We the people do have the power. United we stand, divide we fall. We need to unite and stand against the tyranny as described in the Video below.
The case described in the Video below uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress, while deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal,
State, County or local Governments found within the United States of America, and at the same time the trial court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court, to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs for President and Vice President of the United States. See Case
Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein. You Decide
Judge Declares Illinois Cashless Bail Law Is Unconstitutional
An Illinois judge ruled Wednesday that parts of the state’s controversial SAFE-T act was unconstitutional just days before the cashless bail law was scheduled to take effect.
Kankakee County Circuit Court Judge Thomas W. Cunnington wrote that the Illinois state legislature “improperly attempted to amend the Constitution” and said elements of the law violate the Constitution’s separation of powers clause.
The SAFE-T Act, originally passed in January 2021, changes how courts handle criminal defendants and attempted to abolish cash bail.
The judge, in siding with the plaintiffs, found that “had the legislature wanted to change the provisions in the Constitution regarding eliminating monetary bail … they should have submitted the question on the ballot to the electorate at a general election,” adding that courts had their abilities “stripped away” by the legislature.
Further, Cunnington wrote that “declaratory judgment is proper in this case and that plaintiffs have met their burden to show to this court that [the SAFE-T Act] as they relate only to the pretrial release provisions are facially unconstitutional.” For the cash bail part of the law, he wrote it “will likely lead to delays in cases, increased workloads, expenditures of additional funds, and in some cases, an inability to obtain defendant’s appearance in court,” adding that it “that these likely injuries occasioned by the enforcement of an unconstitutional law, are cognizable injuries which provide constitutional standing to plaintiff State’s Attorneys.”
The suit was filed against Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Senate President Donald Harmon, and Speaker of the House Christopher Welch, according to a news release from the Office of the Kankakee County State’s Attorney, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit. Raoul said in a statement the state will appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court.
“Today’s ruling affirms that we are still a government of the people, and that the Constitutional protections afforded to the citizens of Illinois–most importantly the right to exercise our voice with our vote–are inalienable,” Kankakee County State’s Attorney Jim Rowe said in a statement after the ruling Wednesday.
Raoul, a Democrat, said that the Illinois Supreme Court will now have to “definitively resolve this challenge to the pretrial release portions of the SAFE-T Act” because Pritzker, the legislative leaders, and others “intend to appeal the circuit court’s decision directly to the Illinois Supreme Court, where we will ask the court to reverse the circuit court’s decision.”
Pritzker called the ruling a “setback” and declared that Illinois’ “antiquated criminal justice system” needs to be replaced with “a system rooted in equity and fairness.”
“We cannot and should not defend a system that fails to keep people safe by allowing those who are a threat to their community the ability to simply buy their way out of jail,” he said. “I thank the Attorney General for his work on this case and look forward to the Illinois Supreme Court taking up the appeal as soon as possible.”
About 64 counties that signed onto the complaint will not have the bail portion of the SAFE-T act go into effect in the state. Other provisions of the law such as bodycamera mandates for police departments, training mandates, and more will go into effect Jan. 1, according to local media reports.
Before the lawsuit was filed, some Republican state leaders sounded the alarm about the SAFE-T act, arguing that it would lead to a rapid increase in violent crime across Illinois and Chicago, a city that frequently sees more than 700 homicides each year. As of Dec. 1, 2022, Chicago officials recorded about 630 murders, while in 2021, the city recorded more than 800.
Constitutional Law Professor Issues Warning After FBI Criticizes ‘Conspiracy Theorists’
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley sounded the alarm over the FBI’s recent statement decrying “conspiracy theorists” and “disinformation” after recent installments of the “Twitter Files” revealed that agents were in constant communication with Twitter.
A spokesperson for the FBI told Fox News, in response to several “Twitter Files” installments, said that “conspiracy theorists” are “feeding the American public misinformation” and said they are trying to discredit the bureau and its agents.
That statement, Turley told Fox News, is “disturbing” because the FBI has allegedly “attacked many of us who were raising free speech concerns and called all of us collectively ‘conspiracy theorists spreading disinformation.’
“It was highly inappropriate, because the FBI has said that combatting disinformation is one of its priorities. So, it is a very menacing thing when you have the largest law enforcement agency attacking free speech advocates,” Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University who served as an expert witness during former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, told the outlet.
With the reporting around the Twitter Files, Turley noted that new owner Elon Musk “has confirmed that the FBI paid social media companies to help them deal with what they called disinformation, which most of us call censorship.”
“But also that they were in continuous communication, as were other agencies, targeting specific citizens and specific posters to be banned or suspended,” Turley said, referring to disclosures from the files. “That really does smack of an agency relationship and that could violate the first amendment.”
The FBI made its statement to Fox News after several journalists posted screenshots of messages showing how FBI agents communicated with top Twitter officials, namely about potential reports about Hunter Biden.
“What I quickly put together is a pattern where it appears that FBI agents, along with former FBI agents within the company, were engaged in a disinformation campaign aimed at top Twitter and Facebook executives, as well as at top news organization executives to basically prepare them, prime them, get them set up to dismiss Hunter Biden information when it would be released,” journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote.
Another email, dated only last month, showed FBI agent Elvis Chan forwarding a message from the agency’s National Election Command Post to Twitter regarding 25 accounts that were allegedly spreading “misinformation about the upcoming election” on Nov. 8. Days later, the FBI’s San Francisco field office flagged four accounts to Twitter they believed “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service for any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy,” according to files released by journalist Matt Taibbi that was shared by Musk on Twitter.
In another disclosure this month, one Twitter executive appeared to express alarm over the FBI’s pressure. “They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff),” Carlos Monje wrote in January 2020.
Reports have indicated that a number of Big Tech companies have hired retired FBI agents and former intelligence officials. Twitter was no different, having hired former FBI general counsel James Baker, who was recently “exited” by Musk in early December amid reports that he was secretly “vetting” files that were accessed by Taibbi, Shellenberger, and other journalists.
When reached for comment, the FBI also said those messages between the bureau and Twitter show “nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding, and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries. As evidenced in the correspondence, the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers.”
But Turley, in an opinion article, said that “it is not clear what is more chilling—the menacing role played by the FBI in Twitter’s censorship program, or its mendacious response to the disclosure of that role” before he called for reforms at the bureau.
“After Watergate, there was bipartisan support for reforming the FBI and intelligence agencies. Today, that cacophony of voices has been replaced by crickets, as much of the media imposes another effective blackout on coverage of the Twitter Files,” he said. “This media silence suggests that the FBI found the ‘sweet spot’ on censorship, supporting the views of the political and media establishment.”
The Epoch Times has contacted the FBI for comment.