Permanent Martial Law Warns Legal Scholar

The American Police State

Must See Video

It is bad enough every government agency spies on us and records every more we make in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Now the annual flu is being used as an excuse by the corrupt media to terrorize Americans, for government to illegally close businesses, to close gun stores, to tell workers not to work and earn money to support their families and to implode the entire economy.

We the people are being openly butt-fucked.

17 GOP Governors Approve More Refugees for their States

Fucking Over U.S. Citizens

• As robots and the internet abolish jobs by the millions both open borders parties keep importing millions of new legal and illegal workers.

A total of 17 Republican governors thus far have approved more refugee resettlement for their states, along with five Democrat governors who govern red states.

For Fiscal Year 2020, President Donald Trump will continue cutting refugee admissions by reducing former President Barack Obama’s refugee inflow by at least 80 percent. This reduction would mean a maximum of 18,000 refugees can be resettled in the U.S. between October 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020. This is merely a numerical limit and not a goal federal officials are supposed to reach.

Coupled with the refugee reduction, Trump signed an executive order that gives localities, counties, and states veto power over whether they want to resettle refugees in their communities.

To date, these Republican governors in 17 states have asked the Trump administration to continue resettling refugees in their states:

• Mike DeWine of Ohio
• Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas
• Kim Reynolds of Iowa
• Charlie Baker of Massachusetts
• Gary Herbert of Utah
• Doug Burgum of North Dakota
• Chris Sununu of New Hampshire
• Doug Ducey of Arizona
• Eric Holcomb of Indiana
• Bill Lee of Tennessee
• Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma
• Pete Ricketts of Nebraska
• Kristi Noem of South Dakota
• Jim Justice of West Virginia
• Mike Parson of Missouri
• Brad Little of Idaho
• Larry Hogan of Maryland

Swing state Democrat governors like Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, Tony Evers of Wisconsin, and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan — all states that voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election — have approved more refugees. Similarly, a handful of red-state Democrat governors have signed off on more refugee resettlement, including:

• Steve Bullock of Montana
• Laura Kelly of Kansas
• John Bel Edwards of Louisiana
• Roy Cooper of North Carolina
• Andy Beshear of Kentucky

Another 14 Democrat governors of blue states, such as Gavin Newsom of California and Ned Lamont of Connecticut, have asked the federal government to resettle more refugees in their states.

Read More . . . .

Judges Openly Burn The Bill of Rights

Burn Baby Burn

Burning the Constitution Keeps Judges Warm at Night

• A Fascist judge just took away Roger Stone's 1st Amendment rights to defend himself against the Deep State Witch Hunt against Trump supporters.
• Now another Fascist judge has abolished the 5th Amendment right of Chelsea Manning not to testify. The "Right to remain silent" now vanishes. 
• Those who defend the Constitution are attacked while the corrupt NSA-FBI-CIA Police State whores are safe from prosecution.

A judge sent former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to prison Friday after Manning refused to testify about leaking sensitive documents to WikiLeaks in front of a grand jury.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton issued the order sending Manning to prison, The Associated Press reported. Manning rejected providing further testimony, saying no additional statements are necessary following the former analyst’s court-martial appearance, The AP reported.

Manning “will accept whatever you bring upon me,” according to The AP. Manning’s lawyers have requested home confinement instead of prison time.

Formerly known as “Bradley,” the transgender military analyst ascended into the public limelight after leaking more than 700,000 sensitive documents to WikiLeaks in 2010. Manning was convicted and imprisoned from 2010 to 2017 for violating the Espionage Act.

Manning will remain in prison until the grand jury concludes its investigation or the former analyst agrees to testify, according to The AP.

Read More . . . .

Democrats attack 3 of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights

Everyone in favor of gutting the Bill of Rights raise your right hand.

The Slow March to Fascism

"The fact that a major U.S. political party -- which still considers itself mainstream -- is now willing to specifically target amendments designed to protect Americans from tyrannical government control is alarming, to say the least."  -  IBD

• I love ripping the crap out of the Marxist Democrats. But in this July 4th week let us not forget that the Big Government loving "Conservative" GOP falls all over itself to attack the 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 10th Amendment as well as others.

From Investor's Business Daily

Freedom: Hillary Clinton and other leaders in her party always talk about how they want to grant new rights to Americans. They talk about the "right to affordable health care," the "right to a college education," the "right to a livable wage." But at the same time, many of these same Democrats have been agitating to restrict or outright repeal existing rights enshrined in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In just the past few months, in fact, members of the Democratic party  have targeted the 1st, 2nd and 5th Amendments for attack. Here are the details, in reverse order:

Denying Due Process

Last week, House Democrats staged a sit in to demand a vote on a gun control bill that would have denied anyone on the government's "no fly" list the right to buy a gun.

The problem is that someone can make it on the list "no fly" based on the flimsiest of evidence, mere suspicion, or for no apparent reason at all.

As a result, denying everyone on this list the right to buy a gun would risk denying them due process, a protection guaranteed by the 5th Amendment, which says among other things that no one can "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Even the gun-control-supporting ACLU game out against such bills for that reason, saying that the watch list is "error-prone and unreliable" and that it would "place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names."

Liberal reporter Glenn Greenwald was even more emphatic. "In the lexicon of the leading liberal lights of the Democratic Party, someone deemed by the U.S. government to be suspicious -- placed in secret on a list, with no evidence presented and no court process -- is the equivalent of 'ISIS.' And to demand due process be accorded is to arm ISIS."

It's not as though the Democrats staging the sit in didn't understand this. In fact, they were protesting because the House leadership would only bring up a bill that included due process protections. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., complained that "due process is what's killing us right now" when it comes to denying gun purchases to people suspected of having ties to terrorism.

Battles of Lexington and Concord

Torching the 2^nd Amendment

When not trying to limit 5th Amendment protections in their zeal for gun control, Democrats are increasingly calling not just for restrictions on purchases for would-be terrorists or bans on "assault rifles," but to scrap the 2nd Amendment entirely.

"The Second Amendment needs some changing, because Americans don't agree with it and we've had it," Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., declared last week.

After Gabby Giffords was shot, liberal talk show host Bill Maher said that the Democratic party should "come out against the 2nd Amendment." Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., responded, "I sure wish they would."

Retired liberal justice John Paul Stevens wrote on op-ed saying the 2nd Amendment should itself be amended, so that the right to own guns only would apply to those who are actively serving in a militia.

Targeting Free Speech

Incredibly, the Democrats' disdain for the Bill of Rights includes even the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech. Party leaders are openly pushing to limit free speech rights when it conflicts with their own viewpoints.

In a speech at an Iowa community college, for example, Hillary Clinton said: "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment."

Left unsaid is that the only way to do what she suggests would be to put restrictions on the 1st Amendment. A couple years ago, 54 Senate Democrats voted for a new constitutional amendment that would do just that.

(Editor  -  Now the Democrat Party platform calls for prosecution of Global Warming Skeptics.)

Meanwhile, a YouGov poll taken last May found that a majority of Democrats said they support government limits on what they consider to be "hate speech." Only 26% of Democrats said they opposed such limits.

In California, Democrats pushed a state bill that would have criminalized speech that questions the "consensus" on climate change.

And Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee in March that she has discussed with her colleagues the possibility of pursuing civil actions against "climate change deniers."

Democrats have long expressed frustration, if not outright contempt, for the Constitution whenever it hinders their ability to enact some new government program. President Obama has repeatedly complained about the "messy" process the Constitution's co-equal branches created, and has several times acted as though the Constitution's limits on the president's authority simply don't apply to him.

But the fact that a major U.S. political party -- which still considers itself mainstream -- is now willing to specifically target amendments designed to protect Americans from tyrannical government control is alarming, to say the least.

Read More . . . .

Dem Senators: "Let's abolish your right to a trial"

Fascism is Alive & Well in the Senate

• You are guilty until we tell you different.  -  Using terrorism as the excuse, two Democrat Senators want to abolish the Bill of Rights and take away your right to a weapon and even your right to a trial.
• Under their Fascist ideas the all-powerful state merely has to claim that you are "under suspicion" of a crime to have your rights taken away.
• The question of the day is, will the GOP cave yet again on our rights in the name of security?

(Washington Examiner)  -  Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Thursday it's "ridiculous" to argue that people's Fifth Amendment rights would be violated by legislation barring suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms, and said that argument is a "red herring."

A shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 people plus the shooter, has renewed support in Congress for legislation that would bar people who appear on the government's terrorist watch list from purchasing a firearm. The watch list is a secretive database established in 2003 under the Bush administration, and includes people suspected, but not convicted, of terrorism.

Opponents of the proposal, including the NRA, argue the measure could violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which requires "due process of law," and says no one can be held to answer for a crime "unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury."

Such concerns, according to Murphy, are "ridiculous."

Murphy is not alone in downplaying concerns over whether the proposed legislation could mean due process goes by the wayside.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., complained Thursday morning that due process is "killing us."

"The problem we have, and really the firewall we have right now, is due process. It's all due process," he said Thursday on MSNBC.

"[C]an't we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five-year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits, maybe we can come to that type of agreement?" he asked. "But due process is what's killing us right now."

Read More . . . .

The Socialist Grapes (and Raisins) of Wrath

Taking his crops without payment.
Raisin farmer Marvin Horne stands in a field of grapevines planted in 1918 next to his home
in Kerman, Calif. Horne says farmers like him need to sell everything to make a living, and
the USDA forces farmers to give away part of their crops for the "common good".

Court Backs the 5th Amendment

• The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the government can't force raisin farmers to give up part of their annual crop for less than it's worth, a victory for conservative groups that hailed the decision as a win for private property rights.  The justices ruled 8-1 that a 1940s-era program born out of the Great Depression is unconstitutional because it allows federal officials to seize personal property from farmers without fully compensating them.  (Fox News)

Editor:  Here is part of my November 24, 2012 from The Federalist Blog


Dissident raisin farmers from California’s San Joaquin Valley and their ideological allies will get a shot at attacking a federal farm program, under a case that the U.S. Supreme Court accepted Tuesday.

Bucking the odds, Fresno-area farmers Marvin and Laura Horne succeeded in convincing the high court to hear their challenge to Federal controls on the raisin industry. Though the legal questions are complicated, the real-world stakes add up.
 

“This is a classic David and Goliath confrontation, where the government comes after these small orchardists and farmers,” attorney Michael McConnell, who’s representing the Hornes, said. “The fact that the court is taking this case is really indicative that they care about the little guy.”

The Socialist Grapes of Wrath

The raisin marketing order requires “handlers” who process and pack raisins to place part of their product in reserve, with the industry-run Raisin Administrative Committee deciding how much they’re to be paid for this set-aside tonnage. Raisin handlers set aside 47 percent of their crop during the 2002-03 season and 30 percent for 2003-04, but they were paid for only part of what they surrendered.

A Stanford Law School professor and former federal appellate judge, McConnell has joined with attorney Brian Leighton as a longtime skeptic of marketing orders and research and promotion programs. The programs differ, but they often compel private action in several ways. Promotion programs can force individual growers to pay fees for common advertising, while marketing orders can limit individual production and set quality standards.
 

In prior cases involving the likes of beef and San Joaquin Valley tree fruit, dissidents fell short of convincing the Supreme Court to strike down mandatory promotion fees as a violation of the First Amendment. Similar fights have continued in various state courts.

The Agriculture Department subsequently ordered the Hornes and their coalition to pay more than $650,000 in fees and penalties.

Read the full article . . . .

A Serf bows to his Lord.
In the old days Serfs served as tax slaves, working the land and forced to turn over the wealth they produced to their Lords and Masters in Government in return for "protection". 
.
The Supreme Court stopped American farmers being forced against their will by their Masters in government to turn over part of their production.  They had to turn it over or have a team of scumbag Federal lawyers up their asses and massive Federal fines levied on their farms.
.
The Court voted for FREEDOM.

Mandatory DNA collection during arrest is unconstitutional, court says

"Now I will take your DNA, bend over"

Notes From The Police State

• Without a search warrant California gathers and automatically stores your police collected DNA forever in a state database even if you have never been convicted of a crime.

A California appeals court struck down a state law that requires the collection of DNA from anyone arrested on suspicion of committing a felony.

The 1st District Court of Appeal said Wednesday that the state Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure prohibited the DNA collection using a cheek swab. The law was approved by voters in 2004.

"We conclude that the DNA Act ... unreasonably intrudes on such arrestees' expectation of privacy," Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline said in a 3-0 ruling reports the Denver Post.

There was no immediate order stopping police in California from continuing to collect DNA, and the appellate court's ruling could be appealed. Still, the ruling is important, said Julia Harumi Mass, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which filed a brief in the case.

"It's one of the first opinions to recognize that DNA analysis is fundamentally different from a fingerprint," Mass said. "Arrestee DNA collection raises serious privacy concerns."

Supporters of the law say law enforcement's interest in solving cold cases, identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweigh privacy concerns raised by the forced DNA collections.

The state Attorney General's office is reviewing the decision, spokesman David Beltran said.

The appeals court in Wednesday's ruling was reviewing an earlier decision it issued on the law in light of a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld a similar Maryland law. The earlier ruling also found the California law unconstitutional.

The appeals court said the Supreme Court decision did not apply in this case in part because of significant differences between Maryland's law and California's law. Maryland's law, for example, only allows the DNA of suspects to be tested after they have been charged with a crime. 

California's law allows testing even before charges are filed. The California law also applies to all felony suspects who are arrested regardless of the seriousness of the alleged crime.

(Los Angeles Times)

Your DNA Now Government Property! 

5th Amendment Abolished by GOP California Supreme Court

Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chief Justice of California
Republican

What is the Republican Party?

• The eternal question:  Does the "small government" Republican Party actually believe in freedom?
• In this case the GOP controlled California Supreme Court ruled that if you use your 5th Amendment right to remain silent then that can be used against you in court as "proof" of your guilt.
• This insane worship of state power is why I no longer call myself a Republican, but rather a Constitutional Federalist.

Notes From The Police State  -  The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.

Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured.

Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection reports the Associated Press.

Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom's failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt.

Legal analysts said the ruling could affect future cases, allowing prosecutors to exploit a suspect's refusal to talk before invoking 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

"It's a bad and questionable decision," said Dennis Fischer, a longtime criminal appellate lawyer.

Tom's attorney Marc Zilversmit said he is deciding whether to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue or renew his arguments in the state court of appeal.

"It's a very dangerous ruling," Zilversmit said. "If you say anything to the police, that can be used against you. Now, if you don't say anything before you are warned of your rights, that too can be used against you."

The state Supreme Court in a 4-3 ruling said Tom needed to explicitly assert his right to remain silent — before he was read his Miranda rights — for the silence to be inadmissible in court.

Tom has been freed on $300,000 bail pending his appeal.

Tom was arrested after his Mercedes sedan plowed into a car driven by Lorraine Wong, who was turning left onto a busy street.

Prosecutors argue that Tom's car was speeding at 67 mph in a 35 mph zone when the collision occurred. He was placed in the back of a police cruiser but was not officially arrested and advised of his rights until later in the day.

Prosecutors said Tom's failure to ask about the Wong family while detained showed his guilt.
Justice Goodwin Liu dissented.

"The court today holds, against common sense expectations, that remaining silent after being placed under arrest is not enough to exercise one's right to remain silent," Liu wrote.

The ACLU filed a friend of the court brief supporting Tom's appeal.

Fischer and others say the ruling might not be the last word on the issue.

The high court ordered the court of appeal to reconsider the case, meaning it could return to the California Supreme Court.

The high court is undergoing a dramatic transition and it's possible that two new justices would reconsider the ruling.

Baxter, a Republican appointee and reliable conservative vote on the court, is retiring in January.

Meanwhile, Gov. Jerry Brown recently nominated Stanford University law professor Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar to fill a vacancy.

"This could be the last hurrah for a conservative Supreme Court," appellate lawyer Jon Eisenberg said.

 

See more Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court
From left to right, California Supreme Court Justices, Joyce Kennard, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Goodwin Liu, enter a courtroom during a California State Supreme Court hearing in San Francisco.
(AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

GOP Supreme Court votes to confiscate your wealth without a trial

Your Property Belongs to the State

• In a 6-3 decision the "Conservative" GOP majority Supreme Court ruled that the all-powerful State has the right to confiscate your private property before a trial is even held.
• An indictment alone by a Grand Jury, no trial or conviction, is a good enough excuse to steal the private property of an American. 
• The Bill of Rights has no meaning.  We are now Serfs bowing before our "Betters" in government.

What is a Republican?  -  Again I ask, "What the fuck is a Republican?"  

Again and again we see so-called "small government" Conservative GOP legislators and judges voting like wild eyed Socialists to build a centralized Police State where you have no rights to privacy or property.

Justice for Kerri and Brian Kaley, the Supreme Court held Tuesday, is of the Alice in Wonderland variety: First comes the punishment—the seizure of all their assets—then the trial, and the crime last of all.  “But suppose they never committed the crime?” Alice asks. “It doesn’t matter,” comes the court’s answer, “because a grand jury said so.”

Writing for a six-justice majority in Kaley v. United States, thus concluded Justice Elena Kagan that a criminal defendant indicted by a grand jury has essentially no right to challenge the forfeiture of her assets, even if the defendant needs those very assets to pay lawyers to defend her at trial. In an odd ideological lineup, the dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts and the more liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor reports Slate News.

 

The Kaleys’ saga began more than nine years ago when Kerri, a medical device salesperson, learned that she was under investigation by federal authorities for stealing devices from hospitals. Kerri admits she took some devices and later sold them with Brian’s help, but she says the devices she took were unwanted, outdated models that the hospitals were glad to be rid of—in effect, that she couldn’t steal something that was given to her. (It’s not a crazy argument. In fact, it worked for a co-defendant, who was quickly acquitted by a jury after the government failed to find even a single hospital that claimed ownership of the allegedly stolen goods.)

 

With charges looming, the Kaleys sought an estimate from their lawyers of how much mounting a defense would cost. The answer: $500,000. (That figure may seem high, but sadly the government agreed it was reasonable.) The Kaleys took out a home equity loan and used the $500,000 to purchase a certificate of deposit, which they planned to spend on lawyers.

Then came the grand jury indictment and with it a nasty surprise: an order freezing essentially all their assets, including the CD that was meant to pay their legal bills. The only assets exempt from the order—Kerri’s retirement account and their children’s college funds—weren’t enough to cover the $500,000 estimate. And if the Kaleys liquidated those funds, they’d have owed $183,500 in tax penalties.

The bottom line:  They could no longer pay for their lawyer of choice even though, as the government agreed, that’s what the Sixth Amendment right to counsel protects.

Bill of Rights - 5th Amendment “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

“No power on earth has a right to take our property
from us without our consent.”
John Jay
Founding Father of the United States
Federalist Party