Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

THE ENEMIES WITHIN

 

home-page2

 

“The Enemies Within” profiles Twenty Senators and more than Hundred Representatives.

Their ties to Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, Workers World Party, the Institute for Policy Studies,Council for a Livable World and other radical anti-American organizations.

 

 

If you would like to order by mail
please mail checks made out to “Exposing the Enemies Within” to:

Exposing the Enemies Within
409 Washington St, Suite A
Cedar Falls, IA 50613

*Please include shipping in payment

Click here to Download Order Form

CLICK TO VIEW TREVOR LOUDON’S  WEBSITE


Trevor Loudon, Alan Duff, Retired Army Major and author of Fixing America’s Shattered Politics, and Larry Frost, Retired Army Intelligence turned lawyer spoke in St. Cloud, MN on May 24th.

Click to zoom↓

Listen to KNSI radio interviews below.

Trevor Loudon talks about “The Enemies Within” on Ox in the Afternoon Segment 1

MAY 24, 2017 4:31 PM

Trevor Loudon Segment 2

Landmark SCOTUS Ruling

Victory! Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Steal Money From The Innocent

By Jack Burns

Colorado, like most states, forces convicted criminals to pay court costs, fees, and restitution after they’ve been found guilty. But the question arises, “What happens when someone who’s been found guilty, has paid their dues, and then has their convictions overturned on appeal? Do they get their money back?” Not in many states, like Colorado. But all of that has changed after a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The state not stealing money from innocent people sounds like common sense, right? Well, unfortunately, in the land of the free, it was necessary for SCOTUS to step in and tell the greedy state that they do not have a right to steal people’s money.

According to Forbes,

defendants, Shannon Nelson and Louis Madden, were convicted for sexual offenses and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in court costs, fees and restitution. Between her conviction and later acquittal, the state withheld $702 from Nelson’s inmate account, while Madden paid Colorado $1,977 after his conviction. When their convictions were overturned, Nelson and Madden demanded their money back.

Colorado refused, even after the plaintiffs won in a state-level appellate court. The state, instead, insisted that if they wanted their money back, they’d have to file a claim under the Exoneration Act, forcing the defendants to once again prove their innocence to retrieve their funds. The plaintiffs appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, who sided with the citizens in a 7-1 ruling, declaring Colorado’s law unconstitutional.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion for the court declaring “the Exoneration Act’s scheme does not comport with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.”

Ginsburg wrote that Nelson and Madden are “entitled to be presumed innocent” and “should not be saddled with any proof burden” to reclaim what is already theirs. In other words, they shouldn’t have to demonstrate they’re not criminals after the court has already made such a determination. According to Forbes:

Ginsburg forcefully rejected Colorado’s argument that “[t]he presumption of innocence applies only at criminal trials,” and not to civil claims, as under the Exoneration Act:  “Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions.”

The decision, on its surface, may not seem like much but holds promise for putting an end to the much criticized practice of local law enforcement agencies around the country who engage in civil asset forfeiture.

The Free Thought Project has worked diligently to highlight such fiscally abusive practices taking place all around the country. Take for instance rapper Blac Youngsta’s recent run-in with the law back in January.

He was detained by Atlanta police withdrawing $200,000 cash from his bank account. He’d planned to take the money and buy his favorite sports car but police were notified and Youngsta was detained as being a possible bank robbery suspect.

Youngsta and his entourage were apprehended while police pointed their weapons at them. The so-called authorities then put everyone in handcuffs, confiscated their personal weapons, and took half of the rapper’s $200,000 withdrawal saying he could get it back after it was processed as evidence at police headquarters.

In essence, the police seized his money and forced the rapper to reclaim his own funds after proving he was entitled to it. They robbed him. The police shakedown made international news and smacked in the face of common sense, as many were left scratching their heads and asking how police could get away with doing what common street thugs often do, take other people’s money.

Matt Agorist with TFTP reported, from 1998 to 2010, more than 12 billion dollars was raked in from law enforcement at all levels of government. This translated into the government taking away 600 million more dollars than all the robberies and thefts during that same period, making authorities seem more crooked than the individuals they’re trying to arrest.

And the practice isn’t limited to local law enforcement either. As we previously reported, the “DEA seized more than $4 billion in cash from people since 2007, but $3.2 billion of the seizures were never connected to any criminal charges. That figure does not even include the seizure of cars and electronics.”

The Inspector General of the Justice Department concluded their practices constituted a threat to everyone’s civil liberties, and now, apparently, the SCOTUS agrees. Everyone is entitled to due process under the law and are likewise entitled to keeping their assets once they’re found not guilty in criminal court. It’s a good day to be an American. Maybe now law enforcement at all levels will stop such controversial practices.

Jack Burns is an educator, journalist, investigative reporter, and advocate of natural medicine. This article first appeared here at TheFreeThoughtProject.com.

Censorship

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without fear or interference. Well, ALMOST everyone.

Probation Conditions in State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Elise Evavold- Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

“You will not reference any of the XXXXXXXX-XXXXX family on any social media.”

I previously posted a press release on Darren Chaker, who reversed his conviction in federal court on First Amendment grounds. A Good Day For The First Amendment.

After corresponding with Mr. Chaker regarding my own First Amendment violations as well as numerous other violations in my case, I was enlightened further about our inherent rights.  See Below

“Rights might be inherent, but ideas need to be taught.” Maida Buckley, retired classroom teacher in Fairbanks, Alaska

Image courtesy of Pixabay

Focusing on the First Amendment issue,  I see a few flaws in Condition 2 preventing referencing to specific people in social media:  Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

What if you want to criticize the police/DA, the judicial process, etc but cannot even reference to your case since it makes reference to the names of the people you cannot make reference to? Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government because criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1217, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23728, *1, 33 Media L. Rep. 2569 (9th Cir. Cal. 2005)​ Yes that is my first First Amendment case where I overruled the California Supreme Court. See also, https://www.scribd.com/document/3698825/Press-Release-CAL-SUPREME-COURT-Reversed-by-Chaker-v-Crogan

Additionally, you have a First Amendment right to re-distribute information contained in a public record.

     Preventing Blogging is Not a Governmental Interest.

For government to regulate speech, it must be “integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. Meredith, 685 F.3d 814, 819, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13012, 7, 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,421, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5157 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012) Typically, restriction of speech concerns a gang member not associating with other gang member; a child pornographer being monitored or restricted from the internet, defendant not speaking to victims, etc. The only nontypical First Amendment challenge relates to a defendant speaking or writing about the unconstitutionality of tax laws and was reversed, but prohibiting advocating tax evasion was affirmed. Speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. The burden is on the government to show that a defendant’s website is within one of the narrow categories of unprotected speech. United States v. Carmichael, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1270, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 1 (M.D. Ala. 2004) The Government would in its burden as it did not prove the speech at issue would be outside the scope of the First Amendment.

Suppressing speech rarely is justified by an interest in deterring criminal conduct, and in any event the justification “must be ‘far stronger than mere speculation about serious harms”’ and supported by “empirical evidence” Barnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S 514, 530-32, 121 S.Ct 1753, 1763-64, 149 L Ed 2d 787 (2001) (citing U.S v. Treasury Employees, 513 U S 454, 475 (1995))  

Protecting Reputation is Not a Government Interest.

If the Government were to say, ‘the families have been through enough and do not want to cause embarrassment or harm to there reputation’ – such would not be a proper Governmental interest. Specifically, protecting ones reputation is not a governmental function unless it violates criminal law.  United v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. (Stolen Valor Act held unconstitutional) “At issue here is the First Amendment exception that allows the government to regulate speech that is integral to criminal conduct. . . .” Id. at 819-20. United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 946, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377, 17-20, 2014 WL 2498131 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014)

Further, you have the right to attack people if you believe such behavior was unethical. See Wait v. Beck’s N. Am., Inc., 241 F. Supp. 2d 172, 183 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (“[A s]tatement[] that someone has acted . . . unethically generally [is] constitutionally protected statements of opinion.”); Biro, 883 F. Supp. 2d at 463 (“[T]he use of the terms ‘shyster,’ ‘conman,’ and finding an ‘easy mark’ is the type of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ and ‘imaginative expression’ that is typically understood as a statement of opinion.” (quoting Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20)).

 Loss of Privacy Due to High Profile Case.

Also, due to all of the publicity in the case, it is likely the names you cannot blog about are deemed public figures. Public figures are entitled to less protection against defamation and invasion of privacy than are private figures with respect to the publication of false information about them. Carafano v. Metrosplash, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1059, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10614, 1, 30 Media L. Rep. 1577 (C.D. Cal. 2002)

         

Purpose of Probation is to Rehabilitate and Prevent Future Criminal Conduct, Blogging is Neither.

Consideration of three factors is required to determine whether a reasonable relationship exists: (1) the purposes sought to be served by probation; (2) the extent to which constitutional rights enjoyed by law-abiding citizens should be accorded to probationers; and (3) the legitimate needs of law enforcement. (Citation omitted.) United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 1977). United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18287, 11 (9th Cir. Wash. 1981) See also, United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The conditions imposed run afoul of the supervised release statute because there is no reasonable relationship between them and either deterrence, public protection or rehabilitation.”)


“The Minnesota legislature delegated the authority to prosecute criminal matters to the county attorney, who was elected by the voters of that county.”

But, according to the Minnesota Attorney General’s website, the office does sometimes get involved in criminal matters:

The Dahlens have pled guilty in an associated case for their role xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx, while another defendant, Dede Evavold, was found guilty as well. Inexplicably, Judge Karen Asphaug presided over all four cases.

A message left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office concerning the current legal situation was left unreturned. An email to Laura Flanders was also left unreturned and an email left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office was also left unreturned. The current Minnesota Attorney General is Democrat Lori Swanson, and she has held that position since 2007.


Excerpts from The “Justice” blog authored by an anonymous group of concerned citizens.
The Attorney General’s Office has been receiving documentation concerning the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX case for over 5 years and has refused to investigate or take any action in the face of serious allegations, and evidence, showing corruption in local government and law enforcement. However, when opposing President Trump’s immigrant order, Lori Swanson said “It does not pass constitutional muster, is inconsistent with our history as a nation, and undermines our national security.” The same can be said for Dakota County; yet instead of taking a public stance on a very real concern that affects not only the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX family but the entire state of Minnesota, and possibly tens of thousands of families victimized by an out of control court system, Swanson remains silent. Now is a time for leadership, not silence.

Another article written by Michael Volpe on indicates that other MN citizens have encountered the same type of cover-up by the MN Attorney General’s Office.
Excerpts Below:
The tact does not surprise John Hentges, another parent battling court officials on behalf of his children and suffering from disingenuous actions by the court, who told CDN that rather than representing the people of Minnesota the office covers up and represents the corrupt public officials.

“I reported the corruption to her (Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General) and to the governor and to the Minnesota Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.” Hentges.

Hentges said he spent time in jail for failure to pay child support for a bill which had already been paid in another state and his trials in the Minnesota Justice System opened his eyes.

“I found several other things they were doing in the criminal justice system.” Hentges said. “I firmly believe that nearly every single case in the 1st Judicial District is fixed in one way or another.”

 

Fortune 500 Companies Driving Independent Media Out of Business

The Alt Media Will Be Extinct in 3-6 Months Unless the People Rise UP

CSS-Offical-New-Logo2

If it were not for the Independent Media, Hillary Clinton would be President and the tyranny would have instantly come to the surface.

The global elite are trying to make sure that the people never have a voice again.  The Independent Media is 3-6 months away from going extinct unless the people rise up, once again like they did to vote for Trump, and stop the globalists in their tracks.

Here is a summary of the challenges, the dangers and what must be done to protect the only source of truth on the planet.

Please donate to the research efforts of The Common Sense Show

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL AND DON’T FORGET TO “LIKE” US

 

A Good Day For The First Amendment

Jailed Blogger Darren Chaker Wins First Amendment Case

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – 12/27/2016 (PRESS RELEASE JET) — A California Blogger , Darren Chaker , recently reversed his conviction in federal court on First Amendment grounds where he said “Ms. Leesa Fazal, an investigator with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office, was “forced out” of her previous post with the Las Vegas Police Department.”  See Cato Institute article. Supporters included Cato InstituteACLU of San DiegoElectronic Frontier FoundationFirst Amendment Coalition, and Brechner First Amendment Project at University of Florida. ?

After spending months in jail, Mr. Chaker imprisonment was found unjust. The Ninth Circuit, Case. No. 15-50138/ No. 15-50193, found, see opinion “Chaker’s blog post, which claimed that former police investigator Leesa Fazal “was forced out of the Las Vegas Metro Police Department,” does not qualify as harassment.” The court continued to state in relevant part, “The government also failed to prove that Chaker’s blog post satisfied the elements of defamation, including falsity and actual malice. See N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 279–80 (1964).”

In this instance Nevada Attorney General Investigator Leesa Fazal of Las Vegas made multiple reports about the blog to her own agency, Las Vegas Metro Police Department, and FBI. None of them took any action to file charges.  Until she contacted Mr. Chaker’s probation officer alleging defamation, which people are typically sued for in civil court. Mr. Chaker was on probation for a white collar crime.

The Human Rights Defense Center published an article saying in part, “The First Amendment protects the right of everyone to use the Internet to criticize government officials – including people on supervised release from prison,” noted Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Adam Schwartz.

As reported by the Cato Institute in a post appeal article, “Chaker notes on his personal blog that he is “only one of 4,708,100 people are on probation or parole.” Millions of individuals’ political speech could have been swept up under the precedent set by the lower court’s outrageous decision…. The decision in Chaker v. United States is thus a victory for First Amendment advocates and political activists everywhere. It protects the rights of even the most downtrodden and implicitly applies the correct defamation standard to political speech aimed at public officials.”

During oral argument on June 10, 2016, it was conceded the speech was non-criminal. The Ninth Circuits YouTube Channel, shows oral argument where the former chief judge did not appear happy about restricting non-criminal speech:

23:16 Judge Kozinski to AUSA – “You managed to bamboozle…I mean the United States, managed to fool the district judge imposing the condition…”;

26:31 Judge Kozinski, “It’s okay for the district court to say obey all laws…but this is not at all limited to criminal conduct…this is conduct that is not illegal…agree this is conduct that is not illegal?”, reluctantly Government attorney said “agreed that the condition reached conduct that is not illegal.”

Jailing a blogger for non-criminal speech for criticizing government is precisely what sets America apart from oppressive regimes who seek to control the media and thoughts of those who govern its population. In this instance, the government lost, but sets a dangerous precedent of how resources can be used to silence critics.

Additional information may be found at, http://darrenchaker.com/darren-chaker-wins-appeal/

Media Contacts:

Company Name: Darren Chaker
Full Name: Darren Chaker
Phone: 213-915-6804
Email Address: darrenchaker@gmail.com
Website: http://darrenchaker.com/

Selective Enforcement of Law

Image result for urbandictionary 

Slumlord:  An owner of slum property, especially one that overcharges tenants and allows the property to deteriorate.

“Yo, my slum lord T to the J Smitty painted over the mold on my walls to fix it … At least he picked a nice color.”

It is not uncommon for slumlords to buy property with little or no down payment, and also to receive rent in cash to avoid disclosing it for tax purposes, providing lucrative short term income. (Thus, in the U.S., slumlords would normally not participate in government-subsidized programs such as Section 8, due to the requirements to report income and keep properties well-maintained.) A slumlord may also hope that his property will eventually be purchased by government for more than it is worth as a part of urban renewal. Wikipedia

Judge Vicki Landwehr

MAXIMIZING PROFITS BY MINIMIZING SPENDING

Judge’s St. Cloud properties, including one with meth lab, are called a blight  ‘High levels of criminal activity’ cited at some of the rent-to-own houses

By John Reinan Star Tribune    November 26, 2016

As a district judge, Vicki Landwehr spends her days meting out justice. But as the co-owner of nearly 20 residential properties in the St. Cloud area, it’s Landwehr who’s on the receiving end of public scrutiny — and legal action.

Several of the properties she and her husband, Don, own have been identified by neighbors and St. Cloud city officials as blights on neighborhoods. Earlier this week, police raided one house and found a meth lab — the latest in a series of troubling incidents that have angered residents and prompted city officials to investigate.

City officials have met twice with residents to discuss the problems. The most recent meeting, held last week, drew about 100 attendees. The city is so concerned about the issue that it is now taking administrative action against the couple for renting the houses without a license. Continue Reading: http://www.startribune.com/judge-s-distressed-properties-a-blight-on-st-cloud-neighborhoods/403063086/

The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards

Judicial board dismisses Landwehr complaint

“I’m obviously happy that the complaint was dismissed. It’s somewhat stressful to have a complaint filed against you,” Landwehr said Friday. “I obviously had indicated from the outset that I always made every effort to make the disclosures that I thought were required. … That’s important to me.”  (Interestingly, Landwehr was appointed to the Judicial Standards Board by Governor Pawlenty in 2008 and was a judge member through 2016. BOARD ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS). 

Read More: http://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/2016/12/23/judicial-board-dismisses-landwehr-complaint/95745742/

Below is another complaint Judge Landwehr was obviously happy that was dismissed. 

Landwehr Complaint


City dismisses Landwehr contract-for-deed violations

“Don Landwehr said he feels the city was not looking to punish him and his wife, but gain compliance at the contract-for-deed properties.”

Read More:http://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/2017/03/20/city-dismisses-landwehr-contract–deed-violations/99406260/


Here’s an opportunity to meet Judge Landwehr and learn more about the local injustice system in St. Cloud.

Stearns County Open Courthouse Flyer

2017 Stearns County Open Courthouse Event

The public is invited to celebrate Law Day at the Stearns County “Open Courthouse” event on April 28.

On Friday, April 28, the Stearns County Courthouse in St. Cloud will open its doors to the public as part of a Law Day “Open Courthouse” event. The event is being held to showcase the work of Minnesota’s courts, and educate the public about the work of judges, attorneys, law enforcement, and citizens in administering the state’s justice system. The free, open-to-the public event, will run from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

The Open Courthouse event will feature numerous activities, including:

  • A special welcome ceremony hosted by Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea and Seventh Judicial District Chief Judge John H. Scherer.
  • An opportunity to meet local district court judges and justice system partners.
  • Guided “behind-the-scenes” tours of the Stearns County courthouse, with presentations by judges and Stearns County justice partners.
  • An information fair with representatives from numerous law- and justice-related organizations.
  • Information on free and low-cost legal services available to the public.
  • Presentations and displays focusing on the history of Stearns County and the Stearns County Courthouse.

The Open Courthouse event is scheduled to coincide with Law Day, a national day set aside to celebrate the rule of law. Law Day underscores how law and the legal process have contributed to the freedoms that all Americans share. Law Day was first established in 1958 through a proclamation by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Congress passed a joint resolution designating May 1 as Law Day, U.S.A in 1961.

“The justice system truly belongs to the people, and serves to keep our communities safe, fairly resolve disputes, and preserve the rule of law,” said Chief Judge Scherer. “As our nation pauses to celebrate Law Day, we wanted to give the citizens of Stearns County an opportunity to learn more about their local justice system, meet the people that work in our courthouse, and find out about the legal services available to them in the community. We will even share many of the colorful and interesting stories that have shaped the history of our near century-old courthouse.”

The Law Day Open Courthouse event is being hosted by Minnesota’s Seventh Judicial District in partnership with Stearns County and local justice system partners.

‘It’s time to tell the judiciary to go to hell’

WND EXCLUSIVE

Author reveals recipe for fixing federal courts without constitutional amendment

SupremeCourt2

Are you a conservative worried about losing the federal courts if Hillary Clinton is elected president?

Don’t waste your tears at this point, says Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz, the courts are already gone.

“This is like a wind-up toy: every four years, Republicans dangle in front of us, ‘Hey, you gotta vote for us, otherwise we’ll lose the courts,’” Horowitz said during a recent appearance on The Tom Roten Morning Show.

“I’m here to tell you we’ve lost the courts. They’re gone, gone, gone. We do need a Republican Congress and administration, but for the purposes of stripping the courts of that power, giving it back to Congress and the state legislatures.”

Horowitz pointed out things have gotten so bad conservatives couldn’t even get a simple voter ID law past the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, regarded as one of the least liberal circuits. Ten of the 15 judges on the Fifth Circuit were appointed by Republican presidents.

However, only four of the 13 circuit courts in the country currently have a majority of Republican appointees sitting on the bench.

Many conservatives believe all they need to do is elect a Republican president who will appoint conservative judges to the federal courts, but Horowitz noted it would take many consecutive years of Republican presidents hitting the mark on their judicial appointments to finally turn the courts in a more conservative direction.

By that point, it may be too late. Horowitz noted the courts have been moving quickly in recent years: they have mandated states fund Planned Parenthood, mangled state religious liberty laws, made transgender people a protected class, forced states to give birth certificates to illegal aliens and tossed out basic voter integrity law

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/its-time-to-tell-the-judiciary-to-go-to hell/#zGv1HGBRPDpaPMiH.99

%d bloggers like this: