Showing posts with label United States district court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States district court. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Writ Quo Warranto; Judges Beware?

The Line in the Sand - Breaking News November 10, 2014 Unified Common Law Grand Jury in every State files writ_quo_warranto.pdf in every Federal District Court, United States Supreme Court and served upon every Federal Judge and all 9 US Supreme Court Justices. Information in the nature of a quo warranto. A proceeding against the usurper of a franchise or office. Jarman v. Mason, 102 Okl. 278, 229 P. 459, 460.; An extraordinary proceeding, prerogative in nature, addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., N.Y., 53 S.Ct. 721, 289 U.S. 479, 77 L.Ed. 1331. watch the Video.

The above video and information come from the National Liberty Alliance.  The pdf is available above as it is live linked here and it is covered in full detail in the above video.  Will this work?  Will judges just stop being thieves and sell outs?  Not likely.  There is way to much money and power in what they are doing now.  They are not going to give up that power and corruption without a fight.  

  What I will say is that I do like what these folks are doing and I have decided to join.  So I am a member of NLA and cover Gloucester, Virginia.  Now I have many hours of training to go through.  What kind of impact will all of this have?  Hope for the best, expect the worst.  It's the right stand no matter what.  Standing for the rights of the people is always the right decision.  I need two more people for Gloucester to have 4 people covering this county.  Each county should have 4 representatives.  I already have a second person.  May already have a third, but waiting on their answer.  Who will step up to be number four?

Please visit the NLA, National Liberty Alliance at the below link


Sunday, August 18, 2013

Federal District Court Judge Incapable Of Reading Simple Words - Free Bible Bonus

U.S. Supreme Court building.
U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Federal Court Says Pittsylvania County Violated Citizen’s Religious Liberty with Meeting-Opening Sectarian Prayers;

Danville, VAFederal District Court Judge Michael Urbanski today ruled that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors violated the First Amendment rights of ACLU of Virginia client Barbara Hudson by opening meetings with prayers that favored one set of religious beliefs over others.

“This ruling sends a clear message to localities that government officials may not impose their own religious beliefs on the entire community by leading sectarian prayers at public meetings,” said ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg.  “The Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled repeatedly that our right to religious liberty precludes the government from expressing favor for one set of beliefs over others.  It is, indeed, unfortunate that, given the clarity of the law, Pittsylvania County  officials would choose  to waste time and tax payer dollars in an unnecessary lawsuit, rather than simply conform their behavior to well-settled law,” Glenberg added.

“Despite the clarity of the law, we continue to receive too many complaints that public officials in cities and counties across the Commonwealth are engaging in government-sponsored sectarian prayers at public meetings,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Claire GastaƱaga.  “Local governments across the Commonwealth should take note of this decision and the thousands of tax payer dollars that will be spent paying our legal fees.  Legislative bodies may open their meetings with prayers if those prayers do not refer to particular religious beliefs or prefer some beliefs over others. Such a policy can, however, be very difficult to implement legally in practice.  That’s why we encourage localities that want to have an invocation to consider having a moment of silence.  A moment of silence can still solemnize the meeting by providing a brief period of reflection, and lets everyone who is present, both believers and non-believers, use the moment as they choose,” advised GastaƱaga.

The controversy in Pittsylvania began in August 2011, when Ms. Hudson notified the ACLU that the Board of Supervisors began each meeting with a Christian prayer, delivered by Board members on a rotating basis.  The ACLU wrote a letter to the Board explaining that this practice violated the First Amendment under the clear precedents of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which state that government bodies must not engage in official sectarian prayers.

After the Board made clear that it would continue holding sectarian prayers, Ms. Hudson filed suit in federal court.  In February 2012, Judge Urbanski denied the County’s motion to dismiss the case, and granted a preliminary injunction to Hudson, forbidding the Board of Supervisors “from invoking the name of a specific deity associated with any one specific faith or belief in prayers given at Board meetings” while the lawsuit was pending.  Since the injunction was issued, the Board has been opening its meetings with silent prayer.

Judge Urbanski ordered the case to mediation in December 2012.  Following failed mediation efforts, Judge Urbanski issued his ruling on March 27, 2013.
In its opinion, the court enjoined the Board of Supervisors from repeatedly opening its meetings with prayers associated with any one religion, which practice has the unconstitutional ‘effect of affiliating the government with any one specific faith or belief.’
The court also noted that the decision did not “indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer.” Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Urbanksi wrote: “The founders of our nation, possessing faith in the power of prayer . . . led the fight for adoption of our Constitution and also for our Bill of Rights with the very  guarantees of religious freedom that forbid the sort of governmental activity which [the Board] has attempted here.”
Hudson was represented by Glenberg and by ACLU of Virginia cooperating attorney Frank M. Feibelman. The ACLU of Virginia will be seeking attorney’s fees and costs.
A copy of the District Court’s Memorandum Opinion can be found online at:

Our Notes:  How long are we going to continue to allow insane judges and insane attorneys to ignore very simple words from the 1st amendment of our Bill of Rights.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press.  All 3 go hand in hand.  You take away freedom of religion you are also taking away freedom of speech and freedom of the press all at the same time.  No exceptions.  If Federal District Court Judge Michael Urbanski can not read the simple text of the 1st amendment to the Bill of Rights, maybe he needs to be given a very long vacation and taught to read.

  Dictators need not hear bad cases.  Would these people prefer opening board meetings with prayer from the satanic bible?  This is a Christian Nation founded on Christian principles.  If the prayer is non denominational, in Christian faith, then it makes no difference.  Can the Christian Faith as the prefered faith of this nation be argued and won?  Without question, YES!  Are other faiths blacked out from prayer because of this?  No.  The argument is not sound from the ACLU nor from the judge.

It's time to fight back from the tyranny of stupidity and false arguments.   By the way, laws in violation of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not laws and do not have to be followed.  We recommend that Pittsylvania continue in it's practice ignoring anything the court has stated as the court itself is in violation of the Bill of Rights in our view.  Barbara Hudson can move to Russia for freedom from religion if that is what she seeks.

Free downloads are available on this bible from either our SlideShare account or 
Choose the free user option and download your free copy.  Send a copy to the judge, he needs some reading exercises while taking that needed vacation coming up.

The separation of church and state is so that one could not control the other, period.  It did not preclude prayer from one denomination over another.  It's like claiming that even though a Catholic priest said the opening prayer, the Catholic church now has complete control over the entire US Federal government.  It's hogwash.  If all board members at a Board of Supervisor's meeting proved to all be jewish and by consent of the public they were all voted in, then by consent, the jewish leaders at the board would have a fair argument to have jewish prayers open each meeting.  Consent of the governed.  One person does not make consent in totality, only in minority.  Let Pittsylvania wrest the case of consent and not some Federal District Court Judge dunderhead.  

  It's government by the people, for the people and of the people by consent of the people.  Not some dictatorship in some banana republic by the few for the few.  Oh by the way, congress opens it's meetings with prayers, anyone want to attack them?  I didn't think so.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Gloucester, VA - Friends Can Share your Facebook Profile With Government, Court Rules

Image representing Facebook as depicted in Cru...
Image via CrunchBase
Federal investigators viewed the Facebook profile of an alleged gangster in the Bronx by asking his informant “friend” to show it to them. A judge ruled this was not unconstitutional because Facebook users can’t control what other people do with the information they post.

federal judge has ruled that investigators can go through your Facebook profile if one of your friends gives them permission to do so. The decision, which is part of a New York City racketeering trial, comes as courts struggle to define privacy and civil liberties in the age of social media.

In an order issued on Friday, US District Judge William Pauley III ruled that accused gangster Melvin Colon can’t rely on the Fourth Amendment to suppress Facebook evidence that led to his indictment. Colon had argued that federal investigators violated his privacy by tapping into his profile through an informant who was one of this Facebook friends.

The informant’s Facebook friendship served to open an online window onto Colon’s alleged gangster life, revealing messages he posted about violent acts and threats to rival gang members. The government used this information to obtain a search warrant for the rest of Colon’s Facebook account. The Colon information is part of a larger investigation into crack-dealing and murder in the Bronx.

Judge Pauley III’s ruling is significant because it is the latest in a series of cases that defines how and when police can search social media.

CLICK HERE for the rest of the story.

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.

Enhanced by Zemanta