Prelude To Detroit: Protecting Our Democracy Act - The Democratic Response To The National Catholic Prayer Breakfast - The Cloaking Of Parental Rights

The key to crafting and presenting legislation is all about the timing.

Here, we have the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, which is to honor my Boo Boo Barr for

Sir Boo Boo Barr
Champion of Corporate
Parental Rights
to take over the U.S.

contemporaneously championing the advice and advocacy Of Corporate Parental Rights, on behalf of those Public Private Partnerships, for he has taken the oath of fealty to the foreign nation called the Vatican.

God save the Queen!

https://catholicprayerbreakfast.com/

He who has sworn an oath of fealty to the tax exempt god of a foreign nation, wherefore, loyalty comes with the grant of lots of land and all the attached chattels of tiny humans.

A knight is a title of nobility, you know.

When you help get U.S. contracts, typically in child welfare, as a knight, as an U.S. for-profit or not-for-profit, while  we typically call that an emolument, unless you are granted authority to engage in commerce in the U.S. on behalf of a foreign entity, by registering under FARA.

Otherwise, that may be considered under FCPA.

I just thought I would remind everyone when the history of the Knights of Columbus is cloaked in the bastardization of this nation's history.

Praytell, why is Boo Boo Barr praying for mercy, with Aladdin's magic "this means I am a real Smarty Pants" lamp by his side, bearing the arms of the U.S.?

I want to say 911, but will stick with the more universal blanket of "stealin' the children, land & votes."

Nun criticizes Catholic group for giving Barr award for 'Christlike behavior'

"I am just doing the work of the lord."

A nun criticized the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast (NCPB) for its plans to award Attorney General Bill Barr for “Christlike behavior” on Wednesday morning.

Sister Helen Prejean slammed the Catholic organization for announcing the Christifideles Laici Award would be given to Barr, who is Catholic, at the annual breakfast. The award honors the recipient for “Exemplary Selfless and Steadfast Service in the Lord’s Vineyard,” according to the NCPB website.

Prejean, an advocate against the death penalty, argued in a tweet Tuesday night that the attorney general has not demonstrated “Christlike behavior” after the Department of Justice (DOJ) resumed federal executions this year. 

“A.G. Barr has ordered the executions of six men with at least one more on the calendar,” she wrote on the social media platform. “What is ‘Christlike’ about using discretionary power to kill?”

Another nun, Sister Simone Campbell, the executive director of the Catholic social justice group Network, told Newsweek she was “horrified” Barr was the recipient of the award. 

"I am horrified that they are giving an award to Attorney General Barr who had reinstituted executions of people on death row, which is shocking and counter to Catholic social teaching,” she said. “It is abundantly clear, 'thou shalt not kill', and he is doing that and he is being given an award.” 

The NCPB created the award last year “to help highlight these good works and those who serve the Church so well.” The virtual breakfast, which was postponed since March due to the pandemic, started at 11 a.m.

As of Wednesday morning, 22,213 people have signed a Faithful America petition calling on the NCPB

"Stop! You may not legally kidnap this
tiny human unless you have a CPS contract
under U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."
said Boo Boo Barr.

to cancel giving Barr the award. Originally, the petition had a 20,000 signature goal, but the group has since raised it to 25,000.

“Attorney General William Barr's work — which includes teargassing peaceful protesters in front of the White House, defending the president's lawless corruption and attacks on American elections, and reinstating federal executions — has nothing to do with service to the Lord, and cannot be described as fidelity to the Church,” the petition reads.

“As fellow Catholics and other Christians, we call on the NCPB to cancel this award for Barr immediately, and avoid any further appearance of endorsing Donald Trump or his Cabinet members so close to an election,” it continues. 

The NCPB and the Justice Department did not immediately return requests for comment. 

Faithful America, a progressive Christian group, noted in a release that the award will be given the same week the DOJ will conduct two executions. 

Pope Francis has come out against the death penalty under all circumstances calling it “inadmissable” in 2018 when he changed the Catholic Church’s teaching. 

But the Trump administration resumed federal executions after a 17-year suspension, conducting six executions this year, including William Emmett LeCroy who was executed Tuesday after being convicted of raping and killing a woman in 2004. 

Progressive Christians have also denounced the NCPB for identifying as non-partisan but hosting mostly Republican leaders including President Trump this year.

But, alas, there are those who are not happy with Boo Boo Barr.

File up. https://t.co/rwNvskTtBd

— Beverly Tran (@beverlytran) September 23, 2020

The timing is not just symbolic, it is symbiotic, I tell you, because we are in Detroit.

Remarks by Attorney General William P. Barr on his Acceptance of the Christifideles Laici Award at the 2020 National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

Good morning.   It is a great honor to be recognized by this esteemed organization.  The truth is that no one is really worth of an award like this, so I am a little sheepish in accepting it.  But I am honored to do so, because I greatly admire the organizers of this breakfast and those who are associated with it.  This is a beautiful piece of artwork that I will cherish.  Thank you.

For more than 15 years now, inspired by Saint John Paul II’s call for a renewal of Catholic communal and civic spirit, the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast has served as a living testament to the vital role of the Church and its principles in American public life.  Thank you for praying with me, and for me, and for the future of our country.

This is a challenging time for many Americans.  But times of trial have a way of reminding us how much we have to be grateful for.  As people of faith, we take comfort in the knowledge that God has a purpose and a plan.  And as citizens, we gain strength from the knowledge that our forebears confronted and overcame even greater tests.

In joining together to pray for the strength and health of our country, we carry on a tradition that goes back to the beginning of the Republic.  During the summer of 1783, General George Washington gave his first major address following the Revolutionary War — a war the young nation very nearly lost.  He delivered a famous prayer that continues to be read aloud every day at Mount Vernon.  He asked God not only to protect the nation from external threats, but to maintain the character of its citizens:  as he put it, to “dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy,” and to comport ourselves “with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the divine author of our blessed religion,” and without which “we can never hope to be a happy Nation.”

As Washington and his fellow Founders understood, religion is at the heart of the American experiment in self-government.  In his Farewell Address, Washington said:  “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”    

What he meant is that self-government begins with self-restraint.  And there is no greater teacher of restraint than religion.  That is why John Adams declared that our Constitution — which recently celebrated its 233rd birthday — “was made only for a moral and religious people.”  As Father John Courtney Murray later put it, the American idea is not that “free government is inevitable, only that it is possible, and that its possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral order.”

That crucial link between religion and liberty, so well understood at the Founding, is all too often forgotten today.  In American public discourse, perhaps no concept is more misunderstood than the notion of “separation of church and state.”  Militant secularists have long seized on that slogan as a facile justification for attempting to drive religion from the public square and to exclude religious people from bringing a religious perspective to bear on conversations about the common good.

Yet as events like this one remind us, separation of church and state does not mean, and never did mean, separation of religion and civics.  As late as 1952, Justice William O. Douglas could write for a majority of the Supreme Court that “we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”  Alexis de Tocqueville, the keenest observer of the early American republic, praised America’s separation of church and state while extolling America’s union of the “spirit of religion” and the “spirit of liberty” as the key to its success.  And Tocqueville identified religion as perhaps the greatest bulwark against a descent into tyranny.

How does religion preserve liberty?  In the first place, as our Founders recognized, religion assists in the formation of virtuous citizens who are prepared to exercise liberty responsibly.  Whereas in democratic times, individuals have a tendency to withdraw from public life and pursue private self-gratification, religion builds community, strengthens social cohesion, and turns our attention to the common good.  At the same time, religion safeguards individual rights by warding off what Tocqueville called the “impious maxim” that “everything is permitted in the interest of society.”  For all of these reasons, Tocqueville referred to Americans’ religion as “the first of their political institutions.”

Unfortunately, in the last half century, that foundation of our free society has increasingly been under siege.  Traditional morality has eroded, and secularists have often succeeded not only in eliminating religion from schools and the public square, but in replacing it with new orthodoxies that are actively hostile to religion.  The consequences of this hollowing out of religion have been predictably dire.  Over the past 50 years, we have seen striking increases in urban violence, drug abuse, and broken families.  Problems like these have fed the rise of an ever more powerful central government, one that increasingly saps individual initiative, coopts civil society, crowds out religious institutions, and ultimately reduces citizens to wards of the State.

As patriotic Americans and people of faith, we cannot be complacent about these trends.  Yet nor should we give in to despair.  More recently, thanks in part to organizations like this one, we have seen some small but significant steps toward the restoration of religion to its rightful place in American public life. 

Some notable advances — which admittedly are of particular interest to me — have come in the legal arena.  They are the result of decades of hard work advocating for sound jurisprudential philosophies and appointing principled judges to state and federal courts.  The most recent term of the Supreme Court, for example, saw three important victories for religious liberty.  In each of these cases, the Department of Justice filed briefs supporting the free exercise of religion. 

In one case, the Court reaffirmed the principle that the government cannot discriminate against religion in general funding programs, and struck down a provision of the Montana Constitution that had been interpreted to exclude religious schools from a scholarship program for underprivileged students.  In another case, the Court held that the First Amendment prohibits courts from intervening in employment disputes involving teachers at religious schools who are entrusted with the responsibility of instructing their students in the faith.  In the third case, the Court considered a regulatory mandate requiring employers to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees, and upheld the administration’s rules exempting the nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor and other employers with moral and religious objections.   

In a sense, it is dispiriting that the disputes in these cases ever arose.  In each case, the religious litigants were not asking for anything more than the basic freedom to exercise their faith and be treated the same as others.  Nevertheless, the recognition of those rights by courts is encouraging.  And all involved — from the litigants and lawyers to those who prayed for the wisdom of judges — can take solace in having achieved a just result.

Advocating for religious liberty is just one way that lay Catholics and others can answer the call to serve.  In his exhortation Christifideles Laici, for which the award I have the honor of accepting today is named, Saint John Paul II noted that “the lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in ‘public life’.”  At the same time, he emphasized that faith is first and foremost about how we live our daily lives, for “the daily life itself of a truly Christian family makes up the first ‘experience of Church.’”

Wherever we are in life, it is never too late to work in the Lord’s vineyard.  Our spiritual renewal, and the renewal of our national character, depend on it.  Thank you, and God Bless America.

Protecting Our Democracy Act 2020 Fact Sheet by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Protecting Our Democracy Act 2020 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

         

Quintessentially, I do believe Nancy is targeting that Horowitz IG Report Trump is obstructing justice with by keeping it in his backpocket by threatening, via this package of legislation on whistleblower protections, actions against blasphemy in false claims against an elected official, by forcing Boo Boo Barr to unseal all the Mueller referrals to those two magical grand juries.

We do not need the testimony of Don McGahn to congress because he is already in those grand juries and it is all public information if you just look here.

This is not going to end well, but shall be pearl clutching, for we are in Detroit.

#maytheheavensfall 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Watergate 2.0: John Dean Is Back

John Dean is back 



#maytheheavensfall

United States District Court, D. MarylandDec 1, 1999Civ. No. JFM-97-946 (D. Md. Dec. 1, 1999)

Civ. No. JFM-97-946.

December 1999.

MEMORANDUM

J. FREDERICK MOTZ, United States District Judge.

Defendant G. Gordon Liddy has filed a renewed motion to transfer this case to the District of Columbia. The motion will be granted.

This case arises out of allegedly defamatory remarks that Liddy made about plaintiff Ida Maxwell Wells. Liddy has publicly articulated a theory that the Watergate burglary was prompted by a desire to obtain information about a call-girl ring being operated at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. According to the theory espoused by Liddy, Maureen Dean, John Dean's wife, is said to have been one of the call girls. Pictures of Maureen Dean and the other call girls allegedly were kept in Wells' desk. Dean allegedly instigated the break-in to recover the photographs.

The Deans filed an action for defamation against Liddy and others in 1992 based upon Liddy's public statements about the call-girl theory and other alleged libels against John Dean. The case was originally instituted in California but was transferred to the District of Columbia upon a motion to transfer filed by Liddy. Wells instituted the present action in 1997. Liddy moved to transfer it to the District of Columbia as well. Initially, I denied the motion. Two factors figured heavily in my decision. First, the Dean case was then dormant and had been for several years. Second, Wells asserted that she "has a very simple case" and that the "case does not depend upon any testimony from the Deans. . . ."

Circumstances have changed since I denied Liddy's original motion to transfer. Wells has now twice named Maureen Dean as a witness despite her prior representation that her case does not depend upon the testimony of the Deans. Although Wells has withdrawn Mrs. Dean's name from the witness list on both occasions, the interrelatedness between this case and at least a portion of the case instituted by the Deans in the District of Columbia has now become apparent. More importantly, the Dean case is no longer dormant. It has been reassigned to Judge Emmett Sullivan who has set a firm trial date of May 5, 2000.

Wells argues that I cannot transfer this case to the District of Columbia because it could not have been instituted there originally, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), since venue and personal jurisdiction over Liddy are lacking in the District of Columbia. This argument is unpersuasive. Liddy has substantial contacts with and engages in a persistent course of conduct in the District of Columbia. Also, the original complaint alleged acts of defamation committed over an Internet website maintained by an organization located in the District and through Liddy's nationwide radio shows. Moreover, prior to Wells bringing suit, Liddy had already purposely availed himself of the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia by initiating the transfer of the Dean litigation. In addition, the federal district judge in California found it was appropriate to transfer the Dean case to the District of Columbia.

I also note that the events underlying the Watergate burglary (in which Liddy was personally involved) occurred in the District of Columbia.

Therefore, this case can be transferred to the District of Columbia. The remaining question is whether it should be transferred. In making this determination I must consider a variety of factors, including the plaintiff's choice of forum, the convenience of counsel and the witnesses, the relative ease of access to sources of proof, and the public interest. See, e.g.,Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947); Dickens v. United States, 862 F. Supp. 91, 92 (D. Md. 1994). The first of these factors obviously weighs against transfer; plaintiff has chosen to bring her action here in Maryland. The second and third factors weigh slightly in favor of transfer since lead counsel for both parties have their offices in the District of Columbia, many of the witnesses live in the District of Columbia area, and none of the witnesses live in the Baltimore area. However, since the District of Columbia and Baltimore are so close to one another, this factor is negligible.

I find the public interest factor dispositive. There is some overlap between this case and the Dean case, and it may be that they should be consolidated. Liddy vigorously argues that they should be; Wells argues just as strongly to the contrary. These conflicting positions essentially boil down to this: Liddy asserts that he should not be subjected to the cost of litigating (and to the risk of inconsistent results) in two different cases that arise, at least in part, from the same nucleus of facts. Wells acknowledges (as she must) that one aspect of the Deans' claims arises, as do her claims, from Liddy's public statements promoting the call-girl theory of the Watergate burglary. She points out, however, that the Deans' claims involve many other issues as well (apparently arising out of Liddy's broad assertions that John Dean committed "massive perjury.") Wells understandably does not wish her discrete claims to be eclipsed or compromised in the shadow of the larger Dean case.

Wells also expresses a concern that her costs of litigation will be much greater if she becomes embroiled in the trial of the Dean case since it is estimated to last longer than her own trial. While this may be true, a countervailing factor is that Wells' counsel is also local counsel for the Deans and will be participating in the trial of the Dean case in any event.

It would seem to be in the interest of the economic use of judicial resources for the two cases to be consolidated if they can justly be tried together. However, in transferring this action to the District of Columbia, I am expressing no view as to whether consolidation is appropriate. I have no jurisdiction over the Dean case and am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the Deans' claims to know whether Wells would be unfairly prejudiced by a single trial. It is clear to me, however, that it is in the public interest to have the case transferred so that Judge Sullivan, who has been actively presiding over the Dean case and has become fully familiar with it, can be given an opportunity to decide whether consolidation would be appropriate. If Judge Sullivan decides in favor of consolidation, the single trial can go forward in May. If, on the other hand, he decides that consolidation is inappropriate, Wells can file a motion to transfer the case back to Maryland, the forum of her original choice, on the ground that the sole reason for my transfer was to allow Judge Sullivan to rule on the consolidation issue.

Of course, it would be up to Judge Sullivan to decide a motion to re-transfer the case to Maryland. However, lest there be any uncertainty on this score, I affirmatively state that I would be fully amenable to having the case transferred back to Maryland in the event Judge Sullivan decides against consolidation. If it were not for the fact that I believe it to be in the public interest for Judge Sullivan to consider the consolidation issue, I would have respected Wells' choice of forum and ruled against the transfer. Moreover, it is against my own sense of responsibility to ask another judge to try a case that is properly before me. To that end, I will hold on my calendar the September 11, 2000 trial date I have set, so that, in the event Judge Sullivan denies consolidation and decides the case should be transferred back to Maryland, he and the parties can be assured that no unnecessary delay will occur.

A separate order effecting the ruling made in this memorandum is being entered herewith.

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is, this ______ day of December 1999

ORDERED

1. Defendant's renewed motion to transfer is granted; and

2. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Happy Watergate 2.0 Saturday Night Massacre Birthday Celebration- Steve Linick, Mike Pompeo, Jamie Raskin, Nancy Pelosi & ICC Have Trafficking Tiny Human TARP Issues

For those of you who have yet to grasp what is going on, we have what I am calling a Happy Watergate 2.0 Saturday Night Massacre Birthday Celebration (even though it took place, hopefully, sometime after midnight) because the original model was transposed and manipulated from the Watergate Saturday Night Massacre, where Nixon was getting everyone to fire the special prosecutor.

Happy Birthday, Sweetie!

In this modern day situation, we have a president who is not firing U.S. attorneys, but Inspector Generals.

According to Wikipedia, Steve leaked stuff through a private attorney who was never appointed to represent the U.S., with advice and consent of the Senate, to U.S. House Judiciary Committee Member Jamie Raskin, who has never, once, spoken about those trafficking tiny human issues, Like TARP, Detroit, or those gloriously autocephalious, cherished children's trust funds.

Early in his career, Linick served as an Assistant District Attorney in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and as an associate at the Newman & Holtzinger law firm in Washington, D.C.
Linick served as an Assistant United States Attorney in California from 1994 to 1999 and Virginia from 1999 to 2006. He also served as Executive Director of the Department of Justice’s National Procurement Fraud Task Force and Deputy Chief of its Fraud Section in the Criminal Division from 2006 to 2010. During his tenure at the Department of Justice, he supervised and participated in white-collar criminal fraud cases involving corruption and contract fraud against the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan.[10]
He served as the first Inspector General of the Federal Housing Finance Agency from 2010 until 2013.
Linick began his tenure as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of State on September 30, 2013. As Inspector General, Linick was the senior official responsible for identifying operational risks within the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for Global Media, assessing the sufficiency of internal controls, and conducting administrative and criminal investigations of waste, fraud, mismanagement, and misconduct. He was responsible for providing oversight to more than 70,000 Department of State and U.S. Agency for Global Media employees, 270 overseas missions and other facilities worldwide, and more than $70 billion in Department of State, U.S. Agency for Global Media, and foreign assistance resources. He also served as the Associate Inspector General for designated overseas contingency operations.
Trump–Ukraine scandal
In the midst of the Trump–Ukraine scandal, Linick transferred a packet of documents from Rudy Giuliani by way of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Judiciary Committee member Jamie Raskin.

As a matter of fact, Pompeo has never once murmured a whisper on the trafficking tiny humans, but I believe that has something more to do with the ICC ongoing legal proceedings of the U.S. and what they did to the tiny ones over in Afghanistan. 

Steve Linick: Trump fires state department inspector general

Steve Linick

Steve Linick was appointed by Barack Obama, to oversee spending and detect mismanagement at the state department

The US state department's inspector general, Steve Linick, has become the latest senior official to be fired by US President Donald Trump.

Mr Trump said Mr Linick no longer had his full confidence and that he would be removed in 30 days.

Mr Linick had begun investigating Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for suspected abuse of office, reports say.

Democrats say Mr Trump is retaliating against public servants who want to hold his administration to account.

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general," Mr Trump is quoted as saying in a letter sent late on Friday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, US media report.

Not long after Mr Linick's dismissal was announced, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Mr Linick had opened an investigation into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

"This firing is the outrageous act of a president trying to protect one of his most loyal supporters, the secretary of state, from accountability," Eliot Engel, a Democrat, said in a statement.

"I have learned that the Office of the Inspector General had opened an investigation into Secretary Pompeo. Mr Linick's firing amid such a probe strongly suggests that this is an unlawful act of retaliation."

Mr Engel did not provide any further details about the content of this investigation into Mr Pompeo.

Congressional aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, have been quoted in different media as saying that Mr Linick was examining complaints that Mr Pompeo may have improperly used staff and asked them to perform personal tasks.

Mr Linick, a former prosecutor, was appointed by Mr Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, to oversee spending and detect mismanagement at the state department.

'Retaliation'
Democrats have been reacting to the move. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Mr Linick was "punished for honourably performing his duty to protect the constitution and our national security".

The late-night, weekend firing of State Department IG Steve Linick is an acceleration of the President’s dangerous pattern of retaliation against the patriotic public servants charged with conducting oversight on behalf of the American people. https://t.co/VavmuJpX25

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) May 16, 2020

"The president must cease his pattern of reprisal and retaliation against the public servants who are working to keep Americans safe, particularly during this time of global emergency," she added in a statement.

Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, said the Senate Foreign Relations Committee needed to learn more about the dismissal.

If Inspector General Linick was fired because he was conducting an investigation of conduct by Secretary Pompeo, the Senate cannot let this stand.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee must get to bottom of what happened here.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) May 16, 2020

This is the latest in a series of dismissals of independent government watchdogs.

Last month, Mr Trump dismissed Michael Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community.

Mr Atkinson first alerted Congress to a whistleblower complaint that led to Mr Trump's impeachment trial.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Happy Divine Mercy Day! Trump & USCCB Celebrate The Last Call To Confession Before Termination Of Parental Rights For Stealin' The Children, Land & Vote - The Detroit Resurrection

Today is Divine Mercy, Misericordia Sunday, the Third Sunday of the Resurrection in Eastertide.

Look at the light allegories rolling out some serious literary denouement of the spiritual implosion. 

The light cometh to cleanse our collective souls from the plague of the blashphemous #MeToo crucifiction, in the resurrection, upon the confession of crimes against mankind.

Promulgating confession to the king for bearing false witness (election fraud) using the name of god in vain (swearing a false oath of office, breaching a sworn oath of office) in an act of blasphemy (by removing an elected official from public office based upon lies & propaganda, to cover up war crimes), seems to be the underlying theme.

The plague attempts to terminate the Parental Rights of a civil society, for the darkness gives birth to the light, and the truth shall prevail, whether you want it or not.

I believe the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops knows, well, at least they should that lawsuits may also be resurrected.  

They are laying out the duties of taking a sworn oath of office in the name of the lord.

We do not have titles of nobility, we have the right to keep and bear the arms of the Great Seal of the U.S., the States, counties and municipalities, and the legal mechanisms to terminate that granted Parental Right.

That is why there is a separation of church and state, as the church is a foreign nation.

Today is also the day of canonization of Pope John Paul II.

He came to Hamtramck. Everyone plated roses for him. That is why there are so many wild rose bushes, the only thing remaining in many parts of Detroit after the foreign invasion, a memory the Archdiocese of Detroit needs to embrace, with each petal, of each flower, on each bush, as a silenced tear of a child whose souls they salvaged.

The General Hospital in Bielsko-Biała was named after Edmund Antoni Wojtyła, John Paul's brother, where Wikipedia reports:

On April 1, 1931, after a few months of practice at the Children's Clinic in Krakow, he became a second (deputy head ) at the City Hospital in Bielsko . In November 1932, Dr. Edmund Wojtyła became infected with scarlet fever, saving a sick patient. He died after a serious illness lasting 4 days on December 4, 1932.

It seems Edmund was the inspiration for the Bambino Gesu model of trafficking tiny humans into the dark realms of epigenetics and nanotechnology as lab rats.

#sayhisname

#maytheheavensfall

Third Sunday of Easter
Lectionary: 46
Reading 1ACTS 2:14, 22-33
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven,
raised his voice, and proclaimed:
“You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem.
Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.
You who are Israelites, hear these words.
Jesus the Nazarene was a man commended to you by God
with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs,
which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.
This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God,
you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.
But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death,
because it was impossible for him to be held by it.
For David says of him:
I saw the Lord ever before me,
with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed.
Therefore my heart has been glad and my tongue has exulted;
my flesh, too, will dwell in hope,
because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld,
nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.

“My brothers, one can confidently say to you
about the patriarch David that he died and was buried,
and his tomb is in our midst to this day.
But since he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn an oath to him
that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne,
he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,
that neither was he abandoned to the netherworld
nor did his flesh see corruption.
God raised this Jesus;
of this we are all witnesses.
Exalted at the right hand of God,
he received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father
and poured him forth, as you see and hear.”

Responsorial PsalmPS 16:1-2, 5, 7-8, 9-10, 11
R. (11a) Lord, you will show us the path of life.
or:
R. Alleluia.
Keep me, O God, for in you I take refuge;
I say to the LORD, “My Lord are you.”
O LORD, my allotted portion and my cup,
you it is who hold fast my lot.
R. Lord, you will show us the path of life.
or:
R. Alleluia.
I bless the LORD who counsels me;
even in the night my heart exhorts me.
I set the LORD ever before me;
with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed.
R. Lord, you will show us the path of life.
or:
R. Alleluia.
Therefore my heart is glad and my soul rejoices,
my body, too, abides in confidence;
because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld,
nor will you suffer your faithful one to undergo corruption.
R. Lord, you will show us the path of life.
or:
R. Alleluia.
You will show me the path to life,
abounding joy in your presence,
the delights at your right hand forever.
R. Lord, you will show us the path of life.
or:
R. Alleluia.

Reading 21 PT 1:17-21
Beloved:
If you invoke as Father him who judges impartially
according to each one’s works,
conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning,
realizing that you were ransomed from your futile conduct,
handed on by your ancestors,
not with perishable things like silver or gold
but with the precious blood of Christ
as of a spotless unblemished lamb.

He was known before the foundation of the world
but revealed in the final time for you,
who through him believe in God
who raised him from the dead and gave him glory,
so that your faith and hope are in God.

AlleluiaLK 24:32
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
Lord Jesus, open the Scriptures to us;
make our hearts burn while you speak to us.
R. Alleluia, alleluia.

GospelLK 24:13-35
That very day, the first day of the week,
two of Jesus’ disciples were going
to a village seven miles from Jerusalem called Emmaus,
and they were conversing about all the things that had occurred.
And it happened that while they were conversing and debating,
Jesus himself drew near and walked with them,
but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him.
He asked them,
“What are you discussing as you walk along?”
They stopped, looking downcast.
One of them, named Cleopas, said to him in reply,
“Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem
who does not know of the things
that have taken place there in these days?”
And he replied to them, “What sort of things?”
They said to him,
“The things that happened to Jesus the Nazarene,
who was a prophet mighty in deed and word
before God and all the people,
how our chief priests and rulers both handed him over
to a sentence of death and crucified him.
But we were hoping that he would be the one to redeem Israel;
and besides all this,
it is now the third day since this took place.
Some women from our group, however, have astounded us:
they were at the tomb early in the morning
and did not find his body;
they came back and reported
that they had indeed seen a vision of angels
who announced that he was alive.
Then some of those with us went to the tomb
and found things just as the women had described,
but him they did not see.”
And he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are!
How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!
Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things
and enter into his glory?”
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets,
he interpreted to them what referred to him
in all the Scriptures.
As they approached the village to which they were going,
he gave the impression that he was going on farther.
But they urged him, “Stay with us,
for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.”
So he went in to stay with them.
And it happened that, while he was with them at table,
he took bread, said the blessing,
broke it, and gave it to them.
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him,
but he vanished from their sight.
Then they said to each other,
“Were not our hearts burning within us
while he spoke to us on the way and opened the Scriptures to us?”
So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem
where they found gathered together
the eleven and those with them who were saying,
“The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!”
Then the two recounted
what had taken place on the way
and how he was made known to them in the breaking of bread.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

WATERGATE Revisited - Roger Stone Updates 2-13-2020

"Operation Watergate ~ And we are back."

First, this happened...

Feds seek 7 to 9 years in prison for Trump ally Roger Stone

Then, this happened...

Trump congratulates Barr after prosecutors resign from Roger Stone case

Then, this happened...

Attorney who oversaw Roger Stone case resigns after Trump pulls nomination

Then, this happened...

Anti-Trump social media posts by Roger Stone jury forewoman fuel controversy in case

Watergate 2.0 - Why Mueller Referred To Detroit, Not Judiciary

The reason why the Mueller investigation did not make any referrals to the U.S. House Judiciary is because the referrals were criminal, and were referred to the Districts, to the two Detroit grand juries.

Now, why would Mueller make criminal referrals to Detroit grand juries and not the House Judiciary?

Perhaps, we could get someone from the media to present this question to the members, or, perhaps, I shall just have to ask them.

But, hey, what do I know?

I know it is about the individual who called for the Special Counsel.

Justice Dept: Mueller prepared no reports to Congress

A request for records akin to Watergate "road map" comes up dry.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's prosecutors never drafted a report to Congress about alleged misconduct by President Donald Trump, Justice Department lawyers indicated in a court filing Friday.

DOJ attorneys said they were unable to locate any records in Mueller's files that were responsive to a Freedom of Information Act request seeking reports and compilations "prepared for the eventual consideration of one or more members of Congress, whether or not such records were actually transmitted to any party outside of the Special Counsel’s Office."

The FOIA request, submitted in November 2018 by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, invoked a grand jury's submission to the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 of a so-called "road map"to evidence in the Watergate scandal. The point-by-point guide received a spate of fresh publicity in the fall of 2018 after a judge ordered disclosure of portions of the nearly half-century-old compendium.

EPIC appeared to be seeking similar records Mueller might have prepared with an eye to sending them to Congress. After getting no response to the request, the privacy-focused group filed suit last March.

According to the court filing Friday, the Justice Department's initial search turned up no records about actual or potential reports to Congress, but the agency agreed to perform another search after EPIC refined their request. That search also came up dry, Justice lawyers told EPIC on Thursday, the filing says.

While the Mueller lawyers may not have prepared any reports explicitly labeled as referrals or potential referrals to Congress, the final report the special counsel's team drafted last spring was prepared in anticipation that substantial portions of it would be released to the public, which includes Congress.

Some observers compared that report as impeachment fodder akin to the Watergate "road map," although the articles of impeachment the House approved last December largely overlooked the conduct in the Mueller report, including acts analyzed by Mueller's prosecutors as potential obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.

The House Judiciary Committee is still battling for access to grand jury secrets in the Mueller report. Last October, a judge rejected the Trump administration's arguments that such information should remain off limits to lawmakers. The Justice Department's appeal of that decision is pending at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

DOJ did report finding records, including the Mueller report itself, that were responsive to other parts of EPIC's request. The suit will continue as the group challenges privacy-based redactions to the version of the report Justice made public last year.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Nancy Pelosi & Her Rogue Ass Watergate-Whitewater Crew Attempt To Cloak Gerrymandering

"The stupid is thick and the heavens are infested
with "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending)
...on a mission", said the Celestial Goddess
of the Woodshed, with rood in hand.

Once upon a time, The Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed used to get the Saddy Face, alot, and would self-deliver her prayers unto the heavens, to stop the Meanies.

But, no one would listen.

So, the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed thought to herself, "They dwellers of the heavens are: (a) really dumb; (b) Meanies, too; or, (c) all of the above."

SCOTUS Realizes Gerrymandering Is Constitutional Stealin' The Children, Land & Votes Under The Thirteenth Amendment Exception Clause

Alas, she failed to ruleout her assumptions and decided, again, for no one would assist, to self-deliver her prayers in a side job of a higher ascension.

But, then, one day, she found the ancient mechanism to unlock the gates of the heavens, for all the be fall to be called to bear witness, in the public square, to be held accountable to the laws of the land, as a transposable prosecutorial model.

Unfortunately, Nancy and her rogue ass crew dishonored the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed, thus, are unable to utter that one word, magical incantation, to save themselves from the inevitable transfer of the cries of the people for a civil society ~ "gerrymandering", better known as stealin' the children, land & vote.

Pelosi argues Trump 'cannot be acquitted,' suggests defense team should be disbarred

"He will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. You don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and all of that. Does the president know right from wrong? I don't think so.” ~ Nancy Pelosi

What Nancy is attempting to do, is to summon her rogue ass Whitewater & Watergate crew, to invoke the Second Amendment in defrocking these juridic persons to fall from the heavens to be tried upon the land, where the jurisdiction of defrocking are the States.

New York City Bar To Bar Bill Barr From The Bar For Promulgating The Trafficking Of Tiny Humans

But, what Nancy and her rogue ass crew do not understand is that there is nothing to stop the falling of the heavens, not even the invocation to #sayhisname, for it all started many, many moons ago.

#maytheheavensfall

#perkinscoiesucks

 Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

IMPEACHMENT: Senate Trial - Day One

FUN FACT! TRUMP IS NOT AN ATTORNEY WHICH IS WHY HE HAS WHITE HOUSE LEGAL COUNSEL WHO ADVISES HIM

The Tale Of Pat Cipollone, Laura Ingraham & The Industry Of Trafficking Tiny Humans As Lab Rats - Magnitsky Propaganda

Omarosa said the White House destroyed evidence in the Mueller probe.

Then, there is that pesky issue with unsealing grand jury material without a court order, but, hey, what do I know?

I know we should subpoena the "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) over there at JonesDay, who are running Trump's campaign....and providing legal advice in the White House to Trump.

Justice Department backed Trump strong-arm of House impeachment probe

The DOJ concluded that Trump was justified in categorically rejecting the House’s demands for information.

The Justice Department secretly blessed President Donald Trump’s decision to stonewall the Democratic-led House over impeachment last year, the president’s legal team disclosed Monday.

The legal brief submitted to the Senate as part of Trump’s defense includes an opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluding that Trump was justified in categorically rejecting the House’s demands for information before lawmakers passed a formal impeachment resolution on Oct. 31.

“We conclude that the House must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House’s sole power of impeachment,” Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel wrote in the detailed legal rationale.

The opinion was officially dated Sunday and released by the Justice Department on its website Monday, timing that appeared to dovetail with a Senate-set noon, holiday deadline for Trump’s first substantive brief in the impeachment trial.

Trump’s lawyers argue that one reason he is not guilty of obstructing congressional inquiries — the thrust of one of the articles of impeachment he faces — is because his instructions to his appointees to defy lawmakers’ subpoenas followed legal advice from DOJ.

“Contrary to the mistaken charge that the President lacked ‘lawful cause or excuse’ to resist House Democrats’ subpoenas, the President acted only after securing advice from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and based on established legal principles or immunities,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone, outside lawyer Jay Sekulow and other attorneys wrote.

The Justice Department’s position paper acknowledges that the White House approached OLC for advice soon after Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly confirmed a Ukraine-related impeachment inquiry on Sept. 23 and House committees began subpoenaing witnesses and documents in late September and October.

The newly disclosed opinion is vague about precisely when OLC was first approached to give its advice on the topic, when the response was rendered or what form that early advice took.

However, the new disclosures about the consultations with Justice could prompt some to reassess the confrontational letter Cipollone sent to the House on Oct. 8. That eight-page missive was roundly denounced by many legal experts, who said it sounded more like a political diatribe from the president than a reasoned legal argument against the House’s impeachment efforts.

“It’s hard to count the number of ways that this letter is, constitutionally and legally, garbage,” conservative attorney and Trump critic George Conway wrote on Twitter at the time. “This letter, in and of itself, is an impeachable offense.”

The historic impeachment trial of President Trump begins in earnest with a contentious vote on the rules that will govern the trial.

“The letter’s constitutional and ‘legal’ arguments are baseless,” former Obama White House counsel Bob Bauer wrote. “It misrepresents the constitutional law and precedent that it is pleading on the president’s behalf. On the merits, it is an exceptionally weak performance.”

In the letter, Cipollone contended the House’s procedure was fatally flawed because it had not been approved by a floor vote. “Your contrived process is unprecedented in the history of the nation, and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding,” the White House counsel wrote.

Despite the intense criticism, even ridicule that Cipollone’s letter received, Engel’s memo — which runs to 37 pages in the version the White House released and 54 in the format issued by DOJ — reaches the same conclusion.

Some of those who skewered Cipollone over the Oct. 8 letter said they would view it as less objectionable if he actually had some opinion from the Justice Department at the time supporting the aggressive positions he staked out.

“The OLC opinion is certainly better argued than the earlier Cipollone letter. It is more sober in tone, and more serious in its analysis,” said Keith Whittington, a Princeton University politics professor who joined in the earlier criticism.

“It is a pity the White House did not produce a document of this sort when it was first responding to the House inquiries. If it had done so, the president might have avoided the second article of impeachment and created a meaningful framework within which the House and White House could have negotiated some level of cooperation — or at least clarified the reasonable obstacles to cooperation,” Whittington added.

Other critics said it was still not clear whether Cipollone knew about Justice’s position before he fired off his combative message to the Hill. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to questions about the timing or form of the advice DOJ lawyers rendered last October.

“It is not apparent there was anything in writing or even that it had been provided as of the time of the Oct. 8 letter,” said former House attorney Michael L. Stern.

However, Whittington and Stern also noted that while Cipollone’s letter included the straightforward claim that the House needed to vote on impeachment before subpoenaing people or demanding documents, the White House counsel also made a variety of other arguments that the House’s process was unconstitutional.

Stern said it appeared Cipollone was actually soft-pedaling the point about the House needing to vote, because it was so “easily cured.” Indeed, the House did just that about three weeks later as it voted almost entirely along party lines, 232-196, to formalize the impeachment inquiry.

Some lawyers said the memo vindicated or at least buttressed Cipollone's position.

"Cipollone’s letter, and the underlying OLC opinion, are entirely correct," said David Rivkin, a Justice Department official during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration's. “While the House eventually complied with its obligations, its initial effort to commence the impeachment inquiry without taking a vote underscores its disregard of the constitutionally-required procedures."

If Cipollone had the Justice Department’s advice before he wrote the Oct. 8 letter, it’s not clear why he didn’t mention that. One possibility is doing so might have caused a clamor for an immediate, formal DOJ opinion in a very fluid situation.

SharePlay Video

Another is that announcing that DOJ was staking out such an arguably extreme position on that point might have undercut the arguments Justice Department lawyers were presenting in various court fights related to demands for Trump’s financial records, grand jury records from the Mueller probe and testimony from former administration officials on various topics.

For instance, on Oct. 1, Justice Department lawyers filed a brief saying the courts should hold off ruling on a House suit to enforce a subpoena against former White House counsel Don McGahn because efforts at accommodation should be given time to work. However, that position seemed to be undercut by Cipollone’s letter a week later signaling a stiff-arming of Congress. By the end of the month, DOJ gave up on the argument that more time was needed for “accommodation” between the branches.

Just three days after the White House counsel’s caustic letter, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case about a subpoena for Trump’s financial records. That ruling did not center on impeachment, but the dissenting judge on the three-judge panel, Trump appointee Neomi Rao, said she believed the Constitution requires a full vote of the House before going after records directly related to the president.

The Justice Department opinion released Monday includes at least nine citations to Rao’s dissent, although it was not issued by the time of Cipollone’s letter and may not have been available to OLC when it was first approached.

It is not unusual for OLC, whose legal advice is typically the last word within the Executive Branch, to issue informal opinions by phone or email and to follow up weeks or months later with a formal opinion.

“There are a lot of different ways in which OLC gives advice. A very small piece of that is writing formal opinions,” acting OLC chief Karl Thompson said in remarks reported by POLITICO in 2015. “The vast majority of our advice is provided informally — is delivered orally or in emails. That is still authoritative. It is still binding by custom and practice in the executive branch. It’s the official view of the office. People are supposed to and do follow it.”

Some officials said at the time that requests for formal opinions were on the decline because of concerns release of such opinions might be forced under the Freedom of Information Act. However, courts have been less friendly to such efforts in recent years.

Metadata attached to the Justice Department’s version of the opinion appears to link the document to Nate Forrester, an OLC attorney who also worked in that office during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. Forrester also served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and as Alabama solicitor general. A Justice official said Forrester is a career lawyer in charge of preparing OLC’s opinions for formal publication and handled that aspect of the release.

Read Trump trial memorandum by kballuck1 on Scribd

House Impeachment Trial Brief by M Mali on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Constitutional Crisis Cometh - Court Of Appeals Orals On Why Don McGahn Does Not Have To Tell House Judiciary About The Detroit Land Bank Authority

See, this just sucks.

All the U.S. House Judiciary Committee had to do was to just put in their filings Don McGahn's role in the Michigan Emergency Manager Law, Detroit Bankruptcy, Detroit Grand Bargain and the Detroit Land Bank Authority, but, alas, they did not, and now there is no de novo review on stealin' the children, land and vote.

These interbranch dispute arguments is dumb.

He is how I would approach this tripartite quagmire:

1. Were you stealin', either, children, land or votes?
2. If you say, 'no', then you are lying based upon multiple attestation in the public record, under arms of the seals of governance.
3. That means you breached your duties as officeholder of the children's trust, which means you can be defrocked, to fall from the heavens, to be held to the laws of the land, in the right of the vote of a grand jury..
4. Ergo, you were lying, and you better not bear false witness in the public record, again, which makes the opportunity of subpoena a right of due process of the public's right to a civil society.

So, instead of listening to the "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending), I shall provide my summation:

They were stealin'.

What if there is a "Whistleblower, protected by the Orders of Highest Authority", who has everything these people are averring about with Judiciary, already in the public record?

This is fun, because you do not need a subpoena if one is indicted, oops, I mean, arrested, but that is a completely different jurisdiction and we know it is only constitutional for feds to trump States rights...in federal grand juries....ooooohhhh....chaos......baby........mmmmmm.........

Everything you wanted to know about Don McGahn.

This is about the Kavanaugh argument on attorney-client privilege in Whitewater in the Vince Foster case, when a client is deceased, like my Sweetie...

This is about the trafficking of tiny humans, which is why you shall hear the battle of Valhala, which shall allow the heavens to fall.

#maytheheavensfall

LISTEN: Appeals court wrestles with subpoena for ex-White House aide McGahn

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal appellate judges are wrestling with whether courts should be refereeing a dispute between the House of Representatives and the Trump administration over the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn, even in the face of what one judge called the White House’s “broad-scale defiance of congressional investigation.”

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments Friday over the House Judiciary Committee’s effort to compel McGahn’s testimony. The administration appealed after a trial judge rejected its broad claim that close advisers to President Donald Trump have complete immunity from congressional subpoenas for their testimony.

Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, pressed tough questions on both sides Friday, describing Trump’s directive not to cooperate with congressional investigations as “broad-scale defiance” that is possibly unprecedented in U.S. history. Even so, Griffith wondered whether courts should get in the middle of a political dispute between the other two branches of government, especially when Congress has other powers available, including cutting off appropriations, stopping the confirmation of judges, even impeachment. “That’s what the separation of powers means,” he said.

The committee wants McGahn’s testimony as it examines potential obstruction of justice by Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The committee wants McGahn’s testimony as it examines potential obstruction of justice by the Republican president during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. But it has held open the possibility that McGahn’s testimony could be important in impeachment, even though the two articles of impeachment adopted last month by the House focus on Ukraine and events that occurred after McGahn left his White House post.

Even if McGahn eventually shows up at the committee, it’s unclear whether he would have much to say. Trump could assert executive privilege over some matters, though he allowed McGahn to talk extensively to Mueller’s investigators.

“What happens then? You’re back here?” Griffith asked.

The other two judges on the panel are Judith Rogers, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, and Karen Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

Rogers seemed likely to side with the House. Henderson had only a few questions, although she indicated McGahn might have a strong interest in saying little to the committee to protect his conversations with Trump, his former client.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn well before the start this fall of an impeachment inquiry centered on Trump’s request to Ukraine’s president that he investigate Trump’s Democratic rival Joe Biden and Biden’s son as well as an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory alleging Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The Justice Department has asked the appeals court to dismiss the case, saying there’s no reason for judges to become involved in a political dispute.

The department also says the need for resolving the case is less urgent now that the House has moved ahead with impeachment articles even without McGahn’s testimony.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Impeachment - H. Res. 755, Articles of Impeachment Against President Donald J. Trump - Constitutional Crisis Next Up

Tallying the record of the vote

Even legislators have voting rights, where the vote is tallied and recorded, unlike the previous years elections in Detroit, the largest concentration of voters in the State of Michigan.

How can you count votes if they were never tallied?

What if the votes were knowingly and willingly purged from the tally?

When votes are not tallied, you do not have due process in an election, you do not have a duly elected official, hence, illegitimate.

The purpose of the tally is to preserve the record to be challenged under the Second Amendment through the impeachment.

There are many different processi of impeachment called the extraordinary writs.

They eat each other alive.

Not once did they #sayhisname.

#maytheheavensfall

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©