SCOTUS Ignores Trump Trafficking Tiny Humans DACA/DAPA Appeal Based Upon The Constitutional Crisis Of War Crimes

Back in 2018, SCOTUS told the Trump Administration, DOJ, to go through the lower courts to deal with DACA/DAPA, but no one considered that the entire case, including legal strategy, was mapped out under the Obama Administration, Department of Justice, when DACA/DAPA was signed as an Executive Order.

Obama clearly states that DACA/DAPA was a Janet Napolitano, DHS action, and not a congressional law, because only congress makes law, yet refuses to touch child welfare law or anything dealing with parental rights in SCOTUS 2016.

US Supreme Court blocks Trump on DACA - 2018

If you take the time to listen to the oral arguments of this SCOTUS case, you will understand why I do what I do because these people.....the Justices....the Attorneys.....the parties.....these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) have no freakin' clue about child welfare law, which is chattel, law, or the fact that we have three branches of government and this case was doing nothing but furthering case precedent of privatization for foreign entities, which are the residuals of the peculiar institution.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-674

Facts of the case

In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, along with criteria for determining when prosecutors can choose not to enforce immigration laws under DACA. People who qualify for DACA may apply for work authorization. In 2014, DHS established a similar process for parents of citizens and lawful permanent residents as well as expanding DACA by making more people eligible. The new program was known as the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program.
Texas and other states sued to prevent the implementation of DAPA and argued that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it had not gone through the notice-and-comment process, and because it was arbitrary and capricious. The states also argued that DAPA violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which clarifies the President's power. The district court held that the states had standing to file the suit and temporarily enjoined the implementation of DAPA because the states had established a substantial likelihood of success on the notice-and-comment claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed and held that the states had standing as well as a substantial likelihood of success on their substantive and procedural claims. 

Question:

1. Do states that provide subsidies to persons who are granted deferred action have standing to sue because the new guidelines will lead to more persons being eligible for deferred action?

1. Is the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program arbitrary and capricious?

1. Did DAPA violate the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to go through the notice-and-comment procedure?

1. Does DAPA violate the Take Care Clause of the Constitution?

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 15–674

_________________

UNITED STATES, et al., PETITIONERS v. TEXAS, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit

[June 23, 2016]

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Yes, this was all SCOTUS put out, but the media took it in a different direction, not speaking upon the trafficking of tiny humans, not just in physical body, per se, but through the chattels in child welfare Social Impact Bonds, through the operations of foster care, adoption, and all the other privatized refugee child welfare services programs, through the States.

Dems are no longer talking DACA! “Out of sight, out of mind,” they say. DACA beneficiaries should not be happy. Nancy Pelosi truly doesn’t care about them. Republicans stand ready to make a deal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2018

No one is identifying that these children landing on our shores from all over the world, not just from Central America, are coming under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), through DACA/DAPA policies, that are not law, because only congress makes law.

If anyone has ever taken the time to just look at INA, you can still bring in child brides, child servants, child models....do you finally see it now?

These "alien children" are then assigned through the policies of DACA/DAPA to the Trustees of the States Children's Trusts, who then, I guess you can call it a quiet title of parental rights, and transfer, well, I guess you could just call it an issuance of an amended, corrected, oh, heck, let us call it what it is, a new birth certificate.

The Immigration and Nation... by on Scribd

The salvaging of souls in asset forfeiture, in the termination of parental rights by the corporate trustees is what you call being born again, under chattel law, because the chattel is now under a corporate parent, through the privatized child welfare contracting agencies like Bethany Christian.

No one wants to talk about parental rights or child welfare, but me, and I have all intentions of doing it until the world stops trafficking tiny humans.

HHS OIG Separated Children ... by on Scribd

DOJ: Solicitor General Noel Fransico Files SCOTUS DACA, DAPA Briefs To Enjoin Actions In Trafficking Tiny Humans In DC Court Of Appeals - The Sinking Of The Privateers' UCC Ships

SCOTUS may not take up the Trump DACA/DAPA Appeal, but, in all actuality, it was filed in the wrong jurisdiction.

Firstly, we are dealing with the children's trusts, which are UCCs, making the International Court of Justice (ICJ) the proper jurisdiction to address DACA/DAPA because it deals in international commerce.

Secondly, these children's trusts are registered as foreign entitites, UCCs, that have engaged in the treacherous activities of privatization, Medicaid fraud in child welfare, stealin' the children, the land and the votes, which makes this a war crime, furthering my position that ICJ is the proper jurisdiction.

Lastly, the Trump Administration just exhausted its administrative remedies, which could put the U.S. in a position to enjoin in other actions in ICJ.

Then again, we could be at the threshold of a constitutional crisis, but, hey, what do I know?

I know we have a Chief Justice who has a few trafficking tiny humans issues that may not allow him to touch any of these cases.

John G. Roberts, Jr.

Well, how is that different? If I -- if I own, say, a parcel of land and it's subject to some government regulatory program that I think is a taking under -- under existing law, why isn't the answer, well, you should go buy some other land that's not subject to it.

I also know the Nuremberg Trials were about war crimes which led to the creation of the International Court of Crimes, the proper jurisdiction to hear the DACA/DAPA case.

Supreme Court unlikely to hear Trump DACA appeal

If the justices don't take up the issue during the court's current term, the government will be required to keep the program going for at least ten more months.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court took no action on Friday on the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It now appears likely that the court will not take up the issue during its current term, which would require the government to keep the program going for at least ten more months.

The Trump administration urged the justices to hear appeals of lower court rulings that prevent the government from shutting DACA down, but Friday was the last day for adding cases to the current term's docket, barring unusual circumstances. Any cases accepted in subsequent weeks won't be heard until the next term, which begins October 1, and it would take a few months more for the court to issue a decision.

DACA allows children of illegal immigrants to remain here if they were under 16 when their parents brought them to the US, provided they arrived by 2007. The Obama-era initiative has allowed 700,000 young people, commonly referred to as "Dreamers," to avoid deportation. The nickname comes from the DREAM Act, which would have offered many of the same protections as DACA but was never approved by Congress.

The Trump administration moved to end the program in late 2017, but federal courts in San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D.C., blocked that attempt. Following a brief hiatus, the government began accepting renewal applications from DACA participants, which must be filed every two years.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that, far from being illegal, deferred action has been a feature of the immigration system for decades. "In a world where the government can remove only a small percentage of the undocumented non-citizens present in this country in any year, deferred action programs like DACA enable DHS to devote much-needed resources to enforcement priorities such as threats to national security, rather than blameless and economically productive young people with clean criminal records."

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to overturn up those lower court judgments. The Department of Homeland Security and the attorney general concluded that it is unlawful, said Solicitor General Noel Francisco, finding that it "sanctions the ongoing violation of federal law by more than half a million people."

He said that by agreeing to hear the appeals, the court could "provide much-needed clarity to the government and DACA recipients alike." Francisco also said that as long as the question is pending in the courts, Congress has less incentive to come up with a permanent solution.

But supporters of the DACA program said nothing in the lower court rulings would prevent the government from undertaking deportation proceedings against any individual DACA recipient if the need arose. They also noted that President Trump himself has taken conflicting positions on the program, saying at one point, "I love the 'Dreamers.'"

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Get To Know The International Court Of Justice Because We Are Already There

Since we are in the midst of international litigation, not being too coy in prefacing that I believe there may be sealed matters pending, I thought it to be a bit of fun to get to know the International Court of Justice.

Feel free  to dig in and let me know what you find!

Cocktails & Popcorn: Is It Just Me Or Are We Going To Have An ICJ Party In The Hague?

ICJ Hearing On Iran v. U.S. - Tribute To Kofi Annan- 8-27-2018

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

ICJ Hearing On Iran v. U.S. - Tribute To Kofi Annan- 8-27-2018

BACKGROUND: Cocktails & Popcorn: Is It Just Me Or Are We Going To Have An ICJ Party In The Hague?

Mourners disappointed over Kofi Annan’s closed casket

Some mourners at the Accra International Conference Centre who were eager to pay their final respects to former United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Kofi Annan, were left disappointed because they were unable to catch a glimpse of the remains of the peace icon in his casket.
According to some of them, the closure of the casket was not in sync with the Ghanaian way of honouring the dead.

One mourner who spoke to Citi News said the closed casket took something away from the ceremony.

“I wasn’t happy when the coffin wasn’t opened. During the Vice President’s own, the coffin was opened and we all viewed it, so for this one, I wasn’t happy,” she said.

“We were surprised and we just came and saw the casket closed with a Ghana flag [draped over it]. So we were just asking that; did we come to observe the Ghana flag or we came to observe [him],” another mourner stated.

A Deputy Information Minister, Pius Enam Hadzide, however, downplayed the concerns.

“There are several high profile funerals in which I have seen the casket covered, even in this country, so it is not a major problem,” he told Citi News.

He said the focus should be on the occasion, which is trying to mirror Kofi Annan’s apparent modesty.

“The man Kofi Annan himself is a modest person and he doesn’t want a lot of flamboyance around the funeral… even as we give him a befitting state funeral, we think that it is still important that we respect his wishes of keeping it a little modest, a little soft and so on and so forth.”

On Wednesday, September 12, dignitaries are expected to file past and pay their last respects to Kofi Annan.

A burial service will then take place on September 13 at the Conference Centre before he is finally laid to rest at the new Military Cemetery.

Was he executed? 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: Business Executive Arrested on Foreign Bribery Charges in Connection With Venezuela Bribery Scheme - FCPA

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is the international frauds act to its domestic sister, the False Claims Act.

Always remember, citizenship is but a piece of paper.

A dual U.S.-Venezuelan citizen who controlled multiple companies was arrested yesterday on foreign bribery charges for conspiring to make, and making, corrupt payments to an official of Venezuela’s state-owned and state-controlled energy company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), in exchange for favorable business treatment with PDVSA.

Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick of the Southern District of Texas and Special Agent in Charge Mark Dawson of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Houston Field Office made the announcement.

Jose Manuel Gonzalez Testino (Gonzalez), 48, was arrested at Miami International Airport, on an arrest warrant based on a criminal complaint filed in the Southern District of Texas that was unsealed yesterday.  He made his initial appearance today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis of the Southern District of Florida.  Gonzalez is charged with conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and paying bribes to a foreign official in violation of the FCPA.

According to the criminal complaint, Gonzalez and a co-conspirator paid at least $629,000 in bribes to a former PDVSA official in exchange for the official taking steps to (1) direct PDVSA contracts to Gonzalez’s companies, (2) give Gonzalez’s companies priority over other vendors to receive payments, and (3) award Gonzalez’s companies PDVSA contracts in U.S. dollars instead of Venezuelan bolivars.  

The charges contained in the complaint are merely allegations and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

With the arrest of Gonzalez, the Justice Department has announced charges against 17 individuals, 12 of whom have pleaded guilty, as part of a larger, ongoing investigation by the U.S. government into bribery at PDVSA.  HSI in Houston is conducting the ongoing investigation with assistance from HSI in Boston and Miami.  Trial Attorneys Sarah E. Edwards and Jeremy R. Sanders of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys John P. Pearson and Robert S. Johnson of the Southern District of Texas are prosecuting the case.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristine Rollison of the Southern District of Texas is handling the forfeiture aspects of the case.  The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs also provided assistance.  

The Fraud Section is responsible for investigating and prosecuting all FCPA matters.  Additional information about the department’s FCPA enforcement efforts can be found at www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Is It Just Me Or Are We Going To Have An ICJ Party In The Hague?

هر کس به حزب پاپ کورن در لاهه دعوت شده است

Well, I found three things of interest, here.

First, there is verified movement in the International Court of Justice, that the U.S. is going to be party to many more legal actions by other nations.

Secondly, the Iran v. U.S. case was initiated June 14, 2016, right around the kick off of the presidential campaigns.

Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)

Take a look on Page 4 , item #3. On 9 March 2016, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered Iran to pay more than US$10.5 billion to families of people killed in the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to a group of insurers...

 Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 2002 (“TRIA”) - U.S. Treasury Department

On November 26, 2002, the President signed into law the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–297, 116 Stat. 2322) [TRIA]. TRIA created a temporary federal program that provides for a transparent system of shared public and private compensation for certain insured losses resulting from a certified act of terrorism. The Secretary of the Treasury administers the program with the assistance of the Federal Insurance Office.

And then, it dawned upon me...

Thirdly, they were stealin'!

Everyone, Meet Wendy Sherman

Yes, the Iranian Settlement Agreement which "certified" an act of terrorism, is all about stealin', the exact same, tried and true, complex financial fraud schemes used to rip off the national treasures, or, in this instance, the U.S. Treasury, just like they did with TARP, making the bankruptcy, its "certification", like they did when they privatized Detroit and Puerto Rico.

Ok, it goes like this.

Thirteen individuals, where I question why only 13 and who was behind them, got together and sued Iran for 911, where Preet Bharara represented the U.S. and won.

Has my Pretty Preet addressed his "Attorney-Client Privileges" yet, because he saw all the evidence, right?

The asset forfeiture was on a bunch of properties like 650 Fifth Avenue, New York.

Well, it seems there were lots of creditors, or what looks like to me, mortgages!

And lots of them.

As a matter of fact, I really think there were soooooooo many creditors, that no one really could figure out who actually owned the real property, ya know, like that issue in Detroit foreclosures, where no one could figure out who was the rightful party to foreclose on properties that were robosigned, with fake mortgages, fake taxes, by fake corporations.

Oh, I forgot to mention that in Detroit, where those fake mortgage companies bundled fake mortgages, where most of them were wiped in quiet title actions, were also lumped up into trademarks to be used to leverage as another financial instrument, through UCC entities, registered in the States, which only fall under the jurisdiction of international law, that has been highjacked and rewritten to favor these fake Public Private Partnerships, because those fake mortgages were also levying fake taxes, which were never paid to the City, which led to the Detroit Land Bank Authority swooping in....you know the story.

Did 650 Fifth Avenue do the TARP, too?

Anyway, it seems in the Iran Settlement, one could figure out who owned the real properties, due to all the fake mortgages, so they had to settle.

So, the settlement flushed the financial entities to come out the woodwork, and guess what I found, those "financial entities" are child welfare NGOs and the financial institutions behind them, like MasterCard.

So, there was some settlement, or something, because I really do not care at this point, but it looks like those creditors agreed not to go after Terrorism Risk Insurance Claims....because they thought they were going to be slick and take it into the proper international jurisdiction of ICJ.

WHEREAS, the Settling Judgment Creditors agree to waive the argument with respect to the Defendant Properties that the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (“TRIA”) takes precedence over the forfeiture action;

In Re 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties (Alavi-Assa) Settlement Stipulation by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Settlements are not litigated, they are negotiated, which means there may not be any of that collateral estoppel stuff, being all up under international law, now.

That TRIC, appropriately coined, came out of the Federal Emergency Manager Laws, the same Emergency Manager Laws that were crafted for the State of Michigan to be the first, pilot model, in the world, with Detroit being launched as the first "Authority" pseudo-government, or privatized nobility, or international privatized regime...I am still working on crafting one of those theoretical doctrines to toss at some "chattel law socioeconomic regurgitative pre-emancipation proclamation scholarly think tank authorities" when they go into one of those cognitive dissonance conniptions trying to defend the centuries of trafficking tiny humans, the residuals of the peculiar institution.

The same exact TRIC was used to trap TARP.

Then, I find out two years later, an action is filed in the International Court of Justice by Iran, suing the U.S. for violating the Treaty of Amity, asking for Terrorism Risk Insurance Claims.

Hmmmm.... That sounds like stealin'.

So, they give up the properties, probably for pennies on the dollar to avoid further, costly litigation, because no one could figure out who owned the properties, then go off into an international jurisdiction asking to enforce a 1955 treaty, yes, they were doing uranium back then, too, to put in an insurance claim under terrorist activities, which makes it sound like, almost, not that I am making any legal inference whatsoever, only because the Detroit Land Bank Authority is not incorporated, really similar to a quiet title action, almost, which is still fraud.

So, the ICJ argument goes like this:

The U.S. violated the treaty because it put sanctions on us as a result of terrorist activities, executed by private corporations, not the government, so we should get those Terrorism Risk Insurance Claims.

This Treaty also talks about the almighty and powerful International Monetary Fund and its powers...of money laundering, that is.

Iran Amity Treaty of 1955 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Like I have said, I have not gone too deep into this because I can always smell the fraud, and, in this instance, what I believe to be the sexiest, damn, legal pimp move in the history of mankind.

NGO Child Welfare Fraud: See the cute kids.

The Alavi Foundation is a child welfare fraud NGO, keyman, money laundering entity that was engaging in political activities, as seen on their website, in the Clinton Foundation letter, on Presidential letterhead of Bill Clinton, for AIDS/HIV activities, or whatever the scheme of the week was when the letter of support was signed.

FinCEN can follow SWIFT transactions to identify the path of campaign finance fraud, or perhaps that was already done in the DOJ OIG Report.

http://alavifoundation.us/

Evidence in violation of Article XX, Section 2 of the Amity Treaty of 1955

They were stealin'!

Bruce Lindsey generated a letter of support from the Clinton Foundation, on a completely different organization, presidential letterhead, talking about engaging in AIDS/HIV, which is not even in the scope of the original mission statement of IRS organization, which is a completely different name, mind you.

That's stealin'!

The William J. Clinton Foundation, which is not
incorporated as the Clinton Foundation
 & Alavi Foundation Financial relationship

So, the legal proceedings can go on show that these child welfare fraud NGOs are privatized, meaning they are not part of the Iranian Republic, meaning that any child welfare fraud NGO, which is connected to that Corporate Shape Shifter like the Clinton Foundation, similar to the Detroit Land Bank Authority, considering the fact that Perkins Coie Sucks having those "Attorney-Client Privileges" with both of them, because they really suck, which might be stripped having violated an international treaty.

The lawsuit is a question of privatization, and the legal existence of Public Private Partnerships.

I lifted this from the first paragraph of facts.  What you will read in the spirit of fuchsia  is the jurisdictional question of privatization and its trifurcation (I just made that up for 3), of what is a government, a governmental registered company, and those "state-owned" companies, where, in this instance is referencing a bank.

The claim states that the USA, I am assuming that SDNY settlement, or something like that, did not let them argue out in the proper jurisdiction, the ICJ.

The USA has adopted, and is implementing, a broad series of measures against Iran and Iranian companies, including Iranian State-owned companies such as the Central Bank of Iran (also known as “Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran” or “Bank Markazi”), and their property, which are in violation of the USA’s obligations under the Treaty of Amity. The USA’s violations of the Treaty of Amity include its (a) failure to recognize the separate juridical status of such entities including Iranian State-owned companies, (b) unfair and discriminatory treatment of such entities and their property, which impairs the legally acquired rights and interests of such entities including enforcement of their contractual rights, (c) failure to accord to such entities and their property the most constant protection and security that is in no case less than that required by international law, (d) expropriation of the property of such entities, (e) failure to accord to such entities freedom of access to the US courts, including the abrogation of the immunities to which Iran and Iranian State-owned companies, including Bank Markazi, and their property, are entitled under customary international law and as required by the Treaty of Amity, both with respect to jurisdictional immunities and immunities from enforcement, (f) failure to respect the right of such entities to acquire and dispose of property, (g) application of restrictions to such entities on the making of payments and other transfers of funds to or from the USA, and (h) interference with the freedom of commerce between the territories of Iran and the USA

This seems to me to be setting proper jurisdiction for all countries to do deal with all of these child welfare fraud NGOs and their financial cohorts, which looks like the international monetary system is about to be stressed the hell out, because all signs are pointing to insolvency, because they stole everything, they even stole the fake debt!

They stole the children, the land and the votes.

The People of the World get reparations by snatching back all the legacies of the children by getting rid of the privateers and repatriating its most precious treasures, the children, all ending in with the magical kiss bestowed upon the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed, to herald in the reconstruction of the kingdom.

Popcorn Party in The Hague!

But, hey, what do I know?

#perkinscoiesucks

Stay tuned.

Iran files suit in international court against U.S. over sanctions

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Iran has filed a lawsuit against the United States alleging that Washington’s decision in May to impose sanctions after pulling out of a nuclear deal violates a 1955 treaty between the two countries, the International Court of Justice said on Tuesday.

President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 nuclear pact with Iran reached by his predecessor Barack Obama and other world powers, and ordered tough U.S. sanctions on Tehran.

Under the 2015 deal, which Trump sees as flawed, Iran reined in its disputed nuclear program under U.N. monitoring and won a removal of international sanctions in return.

The ICJ, which is based in The Hague and is also known as the World Court, is the United Nations tribunal for resolving international disputes. Iran’s filing asks the ICJ to order the United States to provisionally lift its sanctions ahead of more detailed arguments.

“Iran is committed to the rule of law in the face of U.S. contempt for diplomacy and legal obligations,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a tweet on Monday, referring to Tehran’s lawsuit at the ICJ.

Iran said in its filing that Trump’s move “has violated and continued to violate multiple provisions” of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, signed long before the 1979 Islamic Revolution that ousted the U.S.-allied shah and triggered decades of hostile relations with Washington.

In a lawsuit filed by Iran in 2016 based on the same 1955 treaty, Washington argued that the ICJ had no jurisdiction. The court has scheduled hearings in that case in October.

The next step in Iran’s new lawsuit will be a hearing in which the United States is likely to contest whether it merits a provisional ruling. The court has not yet set a date, but hearings on requests for provisional rulings usually are heard within several weeks, with a decision coming within months.

Although the ICJ is the highest United Nations court and its decisions are binding, it has no power to enforce them, and countries - including the United States - have occasionally ignored them.

The specter of new U.S. sanctions, particularly those meant to block oil exports that are the lifeline of Iran’s economy, has caused a rapid fall in the Iranian currency and triggered street protests over fears economic hardships will soon worsen.

The Trump administration has indicated it wants a new deal with Iran that would cover the Islamic Republic’s regional military activities and ballistic missile program.

Iran has said both are non-negotiable, and the other signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal including major European allies Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, remain committed to it.

Iran v US International Court of Justice by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) Preliminary Objections The Co... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

WIKILEAKS JULIAN ASSANGE UK ARREST WARRANT INTERVIEW WITH RANDY CREDICO: Truth About UK Decision

I swear, sometimes I think all these people are from Detroit.

But I also see the emergence of the Brave Scribe, who preserved the annals of history.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Manafort v. Mueller Complaint For Declaratory & Injunctive Relief

Hot off the presses.

Paul Manafort v Robert Mueller Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Civ. No. 1:18-cv-00011 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Jeff Sessions Has Apostilled Beverly Tran

"I have been apostilled."

You know when you have made it into the annals of history when your case has been apostilled, "Authenticated U.S. Government Information".

What does it mean when GPO says a file is authenticated?

GPO authenticates documents on govinfo by applying digital signatures to official content after its validity has been confirmed. The technology used to certify these documents allows GPO to secure the data integrity, and provides users with assurance that the content is unchanged since it was disseminated by GPO.

In addition to certifying a document, GPO uses digital signature technology to add a visible Seal of Authenticity to authenticated and certified PDF documents. When GPO signs and certifies a document, a blue ribbon icon appears right beneath the top navigation menu and also in the Signature Panel within Adobe Acrobat or Reader. When users print a document that has been signed and certified by GPO, the Seal of Authenticity will automatically print on the document, but the ribbon will not print.

GPO's Seal of Authenticity

Thank you, Jeff,

Much love.

Stay tuned.

We are just about ready to get this show on the road.

Beverly Tran v. Michigan Department of Human Services, et al 06-cv-13572-1 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

In Honor Of My 1,000,000th PageView, We Celebrate Child Welfare In Unveiling The Residuals Of The Peculiar Institution

Quaestiones morales

Since Google metrics were available to monitor my pageviews, I have officially exceeded 1,000,000
pageviews, today.

I wish to thank the individual(s) who was kind enough to reaffirm my research in child welfare fraud by sending me this ancient, Christian codex.

I would also like to express by gratitude to each and every individual, and institution, who perpetuates the residuals of the peculiar insitution in profiting from human trafficking child welfare through public corruption, in the name of the tax exempt God.

I do what I do to preserve the annals of history, for they have been manipulated and destroyed for centuries, even to this day.

The truth shall be revealed for I am the original source.

Godspeed until my 2,000,000th pageview.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Lisa Bloom Sucks, Badly

Oh, Lisa, darling, you suck, badly.

I spoofed you to break a congressional confidentiality agreement with just a click of a post.

Did I not warn you that you were out of your league?

How much did you get for your client, Marion Brown, because I know that your client went around getting other people to sign these statements....for money.

Oh, and how much did Mike Cernovich get paid for selling the congressional confidentiality agreement?

You may want to retain Perkins Coie to represent you, because you suck, Lisa Bloom and, obviously, you did not get the memo:

Do not be mean to my Sweetie.  Period.

Hey Lisa, ever been to Belgium?

Exclusive: Prominent lawyer sought donor cash for two Trump accusers

A well-known women’s rights lawyer sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trumpduring the final months of the 2016 presidential race, according to documents and interviews.

California lawyer Lisa Bloom’s efforts included offering to sell alleged victims’ stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000, the clients told The Hill.

The women’s accounts were chronicled in contemporaneous contractual documents, emails and text messages reviewed by The Hill, including an exchange of texts between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were contacted during the effort.

Bloom, who has assisted dozens of women in prominent harassment cases and also defended film executive Harvey Weinstein earlier this year, represented four women considering making accusations against Trump last year. Two went public, and two declined.

In a statement to The Hill, Bloom acknowledged she engaged in discussions to secure donations for women who made or considered making accusations against Trump before last year’s election.

“Donors reached out to my firm directly to help some of the women I represented,” said Bloom, whose clients have also included accusers of Bill Cosby and Bill O’Reilly.

Bloom said her goal in securing money was not to pressure the women to come forward, but rather to help them relocate or arrange security if they felt unsafe during the waning days of a vitriolic election. She declined to identify any of the donors.

And while she noted she represented sexual harassment victims for free or at reduced rates, she also acknowledged a standard part of her contracts required women to pay her commissions as high as 33 percent if she sold their stories to media outlets.

“Our standard pro bono agreement for legal services provides that if a media entity offers to compensate a client for sharing his or her story we receive a percentage of those fees. This rarely happens. But, on occasion, a case generates media interest and sometimes (not always) a client may receive an appearance fee,” she said.

“As a private law firm we have significant payroll, rent, taxes, insurance and other expenses every week, so an arrangement where we might receive some compensation to defray our costs seems reasonable to us and is agreed to by our clients,” Bloom added.

Bloom told The Hill she had no contact with Clinton or her campaign, but declined to address any contacts with super PACs that supported the Democratic presidential nominee.

Josh Schwerin, the communications director for Priorities USA Action, the largest pro-Clinton super PAC, told The Hill that the group had no relationship with Bloom and had no discussions with her about supporting Trump accusers.

One Bloom client who received financial help from Bloom was New York City makeup artist Jill Harth.

The former beauty contestant manager filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Trump in 1997 and then withdrew it under pressure. The news media discovered the litigation during the election, and Harth’s name became public in the summer of 2016. She asked Bloom to represent her in the fall after hearing Trump describe her allegations against him as false, and became a vocal critic of Trump.

“I consider myself lucky to have had Lisa Bloom by my side after my old lawsuit resurfaced. She advised me with great competence and compassion,” Harth told The Hill.

Harth said she did not originally ask Bloom for money, even though her cosmetics business suffered from the notoriety of the campaign stories about her.

California lawyer Lisa Bloom’s efforts included offering to sell alleged victims’ stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000, the clients told The Hill.

The women’s accounts were chronicled in contemporaneous contractual documents, emails and text messages reviewed by The Hill, including an exchange of texts between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were contacted during the effort.

Bloom, who has assisted dozens of women in prominent harassment cases and also defended film executive Harvey Weinstein earlier this year, represented four women considering making accusations against Trump last year. Two went public, and two declined.

In a statement to The Hill, Bloom acknowledged she engaged in discussions to secure donations for women who made or considered making accusations against Trump before last year’s election.

“Donors reached out to my firm directly to help some of the women I represented,” said Bloom, whose clients have also included accusers of Bill Cosby and Bill O’Reilly.

Bloom said her goal in securing money was not to pressure the women to come forward, but rather to help them relocate or arrange security if they felt unsafe during the waning days of a vitriolic election. She declined to identify any of the donors.

And while she noted she represented sexual harassment victims for free or at reduced rates, she also acknowledged a standard part of her contracts required women to pay her commissions as high as 33 percent if she sold their stories to media outlets.

“Our standard pro bono agreement for legal services provides that if a media entity offers to compensate a client for sharing his or her story we receive a percentage of those fees. This rarely happens. But, on occasion, a case generates media interest and sometimes (not always) a client may receive an appearance fee,” she said.

“As a private law firm we have significant payroll, rent, taxes, insurance and other expenses every week, so an arrangement where we might receive some compensation to defray our costs seems reasonable to us and is agreed to by our clients,” Bloom added.

Bloom told The Hill she had no contact with Clinton or her campaign, but declined to address any contacts with super PACs that supported the Democratic presidential nominee.

Josh Schwerin, the communications director for Priorities USA Action, the largest pro-Clinton super PAC, told The Hill that the group had no relationship with Bloom and had no discussions with her about supporting Trump accusers.

One Bloom client who received financial help from Bloom was New York City makeup artist Jill Harth.

The former beauty contestant manager filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Trump in 1997 and then withdrew it under pressure. The news media discovered the litigation during the election, and Harth’s name became public in the summer of 2016. She asked Bloom to represent her in the fall after hearing Trump describe her allegations against him as false, and became a vocal critic of Trump.

“I consider myself lucky to have had Lisa Bloom by my side after my old lawsuit resurfaced. She advised me with great competence and compassion,” Harth told The Hill.

Harth said she did not originally ask Bloom for money, even though her cosmetics business suffered from the notoriety of the campaign stories about her.

But later, Bloom arranged a small payment from the licensing of some photos to the news media, and then set up a GoFundMe.com account to raise money for Harth in October 2016. “Jill put herself out there, facing off with Donald Trump. Let’s show her some love,” the online fundraising appeal set up by Bloom’s husband declared.

The effort raised a little over $2,300.

Bloom then arranged for a donor to make a larger contribution to help Harth pay off the mortgage on her Queens apartment in New York City. The amount was under $30,000, according to a source directly familiar with Harth’s situation. Public records show Harth’s mortgage was recorded as extinguished on Dec. 19, 2016.

Harth said the payments did not affect the merits of her allegations. She alleges that during a January 1993 meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, the future president pushed her up against a wall and groped her, trying to get his hands up her dress.

“Nothing that you’ve said to me about my mortgage or the Go Fund Me that was created to help me out financially affects the facts or the veracity of my 1997 federal complaint against Donald J. Trump for sexual harassment and assault,” she told The Hill.

“Having to retell my experiences of Donald Trump's harassment is the hardest thing I've ever had to do.”

Trump has steadfastly denied assaulting or harassing women, even after a videotape surfaced in September 2016 in which he can be heard boasting that famous men like him can grab women by the genitalia without consequence. Trump has dismissed the tape as "locker room talk."

Harth is currently writing a memoir about her whole experience, but without Bloom’s help.

Bloom acknowledged arranging financial help for Harth, who she said had lost income because of the publicity surrounding her allegations.

“She endured a tidal wave of hate for it. It was very painful for her. And as a New York City makeup artist, Jill lost jobs after she came out publicly against Donald Trump. I believed that people wanted to donate to help her, so we set up the GoFundMe account,” she told The Hill.

The Hill does not identify the names of victims of sexual assault or harassment unless they go public on their own, like Harth.

But one woman who did not go public with allegations agreed to share her documents and talk to The Hill about her interactions with Bloom if The Hill honored its commitment to maintain her anonymity.

Both that woman and Harth, who were friends, stressed that Bloom never asked them to make any statements or allegations except what they believed to be true.

Their texts and emails indicate Bloom held a strong dislike of Trump though. Bloom is the daughter of Gloria Allred, another prominent attorney who is representing a number of women who have made accusations of sexual misconduct against Trump.

In an email to the unnamed woman, Bloom said that her story was “further evidence of what a sick predator this man is,” referring to Trump.

Documents also show Bloom’s efforts to get alleged victims of sexual assault or harassment to come out against Trump intensified as Election Day 2016 approached.

When Harth, for instance, informed Bloom she had just made a Facebook post urging other women to come forward about Trump in October 2016, the lawyer texted back: “Wow Jill that would be amazing. 27 days until the election.”

And when a potential client abruptly backed out of a pre-election news conference in which she was supposed to allege she was sexually assaulted at age 13, Bloom turned her attention to another woman.

That woman, Harth’s friend, went back and forth for weeks with Bloom in 2016 about going public with an allegation of an unsolicited advance by Trump on the 1990s beauty contest circuit.

“Give us a clear sense of what you need and we will see if it we can get it,” Bloom texted the woman a week before Election Day.

“I’m scared Lisa. I can’t relocate. I don’t like taking other people’s money,” the woman wrote to Bloom.

“Ok let’s not do this then,” Bloom responded. “We are just about out of time anyway.”

The woman then texted back demanding to know why there was a deadline. “What does time have to do with this? Time to bury Trump??? You want my story to bury trump for what? Personal gain? See that 's why I have trust issues!!”

The woman told The Hill in an interview that Bloom initially approached her in early October through Harth. She said she considered coming forward with her account of an unsolicited advance by Trump solely to support her friend Harth, and not because she had any consternation with Trump, who ended the advance when she asked him to stop, she said.

The woman said Bloom initially offered a $10,000 donation to the woman’s favorite church, an account backed up by text messages the two exchanged.

“Please keep the donation offer confidential except to your pastor,” Bloom wrote the woman on Oct. 14, 2016.

When Bloom found out the woman was still a supporter of Trump and associated with lawyers, friends and associates of the future president, she texted a request that jarred the woman.

“When you have a chance I suggest you delete the August 2015 Facebook post about supporting Trump,” Bloom texted. “Otherwise the reporter will ask you how you could support him after what he did to you. Your call but it will make your life easier.”

The woman declined. “I hate to say it, but i still rather have trump in office than hillary,” the woman texted back. Bloom answered, “Ok I respect that. Then don’t change anything.”

Eventually the two decided the woman’s continued support of Trump was a benefit to her narrative if she went public with her accusations, the messages show. “I love your point about being a Trump supporter too,” Bloom texted on Oct. 14, 2016.

The text messages show the woman made escalating requests for more money.

By early November, the woman said, Bloom’s offers of money from donors had grown to $50,000 to be paid personally to her, and then even higher.

“Another donor has reached out to me offering relocation/security for any woman coming forward. I’m trying to reach him,” Bloom texted the woman on Nov. 3, 2016. Later she added, “Call me I have good news.”

The woman responded that she wasn’t impressed with the new offer of $100,000 given that she had a young daughter. “Hey after thinking about all this, I need more than $100,000.00. College money would be nice” for her daughter. “Plus relocation fees, as we discussed.”

The figured jumped to $200,000 in a series of phone calls with Bloom that week, according to the woman. The support was promised to be tax-free and also included changing her identity and relocating, according to documents and interviews.

Bloom told The Hill that the woman asked for money as high as $2 million in the conversations, an amount that was a nonstarter, but the lawyer confirmed she tried to arrange donations to the woman in the low six figures.

“She asked to be compensated, citing concerns for her safety and security and over time, increased her request for financial compensation to $2 million, which we told her was a non-starter,” Bloom told The Hill. “We did relay her security concerns to donors, but none were willing to offer more than a number in the low six figures, which they felt was more appropriate to address her security and relocation expenses.”

The woman said that when she initially talked to Bloom she simply wanted to support Harth and had no interest in being portrayed as an accuser or receiving money. But when Bloom’s mention of potential compensation became more frequent, the woman said she tried to draw out the lawyer to see how high the offer might reach and who might be behind the money.

Just a few days before the election, the woman indicated she was ready to go public with her story, then landed in the hospital and fell out of contact with Bloom.

The lawyer repeatedly texted one of the woman’s friends on Nov. 4, 2016, but the friend declined to put the woman on the phone, instead sending a picture of the client in a hospital bed.

Bloom persisted, writing in a series of texts to the friend that she needed to talk to her hospitalized client because it could have “a significant impact on her life” and a “big impact on her daughter” if she did not proceed with her public statement as she had planned.

“She is in no condition for visitors,” the friend texted Bloom back.

“If you care about her you need to leave her be until she is feeling better,” the friend added in another text.

Bloom hopped on a plane from California to come see the woman on the East Coast, according to the text messages and interviews.

The next day, the woman finally reconnected with Bloom and informed her she would not move forward with making her allegations public. Bloom reacted in a string of text messages after getting the news.

“I am confused because you sent me so many nice texts Wednesday night after my other client wasted so much of my time and canceled the press conference,” Bloom texted on Nov. 5, 2016. “That meant a lot to me. Thursday you said you wanted to do this if you could be protected/relocated. I begged you not to jerk me around after what I had just gone through.”

A little later, she added another text. “You have treated me very poorly. I have treated you with great respect as much as humanly possible. I have not made a dime off your case and I have devoted a great deal of time. It doesn’t matter. I could have done so much for you. But you can’t stick to your word even when you swear you will.”

After the woman was released from the hospital, she agreed to meet Bloom at a hotel on Nov. 6, just two days before Trump unexpectedly defeated Clinton.

The woman told The Hill in an interview that at the hotel encounter, Bloom increased the offer of donations to $750,000 but still she declined to take the money.

The woman texted Bloom that day saying she didn’t mean to let her lawyer down.

“You didn’t let me down,” Bloom texted back. “You came and spoke to me and made the decision that’s right for you. That’s all I wanted.”

Bloom confirmed to The Hill that she flew to Virginia to meet with the woman after she had changed her mind several times about whether to go public with her accusations against Trump.

“We invited her to meet with us at the hotel restaurant and she accepted. Ultimately, after another heartfelt discussion, she decided that she did not want to come forward, and we respected her decision,” Bloom told The Hill.

Bloom said the donor money was never intended “to entice women to come forward against their will.”

“Nothing can be further from the truth. Some clients asked for small photo licensing fees while others wanted more to protect their security,” she said.

Bloom declined to identify the name of any donors who would have provided money for women making accusations against Trump.

Harth and the woman who decided not to go public said they never were given any names of donors.

But Bloom told the woman who declined to come forward that she had reached out to political action committees supporting Clinton’s campaign.

“It’s my understanding that there is some Clinton Super Pack [sic] that could help out if we did move forward,” the woman wrote Bloom on Oct. 11, 2016. “If we help the Clinton campaign they in turn could help or compensate us?”

Bloom wrote back, “Let’s please do a call. I have already reached out to Clinton Super PACs and they are not paying. I can get you paid for some interviews however.”

The woman who ultimately declined to come forward with Bloom told The Hill that she stayed silent for an entire year afterward because she did not want to call attention to her family.

She said she supported Trump in 2016, and that he she held no resentment about the early 1990s advance because Trump stopped it as soon as she asked him.

She said she remains friends with many people associated with the president to this day, including one of his best personal friends and a lawyer who works for one of the firms representing Trump.

The woman said, however, no one associated with the Trump White House or the president forced her to come forward or made any offers to induce her to talk to The Hill. She said she agreed to do so only after she became disgusted to learn this past October that Bloom had agreed to work in defense of Weinstein.

“I couldn’t understand how she could say she was for people like me and then represent someone like him. And then all the money stuff I knew about. I just became frustrated,” she said.

Bloom dropped her representation of Weinstein as the accusations piled up against him, telling Buzzfeed that it had been a “colossal mistake.”

Nearly from the beginning, Bloom made clear to the woman she would have to pay her law firm a commission on any fees the attorney arranged from media outlets willing to pay for the woman’s story, according to a copy of a contract as well as a text message sent to the woman.

“Outlets with which I have good relationships that may pay for your first on camera interview, revealing your name and face: Inside Edition, Dr. Phil, LawNewz.com,” Bloom texted the woman just weeks before Election Day. “My best estimate of what I could get for you would be $10-15,000 (less our 1/3 attorney fee)."

“If you are interested I would recommend Inside Edition or Dr. Phil as they are much bigger. Dr. Phil is doing a show on Trump accusers next Tuesday in LA and would fly you here and put you up in a nice hotel, and pay for your meals as well, with your daughter if you like,” Bloom’s text added.

“Media moves very quickly so you need to decide and then once confirmed, you need to stick to it.”

Representatives of "Inside Edition" and "Dr. Phil" said they did not pay any Trump accusers for appearances last year.

Bloom’s firm sent the woman a “media-related services” contract to represent her for “speaking out against Donald Trump” that laid out business terms for selling a story in the most direct terms.

“You will compensate the Firm thirty-three percent (33%) of the total fee that you collect, whether the media deal or licensing fees is for print, Internet, radio, television, film or any other medium,” Bloom’s proposed contract, dated Oct. 10, 2016, read. The woman said she signed the contract.

When Bloom found out in early November that the woman and the friend had discussions with CBS News about doing an interview on their own, the lawyer texted back: “CBS does not pay for stories.”

A little later Bloom sent another text suggesting the arrangements she was making could be impacted by the unauthorized media contacts. “You and your friends should not be shopping the story it will come back to bite you,” Bloom texted. “And this whole thing we have worked so hard to make happen will go away.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

If The U.S. Government Is Corrupt, Do We Go To The International Court Of Justice?

Internatinoal Court of Justice, The Hague

As we have witnessed history unfold in massive levels of public corruption, so deeply embeded in local, state, and federal governments, where does the U.S. turn to for justice?

The International Court of Justice, of course!

So, what exactly is the ICJ?

It is the tribunal for war crimes under the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

Some may better recognize ICJ as The Hague, the jurisdiction where Nuremberg Trials of WWII Nazi war crimes were held,

Interestingly enough, the United States does not have history of filing with the ICJ as it has always handled its ethical conflicts, internally.

So, as we see abberant fraud and public corruption running through the history of the U.S. government and its States for decades, perhaps it is time to find justice in an untainted venue.

Now, that the U.S. Congress overwhemlingly passed JASTA into law, the doors are now open for the people of the world, including U.S. citizens, to sue the United States.

Public officials, staffers, even former staffers, are subject to the ICJ where lying into the public record, whether through bribes or personal inurement of public office, is a crime of war.

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

I believe the U.S. has filed, under seal, a writ of frauds.

Stay tuned.

US CODE Title18 Par tI Chapter 118 Section 2441 - War Crimes by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Head of Congressional Ethics Office Sued for Abusing Position, Accused of Assaulting Women

Omar Ashmawy, staff director at the Office of Congressional Ethics

A key official involved in House investigations faces a federal lawsuit alleging misconduct.

Atop congressional ethics official who oversees investigations into misconduct by lawmakers is accused in a federal lawsuit of verbally abusing and physically assaulting women and using his federal position to influence local law enforcement, according to a complaint filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania last month.

The ongoing lawsuit against Omar Ashmawy, staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics, stems from his involvement in a late-night brawl in 2015 in Milford, Pennsylvania, and includes a range of allegations relating to his behavior that evening and in the following two-and-half years.

Ashmawy’s office conducts the preliminary investigations into allegations of misconduct in the House of Representatives, deciding which cases to pursue or refer to the Committee on Ethics. He is named in congressional documents as the official who presented one of the investigations into John Conyers, the Democratic lawmaker from Michigan accused of sexual harassment, to the ethics committee for further action,

Among other allegations, Ashmawy is accused in the lawsuit of “threatening to use his position as staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics to induce a criminal proceeding to be brought against Plaintiff and/or others,” according to the federal lawsuit filed against him.

In court filings and in statements to Foreign Policy, Ashmawy denied the allegations laid out in the lawsuit.

“To be clear, I did not harass anyone that evening, physically or verbally,” he wrote in a statement to FP. “To the contrary, I was the victim of a wholly unprovoked assault for which those responsible were investigated, arrested and charged. Any allegation to the contrary is unequivocally false.”

The lawsuit, previously unreported, stems from Feb. 14, 2015 — Valentine’s Day. The evening appeared to start off well for Ashmawy: a nearly $400 dinner with his girlfriend at an upscale restaurant in Milford, followed by late-night drinks at a local bar.

It ended, however, with him bruised and bloody in the back of a police car.

Two months later, three men were arrested for assaulting Ashmawy. One of those men, Greg Martucci, is now suing Ashmawy in federal court in Pennsylvania in connection to the events of that night.

What exactly led to the physical altercation is in dispute, but in police statements reviewed by FP, three women at the bar that night, including the bartender, accuse Ashmawy of harassing and physically assaulting them.

A former Air Force officer who prosecuted two of the early post-9/11 military tribunal cases, Ashmawy has been a rising star on Capitol Hill in recent years. He was profiled in the Washington Post, which described his job overseeing “the first independent office in history charged with overseeing the ethics of the House of Representatives.” He was also featured earlier this year in Politico’s “birthday of the day,” where he describes his job as helping the “House of Representatives uphold ethical standards by investigating allegations of misconduct by members, staff or officers of the House.”

Ashmawy’s office sits at the center of multiple ongoing, high-profile congressional investigations. Its recent work includes a probe into California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes’s midnight trip to the White House in March. The investigation led to Nunes stepping down from the committee investigating Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election, according to Office of Congressional Ethics website and news reports. (Earlier this month, the full ethics committee cleared Nunes of misconduct.)

According to the website of the Office of Congressional Ethics, it has pursued investigations into Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) and Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), whose cases, like that of Conyers, began under Ashmawy and were referred to the ethics committee for further investigation. The New York Times this week reported that Republicans are citing a 2015 decision by the Office of Congressional Ethics clearing Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who has also been accused of sexual harassment.

Ashmawy has also, according to travel disclosures, visited Ukraine, Kosovo, and Georgia to assist governments there in setting up their own ethics and government oversight bodies. He gives talks overseas and in the United States on investigating lawmaker misconduct and on the importance of ethical behavior in and after government service.

Yet the complaint filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Ashmawy, as well as documents related to the case and police and witness statements, raise questions about Ashmawy’s conduct.

According to the complaint, Martucci on the night of Feb. 14, 2015, witnessed “an extremely violent and belligerent” Ashmawy become verbally abusive toward two women at Milford’s Dimmick Inn, Dawn Jorgenson — the wife of John Jorgenson, the owner of the bar — and Joey Lynn Smith, a bartender there.

Martucci also said he saw Ashmawy physically assaulting Dawn Jorgenson and Christina Floyd, another woman at the bar, a claim echoed in police statements given by the women and reviewed by FP.

According to a three-page statement dated March 12, 2015, Dawn Jorgenson said she witnessed Ashmawy “clearly sexually harassing” the bartender throughout the course of the evening and saw his behavior spiral toward physical violence. “You’ll give me drinks, but you won’t fuck me,” Ashmawy allegedly said to the bartender, according to Dawn Jorgenson’s written statement.

She said she then saw Ashmawy block the bartender with his body and curse at her, and grab her by the wrists. Dawn Jorgenson said when she tried to intervene, Ashmawy turned against her. “He’s holding my wrist so tightly that he falls down to the ground landing to the left of me,” she wrote in her statement.

She said her husband, John Jorgenson, came over to help and pulled Ashmawy away, taking him outside.

In statements given to police, the third woman, Christina Floyd, provided a similar account. “I watched each time Omar would come down and verbally sexually harass the bartender as he ordered drinks,” Floyd wrote in her statement, describing an increasingly angry Ashmawy confronting the bartender.

“I am a 5 foot 3 woman who never knew this man. I was very scared of him and was afraid he’d come back around for weeks after,” Floyd wrote of Ashmawy in her statement to police dated March 14, 2015. “I have never had a man physically harm me or scare me in that matter. He was sexually harassing, abusing and I feared for my life.”

According to Floyd, Ashmawy was “sexually harassing and verbally abusive” to the bartender. She also said Ashmawy was “very intoxicated,” an allegation that is backed up by the police report.

The two other women described abuse at the hands of Ashmawy that same night, providing similar details. Ashmawy did not respond to FP’s follow-up email with additional questions, including if he was intoxicated that evening.

Two other people at the bar that night, however, said they saw only the men drag out Ashmawy—and did not witness his alleged attacks on the women.

One of those witnesses is referenced in Ashmawy’s Dec. 6 brief in support of his motion to dismiss. The brief says the witness “called 911 after witnessing Defendant Ashmawy be attacked by three men and then one of the men involved in the attack dragging him outside” and it “seemed like the men set up Defendant Ashmawy ‘to get jumped.’” (A police report reviewed by FP confirms that the witness who called police was concerned “it wasn’t a fair fight.”)

What all sides appeared to agree on is that, at the end of the evening, Ashmawy was injured.

Months after the incident, three men were charged with assaulting Ashmawy, including Martucci. Ashmawy was never arrested or charged with a crime (a police report from the evening says Ashmawy was the only one at the scene with visible injuries).

Martucci is now suing Ashmawy in a Pennsylvania federal court, accusing him of a range of unethical and possibly criminal conduct tied to the 2015 bar fight and subsequent legal proceedings. Also named in the suit is Milford’s police chief and the borough of Milford.

In his lawsuit, Martucci accuses Ashmawy of using his political power and position with the Office of Congressional Ethics to pressure the police and the district attorney into not arresting him for assaulting the women. Martucci also alleges that Ashmawy threatened federal investigation of local government and police if they did not press charges against those accusing him of assault.

An email reviewed by FP from Ashmawy, using his congressional affiliation, to the police chief and officials at the district attorney’s office accuses them of not handling the case properly.

“As of today it has been over five weeks since I was assaulted. To date, the police department’s investigation is not complete and charges have not been filed. I am deeply concerned,” he wrote in the email, which is signed with his congressional title and work mail address.

Ashmawy cites his injuries, which he said included a facial fracture and a “bruised and bloodied” eye.

In the same email, Ashmawy references his own work conducting investigations, and indicates that if charges aren’t filed the case might attract high-level attention in the capital.

“There is no hiding what happened to me from the people I interact with on a day to day basis,” he wrote. “As result, there are a growing number of individuals in the Washington, DC community who have taken an interest in this matter and are concerned that one of the reasons this matter has languished is because I’m not a resident of Milford, PA. I’ve assured them that isn’t true. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that my ethnicity, as an Arab-American and Muslim, might also be a factor in the delayed investigation and the charging of the individuals responsible. I’ve explained that is unlikely.”

An attorney representing the town and police chief in the lawsuit declined to comment on why charges weren’t filed against Ashmawy in light of the women’s statements to police.

“Please be advised that the official response on behalf of Milford Borough and Chief DaSilva is ‘No comment during the course of pending litigation,’” Sheryl L. Brown, an attorney with the firm Siana Bellwoar, wrote FP in response to queries.

She noted that a motion to dismiss the case was pending with the court, and then threatened legal action against FP. “We reserve the right to subpoena unprivileged portions of your files considering you assert you are in possession of ‘police statements from witnesses…,’” she wrote.

Ashmawy’s version of events from that evening is markedly different. In his statement to police that night, Ashmawy wrote there was a conflict with women at the bar, but it stemmed from “a previous altercation” between his girlfriend and the bartender.

The bartender “spoke fighting words to me,” he wrote, adding that the two other women “abruptly came up to me.”

 At that point, Ashmawy said, three men assaulted him, choked him, and threw him to the ground. “My handwriting is affected by the fact that I have only the sight of one eye and I’m bleeding from multiple wounds to include my eye and my lip,” he wrote in his statement to police.

“This matter was fully investigated. I was the victim, and the men responsible were arrested and charged,” he wrote in a statement to FP. “The three assailants attacked me without any provocation whatsoever, and any suggestion to contrary is nothing but an exercise in slander.”

The three men eventually charged in the assault were John Jorgenson, the bar owner, Tim Reilly, and Martucci. Each was charged with three counts relating to the alleged assault. The first two pled guilty to one misdemeanor charge, but the prosecutors eventually dropped the charges against Martucci, a federal air marshal, and the case against him was expunged in October 2016.

While the case proceeded, however, Martucci was suspended from his federal air marshal job without pay and then later fired. In response to a request for comment about Martucci, the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees the Federal Air Marshal Service, said that Martucci was no longer employed with the agency and refused to answer questions about the incident or internal investigation,

Martucci filed the lawsuit against Ashmawy in September.

On Dec. 6, Ashmawy filed a brief in support of his earlier motion to dismiss, saying he was acting as an “individual who was a victim of an assault and pursued his legal remedies to their established conclusion.”

The police chief and borough of Milford have filed similar motions to dismiss. A case management conference with all parties’ attorneys before the presiding judge is scheduled for Jan. 5, 2018,

“These criminal charges, which Mr. Martucci successfully had dismissed, derailed my client’s career and affected his livelihood,” Martucci’s lawyer, Ryan Lockman, told FP. “Mr. Martucci eagerly awaits the opportunity to proceed with his claims.” Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©