+menu-


  • Category Archives Gag Orders vs: Free Speech
  • 2016 Reestablishing Religious Freedom

      2016 Simply a Bill For Reestablishing 1785 Religious Freedom

    The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom began simply as Bill No. 82,

    “A Bill For Establishing Religious Freedom.”adopted in 1785.

    1785 We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief;

    1785 BUT THAT ALL MEN SHALL BE FREE TO PROFESS, AND BY ARGUMENT TO MAINTAIN, THEIR OPINIONS IN MATTERS OF RELIGION, AND THAT THE SAME SHALL IN NO WISE DIMINISH, ENLARGE, OR AFFECT THEIR CIVIL CAPACITIES.

    ————————————————————————–

     “A 2016 Bill For reestablishing 1785 religious freedom.”

    AH… BUT THAT ALL MEN SHALL BE FREE

    January 2013

    THE BAKERS SAID THEY REFUSED TO MAKE THE CAKE BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

    The Oregon bakery owners were forced to pay more than $135,000.00 in damages.

    The Oregonian reported the state has received (TAKEN) a total of $144,000 from the BAKERS

    1785 THAT TO COMPEL A MAN TO FURNISH CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONEY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF OPINIONS WHICH HE DISBELIEVES AND ABHORS, IS SINFUL AND TYRANNICAL

    ————————————————————————————

    THEN…. THE BAKERS WERE SLAPPED WITH A  GAG ORDER THAT PROHIBITED THEM FROM SPEAKING PUBLICLY ABOUT THEIR FAITH, IN A NATIONAL DEBATE OVER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?

    1785 … UNLESS HE PROFESS OR RENOUNCE THIS OR THAT RELIGIOUS OPINION, IS DEPRIVING HIM INJURIOUSLY OF THOSE PRIVILEGES AND ADVANTAGES TO WHICH, IN COMMON WITH HIS FELLOW CITIZENS, HE HAS A NATURAL RIGHT

    What led to his “cease and desist” order is the key to understanding why it’s accurately called A GAG ORDER THAT PREVENTS THE KLEINS FROM SPEAKING ABOUT THEIR FAITH and their intent to “stay strong” and fight this harassment by the Oregon state government.

    THE BAKERS WERE FINED $135,000.00 DOLLARS AND ALSO SLAPPED WITH A GAG ORDER THAT PROHIBITED THEM FROM SPEAKING PUBLICLY ABOUT THEIR REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN OR BAKE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.

    ———————————————————————————————

      2016 Simply a Bill For Reestablishing 1785 Religious Freedom

    AH… BUT THAT ALL MEN SHALL BE FREE

    Tyler Smith, an attorney representing the BAKERS, told The Oregonian that his clients have not abandoned their appeal of Avakian’s order.

    Bill No. 82 for Established Religious Freedom was adopted in 1785.

    1785  BUT THAT ALL MEN SHALL BE FREE TO PROFESS, AND BY ARGUMENT TO MAINTAIN, THEIR OPINIONS IN MATTERS OF RELIGION, AND THAT THE SAME SHALL IN NO WISE DIMINISH, ENLARGE, OR AFFECT THEIR CIVIL CAPACITIES.

    1785 THAT ALL ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE IT BY TEMPORAL PUNISHMENTS, OR BURTHENS, OR BY CIVIL INCAPACITATIONS, TEND ONLY TO BEGET HABITS OF HYPOCRISY AND MEANNESS,

    1785 WHICH AT ONCE DESTROYS ALL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, BECAUSE HE BEING OF COURSE JUDGE OF THAT TENDENCY WILL MAKE HIS OPINIONS THE RULE OF JUDGMENT, AND APPROVE OR CONDEMN THE SENTIMENTS OF OTHERS ONLY AS THEY SHALL SQUARE WITH OR DIFFER FROM HIS OWN;

    1785 THAT TO COMPEL A MAN TO FURNISH CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONEY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF OPINIONS WHICH HE DISBELIEVES AND ABHORS, IS SINFUL AND TYRANNICAL

    1785 UNLESS HE PROFESS OR RENOUNCE THIS OR THAT RELIGIOUS OPINION, IS DEPRIVING HIM INJURIOUSLY OF THOSE PRIVILEGES AND ADVANTAGES TO WHICH, IN COMMON WITH HIS FELLOW CITIZENS, HE HAS A NATURAL RIGHT;

     1785 THAT THE IMPIOUS PRESUMPTION OF LEGISLATORS AND RULERS, CIVIL AS WELL AS ECCLESIASTICAL, WHO, BEING THEMSELVES BUT FALLIBLE AND UNINSPIRED MEN, HAVE ASSUMED DOMINION OVER THE FAITH OF OTHERS, SETTING UP THEIR OWN OPINIONS AND MODES OF THINKING

    the bottom line in 1785

    And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law;

    YET WE ARE FREE TO DECLARE, AND DO DECLARE, THAT THE RIGHTS HEREBY ASSERTED ARE OF THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND, AND THAT IF ANY ACT SHALL BE HEREAFTER PASSED TO REPEAL THE PRESENT OR TO NARROW ITS OPERATION, SUCH ACT WILL BE AN INFRINGEMENT OF NATURAL RIGHT.

    ————————————————————————————–

    2016 We the people must DECLARE which side of history we are on.

    AH… BUT THAT ALL MEN SHALL BE FREE

     2016 Simply a Bill For Reestablishing 1785 Religious Freedom

    Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian awarded the damages nearly six months ago, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation.

    A 2007 OREGON LAW PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF GAYS, LESBIANS, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER PEOPLE IN EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS. THE STATE RULED IT ALSO BARS PRIVATE BUSINESSES FROM DISCRIMINATING AGAINST POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS.

    January 2013 when Bowman-Cryer came into the shop with her mother for a cake-tasting appointment. However, Aaron Klein told the women that the bakery didn’t do cakes for same-sex weddings. THE WOMEN FILED COMPLAINTS WITH THE STATE AND TRIGGERED A NATIONAL DEBATE OVER CLAIMS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AGAINST ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS.

    —————————————————————————————-

    Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will THAT FREE IT SHALL REMAIN by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint;

    1785 THAT ALL ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE IT BY TEMPORAL PUNISHMENTS, OR BURTHENS, OR BY CIVIL INCAPACITATIONS, TEND ONLY TO BEGET HABITS OF HYPOCRISY AND MEANNESS, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone;

    1785 THAT THE IMPIOUS PRESUMPTION OF LEGISLATORS AND RULERS, CIVIL AS WELL AS ECCLESIASTICAL, WHO, BEING THEMSELVES BUT FALLIBLE AND UNINSPIRED MEN, HAVE ASSUMED DOMINION OVER THE FAITH OF OTHERS, SETTING UP THEIR OWN OPINIONS AND MODES OF THINKING

    as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time:

    that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics

    that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, THOSE WHO WILL EXTERNALLY PROFESS AND CONFORM TO IT; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy,

    WHICH AT ONCE DESTROYS ALL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, BECAUSE HE BEING OF COURSE JUDGE OF THAT TENDENCY WILL MAKE HIS OPINIONS THE RULE OF JUDGMENT, AND APPROVE OR CONDEMN THE SENTIMENTS OF OTHERS ONLY AS THEY SHALL SQUARE WITH OR DIFFER FROM HIS OWN;

    that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

    We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

    1785 THAT TO COMPEL A MAN TO FURNISH CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONEY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF OPINIONS WHICH HE DISBELIEVES AND ABHORS, IS SINFUL AND TYRANNICAL

    the bottom line in 1785

    And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law;

    YET WE ARE FREE TO DECLARE, AND DO DECLARE, THAT THE RIGHTS HEREBY ASSERTED ARE OF THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND, AND THAT IF ANY ACT SHALL BE HEREAFTER PASSED TO REPEAL THE PRESENT OR TO NARROW ITS OPERATION, SUCH ACT WILL BE AN INFRINGEMENT OF NATURAL RIGHT.

     2016 Simply a Bill For Reestablishing 1785 Religious Freedom

    We the people must DECLARE which side of history we are on.

    AH… BUT THAT ALL MEN SHALL BE FREE


  • The “Magic” Immigration Act

    The Magic Immigration Disappearing ACT?

    NOW YOU SEE THEM? NOW YOU DON’T?

    57,000 ILLEGAL’S?

    Feds Announce SURPRISE PLAN To End Use Of Military Facilities For Immigrant Children

    The NEW Magic Immigration Disappearing ACT?

    About 57,000 minors, mostly from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, crossed into the U.S. since October. MORE THAN 30,000 HAVE BEEN RELEASED TO SPONSORS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING 211 IN WASHINGTON STATE.

    Indeed, THIS IS NOT  ” A MAGIC DISAPPEARING ACT “

    IT IS “THE NEW IMMIGRATION CATCH AND RELEASE ILLEGAL ALIENS ACTION PROGRAM”

    MAGIC by definition: conjuring tricks and illusions that make apparently impossible things seem to happen, a supposed supernatural power that makes impossible things happen

    ACT by definition; behavior that is intended to impress or deceive other people,  somebody’s actions or behavior considered as entertainment or used as an assessment of that person’s worth

    The disappearance of 57,000 ILLEGALS is definitely an ACT!

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    NOW YOU SEE THEM, 57,000 ILLEGAL’S? NOW YOU DON’T?

    MORE THAN 30,000 illegal’s  released …. And? What happened to the other 27,000?

    They have definitely “NOT”  fallen off the American gravy train.

     IF THEY ARE IN THE U.S.A., THEY ARE ALL ON THE AMERICAN GRAVY TRAIN,  by definition: a position in which a person or group receives excessive and unjustified money or advantages …

    ——————————————————————————————————

    Have the 57,000 illegal’s, illegally  crossed US borders  and fallen into the arms of?

    The Immigration Dream Act?

    ——————————————————————————

    Illegal immigrants released to illegal immigrants?

    AS 57,000 illegal’s, are moving forward in the continuation, of the “GENERATIONAL” illegal immigration pattern,  on the path to citizenship created and promoted by?

    The Immigration Dream Act?

    “How’s come it’s gone from 1,200, now it’s down to 190 children at Fort Sill? Well the answer is, the children are being released. And they are being released to sponsors who are in the country themselves illegally,” Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) told Fox News. “It’s very difficult to understand who we are releasing these children to and certainly it’s impossible to do criminal background checks on people who are in this country illegally.”

    Who are these Illegal immigrants being released to? illegal immigrants?

    ———————————————————————————————–

    The Immigration Dream Act?

    DREAM by definition: something that somebody hopes, longs, or is ambitious for, usually something difficult to attain or far removed from present circumstances.

    ACT by definition; behavior that is intended to impress or deceive other people,  somebody’s actions or behavior considered as entertainment or used as an assessment of that person’s worth

    ———————————————————————————————

    The CREST Immigration Act?

    CREST by definition, McCain’s office just said that “it’s an acronym.” So just a catchy word. many acronyms attempt to relate to the subject of the bill, but some (like CREST) are just completely random.

    —————————————————————

    How about? The new immigrants CATCH AND RELEASE ACT? (NICRA)

    Don’t you just love the words to describe the 57,000 illegal immigrants?

    Children? (when it has been reported that 91% are TEENAGERS)

    Children Jul 22, 2014 – According to a new Pew Research report, in fiscal year 2013, 91% OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT “CHILDREN” APPREHENDED AT THE BORDER WERE TEENAGERS.

    Good Grief!  What is 91% of 57,000 that are illegal Teenage immigrants?

    51,870 TEENAGERS? How many documented their AGE? How many are males? From how many different countries? How many are GANG affiliated?

    ———————————————————————————

    The new Immigration CATCH AND RELEASE Disappearing ACT?

    The Immigration Dream Act?

    The CREST Immigration Act?

    ————————————————————————————-

    Host? Shelter? House? caring for?  detain?

    Indeed, it is not “A MAGIC DISAPPEARING  ACT”

    it is “THE NEW IMMIGRATION CATCH AND RELEASE ILLEGAL ALIENS ACTION PROGRAM”

    Feds Announce Surprise Plan To End Use Of Military Facilities For Immigrant Children … end it use of three military bases to HOUSE illegal immigrant children … “As a result, we expect the Ft. Sill facility to no longer be CARING FOR …

    Lewis-McChord will not HOST unaccompanied minors

    Mass. military bases no longer asked to SHELTER immigrant CHILDREN

    Our military bases are no place to house DETAINED CHILDREN,” said Rep. Martha Roby, an Alabama Republican who led the charge against HHS …

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    the bottom line

    Indeed, it is not “A MAGIC DISAPPEARING ACT”

    It is “THE NEW IMMIGRATION CATCH AND RELEASE ILLEGAL ALIENS ACTION PROGRAM”

    As 57,000 illegal’s, are moving forward in the continuation, of the “GENERATIONAL” illegal immigration pattern,  following the path to American citizenship, created and promoted by,

    The Immigration Dream Act?

    This is an American Nightmare.

     


  • VA Conspiracy to Defraud?

    923 18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

    House hears evidence VA cooked books on claims backlog

    May 9, 2014 – A whistleblower who worked at two Texas VA facilities claims he was “coached” on how to “cook the books” to conceal long wait times for …

    Investigators also are looking at allegations that 40,000 pieces of mail, much of it related to claims, has been shredded or hidden at VA benefits offices in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

    —————————————————————————-

    THIS IS THE LAW

    923 18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

    Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:

    TO CONSPIRE TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

    Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.

    The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.” Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The “defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute.” United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

    The word “defraud” in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff’d, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).

    Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants’ actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission’s reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

    The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant’s activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest”), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).

    ———————————————————————————————————————————

    THIS IS THE LAW

    18 U.S. Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact

    accessory after the fact Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

    Investigators also are looking at allegations that 40,000 pieces of mail, much of it related to claims, has been shredded or hidden at VA benefits offices in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

    Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    ARE THESE LAWS IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN JUSTICE?

    WHAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

    WHO IS IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS?

    ERIC HOLDER- FAST AND FURIOUS

    LOIS LERNER – IRS TARGETING

    WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

    ERIC HOLDER

    HOW MANY AMERICAN SCANDALS DO THESE LAWS  DEFINE?

    THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DISASTER

    BENGHAZI

    IRS TARGETING

    THE AFFORDABLE  HEALTH CARE ACT

    FAST AND FURIOUS

    WHAT IS AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT?

    —————————————————————————-

    House hears evidence VA cooked books on claims backlog

    Furthermore, the VA then “lost control” of the provisional ratings cases, which were pushed further to the back burner, where they were ignored. Some veterans might never have received final rating decisions if not for the IG investigation, according to Halliday.

    Miller showed internal VA emails from last year showing managers told employees that the method of dealing with the oldest cases might go against their professional values but that “there will be no negative consequences for you the employees.”

    The only negative effects would come from not meeting VA goals of reducing the backlog, according to excerpts from the emails.

    Investigators also are looking at allegations that 40,000 pieces of mail, much of it related to claims, has been shredded or hidden at VA benefits offices in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

    —————————————————————————————————————————–

    Report: $8.8 million in taxpayer-funded bonuses at seven accused VA facilities since 2011

    “If you look at recent VA preventable deaths, patient safety incidents and backlog increases, department senior executives who presided over negligence and mismanagement are more likely to have received a bonus or glowing performance review than any sort of punishment,” says a description of the bill on the website of the House Veteran Affairs Committee.

    —————————————————————————————-

    VA Cooking the Books….

    May 27, 2014 – “Cooking the books” at VA hospitals has exploded into public view since allegations arose that up to 40 patients may have died at the Phoenix …

    May 9, 2014 – A whistleblower who worked at two Texas VA facilities claims he was “coached” on how to “cook the books” to conceal long wait times for …

    18 U.S. Code 286 -Conspiracy to Defraud the Government

    www.law.cornell.edu › … Part 1>Chapter 15› Legal Information Institute

    Whoever enters into any agreement, combination, or conspiracy to defraud the United States, or any department or agency thereof, by obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or allowance of any false, fictitious or fraudulent claim, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    PENAL CODE

    TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON

    CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

    Sec. 19.01.  TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE.  (a)  A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.

    (b)  Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    Sec. 19.04.  MANSLAUGHTER.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

    (b)  An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.04 by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 307, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.05 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    Sec. 19.05.  CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

    (b)  An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.06 by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.07 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    ——————————————————————————————

    VA Gave Out Bonuses for Criminally Negligent Homicide

    May 19, 2014

    If reports are true, the VA is a hotbed of corruption which lets dozens or hundreds of veterans die waiting for help. It’s no less than criminally negligent homicide at the hands of self-serving bureaucrats.

    Two whistleblowers have said that many veterans were deliberately delayed or never seen at all. Veterans were kept on separate lists so DC wouldn’t find out about the delays. At risk were employee bonuses.

    The problems at Veterans Affairs might be systemic and they have been well-known for a long time. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden knew in 2008.

    How many, if any, veterans deaths are the result of criminally negligent homicide is unclear and will remain that way because the DOJ is refusing to investigate at this point, but don’t worry Barack Obama and Eric Shinseki are “mad as hell”.

    According to a report issued by the VA last year,  22 soldiers a day kill themselves. Could their lives have been saved with prompt intervention?

    After what our military men and women have sacrificed for us, we have thanked them by giving them horrendous healthcare services. Don’t worry, we will all soon suffer the same fate under Obamacare. Look to the veterans for your future healthcare and weep. Obamacare will provide bonuses to those who let Grandma die.

    In some VA hospitals, our military healthcare officials appear to be waiting for our veterans to die and all our leaders can do is say they are mad as hell?

    Did you know that the VA has been shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars in financial settlements because of negligence? The settlements amounted to $845 million in the last decade alone.

    An investigation by the Dayton Daily News found 167 cases since 2001 in which the VA delayed treatment, delays which resulted in voluntary and court-ordered claims totaling $36.4 million.

    At least 23 people have died because of delayed care according to the VA.

    Our transparent government pretended that Robert Petzel, undersecretary for health care at the VA, was forced to resign. As it happens, he was scheduled to retire. It was another lie to give the impression that they were being tough. Even if it were a forced resignation, and the poor man had to settle back and live off his fat government pension, how is that an appropriate response to potential cases of criminally negligent homicide?

    Agency head Eric Shinseki and Barack Obama are “mad as Hell” but the DOJ has announced they are not looking into any of the claims, they are monitoring.

    Government workers should NOT be getting bonuses.  The government is offering incentives for people to lie and cheat.

    The U.S. Government Accountability Office in December 2012 released a review of the Dayton VA Medical center as well as VA hospitals in Montana, California and Washington, D.C. It found errors by schedulers at every hospital.

    “During our site visits, staff at some clinics told us they change medical appointment desired dates to show clinic wait times within VHA’s performance goals,” the report says.

    Veterans Affairs officials warned the Obama-Biden transition team in the weeks after the 2008 presidential election that the department shouldn’t trust the wait times that its facilities were reporting.

    “This is not only a data integrity issue in which [Veterans Health Administration] reports unreliable performance data; it affects quality of care by delaying — and potentially denying — deserving veterans timely care,” the officials wrote.

    The briefing materials, obtained by The Washington Times through the Freedom of Information Act, make clear that the problems existed well before Mr. Obama took office, dating back at least to the Bush administration. But the materials raise questions about what actions the department took since 2009 to remedy the problems.

    An April 9 GAO report issued after a review of select VA centers across the country noted that approximately 2 million outpatient referrals were unresolved for more than 90 days in 2012.

    At one medical center, veterans waited 140 to 210 days. Four of 10 physical therapy referrals at another medical center took 108 to 152 days “with no apparent action taken to schedule an appointment for the veteran.”

    Ohio’s six VA medical centers had a combined 54 malpractice payouts related to deaths since 2001. The Dayton VA Medical Center had the most, though Cleveland’s two medical centers had 22 combined. One case settled in 2003 for $200,000 involved hospitals in both Dayton and Cleveland.

    The VA paid $91.2 million last year in financial settlements and awards in response to malpractice claims. A nationwide Cox Media Group investigation in November found that payouts peaked in 2012 and totaled $845 million over the past decade.

    U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said he expects the House this month to consider the VA Management Accountability Act, which would give Shinseki — who Boehner is not calling on to resign — authority to remove senior executives.

    “If you look at recent VA preventable deaths, patient safety incidents and backlog increases, department senior executives who presided over negligence and mismanagement are more likely to have received a bonus or glowing performance review than any sort of punishment,” says a description of the bill on the website of the House Veteran Affairs Committee.

    We give bonuses to the people who should be fired.

    ———————————————————————————

    keep reading if you are interested

    Defrauding the government

    18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

    The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense “[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

    The operative language is the so-called “defraud clause,” that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the “offense clause” in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

    Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of “defraud” provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:

    The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.

    Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:

    To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

    Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.

    The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.” Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The “defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute.” United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

    The word “defraud” in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff’d, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).

    Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants’ actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission’s reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

    The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant’s activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest”), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).

    In United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 (1991), the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and other offenses in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain loan commitments from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). The court held that the district court had properly instructed the jury that:

    the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud, with the objective either of defrauding the FHA or the VA of their lawful right to conduct their business and affairs free from deceit, fraud or misrepresentation, or of obtaining money and property from the FHA by means of false and fraudulent representations and promises which the defendant knew to be false.

    18 U.S. Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact

    accessory after the fact Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

    Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section3571 fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

     


  • A Gag Order on Paul Revere?

    A Gag Order on Paul Revere?

    Imagine IF THE BRITISH PATROL had been able to put a “GAG ORDER” on Paul Revere?

    IF THE BRITISH PATROL HAD  BEEN ABLE TO PREVENT

    PAUL REVERE FROM SPEAKING OR CRYING OUT?

    ——————————————————————————–

     July 29, 2014 THE MIDNIGHT RIDE OF PAUL REVERE

    COULD HAVE ENDED UP LIKE THIS…

    THE BRITISH PATROL

    STOPPED  PAUL IN BOSTON BEFORE HIS MIDNIGHT RIDE  

    THEY ASKED PAUL STUPID IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS  

    WHAT’S THE BIG RUSH?

    WHAT ARE YOU DOING GALLOPING AROUND THE COUNTRY SIDE  AT THIS TIME OF NIGHT?

    THEY DEMANDED HIS PAPERS

    WHERE ARE YOU GOING?

    WHERE DID YOU COME FROM?

    PAUL ANSWERED 17 QUESTIONS

    THEY DIDN’T LIKE HIS ANSWERS

    THEY JERKED PAUL OFF OF HIS HORSE

    THREW PAUL ON THE GROUND

    KICKED  PAUL  AROUND

    PUT SHACKLES ON HIM

    PUT A GAG IN PAUL’S MOUTH

    SHOT PAUL’S  HORSE

    THE BRITISH PATROL ARRESTED PAUL

    DETAINING PAUL FOR A REASONABLE? AMOUNT OF TIME

    THE BRITISH RELEASED HIM THE NEXT DAY.

    —————————————————————————————

    WANT MORE? READ MORE..

    JOHN STOSSEL “Is this America?”

    ———————————————————————————-

    THE REAL April 18, 1775  STORY OF PAUL REVERES RIDE

    http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/real.html

    IN 1774 AND THE SPRING OF 1775 PAUL REVERE was employed by the Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Massachusetts Committee of Safety AS AN EXPRESS RIDER TO CARRY NEWS, MESSAGES, and copies of resolutions as far away as New York and Philadelphia.

    On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates,

    Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local “SONS OF LIBERTY” committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row “by sea” across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching “by land” out Boston Neck.

    Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston).

    On the way to Lexington, REVERE “ALARMED” THE COUNTRY-SIDE, stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying,

     A SENTRY ASKED THAT HE NOT MAKE SO MUCH NOISE. “NOISE!” CRIED REVERE, “YOU’LL HAVE NOISE ENOUGH BEFORE LONG. The regulars are coming out!”

    After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott.

    SOON AFTER, ALL THREE WERE ARRESTED BY A BRITISH PATROL. Prescott escaped almost immediately, and Dawes soon after.

    REVERE WAS HELD FOR SOME TIME AND THEN RELEASED. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green.

    ———————————————————————-

     

    What WAS? and  is?  the intention of a   “GAG ORDER?”

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gag+Order

    A COURT ORDER DIRECTED TO ATTORNEYS AND WITNESSES not to discuss the case with the media—such order being felt necessary to assure the defendant of a fair trial. A COURT ORDER, DIRECTED TO THE MEDIA, NOT TO REPORT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF A CRIME OR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION prior to trial.

    Of the three methods that the Court found available to a judge when faced with a disruptive defendant—GAG AND SHACKLES, CITATION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT, AND PHYSICAL REMOVAL—

    The Court held that A GAG AND SHACKLES should be considered the option of last resort. According to the Court,

    Not only is it possible that THE SIGHT OF SHACKLES AND GAGS MIGHT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT on the jury’s feelings about the defendant,

    but the use of this technique IS ITSELF SOMETHING OF AN AFFRONT TO THE VERY DIGNITY AND DECORUM OF judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold.

    ——————————————————————————-

    July 29, 2014 FEDERAL “GAG ORDERS?”

    GAG? GAGGED? WITNESSES? THE MEDIA? AND ATTORNEYS?

    GAG- GAGGED by definition: Restraint of speech, A RESTRAINT ON FREE SPEECH

    Something put over the mouth, something such as a piece of cloth THAT IS FORCIBLY PUT over or into somebody’s mouth TO PREVENT THE PERSON FROM SPEAKING OR CRYING OUT.

    —————————————————————————–

    SPEAKING OF GAGGED – THE PROPOSED CREST ACT

    Senators John McCain (R-AZ), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), are the driving force behind a frightening bill that would criminalize citizens standing up for their communities!

    In fact, if the bill were a law during the Murrieta, California standoff when hundreds of citizens successfully protested against Obama’s Illegal Invasion into their town, everyone who protested could be facing stiff fines and federal jail time!

    Here’s what the so-called “CREST Act” has in store for citizens trying to protect their property, their families and their way of life:

    • Makes it a federal crime to tell someone where a Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or Health and Human Services (HHS), or Border Patrol bus carrying illegal aliens is spotted, coming from or headed.

    • Makes it a federal crime to prohibit a DHS, HHS, or Border Patrol bus from moving from point A to point B.

    ————————————————————————————————————–

    GAGS AND SHACKLES, AND PHYSICAL REMOVAL

    July 29, 2014 THE SIGHT OF SHACKLES AND GAGS MIGHT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT?

    July 29, 2014 THE SIGHT OF AND THE USE OF, ARMED MILITIA, BORDER GUARDS, TAZERS, SHACKLES, HANDCUFFS, DETENTION, ARREST, PHYSICAL ABUSE AND ABUSE OF POWER, MIGHT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT?

    JOHN STOSSEL “Is this America?”

    July 29, 2014  THE USE OF THIS TECHNIQUE IS ITSELF SOMETHING OF AN AFFRONT TO THE VERY DIGNITY AND DECORUM OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    July 29, 2014 UNCONSTITUTIONAL? ILLEGAL? UNHEALTHY? OR IN VIOLATION OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC POLICIES?

     

    ————————————————————————————

    WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWS”

    SO? Because a lot of REALLY NASTY GOVERNMENT CRAP was going on behind our backs and behind closed doors… The “ WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWS” were created
    The underlying purpose of whistleblower protection laws is to allow employees to stop, report, or testify about employer ACTIONS THAT ARE ILLEGAL, UNHEALTHY, OR VIOLATE SPECIFIC PUBLIC POLICIES.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gag+Order

    Of the three methods that the Court found available to a judge when faced with a disruptive defendant—GAG AND SHACKLES, CITATION FOR CONTEMPT, AND PHYSICAL REMOVAL—

    The Court held that A GAG AND SHACKLES should be considered the option of last resort. According to the Court,

    Not only is it possible that THE SIGHT OF SHACKLES AND GAGS MIGHT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT on the jury’s feelings about the defendant,

    but the use of this technique IS ITSELF SOMETHING OF AN AFFRONT TO THE VERY DIGNITY AND DECORUM OF judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold.

     A court order TO GAG OR BIND AN UNRULY defendant OR REMOVE HER OR HIM FROM the courtroom

     IN ORDER TO PREVENT FURTHER INTERRUPTIONS in a trial. In a trial with a great deal of notoriety, a court order directed to attorneys and witnesses not to discuss the case with the media—such order being felt necessary to assure the defendant of a fair trial. A COURT ORDER, DIRECTED TO THE MEDIA, NOT TO REPORT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF A CRIME OR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION prior to trial.

    [A] defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, after he has been warned by the judge that HE WILL BE REMOVED IF HE CONTINUES HIS DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR, HE NEVERTHELESS INSISTS ON CONDUCTING HIMSELF IN A MANNER SO DISORDERLY, DISRUPTIVE, AND DISRESPECTFUL of the court that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom. Once lost, the right to be present can, of course, be reclaimed as soon as the defendant is willing to conduct himself consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings.

     

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gag+Order