By what right do you hold the public trust of office?
Is it time for those extraordinary writs in questioning armiger?
Me thinketh so.
There is a hierarchic structure in the heavens, and when the administration of justice is usurped, by the most nefariously, dubious means and methods, the heavens must fall, in order of law.
GAO said it was referring the matter to the department's inspector general
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) on Friday said that the appointments of acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and acting Deputy Ken Cuccinelli were made invalidly -- raising questions about the legality of decisions made during their tenures.
“Because the incorrect official assumed the title of Acting Secretary at that time, subsequent amendments to the order of succession made by that official were invalid and officials who assumed their positions under such amendments, including Chad Wolf and Kenneth Cuccinelli, were named by reference to an invalid order of succession,” the report, by Congress' investigative body, concluded.
The GAO investigated how the Trump administration filled posts at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without Senate confirmation.
It found that, when then-DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen resigned in April 2019, the order of succession dictated that it should have been the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) who took over. Instead, President Trump appointed Kevin McAleenan -- who was then the head of Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The opinion found that DHS mistakenly referred to regulations that spelled out the process for a disaster or catastrophic emergency, rather than an executive order that governed the typical order of succession.
“Mr. McAleenan would have been the appropriate official had Secretary Nielsen been unavailable to act during a disaster or catastrophic emergency. That was not the case here,” the report said.
Before he resigned, McAleenan revised the process to allow combine the two processes -- allowing Wolf and Cuccinelli to be appointed. But, the GAO found, because McAleenan was invalidly appointed, so were the changes he made to the order of succession.
“As such, Mr. McAleenan did not have the authority to amend the Secretary’s existing designation. Accordingly, Messrs. Wolf and Cuccinelli were named to their respective positions of Acting Secretary and Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy Secretary by reference to an invalid order of succession, it said.
“We wholeheartedly disagree with the GAO’s baseless report and plan to issue a formal response to this shortly," a DHS spokesperson told Fox News.
The opinion is not binding but is likely to raise questions about the legality of decisions made by Wolf and Cuccinelli during their times at head of the department since taking their posts in November last year -- questions likely to be seized on by those who oppose the Trump administration's tough actions on illegal immigration and its crackdown on violence against federal property in Portland.
GAO said it was not reviewing the legality of the actions taken by the officials and is instead referring it to the department's inspector general.
Under Wolf, the department has taken a number of moves to crack down on illegal immigration at the border and has made a number of agreements with countries south of the border to step the flow of migrants -- including a series of asylum cooperative agreements (ACA) with Northern Triangle countries.
Recently, Wolf’s DHS also ramped up federal presence in Portland and other cities in response to violence aimed at federal property. Federal law enforcement recently agreed with Oregon officials to scale back presence in Portland as long as the federal courthouse officers had been protecting could be kept safe.
Biden picks Sen. Kamala Harris as running mate
The pick fulfills the Democratic presidential contender’s promise to select a woman as his running mate, and puts to rest the sometimes bristly rivalry the pair shared during the early phase of the Democratic primary.
WASHINGTON - Joe Biden has finally announced his selection for his 2020 election running mate – Kamala Harris.
The pick fulfills the Democratic presidential contender’s promise to select a woman as his running mate, and puts to rest the sometimes bristly rivalry the pair shared during the early phase of the Democratic primary.
The rivalry provided one of the nomination race’s most memorable moments when Harris sharply criticized Biden for his record on racial justice, calling his positive description of a past working relationship with segregationist statesmen as “hurtful.”
Harris has since dialed back the attack, reportedly telling a colleague that the exchange was “just politics.”
Harris dropped out of the race for president in December 2019 and endorsed Biden in March 2020.
RELATED: Arizona, long considered a GOP stronghold, could be swing state in 2020 presidential election, experts say
Harris, who is also Indian American, joins Biden in the 2020 race at a moment of unprecedented national crisis. The coronavirus pandemic has claimed the lives of more than 150,000 people in the U.S., far more than the toll experienced in other countries. Business closures and disruptions resulting from the pandemic have caused an economic collapse. Unrest, meanwhile, has emerged across the country as Americans protest racism and police brutality.
She is the Democrats’ first female running mate since Walter Mondale selected Geraldine Ferraro in the 1984 presidential election. The last time a woman was picked as a vice-presidential candidate was 2008 when Republican John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Should Biden win the 2020 election, Harris would be the first woman to serve as vice president.
Biden taps Kamala Harris as his running mate
The former vice president made his announcement on Aug. 11.
Harris beat out a short list that reportedly included Stacey Abrams, Tammy Baldwin, Karen Bass, Keisha Lance Bottoms, Val Demings, Tammy Duckworth, Michelle Lujan Grisham, Susan Rice, Elizabeth Warren and Gretchen Whitmer.
With the country still in the throes of the coronavirus pandemic, Biden holds a significant lead over President Donald Trump in most major polls, including an eight-point lead in the most recent FOX News poll.
RELATED: Why choice of running mate matters more than usual this year
Biden also leads in battleground states like Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.
Harris, an Oakland native who graduated from Howard University and received her law degree from the University of California, cut her teeth in politics as California’s attorney general before being elected to the Senate in 2016.
Harris’ record as California attorney general and district attorney in San Francisco was heavily scrutinized during the Democratic primary and turned off some liberals and younger Black voters who saw her as out of step on issues of systemic racism in the legal system and police brutality. She tried to strike a balance on these issues, declaring herself a “progressive prosecutor” who backs law enforcement reforms.
As her national profile grew, Harris built a reputation around her work as a prosecutor. After being elected to the Senate in 2016, she quickly gained attention for her assertive questioning of Trump administration officials during congressional hearings. In one memorable moment last year, Harris tripped up Attorney General William Barr when she repeatedly pressed him on whether Trump or other White House officials pressured him to investigate certain people.
Harris has taken a tougher stand on policing since the killing of George Floyd. She co-sponsored legislation in June that would ban police from using chokeholds and no-knock warrants, set a national use-of-force standard and create a national police misconduct registry, among other things. It would also reform the qualified immunity system that shields officers from liability.
“We made progress, but clearly we are not at the place yet as a country where we need to be and California is no exception,” she told The Associated Press recently. But the national focus on racial injustice now shows “there’s no reason that we have to continue to wait.”
I know Bill Clinton is already not very pleased with me.
Chairman Nadler Statement for the Markup of H.R. 2678, the No President is Above the Law Act
Washington, D.C. –Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following opening remarks, as prepared, during the markup of H.R. 2678, the No President is Above the Law Act:
"The two bills we are considering today center around the same basic theme: presidential accountability. When the nation’s founders wrote the Constitution, after having just fought a war against a tyrant, they stood fast to a key principle—that the Executive must not be a king and must, instead, be accountable to Congress, to the people, and ultimately, to the rule of law.
"H.R. 2678, the 'No President is Above the Law Act,' reaffirms that important principle.
"This legislation, which I introduced along with Representatives Swalwell and Deutch, would suspend the statute of limitations for any federal offense committed by a sitting president, whether it was committed before or during the president’s term of office.
"This bill is necessary in order to close a dangerous loophole in the law created by Department of Justice policy—most recently embodied in a legal opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel—which holds that a president may not be criminally prosecuted during his or her term in office.
"Under current law, throughout the entire period that a president is presumed by some to be immune from prosecution, the statute of limitations continues to run on any offenses they may have committed.
"Since most federal criminal offenses carry a five-year statute of limitations, a president who is not prosecuted while in office for a crime they may have committed could end up evading justice altogether if the statute of limitations runs out before their term is over, particularly if they are elected to a second term.
"Allowing complete immunity from criminal prosecution merely because of the office a person holds would make a mockery of the rule of law.
"Statutes of limitations are an important element of criminal law. As a general matter, they provide a necessary balance between protecting defendants from delay and allowing prosecutors adequate time to investigate and charge cases. They ensure that the possibility of a criminal prosecution does not hang over a defendant’s head forever and they encourage prosecutors to bring charges while evidence is fresh.
"But the law has also long recognized that certain limited exceptions to this general rule are necessary, such as when the commission of a crime has been concealed or a defendant has fled or is unavailable. The case of a sitting president, whose prosecution is barred under Justice Department policy—no matter how strong the evidence may be—fits comfortably among such exceptions.
"I would note that even if the OLC opinion is reversed, there may be many practical difficulties in bringing an indictment against a president who is still in office. It is necessary, therefore, to simply pause the statute of limitations so that the president—any president—can be held to account for his or her actions and to ensure that the presidency is not a get-out-of-jail free card.
"I want to thank Mr. Swalwell and Mr. Deutch for their work in helping to craft this legislation. The 'No President Is Above the Law Act' would ensure that every person—no matter his or her title or office—is held accountable under our laws.
"I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 116th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2678 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the tolling of the statute of limitations with regard to certain offenses committed by the President of the United States during or prior to tenure in office, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 10, 2019 Mr. Nadler (for himself, Mr. Swalwell of California, and Mr. Deutch) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the tolling of the statute of limitations with regard to certain offenses committed by the President of the United States during or prior to tenure in office, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “No President is Above the Law Act”. SEC. 2. TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. (a) Offenses Committed By The President During Or Prior To Tenure In Office.—Section 3282 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “(c) Offenses Committed By The President During Or Prior To Tenure In Office.—In the case of any person serving as President of the United States, the duration of that person’s tenure in office shall not be considered for purposes of any statute of limitations applicable to any Federal criminal offense committed by that person (including any offenses committed during any period of time preceding such tenure in office).”. (b) Applicability.—The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to any offense committed before the date of the enactment of this section, if the statute of limitations applicable to that offense had not run as of such date.
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in a challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of licensed handguns outside the city. Because the city had repealed the ban last summer, a majority on the court agreed with the city that the challengers’ original claims are moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in concluding that the case should go back to the lower court, but he also indicated that he shared the concern – expressed by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissenting opinion – that the lower courts “may not be properly applying” the Supreme Court’s most recent gun rights rulings, in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Therefore, Kavanaugh suggested, the Supreme Court “should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.” The court’s electronic docket reveals that Kavanaugh’s suggestion may come to fruition soon: By the end of the day yesterday, the Supreme Court had distributed for consideration at Friday’s conference 10 cases that had apparently been on hold for the New York case.
Several themes emerge from the cases that the justices will now review on Friday. The justices are being asked to weigh in on (among other things) whether and to what extent the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense, whether state and local governments can ban assault rifles and large-capacity magazines and whether the federal ban on interstate gun sales is unconstitutional. A full list of the 10 cases distributed for Friday’s conference, as well as a brief description of the question presented in each one, follows the jump.
We expect orders from Friday’s conference on Monday, May 4, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.
Mance v. Barr – Whether the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Rogers v. Grewal – In a challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
Pena v. Horan – In a challenge to a California law banning most commonly used handguns, the petition asks the justices to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment.
Gould v. Lipson – In a challenge to Massachusetts’ handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
Worman v. Healey – Challenge to Massachusetts ban on the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
Malpasso v. Pallozzi – In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Culp v. Raoul– Whether the Second Amendment requires Illinois to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed-carry license.
Wilson v. Cook County – Challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as to the Second Amendment analysis used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to uphold the ban.
I only call this alliance unholy due to the simple fact that it seems Trump was falsely advised in the signing of this Executive Order, just like they did with Obama, all the time, like with DACA, which is a policy, not a law, because only congress makes laws.
Now, why would I make such an allegation that the U.S. Attorney General, Secretary of State & Secretary of Defense falsely advised Trump?
So, if Trump is not duly elected, that would mean the unholy alliance is not duly appointed, which means they do not possessed sovereign nor qualified immunities, which means they will not just fall from the heavens upon defrocking, but will be prosecuted by the laws of the land.
Of course, everyone knows the U.S. never signed onto the Rome Statute, which makes the ICC jurisdiction improper, but, in this instance, the unholy alliance would have their parental rights to keep and bear the arms of the U.S. terminated, meaning, they slide right back down the rungs of the hierarchy of juridic persons, as chattel, under the guardianship of the U.S., to be tried on U.S. soil.
I am going to go out there on a soothsaying limb and just toss out there the possibility that the proper jurisdiction is going to be Detroit.
See, Boo Boo Barr just instructed MIED Matt Schneider to look into Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer's Executive Orders to see if they were constitutional.
I will tell you right now that Whitmer's Executive Orders are all unconstitutional because she is illegitimate, too, being, also, unduly elected.
That would mean Boo Boo Barr would have a transposable model to self-extract himself from office, or rather throw himself from the heavens.
It would also mean that Trump's Executive Orders, all of them, are illegitimate, meaning, we are looking at, not just a constitutional crisis, but the unmasking of the Arch-President.
But, hey, what do I know?
I know trafficking tiny humans operations when I see them because this is the reason they are pushing, really, truly hard, Religious Freedom Restoration Act to secure those Corporate Parental Rights in the name of the tax exempt god, to keep their most precious treasures they have pilfered through the world called the children's trust funds.
Hey, Boo Boo, can I get a #MeToo?
#sealsmatter #maytheheavensfall
Executive Order on Blocking Property Of Certain Persons Associated With The International Criminal Court
NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENSE
Issued on: June 11, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the situation with respect to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its illegitimate assertions of jurisdiction over personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including the ICC Prosecutor’s investigation into actions allegedly committed by United States military, intelligence, and other personnel in or relating to Afghanistan, threatens to subject current and former United States Government and allied officials to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest. These actions on the part of the ICC, in turn, threaten to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and impede the critical national security and foreign policy work of United States Government and allied officials, and thereby threaten the national security and foreign policy of the United States. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, has never accepted ICC jurisdiction over its personnel, and has consistently rejected ICC assertions of jurisdiction over United States personnel. Furthermore, in 2002, the United States Congress enacted the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.) which rejected the ICC’s overbroad, non-consensual assertions of jurisdiction. The United States remains committed to accountability and to the peaceful cultivation of international order, but the ICC and parties to the Rome Statute must respect the decisions of the United States and other countries not to subject their personnel to the ICC’s jurisdiction, consistent with their respective sovereign prerogatives. The United States seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC’s transgressions, which may include the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members. The entry of such aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States and denying them entry will further demonstrate the resolve of the United States in opposing the ICC’s overreach by seeking to exercise jurisdiction over personnel of the United States and our allies, as well as personnel of countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction.
I therefore determine that any attempt by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States, or of personnel of countries that are United States allies and who are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby determine and order:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General:
(A) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States;
(B) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any personnel of a country that is an ally of the United States without the consent of that country’s government;
(C) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection (a)(i)(A) or (a)(i)(B) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(D) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.
Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1(a) of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1(a) of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1(a) of this order include:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1(a) of this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 4. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order, as well as immediate family members of such aliens, or aliens determined by the Secretary of State to be employed by, or acting as an agent of, the ICC, would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended, except where the Secretary of State determines that the entry of the person into the United States would not be contrary to the interests of the United States, including when the Secretary so determines, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General, that the person’s entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives. In exercising this responsibility, the Secretary of State shall consult the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admissibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). The Secretary of State shall have the responsibility for implementing this section pursuant to such conditions and procedures as the Secretary has established or may establish pursuant to Proclamation 8693.
Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 6. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term “United States personnel” means any current or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States, any current or former elected or appointed official of the United States Government, and any other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government;
(e) the term “personnel of a country that is an ally of the United States” means any current or former military personnel, current or former elected or appointed official, or other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of a government of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member country or a “major non-NATO ally”, as that term is defined by section 2013(7) of the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7432(7)); and
(f) the term “immediate family member” means spouses and children.
Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to section 1 of this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.
Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury. All departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 11. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The question is whether an elected official can be removed from office for bribery in changing the electoral college vote in a presidential election.
Yes, there are "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) vociferously defending state elected officials in changing their votes based upon being bribed or blackmailed in the electoral college vote and whether these electors can be removed from office.
You can remove an elected official from office for bearing false witness through the vote in corrupting the public record.
You can also remove an elected official from office if they are unduly elected, with a fake ass certification of the oath of office.
It is called nullification.
I could never figure out why these lawyers use pre-Emancipation Proclamation court opinions to support post-Emancipation Proclamation arguments.
The real query should be to ask where did that bribery money come from.
I am going to say stealin' the children, land & vote.
When you take an oath of office to not breach the public trust, them, get bribed and/or blackmail, then, is this not called rule by fear, which means there is no consent?
But, in the situation of the Democratic National Committee, which is a private corporation, funded through stealin' with foreign money which was stolen from the posterity of the state, how come we cannot just dissolve the incorporation under the laws of the States?
Wait a minute...
It seems the Michigan Democratic Party has been defrocked from its right to engage in any act of commerce, or political activities, like elections.
The purpose or purposes for which the corporation is organized are: To lawfully form a political party called the Democratic Party. To find and run people with compatible political philosophy for public office and appointments. To raise campaign funds and operating expenses as a non-profit political corporation within the laws of the state under the government and the laws of the United States of America. To make and hold all politicians accountable for any violations of our constitutions. To seek out candidates for public office that will ensure that the government of these United States and this state remain forever within the bounds of our respective constitutions. To seek the lawful means to publicly execute any public office holder for betraying their oath of office and our constitutions. To seek severe and public punishments for office holders that engage graft, greed and corruption while in office such as bribery, trading in influence, patronage, nepotism and cronyism, electoral fraud, embezzlement, kickbacks, unholy alliances, or involvement in organized crime.
Date of Dissolved: 12/01/2015Term: Perpetual <=============Look!!!!
Most Recent Annual Report: 2012Most Recent Annual Report with Officers & Directors: 2012
The name and address of the Resident Agent:
Resident Agent Name:DEAN S HAZEL
Street Address:1028 N MONROE ST
Apt/Suite/Other:
City:MONROEState:MIZip Code:48162
Registered Office Mailing address:
P.O. Box or Street Address:
Apt/Suite/Other:
City:State:Zip Code:
Act Formed Under: 162-1982 Nonprofit Corporation Act
The corporation is formed on a Directorship basis. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We should definitely ask Grace Meng if she can be removed from office.
Is serving her second term in the U.S. House of Representatives, representing the Sixth Congressional District of New York, encompassing the borough of Queens. Ms. Meng also serves as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee and as the Vice Chair and Committee Director of the DNC, which is inactive because the parent corporation is dissolved.
Ms. Meng is the first Asian-American member of Congress from New York State and the only Congress member of Asian descent in the entire Northeast. She is also the first female member of Congress from Queens since former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. She also serves as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee.
Ms. Meng is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and its Subcommittees on the Middle East and North Africa, and Asia. She also serves on the House Small Business Committee where she is the ranking member of the Agriculture, Energy and Trade Subcommittee.
Congresswoman Meng is also an assistant whip in the House and a founder and co-chair of the Kids’ Safety Caucus, the first bipartisan coalition in the House that promotes child-safety issues. She helped create and serves as co-chair of the Quiet Skies Caucus, which works to mitigate excessive aircraft noise that adversely affects communities. During her first term in the House, Ms. Meng scored several legislative victories, a significant accomplishment for a new member of Congress. In fact, she was one of just 12 Democrats – out of all 207 – who passed three or more bills, placing her in the top six percent.
Born in Elmhurst, Queens, and raised in the Bayside section of the borough, Ms. Meng attended local schools, and graduated from Stuyvesant High School, and the University of Michigan. She then earned a law degree from Yeshiva University, Benjamin Cardozo School of Law.
Prior to serving in Congress, Ms. Meng was a member of the New York State Assembly. Before entering public service, she worked as a public-interest lawyer. She resides in Queens with her husband, Wayne, and two sons, Tyler and Brandon, and her dog, Bounce.
Date of Dissolved: 12/01/2015Term: Perpetual <=============Look!!!
Most Recent Annual Report: 2012Most Recent Annual Report with Officers & Directors: 2012
The name and address of the Resident Agent:
Resident Agent Name:DEAN S HAZEL
Street Address:1028 N MONROE ST
Apt/Suite/Other:
City:MONROEState:MIZip Code:48162
Registered Office Mailing address:
P.O. Box or Street Address:
Apt/Suite/Other:
City:State:Zip Code:
Act Formed Under: 162-1982 Nonprofit Corporation Act
The corporation is formed on a Directorship basis. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How can one swear a superseding oath of fealty to a foreign corporation, under the laws of a foreign nation when you have to swear an oath of fealty to the United States as a domestic office holder of the children's trusts? Now, the question for SCOTUS is, "Which foreign nation?" There is no certificate of dissolution, which means that it was placed in a legal suspended animation. When, we have no idea but I am going with December 1, 2015. Who did it? I am going with Auntie, the Co-Parentor of the Children, as my final answer. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DEMOCRATIC PARTY NONPROFIT
Company Number
800930810
Previous Company Numbers
71028U
Status Dissolved <======================= Look!!!
Incorporation Date
16 August 2011 (over 8 years ago)
Dissolution Date
1 December 2015
Company Type
DOMESTIC NONPROFIT CORPORATION
Jurisdiction
Michigan (US)
Registered Address
1028 N MONROE ST MONROE MI 48162
United States
Previous Names
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Alternative Names
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (trading name, 2012-07-26 - 2015-12-01)
DEMOCRATIC PARTY (trading name, 2011-09-09 - 2011-09-29)
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF MICHIGAN (trading name, 2011-08-22 - 2015-12-01)
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF MICHIGAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE (trading name, 2011-09-09 - 2015-12-01)
MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY (trading name, 2011-08-17 - 2015-12-01)
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (trading name, 2011-09-29 - 2015-12-01)
THE MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY (trading name, 2011-08-17 - 2015-12-01)
Agent Name
DEAN S HAZEL
Inactive Directors / Officers
DEAN S HAZEL, agent ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With this new information presented to SCOTUS, it seems the "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) failed to execute a simple search on the legal standing of their respective parties they are supposedly representing, which makes everything they just entered into the formal record to be an act of bearing false witness, meaning all that work on their arguments are now moot.
