Gnawing at the Bit to Do a Decent Justice Kill Satanic Lawyers Focus on Jodie

Published on March 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 35 | Comments: 0 | Views: 132
of 8
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Gnawing at the bit to do a decent justice kill Satanic lawyers focus on Jodie Jodie in an individual state of mind no SS – State Secrets privilege for the satanic law administrators know the BS – Boojum Snark you see!!! http://www.scribd.com/doc/142128496/If-Jodi-Had-of-Just-Declared-War-Everything-Would-Be-OK http://www.scribd.com/doc/143122995/Beware-the-BS-Boojum-Snark Truth kills truth saves Save yourself and the world http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490#
In this lecture by Michel Chossudovsky, he blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by "Islamic terrorists". Through meticulous research, he has uncovered a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration. According to Chossudovsky, the "war on terrorism" is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The "war on terrorism" is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the "New World Order", dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex. September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington's agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU Truth Kills

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9dgqKmJ50&feature Fema Detention Camps Marshall Law http://www.infowars.com/obama-implementing-martial-law-coup/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJgnJ_W_5zU CNN Shameful Media http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Trj_5J02k&feature=fvwrel BBC 911 Media report prematurely http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOQqhvplwdY Truth about Isreal Media Won’t tell you CNN Israel occupied Territory http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=cbNszu6zbe4&feature=endscreen Pathetic media satanic loyalty Hawii http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nqDkCzwXeY&feature Korea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LctoUV-tag&feature=relmfu Vietnam Iraq War http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhROd7Jt3-w&feature=related 911 hoax of ultimate evil folk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXr_sGrUFO4&feature=related Total Proof no Planes hit the Buildings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-rFagA-32M&feature=relmfu Sound recordings Proof of Demolition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xzsbSbVUE After overcoming the willing suspension of disbelief High Ranking US Major General Exposes September 11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA CIA Whistleblower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything! "Extreme Prejudice" http://www.scribd.com/doc/53187051/To-United-Nations http://www.scribd.com/doc/57985401/To-United-Nations-Again

All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution.

These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.

There is no Satanic Clause
[28] At the same time, the federal government does have considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion,[29] and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion.

of the widespread recognition that humankind could not afford a Third World War, the United Nations was
established to replace the flawed League of Nations in 1945 in order to maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social and humanitarian problems.

The League of Nations failed to prevent World War II (1939–1945). Because

In April 2001, Annan issued a five-point "Call to Action" to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Stating it was a "personal priority", Annan proposed a Global AIDS and Health Fund to stimulate the increased international spending needed to help developing countries confront the HIV/AIDS crisis. On 10 December 2001, Annan and the United Nations were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, "for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world". During the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Annan called on the United States and the

United Kingdom not to invade without the support of the United Nations. In a September 2004 interview on the BBC, when questioned about the legal authority for the invasion, Annan said he believed it was not in conformity with the UN charter and was illegal.[11][12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11, September 11th or 9/11) were a series of four coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[2][3] The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and thousands of those working in the buildings. Both towers collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outsideWashington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C., to target either the Capitol Buildingor the White House. There were no survivors from any of the flights. Nearly 3,000 victims and the 19 hijackers died in the attacks.[4] According to the New York State Health Department, as of June 2009, a total of 836 responders, including firefighters and police personnel, have died.[4] Among the 2,752 victims who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center were 343 firefighters and 60 police officers from New York City and the Port Authority.[5] Another 184 people were killed in the attack on the Pentagon.[6] The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.[7] In addition, there was at least one secondary death—one person was ruled by a medical examiner to have died from lung disease due to exposure to dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center.[8] Suspicion quickly fell on al-Qaeda. Its leader Osama bin Laden denied involvement, but in 2004 he finally claimed responsibility for the attacks.[1] The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror, invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda members, and by enacting the USA PATRIOT Act. It was not until May 2011 that bin Laden was found and killed. The 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 19–May 1, 2003), was the start of the conflict known as the Iraq War or Operation Iraqi Freedom in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations. This phase (March–April 2003) consisted of a conventionally fought war which concluded with the fall of the Iraq capital Baghdad. This was considered a continuation of the Gulf War of 1991, prior to which Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait, and after defeat by Coalition Forces had agreed to surrender and/or destroy several types of weapons, including SCUD missiles and

weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

State Secret Privilege Bush 9/11 Cover - up
The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security. [1][2][3][4][5]

United States v. Reynolds,[7] which involved military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.
[6]

Following a claim of "state secrets privilege", the court rarely conducts an in camera examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[1] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case. [3][5]

[edit] Function
The purpose of the state secrets privilege is to prevent courts from revealing state secrets in the course of civil litigation (in criminal cases, the Classified Information Procedures Act serves the same purpose). The government may intervene in any civil suit, including when it is not a party to the litigation, to ask the court to exclude state secrets evidence. While the courts may examine such evidence closely, in practice they generally defer to the Executive Branch. Once the court has agreed that evidence is subject to the state secrets privilege, it is excluded from the litigation. Often, as a practical matter, the plaintiff cannot continue the suit without the privileged information, and drops the case. Recently, courts have been more inclined to dismiss cases outright, if the subject matter of the case is a state secret.

[edit] Distinguished from other legal doctrines
The state secrets privilege is related to, but distinct from, several other legal doctrines: the principle of nonjusticiability in certain cases involving state secrets (the so-called "Totten Rule");[8] certain prohibitions on the publication of classified information (as in New York Times Co. v. United States, the Pentagon Papers case); and the use of classified information in criminal cases (governed by the Classified Information Procedures Act).

[edit] History
[edit] Origins
The doctrine was effectively imported from British law which has a similar privilege.[1][2] It is debatable whether the state secrets privilege is based upon the President's powers as commander-in-chief and leader of foreign affairs (as suggested in United States v. Nixon) or derived from the idea of separation of powers (as suggested in United States v. Reynolds)[1] It seems that the US privilege "has its initial roots in Aaron Burr's trial for treason." In this case, it was alleged that a letter from General James Wilkinson to President Thomas Jefferson might contain state secrets and could therefore not be divulged without risk to national security.[1]

[edit] Supreme Court recognition in United States v. Reynolds
The privilege was first officially recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1953 decision United States v. Reynolds (345 U.S. 1). A military airplane, a B-29 Superfortress bomber, crashed. The widows of three civilian crew members sought accident reports on the crash but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret mission.[1][2][3][4][5][6][9][10] The court held that only the government can claim or waive the privilege, and it “is not to be lightly invoked”, and last there “must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer.”[1] The court stressed that the decision to withhold evidence is to be made by the presiding judge and not the executive.[1]

In 2000, the accident reports were declassified and released, and it was found that the assertion that they contained secret information was fraudulent. The reports did, however, contain information about the poor condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many commentators have alleged government misuse of secrecy in this landmark case.[11] Despite this ruling, a case might still be subject to judicial review since the privilege was intended to prevent certain, but not all, information to be precluded.[1]

[edit] Recent use
According to former White House Counsel, John Dean: While precise numbers are hard to come by (because not all cases are reported), a recent study reports that the "Bush administration has invoked the state secrets privilege in 23 cases since 2001." By way of comparison, "between 1953 and 1976, the government invoked the privilege in only four cases."[9] While Henry Lanman reports in Slate: "... the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press reported that while the government asserted the privilege approximately 55 times in total between 1954 (the privilege was first recognized in 1953) and 2001, it's asserted it 23 times in the four years after Sept. 11."[10][12] However, at least one article has retracted these figures, finding they were based on erroneous information: "Correction: In this article, we incorrectly reported that the government invoked the state secrets privilege in 23 cases since 2001. The figure came from the 2005 Secrecy Report Card published by OpenTheGovernment.org. The privilege was actually invoked seven times from 2001 to 2005, according to the corrected 2005 report card, which is not an increase from previous decades"[13] Lanman continues to cite two political science professors at the University of Texas-El Paso who concluded that "courts have examined the documents' underlying claims of state secrecy fewer than one-third of the times it has been invoked. And, ..., courts have only actually rejected the assertion of the privilege four times since 1953." [10]

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the privilege is increasingly used to dismiss entire court cases, instead of only withholding the sensitive information from a case.[1] Also in 2001, George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233extending the accessibility of the state secrets privilege to also allow former presidents, their designated representatives, or representatives designated by their families, to invoke it to bar records from their tenure.[5]
An article in the NYT, in August 2007, on a lawsuit involving Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication concludes that it would seem that the unprecedented frequency with which the Bush administration invoked and invokes this principle has made judges more skeptical and willing to ask the government to validate its claims. In the words of Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University "What seems clear is that until a year or two ago, the judges rarely even questioned it when the government raised the 'state secrets' claim. It was a neutron bomb – no plaintiffs left standing. But we're now seeing that judges are starting to actually look behind the government's secrecy claims and see what's really there."[14]

[edit] Criticism
Since 2001, there has been mounting criticism of the state secrets privilege. Such criticism generally falls into four categories:

[edit] Weak external validation of executive assertion of privilege
Many commentators have expressed concern that the courts never effectively scrutinize executive claims of privilege.[1] Lacking independent national security expertise, judges frequently defer to the judgment of the executive and never subject executive claims to meaningful scrutiny.

[edit] Executive abuse of the privilege to conceal embarrassing facts
Commentators have suggested that the state secrets privilege might be used as often to prevent disclosure of embarrassing facts as to protect legitimate secrets.[1][2][3][4][5][10][15][16] Or, in the words of Professors William G. Weaver and Robert M. Pallitto in an article in the Political Science Quarterly: "[T]he incentive on the part of administrators is to use the privilege to avoid embarrassment, handicap political enemies, and to prevent criminal investigation of administrative action." [13][17] In several prominent cases, the evidence that the government successfully excluded was later revealed to contain no state secrets. i.e. United States v. Reynolds, Sterling v. Tenet, Edmonds v. Department of Justice and the Pentagon Papers.

[edit] Expansion into a justiciability doctrine
Some academics and practitioners have criticized the expansion of the state secrets privilege from an evidentiary privilege (designed to exclude certain pieces of evidence) to a justiciability doctrine (designed to exclude entire lawsuits). Under its original formulation, the state secrets privilege was meant only to exclude a very narrow class of evidence whose revelation would harm national security. However, in a large percentage of recent cases, courts have gone a step further, dismissing entire cases in which the government asserts the privilege, in essence converting an evidentiary rule into a justiciability rule. The government response has been that in certain cases, the subject of the case is itself privileged. In these cases, the government argues, there is no plausible way to respond to a complaint without revealing state secrets.

[edit] Elimination of judicial check on executive power
Glenn Greenwald alleges that the Bush administration attempted to expand executive power, as evidenced by the unitary executive theory propagated by John Yoo. The theory suggests that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, cannot be bound by Congress or any law, national or international. By invoking the state secrets privilege in cases involving actions taken in the war on terror (i.e. extraordinary rendition, allegations of torture, allegedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)[18] Greenwald opines the administration tried to evade judicial review of these claims of exceptional war powers. In effect, this is preventing a judicial ruling determining whether there is a legal basis for such expansive executive power.[12][19] With that in mind, applying this privilege makes impeachment the only possible means left for Congress to exercise their duty to uphold the checks and balances constitutionally intended to prevent abuse of power.[2][13][16]

[edit] Calls for reform

See also: State Secrets Protection Act
In recent years, a number of commentators have called for legislative reforms to the state secrets privilege. [20][21][22] These reforms center around several ideas:

1. Requiring judges to review each piece of evidence that the executive claims is subject to the privilege.[20][23][24] 2. Requiring the executive to craft alternative evidence that is not subject to the privilege, for the opposing party to use in place of the original, privileged evidence.[23] Such substitute evidence should only be required when it is possible to do so without harming national security. 3. Prohibiting courts from dismissing claims on the basis of the state secrets privilege until after they have reviewed all available evidence. 4. Permitting the court to appoint an outside expert to scrutinize the evidence for national security content.[21] 5. Excluding illegal government action from the definition of "state secrets," or otherwise allowing the court to address the legality (instead of just the secrecy) of government conduct. This would prevent the government from using the state secrets privilege to conceal its illegal conduct.[21]
On January 22, 2008, Senators Edward Kennedy and Arlen Specter introduced S. 2533, the State Secrets Protection Act.[25]

[edit] Court cases
[edit] United States v. Reynolds Main article: United States v. Reynolds
In United States v. Reynolds (1953), the widows of three crew members of a B-29 Superfortress bomber that had crashed in 1948 sought accident reports on the crash, but were told the release such details would threaten national security by revealing the nature of the bomber's top-secret mission. The Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch could bar evidence from the court if it deemed that its release would impair national security. In 1996, the accident reports in question were declassified and released, and when discovered in 2000 were found to contain no secret information. They did, however, contain information about the poor condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many legal experts have alleged government abuse of secrecy in this landmark case.[2][3][5][9][10]

[edit] Richard Horn Main articles: Richard Horn and Horn v. Albright
Former DEA agent Richard Horn brought a suit against the CIA for bugging his home. The case was dismissed because of the privilege.[1][6]

Richard Horn's case was reinstated on July 20, 2009 by USDC Judge Royce C. Lambreth on the basis that the CIA had engaged in fraud on the court. On 30 March 2010, as a result of a multi-million dollar settlement agreement between Horn and the government, Lamberth dismissed the underlying case with prejudice. Subsequently, later that same year, in a 22 September order, Lamberth issued a final order vacating his earlier opinions and orders finding that CIA lawyers, Tenet, and Brown had committed fraud on the court. Lamberth also specifically ordered that a sentence be removed from his 30 March 2010 Memorandum. The removed sentence had stated that "allegations of wrongdoing by the government attorneys in this case are not only credible, they are admitted."

[edit] Notra Trulock
In February 2002 it was invoked in the case of Notra Trulock, who launched a defamation suit against Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, charged with stealing nuclear secrets; President Bush stated that national security would be compromised if Trulock were allowed to seek damages from Lee; though it resulted in the case being dismissed, another suit was launched directly attacking then-FBI Director Louis Freeh for interfering and falsely invoking the state secrets privilege.

[edit] Sibel Edmonds Main article: Sibel Edmonds
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the privilege is increasingly used to dismiss entire court cases, instead of only withholding the sensitive information from a case.[1] Also in 2001, George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233extending the accessibility of the state secrets privilege to also allow former presidents, their designated representatives, or representatives designated by their families, to invoke it to bar records from their tenure. [5]

http://romans13defacto.com/about4.html Constitution Façade http://romans13defacto.com/about6.html Legal Aid illegal http://romans13defacto.com/about7.html Equal Justice BS http://romans13defacto.com/about8.html Bar to Bar Justice http://romans13defacto.com/about9.html Richard Fine example http://romans13defacto.com/about10.html Hess

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close