It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
you know you need to stop w/ the mad scientist crap ok its old now!
all that take over the world @#$#@ grow up! it's about the ever increasing encrouchment into our personal lives and thier obvious slow erosion of the liberty's that those who came before us fought and died for . including
John Kennedy AND HIS BROTHER jOE!!!! which is more than anybody can say about any any of the creeps running around washington today.
Originally posted by krill
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
its a violation of the logan act. "  Text of the Logan Act
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004)."
also they use goverment funds for thier travel, lodgings, security detail ect. and that is also against the law when not acting on approved goverment buisness.
In general, the Act is intended to prohibit American citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. Although attempts have been made to repeal the Act, it remains law and at least a potential sanction to be used against anyone who without authority interferes in the foreign relations of the United States.
Violating government-access laws rarely results in punishment for the offenders By Katrina Hull
Public officials who wrongly deny access to open meetings and records face a broad range of consequences, although being slapped with a whopping fine or thrown out of office or into jail are rare. The lack of serious sanctions for secretive behavior leaves many access advocates throwing up their hands.
A recent Kansas Supreme Court ruling is evidence of a reluctance to enforce sanctions for violating open records and meetings laws. After championing the "public policy of making public records open for any person" in one breath, the court's next breath was sweetest to the state agency that unlawfully denied access to public information.
It also establishes extradition between the states, as well as laying down a legal basis for freedom of movement and travel amongst the states. Today, this provision is sometimes taken for granted, especially by citizens who live near state borders; but in the days of the Articles of Confederation, crossing state lines was often a much more arduous and costly process.
"City official knew secret meeting on Javanon was illegal"
The earlier meeting was illegal because a quorum of the board -- four of its six members -- got together to discuss the case without notifying the public.
When The Courier-Journal asked about that meeting later in April, Cash said there was "no intent" to violate the open meetings law.
But when he first proposed the meeting, according to the e-mails, he suggested splitting the board into two groups "to avoid the public notice question."
In a statement, Mayor Jerry Abramson called the open meetings violation "unacceptable."
§ 552b. Open meetings
How Current is This?
(a) For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “agency” means any agency, as defined in section 552 (e)  of this title, headed by a collegial body composed of two or more individual members, a majority of whom are appointed to such position by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and any subdivision thereof authorized to act on behalf of the agency;
(2) the term “meeting” means the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business, but does not include deliberations required or permitted by subsection (d) or (e); and
(3) the term “member” means an individual who belongs to a collegial body heading an agency.
(b) Members shall not jointly conduct or dispose of agency business other than in accordance with this section. Except as provided in subsection (c), every portion of every meeting of an agency shall be open to public observation.
(c) Except in a case where the agency finds that the public interest requires otherwise, the second sentence of subsection (b) shall not apply to any portion of an agency meeting, and the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) shall not apply to any information pertaining to such meeting otherwise required by this section to be disclosed to the public, where the agency properly determines that such portion or portions of its meeting or the disclosure of such information is likely to—
(1) disclose matters that are
(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or foreign policy and
(B) in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(3) disclose matters specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552 of this title), provided that such statute
(A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or
(B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(4) disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) involve accusing any person of a crime, or formally censuring any person;
(6) disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) disclose investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such records, but only to the extent that the production of such records or information would
(A) interfere with enforcement proceedings,
(B) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,
(C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
(D) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source,
(E) disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or
(F) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel;
(8) disclose information contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;
(9) disclose information the premature disclosure of which would—
(A) in the case of an agency which regulates currencies, securities, commodities, or financial institutions, be likely to
(i) lead to significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or commodities, or
(ii) significantly endanger the stability of any financial institution; or
(B) in the case of any agency, be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action,
except that subparagraph (B) shall not apply in any instance where the agency has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action, or where the agency is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final agency action on such proposal; or
(10) specifically concern the agency’s issuance of a subpena, or the agency’s participation in a civil action or proceeding, an action in a foreign court or international tribunal, or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition by the agency of a particular case of formal agency adjudication pursuant to the procedures in section 554 of this title or otherwise involving a determination on the record after opportunity for a hearing.
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Coming on this site has turned me into a skeptic. At first i believed in the NWO, listened to Alex jones and believed in UfO's. after a few months on here ive seen very little credible evidence to support anything. I always tend to start leaning towards the skeptics points of view, as they seem to make more sense and don't jump to conclusions.
I want to believe, but the more time i spend on here the less i believe, which is why this site is so good
He was apprenticed to the banking firm of Jakob Wolf Oppenheim in Hamburg, returning to business in Frankfurt in 1763. He became a dealer in rare coins and won the patronage of Crown Prince Wilhelm of Hesse, gaining the title of "Court Factor". Rothschild's coin business grew to include a number of princely patrons, and then expanded through the provision of banking services to Crown Prince Wilhelm, who became Wilhelm IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel in 1785. Business expanded rapidly following the French Revolution when Rothschild handled payments from Britain for the hire of Hessian mercenaries.
By the early years of the 19th century, Mayer Amschel Rothschild had consolidated his position as principal international banker to Wilhelm IX and began to issue his own international loans, borrowing capital from the Landgrave.
In 1806, Napoleon invaded Hesse in response to Wilhelm's support for Prussia. The Landgrave went into exile in Schleswig-Holstein, but Rothschild was able to continue as his banker, investing funds in London. He also profited from importing goods in circumvention of Napoleon's continental blockade.
Originally posted by krill
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
just cuzz their seated dos not mean that their meeting was officialy approved. with out acthual approval which leads a trail for foia it is still a violation of the law. ofcourse its not being enforced the people breaking it are the ones who are suppose to enforce it. you realy think they would just jail them selves and face corruption charges as well for commiting a crime most people dont know is a crime, at a meeting most people never heard of ? a meeting with a almost total msm black out? yeah right!
passes to cross state lines. cant own guns because of speeding tickets. cant oppose anything the government says without persecution as a terrorist.
these havent happened yet, but doesnt look like it will be far off.