Saturday, January 27, 2018

Mark Meuser, Secretary of State and Antifa

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The news about the recent case where former Berkeley College Republicans President Troy Worden won a little justice after Alameda County Superior Court ordered an antifa activist to pay $11,100 for filing a frivolous civil harassment restraining order against Worden has made Americans finally feel like the terrorists of Antifa and the Democrat Party may finally be under a little control.  The whole thing started when in September of 2017 Yvette Felarca, a national leader of "By Any Means Necessary", a far-left antifa associated group that protested recent conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley, filed a temporary restraining order against Worden, but dropped the request for a permanent order in October.

The ruling was that the restraining order “was not brought in good faith” and ordered her to pay Worden’s attorney fees and court costs.  Unfortunately, that doesn't help the other things affected in Worden's life, but it is a much needed win against the domestic terrorists who have been savagely attacking anyone bordering on conservatism.

One of the lawyers in Worden's corner was Mark Meuser, who is also a candidate for California Secretary of State.

Considered a “local antifa celebrity,” Felarca’s other claim to fame was hitting a man during counter-demonstration in Sacramento back in 2016. She was later charged with inciting and participating in a riot and assault likely to cause great bodily injury.

Meuser touts the win, because it occurred in hard left California.

As a candidate for Secretary of State, Meuser brings not only his conservatism to the table, but a deep understanding of the Founding Fathers and Revolutionary America during the time of the forging of America.  Mark is a native Californian who believes in the free market, and the concept of localism as established by those who served as delegates in the Constitutional Convention in 1787.  He is determined, as Secretary of State, to restore our confidence in our elections by rooting out the fraud, and cleaning up the voter rolls.

One thing is for sure.  If Meuser can tackle Antifa in the courts, he's more than capable of tacking our wayward ballot and voter registration system.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: Treason Exposed

Douglas V. Gibbs hosts Constitution Radio on KMET 1490-AM every Saturday at 1:00 pm Pacific Time ... 

Live on the Radio Dial: Banning, 1490-AM
Live on the Internet: KMET1490AM.com
Live on your mobile phone: KMET APP
Android   ● Apple
Archived as a Podcast: Sound Cloud


"The End of the FBI Secret Society?"

Text messages and emails reveals how deep the deep state truly reaches, and how treasonous liberal left allies truly have been!

This week's AllStar Collision/CarStar Big Stories of the week begins with a horror story that does more than usurp the U.S. Constitution ... it defies all of the principles of liberty and law that the American System has been built upon.  The news has filled us with tales of tyranny, corruption, and lies ... and the mainstream media refuses to report any of it.  Tune in to Constitution Radio for the real story, and how the U.S. Constitution is being circumvented and perverted ... and the solutions based on Founding Principles to restore the Constitution to its rightful place in our republic!

Call in while we are live between 1:00 pm and 3:00 pm --- 951-922-3532!

◆ FBI's Secret, Anti-American Society

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/01/fbis-secret-anti-american-society.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/01/bubbling-scandal-includes-fbi-secret.html

◆ Uranium One Onion

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-peeling-of-uranium-one-onion-and.html

◆ Perris: 13 Starving Kids, and the Attack Against Homeschooling

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/01/california-launches-war-on-homeschooling.html

◆ Democrats Place Illegal Aliens Above Americans and the Military

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/01/government-opens-without-daca-in-budget.html

◆ California's Defiance, and Soft Secession

https://www.westernjournal.com/california-lawmakers-introduce-bill-take-trump-tax-cut-savings-companies/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/23/new-california-policy-opens-door-to-illegal-immigrant-voting.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/19/california-ag-will-prosecute-employers-who-violate-sanctuary-laws.amp.html

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195405279.html

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/study-confirms-the-california-pension-crisis-is-hitting-now/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455820/california-secession-good-done-soft-correctly

www.constitutionquest.com

Conservative Voice Radio: News of the City of Beaumont with Lloyd White


Conservative Voice Radio

Hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party www.bbcvteaparty.net Glenn, Jan and Diane.  Also, on this Saturday's broadcast, we will be joined in the studio with Lloyd White of the Beaumont City Council to discuss what is going on locally during our "Local Segment" after the first break . . .

Saturdays, 8:00 am, Conservative Voice Radio, KMET 1490-AM

Listen live at www.kmet1490am.com or listen later at the podcast page.

Today's topics:

- Text Messages and Memos Reveal Democrat Party Sins

- DACA and the Government Shutdown

- Lloyd White: Battling Misinformation

- Social Media and the First Amendment

- Chad Mayes' New Way GOP

- March for Life versus Women's March

- Alaska Earthquake

- Explosions as Florida Mall

Friday, January 26, 2018

FBI's Secret, Anti-American Society

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Deep State operatives dominate the FBI.  They have never worried about discovery.  They believe they are too big to indict, and that they are somehow above the law.

Except, now, the FBI is under fire, and under examination, and the liberal left's wagons are circling the agency, not only to hide the corruption, but to keep the public from learning that a secret society of leftism is running rampant through the nation's top bureau of investigation.  They are trying to even blame the Russians for the FBI's crimes, but fall short drastically.

As the investigators got close, text messages disappeared, and the members of the secret society clammed up.  The circumstantial evidence says the FBI under Obama was also complicit in using illegal activities and an abuse of power in an attempt to defeat Donald Trump in 2016.

The FBI used the fake Russian dossier to go after Trump, an excuse planned for and paid for by the Clinton Crime Family and the Democratic National Committee.  All signs point towards the FBI using the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party — likely without telling the court of the dossier’s political link or false foundation.

And with it, the FBI, and the Obama administration, turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign for the purpose of getting her into the White House so that the secret society and the underground corrupt network of power and money could continue.

In short, Trump was right, Obama aides wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower.

So, while the Democrats have been screaming "Russia, Russia, Russia," the truth is, the real problem is "Democrat Fraud, Democrat Lies, and Democrat Corruption" wrapped up nicely by the FBI.

Text messages have been among the primary pieces of evidence revealing what has been going on.  In one text message, an agent suggests that Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew while the investigation was still going on that the FBI would not recommend charges against Clinton.

Evidence the fix was in.

James Comey was knee-deep in it all, and it was in the office of Comey’s top deputy, Andrew McCabe, where agents discussed an “insurance policy” in the event that Trump won. Reports indicated that the Russia collusion probe was that insurance policy.

The text was from Peter Strzok, the top investigator on the Trump case, and was sent to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer and also his mistress.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 . . .,” Strzok wrote.

Strzok, who called Trump “an idiot,” was the lead investigator on both the Clinton and Trump cases.

Special counsel Robert Mueller wound up removing Strzok and Page from his probe, once the text messages were made public ... but both still work at the FBI.

Jeff Sessions, as attorney general, has targeted the FBI for exposure.  The House of Representatives is also seeking the truth.  Nunes prepared a four-page memo, based on classified material that purportedly lays out what the FBI and others did to corrupt the election.

The memo has not been released, yet, but it's only a matter of time before America sees the shock heard 'round the world.

That all said, it is the text messages that really reveal the presence of an FBI secret society.  While the allegations of shocking and substantial government surveillance abuses under President Obama outlined in the FISA abuse memo has been the big news of late, as has been the FBI losing five months of key text messages between the anti-Trump/pro-Clinton FBI officials Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page (which were finally, later, found), the real shocker is that in those text messages is talk of a "secret society" of officials within the FBI who met the day after the election of Donald J. Trump to plot against the president-elect.

While members of Congress have seen Nunez's memo, the FBI hasn't.  The "secret society" needs to be exposed in a proper way, so that the exposure can follow a path that eventually will enable full exposure, and so that appropriate legal disciplinary action measures will be taken.

The attacks are across the board, be it against those involved in national security, or lying about Martin Luther King just to push the Democrat message of failure by design.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Email of the Week: Difference Between Trump and Obama Supporters

By Douglas V. GibbsAuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

If someone asks you what the main difference is between most of the Obama supporters and most of the Trump supporters, instead of stammering and stuttering and looking for an answer, just tell them:  Trump supporters sign their checks on the front, and the Obama supporters sign their checks on the back.  I NEVER REALIZED how simple an explanation this really is........!!!!🤔🙄🤔

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Peeling of the Uranium One Onion, and Democrat Party Crimes

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The truth is beginning to bubble to the surface.  The crimes of the Democrats are being revealed piece by piece through the hard work of Trump's Justice Department, recently highlighted by an 11-count indictment by a grand jury investigating possible Russian bribery involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One deal negotiated when she was part of the Obama administration.

The indictment against Maryland resident Mark Lambert, a former co-president of a nuclear transportation company involved in Hillary Clinton’s deal to sell U.S. uranium interests to a Russian company, slammed the 54-year-old Lambert with "one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to commit wire fraud, seven counts of violating the FCPA, two counts of wire fraud and one count of international promotion money laundering."

The statement added: "The charges stem from an alleged scheme to bribe Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official at JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX), a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation and the sole supplier and exporter of Russian Federation uranium and uranium enrichment services to nuclear power companies worldwide, in order to secure contracts with TENEX."

The investigation lasted eight-years, but it wasn't until Trump's team got into the mix that the sale of Uranium One to the Russian company, completed in 2013, finally came up with an indictment.

The story was originally revealed when Peter Schweizer, Government Accountability Institute president and Breitbart News senior editor-at-large, brought to light the truth with his book "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped the Make Bill and Hillary Rich".

The Uranium One scandal deepens when you realize that in order for the partial sale of the Canadian firm Uranium One to Russia’s atomic energy giant Rosatom to have taken place, the Obama administration was needed to approve the sale (because it transferred 20 percent of U.S. uranium stocks to Russia).  Hillary Clinton was on the federal board that approved the deal in 2010, and Obama's team was involved intricately.

Talk about collusion!

Schweizer reported in "Clinton Cash" nine foreign investors gave $145 million to Hillary and Bill Clinton’s personal charity, the Clinton Foundation, as a part of the payoff.  Meanwhile, nearly at the same time, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.  Another payoff?

Last month U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered the DOJ to re-examine the evidence in the Uranium One investigation, so as to complete the eight year investigation the Obama Justice Department refused to look deeply into.

Talk about conflict of interest when it came to the Obama team investigating what was going on.

The Democrat Party reminds me more of a political mafia, than of a political party.

What becomes even more disconcerting, and rotten with a further conflict of interest, is the fact that the special prosecutor going after President Trump with the alleged collusions between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is also a part of the crimes committed in this huge scandal.  Nearly a year ago Julian Assange at WikiLeaks revealed a 2009 State Department cable to the Russians which indicates then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directed FBI Director Mueller to deliver a sample of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) to Russia. The uranium had reportedly been stolen.

Think about this, a moment.  The guy who was deep into the lies and crimes of the Democrat Party in a situation that could be called treason against the United States with his collusion with the Russians to help in giving them 20% of America's uranium is investigating a case of collusion between the Russians and Trump, but in the latter case, no evidence exists or has surfaced.

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, who was Secretary of State, she asked the FBI director, Mueller, to personally make the uranium transfer when the FBI is not under the supervision of the State Department.

The Wikileaks release of the cable on May 17 also happened to occur on the same day that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein tapped Mueller as an “independent” counsel to investigate any supposed Trump-Russian ties.

Mueller's team are pretty much all hardcore Democrats, with seven staffers having contributed large sums of money to either Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or the Democratic National Committee. None donated any money to Trump, or to any other Republican presidential candidate in the last campaign.

What could go wrong?

While the cable only revealed that Mueller assisted in the deal between Russia and Uranium One, one wonders how deeply his involvement truly was.

According to the New American, WikiLeaks also revealed that Secretary of State Clinton sent a cable to John Beryle, who was U.S. Ambassador to Russia; the U.S. Ambassador to the Georgia Embassy; and U.S. ambassador to the Russian Embassy, on August 17, 2009. The cable read in part, “Action Request: Embassy Moscow is requested to alert at the highest appropriate level the Russian Federation that FBI Director Mueller plans to deliver the HEU sample once he arrives in Moscow on September 21.” 
Shepard Ambellas, editor-in-chief of Intellihub.com, said in June 2017 that the classified cable indicated that the delivery of the 10-gram sample of HEU to Russian law enforcement sources occurred during a secret “plane-side” meeting on the tarmac. (This brings up memories of Bill Clinton’s tarmac meeting in Arizona with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, where they said they just discussed their grandchildren.)
The liberal media has not only refused to report anything about all of this, when they do it is with doubt and favorable language towards the Democrats.

Was this what Hillary Clinton meant when she said it was time to reverse worsening relations with Russia with a “reset button”?

Russia, at the time, was happy with the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  In Schweizer's Clinton Cash book, he noted, “An important side note to the Russian reset was how it involved a collection of foreign investors who had poured vast sums of money into the Clinton Foundation and who continued to sponsor lucrative speeches for Bill. These investors stood to gain enormously from the decisions Hillary made as secretary of state.”

Hillary's “reset” was an important part in the uranium deals.  The Bush administration had pulled out of a uranium deal with the Russians after Russian forces went into Georgia in 2008, but the Obama administration (with Hillary taking the lead) reopened the negotiations. A deal was reached in 2010, and as Schweizer wrote, “Several multimillion-dollar Clinton Foundation donors were at the center of the deal.” In fact, “The Clinton Foundation also failed to disclose major contributions from entities controlled by those involved in the Uranium One deal. Thus, beginning in 2009, the company’s chairman, [Ian] Telfer, quietly started funneling what would become $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation through a Canadian entity he controlled.”

After all of this, are we still comfortable with Robert Mueller, knowing he was involved in the delivery of uranium to the Russians, heading an investigation against Trump and an allegation that his campaign colluded with the Russians?

Remember, this is not only about the Clintons and Mueller.  The whole Democrat Party apparatus, or at least the top names in the party, are a part of this ... and that includes former President Barack Obama.

Think about it.  $500,000 was funneled by the Putin regime to Bill Clinton from a Kremlin-tied Russian bank for a single speech, which was all tied to a multi-million-dollar influence-peddling scheme to enrich the former president and his wife, then secretary of state Hillary Clinton.  Russia was promised an acquisition of Uranium One, and with it, tens of billions of dollars in U.S. uranium reserves. But, the Uranium One scandal is not only a Clinton scandal, because in order for it to happen the Obama administration had to be interwoven into it.  The Obama administration, with Secretary Clinton at the forefront, knowingly compromising American national-security interests. The Obama administration green-lighted the transfer of control over one-fifth of American uranium-mining capacity to Russia, a historic enemy of the United States.  The Obama administration knew the deal included Russia’s state-controlled nuclear-energy conglomerate, Rosatom.  The Obama administration knew when they approved the transfer that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was engaged in a lucrative racketeering enterprise that had already committed felony extortion, fraud, and money-laundering offenses. The Obama administration also knew that congressional Republicans were trying to stop the transfer, so the Obama administration Justice Department concealed what it knew, allowing the racketeering enterprise to continue.  All of this treasonous compromising of the American uranium industry was allowed by the Obama administration, and encouraged, because they knew that if they commenced a prosecution against Rosatom's American subsidiary for racketeering it would screw up the uranium transfer to Russia.  Prosecutors waited four years before quietly pleading the case out for nearly nothing, violating Justice Department charging guidelines.

Meanwhile, the administration did what it could to hold back the Republicans in Congress, at one time reportedly threatening an informant who wanted to go public.

Russia needed this.  They were falling behind.  They were being considered a third-rate economic power.  Putin was seeking to develop and exploit its capacity as a nuclear-energy producer, and Bush's screw up in a nuclear-cooperation agreement with the Kremlin in May 2008 was tabled because it was realized how dangerous trusting the Russians was.  While trying to be our friends, the GOP realized it was not in the best interest of the United States and decided not to work with Russia.  So, they appealed to the other party, and offered what the Democrats love most - money and power.

The Republicans tabled the deal largely because Russia reminded us of who they really are when they invaded Georgia. To this day the Russians also continue to occupy Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and of course there is also the invasion of Ukraine and the illegal acquisition of Crimea.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton turned the other cheek, calling for a “reset” of relations with Moscow.  They promised renewed cooperation and commerce in nuclear energy with a country that was actively invading her neighbors.  The American People would never approve of such a thing.  Those who grew up regarding the former Soviet Union as our arch-enemy still remember those days.  We disagreed when globalist President George H.W. Bush in 1992 agreed with the emerging Russian federation (after the collapse of the U.S.S.R.) that U.S. nuclear providers would be permitted to purchase uranium from Russia’s disassembled nuclear warheads because we really didn't want anything to do with the communists (who claimed they were no longer communists). 

The deal happened, and guess what?  The Russian commercial agent responsible for the sale and transportation of this uranium to the U.S. is the Kremlin-controlled company “Tenex” (formally, JSC Techsnabexport). Tenex is a subsidiary of Rosatom. Tenex (and by extension, Rosatom) have an American arm called “Tenam USA.” Tenam is based in Bethesda, Maryland.

When President Obama grabbed the reins of the executive branch, the Russian official in charge of Tenam, Vadim Mikerin, was given a visa in 2010.  A racketeering investigation led by the FBI determined that he was already operating here in 2009, and the racketeering scheme was responsible for arranging and managing Rosatom/Tenex’s contracts with American uranium purchasers.

Mikerin's dealings made him a star with U.S. companies, and he used that leverage to extort and defraud U.S. contractors so that they would end up paying inflated prices for uranium. They then laundered the proceeds through shell companies and secret bank accounts in Latvia, Cyprus, Switzerland, and the Seychelle Islands.

The inflated payments enriched Kremlin-connected energy officials in the U.S. and in Russia to the tune of millions of dollars, and they compromised the American companies that paid the bribes, rendering players in U.S. nuclear energy — a sector critical to national security — vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow.

The plan dug deep into the Obama administration through an unnamed (to this day) and well-respected Washington lawyer, formerly a federal prosecutor and counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, who, largely due to the worries that he might be acting illegally, contacted the FBI and revealed what he knew.  Obama's Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department permitted him to continue to participate in the Russian racketeering scheme as a “confidential source” (giving him immunity).  The FBI director behind all of this?  You got it!  Our good friend, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who is now the special counsel investigating whether Trump colluded with Russia.

The U.S. attorney at the time was Obama appointee Rod Rosenstein — now President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and the man who appointed Mueller as special counsel to investigate Trump.

The FBI was able to understand and monitor the racketeering enterprise almost from the start thanks to their unnamed mole.  In 2010 the Obama Justice Department and FBI could prove the scheme existed and that three separate extortionate payments had taken place.  And the Democrats saw the illegal and treasonous opportunity to jump in.  The timing was great, because Russian nuclear officials were trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons.

Why and how were the Clintons tied into this?
In 2005, former President Clinton helped Canadian billionaire buddy Frank Giustra obtain coveted uranium-mining rights from Kazakhstan’s dictator. The Kazakh deal enabled Giustra’s company (Ur-Asia Energy) to merge into Uranium One (a South African company), a $3.5 billion windfall. Giustra and his partners thereafter contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation as payment for the favor. 
Besides the valuable Kazakh reserves, Uranium One also controlled about a fifth of the uranium stock in the United States. Alas, Putin, the neighborhood bully, also wanted the Kazakh uranium. He leaned on Kazakhstan’s dictator, who promptly arrested the official responsible for selling the uranium-mining rights to Giustra’s company. This put Uranium One’s stake in jeopardy of being seized by the Kazakh government. As Uranium One’s stock plunged, its panicked executives turned to the State Department, where their friend Hillary Clinton was now in charge. State sprung into action, convening emergency meetings with the Kazakh regime. A few days later, it was announced that the crisis was resolved (translation: the shakedown was complete). Russia’s energy giant, Rosatom, would purchase 17 percent of Uranium One, and the Kazakh threat would disappear — and with it, the threat to the value of the Clinton donors’ holdings. 
For Putin, though, that was just a start. He didn’t want a minority stake in Uranium One, he wanted control of the uranium. For that, Rosatom would need a controlling interest in Uranium One. That would be a tall order — not because of the Kazakh mining rights but because acquisition of Uranium One’s American reserves required U.S. government approval. Uranium is foundational to nuclear power and thus to American national security. As the New York Times explained in a report on the disturbing interplay between the Clinton Foundation and the transfer of American uranium assets to Russia, the United States gets a fifth of its electrical power from nuclear energy, but only produces a fifth of the uranium it needs. Consequently, a foreign entity would not be able to acquire rights to American uranium without the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. 
CFIUS is composed of the leaders of 14 U.S. government agencies involved in national security and commerce. In 2010, these included not only Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had cultivated a reputation as a hawk opposed to such foreign purchases, but Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department (and its lead agency, the FBI) were conducting the investigation of Rosatom’s ongoing U.S. racketeering, extortion, and money-laundering scheme. In March 2010, to push the Obama “reset” agenda, Secretary Clinton traveled to Russia, where she met with Putin and Dimitri Medvedev, who was then keeping the president’s chair warm for Putin. Soon after, it emerged that Renaissance Capital, a regime-tied Russian bank, had offered Bill Clinton $500,000 to make a single speech — far more than the former president’s usual haul in what would become one of his biggest paydays ever. Renaissance was an aggressive promoter of Rosatom. The Clinton speech took place in Moscow in June. The exorbitant speech fee, it is worth noting, is a pittance compared with the $145 million Newsweek reports was donated to the Clinton Foundation by sources linked to the Uranium One deal. The month before the speech, the Hill reports, Bill Clinton told his wife’s State Department that he wanted to meet while in Russia with Arkady Dvorkovich, who, in addition to being a top Medvedev aide, was also a key Rosatom board member. It is not known whether the State Department gave clearance for the meeting; the question appears to have become moot since the former U.S. president met directly with Putin and Medvedev. You’ll be comforted, I’m sure, to learn that aides to the Clintons, those pillars of integrity, assure us that the topics of Rosatom and Uranium One never came up. 
Keeping Congress in the Dark Meanwhile, congressional opposition to Russia’s potential acquisition of American uranium resources began to stir. As Peter Schweizer noted in his essential book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, four senior House members steeped in national-security issues — Peter King (R., N.Y.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), Spencer Bachus (R., Ala.), and Howard McKeon (R. Calif.) — voiced grave concerns, pointing out that Rosatom had helped Iran, America’s sworn enemy, build its Bushehr nuclear reactor. The members concluded that “the take-over of essential US nuclear resources by a government-owned Russian agency . . . would not advance the national security interests of the United States.” Republican senator John Barrasso objected to Kremlin control of uranium assets in his state of Wyoming, warning of Russia’s “disturbing record of supporting nuclear programs in countries that are openly hostile to the United States, specifically Iran and Venezuela.” 
The House began moving a bill “expressing disfavor of the Congress” regarding Obama’s revival of the nuclear-cooperation agreement Bush had abandoned. Clearly, in this atmosphere, disclosure of the racketeering enterprise that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was, at that very moment, carrying out would have been the death knell of the asset transfer to Russia. It would also likely have ended the “reset” initiative in which Obama and Clinton were deeply invested — an agenda that contemplated Kremlin-friendly deals on nuclear-arms control and accommodation of the nuclear program of Russia’s ally, Iran. That was not going to be allowed to happen. It appears that no disclosure of Russia’s racketeering and strong-arming was made to CFIUS or to Congress — not by Secretary Clinton, not by Attorney General Holder, and certainly not by President Obama. 
In October 2010, CFIUS gave its blessing to Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One. 
A Sweetheart Plea Helps the Case Disappear Even though the FBI had an informant collecting damning information, and had a prosecutable case against Mikerin by early 2010, the extortion racket against American energy companies was permitted to continue into the summer of 2014. It was only then that, finally, Mikerin and his confederates were arrested. 
Why then? 
This is not rocket science. In March 2014, Russia annexed Crimea. Putin also began massing forces on the Ukrainian border, coordinating and conducting attacks, ultimately taking control of territory. Clearly, the pie-in-the-sky Obama reset was dead. Furthermore, the prosecution of Mikerin’s racketeering scheme had been so delayed that the Justice Department risked losing the ability to charge the 2009 felonies because of the five-year statute of limitations on most federal crimes. Still, a lid needed to be kept on the case. It would have made for an epic Obama administration scandal, and a body blow to Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes, if in the midst of Russia’s 2014 aggression, public attention had been drawn to the failure, four years earlier, to prosecute a national-security case in order to protect Russia’s takeover of U.S. nuclear assets. The Obama administration needed to make this case go away — without a public trial if at all possible. Think about this: The investigation of Russian racketeering in the American energy sector was the kind of spectacular success over which the FBI and Justice Department typically do a bells-n-whistles victory lap — the big self-congratulatory press conference followed by the media-intensive prosecutions . . . and, of course, more press conferences. Here . . . crickets. As the Hill reports, the Justice Department and FBI had little to say when Mikerin and his co-conspirators were arrested. They quietly negotiated guilty pleas that were announced with no fanfare just before Labor Day. It was arranged that Mikerin would be sentenced just before Christmas. All under the radar.  
How desperate was the Obama Justice Department to plead the case out? 
Here, Rosenstein and Holder will have some explaining to do. Mikerin was arrested on a complaint describing a racketeering scheme that stretched back to 2004 and included extortion, fraud, and money laundering. Yet he was permitted to plead guilty to a single count of money-laundering conspiracy. Except it was not really money-laundering conspiracy. Under federal law, that crime (at section 1956 of the penal code) carries a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment — not only for conspiracy but for each act of money laundering. But Mikerin was not made to plead guilty to this charge. He was permitted to plead guilty to an offense charged under the catch-all federal conspiracy provision (section 371) that criminalizes agreements to commit any crime against the United States. Section 371 prescribes a sentence of zero to five years’ imprisonment. The Justice Department instructs prosecutors that when Congress has given a federal offense its own conspiracy provision with a heightened punishment (as it has for money laundering, racketeering, narcotics trafficking, and other serious crimes), they may not charge a section 371 conspiracy. Section 371 is for less serious conspiracy cases. Using it for money laundering — which caps the sentence way below Congress’s intent for that behavior — subverts federal law and signals to the court that the prosecutor does not regard the offense as major. Yet, that is exactly what Rosenstein’s office did, in a plea agreement his prosecutors co-signed with attorneys from the Justice Department’s Fraud Section. (See in the Hill’s report, the third document embedded at the bottom, titled “Mikerin Plea Deal.”) No RICO, no extortion, no fraud — and the plea agreement is careful not to mention any of the extortions in 2009 and 2010, before CFIUS approved Rosatom’s acquisition of U.S. uranium stock. Mikerin just had to plead guilty to a nominal “money laundering” conspiracy charge. This insulated him from a real money-laundering sentence. Thus, he got a term of just four years’ incarceration for a major national-security crime — which, of course, is why he took the plea deal and waived his right to appeal, sparing the Obama administration a full public airing of the facts. 
Interestingly, as the plea agreement shows, the Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section was then run by Andrew Weissmann, who is now one of the top prosecutors in Robert Mueller’s ongoing special-counsel investigation of suspected Trump collusion with Russia. There was still one other problem to tamp down. That was the informant — the lobbyist who alerted the FBI to the Russian racketeering enterprise back in 2009. He wanted to talk. Specifically, as his attorney, Ms. Toensing, explains, the informant wanted to tell Congress what he knows — about what the FBI and the Justice Department could already have proved in 2010 when CFIUS signed off on Russia’s acquisition of American nuclear material, and about what he’d learned of Russian efforts to curry favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton. But he was not allowed to talk. It turns out, the lawyer explains, that the FBI had induced him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Justice Department warned him that it was enforceable — even against disclosures to Congress. (Because, you know, the FBI is opposed to all leaks and disclosures of confidential investigative information . . . except those initiated by the FBI, of course.) In addition, when the informant was primed to file a federal civil lawsuit to recover his own losses from the scheme, he claims that the Justice Department threatened him with prosecution, warning that a lawsuit would violate the non-disclosure agreement. The Hill reports that it has obtained emails from a civil lawyer retained by the witness, which describe pressure exerted by the Justice Department to silence the informant. What a coincidence: That was in 2016, the stretch run of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Hillary Clinton, however, is a multi-tasking crook.  While all of that was going on, she had another money laundering scheme going on to enrich her with money and power from yet another direction.

A current investigation by the Federal Election Commission indicates that the Hillary Victory Fund orchestrated an alleged $84 million money laundering scheme.  The scheme was a part of a $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and Democratic state parties.

This one emerged thanks to another Democrat, former DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile, as a result of her public comments, and a memo by former Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook.  The Committee to Defend the President has filed an FEC complaint accusing the Democratic establishment of using state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder money to Clinton’s campaign. The Hillary Victory Fund solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane, “papered” them through state parties en route to the DNC and then the Clinton campaign.

Crooked Hillary, indeed.

The thing is, despite what it says on paper, the Hillary Victory Fund never transferred $84 million to state parties, but instead sent it straight to the DNC, or it made the transfers without state parties having actual control of the money.  In either case, the fund violated campaign finance laws in precisely the way the Supreme Court deemed illegal in its 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC ruling.

If this scandal reaches the light of day, and I am sure the liberal left media will fight it tooth and nail,  it could be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.

Washington Post’s Dave Weigel, the only mainstream reporter to cover the scandal, acknowledged “most coverage of the FEC complaint had appeared in conservative media” before he covered it.

If the tables were turned, and this was a GOP scandal, they'd be all over it.

However, is justice prevails, and the Trump administration continues to slowly peal back the layers of the onion to expose the sins of the Democrat Party, it could be earth shattering.  The Democrat Base may largely turn against the Democrats.  It could end up causing people to lose their jobs, and put some of them behind bars.

Hillary Clinton may wind up in an orange jumpsuit, yet.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

California Launches War on Homeschooling

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The liberal left Democrats don't blame shootings on the warped minds of individuals, but on the guns.  Therefore, in the case of the starving kids where the blame should land squarely on the bad parents, the liberal media and California Democrats have decided it's the fault of homeschooling.

The news of the 13 children who were starved by their parents, David and Louise Turpin, caught the nation by storm.  They were reportedly found tethered to their beds after one of the siblings escaped and contacted police.  The Turpins’ “house of horrors” in my own Riverside County, California, reminded us about the parental abuse that exists in some corners of the world ... and in this case, right around the corner in a fairly conservative county in otherwise very liberal California.

The whole thing was horrible.  The parents, relatives, and acquaintances of the alleged victims were perpetrators and accomplices and the blame should lay squarely on their deeds, but instead, California Democrats and their media allies have turned their attention on the fact that the children were being homeschooled ... therefore, using their own warped logic, they decided what was to blame was not bad people, but homeschooling.

The Turpins registered their home school as a “private school.”  In California, despite attacks against homeschooling, the courts have upheld the right to homeschool.

But, like the NAZIs in Germany, the Democrats are targeting homeschooling, working to outlaw it because they don't want any child to escape the indoctrination that they could be receiving in the public school system.

Most homeschoolers are under the care of responsible instructors and parents. Yet, public school lobbyists have marginalized them as amateurs, weirdos, and menaces who don’t have the intelligence to raise and educate their own children. Never mind that these children test higher, and are more successful, in the long run.

Democratic legislators in California, nonetheless, are doing what they can to target and dissuade homeschooling with intrusive legislation, such as a bill proposed last fall that would have required parents to allow inspectors to search their residential bathrooms for state-mandated feminine hygiene products for female students.

In the eyes of the liberal left, not subjecting one's children to the public school system's brainwashing is akin to child abuse.  Only the state is capable of raising up good little subjects willing to work hard for the nation, is the attitude of the liberal left.

Since the liberal left sees parental negligence where none exists, they only see it everywhere they look.  They expect to see it, so it must be there.  So, since they are suspecting something might be there somewhere, they send in the gestapo, and the state child welfare bureaucracies swarm over these homeschool programs.

Never mind that the sexual abuse scandals rocking the public schools in various cities are in their own public schools, committed by union protected teachers.

Instead, they turn their attention to the plight of the Turpin children, seeking to impose expanded control over all homeschoolers, launching a homeschool crackdown determined to kill the freedom to educate one’s own children.  After all, they don't trust parents to do the right thing, and they view parents, and homeschooling, as being a threat to government authority.  

In the name of liberating the Turpin children, they seek to keep the rest of the homeschooling families in regulatory chains.  It's just like their desire to take away the right to keep and bear arms from law-abiding citizens because criminal minds have used guns in mass shootings.

It's like wanting to take away everyone's drivers' licenses because there are a few drunks on the road, while blaming it on the cars.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

XFL to Return in 2020

By the way, I own the whole
trading card set.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

I love sports, and I love underdogs.  Variations are fun to watch, which is why I love college baseball, indoor lacrosse, the Arena Football League, and any league that tries to poke the NFL in the eye.  Don't get me wrong, I am a hardcore Major League Baseball fan, and a football fan, but sometimes I like to see the big guys slapped around a little (especially when the players are kneeling during the National Anthem).

The World Football League (WFL) was around before I was old enough to care about football.  The USFL was a fun ride when I was in my youthful prime.  I went to see the L.A. Express twice.  I missed the last two seasons (1985, 1986) due to my service in the U.S. Navy.  The World League of American Football made a great run, becoming a European league (NFL Europe) for a while, until finally engulfed by the NFL where the larger league tried to make it a developmental league before eventually killing it.  American Football remains a big deal in Europe to this day, and I believe the German and British teams are largely popular because of the World League's short foray into their area.  The Canadian Football League even made a journey into the American market, but retreated by to its nine Canadian teams after getting beat up by the NFL, and light fan participation.

Then, the XFL appeared for one season in 2001.  This is what I was waiting for.  No B.S., no more No Fun League rules, just smash mouth football with an attitude.  The games were not even up to college level quality, but who cares?  It was an underdog in a world controlled and operated by the NFL.  To survive, the Arena League had to come up with a whole new formula (adjusted for play indoors, creating the "50 Yard Indoor War"), but the XFL was going head to head with the NFL, and doing it with a "screw you" kind of game face.

It kind of reminded me of Al Davis and the old renegade AFL (which later merged with the NFL, becoming the American Football Conference).


While the cities have not been determined yet, Orlando (who was home of the Rage in 2001) has already shown interest in having a team.

“Quite frankly, we’re going to give the game of football back to the fans,” McMahon said on a conference call. “We’re going to ask a lot of questions and listen to players, coaches. We’re going to listen to medical experts, technology executives, members of the media and anyone else who understands and loves the game of football.”

McMahon wants the new XFL, which will begin play in 2020, to “re-imagine” professional football. Changes like simplifying rules, eliminating halftime and having games last just two hours were examples he cited.

“The new XFL will be fan-centric with all the things you like to see and less of the things you don’t,” he said. “We will present a shorter, faster-paced, family-friendly and easier-to-understand game. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still football — but it’s professional football re-imagined.”

Like the original XFL, this new version will have teams in eight U.S. cities playing a 10-game regular season that would start in late January or early February. All teams would be owned by the league in a single-entity structure and have 40-man rosters.

McMahon is betting on fans unhappy with NFL to be drawn to his new XFL, where he said kneeling during “The Star-Spangled Banner” would not be tolerated.

“It’s a time-honored tradition to stand for the national anthem,” McMahon said, adding, “We’ll have nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with social issues.”

McMahon also said the “quality of the human being is going to be as important as the quality of the player” and that XFL won’t have any players with criminal records.

“Even if you have a DUI, you will not play in the XFL,” he declared.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Temecula Earthquake Woke a Few People Up

By Douglas V. Gibbs


There was a sizable earthquake early this morning, and I slept through it.  In fact, my whole family did.

Talking to neighbors, 1 out of 9 noticed it.

4.0 is big enough to rattle a few nerves, but is truly a smaller quake that really doesn't do much other than maybe get the mice in the attic scurrying.

Now, that said, rather than the earthquake, the big news was the traffic jam this morning.

At Temecula Parkway and Interstate 15 this morning a construction worker operating a backhoe struck a 4" gas main at around 2:10 am, literally a minute after the earthquake, and natural gas began spewing out under high pressure.  Local fire and police, along with California Highway Patrol, shutdown the site, including shutting down Temecula Parkway in both directions between Old Town Front Street and La Paz, as well as both northbound and southbound offramps to Temecula Parkway from I-15. Interstate 15 remained open in both directions.  Businesses were asked to have their people evacuate the area.  Riverside County Fire Department hazmat handled the situation, as well as a crew from the Southern California Gas Company.

Morning traffic is already a mess, and by the time rush hour began for the morning commute, it got particularly crazy.

I slept through that, too.  My first meeting wasn't until 9:30 am in Temecula on the Winchester Road side.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class, Legal Amendments


Join us Thursday Night at 6:30 pm, Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA


Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
 
 
 
Lesson 15
 
The Legal Amendments
 
Amendment IV

Warrants, Searches, and Seizures

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.  It was written with the purpose of protecting people from the government searching their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants.
 
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 
What this means is that the federal government, in order to search a person's home, business, papers, bank accounts, computer or other personal items, in most cases, must obtain a search warrant signed by the proper authority, which usually means by a judge.
 
The issuance of a warrant must accompany reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that by searching the premises of a particular location, evidence will be found that will verify the crime.  The government officer does not have to be correct in his assumption, he just has to have a reasonable belief that searching someone's private property will yield evidence of the crime.  The task of determining whether or not the officer's assumptions are a reasonable belief falls on the judge who is considering issuing the search warrant.
 
The concept that citizens must be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures goes back into English history.  The British Crown was known for performing searches and seizures that were unlawfully conducted.  Often, these searches were conducted by the king's representatives.
 
The British government saw the American Colonies as a source of revenue.  As a result, taxation against the American colonies was a continuous practice, in the hopes of generating as much money from the colonists as possible.  The colonists resented this and engaged in substantial smuggling operations in order to get around the customs taxes imposed by the British government.
 
The King responded to the Colonist's smuggling activities by using writs of assistance, which were search warrants that were very broad and general in their scope.  British agents, once obtaining these writs, could search any property they believed might contain contraband goods.  They could enter someone's property with no notice and without any reason given.  Tax collectors could interrogate anyone about their use of goods and require the cooperation of any citizen.  Searches and seizures of private property based on very general warrants became an epidemic in colonial America.
 
In 1756, the Massachusetts legislature passed search and seizure laws outlawing the use of general warrants.  The friction created between the Royal Governor and the people of Massachusetts grew with each passing moment.
 
In 1760 James Otis, a Boston lawyer, strongly objected to these arbitrary searches and seizures of private property and consequently resigned his position with the government, and then became the lawyer for a group of over 50 merchants who sued the government claiming that the writs of assistance were unjust.
 
James Otis represented these merchants for free.  His speech condemning British policies, including writs of assistance and general search warrants, was so powerful and eloquent, that it was heard of throughout the colonies and catapulted him to a place of leadership in the swelling tide of disillusionment toward Great Britain.
 
Twenty-five year old John Adams, who would become the second president of the United States some time later, was sitting in the courtroom and heard Otis' famous speech that served as a spark that led to igniting the American Revolution.
 
The 4th Amendment, a part of The Bill of Rights, became law on December 15, 1791.
 
The 4th Amendment applies only to the federal government.  State constitutions are written similarly, and States also have laws that are consistent with the intention of the 4th Amendment.  The 4th Amendment provides protection from illegal search and seizure by federal government officials, but not by private citizens.  So, if an employer unreasonably searched your possessions at work, the 4th Amendment would not have been violated, but local laws may have been.
 
In recent history The PATRIOT Act was seen as a breach of the 4th Amendment because it allowed the federal government to pursue a number of strategies in their search for terrorists that includes warrantless phone taps, access to phone logs, and monitoring of online communications such as email.  The debate still goes on regarding the constitutionality of The PATRIOT Act, with both sides presenting reasonable arguments, ranging from the constitutional necessity of the law for the purpose of "providing for the common defense," to the argument that the authorities offered by the law allows the federal government to unconstitutionally intrude on the right to privacy of all Americans.
 
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2014 builds on the powers seized by the federal government through the PATRIOT Act, allowing unrestricted analysis and research of captured records pertaining to any organization or individual "now or once hostile to the United States."  The definition of "hostile to the United States" is broad, and can include political opposition.  Under NDAA 2014 Sec. 1061(g)(1), an overly vague definition of captured records enhances government power and guarantees indefinite surveillance.
 
The Internal Revenue Service is another arm of the federal government that routinely violates the 4th Amendment, doing so under the auspice of ensuring all taxes are paid.
 
Terms:

Search Warrant - The Search Warrant specifically requires that the government demonstrate to a judge the existence of probable cause of criminal activity on the   part of the person whose property the government wishes to search.  The Fourth Amendment commands that only a judge can authorize a search warrant.
 
Writs of Assistance - British search warrants that were very broad and general in their     scope.  British agents, once obtaining these writs, could search any property they believed might contain contraband goods.
 
Questions for Discussion:

1.  What actions by the British prior to the American Revolutionary War inspired the Founding Fathers to include this amendment in the Bill of Rights?
 
2.  How would our legal system act if Search Warrants were not considered necessary?
 
3.  How does the Fourth Amendment influence today's thinking regarding government actions, such as with The PATRIOT Act?
 
Resources:
 
How Congress Has Assaulted Our Freedoms in the Patriot Act by
Andrew P. Napolitano, Lew Rockwell.com: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano2.html
 
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
 
Paul A. Ibbetson, Living Under the PATRIOT Act: Educating a Society;
Bloomington, IN: Author House (2007)
 
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
 
 
 
Amendment V

Due Process and Eminent Domain
            Due Process
 
The majority of the Fifth Amendment provides additional reinforcement to the concept of due process.  The language of this Amendment was designed to assure those who feared the potential tyranny of a new centralized government created by the United States Constitution that the federal government would be restrained in such a way as to ensure that the government did not perpetrate bloodshed against its citizens.
 
The first part of the 5th Amendment reads: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . ."
 
The 5th Amendment attests to the Founding Father's understanding that this is a nation of property owners.  As a republic of property owners, when in jeopardy of legal trouble, our rights and properties must be safeguarded.  Therefore, an American Citizen in the American legal system has a right to a jury, as well as a right to the presentation of evidence.  Conviction is not reached with a majority vote, either.  Conviction requires a unanimous agreement among all of the members of the jury.  These concepts reinforce the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty (A concept found in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 19, Verse 15), and that the United States of America is a Republic.  Mob rule is not allowed, for as the amendment provides, a person cannot be held until given the opportunity of due process.
 
Not all persons, however, are awarded this opportunity.  The next part of the amendment reads: ". . . except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. . ."
 
The military does not fall under the U.S. Constitution.  Personnel serving in the armed forces are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Instead of a civilian trial, a military service member is normally afforded a court martial.  If a civilian trial is deemed appropriate by the U.S. Military, a service member can still stand trial in a civilian court, but the military has the authority to decide whether or not the member shall stand such a trial.
 
Having a sense of independence, individuals must be protected, then, from the tyrannical trappings of a governmental system that may try to use the judiciary against them (as the King of England had done often).  The protective mechanism, or the rule of law, would be the U.S. Constitution and clauses like the 5th Amendment, which were designed to provide protection to the populace from unfair legal practices. 
 
One such protection is provided in the next part of this amendment: ". . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb. . ."
 
Protection against Double Jeopardy enables us not to be continuously tried for the same offense, which was a technique often used in some parts of Europe during the eighteenth century.  The idea was that if a person was prosecuted enough, either they would weary of the process and break down, or the defendant would become unable to financially continue, hence unable to defend themselves.
 
The next part of the amendment serves as a large influence on today's Miranda Rights.  The section reads: ". . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property."
 
Miranda Rights are named after the U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona (1966).  Miranda Rights are a warning given advising the accused of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation. From the 5th Amendment: ". . .nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."  Miranda Rights exist to secure the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, and to make the individual in custody aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it.  The judicial opinion from the Miranda v. Arizona case also indicated that in order to protect the person's life, liberty or property with the due process of law, the individual must have the right to an attorney.  With a lawyer present the likelihood that the police will practice coercion is reduced, and if coercion is nevertheless exercised the lawyer can testify to it in court.  The presence of a lawyer can also help to guarantee that the accused gives a fully accurate statement to the police and that the statement is rightly reported by the prosecution at trial.
 
The words of the Founders continues to resonate today as the majority of the American people seem to firmly agree with the Founding Father's insistence that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  We can take satisfaction that most of our fellow citizens in our republic still hold these truths to be self-evident.
 
            Eminent Domain
 
The provisions of the 5th Amendment are there to keep our courts honest, and the powers of the government constrained.  The last phrase of the 5th Amendment, however, is considered too general by many, and it has been used in a manner by the federal government that is extremely troublesome, because it gives the government the right to take property if there is just compensation.
 
How is just compensation determined?  Is it based on the market value of the property?  How does the government officials involved in eminent domain calculate the non-intrinsic value?  How do they compensate for the value on which nobody can put a price?
 
Just compensation was intended to be based on what the property owner deemed to be just.  If the property owner did not deem the offer to be just compensation, then the government, from a constitutional viewpoint, is out of luck.
 
 
Terms:

Capital Crime - A crime for which the punishment is death.  Punishment for a Capital Crime is called Capital Punishment.
 
Double Jeopardy - The act of putting a person through a second trial for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted or convicted.
 
Due Process - The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, the right to defend in an orderly proceed, and an impartial judge.  It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgment is rendered.  In short, due process means fundamental fairness and substantial justice.
 
Eminent Domain - The power to take private property for public use by a State, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
 
Grand Jury - A group of citizens convened in a criminal case to consider the prosecutor's evidence and determine whether probable cause exists to prosecute a suspect for a felony.  At common law, a group of persons consisting of not less than twelve nor more than twenty-four who listen to evidence and determine whether or not they should charge the accused with the commission of a crime by returning an indictment.  The number of members on a grand jury varies in different States.
 
Infamous Crime - A crime which works infamy in the person who commits it.  Infamous crimes tend to be classified as treason, felonies, and any crime involving the element of deceit.
 
Just Compensation - The value of a property deemed to be just by the property owner.
 
Miranda Rights - A warning given advising the accused of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation.
 
Mob-Rule - A government ruled by a mob or a mass of people; the intimidation of legitimate authorities; the tyranny of the majority; pure democracy without due process.
 
Republic - Form of government that uses the rule of law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process.  The United States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.
 
Rule of Law - The restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws; Laws of Nature and of Nature's God; self-evident standard of conduct and law.
 
Questions for Discussion:

1.  How is property rights affected by Due Process?
 
2.  Why do military members not fall under the protections of the U.S. Constitution?
 
3.  Why is protection against Double Jeopardy important?
 
4.  What was the inspiration for our Miranda Rights?
 
5.  Who determines if compensation for one's property is just?
 
6.  How is Eminent Domain being used for environmental reasons?
 
7.  Is Eminent Domain constitutionally in force if a property is rezoned for environmental conservation, forcing the value of the property to be reduced due to the fact that it can no longer be developed?
 
8.  Is it constitutional for government to use Eminent Domain for the use of the land by private development projects?
 
Resources:

Definition of Due Process, Family Rights Association:
http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/definition_due_process_.htm
 
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
 
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
 
U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436
 

Amendment VI

Personal Legal Liberties

The 6th Amendment affords criminal defendants seven discrete personal liberties.  "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
 
Rights afforded in all criminal prosecutions are set forth in this amendment.  The word "all" at the beginning of this amendment establishes a special characteristic regarding this article of the Constitution.  The Constitution applies only to the federal government, unless it states otherwise.  The 6th Amendment, by providing the word "all" in the regard to cases, establishes that this amendment is not only to be applied to the federal courts, but to the State, and lower, courts as well.
 
As for the rights afforded to the accused:
 
            Speedy Trial
 
The concept of a speedy trial was an English concept of justice.  A speedy trial allows for conditions that disallow the powerful from abusing the court system, forcing defendants to languish in jail for an indefinite period while awaiting their trial.  Ensuring a speedy trial minimizes the time in which a defendant's life is disrupted and burdened by a criminal proceeding, and reduces the likelihood of a prolonged delay impairing the ability of the accused to prepare a defense.
 
Historically, when trials are postponed or drag out for long periods of time, witnesses disappear, and evidence is often lost or destroyed.  Memories of the incident in question are also not as reliable as time passes.
 
A person's right to a speedy trial arises after the arrest, indictment, or otherwise formal accusation of a crime. 
 
            Public Trial
 
The right to a public trial was inherited by the Americans from Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.  Public criminal proceedings would operate as a natural check against malevolent prosecutions, corrupt judges, and perjurious witnesses.  A trial that is out in the open also aids the fact-finding mission of the judiciary by encouraging citizens to come forward with relevant information.
 
The right to a public trial is not absolute.  Persons who may disrupt proceedings may be banned from attending the trial because they present a substantial risk of hindering a trial.  A disallowance of the media attending falls under the concept of "potential disruptions," but otherwise, under normal circumstances, both the public and media have a qualified First Amendment right to attend criminal proceedings.  The right to a public trial does not require the presence of media, and because courtrooms have limited seating, judges may attempt to maintain decorum.  For media, with today's technology, the media does not have to be in the courtroom to see or hear the proceedings of the case. 
 
            Right to Trial by an Impartial Jury
 
A part of the effort in achieving an impartial jury is the process of determining who will serve on the jury through a series of questions and observations, in an effort to eliminate biased jurors.  The concept of protecting the defendant from a biased jury can be traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215.  In the United States, the requirement for a trial by an impartial jury does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, or to petty criminal offenses, which consist of crimes punishable by imprisonment of six months or less.  In Great Britain, and Canada, a jury is not required for cases with potential penalties of two years or less, and the concept of an impartial jury is not entertained in the same way as in the United States.  Canada and Britain choose jurors randomly, and then in an open court the jurors for a specific case are selected from the jury panel by ballot.  A juror may be challenged once in the box for bias, but an extensive process to eliminate possible biased jurors before selection through a series of questions and observations is not normal practice.
 
The Sixth Amendment entitles defendants to a jury that represents "a jury of the defendant's peers," which means the jury should be a fair cross section of the community.  From the jury pool, the presiding judge, the prosecution, and attorneys for the defense are allowed to ask members of the jury pool a variety of questions intended to reveal any latent biases, prejudices, or other influences that might affect their impartiality.  The presence of even one biased juror is not permitted under the Sixth Amendment.
 
It is possible that the potential bias of a juror may be affected by sources outside the courtroom, so jurors are instructed to not consider newspaper, television, and radio coverage before or during trial, and are instructed not to discuss the trial with even family members, when evaluating the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
 
Jurors are not permitted to begin deliberations until all of the evidence has been offered.  Deliberations do not begin until after the attorneys have made their closing arguments, and the judge has read the instructions.  Premature deliberations have shown the potential, historically, to create early biases, or a juror may form a preconceived notion that they will then compare all evidence to, which they may have entertained as a result of premature deliberations.
 
            Notice of Pending Criminal Charges
 
The 6th Amendment guarantees defendants the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.  Defendants must receive notice of any criminal accusations that the government has lodged against them through an indictment, information, complaint, or other formal charge.  Defendants may not be tried, convicted, or sentenced for a crime that materially varies from the crime set forth in the formal charge.
 
The requirement by the 6th Amendment to inform a defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation is an attempt by the Founding Fathers to create fundamental fairness that was not necessarily present in civil and criminal proceedings in England and the American colonies under English common law.  Receiving notice of pending criminal charges in advance of trial permits defendants to prepare a defense in accordance with the specific nature of the accusation.  In tyrannies, defendants are all too often incarcerated without being apprised of pending charges until the trial begins.  Requiring notice of the nature and cause of the accusation against a defendant eliminates confusion regarding the basis of a particular verdict, which in turn decreases the chances that a defendant will be tried later for the same offense.
 
            Confrontation of Witnesses Against Him
 
The 6th Amendment requires that defendants have the right to be confronted by witnesses who offer testimony or evidence against them, as well as the opportunity to subject them to cross-examination. 
 
Today's courts have established rules that are enforced at the discretion of the judge who forbids questioning that pursues areas that are irrelevant, collateral, confusing, repetitive, or prejudicial.  Defendants are also forbidden to pursue a line of questioning solely for the purpose of harassment.
 
            Compulsory Process for Obtaining Witnesses In His Favor
 
The 6th Amendment recognizes a defendant's right to use the compulsory process of the judiciary to subpoena witnesses that may be favorable to the defense.  Courts may not take actions to undermine the testimony of a witness who has been subpoenaed by the defense.  Any law that attempts to establish particular persons as being incompetent to testify on behalf of a defendant is not allowed.
 
Defendants can also testify on their own behalf, a right not afforded in the American Colonies, or Great Britain, prior to the United States dissolving the political bands connecting them to the Crown.  Common law presumed all defendants to be incompetent to give reliable or credible testimony on their own behalf.  The vested interest in the outcome of the trial, it was believed, would taint the testimony of the defendant.  The 6th Amendment does not require, a defendant to testify on his own behalf, but does not prohibit it, either.
 
            Right to Counsel
 
The 6th Amendment states that criminal defendants have a Right to Counsel.  A defendant's right to counsel does not become an issue until the government files formal charges.  However, in the 5th Amendment a person has the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself, allowing him to remain silent until he has counsel present.
 
In many instances, defendants have the inability to obtain counsel be it because of financial or other reasons.  The 6th Amendment, by listing that assistance of counsel for his defense is a right, has compelled the government to institute a program where counsel can be assigned to a defendant if the person is unable to afford counsel, or obtain counsel for any other reason.  In the occurrence of a defendant unable to afford counsel, the trial judge appoints one on his behalf.  If it turns out that the defendant has financial resources previously unknown to the court, he may be required to reimburse the government for a portion of the fees paid to the court-appointed lawyer.
 
Defendants are not required to have counsel.  Defendants have a right to counsel.  Defendants also have the right to decline the representation of counsel and proceed on their own behalf.  Defendants who represent themselves must present a waiver of the 6th Amendment right to counsel before a court will allow them to do so.  The waiver must reveal that the defendant is knowingly making the decision, and understands the potential consequences.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why is having a speedy trial so important in a free society?
 
2.  How does a public trial better enable the fact-finding mission of the trial?
 
3.  How is the concept of an impartial jury different in the United States than it is in other countries?
 
4.  Why is it important for a defendant to be able to confront the witnesses against him?
 
5.  How is a defendant's right to counsel enabled in today's court system?

Resources:

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
 
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
 

Amendment VII

Right of Trial by Jury in Civil Suits
 
"In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
 
The 7th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in most civil suits heard in federal court.  Remember, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, apply only to the federal government unless the document states otherwise.  The 7th Amendment serves to preserve the historic line separating the province of the jury from that of the judge in civil cases by separating cases that should have a jury in federal court, from those that are smaller cases, and may not require a jury.  During the time the amendment was ratified, a case requiring a jury was one where "the value in controversy" exceeded twenty dollars.  The cutoff in the court system today is $75,000.  Any disputes that involve amounts less than $75,000, in fact, will not even be handled in a federal court.
 
State courts don't have to honor this provision in the 7th Amendment, and often don't.  People bringing a suit do not have to have a jury trial.  Individuals can waive their right to a jury trial if they so choose.
 
The 7th Amendment also expressly forbids federal judges to re-examine any "fact tried by a jury" except as allowed by the common law.  This means that no court, trial or appellate, may overturn a jury verdict that is reasonably supported by the evidence.
 
Prior to the Declaration of Rights in 1689, English judges served the King of England.  These judges showed bias towards the King, resulting in unfair rulings.  Judges in the American colonies were also biased towards the king, and when King George III got rid of trials by juries in the Colonies, the colonists viewed the decision as more kindling for the fire of independence that had been blazing in the pubs, churches and meeting halls of the Colonies.  The Bill of Rights applied what the Framers learned under the rule of Britain to the American System.  In the American courts the Framers believed it was important to have a fair court system, so the right to have a trial by jury is mentioned a number of times, and is a fundamental part of the United States legal system.
 
Together with the due process clause of the 5th Amendment and the right to an impartial jury enumerated in the 6th Amendment, the 7th Amendment guarantees civil litigants the right to not just a jury, but to a jury who is not biased for any reason.

Terms:

Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.
 
Declaration of Rights - Enacted in 1689, the English Bill of Rights is one of the fundamental documents of English constitutional law, marking a fundamental milestone in the progression of English society from a nation of subjects to a nation of free citizens with God-given rights.  The evolution began with the Magna Carta in 1215.
 
Questions for Discussion:

1.  What historic line does the 7th Amendment preserve?
2.  Must the States abide by the 7th Amendment?
3.  Can a person bringing suit waive the right to a jury trial?
 

Amendment VIII

Excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
 
The 8th Amendment reads, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
 
As a nation founded on honorable Judeo-Christian principles, the United States legal system is expected to be fair and just.  This means that Americans should insist upon a due process that protects individuals from excesses and abuses by the judicial system.  Such expectations include that no individual should be singled out, or treated differently, in the eyes of the courts.  A fair and equitable judicial system includes no excessive bails or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, for one person while others guilty of similar crimes do not receive similar treatment.
 
Today's definitions attempt to set a limit on where "excessive" or "unusual" lies.  When a harsh penalty is applied for a crime, even when it is similar to the punishment received by others for the same crime, challenges are launched regarding if the penalty matches the crime.  These challenges are fine, and an important part of the American judicial system seeking to adjust itself in regards to its fairness, but the debates during the Federal Convention and State ratification conventions did not focus so much on where the line between excessive and not excessive, or unusual as opposed to usual, exists as much as are the bails, fines and punishment consistent with the bails, fines and punishment consistent with others guilty of the same.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  In the context of the time period during which the 8th Amendment was written, what was meant by "cruel and unusual punishment?"
2.  How has the original definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" changed since the founding of the United States?
3.  How does the 8th Amendment apply the concept of uniformity to cases?
4.  Why would the Founding Fathers see the need to enumerate the right of an individual to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment?

Resources:

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
 
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
 
 
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs