Showing posts with label Janet Napolitano. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Janet Napolitano. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

DOJ: Member of “The Dark Overlord” Hacking Group Extradited From United Kingdom to Face Charges in St. Louis

The Dark Overlord allegedly released 911 legal documents.

Defendant Conspired to Steal Sensitive Personally Identifying Information from Victim Companies and Release those Records on Criminal Marketplaces unless Victims Paid Bitcoin Ransoms

A United Kingdom national appeared today in federal court on charges of aggravated identity theft, threatening to damage a protected computer, and conspiring to commit those and other computer fraud offenses, related to his role in a computer hacking collective known as “The Dark Overlord,” which targeted victims in the St. Louis, Missouri, area beginning in 2016. 
Nathan Wyatt, 39, was extradited from the United Kingdom to the Eastern District of Missouri and arraigned on Dec. 18 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah.  He pleaded not guilty and was detained pending further proceedings.
A federal grand jury indicted Wyatt on Nov. 8, 2017.  According to court records, beginning in 2016, Wyatt was a member of The Dark Overlord, a hacking group that was responsible for remotely accessing the computer networks of multiple U.S. companies without authorization, obtaining sensitive records and information from those companies, and then threatening to release the companies’ stolen data unless the companies paid a ransom in bitcoin.  Victims in the Eastern District of Missouri included healthcare providers, accounting firms, and others. Among other things, Wyatt is alleged to have participated in the conspiracy by creating email and phone accounts that he used to send threatening and extortionate emails and text messages to certain victims, including victims in the Eastern District of Missouri.  
“Today’s extradition shows that the hackers hiding behind The Dark Overlord moniker will be held accountable for their alleged extortion of American companies,” said Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.  “We are thankful for the close cooperation of our partners in the United Kingdom in ensuring that the defendant will face justice in U.S. court.”
“Cyber criminals who harm victims in the Eastern District of Missouri cannot hide behind international borders to evade justice,” said U.S. Attorney Jeffrey B. Jensen of the Eastern District of Missouri.  “Today’s case demonstrates the United States’ commitment to unmasking criminal hackers and bringing them to justice, no matter where they may be located.”
“Cyber hackers may no longer use territorial borders to shield themselves from accountability,” said Special Agent in Charge Richard Quinn of the FBI’s St. Louis Field Office. “This case is another example of how the FBI successfully works with international law enforcement partners to bring alleged perpetrators to justice.”
The investigation was conducted by the FBI’s St. Louis Field Office.  The FBI’s Atlanta Field Office also provided support.  The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs coordinated the extradition of Wyatt. The department thanks law enforcement and international cooperation authorities in the United Kingdom for their substantial assistance in the investigation.
Senior Counsel Laura-Kate Bernstein of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Gwendolyn Carroll and Matthew Drake of the Eastern District of Missouri are prosecuting the case.
The details contained in the charging document are allegations.  The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, January 26, 2019

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.





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.



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 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.


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.


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.©

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

DEFANGO: Going Through The Dark Overlord 911 Insurance Documents & More

The best part of all of this is that it is public information through PACER and such actions like the paywall can actually trigger a FinCEN investigation when it comes to the corporate insurance payouts, like the payouts to those "Authorities" and other Corporate Shape Shifters.

Then, there is that pesky "Attorney-Client Privilege" that can be stripped in the commission of a crime, you know.

That would bring in all the former DOJ characters like Bill Barr, Janet Napolitano, and the U.S. District Attorneys like "Pretty" Preet Baharara and Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

#cyberwars are real.




The hackers who stole Orange is the New Black are back, and they've hit a new low. The group known as TheDarkOverlord claims to have stolen 18,000 documents from Hiscox Syndicates, Lloyds of London and Silverstein Properties, and threatened to release files providing "answers" for 9/11 attack "conspiracies" unless it received a ransom. Saying it was “welcoming 2019 with open arms and a big announcement,” the Dark Overlord hacker group Monday threatened via a Pastebin post to release files it said were nicked from a law firm – believed to have advised insurer Hiscox Syndicares Ltd. – that handled September 11-related cases.

Dark Overlord: https://pastebin.com/36QuTJXc

Hackers Threaten to Dump Insurance Files Related to 9/11 Attacks

The Dark Overlord appears to be trying to capitalize on conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks.

On Monday, New Year’s Eve, a hacker group announced it had breached a law firm handling cases related to the September 11 attacks, and threatened to publicly release a large cache of related internal files unless their ransom demands were met.

The news is the latest public extortion attempt from the group known as The Dark Overlord, which has previously targeted a production studio working for Netflix, as well as a host of medical centres and private businesses across the United States. The announcement also signals a slight evolution in The Dark Overlord’s strategy, which has expanded on leveraging the media to exert pressure on victims, to now distributing its threats and stolen data in a wider fashion.
In its announcement published on Pastebin, The Dark Overlord points to several different insurers and legal firms, claiming specifically that it hacked Hiscox Syndicates Ltd, Lloyds of London, and Silverstein Properties.
“Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Lloyds of London are some of the biggest insurers on the planet insuring everything from the smallest policies to some of the largest policies on the planet, and who even insured structures such as the World Trade Centers,” the announcement reads.
It is unclear what exact files the group has stolen, but it is trying to capitalize on conspiracy theories around the 9/11 attacks.
“We'll be providing many answers about 9.11 conspiracies through our 18.000 secret documents leak,” the group tweeted on Monday.
Got a tip? You can contact this reporter securely on Signal on +44 20 8133 5190, OTR chat on jfcox@jabber.ccc.de, or email joseph.cox@vice.com.
A spokesperson for the Hiscox Group confirmed to Motherboard that the hackers had breached a law firm that advised the company, and likely stolen files related to litigation around the 9/11 attacks.
“The law firm’s systems are not connected to Hiscox’s IT infrastructure and Hiscox’s own systems were unaffected by this incident. One of the cases the law firm handled for Hiscox and other insurers related to litigation arising from the events of 9/11, and we believe that information relating to this was stolen during that breach,” the spokesperson wrote in an email.
“Once Hiscox was informed of the law firm’s data breach, it took action and informed policyholders as required. We will continue to work with law enforcement in both the UK and US on this matter,” they added. Lloyds of London did not respond to a request for comment.
The hacking group published a small set of letters, emails and other documents that mention various law firms, as well as the Transport Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Aviation Administration (The TSA could not provide a statement in time for publication, and the FAA told Motherboard in an email it was investigating.) Those documents themselves appear to be fairly innocuous, but the group says it may release more.
In its extortion note, The Dark Overlord included a link for a 10GB archive of files it allegedly stole. The group also provided a link to this archive to Motherboard before publishing its announcement. The cache is encrypted, but the hackers are threatening to release the relevant decryption keys, unlocking different sets of files at a time, unless the victims pay the hackers an undisclosed ransom fee in Bitcoin.
“Pay the fuck up, or we're going to bury you with this. If you continue to fail us, we'll escalate these releases by releasing the keys, each time a Layer is opened, a new wave of liability will fall upon you,” the extortion note reads.
The Dark Overlord is also claiming to be offering to sell the data on a dark web hacking forum, and is attempting to blackmail individuals who may be included in the documents themselves.
“If you're one of the dozens of solicitor firms who was involved in the litigation, a politician who was involved in the case, a law enforcement agency who was involved in the investigations, a property management firm, an investment bank, a client of a client, a reference of a reference, a global insurer, or whoever else, you're welcome to contact our e-mail below and make a request to formally have your documents and materials withdrawn from any eventual public release of the materials. However, you'll be paying us,” the group’s post reads.
As The Dark Overlord’s announcement notes, the breach itself was previously reported in vague terms by a specialist legal publication, and Hiscox Group pointed Motherboard to the firm’s own April 2018 announcement of a data breach.
“Hiscox recently learned of an information security incident affecting a specialist law firm in the US that provided advice to Hiscox or its policyholders on some of its US commercial liability insurance claims. The incident involved illegal access to information stored on the law firm’s server, which may have included information relating to up to 1,500 of Hiscox’s US-based commercial insurance policyholders,” that earlier announcement reads.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, December 24, 2018

The Right To Bear Arms Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Guns Because It Is About The Right To Bear Witness To Voting Rights

Gather round, my Dearies, for the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed is to tell the yuletide tale of the "Right to Bear Arms".

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 1789 (revised 1992) 

Once upon a time there were kings and queens who had granted the right to bear arms, under the royal crest in the laws of armory, where arms were a representation of a family legacy, surname, heritage, under consent of the king, to function in what is known as heraldry, the extended appendage of the kingdom.

A COMPLETE GUIDE TO HERALDRY
Illuminated A
rmory is that science of which the rules and the laws govern the use, display, meaning, and knowledge of the pictured signs and emblems appertaining to shield, helmet, or banner. Heraldry has a wider meaning, for it comprises everything within the duties of a herald; and whilst Armory undoubtedly is Heraldry, the regulation of ceremonials and matters of pedigree, which are really also within the scope of Heraldry, most decidedly are not Armory.
"Armory" relates only to the emblems and devices. "Armoury" relates to the weapons themselves as weapons of warfare, or to the place used for the storing of the weapons. But these distinctions of spelling are modern.
The word "Arms," like many other words in the English language, has several meanings, and at the present day is used in several senses. It may mean the weapons themselves; it may mean the limbs upon the human body. Even from the heraldic point of view it may mean the entire achievement, but usually it is employed in reference to the device upon the shield only.

The right to bear arms, as worded in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with people running around, locked and loaded, with weapons that fall under the scope of what is know as "guns".

There are ancient tales of the court room having tables set an arms length apart, as in a sword, and the bench is the length of a sword, just in case someone was willing to fight to the death for justice, in the preservation of their ethical truths.

It has to do with Voting Rights of the people to say who can represent society, and in the modern day understanding of the Second Amendment, it means more than who can own a gun, because that was all propaganda generated under the Parental Rights Amendment where they equated parental rights with gun rights, which had absolutely nothing to do with owning a gun.

It was about property rights, under chattel law, in the form of UCCs sailing away with our children's trusts by pilfering the national treasuries of world governments, under the fake ass guise of a Public Private Partnership of Corporate Shape Shifters using the Marques of ecclesiastical law, in the promotion of always doing the work of the Lord, the recordkeeper of the land.

The right to bear arms is about genealogy, were families, not necessarily related with any degree of consanguinity, would function as a industrial unit to maintain survival on a legally registered land mass, under the allodial title of the kingdom by registering the family crest.

Now, we go DNA daatabases.

The Arm of Congress
The family crest would contain the lineage of the family

Now, we have arms of dominion and sovereignty.

Arms are also bestowed upon elected officials through the Scrivener, the Scribe, more readily recognized as the Notary, granted powers of verification and nullification of the official record of the genealogy of the state, in the Repository of the Great Seal, the official arm as the keeper of the record, which records the grant of the right to bear arms as holder of public office.

Now, we have the affidavit in the form of a social media post, which must be held to the same standards as any other individual right to vote, or rather bear witness to frauds, attached to the ethical and/or commercial arms, both hands and feet of the supreme body of jurisprudence, under the exact same penalty of criminal or civil laws.

In essence, if you lie, you need to be held accountable.

Violence is economic, financial, physical, or any other form of which corrupts the annals of history.

The same applies to propaganda, a violent act upon the public that harms the children's trust, all forms of it... in elections, in politics, in finance, in marketing, in law (ooooooo... I am going to be busy, busy, busy on this one. The Madame Maura Corrigan was super busy legislating from the bench all over the place. NOTE TO SELF: BUY MORE BLEACH AND RUBBER GLOVES.)

The royal assent, or in this modern understanding, the elected official, could be challenged in the itinerant court, or in the higher court of the Magnum Concillium, better recognized as the Supreme Court, through the process of the royal veto, which is the Court of Arms, or better recognized, but probably not, as the Electoral College or rather the College of Arms.

Contained within the Electoral College are the State and County Boards of Canvassers who advise the Electoral College, like the Pursuviant of the College of Arms.

False advisement, propaganda, is a public fraud because it interferes in elections and I would even go so far to say it is a verifiable form of uttering and publishing the results of an election where the public voice of fraud was ignored.

This is not the best interests of the child.

The Electoral College was based upon the Three Fifths Rule and has never, ever, ever, ever, changed, which is just one example of the residual of the peculiar institution, because it still recognized the right to bear arms, as a corporate instrument of authority to do what they wanted with society, based upon chattel law, where the mechanism to veto the royal assent can be witnessed in the quo warranto.



The Second Amendment is the progenitor of Voting Rights.

See, it goes like this.

There was always an individual who was the one who would voyage under the granted arm, to represent their recorded land, kingdom, country, state, county, city, estate of corporation, on behalf of the people, in the spirit of the best interests of posterity, or, what is omitted from any form of history, the children, in the name of the one who granted the arm.

That individual would be granted a title of nobility, not foreign, but domestic, to protect the public record of the arm, the family, the legacy, the heritage, the lineage, or whatever you wish to call it, in the recording of the birth of tiny humans and land.

The recorded title of each birth and land is a moveable chattel.

The physical building is an immoveable chattel, attached to the land.

The child is attached to the land, in nationality, or, in this instance, in the certification of the birth by the county, the keeper of the record.

The birth of a child (and adult) can be changed, or rather, "born again" through the issuance of a new birth certificate, like what they do in adoption.

The same applies to marriage, or what is known under chattel law as wifery.

The laws regulating a well-armed militia protect Free States, as opposed to the Slave States that readily engaged in the moving of chattels.

Basically, the Second Amendment established regulation of society in various forms to stop stealin' of children, land and votes, because there was now, a well-regulated militia, in the officers of the courts.

The United States has standing armies, conferred upon the right to bear arms, in the Attorneys General and Auditors General, as each division of federalism, the States, have them, and their rank and file of officers called attorneys, of whom must also bear witness to the right to bear arms in nullification of the attorney-client privilege in frauds, as an original source.

This includes the regulation of frauds perpetrated by licensed attorneys who have been grieved by the public and must have their right to bear arms, terminated.

The arm of the U.S. Department of Justice

Arms are the powers of law enforcement, to protect the free States, and the right of the people to vote, without interference of election or any other forms of fraud.

Image result for CIGIE
The arm of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency

These records of birth were maintained under ecclesiastic law, the Canon of chattel law, in vessels that would have the right to bear arms, you know, like ship flag on a manifests of goods.

The birth record was crucial in verifying the allodial title of the moveable chattel, or rather, who owned the person and the personae, or rather, what rights a person held in society, based upon the bipolar scale with endpoints of being free or being enslaved, based upon the concept of civil debt based in property law.

In essence, you cannot vote if you have not been granted the right to bear arms, or rather verified nationality.

Think of the right to bear arms like showing a passport, articles of incorporation, for the right to vote.

Corporations vote, too, you know.

Corporations can also hire militias, or, private armies.

Image result for u s flag
The 50 Arms of the U.S. Coat
Men at arms came about to be, basically, private armies who would cover up their armor with "coats of arms" so the armor would not rust, because the upper echelon of the arm, or bearers of the family crest, really were not prone to going to war to protect the kingdom, which was the right to their land and profit.

Coats of arms is where a bunch of landowners, granted arms under heraldry law, got together and said, "Hey, why don't we pool our powers and resources to invade stuff by putting them all bunched up into one crest and expand shores to make a bigger kingdom."

This was the time they came up with the Marquee, another vehicle in the right to the royal assent in the acquisition of the granted right to bear arms, or articles of corporation under the Marquis, the Lord of the record under Canon law of chattels, under what is known as commercial law, the Uniform Commercial Code, which is international law.

Image result for greek public senators
The Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed is the final
arbitor of the election
Maxims of law, based in ecclesiastical law, canons, are different and distinct from commercial laws which is why they are considered to be ethics in truth, the qui tam, as the right to bear witness in Magnum Concillium, the superior spiritual court of the public trust, upon a fraud executed upon the people of land, the kindgdom, by terminating the right to bear arms, the Marque of the state of which the business is incorporated.

The same holds true for the quo warranto, another extraordinary writ to challenge the right to bear arms when questioning what right does one have to hold the Marque of the public office by bearing witness to the frauds of election.

There are no ethics in corporate law which is why they came up with that privatization crap of Social Impact Bonds in their social campaign of corporate responsibility policies of a corporate parent through those fake authorities in Public Private Partnerships.

Odysseus and Penelope by Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein (1751–1829)
"How much longer must I deal with these
'Legal Geniuses' (trademark pending)?"
Maxims of law exist in the form ethics, established by the beliefs of society, corporate law deals in commerce, where the regulation of the two are founded in the due process, which is why there is a right of entry and a right of exist, well established as voting rights in the public courts.

Voting rights are the rights of the people to call out fraud, under the true regulation of a society.

#perkinscoiesucks

Agape voci.



That is why, in the calling out of frauds (a.k.a. stealin') there must always be the art of consent, the "I do" under that cyclical, perpetual, pareto optimalization, for the greater good of society contract in the children's trusts, our most precious treasures.

It is just a Rousseau thing.

It is not gold; it is the children.

"Before you are a man, you are a child."

That is why the only way to finally address the privateering of our institutions is properly address the residuals of the peculiar institution.

Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg
The United States Arm
We are not going to cite the commercial codes, common laws, constitutions, public policy, rules or regulations, marked by the right to bear arms in the Great Seals of the U.S., States, Counties or Cities, we are going to testify in the public, under the qui tam, to force these people to bear arms so we can bear witness to the frauds perpetrated upon humanity in the form of war crimes.

If we do cite there authority, we contractually consent to play by their rules and beliefs in commercial law, which nullifies the ethical standing as a whistleblower.

In short, one calls out the frauds perpetrated upon the children's trusts.

The right to bear arms is the sister to the right to bare witness in due process, more intuitively recognized as Voting Rights.

The entire Second Amendment platform to push the industry of guns, was based upon foreign funded propaganda, that all started in the State of Michigan.
Beverly Tran
The Michigan Arm of the Great Seal is not a sewer hole.
(I am lifting the seal to expose the crap)

COAT-OF-ARMS AND FLAG


Act 209 of 1911

AN ACT to adopt and prescribe the design of a state coat-of-arms and state flag, and their use; to prohibit the use of the same for advertising purposes; to prescribe standards for the manufacture, sale, and display of certain flags of the United States and the state flag; and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state agencies and officials.

History: 1911, Act 209, Eff. Aug. 1, 1911 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 167, Imd. Eff. June 14, 2012

© 2017 Legislative Council, State of Michigan  <===where do they always copyright public law?

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

DocumentTypeDescription
Section 2.21SectionState coat-of-arms; adoption.
Section 2.22SectionState coat-of-arms; emblazonment.
Section 2.22aSectionPurchase of United States or state flag; manufacture; applicability to local units of government.
Section 2.23SectionState flag.
Section 2.24SectionGovernor's flag.
Section 2.25SectionState coat-of-arms; where hung.
Section 2.26SectionState coat-of-arms; use on official letterheads and documents.
Section 2.27SectionUnited States flag, state flag; display, expense payment.

All I am doing right now is sharpening my nails for Laurence Tribe and Janet Napolitano. 



Bring it on, Boo Boos.

The moral of the story, once again, "Do not be mean to my Sweetie. Period."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Conyers Applauds Nomination of Jeh Johnson to Become Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security


(WASHINGTON) – Today, President Obama announced the nomination of Jeh Johnson to become the next secretary of the Department of Homeland Security following the retirement of Janet Napolitano. Mr. Johnson most recently served as the General Counsel for the Department of Defense.  After the nomination was announced, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.
“I congratulate Jeh Johnson on his nomination to become the next secretary, and the first African-American secretary, of the Department of Homeland Security, and I applaud President Obama for this outstanding nomination,” said Conyers.

“Mr. Johnson has had a brilliant legal career in private practice, working as a civil and criminal trial lawyer on notable commercial cases, and was elected to be his firm’s first African American partner.  Following this work, Mr. Johnson went into public service, including working as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York prosecuting public corruption cases, serving as General Counsel of the Air Force during the Clinton Administration, and serving as General Counsel for the Department of Defense from 2009 through 2012.

“As a dedicated public servant, and a brilliant legal mind, I commend Jeh Johnson’s nomination, and I hope that the Senate promptly confirms him.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

House Minority Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. Letter to Secretary Napolitano on Detroit Windsor Tunnel Bomb Threat, July 17, 2012

 Letter from House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano regarding the recent bomb threats made against the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel and the Ambassador Bridge.  The letter asks the Department of Homeland Security to describe its role in investigating the threats and requests the Department to explain how it will update security plans for both crossings.  DHS Secretary Napolitano is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee this Thursday.
House Minority Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. Letter to Secretary Napolitano on Detroit Windsor Tun...

Is it just me or does anyone else smell bridge politics in these bomb threats?


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Sec. Napolitano Testifies on New Cybersecurity Bill

A day late, a dollar short.  These people do not engage us who know what is going on.


Sec. Napolitano Testifies on New Cybersecurity Bill



Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano urged lawmakers  to quickly pass cybersecurity legislation designed to strengthen both government and private computer defenses from attacks. She testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee on the  Cybersecurity Act of 2012, bipartisan legislation that would give the Homeland Security Department power to identify vulnerabilities and set regulations requiring operators of critical networks to improve security or face penalties. Former Homeland Security Secretary & now head of the Chamber of Commerce National Security Task Force expressed reservations on the legislation and warned against over regulating business.
The bipartisan Cybersecurity Act, introduced this week by Senators Lieberman (I-CT), Rockefeller (D-WV), Feinstein (D-CA) and Collins (R-ME), requires DHS to identify critical infrastructure and forces private companies to protect sensitive networks vulnerable to cyber attacks.
The bill does not contain a "kill switch" that Republican senators objected to. That measure would have given the President emergency powers to seize private online networks.
The bill also requires the State Department to identify cyber threats and reward foreign aid to cooperative governments while issuing sanctions against those governments that do nothing to stop cyber attacks.
In the first panel Sen. Rockefeller and Sen. Feinstein, co-sponsors of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, expressed sincere concern that critical U.S. systems are in eminent danger from cyber threats. Sen. Rockefeller compared this to the time before 9-11 when various U.S. governmental organizations knew that there was a problem, but didn't connect the dots until it was too late.
Secretary Napolitano testified in the second panel and said that this legislation would improve DHS's ability to address the threats of cybersecurity. She said that the current threat outpaces the authority of the DHS.
During a Q&A with Secretary Napolitano, Sen. John McCain criticized the process for not being open and said that the legislation didn't have a single markup. He also expressed concerns with the cost of the bill.
In the third panel Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, who is now with the Chamber of Commerce, said that he thought the legislation may overregulate business. He also praised changes made to the legislation based on concerns stemming from the cyber attack on the Chamber of Commerce by Chinese hackers.
Stewart Baker, partner at Steptoe & johnson, said that he supports the bill because it will make us more secure. He compared the day after a cyber attack to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
James A. Lewis, director and senior fellow, Technology and Public Policy Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, warned that people are trying to create loopholes and weaken legislation. He warned against setting the threshold to high because it will simply let cyber attackers know who and what they should target.
Scott Charney, corporate vice president of Trustworthy Computing Group, Microsoft Corp, expressed his support of the bill.