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 crimvelvet
reply to post by empireoflizards
Could there have been other false flags that actually were successfully carried out?
G. Edward Griffin discusses them in these two PDFs. They are well worth the read.
Part 3: Days of Infamy: www.freedomforceinternational.org...
Part 4: The War on Terrorism: www.freedomforceinternational.org...
You can find the rest of the links to the first two PDFs and other info here: www.freedomforceinternational.org...
Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Hes a lawyer what do you expect.Lawyers are all ways looking for ways around things legal or otherwise its the way they think.
A GOP AG was caught red handed trying to stage a terrorist attack. The ConserviBagger Dictatorship, driven by racism and hate.
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." en.wikipedia.org...
They are spending it [Wealth stolen from us] to acquire control over the power centers of society. The power centers are those groups and institutions through which individuals live and act and rely on for their information. They are literally buying up the world but not the real estate and the hardware, they're buying control over the organizations, the groups and institutions that control people. In other words, to be specific, they are buying control over politicians, political parties, television networks, cable networks, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, wire services, motion picture studios, universities, labor unions, church organizations, trade associations, tax-exempt foundations, multi-national corporations, boy scouts, girl scouts, you name it. Make your own list of organizations and you will find that this is where those people have been for many decades spending this river of wealth to acquire operational control particularly over those institutions and individuals, those organizations that represent opposition to themselves. That's a critical area for expenditure on their part. www.bigeye.com...
Lawyers are not ethical people at all....
In the appeal, Van Hollen argues that Sumi has no jurisdiction over state lawmakers or Wisconsin's secretary of state, all of whom have sovereign immunity. Sumi's order bars La Follette from publishing the new law.
Well here is another revalation coming out of the ongoing battle in Wisconsin where a judge issued a restraining order on the Secretary of State not to publish the new law until a pending court case was ruled on but the Records and Publishing Office of the State published it and put the law on it's website anyway.
She will begin with a brief overview of what a circuit court judge does, and then discuss decision making and the values associated with it--including Jewish values. Temple Beth El and Jewish Social Services of Madison affectionately host and co-sponsor this event. A light brunch follows the lecture.
A lifelong political activist, Jake Sinderbrand got his start as a volunteer doorknocker, and has years of experience training both volunteers and canvassing staff. Jake graduated from Macalester College cum laude with a degree in political science, specializing in American political structures.
He has developed his professional political experience serving as a lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and as data manager for the SEIU State Council through the 2008 election cycle.
Jake’s expertise in canvass planning and turf strategy helped these organizations to have among the most successful field operations in Minnesota.
Lawyers are not ethical people at all.
...While employed as a non-lawyer at Brock & Scott, respondent conducted real estate closings without an attorney being present. Respondent signed his own name to the documents associated with the real estate closings. After conducting the closings, it was respondent’s practice to have other employees of the firm sign as witness and/or notary on the documents even though they were not present at the closings. Respondent conducted some closings when there was no licensed South Carolina attorney on the premises. Respondent routinely signed as witness and notary to documents relating to closings at which he was not present.... www.judicial.state.sc.us...
With its decisions in Seminole Tribe v. Florida 1 and Alden v. Maine, 2 the Supreme Court has tremendously broadened the immunity that states enjoy from suits brought by private individuals. In Seminole Tribe, the Court held that a state may not be sued in federal court for violations of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 3 In Alden, the Court held that a state may not be sued in its own courts for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. 4 In both instances, Congress had expressly declared its intention to make the states subject to suit by private parties. Taken together, these decisions thus establish the remarkable proposition that states may violate federal statutes yet not be held accountable in any court of law. 5
State immunity from suit has been a controversial doctrine in the United States since the Founding. Indeed, the doctrine was initially repudiated by the Supreme Court in the early days of the Republic, in Chisholm v. Georgia... SOURCE
WE THE PEOPLE have the ultimate say on what laws are valid. TPTB has tried to take that power away by cover-ups and keeping us ignorant.
I am talking about TRIAL by JURY.
There is a reason we now see only judges trying cases. T
There is a reason why jurors are never told about their Constitutional rights and duties.
There is a reason laws are written in such a way that a person is denied the right to a trial before a jury, even though it is unconstitutional.
A Jury has the RIGHT to judge both the law and the facts
....The court wants you to find the person guilty because the charges are not criminal, for the most part...
They are code violations. They are "commercial charges".
They always carry a fine and never have a victim.
If there is no victim it is not a crime.
It is a code violation.
They dress it up like a crime.
And make you do the time, but if no victim is present then it is a code violation.
It's like, I want to repeat that over and over to try and break the programming.
Case Law (n) Case Law is the decisions, interpretations made by judges while deciding on the legal issues before them which are considered as the common law or as an aid for interpretation of a law in subsequent cases with similar conditions. Case laws are used by advocates to support their views to favor their clients and also it influence the decision of the judges www.legal-explanations.com...
“The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State, where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” -- Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 
Trial by Jury, almost hidden away in the Constitution of the United State is one of the most precious freedoms that Americans possess.
The saving grace of William Penn’s trial was to establish a critical precedence, whereby jurors could act on the basis of their conscience. It is a precedence which in modern day is sorely needed, when public opinion, law enforcement agencies, and the Courts themselves heavily influence the deliberations of juries to the point of denying justice. [This has been particularly true in cases where there is a great deal of publicity, there is a serious Scapegoatology atmosphere running about, and where law-enforcement agencies, courts, and governments are seeking new ways to extend their power.]
“It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” -- John Adams
John Adams words are fundamentally important in that every member of every jury must know they have an inalienable right to IGNORE Court-directed verdicts, public opinion, and/or the letter of the law (however interpreted by law enforcement agencies), as well as to be allowed to search for the truth in their deliberations.
No judge should dissuade or deny a juror’s right to obtain the truth in whatever way the juror determines.
This search for the truth and the decisions reached thereby must include:
1) The jury having full access to what any member of the jury considers relevant to the case (i.e. not being denied access by the Court, media, or any other source);
2) The jury being given the respect of being able to discern for themselves between rumor, conjecture, fact, and legitimate evidence, and
3) The jury taking on the responsibility for and being allowed to ask questions, doing independent research, and whatever else the jury decides to do (in it’s infinite wisdom) in order to discover, to the best of its ability, the underlying truth of any court case. The jury should not be limited by only what the Court “allows” into evidence or what the Court “decides” the jury should hear.
Every jury must stand up for their rights on the basis of Common Law (and/or the Constitution, Magna Carta, and other documents of liberty), as was the case in William Penn’s trial. They must actively pursue learning the truth, and then they must use their discernment to make their ultimate choice(s)....www.halexandria.org...
First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)
Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank's foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. "Consideration" ("the thing exchanged") is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.
The court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world....
Justice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank.
He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.
FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.
...the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts -- to nullify the law if it chose -- became part of British constitutional law.
It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you'd never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country....
Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous. Though organized by libertarian activists, the Fully Informed Jury Amendment movement includes liberals and conservatives...
...many groups in this country feel the government has overstepped its power in some way and that there must be protection for the natural rights of American citizens. They are defending not only the right to protest or carry a gun or not wear seatbelts but challenging the right of the government to decide such matters without the mediating effect of a jury's judgement of fairness in a particular case.
While 18 of the 50 United States offer their citizens an opportunity to recall their elected officials, it is a fact that in our nation’s history, no federal legislator has yet been recalled.
It has not been for lack of interest. Rather, the process has languished in part due to debates on whether or not legal authority exists for recall of U.S. Senators and Congressmen; and, in the case of Idaho, interference by a state court prevented recall of a federal legislator....
After reviewing the body of law and opinion concerning recall, it is apparent that if recall of federal legislators is to succeed, it will likely only be after an intense battle in the federal court system as to the degree to which the courts will go to allow the literal meaning of the Tenth Amendment to be in force and effect.
As this author reads this language, it appears clear that " the States ‘ and " the people " living with in them, should be recognized to have the right of recall.
But in order to implement a strategy that will enable recall petitions to result in actual removal of errant Senators and Congressmen, considerable legal and political obstacles will present themselves and can only be overcome by understanding the lengths to which those opposed to recall can be expected to go...
Eighteen states have recall provisions. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin all have recall of some kind available to their voters. Only seven of these states require any grounds.
Judges: Appointed vs elected? That is another question we as voters need to think very very carefully about.