The Media is not covering the Twitter Files; Interview with Whitney Webb; Huge Supreme Court Case; Police in the UK Arrest a Woman for Silently Praying  

 

TURLEY: The Media is not covering the Twitter Files and the reason why is because they’re heavily invested in this scandal, they’re heavily invested in Hunter Biden — many of these news outlets only recently just acknowledged the laptop is authentic — 2 years later!

“What’s disturbing is what’s on the [Hunter Biden] laptop – hundreds of emails detailing an influence peddling scheme that is breathtaking. Influence peddling is common in D.C. but I’ve been in this town for 3 decades, and I’ve never seen anything come close to what the Biden’s did.”

Interview  with Whitney Webb,  professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016 regarding the Clintons and more.

 

Prepare to have your mind blown

Huge Supreme Court Case

This is how you take down the wall.  United we stand Divided we fall

Police in the UK arrest a woman for silently praying:
“Are you praying?” “I might be praying in my head.”

Urgently Need Your Help; General Flynn Comments; Word to the Unvaccinated; Energy Wave Programing; What is Real, What is Not

Video Link

Supreme Court of the United States case 22-380


General Flynn says the enemy is acting the way they are because they’re worried (panicked!), and he wants the American people to be ready to rally at the right time, saying 99.9% we will be unified:


A word to the Unvaccinated


How they can program us through wave of energy that has a profound effect on us.


Was 911 a setup? Decide for yourself as  conspiracy theories are coming true.


Satanic cults and cannibals  are todays powerful people


What is real, what is not. What is your perception of reality?

We have been enslaved for a long time by  the negative force of humanity. The veil is lifting and we beginning to the world from a different perspective.  First and foremost we are energetic beings and our bodies are far more full of our essence in the metaphysical sense than our physical body. Think of the universe as a whole as a field of energy, infinite, mysterious and intelligent and we are all connected.

This energy source has also been validated by the late Dr. Valerie V. Hunt, scientist, author, lecturer and Professor Emeritus of Physiological Science at the University of California. She confirmed electromagnetic energy is the most plentiful constant energy of our universe. It is a part of all structures living and dead, including the atmosphere. We create electromagnetic energies in the atoms of our living cells, which we enhance by the reaction with the atmospheric energy field. We know this expanded energy field as the human aura. Without this biofield life would not exist and there would be only an inner biochemical mix. Dr. Hunt was involved in research that is uncovering the various dimensions involved in the bioenergetic transactions between humans and the environment as they relate to human behaviors, emotions, health, illness, and disease, as well as scientifically quantifying the human aura and the levels of consciousness it contains.

In order to tap into this source, we should focus on the metaphysical as well as the physical, realizing our beliefs, thoughts, emotions and actions all are contributing factors to our reality. Our focus is mostly on the material aspect of our world; providing for our families, trying to stay healthy, and dealing with the seemingly chaotic and troubling world. Many are trying to find their way spiritually. We all have problems and troubles and that is part of our test. How do we handle those situations? Are we fearful and angry or loving and compassionate?

How we handle those situations are entirely in our control. The wonderful thing about our lives is we have free-will with the ability to choose. Keep in mind energy flows where your attention goes.

Balancing involves the body, mind and spirit which includes diet, movement of the body, dealing with negative and positive emotions, and the will to reconnecting to the source of creation. When you reconnect, you will realize the oneness of the creation. God, Tao, Infinite  Intelligence,  Creator, Universal Mind are just one of the many names of the same Source of our creation that mankind has been trying to connect since the beginning. We are in the best time of our lives and are blessed to be here.

Message to the People; Juan O Savin talks about Supreme Court Case 22-380; Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein; Judge Declares Illinois Cashless Bail Law Is Unconstitutional; Constitutional Law Professor Issues Warning 

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

By Jack Phillips
December 29, 2022 Updated: December 29, 2022

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.

Jack Phillips

Jack Phillips is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in New York. He covers breaking news.

Constitutional Law Professor Issues Warning After FBI Criticizes ‘Conspiracy Theorists’

By Jack Phillips
December 28, 2022 Updated: December 29, 2022

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.”

What Happened

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.

Elon Musk
Elon Musk arrives at the justice center in Wilmington, Del., on July 13, 2021. (Matt Rourke/AP Photo)

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.

Jack Phillips

Jack Phillips is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in New York. He covers breaking news.

Election Update From Arizona and US Supreme Court Case 22-380, the Could Remove Members of Congress. See full list below


Some Questions and Answers in the Kari Lake Lawsuit
Kari Lake Closing arguments

‘Without a Shadow of a Doubt’: Kari Lake Responds After 2-Day Election Fraud Trial Ends

By Jack Phillips
December 23, 2022 Updated: December 23, 2022

Arizona GOP candidate Kari Lake released a statement Thursday saying that her lawyers proved that there was “malicious intent” that caused disruption during Maricopa County’s Nov. 8 election, although lawyers for Arizona’s Secretary of State office and Maricopa County argued that she didn’t offer any evidence of alleged fraud or misconduct.

Abha Khanna, a lawyer representing Hobbs, told the courtroom in Maricopa County that Lake’s attorneys have not established whether printer problems on Election Day were intentional acts that would have changed the race’s outcome had they not occurred. At the trial’s closing arguments Thursday, Khanna said Lake’s claims were based on hearsay, speculation, and theatrics.

“What we got instead was just loose threads and gaping plot holes. We know now that her story was a work of fiction,” Khanna said.

But Kurt Olsen, one of Lake’s attorneys, said officials tried to downplay the effects of the printer problems in Maricopa County. On Nov. 8, County Supervisor Bill Gates and Recorder Stephen Richer announced during a news conference that there were printer errors at dozens of polling locations countywide, telling voters to either drop their ballots inside drop-boxes or go to another polling location.

“This is about trust, your honor,” Olsen said. “It’s about restoring people’s trust. There is not a person that’s watching this thing that isn’t shaking their head now.”

Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson, an appointee of former Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, did not say when he would issue a ruling on the case.

Following the two-day trial, Lake told reporters that she believes her attorneys presented a case that would potentially change the outcome of the election. A lawsuit Lake filed earlier this month called for either a redo of the election in Maricopa County or to declare her the victor over Hobbs, a Democrat.

‘Without a Shadow of a Doubt’

“We provided expert testimony. We provided experts. The other side brought in activists to try to save face. They admitted that they’ve known about these ballot problems. They’re ballot problems,” Lake said.

Her lawyers “proved without a shadow of a doubt that there was malicious intent that caused disruption so great it changed the results of the election,” Lake said, adding, “We demand fair, honest, transparent elections, and we will get them. And I pray so hard for this judge.”

At one point during the trial, Lake’s attorneys pointed to a witness who examined ballots on behalf of her campaign and discovered 14 ballots that had 19-inch images of the ballot printed on 20-inch paper, meaning the ballots wouldn’t be read by a tabulator. The witness claimed someone changed those printer configurations, although election officials disputed those assertions.

Lake also called on pollster Richard Baris, who told the court that he believes technical problems at polling places had disenfranchised enough voters that it would have changed the outcome of the race in Lake’s favor. Baris noted that Election Day voters in Maricopa mostly trended Republican.

Baris stated that 25,000 to 40,000 people who would normally have voted actually didn’t cast ballots as a result of Election Day problems, saying that his estimate was primarily influenced by the number of people who started answering his exit poll but didn’t finish the process.

“The bottom line here is that those who said they would cast their vote by mail or drop their ballot off by mail completed their questionnaire at a 93 percent rate,” Baris said, adding that “the rate for Election Day voters was only 72 percent. I can tell you that has never happened to me before, ever.”

Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who is not a pollster involved in the race, claimed that Baris was engaging in making “assumptions and speculation.”

Earlier in the week, Thompson allowed Lake’s case to go to trial but dismissed eight out of 10 claims brought by Lake’s team. The judge ruled that the dismissed charges didn’t meet the criteria to bring election challenges under Arizona law.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Jack Phillips

BREAKING NEWS REPORTER

Jack Phillips is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in New York. He covers breaking news.


The Roberts Court, 2022

Front row, left to right — Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan.

Back row — Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson v. Adams Case That Seeks to Overturn 2020 Election

CROSSROADS

JOSHUA PHILIPP

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether it will take up a case that could overturn the 2020 elections and make representatives who voted to confirm the election ineligible to hold office in the future. The case, Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al, sues the members of Congress who voted against the proposed 10-day audit of the 2020 elections, alleging that doing so and then certifying the election regardless was a breach of their oath of office.

If the Supreme Court rules against Congress, it could potentially remove a sitting president and vice president, along with the members of Congress involved, and deem them unfit to hold office again at any level of U.S. government. It would allegedly also give the Supreme Court the ability to authorize the swearing-in of the rightful president and vice president.  Link 

Case explained in the video below  and the Justices will have a conference on January 6.

To review Case #22-380 click the link below

Click to access 20221027152243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from
this Court and lower appeal courts, along with
constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether
or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of
this case.

This case 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.

In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each
other found in this case affecting every court in this
country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of
equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of
justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the
lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation
of the object principle of justice also partially created by
this Court and supported by other appeal courts and
constitutional provisions.

These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court
to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be,
settled by this Court without delay.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner Raland J Brunson is an individual representing
himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court.
The following 388 Respondents are a party to this action as
defendants in the trial court:

Named persons in their capacities as United States House
Representatives: ALMA S. ADAMS; PETE AGUILAR;
COLIN Z. ALLRED; MARK E. AMODEI; KELLY
ARMSTRONG; JAKE AUCHINCLOSS; CYNTHIA AXNE;
DON BACON; TROY BALDERSON; ANDY BARR;
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN; KAREN BASS; JOYCE
BEATTY; AMI BERA; DONALD S. BEYER JR.; GUS M.
ILIRAKIS; SANFORD D. BISHOP JR.; EARL
BLUMENAUER; LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER; SUZANNE
BONAMICI; CAROLYN BOURDEAUX; JAMAAL
BOWMAN; BRENDAN F. BOYLE; KEVIN BRADY;
ANTHONY G. BROWN; JULIA BROWNLEY; VERN
BUCHANAN; KEN BUCK; LARRY BUCSHON; CORI
BUSH; CHERI BUSTOS; G. K. BUTTERFIELD; SALUD
0. CARBAJAL; TONY CARDENAS; ANDRE CARSON;
MATT CARTWRIGHT; ED CASE; SEAN CASTEN;
KATHY CASTOR; JOAQUIN CASTRO; LIZ CHENEY;
JUDY CHU; DAVID N. CICILLINE; KATHERINE M.
CLARK; YVETTE D. CLARKE; EMANUEL CLEAVER;
JAMES E. CLYBURN; STEVE COHEN; JAMES COMER;
GERALD E. CONNOLLY; JIM COOPER; J. LUIS
CORREA; JIM COSTA; JOE COURTNEY; ANGIE CRAIG;
DAN CRENSHAW; CHARLIE CRIST; JASON CROW;
HENRY CUELLAR; JOHN R. CURTIS; SHARICE
DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS;
MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA
DEGETTE; ROSAL DELAURO; SUZAN K. DELBENE;
ANTONIO DELGADO; VAL BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK
DESAULNIER; THEODORE E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE
DINGELL; LLOYD DOGGETT; MICHAEL F. DOYLE;
TOM EMMER; VERONICA ESCOBAR; ANNA G. ESHOO;
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT; DWIGHT EVANS; RANDY
FEENSTRA; A. DREW FERGUSON IV; BRIAN K.
FITZPATRICK; LIZZIE LETCHER; JEFF
FORTENBERRY; BILL FOSTER; LOIS FRANKEL;
MARCIA L. FUDGE; MIKE GALLAGHER; RUBEN
GALLEGO; JOHN GARAMENDI; ANDREW R.
GARBARINO; SYLVIA R. GARCIA; JESUS G. GARCIA;
JARED F. GOLDEN; JIMMY GOMEZ; TONY GONZALES;
ANTHONY GONZALEZ; VICENTE GONZALEZ; JOSH
GOTTHEIMER; KAY GRANGER; AL GREEN; RAUL M.
GRIJALVA; GLENN GROTHMAN; BRETT GUTHRIE;
DEBRA A. HAALAND; JOSH HARDER; ALCEE L.
HASTINGS; JAHANA HAYES; JAIME HERRERA
BEUTLER; BRIAN HIGGINS; J. FRENCH HILL; JAMES
A. HIMES; ASHLEY HINSON; TREY HOLLINGSWORTH;
STEVEN HORSFORD; CHRISSY HOULAHAN; STENY H.
HOYER; JARED HUFFMAN; BILL HUIZENGA; SHEILA
JACKSON LEE; SARA JACOBS; PRAMILA JAYAPAL;
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES; DUSTY JOHNSON; EDDIE
BERNICE JOHNSON; HENRY C. JOHNSON JR.;
MONDAIRE JONES; DAVID P. JOYCE; KAIALPI
KAHELE; MARCY KAPTUR; JOHN KATKO; WILLIAM R.
KEATING; RO KHANNA; DANIEL T. KILDEE; DEREK
KILMER; ANDY KIM; YOUNG KIM; RON KIND; ADAM
KINZINGER; ANN KIRKPATRICK; RAJA
KRISHNAMOORTHI; ANN M. KUSTER; DARIN
LAHOOD; CONOR LAMB; JAMES R. LANGEVIN; RICK
LARSEN; JOHN B. LARSON; ROBERT E. LATTA; JAKE
LATURNER; BRENDA L. LAWRENCE; AL LAWSON JR.;
BARBARA LEE; SUSIE LEE; TERESA LEGER
FERNANDEZ; ANDY LEVIN; MIKE LEVIN; TED LIEU;
ZOE LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G.
LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; NANCY MACE; TOM
MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN
PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS
MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL
T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM;
A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN;
PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY
MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER;
GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE
MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D.
MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE;
SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N.
MURPHY; JERROLD NADLER; GRACE F.
NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN
NEWHOUSE; MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS;
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O’HALLERAN;
ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONE JR.; JIMMY
PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL PASCRELL JR.;
DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED
PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H. PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS;
CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER;
AYANNA PRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE
QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED; KATHLEEN M.
RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K.
ROSS; CHIP ROY; LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL
RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBY L.
RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHN P.
SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON; JANICE D.
SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT
SCHNEIDER; KURT SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER;
AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT;
TERRI A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN; MIKIE
SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO SIRES;
ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHER H.
SMITH; DARREN SOTO; ABIGAIL DAVIS
SPANBERGER; VICTORIA SPARTZ; JACKIE SPEIER;
GREG STANTON; PETE STAUBER; MICHELLE STEEL;
BRYAN STEIL; HALEY M. STEVENS; STEVE STIVERS;
MARILYN STRICKLAND; THOMAS R. SUOZZI; ERIC
SWALWELL; MARK TAKANO; VAN TAYLOR; BENNIE
G. THOMPSON; MIKE THOMPSON; DINA TITUS;
RASHIDA TLAIB; PAUL TONKO; NORMA J. TORRES;
RITCHIE TORRES; LORI TRAHAN; DAVID J. TRONE;
MICHAEL R. TURNER; LAUREN UNDERWOOD; FRED
UPTON; JUAN VARGAS; MARC A. VEASEY; FILEMON
VELA; NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ; ANN WAGNER;
MICHAEL WALTZ; DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ;
MAXINE WATERS; BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN;
PETER WELCH; BRAD R. WENSTRUP; BRUCE
WESTERMAN; JENNIFER WEXTON; SUSAN WILD;
NIKEMA WILLIAMS; FREDERICA S. WILSON; STEVE
WOMACK; JOHN A. YARMUTH; DON YOUNG; the
following persons named are for their capacities as U.S.
Senators; TAMMY BALDWIN; JOHN BARRASSO;
MICHAEL F. BENNET; MARSHA BLACKBURN;
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL; ROY BLUNT; CORY A.
BOOKER; JOHN BOOZMAN; MIKE BRAUN; SHERROD
BROWN; RICHARD BURR; MARIA CANTWELL;
SHELLEY CAPITO; BENJAMIN L. CARDIN; THOMAS R.
CARPER; ROBERT P. CASEY JR.; BILL CASSIDY;
SUSAN M. COLLINS; CHRISTOPHER A. COONS; JOHN
CORNYN; CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; TOM
COTTON; KEVIN CRAMER; MIKE CRAPO; STEVE
DAINES; TAMMY DUCKWORTH; RICHARD J. DURBIN;
JONI ERNST; DIANNE FEINSTEIN; DEB FISCHER;
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND; LINDSEY GRAHAM; CHUCK
GRASSLEY; BILL HAGERTY; MAGGIE HASSAN;
MARTIN HEINRICH; JOHN HICKENLOOPER; MAZIE
HIRONO; JOHN HOEVEN; JAMES INHOFE; RON
JOHNSON; TIM KAINE; MARK KELLY; ANGUS S.
KING, JR.; AMY KLOBUCHAR; JAMES LANKFORD;
PATRICK LEAHY; MIKE LEE; BEN LUJAN; CYNTHIA
M. LUMMIS; JOE MANCHIN III; EDWARD J. MARKEY;
MITCH MCCONNELL; ROBERT MENENDEZ; JEFF
MERKLEY; JERRY MORAN; LISA MURKOWSKI;
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY; PATTY MURRAY; JON
OSSOFF; ALEX PADILLA; RAND PAUL; GARY C.
PETERS; ROB PORTMAN; JACK REED; JAMES E.
RISCH; MITT ROMNEY; JACKY ROSEN; MIKE
ROUNDS; MARCO RUBIO; BERNARD SANDERS; BEN
SASSE; BRIAN SCHATZ; CHARLES E. SCHUMER; RICK
SCOTT; TIM SCOTT; JEANNE SHAHEEN; RICHARD C.
SHELBY; KYRSTEN SINEMA; TINA SMITH;
DEBBIE STABENOW; DAN SULLIVAN; JON TESTER;
JOHN THUNE; THOM TILLIS; PATRICK J. TOOMEY;
HOLLEN VAN; MARK R. WARNER; RAPHAEL G.
WARNOCK; ELIZABETH WARREN; SHELDON
WHITEHOUSE; ROGER F. WICKER; RON WYDEN;
TODD YOUNG; JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR in his
capacity of President of the United States; MICHAEL
RICHARD PENCE in his capacity as former Vice President
of the United States, and KAMALA HARRIS in her
capacity as Vice President of the United States and JOHN
and JANE DOES 1-100.

Write to the Justices clicking this link and get the following letter

MAILED TO:

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Attn:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan.
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

RE: Brunson v. Alma S. Adams et al No.: 22-380

Dear Justices,

This letter is to express my support of the above referenced case. I am concerned that the United States has experienced a national security breach and a violation of every citizens’ greatest power in a Republic: voting. I ask that you stand against the interference of foreign and domestic enemies and uphold the supreme law of the land by granting this petition. You truly are in a position that represents a court system greater than the world has ever seen.

I, along with many others, seem to be witnessing our nation captured and I am left to wonder if it might be by some of these very respondents. I pray for the right and just outcome and I am grateful for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Name:_______________________________________ Date:_______________________

Juan O Savin -Call to Action; Acts of Treason and Fraud Will be The Case of The Century

JUAN O SAVIN -CALL TO ACTION- SCOTUS BRUNSON LETTER 12 9 2022
Supreme Court: Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al., Case Summary and Timeline
  • The case involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with 388 members of the United States Congress.

  • Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation Into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, seeking to destroy the constitution in the United States of America.

  • The case alleges that Congress failed in their Constitutional duties by ignoring the protection of critical infrastructure (election systems) during a National Emergency.

  • US courts have consistently held that fraud vitiates everything (US v Throckmorton, 1878).

  • The refusal of the respondents to investigate The Congressional claim (the enemy) is an act of treason and fraud by respondents.

  • The successful manipulation of US elections constitutes an act of war.

The petitioner, Raland J. Brunson, has created a website containing a case summary and timeline of events: Seven Discoveries Book – 7discoveries

Supreme Court of the United States Case No 22-380

Do your part and click below, sign, date and send to the United States Supreme Court

Click to access BrunsonV2.pdf

Brunson v. Alma S. Adams et al, Action against 388 federal officers who refused 10 day delay in Electoral vote count, Act of treason and fraud by Respondents

 

Trump in 1986; Lora Logan We Are At War; War on Sex Trafficking; Juan O Savin and Loy Brunson URGENT SUPREME COURT UPDATE

Here’s President Trump at 40 years old in 1986, talking about how America was being ripped off by the rest of the world.

He was talking about making America great back then and he’s still talking about making America great to this day


Interview with Lora Logan “WE ARE AT WAR”

Image

“Be wise enough to walk away from the negativity around you.”

 


Steve Shultz interviews Juan O Savin and Loy Brunson for our next broadcast of “Prophets and Patriots” regarding an URGENT SUPREME COURT UPDATE  Brunson V. Alma S. Adams et al. No 22-380

Brunson (elijahstreams.com)

MAILED TO:

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Attn:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan.
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

RE: Brunson v. Alma S. Adams et al
No.: 22-380

Dear Justices,

This letter is to express my support of the above referenced case. I am concerned that the United States has experienced a national security breach and a violation of every citizens’ greatest power in a Republic: voting. I ask that you stand against the interference of foreign and domestic enemies and uphold the supreme law of the land by granting this petition. You truly are in a position that represents a court system greater than the world has ever seen. I, along with many others, seem to be witnessing our nation captured and I am left to wonder if it might be by some of these very respondents. I pray for the right and just outcome and I am
grateful for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Name:_______________________________________ Date:________________________

 

mRNA is Transferring from the Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated; CGI Technology; Government Knows Children are Being Trafficked 

Shedding Concerns: “It Looks Like the mRNA is Transferring from the Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated”

Could you actually take a vaccine inadvertently through close contact, kissing, sexual contact, or breastfeeding? Dr. McCullough (http://t.me/c19expertchannel) says, “it looks like the answer is YES.”

Western media have been using CGI technology to sell the narrative to their audiences that Russia is targeting civilian residential areas. This is not the case as we can see.

The Supreme Court Case Could Overturn the 2020 Presidential election

Government knows children are being trafficked

The Pineal Gland

Meditation, being of service to others, love God with all your heart and love others as you love yourself are some steps that could help us find our way during these times.  Our world today provides more than enough catalyst and opportunities to grow spiritually. Pay attention to your thoughts, speech and actions. Are they positive or negative?

Spiritual growth is why we are here. It is a lifetime endeavor of seeking the truth and to know our true-selves. We live in a world that is not what it seems and our physical and metaphysical worlds are inseparable. Spiritual growth is listening and trusting our higher- self. We all have guides or angels ready to assist, if we pay attention. We all have the gift of discernment or intuition, we just have to learn to trust ourselves.

Daily meditation, even if it is just five minute will help calm the mind and in time, provide a path the the higher self. There is no one method of meditation better than another. Buddha said “Meditation brings wisdom; lack of mediation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back, and choose the path that leads to wisdom.

Once a person realizes we live in divine energetic field, they begin to experience the energy fields of nature including plants, animals and humans. You feel more love and compassion to all living things. As we grow, so will our awareness, purpose and understanding. The Chinese sage Lao Tzu “ A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.”

Let Love Be Your Driving Force; Zuckerberg limited distribution of the Hunter laptop story; It About To be Expose

When Australian farmer Ben Jackson couldn’t attend his Aunt’s funeral in 2021 due to Covid restrictions, he laid out grain for his Sheep in the shape of a heart in order “that she could see it through the clouds”.

May Love Be Thé Driving Force in your FIGHT For Freedom!

Zuckerberg just told Joe Rogan that Facebook limited distribution of the Hunter laptop story on request from the FBI


The Memo Caught Them All, Trump Is About To Expose It All, Tick Tock – Ep. 2859

 

God Wins; Jan. 6 ‘Electronic Surveillance Unit’ Was ‘Illegal,’

Supreme Court rules for coach in public school prayer case

“The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Washington state high school football coach had a right to pray on the field immediately after games, a decision that could lead to more acceptance of religious expression at public schools.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna31662

TN Rep. Jason Zachary Asks Gov. Lee to Halt COVID Vaccines for Kids

Abortion doctor admits sold baby parts often came from babies born alive

Jan. 6 ‘Electronic Surveillance Unit’ Was ‘Illegal,’ Says Rep. Gohmert; Attorney Suggests ‘Entrapment’

‘We can’t have secret units doing secret surveillance of people that have committed no crime, no probable cause of a crime. Just getting blanket surveillance.’
By Patricia Tolson      June 27, 2022 Updated: June 27, 2022

As previously reported in an exclusive June 20 report, evidence proves that “plainclothes” members of a special Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) were embedded among Jan. 6, 2021, protesters for the purposes of conducting video surveillance. According to experts, one believes the activity itself may have been against the law. The other contends it was done for the purpose of entrapment.

Against the Law?

Speaking as a former prosecutor and three-term District Judge, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times, “if you’re going to have electronic surveillance of people there has to be warrants.”

As Gohmert explained, “FISA courts have granted warrants,” with “no particular clarity” and “no probable cause that a crime’s been committed or that this person engaged in a crime.”

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was established under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). “Pursuant to FISA,” the FISC website explains, “the Court entertains applications submitted by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes.”

Regarding domestic electronic surveillance, the Department of Justice (DOJ) website, “Because of the well-recognized intrusive nature of many types of electronic surveillance, especially wiretaps and ‘bugs,’ and the Fourth Amendment implications of the government’s use of these devices in the course of its investigations, the relevant statutes (and related Department of Justice guidelines) provide restrictions on the use of most electronic surveillance, including the requirement that a high-level Department official specifically approve the use of many of these types of electronic surveillance prior to an Assistant United States Attorney obtaining a court order authorizing interception.”

Furthermore, “when court authorization for video surveillance is deemed necessary, it should be obtained by way of an application and order predicated on Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(b) and the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651). The application and order should be based on an affidavit that establishes probable cause to believe that evidence of a Federal crime will be obtained by the surveillance. In addition, the affidavit should comply with certain provisions of the Federal electronic surveillance statutes.”

Gohmert surmised: “When you see confirmed judges are just willing to completely abrogate the U.S. Constitution because they’re the star chamber of the secret court, and they figure nobody will ever find out what they’re doing, then you know when you see there’s an Electronic Surveillance Unit, well, something’s not right.”

Gohmert’s concerns with the ESU surveillance are two-fold:

  1. Were the legally required warrants obtained?
  2. If so, how could a judge approve a warrant for surveillance before a crime has been committed and with no probable cause?

“We can’t have secret units doing secret surveillance of people that have committed no crime, no probable cause of a crime. Just getting blanket surveillance,” Gohmert asserted. “We don’t know what kind of warrant they had or even if they had warrants. But to deploy Electronic Surveillance Units tells us there’s a lot more here that we need to find out about and obviously it’s not going to be uncovered at least for another six months.”

But Gohmert added that “there is also more information we haven’t gotten and information that continues to leak out drip by drip.”

“Like this in [article] The Epoch Times,” Gohmert noted, “pointing out how until the deployment of munitions, the crowd was peaceful. I had heard from people and seen people interviewed saying there wasn’t any violence out there. ‘We were just mulling around, chanting stuff from time to time, then they started firing on us with tear gas and provoked the crowd.’ They created chaos, and you just wonder what was going on.”

The Evidence

Evidence of the embedded ESU members was discovered in a Jan. 3, 2021, First Amendment Demonstrations report, issued by Chief of Police Robert Contee of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Homeland Security Bureau, Special Operations Division, obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times. While it is unclear who the MPD ESU “members” were, the report stated they wore a specific “bracelet on their left wrist identifying them as MPD personnel” among the protesters. Of the 37 “Specialized Units” listed as part of the MPD, an ESU is not among them.

Photo of bracelet worn my plainclothes members of the Metrolpilitan Police Department's Electronic Surveillance Unit, embedded in the crowds on January 6, 2021.
Photo of bracelet worn by plainclothes members of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Electronic Surveillance Unit, embedded in the crowds on Jan. 6, 2021 to “document the actions of the demonstrators and MPD’s response to any civil disobedience or criminal activity.” (Metropolitan Police Department First Amendment Demonstrations report.)

Also in the report, revealed now for the first time, was the advisory that the Special Operations Division “will have personnel to assist with this detail and will assist with any demonstration.” Among them were Domestic Security Officers, or DSOs.

The Special Operations Division is part of the United States Secret Service, which is part of Homeland Security.

Under the heading of “Special Operations Division — Deployment Requirements,” the report said “the Incident Commander” shall ensure that specific objectives were “adhered to.” Among those is the order that “Long Range Acoustical Device (LRAD) – The LRAD along with the warning sheets shall be deployed by the DSO members along with the munitions load out and arrest kits.”

Domestic Security Officers (pdf) are also part of Homeland Security’s Special Operations Division.

Epoch Times Photo
Homeland Security Organizational Flowchart (ACTIVE MPD Org Charts)

According to The Focus, the DSO “can be heard shouted on audio recordings of the Capitol siege, when law enforcement officers needed additional support against the oncoming masses.”

“DSOs are primarily used as riot police, to dole out such crowd control measures as tear gas, pepper spray, batons and rubber bullets intended to disperse rioters. Their weapons can be lethal and are only to be used in the most extreme circumstances.”

Video evidence shows an unidentified individual handing weapons to people through a window from inside the Capitol building.

Joseph McBride, an attorney for multiple January 6 prisoners and defendants identified a man tagged by “Sedition Hunters” as “Red-Faced 45.” The man McBride says is “clearly law enforcement,” was dressed in red from head to toe—with even his face painted red. He appears in a video engaging in continuous dialogue with others whom McBride also insists are agents embedded in the crowd.

“He passes out weapons, sledgehammers, poles, mace. Some of those things come in contact with some of the other protesters who have subsequently been charged with possessing dangerous weapons and are using dangerous weapons at the Capitol. That is clearly entrapment.

That is clearly the government creating conditions of dangerousness and entrapping members of the crowd to possess weapons and possibly use them for reasons that we cannot comprehend.”

According to a 140-page report issued by then-Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton—”Review of the Events Surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Takeover of the U.S. Capitol”—Capitol Police’s Civil Disturbance Unit was ordered by supervisors not to use the department’s most powerful tools, like stun guns. Also, “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including stun grenades, “were not used that day because of orders from leadership.”

However, the “UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE TIMELINE OF EVENTS FOR JANUARY 6, 2021 ATTACK,” also obtained by The Epoch Times, says “Less lethal munitions” were “deployed to Center Steps” at 1:59 p.m. after “Insurrectionists breach Inauguration Stage and begin tearing things down” and “breach barrier at the north side of the plaza.”

It does not specify if these munitions were “flash bangs” or “tear gas.”

Screenshot from UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE TIMELINE OF EVENTS FORJANUARY 6, 2021ATTACK showing moment "less lethal munitions" were "deployed to center steps."
Screenshot from UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE TIMELINE OF EVENTS FOR JANUARY 6, 2021 ATTACK showing the moment “less lethal munitions” were “deployed to center steps.” (Obtained by The Epoch Times)

Prior to the deployment of munitions, a video shown on Red Voice Media shows that at 1:05 p.m., an unnamed officer is repeatedly encouraging people to climb onto the bleachers of the inaugural stage.

On January 6, 2021, tear gas was fired into crowd of pro-Trump protesters well before the violence began. Even with the tear gas, the crowd remained orderly..
Tear gas fired into the crowd of pro-Trump protesters well before the violence began on Jan. 6, 2021. Even with the tear gas, the crowd remained orderly. (Courtesy of J. Michael Waller)

From multiple eyewitness accounts and video evidence, the crowds were relatively peaceful and calm until after munitions were launched and rubber bullets were fired into the crowd.

Video footage shows flash grenades being launched into a group of protesters, consisting of women, children, and elderly people, who were standing peacefully behind barriers. According to American Greatness, Capitol Police were also firing on the crowd with rubber bullets. The approximate time of the confrontation was around 1:36 p.m.

gallery slideshow from TMZ, reporting damage “after Capitol riots” shows damage only to the fabric, not the bleachers themselves.

The evidence raises the questions:

  1. Are the DSOs, rather than Capitol Hill police or the MPD, the ones who launched flash bangs into the crowd?
  2. Are DSOs the ones seen in videos doling out weapons to people in the crowd?
  3. What about the LRAD?

According to Acentech, a company with 70 years of acoustic expertise, “LRAD systems are a type of Acoustic Hailing Device (AHD), used to send messages over long distances. LRAD systems produce much higher sound levels (volume) than normal loudspeakers or megaphones.”

Over shorter distances, LRAD signals are loud enough to cause pain in the ears of people in their path. LRAD systems have recently been used by police as “sonic weapons” to break up crowds. At first blush, the use of noise rather than physical force might seem like a safe, non-lethal way to move and direct crowds, but if used improperly they can cause permanent hearing damage.

There does not appear to be any evidence that the LRAD was deployed.

Outrageous Government Conduct

According to Joseph McBride, the attorney for several Jan. 6 prisoners and defendants, “if they had memos that preexisted January 6, that the D.C. Police and/or the FBI or the CIA or anybody else had the time to organize and send operatives or undercovers into the crowd whether it was to collect evidence or to videotape or for any other legitimate or illegitimate purpose, this, by definition would be they had foreknowledge of what was going to happen.”

McBride added that “they could have and should have and most likely didn’t, share that information with the relative authorities.”

By comparison to the ill-prepared CDU and unused National Guard during Jan. 6, in anticipation of violent protests regarding the leaked Supreme revealing the likely overturn of Roe v. Wade, McBride noted how security was heightened and law enforcement was quick to fortify the Supreme Court building with tall fencing.

Epoch Times Photo
U.S. Capitol Police guard a security fence surrounding the Supreme Court in Washington on June 8, 2022. (Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

“They did not do that on January 6,” Mc Bride said.” The question is—Why?”

To McBride, Jan. 6 easily clears the high bar set to prove the rare defense known as “outrageous government conduct.”

“In most cases,” Doug Murphy Law explains on its website, “the courts presume that the government is acting reasonably when they pursue criminal charges against an individual.”

“As long as the federal government’s intentions are good, the courts will not prevent a case from moving forward. However, some conduct by the federal government is so outrageous that moving forward with a criminal prosecution violates a defendant’s due process rights. This is a high bar to prove, as it must involve acts so fundamentally unfair that justice would prevent a criminal prosecution.”

“In layman’s terms,” McBride said “it has to do with when the government behaves in a way that’s so outrageous and so out of bounds of what is decent and normal that, but for their participation, things would have happened differently that day.”

Considering the mounting evidence from eyewitness accounts that law enforcement was directly involved in encouraginginvitingprovokinginstigatingparticipating, and trying to cover up the truth about the origins of the violence on Jan. 6, it becomes a legitimate defense to anyone who may be charged with crimes related to Jan. 6 “because the government was engaged in a bunch of things that rose to the level of being outrageous,” McBride asserted.

“Their job is to prevent things from happening. What happened was they participated in making things happen, with advanced knowledge, and therefore, they themselves are on the hook. You can’t say John Doe and Jane Doe are going to be charged with January 6-related crimes But officer X and Officer Y, who did the same thing, are going to get a pass because they are with the government. That [expletive] doesn’t fly.”

Entrapment

“My Spidey senses tell me they used the documentation of things through surveillance was for the purposes of entrapment. The idea of an Electronic Surveillance Unit roaming through a crown is highly dubious. The only time I have ever seen law enforcement do this, they have almost always been accused of doing this to rile up the crowd,” said McBride.

Julie Kelly—a political consultant in Illinois and senior contributor for American Greatness—described Jan. 6, 2021, as “an inside job” and “something Democrats and some Republicans and federal agencies put together to entice” and “entrap” people who went to hear former President Donald Trump’s speech. She further noted that the FBI used agents to try to infiltrate the so-called militia groups. Jeremy Brown exposed a video of FBI Terrorist Task Force agents attempting to recruit him to spy on fellow Oath Keepers.

McBride described first-hand how he saw people in the crowd “at the tunnel entrance” on Jan. 6 “videotaping all over the place.”

“They were cops, clearly,” he insisted.” They were working in concert with other people in the crowd who were causing discord, using hand signals. There were people there causing the fights and there were people videoing it. The job of a police officer is to prevent crime. It’s not to record it. If something is happening, you prevent it from happening. The fact that they let it happen and sowed up only to record it, it has entrapment written all over it.”

2022 Elections

Despite what Gohmert sees as lies, injustice, and mounting unanswered questions surrounding Jan. 6, he believes the turning of the tide is dependent upon who comes out of the 2022 primary elections with control of the House and Senate, and until Congress can “properly addresses the unconstitutionality of federal judges granting warrants that never should have been granted,” Gohmert said, “this kind of stuff is going to go on.”

“If Republicans get the majority back we have got to get to the bottom of these matters,” Gohmert vowed. “There won’t be any way to undo the jail sentences of these people who were illegally entrapped. But there will be a way to put people in jail that committed crimes in order to create the chaos.”

Still, there is one of the questions that nags Gohmert.

“Since we know there were provocations on January 6 and we know that there were people that were provided weapons from people that may have been planted by the federal government, you can’t help but wonder, how many Democrats if any, who are making the most noise now about the horrors of January 6, knew that this was a setup?”

The Epoch Times reached out to the MPD for comment.

Patricia Tolson

REPORTER
Patricia Tolson, an award-winning national investigative reporter with 20 years of experience, has worked for such news outlets as Yahoo!, U.S. News, and The Tampa Free Press. With The Epoch Times, Patricia’s in-depth investigative coverage of human interest stories, election policies, education, school boards, and parental rights has achieved international exposure. Send her your story ideas: patricia.tolson@epochtimes.us

Supreme Court Rules New York’s Concealed Carry Gun Law Is Unconstitutional; Crimes Against Humanity

Supreme Court Rules New York’s Concealed Carry Gun Law Is Unconstitutional, Recognizes Right to Carry in Public

Justice Thomas: Law violates Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves in public
By Matthew Vadum
June 23, 2022 Updated: June 23, 2022

The Supreme Court voted 6–3 on June 23 to strike down New York state’s draconian concealed carry gun permitting system on constitutional grounds, recognizing for the first time a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

The ruling is a sweeping victory for Second Amendment gun ownership rights and may help to undo restrictive gun control laws outside New York state, possibly including so-called red flag laws, which allow the confiscation of guns in certain circumstances with limited due process.

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court has been strengthening Second Amendment protections in recent years, and observers have said that the court’s six-member conservative supermajority could help expand gun ownership protections. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), it held that this right “is fully applicable to the States.”

The ruling comes amid rising crime rates, activist demands to defund police departments, and a Biden administration push to strengthen gun control policies. A legislative package, introduced in the wake of a series of high-profile mass shootings, is moving forward in Congress.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) hailed the decision, calling it a “watershed win for good men and women all across America” and taking credit for the victory after “a decades-long fight the NRA has led.”

“The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home,” LaPierre said.

President Joe Biden condemned the new ruling, which he said “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution and should deeply trouble us all.”

“I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety. Lives are on the line,” Biden said.

The Empire State’s gun permit law, as with laws in seven other states, generally requires an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause” in order to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so, according to state law. An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” according to a 1980 ruling by the Supreme Court of New York in Klenosky v. New York City Police Department.

The specific issue before the court was whether the state’s denial of the petitioning individuals’ applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense violates the U.S. Constitution.

Oral arguments in the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, court file 20-843, an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, were heard on Nov. 3.

Respondent Kevin Bruen heads the New York State Police. Founded in 1871, the lead petitioner, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, describes itself as “the state’s largest and nation’s oldest firearms advocacy organization,” and as the official NRA-affiliated state association in New York.

The majority opinion (pdf) was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who declared that New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the 14th Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

“Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Thomas wrote, before quoting Konigsberg v. State Bar of California (1961).

“In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government … must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”

It makes no sense to deny Americans the ability to defend themselves outside their homes, he said.

“To confine the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections. Moreover, confining the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is ‘the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself,’” Thomas wrote, quoting the Heller opinion.

“After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an ‘individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,’ and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. … Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that in 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted, “there were no police departments, and many families lived alone on isolated farms or on the frontiers. If these people were attacked, they were on their own. It is hard to imagine the furor that would have erupted if the Federal Government and the States had tried to take away the guns that these people needed for protection. Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their [rights].”

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.

“In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms. Since the start of this year (2022), there have been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day. Gun violence has now surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents. Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.”

Matthew Vadum

CONTRIBUTOR
Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative journalist and a recognized expert in left-wing activism.
Kari Lake embarrasses CNN reporter

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is
manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”
—ALBERT EINSTEIN, GERMAN THEORETICAL PHYSICIST

 

%d bloggers like this: