Monday, November 5, 2018

Happy National Adoption Month: TRUMP v. NAACP Petition For Certiorari To SCOTUS On Trafficking Tiny Humans - DACA, DAPA

Oh Baby.....come to Mommie...

It looks as if we are going to be celebrating National Adoption Month by fast tracking child welfare fraud to SCOTUS next year.

In a nutshell, Trump is suing NAACP about rescinding its DACA child immigration policy because the congress never passed a law for it.

Only the congress can legislate, yet, "Congress had repeatedly declined to enact legislation “closely resembl[ing] DACA and DAPA.” Id. at 185." p.11.

The Executive Branch makes policy, so they made DACA and DAPA, because congress would not make a law for it.

Making policy can and does include rescission.

But here is where it gets good.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This dispute concerns the policy of immigration enforcement discretion known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In 2016, this Court affirmed, by an equally divided Court, a decision of the Fifth Circuit holding that two related Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discretionary enforcement policies, including an expansion of the DACA policy, were likely unlawful and should be enjoined. See United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (per curiam). In September 2017, DHS determined that the original DACA policy was unlawful and would likely be struck down by the courts on the same grounds as the related policies. DHS thus instituted an orderly wind-down of the DACA policy. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable. 2. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

Now, check out the parties to the action.
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners are Donald J. Trump, President of the United States; Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States; Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and the United States. Respondents are the Trustees of Princeton University; Microsoft Corporation; Maria De La Cruz Perales Sanchez; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO; and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is really a case of those pesky child welfare trust funds.

The case is addressing The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.,

Basically, the INA is written under admirality law because it uses the language of chattels.

All you have to do is look at the nomenclature of the vessel, with crew, in commerce and see the structures of the chattels when addressing women, in the realms of a fashion model, or children, as property.

This is coded as Uniform Commercial Code because we are dealing with Trustees.
(14) The term ‘‘foreign state’’ includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.
Trustees are the admirals of the UCC vessels which are documented in their financial manifests as funds, in this case, of the children, as corporate parents.

Here is a snippet of the admirality terms contained within the definitions I have, with such great pleasure, provided, below:

(10)The term “crewman” means a person serving in any capacity on board a vessel or aircraft.
The term “diplomatic visa” means a nonimmigrant visa bearing that title and issued to a nonimmigrant in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe
(14)The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states
(15)The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens—(A)
(i)an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family;
(ii)upon a basis of reciprocity, other officials and employees who have been accredited by a foreign government recognized de jure by the United States, who are accepted by the Secretary of State, and the members of their immediate families; and
(iii)upon a basis of reciprocity, attendants, servants, personal employees, and members of their immediate families, of the officials and employees who have a nonimmigrant status under (i) and (ii) above;
(N)(i)the parent of an alien accorded the status of special immigrant under paragraph (27)(I)(i) (or under analogous authority under paragraph (27)(L)), but only if and while the alien is a child, or
(ii)child of such parent or of an alien accorded the status of a special immigrant under clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (27)(I) (or under analogous authority under paragraph (27)(L));

The U.S. even allows servants, per the Act.

(v) attendants, servants, and personal employees of any such representative, officer, or employee, and the members of the immediate families of such attendants, servants, and personal employees;

Yes, that is correct, I said servants, just like they were talking about when they wrote the Thirteenth Amendment 

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Now, whether that is involuntary or voluntary, it is not even considered in the original text of INA because if it was involuntary, then that servant may have casted into this very unpleasant station of servitude for the crime of being poor, or of something similar under chattel law.

But then again, the act does not address this, nor does it address servitude of children.

Just saying.

But guess what!

Congress, still, has not passed any law dealing with what I call the trafficking of tiny humans because it is the money maker, hence, the children's trust funds.

INA does not even address child marriage.

It does not even address someone being brought into the country for organ transfers.

But, I digress.

Back to the Trump v. NAACP.

So, I am just going to go bold and focus on Sessions, because this is his playground.

Sessions has had this issues, along with presenting legislation to address alien children.

No one listened to him, so I guess you can say he is the only person in the Congress to attempt to address Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment.

 Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That is history.

Back to the Petition for Certiorari.

Since Congress never did jack when it came to passing law about immigration, or even child immigration, trafficking tiny humans, they are both fungible terms under UCC law as chattels, DACA, along with Deferred Action for Parentsof Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents(DAPA). See Regents App. 102a-110a., Department of Homeland Security came up with the policy under the Obama Administration, which they are now rescinding because when these policies were put into place, the argument is, that it violated The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub.L. 79–404, 60 Stat. 237, which was written in 1946 during the reconstruction after WWII.

The U.S. does not have the greatest history when it comes to children of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) fleeing from violence seeking refuge on our shores because, typically, you are supposed to register them under the Mann Act.

Seriously.

Anyway, in a nutshell, it is being argued by NAACP et. al. that the rescission of DACA and DAPA is "arbitrary and capricious" because the agencies have no grounds to do it.

For those of you who do not know me, the term "arbitrary and capricious" triggers me into an episode of Post Traumatic Fraud Syndrome because that is the exact same language, and argument, used in the Michigan Cotton Doctrine.

In short, the case was done in Detroit where the Almighty Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelly, the most powerful AG in the nation, argued on behalf of the Michigan Children's Institute that the Superintendent can not be challenged on whether his decisions were right or wrong, but the adversarial party would have to prove the decision to withhold the gift of the grant of custodianship and guardianship to the original parents, or if the decision to withhold the grant of custodianship and transfer of guardianship was "arbitrary and capricious" , meaning, you had to prove you could read the mind of the Superintendent to find out if the decision was whimsical.

Talk about a cotton picking minute!

I am so glad Sessions is going after the NAACP because they were really mean to my Sweetie and they have a children's trust fund, that, obviously, the children of "The Poors" (always said with clinched  teeth) do not benefit, at all....not a damn dime.

Allow me a moment, for I am having another bout of Post Traumatic Fraud Syndrome when it comes to the NAACP.

Michigan Auditor General Sues For Adoption Records, Has No Clue About MCI Or The Trust Funds


Finally, I realized why the APA was circumvented in rulemaking. 

It was because they were going for UCC law, because these charitable children's trusts are structured under state law, but only enforceable under international law, which they rewrote, just like they did with DACA and DAPA, because trusteeship is considered a separate foreign state.


This petition of cert is addressing the residuals of the peculiar institution in what is called child welfare, or rather, the international trafficking of tiny humans.

(Domestic trafficking of tiny humans, called foster care and adoption through the many roads of the U.S. child welfare system should be in play very soon.)


Happy National Adoption Month!

Get 'em.

I got your back but I still do not like Noel Fransico because there is not one single reference to adoption, child welfare law or anything dealing with the trust funds.



This is going to get nasty.

Buckle up because #cyberwars are real.

The psyops are coming, and they are going to come hard.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
Post a Comment