UN Rips US For Being Only Nation To Sentence Kids To Life in Prison

John Vibes

This Monday, the United Nations formally criticized the US government for their treatment of children prisoners. UN representatives pointed out that the US is the only country in the world that will sentence a child to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

“The vast majority of states have taken note of the international human rights requirements regarding life imprisonment of children without the possibility of release,” Juan Méndez of the United Nations said in a report published this week.

The Day Patriots Stood Up in the Tyrant’s Court

Gavin Seim

What was exposed was what we all knew was happening, but did not want to face. It has never been exposed to the world like this until today. — Around the nation, Kangaroo Courts like this one operate every day. Once people walk through those doors their rights are as worthless as dung and they are silenced in fear of tyrant judges and a system that has nothing whatsoever to do with justice.

What we see here are 1st, 4th, 6th and 14th amendment violations! But what precipitated all the events in this courtroom is the open defiance of the 1st amendment by Douglas County officials when they only allowed their approved press to record. A press that went right out and reported exactly what the State wanted them to.

We were attacked, violated and Arrested for defending the Constitution, our right to due process and our right to free speech. It’s time to take back out courts America. It’s time to take back our liberty.

EFF, ACLU Demolish “It’s Just Metadata” Claim in NSA Spying Appeal

Americans Deserve Full Protection of the Fourth Amendment for their Telephone Records, Groups Argue

Activist Post 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today filed an amicus brief in Klayman v. Obama, a high-profile lawsuit that challenges mass surveillance, arguing that Americans' telephone metadata deserves the highest protection of the Fourth Amendment.

Larry Klayman, conservative activist and founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, was among the first plaintiffs to sue the National Security Agency (NSA) over the collection of telephone metadata from Verizon customers that was detailed in documents released by Edward Snowden. In December 2013, Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary ruling that the program was likely unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In the new amicus brief in Klayman v. Obama, the EFF and ACLU lawyers repudiate arguments by U.S. officials that the records are "just metadata" and therefore not as sensitive as the contents of phone calls. Using research and new case law, the civil liberties groups argue that metadata (such as who individuals called, when they called, and how long they spoke) can be even more revealing than conversations when collected en masse.

Study suggests federal law to combat use of 'club drugs' has done more harm than good

Activist Post

A federal law enacted to combat the use of "club drugs" such as Ecstasy — and today's variation known as Molly — has failed to reduce the drugs' popularity and, instead, has further endangered users by hampering the use of measures to protect them.

University of Delaware sociology professor Tammy L. Anderson makes that case in a paper she will present at the 109th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. The paper, which has been accepted for publication this fall in the American Sociological Association journal Contexts, examines the unintended consequences of the 2003 RAVE (Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy) Act. The act was designed to address the use of drugs, sometimes by very young teens, at the all-night electronic-dance-music parties known as raves that were especially common in the 1990s.

The law targeted club owners and promoters, holding them criminally responsible for illegal drug use at their events.

And that's the problem, Anderson says.

FBI Scandal: Flawed Forensics Rampant, Impacted Many Cases

Lily Dane

Over two years ago, the Justice Department and the FBI began a review of thousands of criminal cases to determine if any defendants were wrongfully convicted based on flawed forensic testimony.

The review included 2,600 convictions and 45 death-row cases from the 1980s and 1990s in which the FBI’s hair and fiber unit reported a match to a crime-scene sample before DNA testing of hair became common.

Mass Incarceration: 21 Amazing Facts About America’s Obsession With Prison

Michael Snyder

Nobody in the world loves locking people behind bars as much as Americans do. We have more people in prison than any other nation on the planet. We also have a higher percentage of our population locked up than anyone else does by a very large margin.

But has all of this imprisonment actually made us safer? Well, the last time I checked, crime was still wildly out of control in America and for the most recent year that we have numbers for violent crime was up 15 percent. The number of people that we have locked up has quadrupled since 1980, but this is not solving any of our problems. Clearly, what we are doing is not working.

A Messiah By Any Other Name

The banned name is actually one of the top growing baby names...

Messiah doesn't look too worried

Amanda Warren

Another example of a judge seeing an opening and running away with it. And it's another real one.

A simple dispute between two parents over their child's last name somehow magically turned into the judge bestowing a new first name and banishing his actual name, Messiah.

Tennesee child support judge Lu Ann Ballew ordered Jaleesa Martin to change 7-month-old Messiah DeShawn Martin's name to Martin DeShawn McCullough. Father's last name.

Do you wonder if she must stay up late at night with panic attacks thinking of all the people she couldn't prevent being named Jesus? Perhaps there are parts of the world blotted out of her travel bucket list. A reporter actually asked her about it (below, highly recommended watch) and she said she thought about that but of course, it's not relevant to this case.

What This Judge Did, Happens Every Day...

DeviantArt w/ added Star

Heather Callaghan

Ooops, sorry if I offended anyone ... is basically the response Judge Amy Salerno of Franklin County, Ohio gave after getting called out for scolding the jury for their verdict. She then went further by threatening them that she would keep having a trial until the right verdict came in.

She is a rare one that got pulled out into the limelight. But judges everywhere use the jury as their personal Magic 8 ball, shaking it till they get the response they want - a response which almost always is one that throws the defendant in prison. [Turn volume up.]



Why even have a jury at all anymore...

Monsanto can sue farmers when GMO contamination goes over one percent of their crop

Rady Ananda

At the Justice Begins with Seeds biosafety conference held in Seattle August 2-3, it was announced that a recent court decision prevented Monsanto from suing farmers for patent infringement when their crops become genetically contaminated with lab-engineered patented seeds. But the ruling is insufficient to protect farmers in the real world, where contamination events are often much higher than only one percent of a field, as specifically prescribed in the ruling.

The June 2013 decision dismissing OSGATA v. Monsanto discussed in the letter by Jim Gerritsen, president of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, protects farmers from being sued for “inadvertent contamination” of “approximately one percent” of their crops. Gerritsen sent the letter in lieu of his appearance.

That letter, reproduced at Good Food Web, has now gone viral, leading to some misunderstanding about the significance of the court’s decision and the protections afforded US farmers.

What It Means to Be An NSA "Target"

New Information Shows Why We Need Immediate FISA Amendments Act Reform

image source

Mark Rumold
EFF

An important New York Times investigation from today reporting that the NSA "is searching the contents of vast amounts of Americans’ e-mail and text communications into and out of the country," coupled with leaked documents published by the Guardian, seriously calls into question the accuracy of crucial statements made by government officials about NSA surveillance.

The government has previously tried to reassure the public about its use of FISA Amendments Act Section 702 surveillance practices,emphasizing that, under Section 702, the government may not “intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States." Indeed, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee Senator Feinstein, in a letter to constituents who wrote to her expressing concern about the NSA's spying program, said this: "[T]he government cannot listen to an American’s telephone calls or read their emails without a court warrant issued upon a showing of probable cause."

We’ve written before about the word games the government plays in describing its surveillance practices: “acquire,” “collect,” and “content” are all old government favorites. The New York Times report proves Feinstein statement is false, and it's clear it’s time to add “target” to the list of word games as well.

Questions Arise as to Coroner's Cover up in Sudden Death

image source

Janet Phelan

Six months after Charles Castle suddenly and inexplicably died, the San Bernardino County Coroner has still not come up with a stated cause of death. And according to a Deputy in that office, a critical report is “missing” from Charlie Castle's file.

I had spoken with Charlie Castle on the evening of January 15 at around 8 pm. He was frustrated with how long he had been deprived of his freedom and specifically dismayed at the fact that his long awaited trial on his mental health detention had been delayed just the week before.

“They can't hold you much longer,” I told him. “The accumulated evidence of fraud in your case is overwhelming, Charlie.” I then made a bold promise to him. “You will be free soon.”

Two hours later, Charlie Castle was pronounced dead.

Social Contract Part II: The Loss of Checks and Balances

Anthony Freda Art

Susan Boskey

The House of Representatives on July 24, 2013 rejected by a 12-point margin an amendment to limit NSA surveillance via data collection on Americans. The rejection allows the NSA with unlimited access to spy on American’s private information. How exactly, you might ask, does this jive with the social contract that assumes the people will hold up their end of the bargain because government exists only to serve the “general will?”

One is left to wonder. Earlier this month prior to the NSA amendment vote, Democrat John Conyers pointed out that the NSA had already violated the law because the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure. Rep. Spencer Bachus, Republican, also chimed in to liken the NSA surveillance to the 17th century English Court of the Star Chamber. Popular early-on with the people, it ended up as a political tool the king used for retribution. The Court of the Star Chamber was finally abolished in 1641 due to flagrant abuse of power.

In my last article, Social Contract: Exceptions to the Rule, July 17, I included the definition of social contract: an obligatory agreement the people of a nation make voluntarily with government for their mutual benefit and reciprocity. The underlying premise for its need was that individuals will only focus on themselves and their own self-interest when left to their own devices.

The social contract, however, is but one political philosophy and part of history’s ongoing debate: How do individuals function the best in a group, i.e. society. At the bottom of this debate is one contentious question, whom or what has the final say over the individual in society? The State? The community? The individual? The Creator?

Under New Proposed Internet Laws, We Will All Be Felons

Their word could soon become law

Dave Hodges

Did you know it is a misdemeanor to use your work computer to email your friends? If you check the score of the ballgame from work, it is also a misdemeanor. If you make reservations for dinner from your work computer you have also committed a crime. If you check your Facebook account on your lunch break from your work computer, you could be fined and could go to jail.

The law which criminalizes such behaviors is called the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; and if the Department of Justice (DOJ) gets its way, they want to make misusing your computer in any way a felony under the “exceeds authorized use” of any computer including your own personal computer. For all of the above offenses, you could be prosecuted and most likely play a fine. However, if the DOJ gets its way, you will go to jail because they will prosecute you as a felon if they convince Congress to strengthen this 1986 law!

Facebook Becomes Fascist Book

Facebook has joined in on the debate. You know Facebook, the company started up by the CIA so they could spy on us. Many on Facebook already refer to it as Fascistbook because they “punish” users for sending friends requests, despite the fact that Facebook sends these potential “friends” right to your page and invites you to do so. And if you send too many shared messages out at one time, they will suspend your account. Yet, nobody could tell you how many messages and shares can you send before you are in trouble as Facebook keeps this a secret. Technically, you have committed a misdemeanor by violating Facebook’s vague user agreement.

Now, the police state surveillance grid wants to interject themselves into the enforcement of Facebook policy and begin to prosecute violators of the fake name rules as written by the legal scholars at Facebook.

$1,000 Fine for Flashing Headlights to Warn Motorists of Cops - Lawsuit Follows

Amanda Warren

Did you know that you could be fined for flashing your headlights to warn other people of speed traps? Police who are hiding in wait, do not appreciate headlight whistleblowers.

This leads to the question - Is flashing your lights a part of free speech?

Right to Flash Headlights Becomes First Amendment Issue

The question is meaningful to Michael Elli of Missouri who did what most of us have done on the road - flashed his headlights to warn oncoming drivers of a cop waiting around the corner to catch motorists in a speed trap. In Ellisville, MO, he had no idea he was doing something "illegal."

The overcriminalization problem: Congressional Research Service can’t even list all federal crimes

image credit:
spaceyjessie/Flickr

Madison Ruppert

Have you ever thought about the number of acts which the federal government has defined as criminal? Even if you have, the number is probably larger than you think.

The federal government’s approach to criminalizing just about everything reminds me of how that same entity contends that just about everything is an indicator of potential terrorist activity. Similarly, public schools have turned typical childhood behavior into a punishable offense.

The problem of overcriminalization has now spread beyond the unknown number of offenses outlined in the federal criminal code into your local school, homeland security agencies and more.

Criminal Enterprise Operations of the Police

Dave Hodges

After moving to the border state of Arizona, I learned quickly that it isn’t prudent to drive a car into Mexico because the Federal Police like to pull over “American-looking” tourists and shake them down for cash (yes, Virginia, the Mexican national police force does profile). 

The practice of Mexican police harassing traveling Americans for their cash is so prevalent, most insurance companies require a special rider on one’s insurance policy before covering a car trip into Mexico.

I used to think that this abuse of traveling Americans was just a “Federal Police” problem and could never happen here. However, as I opened both of my eyes and saw the big picture, I realized that American law enforcement was doing the same thing and that the American officers were much more efficient at theft by cop than are the Mexicans. While a Mexican Federal Policeman might shakedown a tourist for $50 in cash, the American officials are more adept at stealing houses, businesses and large amounts of cash even when the cash is not connected to a crime.

What Is RICO?

Evidence Points to Federal Court Undermining Lawsuit Against BP

Dees Illustration

Brandon Turbeville

In early June, I wrote an article entitled, “Lawsuit Claims BP and Court Colluded to Keep Monopoly on Oil Containment Tech,”[1] where I detailed many of the claims made by Ron Johnson who sued BP for antitrust and negligence in regards to the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill. Johnson’s initial claims against BP were concerning enough. However, during the course of Johnson’s lawsuit and appeals process, Johnson began experiencing what he describes as clear corruption of the higher courts and collusion between these institutions and BP.

The court affair began when Johnson sued BP for negligence and antitrust for refusing to at least attempt to use his technology, the SAK-J5 and the S.O.C.K., equipment which had been tested at Ohmsett with an oil containment and recovery success rate of 100%, even after other methods had proven inadequate and BP was relying on toxic Corexit to simply hide the oil from public view. During the course of his subsequent lawsuit and appeals, Johnson claims that he experienced numerous instances of collusion between BP and the courts such as the Clerk’s Offices’ refusal to enter default against BP even after Federal court rules clearly deemed that this judgment was to be entered, attempts by the court to accommodate BP at every conceivable opportunity, tampering with confidential documents, and the denial of suits that were never signed by judges, just to name a few.

I encourage the reader to access my previous article in order to understand the background of this case.
But if the allegations made by Johnson regarding the behavior of the courts were not serious enough as revealed one month ago, Johnson is making still more claims regarding BP and US court collusion.

California’s Public Guardians: Eager to Lock You Up and Steal Your Money

Ruth Hull

You've spent your life building up some assets and you think they are secure. Or you got an inheritance and you think it’s yours. Where there is money, there are vultures ready to steal it. Among the most dangerous vultures are Public Guardians and conservators, who are willing to lock you away to steal your money. Judges simply look the other way and give them carte blanche to do as they please with your life, your property and your future. With a stroke of the pen and the elimination of one dangerous government office, Jerry Brown could save the people of California, hundreds of millions of dollars and protect the state’s seniors, their heirs and their assets. 

In Orange County, California, we have had a changing of the guard. That’s because John Williams, the last Public Guardian and Peggy Buff, his second in command, lost their positions after they got caught ripping off Orange County residents. Since Peggy Buff was the District Attorney’s fiancée, seniors were powerless to protect themselves. Williams apparently thought his sole responsibility was to grab the assets of senior citizens to help with his department’s budget shortfall. When this was exposed, the public thought they could do better.

How the Declaration of Independence got Hijacked

Susan Boskey

This July 4th Americans celebrate their 237th Independence Day. The Declaration of Independence, signed during the midst of the American Revolution in 1776, was not just a statement of grievances against the British monarchy but also a declaration of freedom from it, citing unalienable rights of self-governance. I said un-alienable, not in-alienable rights. Most believe there is no real difference between the two words. But not so fast. When unalienable was replaced with inalienable it diminished the original intention of personal rights; among which are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The Declaration of Independence begins with the reason for the colonists’ separation from the Monarchy; a separation stated to be entitled by “the Laws of Nature and nature’s God.” (Capitalization and lack of capitalization is original.) It continues:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed , that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…

In spite of the fact at the time of the Declaration unalienable rights were considered to be for white men only, the word, unalienable, refers to rights inherent to all humans, no matter gender or race. I find it interesting how the word unalienable is rarely used anymore and that modern versions of the Declaration now use the word inalienable. Even President Obama uses the word inalienable. What’s up with that?