SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg On Trafficking Of Tiny Humans - 12 Years & Under

The following are excerpts on the trafficking of tiny humans from testimony regarding SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by Susan Hirschmann, Executive Director Eagle Forum To the Senate Judiciary Committee July 23, 1993.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
SCOTUS Justice

The age of consent for sexual acts must be lowered to 12 years old. "Eliminate the phrase 'carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years' and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. . . A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, . . . [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old." (p. 102) 

Bigamists must have special privileges that other felons don't have. "This section restricts certain rights, including the right to vote or hold office, of bigamists, persons *cohabiting with more than one woman,' and women cohabiting with a bigamist. Apart from the male/female differentials, the provision is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships." (pp. 195-196) 

Prostitution must be legalized: it is not sufficient to change the law to sex-neutral language. "Prostitution proscriptions are subject to several constitutional and policy objections. Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions." (p. 97) 

"Retaining prostitution business as a crime in a criminal code is open to debate. Reliable studies indicate that prostitution is not a major factor in the spread of venereal disease, and that prostitution plays a small and declining role in organized crime operations." (p. 99) 

"Current provisions dealing with statutory rape, rape, and prostitution are discriminatory on their face. . . . There is a growing national movement recommending unqualified decriminalization [of prostitution] as sound policy, implementing equal rights and individual privacy principles." (pp. 215-216) 

The Mann Act must be repealed; women should not be protected from "bad" men. "The Mann Act . . . prohibits the transportation of women and girls for prostitution, debauchery, or any other immoral purpose. The act poses the invasion of privacy issue in an acute form. The Mann Act also is offensive because of the image of women it perpetuates. .. . It was meant to protect from 'the villainous interstate and international traffic in women and girls,' *those women and girls who, if given a fair chance, would, in all human probability, have been good wives and mothers and useful citizens. . . . The act was meant to protect weak -women from bad men." (pp. 98-99)

Now, you know why trafficking of tiny humans is a multi-trillion dollar international industry and why no one cares about children.

TESTIMONY RE: RUTH BADER GINSBURG by: Susan Hirschmann, Executive Director Eagle Forum To the Senate Judici... by Beverly Tran on Scribd
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Happy Rosh Hashanah: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Extracted From Humanity - Of Parental Rights

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a champion in the art of trafficking tiny humans in the spirit of Noah, who conquered the world as the original Privateer.

You only need a Virgin and a ship to sail the Holy See, on that salvific voyage of saving the savages in the acquisition of goods.

Always remember, selling chattel is the oldest form of survival.

#maytheheavensfall

The Meshiaak cometh.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

SCOTUS John Roberts & The Falling Of The Heavens - Impeachment

I believe there are stakeholders who are rallying to the cloaking conclave of John Roberts because the Madame is popping up in my Secret Forest of Analytics.

John Roberts is battling with other demons at the moment.

Praise the lord.

#sayhisname

#maytheheavensfall

'Crisis of confidence': John Roberts' impeachment role prompts recusal rumblings

"Damn, the heavens are falling and must #sayhisname."

In an impeachment trial in the Senate, President Trump would look up to see one of his Washington establishment foes, Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., presiding over the historic proceedings from the dais in the upper chamber.

Mr. Trump, who has clashed with Chief Justice Roberts over the perceived political bias of the federal courts, would have to count on him for a fair hearing when the fate of his presidency hangs in the balance.

It’s a prospect that has caused rumblings in Washington that the chief justice should recuse himself.

John Cardillo, a conservative radio personality and host on Newsmax TV, sounded the recusal alarm.

“There is already a crisis of confidence among the American people that we have a fair system of justice. When you have a chief justice of the Supreme Court overtly making comments that are derogatory to the president of the United States, take all speculation out of the process,” he said.

What’s more, the recusal question extends down the bench of the high court. All of the justices likely will play a role in deciding Congress’ subpoenas power over the executive branch as House Democrats conduct an impeachment inquiry.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have publicly commented on Mr. Trump in recent years, including Justice Ginsburg going as far as calling him a “faker” and the chief justice sending a sharp rebuke to the commander in chief over the political independence of the judiciary.

The issue of potential bias comes about a year after Justice Roberts released an unusual statement, indirectly firing back at the president over his politicization of judges based on the president who appointed them.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Justice Roberts said in a statement in November 2018 issued from the court’s public information office.

“What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them,” he added.

The rare rebuke of the president came after Mr. Trump was critical about a ruling issued from a district judge in California against his administration.

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country,” the president fired back on Twitter.

Justice Roberts‘ defenders insist that the eyebrow-raising statement does not demonstrate a conflict of interest or at least not one significant enough to require him to step aside from overseeing Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial.

“Roberts‘ comments were about as even-keeled as they get,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, adding in an impeachment trial, “The chief justice’s role is fairly limited.”

Mark Graber, a constitutional law professor at the University of Maryland, went a step further.

“There is nobody on the court who ought to be recused,” he said.

Still, the justices likely will play a critical role in the subpoena fight over which administration documents and testimony House Democrats get their hands on.

Without directly weighing in on the issue of impeachment and Congress’ subpoena power, a federal court last week ruled that Mr. Trump’s accounting firm had to turn over tax documents to House Democrats in one of their many probes into Mr. Trump and his financial dealings.

The case involving the financial documents could test the president’s executive authority to thwart the congressional subpoenas.

Ilya Shapiro, who publishes the Cato Institute’s “Supreme Court Review,” said an emergency petition to halt a lower court decision in the impeachment inquiry likely would be filed with the justices in the future.

If so, the debate over recusals might be raised against Justice Ginsburg, whose comments during the 2016 campaign about then-candidate Donald Trump likely crossed the line of what is permitted by a justice.

Justice Ginsburg has apologized for calling Mr. Trump a “faker.”

“He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego,” she told CNN in 2016. “How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

In response, Mr. Trump called for the senior justice’s resignation.

Mr. Graber, though, said the liberal icon’s remarks about the 2016 campaign have been worked out and she has weighed in on several legal challenges involving the administration during the president’s first three years in office.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh “are Trump appointees — nobody is talking about recusing them, and for good reason,” Mr. Graber said.

Mr. Shaprio said Justice Roberts‘ role in the impeachment proceeding would be more like a “traffic cop than trial judge,” and he flatly dismissed any questions over Justice Ginsburg’s alleged bias.

“Her comments in no way prejudged the legal issues at stake,” he said.

If Justice Roberts did decide not to preside over a Senate impeachment trial, the most senior justice, Justice Clarence Thomas, would then step in, Mr. Blackman said.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Beverly Tran Lectures On Copyright At Brooklyn Law School

Beverly Tran lecturing on copyright at Brooklyn Law School

This lecture at the Brooklyn Law School was a major event, not because it showcased the brilliance of civil rights icon George Clinton, but because I was there.

Yes, I lectured at the Brooklyn Law School and   made history.

Of course, there are the members of my fan clan who will childishly attempt to spew imbecilic and nefarious venom upon my work to smear my name in hopes of exonerating themselves of their severe cognitive deficiencies and psychological developmental disorders as a desperate attempt to salvage the dearth of spiritual existence which allows them to wake up every morning, devoid of conscious and guilt, to destroy an historic civil rights icon, who is a beautiful man, or any other woman or child who gets in his way, just to make daddy like them.  And, as always, we shall continue to encourage them to use my first and last name when attempting to defame my character in exclusive political circles, of which they are denied entry and possess no knowledge of their existence.

I love free publicity and a good comedy show.

What made my appearance at the Brooklyn Law School historic was that I revealed the origins of the copyright, which are parental rights.  What many fail to understand is that parental rights do not exist in the form of which we readily know.  Therefore I have written a book.

U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr., unfortunately, could not be in attendance, as he was busy implementing my master plan.

Keep in mind, this is only the beginning...

P-Funk at Brooklyn Law School by Ryan Thompson (court@brooklyneagle.net), published online 10-20-2011 Parliament Funkadelic’s George Clinton Joins Local Attorneys Monday To Discuss Music and Copyright LawBy Ryan Thompson Brooklyn Daily Eagle JORALEMON STREET — Funk music mastermind George Clinton is coming to Brooklyn Law School. George Clinton with President, Chancellor and Deans of the Brooklyn Law School Clinton, singer and leader of the bands Parliament and Funkadelic in the 1970s and ’80s, will join Brooklyn Law School Professor Jason Mazzone and Manhattan attorney Michael Elkin on Monday evening to discuss music and copyright law. Perhaps there is no better musician than Clinton to discuss such legal issues, as Parliament-Funkadelic’s music and distinctive “P-Funk” style continues to not only be imitated but sampled in various hip-hop songs today. Clinton, who is now 70 years old, was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame over a decade ago. Using Professor Mazzone’s new book, “Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law,” as a springboard for the discussion, Clinton and Elkin, a Brooklyn Law graduate and managing partner at Winston & Strawn LLP, will examine the challenges faced by today’s artists and music labels, the impact of digital technology, and possible reforms that could benefit the listening public. Dr. Funkenstien's Dream Team For full coverage of the event, see an upcoming issue of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle & Daily Bulletin. Copyright, Composers and Hendrix WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg invoked her fellow Brooklynite Aaron Copland. The chief justice countered with Jimi Hendrix. The high court’s generational divide was on display earlier this month as the justices heard arguments about whether Congress acted properly in extending U.S. copyright protection to millions of works by foreign artists and authors that had been in the public domain — meaning they could be performed and used in other ways without paying royalties. Community orchestras, academics and others who rely on uncopyrighted works are challenging a 1994 law that made copyrights available to the foreign works. Google, with its YouTube and digital art and library projects that depend on works in the public domain, is backing the challenge. Composers, authors, songwriters, photographers and others who depend on copyright protection are urging the court to uphold the law. Copland and Hendrix were Americans — Copland from Prospect Heights in Brooklyn and Hendrix from Seattle, Washington. The two justices used them to illustrate differing views of the case. Larry Rohter of New York Times and George Clinton For the 78-year-old Brooklyn-born Ginsburg, the case appeared easy. She talked about two Russian-born composers, Dmitri Shostakovich and Igor Stravinsky, whose works were never copyrighted in the United States. A copyright allows artists, or the copyright holder such as a deceased artist’s estate, a fixed period of time in which they can permit or deny others the right to use or reproduce their work or demand a royalty payment for doing so. “What’s wrong with giving them the same time Aaron Copland got?” Ginsburg asked the lawyer representing the law’s challengers. Chief Justice John Roberts was 14 years old when Hendrix performed his “distinctive rendition” of the “Star Spangled Banner” at the Woodstock music festival. Roberts, now 56, voiced concern that Hendrix’s freedom of expression could have been compromised under the government’s argument.v “Assuming the national anthem is suddenly entitled to copyright protection that it wasn’t before, he can’t do that, right?” Roberts said. George Clinton and Jason Mazonne The court ruled in 2003 that Congress may extend the life of a copyright, but it has never said whether published works lacking a copyright could later be protected. The case argued Oct. 5 concerns a 1994 law that was intended to bring the United States in line with an international agreement.

Justices Grapple With Issue of Right to Lawyers in Child Support Cases

It's all about the double dipping of federal funds.

WASHINGTON — Members of the Supreme Court appeared frustrated Wednesday during an argument about whether poor people facing jail time for failing to pay child support are entitled to court-appointed lawyers. It seemed that there were procedural and practical problems with almost every potential ruling.

“It’s a little difficult to write the opinion if you are to prevail,” JusticeAnthony M. Kennedy told a lawyer arguing that lawyers are not always required.

Justice Kennedy mused about what such an opinion might say. “There’s no absolute right,” he said. “But there might be in some other case, depending. We don’t give much help to the system that way.”

On the other hand, Justice Kennedy told the lawyer on the other side, “there are thousands of these hearings around the country.” A blanket ruling requiring the appointment of lawyers would mean, he said, that “we’re going to change the entire landscape of domestic relations proceedings.”

The case involved a South Carolina man, Michael D. Turner, who was repeatedly held in civil contempt and jailed for as much as a year at a time for not paying child support.

The point of civil contempt is coercion rather than punishment, and judges like to say that people held in such circumstances hold the keys to their own jail cells. All they have to do to be released is comply with the court’s order.

But Mr. Turner said he was too poor to pay what he owed, which turned his incarceration into pure punishment. He said a lawyer could have helped him convince the judge that jailing him in the circumstances was impermissible.

In a series of decisions starting with Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, the Supreme Court has held that poor people facing the loss of liberty for crimes must be provided with lawyers. But those decisions were rooted in the text of the Sixth Amendment, which concerns only criminal proceedings.

A majority of states do provide lawyers to people in Mr. Turner’s situation, as a matter of state law. The question in the case argued Wednesday, Turner v. Rogers, No. 10-10, was whether court-appointed lawyers are required in civil contempt cases as a matter of the due process protections of the federal Constitution.

Seth P. Waxman, a lawyer for Mr. Turner, urged the justices to adopt a bright-line rule that anyone facing the loss of liberty should have a lawyer in light of what the Supreme Court has called “the awesome prospect of incarceration.”

Some of the justices seemed concerned about how broadly such a ruling might sweep. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance, asked about “alimony and palimony.”

Mr. Waxman said contempt proceedings in such cases would be covered.

Stephanos Bibas, a lawyer for the woman who had sought child support from Mr. Turner, Rebecca L. Rogers, added that a ruling for Mr. Turner would also apply to “tens of thousands of immigration and extradition cases.”

“We’re talking about reformulating rules in a huge number of states that probably affect hundreds of thousands of cases,” Mr. Bibas said.

Mr. Bibas cautioned the justices against disrupting the informality and effectiveness of child support proceedings in which neither side, he said, tends to be represented by a lawyer.

He added that requiring states to provide lawyers might cause them to decide not to pursue deadbeat parents at all. New Jersey, he said, had stopped trying to enforce child support orders through civil contempt after its Supreme Court recognized a right to counsel.

Justice Ginsburg questioned the wisdom of that financial calculation, noting that it costs money to lock people up, too.

The federal government urged the justices to take a middle ground. Appointing counsel, the government said in its brief, is “a sufficient, but not a necessary, means of satisfying due process in this case.”

It would also be enough, the brief said, to give someone facing jail in Mr. Turner’s circumstances “a meaningful opportunity to establish his present inability to pay, such as asking him to complete an understandable form seeking his financial information or asking him questions on the topic as necessary at a hearing.”

At the argument on Wednesday, Justice Elena Kagan told a lawyer for the government, Leondra R. Kruger, that the proposal was “remarkably anemic.”

“Apparently, your idea of the procedure is just to give the person a form,” Justice Kagan said.

Ms. Kruger responded that the government’s proposal also called for notice to the person facing jail, a hearing and a judicial finding that the person is indeed capable of paying.

Justice Antonin Scalia said he was frustrated by the government’s proposal for a different reason. The court, he said, had agreed to answer just the question of whether a lawyer must be appointed and not what other procedures might satisfy due process
.

CPS Can Now Steal The Twinkle In Your Eye

Child Protection folks are ready to celebrate another victory by tagging prospective foster kids at the point of conception.

This is the best marketed scheme of population control I have yet to witness.  The implications are unconceivable.  Policies can be developed to adjudicate a termination of parental rights case before a woman is even impregnated.

I can see the next conservative initiative which will be mandatory sterilization to prevent intergenerational poverty and stop all the lazy people who will not get a job but will have babies to live off good christian tax payers.

How best to steal the twinkle in your eye than by passing a state constitutional amendment in support of the godly emerging market of human trafficking...oh, I mean "personhood".

Personhood measure divides conservative ranks

On Tuesday Mississippi voters will decide whether to approve a measure, Initiative 26, that would amend the state constitution to define the word “person” to include every human being “from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.”

On the surface, it would seem to be a favorable advance for the cause of abortion opponents but the nature of the measure has sparked concern among some anti-abortion advocates that the passage of the measure could eventually threaten already-existing abortion restrictions.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican, told NBC’s Chuck Todd last week that he believes that life begins at conception but “unfortunately, this personhood amendment doesn’t say that. It says that life begins at fertilization or cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” He said, “That ambiguity is striking a lot of pro-life people here as concerning.”

Nonetheless Barbour later overcame his misgivings and said he voted for the measure when he cast his absentee ballot in advance of Tuesday. He also complained Friday that a group opposing the ballot measure, “has called people's homes and deceived voters into thinking I'm opposed to Initiative 26, the Personhood Amendment. As I've previously stated, I voted for the Personhood Amendment.”

Opinion: Human rights for fertilized eggs? Initiative at odds with science

Despite his vote, Barbour was articulate in explaining why some anti-abortion advocates think the Mississippi measure is either misguided or may lead to unintended consequences. 

He said, “Strategically, there’s some national organizations that think this may mess up trying to get more pro-life policies adopted nationally.”

He also said, “I am concerned about some of the ramifications on in-vitro fertilization (and) ectopic pregnancies, pregnancies outside the uterus in the Fallopian tubes. That concerns me, I have to just say it.”

Jennifer Mason, a spokeswoman for PersonhoodUSA, a Colorado group which is supporting the Mississippi measure, said its proponents “were able to answer his concerns and that’s why he voted for it.”  Mason cited a study by a conservative group, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, which determined that Initiative 26 would not outlaw in vitro fertilization.

A statewide vote has a lot of women in fear over the future of certain forms of birth control. NBC's Than Truong reports.

But, in an opinion piece in the Mississippi Business Journal, Jonathan Will, director of the Mississippi College School of Law’s Bioethics and Health Law Center, who opposes the measure, said “If two out of three pre-embryos are lost in the (in vitro fertilization) process, this would seem to be an unacceptable loss of life. If we are committed to pre-embryonic personhood, we should be committed to banning IVF and other similarly risky fertility treatments until such technologies are safe for all persons (including pre-embryos) involved.”

Prominent conservative lawyer James Bopp, who has argued several abortion and free speech cases before the Supreme Court and is the general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, said that lower federal courts would be likely to strike down the Mississippi measure, if it were enacted, and that the Supreme Court would likely not review the lower court’s ruling.

But if the high court did agree to hear the case, Bopp said, there is a “very substantial danger” that a majority of the justices would adopt a stronger basis for finding that there is a fundamental right to abortion than the due process rationale Justice Harry Blackmun used in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

If that were to happen, Bopp said, the current state and federal restrictions on abortion, such as the Hyde amendment banning federal funding of abortions in the Medicaid program, and laws requiring parental notification before a minor get an abortion, would be swept away.

Bopp sketched out his concerns in a widely circulated memo, pointing to the argument that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made in her dissent in Carhart v Gonzales, the 2007 decision in which the justices upheld the federal law banning the procedure known as partial birth abortion.

A constitutional right to abortion, Ginsburg said, ought to “center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.”

Mason said Personhood USA’s lawyers think Bopp is wrong. “What we’re expecting to happen with the personhood amendment is that abortion will be made illegal in Mississippi. And that is what the pro-life movement has been working for since the passage of Roe v. Wade -- to ensure that all children in the womb have their personhood rights recognized…. This is a definite way to see some actual results.”

A ballot measure similar to that in Mississippi was rejected by Colorado voters in 2010. Proponents of personhood efforts plan to try to get the measure on the ballot in Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Indiana in future elections.

Updating with a comment from Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project:

She said the group is hopeful that "voters will reject this attempt to allow government to interfere in the most personal health care decisions of Mississippi’s women and families.  However, should the amendment pass, all options are on the table -- including litigation. We will not stand by while thousands of women and families are placed at risk.”

Of Parental Rights: What Amy Coney Barrett Did Not Disclose On Her SCOTUS Confirmation Hearing Application: "How Did You Get Those Tiny Haitian Humans?"

Well, I guess it is just pro forma when you take a foreign oath of fealty to intentionally omit how you traffic tiny humans.

John Roberts did it, so why not Amy?

Besides, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops need her on November 4th to cloak the stealin' the children, land and vote, more readily recognized as gerrymandering.

If not, the heavens shall fall and Catholic Charities will no longer be able to acquire goods to procure and purvey tiny humans through Foster Care and Adoption, making all the assets of their tiny human trust funds, toxic.

Not one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Amy how she got those tiny Haitian Humans.

#maytheheavensfall

Some White colonizers "adopted" Black children. They "civilized" these "savage" children in the "superior" ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity. https://t.co/XBE9rRnoqq

— Ibram X. Kendi (@DrIbram) September 26, 2020

$10M to Dr. Ibram Kendi and the Center for Antiracist Research at BU. This research will inform and fuel much needed and overdue policy change. I appreciate you Dr. Kendi, and I’m grateful for your work! https://t.co/M2zvIQYeEO

— jack (@jack) August 20, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett initially failed to disclose talks on Roe v. Wade hosted by anti-abortion groups on Senate paperwork

(CNN)Judge Amy Coney Barrett initially failed to disclose two talks she gave in 2013 hosted by two anti-abortion student groups on paperwork provided to the Senate ahead of her confirmation hearing to become the next Supreme Court justice.

Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, gave the talks -- a lecture and a seminar -- in 2013 in her capacity as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. The seminar was co-sponsored by the school's Right to Life club and constitutional studies minor, and the lecture was held by the law school's Jus Vitae club. CNN's KFile found advertisements for two lectures on social media and in a weekly Notre Dame faculty newsletter.

Late on Friday night, hours after this story published, the Senate Judiciary Committee released a supplemental update to Barrett's committee questionnaire that includes the lecture and seminar, as well as a paid advertisement she signed that criticized Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed support for Notre Dame's "commitment to the right to life." The release came after CNN asked the White House about the advertisement earlier on Friday.

It is not known what was said in the two events, though both centered on abortion court cases. In a separate instance, CNN's KFile found a publicized talk that Barrett gave to coincide with the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade -- a seminar Barrett disclosed in her Senate paperwork -- was removed by the university from YouTube in 2014. A school spokesman told CNN the video is now lost.

Content by CNN Underscored

Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court would strengthen its current conservative majority -- creating a 6-3 bloc of conservative justices -- and could limit abortion access.

Barrett's initial failure to disclose the two events also raises questions about whether the questionnaire is complete or whether there will be any consequences from the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees her confirmation hearing. Past chairmen of the powerful committee have halted the nomination process after judicial nominees omitted information in their Senate paperwork but under committee Chairman Lindsey Graham that scenario is unlikely.

The committee has slated a hearing for Barrett on October 12 in an effort to confirm her by the full Senate before the election.

Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department this week that said Barrett did omit materials concerning Roe v. Wade and asked if Barrett omitted any more materials after the National Review reported that Barrett signed a letter on a "right to life" ad in 2006 that called for the end of the landmark legal decision.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere told CNN in an email, "Judge Barrett submitted her lengthy Senate Judiciary Questionnaire, spoke with an overwhelming majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and continues to be transparent throughout her confirmation process. She looks forward to answering questions from the Senators next week."

A spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee told CNN "it is a very normal practice" for Supreme Court nominees to update their questionnaire, noting that several current Supreme Court justices also supplied updated copies.

CNN reached out multiple times to Barrett through her law chambers but did not get a response.

While Barrett's association with anti-abortion groups has come under scrutiny -- including signing a Right to Life ad in 2006 -- little has been examined about her work with anti-abortion groups at Notre Dame. Barrett gave the talks hosted by the anti-abortion student groups while she was also a member of the Notre Dame chapter University Faculty for Life, which staunchly opposes abortion.

In 2016, the group sent a letter asking the university to rescind an award honored to then-Vice President Joe Biden in recognition for his work as an American Catholic. The group called it "a scandalous violation of the University's moral responsibility (as the American bishops wrote in 2004) never to honor those who act in defiance of fundamental moral principles about the sanctity of life" and attacked his views on abortion.

Barrett initially failed to disclose two seminars she gave students on Roe v. Wade

In April 2013, Barrett gave a small hour-long seminar "for students on changes to law and life for women after Roe v. Wade" entitled "Being a Woman After Roe."

According to a copy of the Facebook event advertising the seminar, spots were limited to 15 students. A student publication promoted the event as an informal seminar, small group setting in which students can learn more from faculty members who oppose abortion.

"The Right to Life Seminar Series was begun as an opportunity for students and professors to discuss a variety of issues related to human life and dignity," an advertisement for the event reads.

The conservative judge also did not disclose that in November 2013 she spoke to Jus Vitae, the law school's Right to Life club, on "The Supreme Court's Abortion Jurisprudence." The law school advertised the lecture as focusing on Roe v. Wade and the cases that followed it, including cases that were being litigated on the lower courts at that time.

The lecture Barrett did disclose was entitled "Roe at 40: The Supreme Court, Abortion, and the Culture War that Followed," taking place in January 2013 and open to the university community. It was co-sponsored by the university's Constitutional Studies minor.

However, video for the lecture, which CNN's KFile found on the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine was advertised by the school as being available on YouTube, was removed by the user in 2014, according to a YouTube spokesperson.

Of 11 lectures publicized as available to watch on the school's event, only Barrett's was removed from YouTube.

After CNN inquired to obtain video of the event, a university spokesperson, Dennis K. Brown, told CNN, "We have checked with the organizer of the event [sic] have no information on what has become of the video of that lecture."

Several on-campus publications covered the event and Barrett's remarks at the time.

The Observer, Notre Dame's student newspaper, wrote that Barrett said, ''I think it is very unlikely at this point that the court is going to overturn Roe as curbed by [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey. The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand," she said.

The Irish Rover, a student publication covering Catholic identity, quoted Barrett as saying, "whether or not Roe gets overturned is irrelevant," saying the question of abortion would return to the state level and could still be legal in certain states.

Anti-Biden letter

As Barrett gave talks on abortion to groups associated with the on-campus Right to Life groups, Barrett was also a member of the university's chapter of the University Faculty for Life from the group's founding in 2010 until 2016, according to her Senate paperwork.

While she was a member of the group, the group unanimously passed a resolution for a letter calling on the university to rescind an award given to then-Vice President Biden because of his beliefs on abortion.

"Notre Dame claims to award the Laetare Medal 'annually to an American Catholic in recognition of outstanding service to Church and society,'" the letter reads. "But our Faculty for Life Chapter agrees with Bishop Kevin Rhoades that the awarding of the Laetare Medal to Vice-President Biden is a scandalous violation of the University's moral responsibility (as the American bishops wrote in 2004) never to honor those who act in defiance of fundamental moral principles about the sanctity of life."

The faculty letter attacks Biden's position on abortion for not wanting to "impose" the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion upon a woman or a doctor, supporting the death penalty and for rejecting "the truth that human life begins at conception." It also states that public officials like Biden have "an especially grave duty to preserve" life.

Amy Coney Barrett Senate Questionnaire Supplement by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Preserving the residuals of the peculiar institution is just the work of the foreign tax exempt god.

Praise the lord.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Los Angeles Central Registry Case Revealed

LA County defends child abuse listing


By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
3:39 PM PDT, October 5, 2010

Washington…A lawyer for Los Angeles County told the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday that the failure to remove a wrongly accused couple from California's index of reported child abusers was the state's responsibility, not the county's.


I do not think so.  The County received funding, through state budget appropriations to execute this function as a sub-receipient to federal funding.

"It's the state's data base," said attorney Timothy Coates. "There are no state standards and no specific criteria for removing someone from the list. We don't have any procedures on how to go about that."
The case of Craig and Wendy Humphries has highlighted the difficulty of getting off the state index once a person's name has been reported to Sacramento for abusing a child. The state's law requires many agencies and employees, including schools, police and child care workers, to report instances of suspected child abuse.

Not only that, the state entered into contractual agreement upon acceptance of the federal SACWIS and other grants.  The state is the recipient.  The county would be the sub-recipient according to federal guidelines.  No immunity for either.

More than 800,000 names are on California's index, and employers consult the list before hiring people to work with children.

The Humphries were reported to state authorities in 2001 based on the word of his teenage daughter, but a juvenile court judge later pronounced them innocent of the charges. They have been fighting in court for several years to clear their names.



In January of 2009, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals described their "nightmarish encounter" with the California system and ruled that both the state and county were liable for violating their constitutional rights. "There is no effective procedure for the Humphries to challenge this listing," the appeals court said.

Here is the decision:


9th Circuit Opinion in Humphries v Los Angeles County

Humphries v. L.A. County

But the lawyers for the county appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the county should not be liable for this state program. "Where the state law requires a local entity to do something," Coates said, "it's essentially the state making the decision."

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted, the state of California did not appeal the decision, but the Humphries remain on the state index.

Here are the transcripts for the oral arguments of October 5, 2010:


U.S. Supreme Court Transcript for LA County v. Humphries

Justice Bennen asks a very powerful question as it is a reflection of the national ignorance of child welfare fraud.

JUSTICE BREYER: -- against State. I mean, 

here you have a statute and the statute doesn't have any method to get out off -- get out of it, even when you should. Their claim is this is a State matter, the State's responsible, it's unconstitutional, go sue the State and tell the State to do it. Now that's a - what's wrong with that position?

2001 was a free-for-all in child welfare funding.  Fraud was rampant.  The main argument as to why a name is not expunged from the central registry is that, if the state and the county removed a person's name from the central registry, it would be an admission of liability in violations of due process.  See, without trial, charge, plea, verdict, or even knowing about it, you are placed on the central registry within a 48 hour period and rarely notified of the action.

By failing to remove a person's name from the central registry, the only recourse after exhausting all administrative avenues would be to bring an instant action.  That takes money and knowledge.  In 2001, the number of attorneys willing to take on any issues dealing with child welfare, was countable on one hand, if lucky.

Child welfare is an entitlement program, funded through Social Security.  This means, through the poverty means test, the person placed on the central registry was poor.  Poor people have no legal representation because state funded legal aid organizations are restricted from taking cases which will generate financial gain and would loose funding if it bit the hand that fed them, meaning a conflict of interest.

Incorporate the cost factor of litigation into the equation, meaning that the governmental entities would motion up on every minutia to the minimum cost of $200 an hour to the plaintiff, the person whose name was placed on the central registry, and you have a mutational algorithm to protect the racketeering enterprise.

"Every day for the last nine years the (Humphries) have suffered a violation of their due process rights," said Washington attorney Andrew Pincus.

Well of course they have suffered.  That is just a tactic to wear out a challenger.

Despite the county's battle in the courts, an official of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services said that reported child abusers can appeal the listing. Michael Watrobski, chief grievance review manager, said the state told local reporting agencies in May of 2008 that they should offer appeals, and he said his office has heard 313 such challenges this year.

Watrobski said in an interview that he did not understand the county's legal argument in the courts. "I have no idea. I really don't understand that," he said.

After the Supreme Court argument, the lawyer for Los Angeles County was asked about Watrobski's office and his assertion that appeals have been heard for more than two years. "That's news to me. I have never heard that," Coates said.