Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The Rule of Law is Dead

Ultra Liberal Colorado Demonstrates How the Rule of Law Is Dead In America

A shoplifter runs from Walmart after shoplifting a couple of belts. He is chased by police into a strangers home in Greenwood Village, (where else but liberal) Colorado. Police destroy the home and offer only 5,000 dollars. Two years later the City of Greenwood Village keeps delaying the homeowners lawsuit in he alleges unfair compensation. Americans now live in a state of martial law where Constitutional protections such as 5th Amendment property rights are no longer respected. This case in liberal Colorado demonstrates how the rule of law in America is dead…..

Please donate to offset the costs of The Common Sense Show





In San Francisco on Sunday October 1 – in the shadow of the California Supreme Court, Judicial Council and Commission on Judicial Performance – the launch party for Ex Parte was held. Pictures are included with this post.

Ex Parte is a new print and online source for legal news and opinion from Silicon Valley publisher Susan J. Bassi. Court watchdog and CJP reform advocate Joe Sweeney will lead the editorial staff.

The publication and website will specialize in investigative reporting on California family, civil and probate courts, and Child Protective Services (CPS).

At the San Francisco kick-off event, court and CPS victims, reporters, editors, attorneys, academics, and funders from throughout the state all met for the first time together, face-to-face. The Ex Parte concept germinated and was developed through social media.

The publisher, editors, and reporters at the start-up news organization assert that they will report on the Judicial Branch controversies and human interest stories often overlooked or ignored by existing legal publications, and the mainstream media.

Among other subjects, Ex Parte reporters will be assigned to investigate civil rights and federal law violations – including racketeering, honest services fraud, and misuse of federal funds – by state court judges, court administrators and employees, lawyers, and state and local CPS workers, according to the publisher.

For more information, visit the Ex Parte website at


Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio & President Trump Image YouTube

Arpaio states, “It’s not about me, it’s about our country. If they can get me, the guy with 55 years in law enforcement, where Holder and Obama started this 60 days after they took office, and here I am. I had 2 parking tickets in my life, served as the director of Mexico you name it. I’ve been everywhere and I’m sitting at a defense table. a defense table.  They already drove me out of office, Soros, and they’re still continuing going after me on this. I served my country 55 years and this is what I get for it?”

Don’t I know it!!! If you think you could never end up at a defense table for a noncriminal act…Think again!


Arpaio gives his first interview since Trump foreshadowed his pardoning

Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio joins Alex Jones live via Skype to give exclusive details on his current court case, and show what it means to him to have the President of the United States at his back.

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,

Media Contacts:

Company Name: Darren Chaker
Full Name: Darren Chaker
Phone: 213-915-6804
Email Address:

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


Author reveals recipe for fixing federal courts without constitutional amendment


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 hell/#zGv1HGBRPDpaPMiH.99

Forcing the Innocent to Plead Guilty, an American Disgrace

Amaury Villalobos and William Vasquez reacted after their exonerations in a 1980 Brooklyn arson case. From left, Adele Bernhard, a lawyer, with Mr. Villalobos; Rita Dave, a lawyer, with Mr. Vasquez; and the widow of Raymond Mora, a third defendant who was cleared, Janet Mora, and their daughter, Eileen Mora. (photo: Pearl Gabel/NYT)

By John Kiriakou, Reader SupportedNews

19 April 16

 record 149 people had their criminal convictions overturned in 2015 after courts found they had been wrongly charged, according to a recent study. Nearly 4 in 10 of those exonerated had been convicted of murder, and the average newly-released prisoner had served more than 14 years in prison. Most of the exonerations came in only two states, Texas and New York. The National Registry of Exonerations, a project of the University of Michigan Law School, found that there have been 1,733 exonerations since 1989, with the total doubling since 2011. More than two-thirds of last year’s exonerees were minorities. Five had been sentenced to death.

There is a reason why most of the exonerations have come from two locales. District attorneys in Brooklyn, New York, and Harris County, Texas, have begun long-term reviews of questionable convictions, actions that are being watched by prosecutors and defense attorneys across the country. With 156 death row exonerations since 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, this is a problem that must be addressed.

The National Registry of Exonerations report stated further that 42 of those exonerated in 2015 had pleaded guilty, a glaring indication that the current system of seeking plea bargains simply isn’t just. Indeed, Propublica found that 98.2 percent of all federal cases end in conviction, with nearly all of those a result of plea deals.

Why would an innocent person take a plea? Really, there is no alternative. First, the government uses a technique called “charge stacking.” Have you committed an actual crime? Be prepared for multiple charges, including a lot of “throwaway charges,” like obstruction of justice or making a false statement. In addition, the government will likely levy multiple charges against you for the same crime.

The point is not necessarily to convict you on everything, although prosecutors are perfectly happy to do that. The point is that prosecutors will eventually offer you a deal. Take a plea to one count and the others will be dismissed. It’s a negotiating ploy. But for the accused, the question is this: Even if you are innocent, should you take a plea and do a couple of years in prison or should you try your luck at trial, knowing that almost no defendant wins in court? Almost everybody takes the deal.

After I blew the whistle on the CIA’s torture program, the Justice Department charged me with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. I had confirmed the name of a former CIA colleague to a reporter who wanted to interview him for a book. The name was never made public, but I shouldn’t have done it. Still, I had no criminal intent and there was no harm to the national security.

But that didn’t matter. The government added three espionage charges, as well as a charge of making a false statement. They threatened additional charges of making a false statement and obstruction of justice. Of course, I hadn’t committed espionage. Nor had I made any false statements. But that didn’t matter. Why risk a trial when you can just force a defendant to take a plea?

In the end, I took a plea to the initial charge. Everything else was dismissed. I was sentenced to 30 months in a federal prison. If I had gone to trial and had been found guilty, I was looking at 45 years. Realistically, I would have been sentenced to 18-24 years. Either way, I would have likely died in prison.

That happens every day in America. So it should be no surprise that innocent people are in prison as a result of pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit. The work of the Brooklyn and Harris County district attorneys should be lauded. But innocent men and women shouldn’t have to rely on the isolated prosecutor with a conscience for justice. Justice should mean justice.

John Kiriakou is an Associate Fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. He is a former CIA counterterrorism operations officer and former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

BREAKING: AJ Kern to Announce Primary Bid Against Rep. Emmer – Cites Endorsement Convention Fouls

UPDATE: A response from Chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota Keith Downey is posted at the end of the story:

Republican AJ Kern intends to announce a primary bid today against United States Representative Tom Emmer (R – Congressional District 6).  Kern and Emmer sought the party endorsement at the district’s convention in April.  Emmer achieved the required 60 percent of delegates by 11 votes (212-119) and won the endorsement on April 23rd.

Kern is claiming convention misconduct led to her decision to primary against Emmer.  Kern tells Alpha News the three reasons she thought the convention was mishandled include her campaign being kept out of the ballot room, a violation of “the rules for seating Delegates and Alternates,” and there never being “a motion and vote to endorse a candidate.”

Kern says the two campaigns were “provided different treatment during ballot counting,” explaining, “The Emmer campaign was provided observer(s) in the room while ballot counting occurred. The representative from the Kern campaign, Dr.John Kern, was physically blocked from entering the room during ballot counting.”

In regards to her contention with the seating of delegates and alternates, Kern says, “Sworn statements also indicate that after the permanent voting roll had been created, Alternates were wrongly unseated for late arriving Delegates in violation of the party constitution and convention rules.”

Continue Reading:

%d bloggers like this: