgages, deeds, public records, account books, and certain kinds of tickets or passes for transportation or events. Statutes define forgery as a felony. Punishment generally consists of a fine or imprisonment, or both. Methods of forgery include handwriting, printing, engraving, and typewriting. The related crime of uttering a forged document occurs when an inauthentic writing is intentionally offered as genuine. Some modern statutes include this crime with forgery.
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.
Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate,Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved.
First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.
Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.
Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.
Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.
Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.
A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it.
The relationship between parties can make a difference in determining whether a statement is fraudulent. A misleading statement is more likely to be fraudulent when one party has superior knowledge in a transaction, and knows that the other is relying on that knowledge, than when the two parties possess equal knowledge. For example, if the seller of a car with a bad engine tells the buyer the car is in excellent running condition, a court is more likely to find fraud if the seller is an auto mechanic as opposed to a sales trainee. Misleading statements are most likely to be fraudulent where one party exploits a position of trust and confidence, or a fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationships include those between attorneys and clients, physicians and patients, stockbrokers and clients, and the officers and partners of a corporation and its stockholders.
A statement need not be affirmative to be fraudulent. When a person has a duty to speak, silence may be treated as a false statement. This can arise if a party who has knowledge of a fact fails to disclose it to another party who is justified in assuming its nonexistence. For example, if a real estate agent fails to disclose that a home is built on a toxic waste dump, the omission may be regarded as a fraudulent statement. Even if the agent does not know of the dump, the omission may be considered fraudulent. This is constructive fraud, and it is usually inferred when a party is a fiduciary and has a duty to know of, and disclose, particular facts.
Fraud is an independent criminal offense, but it also appears in different contexts as the means used to gain a legal advantage or accomplish a specific crime. For example, it is fraud for a person to make a false statement on a license application in order to engage in the regulated activity. A person who did so would not be convicted of fraud. Rather, fraud would simply describe the method used to break the law or regulation requiring the license.
Fraud resembles theft in that both involve some form of illegal taking, but the two should not be confused. Fraud requires an additional element of False Pretensescreated to induce a victim to turn over property, services, or money. Theft, by contrast, requires only the unauthorized taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the other of the property. Because fraud involves more planning than does theft, it is punished more severely.
Federal and state criminal statutes provide for the punishment of persons convicted of fraudulent activity. Interstate fraud and fraud on the federal government are singled out for federal prosecution. The most common federal fraud charges are for mail and wire fraud. Mail and wire fraud statutes criminalize the use of the mails or interstate wires to create or further a scheme to defraud (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1341, 1342).
Tax fraud against the federal government consists of the willful attempt to evade or defeat the payment of taxes due and owing (I.R.C. §7201). Depending on the defendant's intent, tax fraud results in either civil penalties or criminal punishment. Civil penalties can reach an amount equal to 75 percent of the underpayment. Criminal punishment includes fines and imprisonment. The degree of intent necessary to maintain criminal charges for tax fraud is determined on a case-by-case basis by theInternal Revenue Service and federal prosecutors.
There are other federal fraud laws. For example, the fraudulent registration of Aliens is punishable as a misdemeanor under federal law (8 U.S.C.A. § 1306). The "victim" in such a fraud is the U.S. government. Fraud violations of banking laws are also subject to federal prosecution (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 104 et seq.).
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommend consideration of the intended victims of fraud in the sentencing of fraud defendants. The guidelines urge an upward departure from standard sentences if the intended victims are especially vulnerable. For example, if a defendant markets an ineffective cancer cure, that scheme, if found to be fraudulent, would warrant more punishment than a scheme that targets persons generally, and coincidentally happens to injure a vulnerable person. Federal courts may require persons convicted of fraud to give notice and an explanation of the conviction to the victims of the fraud (18 U.S.C.A. § 3555).
All states maintain a general criminal statute designed to punish fraud. In Arizona, the statute is called the fraudulent scheme and artifice statute. It reads, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions" is guilty of a felony (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2310(A)).
States further criminalize fraud in a variety of settings, including trade and commerce,Securities, taxes, real estate, gambling, insurance, government benefits, and credit. In Hawaii, for example, fraud on a state tax return is a felony warranting a fine of up to $100,000 or three years of imprisonment, or both, and a fraudulent corporate tax return is punished with a fine of $500,000 (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 231-36). Other fraud felonies include fraud in the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance (§ 329-42) and fraud in government elections (§ 19-4). Fraud in the application for and receipt of public assistance benefits is punished according to the illegal gain: fraud in obtaining over $20,000 in food coupons is a class B felony; fraud in obtaining over $300 in food coupons is a class C felony; and all other public assistance fraud is a misdemeanor (§ 346-34). Alteration of a measurement device is fraud and is punished as a misdemeanor (§ 486-136).
In civil court, the remedy for fraud can vary. In most states, a plaintiff may recover "the benefit of the bargain." This is a measure of the difference between the represented value and the actual value of the transaction. In some states, a plaintiff may recover as actual damages only the value of the property lost in the fraudulent transaction. All states allow a plaintiff to seek Punitive Damages in addition to actual damages. This right is exercised most commonly in cases where the fraud is extremely dangerous or costly. Where the fraud is contractual, a plaintiff may choose to cancel, or rescind, the contract. A court order of Rescission returns all property and restores the parties to their precontract status.
The Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast
A definite MUST
HEAR!
The Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast
This speech has GOT to be a historic warning to our beloved America!!!
God Bless you Pastor/Rabbi Jonathan
Cahn for this courageous and powerful speech! God bless you for not being afraid
to speak the truth. We need more preachers like you. We don't need
preachers sugar coating the word of God....
Pray that this message
fall not on deaf ears. Time is so incredibly short and our redemption is closer
than ever before. Lord help us to continue the fight, to continue to be light
unto darkness, and to give reason for the hope that is within us.
Jan 24 Update: Tantrums, Spinning Wheels and falling off the top of the mountain
THURSDAY, 24 JANUARY 2013
Jan 24
Update: Tantrums, Spinning Wheels and falling off the top of the mountain
Ok,
so I thought that going on a radio show and explaining everything that has been
happening and the realizations that my inner brain finally beat my outer brain
to accept.... against it's will I might add was the best way to get the
information out. But obviously the problems with the audio caused issues
and that didn't really work out so well. So let me try this again.
As I said on the show two days ago....
One of the biggest problems when gathering intel and information is maintaining neutrality. I have always prided myself on the fact that I have been able to keep things in perspective (most of the time) because I don't have a political, religious or racial agenda, which makes analyzing intel and data in neutrality much easier. BUT... what I hadn't factored into that is the fact that when you want something so badly, you use that want to block out other information that your subconscious picks up.
For the past six months as intel and information about the "RV" and the new financial system has been coming to me through various sources, I have had niggling doubts and questions about everything that has been happening and the people/organizations that have been involved. Some of you have also had these questions pop up in your brain because I've read them in your comments. Each of these comments furthered the doubts in my own mind and drove me to try to understand the situation on a higher level.
When I got involved in digging for intel on my own- because I realized that there were huge missing pieces in the information being put out by the "gurus"- I spent months researching everything: NESARA, World Global Settlements, Wanta Funds, St Germain and the World Trust Fund, the new financial system, the Collateral Accounts, etc, and storing all that information away for future reference. This also included a crash course in American Politics and Economic/Financial History. The more I researched, the more questions I had about the intel that I was getting and the motives behind it.
For example:
- If NESARA would also be opening the Patent Office and releasing the "new technologies", then why are the Chinese making arrangements with the various Dinar Groups to buy up their IQD at higher rates for Oil Credits? If all these new technologies are going to be opened to the public, (and yes they are real and yes there is such things a zero point energy and free energy devices) , then the use of oil was about to be radically diminished. So why is China buying up all the oil credits they can get their hands on?
- If "Debt Forgiveness" is part of NESARA, and if the Cabal are going to be arrested for their crimes- including the financial crimes that have plunged the world into economic turmoil, then why are these massive amounts of money being shipped all over the world to pay off "National/Debts"? Debt "Forgiveness" in my mind didn't mean paying off those debts to the cabal bankers/controllers that were holding entire countries hostage over those "debts". That made no sense to me. The Cabal controlled Central Banks are the ones that got us into this situation, why would "they" pay out money to them to get rid of a "debt" that in reality doesn't even exist? Yet I had incontrovertible evidence that this was EXACTLY what was happening.
- Yes, China holds a lot of the US's "Debt", and is obviously part of the BRICs and non- aligned nations that have supposedly said "Enough is Enough!!" about the horrifically corrupt US Federal Reserve bank's strangle-hold on the global economy. Yes, the US has tried to rip China off by paying them in Tungsten filled "gold bars". Yes, China's falling economy is directly linked to the failing economy in the US as American consumers can no longer afford to by Chinese made goods. Yes, China has over powered the Federal Reserve dollars by doing all trade in their own currency..... hmmmmmmmm..... none of these are motives that say "saving humanity and ushering in the golden age".
- Yet intel sources and "gurus" are trying to laud China as being the "Saviour of America and it's peoples". We've been told over and over again that a certain Chinese woman has been working with the new UST, with the IMF, with the BIS with the United Nations and Wells Fargo, to push the Global Currency Revaluation and the new Financial System through..... ummmmmm UST? IMF? BIS? Wells Fargo? United Nations? These are all Cabal controlled agencies that are just puppets used by the grand puppet masters to control all of the world.
- Then there is the intel about how this certain asian lady has been bribing a certain high(est) up American official to "stand aside" and sign off on the RV- to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars. Bribing? In what universe is THAT part of debt forgiveness or arresting the Cabal or NESARA?
- And then there is the fact that NESARA is suppose to roll out world wide. Correct me if I'm wrong, but NESARA is based on the American Constitution. What Right do they have to push the American Constitution onto other nations and people?
These are just a few of the questions that have been nagging me over and over again for months and months.
BUT, like most of you, I am Desperate. I want all these things to roll out world wide- so much so that for months I continuously shushed my inner mind on these questions and just kept pushing forward with the idea that it would all work out just fine. And when I laid in bed at night and I couldn't shut my inner brain off that was screaming that this is all about corruption and lies, I consoled myself by saying "Well, when the money comes through and I set up my foundations I will be able to help so many people and be able to get things in motion to create REAL change!"
Right up until about 10 days ago, I continued to force myself to believe in the charade that was being perpetrated on the people of Earth under the guise of the golden age of freedom.......
As I said on the show two days ago....
One of the biggest problems when gathering intel and information is maintaining neutrality. I have always prided myself on the fact that I have been able to keep things in perspective (most of the time) because I don't have a political, religious or racial agenda, which makes analyzing intel and data in neutrality much easier. BUT... what I hadn't factored into that is the fact that when you want something so badly, you use that want to block out other information that your subconscious picks up.
For the past six months as intel and information about the "RV" and the new financial system has been coming to me through various sources, I have had niggling doubts and questions about everything that has been happening and the people/organizations that have been involved. Some of you have also had these questions pop up in your brain because I've read them in your comments. Each of these comments furthered the doubts in my own mind and drove me to try to understand the situation on a higher level.
When I got involved in digging for intel on my own- because I realized that there were huge missing pieces in the information being put out by the "gurus"- I spent months researching everything: NESARA, World Global Settlements, Wanta Funds, St Germain and the World Trust Fund, the new financial system, the Collateral Accounts, etc, and storing all that information away for future reference. This also included a crash course in American Politics and Economic/Financial History. The more I researched, the more questions I had about the intel that I was getting and the motives behind it.
For example:
- If NESARA would also be opening the Patent Office and releasing the "new technologies", then why are the Chinese making arrangements with the various Dinar Groups to buy up their IQD at higher rates for Oil Credits? If all these new technologies are going to be opened to the public, (and yes they are real and yes there is such things a zero point energy and free energy devices) , then the use of oil was about to be radically diminished. So why is China buying up all the oil credits they can get their hands on?
- If "Debt Forgiveness" is part of NESARA, and if the Cabal are going to be arrested for their crimes- including the financial crimes that have plunged the world into economic turmoil, then why are these massive amounts of money being shipped all over the world to pay off "National/Debts"? Debt "Forgiveness" in my mind didn't mean paying off those debts to the cabal bankers/controllers that were holding entire countries hostage over those "debts". That made no sense to me. The Cabal controlled Central Banks are the ones that got us into this situation, why would "they" pay out money to them to get rid of a "debt" that in reality doesn't even exist? Yet I had incontrovertible evidence that this was EXACTLY what was happening.
- Yes, China holds a lot of the US's "Debt", and is obviously part of the BRICs and non- aligned nations that have supposedly said "Enough is Enough!!" about the horrifically corrupt US Federal Reserve bank's strangle-hold on the global economy. Yes, the US has tried to rip China off by paying them in Tungsten filled "gold bars". Yes, China's falling economy is directly linked to the failing economy in the US as American consumers can no longer afford to by Chinese made goods. Yes, China has over powered the Federal Reserve dollars by doing all trade in their own currency..... hmmmmmmmm..... none of these are motives that say "saving humanity and ushering in the golden age".
- Yet intel sources and "gurus" are trying to laud China as being the "Saviour of America and it's peoples". We've been told over and over again that a certain Chinese woman has been working with the new UST, with the IMF, with the BIS with the United Nations and Wells Fargo, to push the Global Currency Revaluation and the new Financial System through..... ummmmmm UST? IMF? BIS? Wells Fargo? United Nations? These are all Cabal controlled agencies that are just puppets used by the grand puppet masters to control all of the world.
- Then there is the intel about how this certain asian lady has been bribing a certain high(est) up American official to "stand aside" and sign off on the RV- to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars. Bribing? In what universe is THAT part of debt forgiveness or arresting the Cabal or NESARA?
- And then there is the fact that NESARA is suppose to roll out world wide. Correct me if I'm wrong, but NESARA is based on the American Constitution. What Right do they have to push the American Constitution onto other nations and people?
These are just a few of the questions that have been nagging me over and over again for months and months.
BUT, like most of you, I am Desperate. I want all these things to roll out world wide- so much so that for months I continuously shushed my inner mind on these questions and just kept pushing forward with the idea that it would all work out just fine. And when I laid in bed at night and I couldn't shut my inner brain off that was screaming that this is all about corruption and lies, I consoled myself by saying "Well, when the money comes through and I set up my foundations I will be able to help so many people and be able to get things in motion to create REAL change!"
Right up until about 10 days ago, I continued to force myself to believe in the charade that was being perpetrated on the people of Earth under the guise of the golden age of freedom.......
This is from MSNBC?
Come-on guys, Our Commander-in-Chief and his cronnies
would never lie to the American public!
Subject: This is from MSNBC???
What a surprise! Our President, VP, and NY's wonderful Governor LIED
TO US, to forward their political agenda! I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE.
Be sure to watch this video to its end. It is from MSNBC
Sent: Sun, Jan 13, 2013
5:56 pm
Subject: School shooting not reported right away
Subject: School shooting not reported right away
HMM IMAGINE THIS OUR GOVERNMENT LYING TO US ??
SPREAD
THIS!!!!!!
So
they finally had to come out and admit it, now that the Coroner has released
some info along with Police. An AR-15 Rifle or the so-called "Assault
Weapon" was not used in the school shooting. Democrat Liberals and
the Media were pushing for the new law, hoping they could do it, before the
Coroner released the info. I'm betting on it.
In every desert of despair, God
has an oasis of comfort.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
