Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
How the govt. treats political prisoners, reminds me of the Soviet Union
How the Government Treats a Political Prisoner
THESE MEN ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS ALL BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH THEIR GOVERNMENT.
March 27, 2017 DOJ, Featured, government, Opinion, US
http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg
https://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=641%2C376
How the Government Treats a Political Prisoner
by Shari Dovale
A political prisoner is someone imprisoned because they have opposed or criticized the government responsible for their imprisonment. In English law, imprisonment is the restraint of a person’s liberty.
The book Termes de la Ley (Terms of the law) includes the following definition:Imprisonment is no other thing than the restraint of a man’s liberty, whether it be in the open field, or in the stocks, or in the cage in the streets or in a man’s own house
History records the imprisonment of political prisoners, with some of the most well known being Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. In the United States, there have been many political prisoners, including Jeremy Hammond and Barrett Brown.
More recently, you will hear names like KC Massey, Cliven Bundy, Dwight Hammond, and more that have been targeted by the Federal government for their outspoken support of the US Constitution in it’s original form.
Believing that the Constitution should be adhered to in it’s strictest form is not a popular concept by elected and appointed officials in Washington DC. The current climate leans to the liberal stance of the Constitution being a ‘living, breathing’ document that should be changed and updated with the times.
https://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=150%2C150
Justice Scalia
'Originalists’, like Justice Antonin Scalia, are unpopular in the current political environment. It does not fit with the progressive stances of abortion, same-sex marriage, and public land policies.
The question then surfaces, should those beliefs be imprisonable offenses? Does questioning the government, the elected officials and their policies, warrant the taking of liberty?
The questions further erode to the treatment of these political demonstrators. Do they deserve better or worse than hardened convicted criminals? Does the constitution allow for the mistreatment of anyone, much less those not yet convicted of a crime?
The Bill of Rights is specific to the rights of US citizens. They have the right to peaceably assemble.(1A)
They have the right to bear arms.(2A)
They have the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (1A)
The Bill of Rights also lays out specific details in the rights of the accused. They have the right to a speedy trial. (6A)
They have the right against unreasonable searches. (4A)
They have the right not to be a witness against themself. (5A)
Additional rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights include the right of trial by jury. (7A)
The right to have the assistance of Counsel for his defense. (6A)
And they shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. (5A)
The 8th Amendment states (in full) “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
It is very clear that everyone is to be treated with respect and fairness. It does not differentiate between gender, race, financial standing, or political parties.
https://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=300%2C181
(Pictured: Cliven Bundy walks by a first amendment area set up by the Bureau of Land Management near Bunkerville, Nev.)
Many countries around the world, including “Democratic” countries, have very strict penalties for insulting the heads of state, or disagreeing with the government. Penalties range from hefty fines to long imprisonments.
Not, however, in the United States. We have the right to Freedom of Speech, as guaranteed by our First Amendment.
So, why is it that a political prisoner can be treated worse by the government powers that be? Criminals are released to offend again. Violent offenders are offered bail. Yet, anyone the government sees as political radicals, such as the Bundy’s and those that agree with them, have been continuously imprisoned for their public disagreements with the federal authorities.
After the well-documented standoff in Bunkerville, in which no shots were fired and the only people harmed were done so by the federal agents, the government did not consider the Bundy family a threat. They were left to continue their life as they saw fit.
Two years later, after son Ammon Bundy called for a protest at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge outside of Burns, Oregon, federal authorities arrested all of the Bundy men and many of their supporters. Several of them have been incarcerated, as of this writing, for over 15 months.
They have been denied bail. They have been beaten and abused while in jail. They are still awaiting trial.
It has recently come to light that these men are withstanding even more abuse.
They are stripped searched every time they attend court, both before entering the courtroom and before returning to their cells. They endure this even when they are being visited in the jail by their attorneys.
Body cavity searches are commonplace. They are being kept in Solitary Confinement without cause. They are housed in filth, with no sanitation. Toilets do not operate. Hygiene is denied. And so much more.
Again, The 8th Amendment states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
These men are being subjected to cruel and unusual punishments all because they disagree with their government.
Innocent until proven guilty is a doctrine that used to rule this country’s justice system. It no longer applies… unless you are willing to roll over and allow your country, and it’s founding principles, to be discarded at the whim of those that are supposed to be representing you.
We are a nation of laws, and a Constitutional Republic.
As long as you do not question your government.
Via Bundy Ranch: RYAN BUNDY IN HIS OWN WORDS ABOUT THE HORRIFIC CONDITIONS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT. Dated March 24, 2017.
http://youtu.be/ctvcZavtzas
Share this:
Plains Montana Rally Brings Patriots Together June 6, 2016In "BLM"
National Guard and FBI En-route to Wildlife Refuge January 3, 2016In "Constitution"
MORE Federal Political BIAS in Sentencing Guidelines August 19, 2016In "DOJ"
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
Several peope are filing complaints with the Nevada Judicial Disciplinary Commission. They do have authority over federal judges as well as state judges. Judicial.nv.gov Also I suppose they can file an affidavit of criminal charges with the Clark County District Attorney. I believe Navarro's husband works for the Clark County DA's office. I hope they are successful in Judicial Disciplinary Office. People have petitons for Congress to impeach her for bad behavior. I am sure these petitions will be ignored.
In Clark County they are palying against a stacked deck. The governor is a Latino, and former federal judge probably recommended by Harry Reid, Judge Peggy Leen was recommended by Harry Reid, Gloria Navarro was recommended by Harry Reid to repalce BriannSandoval when he retired to run for governor.
This leaves the Judicial Disciplinary Commission in Carson City. Hopefully they are not under the influence of Harry Reid.
Which is the very problem of nepotism and government. Nothing will get done until a Judge is hung at a lamp post for treason. The state will then proclaim the actions of the citizens were "unlawful" when their lawful requests were flat out ignored.
The only thing power recognizes is force. That is the maxim of human existence.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
The only 'defendant' to utter violent threats was an FBI informant ~ Free Range Report
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=601%2C143
Bunkerville Trial: FBI informant only ‘defendant’ to utter violent threats in entrapment videos
March 27, 2017 editor Leave a comment
Every interview that was shown underscored the peaceful character of the defendants … until they played the interview with the FBI Informant.Greg Burleson uttered hateful and spiteful words on camera. He made violent threats, including stating that he “came to put some BLM agent Six Feet Under.”
Shari Dovale
Redoubt News
Longbow Productions: FBI Reloaded
Interviews of various defendants show them to be peaceful men.
It was disclosed in a Las Vegas courtroom that the FBI set up a fake production company called Longbow productions. They seem to have been put in place for the sole purpose of entrapping people involved with the Bundy family and the 2014 protest against the BLM.
Five men are accused of various felonies involved with the Bunkerville standoff, with a sixth defendant being named as an FBI informant. Greg Burleson was outed by the FBI on the witness stand this week as a confidential informant that has worked with the FBI since 2012.
Longbow Productions had equipment, fake websites, fake prior productions, …the works. They were to tell everyone that they were filming a documentary about the standoff called “America Reloaded”. The fake film credentials were, hopefully, going to give them access to the very heart of the Patriot’s world.
The undercover agents with Longbow did meet with several people that had attended the 2014 event, as was disclosed during testimony. Several of their “interviews” were played as evidence for the jury. Or more accurately, several “parts” of these interviews were played, as they were selectively fragmented.
The entrapment included feeding alcohol to the defendants in order to get them to loosen their tongues. The more they talked, the more they might incriminate themselves.
Interviews of various defendants showed them to be peaceful men. Scott Drexler went to Nevada because he saw fellow Americans that needed help. Eric Parker told of his fear that he would not make it home, and how he knelt and prayed on the bridge. They only wanted a peaceful ending to the conflict.
Every interview that was shown underscored the peaceful character of the defendants … until they played the interview with the FBI Informant.
Greg Burleson uttered hateful and spiteful words on camera. He made violent threats, including stating that he “came to put some BLM agent Six Feet Under.” He also stated that the others there were not “brave enough for a fight.”
Read the full article here:
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C572
Free Range Report
Related
Identity of paid FBI informant unintentionally disclosed during Bunkerville trialMarch 23, 2017In "Land Disputes"
Feds used decoy journalists to extract information in Bunkerville raid
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Maybe she can get a job in Gloria Navarro's court.
http://poorrichardsnews.com/texas-ju...aught-texting/
Texas Judge resigns after being caught texting instructions to prosecutors to help win convictions
October 25, 2013
In by Poor Richard392 Comments
http://poorrichardsnews.com/wp-conte...RVN1qij8k6.png
Texas district Judge Elizabeth E. Coker is stepping down from the bench after being caught engaging in a massive perversion of justice. A whistleblower revealed that Corker was sending text messages to prosecutors with suggestions on questions to ask in court in order to secure a conviction.
from Houston Chronicle:State District Judge Elizabeth E. Coker–who sits on the bench over Trinity, Polk and San Jacinto counties–has resigned under fire in a texting controversy, according to a voluntary agreement with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
It stems from complaints and media stories alleging that Coker “had engaged in improper ex parte text communications with Polk County Assistant District Attorney Kaycee Jones while Judge Coker presided” over a criminal trial in August of 2012.
With those complaints, “the commission commenced an investigation into allegations that Judge Coker used Assistant District Attorney Jones to privately communicate information” about the case “to suggest questions for the prosecutor to ask during the trial” among other issues.
The agreement also said the commission looked into other complaints that Coker allegedy engaged in other improper communications and meetings with Jones, other members of the Polk County prosecutor’s office, the San Jacinto County District Attorney and certain defense attorneys.
The agreement goes on to say “the parties agree that the allegations of judicial misconduct, if found to be true, could result in disciplinary action against Judge Coker.” As a result, the parties sought to resolve the matter “without the time and expense of further disciplinary proceedings.”
Coker did not admit any guilt or fault.
read the rest
Honestly, I feel that Coker is getting off far too lightly. Her actions may have caused innocent people to end up in prison. She should be face criminal charges for such a grave violation of the law.
Her resignation also opens the door for a flurry of re-trials for anybody convicted in her court sessions. By trying to illegally secure convictions, Coker opened Pandora’s box, and now the state of Texas will have some massive legal knots to untangle.
UPDATE: via the research of Poor Richard’s Reader Bob, let’s play guess the political party affiliation of this corrupt judge! Ready to play?
Yep. You guessed it. She’s a Democrat….
UPDATE #2: Several of our liberal Democrat friends have pointed out that Ms. Coker “switched parties” shortly before getting caught breaking the law. Not only is that all too convenient, but it’s irrelevant. That makes her about as credible a “Republican” as Florida’s Charlie Crist. Besides that, she was elected as a Democrat not on the GOP ticket, so any attempts to turn this back around and blame it on Republicans or “Republican values” (as some have tried to say) is laughable and delusional.
Note: these pundits make a big deal about blaming the opposite political party when one is as corrupt as the other. In Nevada judges are non-partisan on the ballot
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
The Bundy's and other political prisoners are victims of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
This Administration Now Has The Power To Indefinitely Detain Americans Without Charge Or Trial
Steve Mariotti, Contributor Steve Mariotti Steve Mariotti is the founder of the Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE) and an advocate for entrepreneurs worldwide.
An Obama Era unconstitutional power has landed in Trump’s lap. And we should be very, very, very, scared.
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/...832b7d0a46.jpgFive years ago, on New Year’s Eve, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed into law. The NDAA is typically an unremarkable bill that authorizes funding for the U.S. Armed Forces. In 2012, however, it contained two alarming provisions that threaten the civil liberties of every American, Sections 1021 and 1022.
As described in Part 1 and Part 2 of this NDAA series, Sections 1021 and 1022 authorized President Obama, and now authorize President Trump, to order the arrest and indefinite detention—without charge or trial—of anyone labeled a “suspected terrorist” or “belligerent.”
Documents obtained from multiple federal agencies show just how dangerous and confusing these sections can be when interpreted and applied by the government. Congressmen, Air National Guard colonels, and even seven-year olds have been placed on terrorist watch lists after being classified as “reverent of individual liberty”, “suspicious of centralized federal authority”, “supportive of [Presidential candidates] Ron Paul and Bob Barr” or “insisting on paying with cash.”
In my interview with People Against NDAA (PANDA) founder Dan Johnson below, we discuss why this law is a dangerous violation of our civil rights, and what you can do to help get it repealed.
PANDA is the largest organization in the country battling the NDAA, indefinite detention without charge or trial, and mis-application of laws of war to American citizens. PANDA has advanced anti-NDAA legislation in more than 25 states and numerous local jurisdictions, including Oakland County, MI, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Sunbury, Pennsylvania. PANDA has also helped pass several key pieces of legislation across the nation protecting our rights.
Steve Mariotti: How can we reverse this erosion of our civil liberties?
Dan Johnson/PANDA: Education is PANDA’s number one priority. Millions of Americans are still completely unaware that their civil liberties slipped away from them on New Year’s Eve 2011. Congress passed the 2012 NDAA by 283-136 in the House and 93-7 in the Senate.
We have given nearly 100 presentations across the country educating Americans of all political stripes about the dangers of the 2012 NDAA. We have published viral videos and post regularly on a Facebook page, reaching millions of Americans. We have worked with the Patriot Coalition to hold educational briefings for legislators, law enforcement, and political parties, and we’ve written dozens of articles and op-eds.
There are frightening parallels in history to the NDAA. On February 27, 1933, in response to growing fears about “Communist terror,” the German government passed the Reichstag Fire Decree. The decree suspended provisions of the Weimar constitution that protected civil liberties, including the right to a speedy trial, the right to face your accuser, protection against search and seizure without a warrant, the right to assemble and the right to free speech.
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/...2500ff09c0.jpg
The German people failed to protest this erosion of their civil liberties, and Hitler wound up with unprecedented power. Six and a half years later, he invaded Poland, and the tragic events of World War II began to play out.
Similarly, in response to growing fears of “Islamic terror,” President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, even though Sections 1021 and 1022 violate 13 provisions of the U.S. Constitution. These include the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to face one’s accuser, protection against search and seizure without a warrant, the right to assemble, freedom of association, and free speech.
We have something, though, that the German people did not: A free press. After the Reichstag Fire Decree was signed, the German government moved to shut down newspapers and political parties critical of the new National Socialist government. They realized that if people were educated about the dangers of the Decree, they might form a successful resistance.
In the United States, although there have been numerous attempts to arrest journalists, silence news outlets, and punish sources, these have in large part failed. We still have freedom of the press, we can still speak our minds, and we have a new tool the German people did not: the Internet.
Our educational approach is three-pronged. First, since the 2012 NDAA was passed in relative secrecy, we need to make the American people aware that Sections 1021 and 1022 exist. We must give them the opportunity to debate whether any president should have the power to indefinitely detain, torture or even execute an American citizen on U.S. soil, or anywhere in the world, without due process.
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/...2600071b32.jpg
Secondly, we must educate all Americans about what has happened every time we have given our government the authority to deem a group of people unworthy of Constitutional rights. During World War II, the Federal government detained over 120,000 Japanese Americans and people of Japanese descent in internment camps for years due to fears of “saboteurs.” Today, the internment is considered to have resulted more from racism than from any security risk posed by Japanese Americans. During the Cold War and the “Red Scare,” civil rights were suspended for anyone labeled a “communist sympathizer,” and thousands were arrested. Now, during the War on Terror, anyone the government deems a “terrorist” may be legally denied civil rights.
Finally, we must combat rising Islamophobia in this country. In order to violate the rights of its citizens with the support of the people, a government must first cast one or two minority groups as inhuman, and somehow unworthy of the civil rights in our Constitution. The German government ostracized, isolated and condemned as a communist sympathizer anyone deemed sufficient opposition to their policies. They played on the German people’s poor economic conditions, and scapegoated the Jewish people as the “other” causing the economic pain and suffering of “real Germans.”
When we allow one group to be stripped of its protections, we greatly increase the odds that the government will eventually, inevitably, strip all citizens of their civil rights. If we are to successfully roll back the 2012 NDAA’s violations of our civil liberties, we must refuse the government’s attempts to cast people who practice the Islamic faith as unworthy of their civil liberties.
SM: Beyond education, what is PANDA doing to fight the NDAA’s violation of our civil liberties?
DJ: Education without action does not create change. Most Americans know obesity is bad for your health, for example, yet over 67% of us are overweight or obese. On February 21, 2012, we launched PANDA to take action. We were a small organization started in my college dorm room, with no money, resources, or connections. We came up with a plan, however, that has proven very effective:
Phase 1: Pass local ordinances that require local law enforcement to uphold the Constitution, and prohibit the application of the laws of war in that jurisdiction.
Phase 2: Encourage law enforcement to implement penalties in localities that have passed such ordinances for police officers who fail to comply with them.
Phase 3: Repeat this strategy at the state level, and eventually repeal the 2012 NDAA’s detention provisions at the federal level.
SM: Where have you been successful in getting ordinances passed so far?
DJ: At the local level to date, we have passed strong legislation in seven jurisdictions, including Albany, New York’s state capitol, and several cities in Idaho and Massachusetts. Between PANDA, the Patriot Coalition, the Tenth Amendment Center, and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, we also have strong statements in more than twenty, including Las Vegas and San Francisco, CA.
At the state level, we have introduced or advanced more than fifty pieces of legislation in nearly thirty states including North Carolina, Maryland, Nevada, Tennessee, Missouri, Texas, Indiana, Idaho, Wyoming, Mississippi, Minnesota, South Carolina, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Kansas, Louisiana, Arizona, Massachusetts, Maine, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Washington, Minnesota, Iowa and Georgia. Virginia, Alaska and California. These states have all signed legislation into law opposing the 2012 NDAA.
SM: Why did PANDA focus on local ordinances? Why not simply work at the federal level to fix the NDAA?
DJ: Because congressional efforts to overturn the detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA have failed. PANDA supported the 2012 Smith-Amash amendment proposed by Adam Smith (D-Wash) and Justin Amash (R-Mich) as a real solution to the NDAA. The Smith-Amash Amendment would have banned indefinite military detention and military commission trials in the United States. This would have made clear that individuals apprehended on U.S. soil who are suspected of terror-related activities can only be tried in a civilian court with all the corresponding constitutional protections.
The amendment failed to pass the House of Representatives, where it was torpedoed by the House GOP. The vote was 205-217, with only 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats voting to restore our constitutional rights to a fair and speedy trial, probable cause, and due process.
Ron Paul (R-Texas) made a rare appearance on the House floor to voice his support for the Smith-Amash Amendment, noting: “I do not believe a republic can exist if you permit the military to arrest American citizens, put them in secret prisons and be denied a trial.”
Unfortunately, NDAA Sections 1021 and 1022 were erroneously represented as critical to national security. This has protected them from reasonable legislation such as the Smith-Amash amendment, which would have fixed these violations of American civil liberties without diminishing national security.
SM: PANDA uses the constitutional doctrine of “interposition” to get local “liberty” ordinances passed. How does interposition work?
DJ: Interposition is simple. Every person who holds office in our government, from your local sheriff to a Supreme Court Chief Justice, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. Each sworn officer’s highest mandate is to defend the Constitution. If any level of government attempts to violate the civil rights enshrined within the Constitution with an unconstitutional law—which is by definition null and void—it is the duty of all sworn officers to to interpose and prevent that action, in order to uphold the Constitution.
In 1798, just seven years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law. These acts prohibited most protesting, criticism of the government and criticism of the president.
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/...d43b7d0a56.gif
In response, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. In the Virginia Resolution, Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” urged the states to uphold the Constitution by interposing against a rogue Federal government:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact... the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil…”
-Virginia Resolution, December 24th, 1798.
Chief Justice Marshall upheld the doctrine of interposition in Marbury v. Madison, writing “...the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument”
Clearly, the NDAA sections that suspend our civil rights are repugnant to the Constitution, and, as U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest put it, have a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights.” Every “other department,” including police departments, have a responsibility, therefore, to oppose it.
SM: How can local jurisdictions use interposition to combat a federal law like the NDAA?
DJ: In 1793 and in 1850, as part of a compromise with Southern states, the Federal government passed two Fugitive Slave Acts. These laws mandated that anyone coming across escaped slaves return them to their masters.
Dozens of jurisdictions passed local liberty laws interposing against the Fugitive Slave Acts, and refused to return slaves. Thousands of people defied the law, saving the freedom and lives of tens of thousands of slaves.
In 1942, under Executive Order 9066, President Franklin Delano-Roosevelt authorized the indefinite detention of 120,000 Japanese-Americans. American military members, with the help of local law enforcement, went door-to door in coastal communities, rounding up Japanese families and sending them to internment camps for the duration of the war.
If local governments had adopted personal liberty laws like those used to interpose against the Fugitive Slave Acts, these could have been used in 1942 to prevent the Federal government from hauling Japanese-Americans off to internment camps.
Today, imagine the public outrage it will cause in a community that has passed local liberty ordinances if the Federal government violates those ordinances and arrests a citizen under the NDAA provisions. We believe such outrage will bring the NDAA issue to national attention, and force debate. Without having to flip hundreds of votes in Congress— since the Federal government would never want to face off with a local sheriff on a civil-liberties issue—we could prevent the indefinite detention of a citizen simply by refusing to allow the Federal government to detain that person in that community.
It is also far easier for the citizens of a town to hold the local sheriff and police chief accountable, because they can be voted out of office. It’s much more challenging for the residents of a local town to attempt to hold a member of the military or Federal law enforcement accountable.
SM: How are local law enforcement officers reacting to your efforts?
DJ: Many excellent police officers support this, such as Worcester, MA Deputy Police Chief Edward J. McGinn, who told us that any laws or orders which “serve to violate the basic human rights of any citizen” would be met with “great resistance; perhaps more so than what a non-officer citizen would offer.”
Just as there must be punishments for officers who collude with criminals, however, it is necessary to pass policies with consequences for officers who participate in or allow the violation of our constitutional rights. Only then can the citizens of every community be confident that their constitutional rights will be protected by their local law enforcement. That is why Phase 2 of PANDA’s plan recommends that communities that pass local ordinances prohibiting unconstitutional detainment also implement penalties for officers who fail to uphold the ordinances.
SM: What about Phase 3, repealing the NDAA at the federal level?
DJ: Every person in America deserves the right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his or her peers. This fundamental protection was placed into our Bill of Rights because our nation’s founders never wanted to repeat the actions of the British government from which they were declaring independence. The British regularly labeled American revolutionaries “traitors”—the colonial equivalent of “ suspected terrorist” today—and hung them without so much as a show trial.
Every person in the United States should receive the same Fifth Amendment protections as the citizens in Albany, NY;Webster, MA; Middleton, ID, and other jurisdictions that have said “No!” to the Federal Government’s supposed authority to claim someone is a terrorist and therefore detain him or her without a trial.
The 2012 NDAA’s detention provisions must be interposed against at the state level and repealed at the federal level. Until they are, any American could potentially be picked up off the street and detained without charges.
We have been educating members of Congress, DC-based organizations, and other civil rights leaders about the dangers of the 2012 NDAA, but Congress responds most to the will of masses of the people. Once our educational efforts, and our local and state efforts, are successful, the Federal government will have no choice not only to repeal the law, but also to avoid using it or any similar claimed authority to violate our constitutional rights.
SM: How do you respond to those who argue that the NDAA would never be used against American citizens who have committed no crime, who aren’t “real terrorists,” or who aren’t doing something wrong?
DJ: That is exactly what former President Obama argued. He claimed he would not use the full powers accorded to him by the NDAA. In his signing statement on the 2012 NDAA, Obama said:
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
He added that “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”
That all sounds very nice, but the fact is that the 2012 NDAA is like a rattlesnake in a dark cave. We may hear it rattle, but we think it will never bite us. But one day, when the wrong president comes into office, or the wrong person is designated by the president to use this power, that rattlesnake will bite. And by then, it will be too late.
If you would like to help fight the NDAA, visit PANDA’sTake Back Your Town page here.
“I’m Just a Mom!” Daphne Lee Gives Powerful Speech Against NDAA in Clark County, Nevada
THE MORNING EMAIL
Startyour workday the right way with the news that matters most.
http://youtu.be/p4y9aNpjkLs
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Rural America is under attack by the ESA and environmentalist groups lik the Center for Biological Diversity
Bundy Ranch and desert tortise.
Quote:
Interior and NOAA settled 101 of those lawsuits, 90 percent of which were with environmentalists who favor expanded federal control over development and private property. GAO’s data has Republican lawmakers concerned environmentalists effectively control federal agencies through legal action.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/27/go...#ixzz4cfJUIxkr
Govt Data Confirms Fears The Endangered Species Act Is ‘Held Hostage By Radical Agendas’
Ninety percent of the of settlements federal agencies entered into with plaintiffs under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) were with environmental groups.
Environmentalists have been aggressively filing suits against the Interior Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for missing statutory deadlines under the ESA.
Two dozen environmental groups filed 79 percent of the 141 ESA deadline suits from 2005 to 2015, according to Government Accountability Office (GAO) data compiled by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Interior and NOAA settled 101 of those lawsuits, 90 percent of which were with environmentalists who favor expanded federal control over development and private property. GAO’s data has Republican lawmakers concerned environmentalists effectively control federal agencies through legal action.
“Litigious special interest groups have paralyzed any hope of species recovery under the Endangered Species Act,” GOP Utah Rep. Rob Bishop told TheDCNF. “The latest report is a cry for help – a cry for reform.”
“The statue has been held hostage by radical agendas at the expense of species and taxpayers,” Bishop said.
Bishop says deadline suits allow environmental groups to control the agenda at Interior and NOAA all while locking out states and industry groups — a tactic Republicans call “sue-and-settle.”
“We need to move to a system that aims for recovery and delisting rather than the current unworkable foundation that adds more and more species to the list through lawsuits and closed-door settlements for a lifetime sentence,” Bishop said.
More than half of the lawsuits against Interior were brought by two environmental groups — The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Wild Earth Guardians (WEG). Interior settled 83 percent of the lawsuits filed by CBD and 93 percent of the suits filed by WEG.
In total, ESA deadline suits resulted in more than 1,600 actions affecting 1,441 species. Most suits were related to “missed deadlines for issuing findings on petitions to list species,” according to the February 2016 GAO report from which TheDCNF gathered its data.
Federal agencies told GAO that legal settlements “did not affect the substantive basis or procedural rule-making requirements” such as “providing opportunities for public notice and comment on proposed listing rules.”
NOAA officials “indicated that work resulting from deadline suits did not have a significant effect on the implementation of their program,” GAO found, noting, however, the Interior Department “has delayed completing some actions to complete those included in settlement agreements.”
Bishop, who chairs the House Committee on Natural Resources, is holding a hearing Tuesday on the ESA’s impact on development. It’s likely the first step in the House towards ESA reform the GOP has been demanding for years.
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a similar hearingin February to find ways to “modernize” the ESA. Republicans are likely confident they can get some sort of ESA reform done with President Donald Trump in office.
Former President Richard Nixon signed the ESA into law in 1973 at a time when more Americans were becoming concerned about environmental protection. Since then, about 2,270 animal species have been listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
Environmentalists say the ESA has saved hundreds of species from extinction, but listing so many species means more costly delays to economic development.
Federal officials have to approve projects that could have any impact on endangered species or their habitat.
In 2013, for example, $459 million worth of road projects were delayed because a single endangered Indiana Bat flew from its cave in eastern Tennessee through Georgia. Federal officials said the bat’s migration confirmed their suspicions the animals summered in Georgia.
State transportation officials had to delay projects and then spend an estimated $8 million on a study to make sure they won’t “harm, kill or harass” any more bats should they appear, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported.
In 2016, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers halted a $48 million road project in Florida to protect a 3-inch-long fish, the Okaloosa Darter. The Corps stopped the project to see if the Florida project spilled dirt into nearby creeks where darters live.
More recently, a federal court sided against Louisiana landowners, ruling the federal government could create a “critical habitat” on 1,500 acres of private property for an endangered frog that hasn’t lived on those lands for decades.
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) represented those landowners. PLF attorney Jonathan Wood will testify at Bishop’s hearing Tuesday.
Wood will argue ESA-mandated consultation with federal agencies “takes more time than Congress intended,” according to prepared remarks obtained by TheDCNF.
“When necessary infrastructure maintenance and upgrades are put-off because of these delays and costs, that can significantly harm species and the environment,” reads Wood’s prepared remarks. “The damage from infrastructure crumbling and failing can be far higher than the modest impacts of repairs and upgrades.”
Environmentalists disagree. Ya-Wei Li, a top official with the Defenders of Wildlife, will argue “there is no compelling evidence that these conservation gains have come at the expense of jobs or the economy at the national level,” according to prepared testimony.
“With rare exceptions, federal agencies have completed consultations in a reasonable timeframe by adopting conservation measures that are economically and technologically feasible to implement,” Li will argue.
Li’s argument is based on a Defenders of Wildlife Study that found “no project was stopped because of [Interior] concluding that a project would ‘jeopardize’ a species or ‘destroy or adversely modify’ critical habitat.”
The study also found “the median duration of informal consultations was 13 days and formal consultations was 62 days,” according to Li, which is far less than the 135 allowed by law. That study did find, however, 20 percent of ESA consultations took longer than 135 days.
Wood counters that study in his testimony. He argues “another way to interpret the results is that, during the first seven years of the Obama administration, nearly 100,000 projects had to undergo time-consuming and expensive consultation even though none of them would likely jeopardize a listed species or its habitat.”
“Making matters worse, nearly 1,300 major projects were delayed for more time than the law permits, even though they too would not likely jeopardize a species or its habitat,” Wood will say.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
This sounds ecouraging; Diane Holthaus called the White House. . . . . .
https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.n...1c&oe=5995B5D8
Diane Holthaus
7 hrs ·
Okay, I just got off the phone with an angel at the White house comment line..
She had me go through all the names, dates, everything..
She is marking it as URGENT Political Prisoners being held in Nevada..
She was horrified by what I told her is happening to Ryan & Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne. all the men. she took down all the names.
When I told her about LaVoy. She BECAME ALMOST FRANTIC in her due diligence of making sure she had all the facts written correctly. She had no idea about any of it.. She assured me she would do everything she could to get this message in front of Trump.
She has also instructed me to hand write a letter.. Just in case her attempt was thwarted. Another reason for the letter, would be so I could give my Name, address and Phone # in case someone wanted to talk to me more about the issue.
Keep calling, or write a letter. speak calmly and plainly. And don't give up if you get an Obama minion on the phone. call back until you get a hold of the right soul. There are no names allowed on the comment line..I gave my name, spelled out and my phone # at the beginning of the call anyways. lol I know it is recorded.. I wish I knew her name.. She is going to pray for all of them.. All of us.
Okay...
You must address the envelope to the Office of the President
These were her instructions.
address the envelope:
URGENT
Office of President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
On the letter head:
Urgent Political prisoners being held in Nevada.
She told me this will be fast tracked to the President.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!
74 Likes 39 Comments 81 Shares
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Community with Bundys and all veterans worldwide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlvNDlBo1iA
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Zinke, the new Dept. of Interior Secretary- “I would say the war is over with the new president and the administration,” he said. “We want to be the good neighbors.”
If the war is over the first step would be drop the charges against Bundys. Second restore Jeanette Finicum and Wayne Hages grazing allotments.
Exclusive: Secretary Ryan Zinke Ready to Restore Trust in the Interior Department
Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19pm PDT
http://media.breitbart.com/media/201...AM-640x480.pngPhoto by Charlie Spiering
by Charlie Spiering29 Mar 2017
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Montana Congressman and former Navy SEAL Ryan Zinke did not know what job his newly elected commander-in-chief had for him when he first visited Trump Tower in December with his wife, Lola, for an interview.
“It was 200 shotgun questions,” he said, recalling the moment with the president in an interview with Breitbart News. Trump grilled Zinke on a wide variety of topics such as women in combat, Syrian policy, the rise of China, Indian affairs, pipelines, and energy policies. “It spread the spectrum of subjects,” he said.
Trump raised the possibility of his serving as the secretary of Veterans Affairs, but Zinke declined. But as he left the building, he still did not know what Trump wanted him to do.
“Two days later, I was flying back to Montana and Vice President Pence calls and says, ‘Congratulations.’ The first thing I asked him was, ‘What job?’” Zinke chuckled. He was delighted to hear that he had been selected to serve as the secretary of the Interior.
A New Multiple-Use 100-Year Plan
As a former Navy SEAL, Zinke views himself as the commander of an operation where he is ultimately responsible and wants to make sure that the employees on the ground are empowered.
“This is like assuming a giant command, where my focus up front is the field. My focus is the rangers and the land managers that are on the front line,” he said. “There’s a lot of frustration and dissatisfaction on the front line because they feel like they’re being micromanaged by Washington. They’re feeling like they have a lot of resources pulled back. From a military point of view, it’s the sergeant and the chief on the front line that win wars.”
Zinke outlined plans of a reorganization of the department to shift resources out of Washington, DC, to the front lines, looking forward to the next century of land management. He added that Trump asked him to think big.
“We’re going to reorganize the Department of the Interior for the next 100 years,” he said, citing Theodore Roosevelt’s lofty ambitions.
Zinke has a bust of Roosevelt in his office and an assortment of artifacts from the Department of the Interior’s massive collection. Two paintings feature Ferdinand Vandeveer Hayden’s geological survey expedition of 1871. He also keeps a dinosaur skull cast of a Lythronax arrestees (king of gore), a famous modern paleontology discovery in Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
Mounted on the wall is Zinke’s personally owned head of a buffalo from “the last herd” in 1906 and an elk head killed by former Montana Congressman Ron Marlenee, as well as memorabilia from his life as a Navy SEAL and football souvenirs. Zinke played college football for University of Oregon, where he got his degree in geology. In the corner, Zinke has a massive grizzly bear displayed.
Zinke spoke to Breitbart News in his office at the Interior after attending a bill signing in the Oval Office with President Trump, which rolled back the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Planning 2.0 rule. For Zinke, it was one more sign that the president would deliver on his campaign promises.
“We’re going to do exactly what the president has promised the American people he would do,” he said. Zinke is tackling the idea of restoring power to local officials and shifting more power out of Washington. He explained that key component of that mission was restoring trust with the citizens of the United States.
“There is a lot of distrust with some of the heavy-handedness of the government; I would say arrogance,” he said.
Former President Obama designated more than 550 million additional acres of land and water under federal protection and created or expanded 34 national monuments during his administration. Days before he left office, Obama created the Bear Ears monument in Utah, ignoring state and local lawmakers who opposed the decision. He also included millions of marine acres by designating monuments in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and removed offshore resources from development.
Zinke said President Trump would likely focus on managing existing resources before considering his own preservation legacy. In the modern presidency, only Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Richard Nixon chose not to increase the amount of land protected by the federal government. The last president to decrease the amount of acreage was President Dwight Eisenhower.
Trump, Zinke said, was already looking at ways to roll back Obama’s last-minute land grabs.
“I don’t think it’s in dispute whether he can modify a monument,” Zinke said, referring to the president. “The dispute is whether or not he can nullify it — still untested and unclear in the law.”
Zinke also wants to streamline the regulation of federal lands, working to put the Department of the Interior back in partnership with businesses seeking to develop natural resources responsibly. He cited situations where industry “invested in good faith” but had the rules changed at the last minute.
“We’re not going to change the rules midstream to be punitive on your project,” he said.
Making National Parks Great Again
Zinke wants to improve the public image of the Interior by improving the character of the National Parks.
“Our face of the Interior is our parks, and we want to make sure that the park experience this summer is noticeably improved,” he said.
Park superintendents, he explained, would be judged on the cleanliness of the bathrooms in the park, their physical presentation and appearance in uniform, and their friendliness and helpfulness to visitors of the parks.
The parks experienced a record number of visits in 2016, more than 330 million, as the National Park Service celebrated its 100th anniversary.
“It’s all for the benefit and the enjoyment of the people,” Zinke said, citing the engraved slogan in the Roosevelt arch outside the gate of the first national park in Yellowstone.
“We have deviated from that,” he said. “It means that we can protect the environment, but we can’t lose the focus on why the parks were established.”
Many Americans were enraged after they found their parks closed in the wake of the government shutdown of 2015, as the Obama administration physically blockaded the entryways to National Parks and important historical monuments in Washington, DC.
Zinke said he was determined to keep that from happening again.
“Not on my watch,” he said.
Restoring Trust
During the Obama administration, local conflicts over the use of public lands fueled public frustration in Western states. The Bundy clan took up arms against the government on two different occasions, making headlines as they protested an overbearing government bureaucracy.
But Zinke thinks a different attitude from Washington, DC, might prevent that from happening in the first place.
“I would say the war is over with the new president and the administration,” he said. “We want to be the good neighbors.”
He cited the conclusion of the Dakota Access Pipeline protest in February as an example of how the federal government could work together with local officials to enforce the law and diffuse the situation before it got out of control.
“We want to see when we have a law enforcement problem, our first line of defense is the local sheriff,” he said, suggesting that a BLM truck would not be as effective in thwarting people upset with the government.
According to Zinke, local Interior officials should be embedded in the local communities, serving as advocates for the people, rather than just the enforcers on the ground.
“That’s a cultural shift, which I think is absolutely critical to the success of this organization long term,” he said.
Getting Trump Outdoors
Zinke’s biggest challenge might be getting President Trump out to a national park to experience the outdoors. The president, who prefers to spend his time indoors working or meetings on the golf course, has not spent much time experiencing many of the natural beauties of the country.
“We’re going to get him out,” Zinke laughed, when asked about the challenge.
“Roosevelt was from New York,” he added optimistically. Zinke cited Donald Trump Jr.’s love of the outdoors as a positive sign that the members of the family raised in New York City could appreciate the outdoors.
“He’s in good shape. He’s tough. Hopefully, we’ll get him on a horse,” Zinke, with a grin, said about the president. “Give him a Teddy Roosevelt rough rider hat because it fits his personality.”
Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
The petition on Change.org to Attorney General Sessions to free the Bundys reached the 5000 mark yesterday and was still growing. It needed 5000 signatures to be presented to Sessions.
