Why Are They Building SECRET DETENTION CAMPS in All 50 States? w/ J.J. Carrell
There is an active 5 year contract with the Department of Defense to create “detention centers” in every US State. The public has been identifying some completed facilities and sharing the intention of our Federal Government.
It seems logical the Indiana facility would be located at a large military complex such as Crane Naval base in Central Indiana. Try asking questions of your elected officials, but be forewarned, they will assert you are “harassing” them for inquiring.
VIDEO. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
https://rumble.com/v55638j-why-are-they-building-secret-detention-camps-in-all-50-states-w-j.j.-carrel.html
https://thisistreason.com/#
There is an active 5 year contract with the Department of Defense to create “detention centers” in every US State. The public has been identifying some completed facilities and sharing the intention of our Federal Government.
It seems logical the Indiana facility would be located at a large military complex such as Crane Naval base in Central Indiana. Try asking questions of your elected officials, but be forewarned, they will assert you are “harassing” them for inquiring.
VIDEO. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
https://rumble.com/v55638j-why-are-they-building-secret-detention-camps-in-all-50-states-w-j.j.-carrel.html
https://thisistreason.com/#
👍2
INDIANA
John Rust petitions U.S. Supreme Court to evaluate Indiana’s party affiliation statute
John Rust, who earlier this year was denied access to Indiana’s GOP primary ballot, is appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States — seeking review of the Hoosier high court’s split March decision that stymied his candidacy.
Rust filed his 217-page petition with SCOTUS on Monday. In it, he argues that the justices should revisit Indiana’s “harsh ballot access laws” that keep him “and over 81% of all Hoosiers off of primary ballots.”
The petition posits Indiana’s ballot access laws are “uniquely harsh” and “do not serve any legitimate state interest,” but instead “cater to political party bosses, disenfranchising party members and voters.” Rust additionally asserts that the Supreme Court’s test for assessing ballot access issues “needs to be revisited and clarified.”
Indiana Supreme Court issues 3-2 opinion upholding party affiliation statute in Rust case
His request comes after the Indiana Election Division voted unanimously in March to block Rust’s Republican candidacy.
The basis for the state panel’s decision was an Indiana party affiliation law that prohibits candidates from running whose last two primary votes don’t match the party they wish to represent.
If the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the case, oral arguments would likely not be heard until early next year, according to Rust’s legal counsel. Even so, Rust said he expects a decision by this fall on whether the court will take it up.
“As I promised when the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion was issued, I will continue to fight for ballot access for all constitutionally qualified Hoosiers,” Rust said in a statement. “At a time when hard working Americans feel their voices are not heard and their votes do not matter, this is a battle that has to be fought. I will never stop fighting for Hoosiers and all Americans.”
A final plea to the U.S. Supreme Court
Rust sought for months to challenge U.S. Rep. Jim Banks for the GOP U.S. Senate nomination, but a state law requires a candidate’s two most recent primary votes align with their preferred party — a bar Rust didn’t meet.
The Seymour egg farmer voted Republican in 2016 and Democrat in 2012. The law allows an exception, should the county’s party chair grant it. Jackson County Republican Party Chair Amanda Lowery elected not to do so in this case.
He sued to gain access to the Republican ballot, saying the measure barred the vast majority of Hoosiers from running under their preferred party.
Marion County Superior Court Judge Patrick J. Dietrick found in December that the two-primary requirement is unconstitutional. But the state appealed, and the Indiana Supreme Court expedited the case as a matter of “significant public interest.”
Both the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Election Commission separately found him ineligible in February rulings. The commission cited the law, which the Supreme Court upheld in a ruling — prompting Rust to file for a rehearing.
In his SCOTUS petition, Rust doubled down that the Indiana Supreme Court’s majority opinion requires him “to abandon his party affiliation to gain ballot access and denies voters choices on the primary ballot.” Because Indiana is a Republican supermajority state, “the primary election often is the election,” Rust emphasized in his filing.
https://share.newsbreak.com/7l2zi4kh?s=i16
John Rust petitions U.S. Supreme Court to evaluate Indiana’s party affiliation statute
John Rust, who earlier this year was denied access to Indiana’s GOP primary ballot, is appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States — seeking review of the Hoosier high court’s split March decision that stymied his candidacy.
Rust filed his 217-page petition with SCOTUS on Monday. In it, he argues that the justices should revisit Indiana’s “harsh ballot access laws” that keep him “and over 81% of all Hoosiers off of primary ballots.”
The petition posits Indiana’s ballot access laws are “uniquely harsh” and “do not serve any legitimate state interest,” but instead “cater to political party bosses, disenfranchising party members and voters.” Rust additionally asserts that the Supreme Court’s test for assessing ballot access issues “needs to be revisited and clarified.”
Indiana Supreme Court issues 3-2 opinion upholding party affiliation statute in Rust case
His request comes after the Indiana Election Division voted unanimously in March to block Rust’s Republican candidacy.
The basis for the state panel’s decision was an Indiana party affiliation law that prohibits candidates from running whose last two primary votes don’t match the party they wish to represent.
If the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the case, oral arguments would likely not be heard until early next year, according to Rust’s legal counsel. Even so, Rust said he expects a decision by this fall on whether the court will take it up.
“As I promised when the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion was issued, I will continue to fight for ballot access for all constitutionally qualified Hoosiers,” Rust said in a statement. “At a time when hard working Americans feel their voices are not heard and their votes do not matter, this is a battle that has to be fought. I will never stop fighting for Hoosiers and all Americans.”
A final plea to the U.S. Supreme Court
Rust sought for months to challenge U.S. Rep. Jim Banks for the GOP U.S. Senate nomination, but a state law requires a candidate’s two most recent primary votes align with their preferred party — a bar Rust didn’t meet.
The Seymour egg farmer voted Republican in 2016 and Democrat in 2012. The law allows an exception, should the county’s party chair grant it. Jackson County Republican Party Chair Amanda Lowery elected not to do so in this case.
He sued to gain access to the Republican ballot, saying the measure barred the vast majority of Hoosiers from running under their preferred party.
Marion County Superior Court Judge Patrick J. Dietrick found in December that the two-primary requirement is unconstitutional. But the state appealed, and the Indiana Supreme Court expedited the case as a matter of “significant public interest.”
Both the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Election Commission separately found him ineligible in February rulings. The commission cited the law, which the Supreme Court upheld in a ruling — prompting Rust to file for a rehearing.
In his SCOTUS petition, Rust doubled down that the Indiana Supreme Court’s majority opinion requires him “to abandon his party affiliation to gain ballot access and denies voters choices on the primary ballot.” Because Indiana is a Republican supermajority state, “the primary election often is the election,” Rust emphasized in his filing.
https://share.newsbreak.com/7l2zi4kh?s=i16
👍7
Obama made it legal for the media to “purposely LIE to the American people”.
In 2012, he signed the National Defense Authorization Act H.R. 4310 / section 1078, which allowed PROPAGANDA to be used on US citizens by its’ own government.
Essentially repealing the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 which BANNED the use of domestic propaganda.
Congress was complicit.
In 2012, he signed the National Defense Authorization Act H.R. 4310 / section 1078, which allowed PROPAGANDA to be used on US citizens by its’ own government.
Essentially repealing the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 which BANNED the use of domestic propaganda.
Congress was complicit.
👎10❤2🖕1
INDIANA
Called it!!
Federal agencies ordered to halt voter registration services in Indiana
Secretary of State Diego Morales has ordered more than one hundred federal agencies to stop providing voter registration services in the Hoosier state.
Morales told these agencies to obtain state permission before engaging in election-related activities.
His orders stem from an executive order issued by President Biden in 2021 that mandates federal agencies to investigate ways to encourage people to vote. Biden’s order said options must be “consistent with applicable law.”
“This letter from my office is in response to the broad executive order from President Biden directing federal agencies to engage in election activity,” Morales posted on X. “States know best regarding our elections. We don’t need federal government overreach to run safe, secure elections!”
“The enthusiasm I have towards increasing our state’s voter registration and turnout numbers is immeasurable. Since the start of my administration, an unprecedented level of direct and financial assistance has been allocated to different counties. Alongside my team, we have blanketed the Hoosier state with voter outreach efforts, from festivals to county fairs to sporting events,” he added in a release.
Morales has shared several events he believes will boost voter turnout and participation in the upcoming November election.
https://www.wishtv.com/news/federal-agencies-ordered-to-halt-voter-registration-services-in-indiana/
I
Called it!!
Federal agencies ordered to halt voter registration services in Indiana
Secretary of State Diego Morales has ordered more than one hundred federal agencies to stop providing voter registration services in the Hoosier state.
Morales told these agencies to obtain state permission before engaging in election-related activities.
His orders stem from an executive order issued by President Biden in 2021 that mandates federal agencies to investigate ways to encourage people to vote. Biden’s order said options must be “consistent with applicable law.”
“This letter from my office is in response to the broad executive order from President Biden directing federal agencies to engage in election activity,” Morales posted on X. “States know best regarding our elections. We don’t need federal government overreach to run safe, secure elections!”
“The enthusiasm I have towards increasing our state’s voter registration and turnout numbers is immeasurable. Since the start of my administration, an unprecedented level of direct and financial assistance has been allocated to different counties. Alongside my team, we have blanketed the Hoosier state with voter outreach efforts, from festivals to county fairs to sporting events,” he added in a release.
Morales has shared several events he believes will boost voter turnout and participation in the upcoming November election.
https://www.wishtv.com/news/federal-agencies-ordered-to-halt-voter-registration-services-in-indiana/
I
👍10
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Archbishop Vigano claims that the pope is a "zealous cooperator" in the Great Reset, who pursues the "demolition of the Church" in order to replace it with an organization of "Masonic inspiration."
States that there is a conspiracy between the deep state and the deep church and that the Pope is a Jesuit.
This is getting good. Vigano being excommunicated gives him freedom to speak. May God be with him! 🙏
States that there is a conspiracy between the deep state and the deep church and that the Pope is a Jesuit.
This is getting good. Vigano being excommunicated gives him freedom to speak. May God be with him! 🙏
❤2🙏1
INDIANA
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) delivers his opening remarks to the House Oversight Committee on June 27, 2024.
On DEI: "Corporate America & academic institutions have all too frequently embraced the notion - completely at odds with our founding principles - that to remediate racial discrimination of the past, we must somehow engage in racial discrimination now."
Well Done!
YOUTUBE VIDEO. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e01z3NnMMwY
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) delivers his opening remarks to the House Oversight Committee on June 27, 2024.
On DEI: "Corporate America & academic institutions have all too frequently embraced the notion - completely at odds with our founding principles - that to remediate racial discrimination of the past, we must somehow engage in racial discrimination now."
Well Done!
YOUTUBE VIDEO. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e01z3NnMMwY
🔥7👏4
Agenda 2030
INDIANA
Visionary Ministries Kingdom Academy in Evansville, Indiana will be the training site to learn more about Agenda 2030 and the implications in the Hoosier State.
The two hour session is on Saturday July 13th beginning at 10 am. The information is available in the attached flyer.
@P4PIndiana @AGToddRokita @CliffFrenchTV @MicahBeckwith @KColbertReport @EvansvilleINGov @SenatorBraun @braun4indiana @DT_EVV @EvansvilleFD @TomLanghorne
INDIANA
Visionary Ministries Kingdom Academy in Evansville, Indiana will be the training site to learn more about Agenda 2030 and the implications in the Hoosier State.
The two hour session is on Saturday July 13th beginning at 10 am. The information is available in the attached flyer.
@P4PIndiana @AGToddRokita @CliffFrenchTV @MicahBeckwith @KColbertReport @EvansvilleINGov @SenatorBraun @braun4indiana @DT_EVV @EvansvilleFD @TomLanghorne
👍8
INDIANA
Cast Vote Record under former Secretary of State Holli Sullivan. The document was public for years until intervention by leadership was blocked.
Cast Vote Record Transparency
The Cast Vote Record is a great way to determine how the ratio of votes between candidates trends in real time. Draza Smith has done some compelling analysis on these records to show some irregularities that are concerning.
The Secretary of State, Holli Sullivan, the Public Law Access Counselor, Luke Britt and the Indiana Election Division (namely Brad King and Angela Nussmeyer) are blocking citizens from all over the state to acquire this report/public records which will all be destroyed on September 3, 2022. “The CVR is confidential pursuant to IC 3-10-1-31.1(b). This statute notes (emphasis added) …”after the recount or contest filing period, the election material, including election material related to provisional ballots (except for ballots and provisional ballots, which remain confidential) shall be made available for copying and inspection under IC 5-14-3.” The individual selections made by the voter as recorded on a DRE or as recorded when the ballot card is scanned into an opScan unit are the equivalent of an electronic ballot. Therefore, the CVR is a confidential record under state law.”
This argument is spurious however and suggests that the Secretary of State’s office does not have an understanding of the format of this common report. The request seems to assume that the public would be privy to the actual scanned image of the ballot or the ballot itself which is not what the standard Cast Vote Record provides. The actual ballots would remain confidential! We have samples of the report headers and in no way does it provide any Personally Identifiable Information.
In order for our elections to be transparent and honest it is essential that We the People have access to key data points. The Cast Vote Record is a way for us to see trends in tabulation that may look awry. It does not in any way encroach on the secrecy of any voter.
If Indiana elections are “safe and secure” as our Secretary of State’s office claims they are, then why the stonewall? It is essential that we have more information not less if we are going to trust our election process and our election commission should be willing to work with us to ensure that confidence is instilled in the process.
https://youcountindiana.com/cast-vote-record-transperency/
Cast Vote Record under former Secretary of State Holli Sullivan. The document was public for years until intervention by leadership was blocked.
Cast Vote Record Transparency
The Cast Vote Record is a great way to determine how the ratio of votes between candidates trends in real time. Draza Smith has done some compelling analysis on these records to show some irregularities that are concerning.
The Secretary of State, Holli Sullivan, the Public Law Access Counselor, Luke Britt and the Indiana Election Division (namely Brad King and Angela Nussmeyer) are blocking citizens from all over the state to acquire this report/public records which will all be destroyed on September 3, 2022. “The CVR is confidential pursuant to IC 3-10-1-31.1(b). This statute notes (emphasis added) …”after the recount or contest filing period, the election material, including election material related to provisional ballots (except for ballots and provisional ballots, which remain confidential) shall be made available for copying and inspection under IC 5-14-3.” The individual selections made by the voter as recorded on a DRE or as recorded when the ballot card is scanned into an opScan unit are the equivalent of an electronic ballot. Therefore, the CVR is a confidential record under state law.”
This argument is spurious however and suggests that the Secretary of State’s office does not have an understanding of the format of this common report. The request seems to assume that the public would be privy to the actual scanned image of the ballot or the ballot itself which is not what the standard Cast Vote Record provides. The actual ballots would remain confidential! We have samples of the report headers and in no way does it provide any Personally Identifiable Information.
In order for our elections to be transparent and honest it is essential that We the People have access to key data points. The Cast Vote Record is a way for us to see trends in tabulation that may look awry. It does not in any way encroach on the secrecy of any voter.
If Indiana elections are “safe and secure” as our Secretary of State’s office claims they are, then why the stonewall? It is essential that we have more information not less if we are going to trust our election process and our election commission should be willing to work with us to ensure that confidence is instilled in the process.
https://youcountindiana.com/cast-vote-record-transperency/
👍3
INDIANA
Requests for ‘cast vote record’ create havoc for state officials: Hoosier voters demand access to 2020 election materials
Near the end of this past summer, county clerks across Indiana became inundated with demands from individual voters that officials provide copies of their oaths and bonds and release voting data from the 2020 general election.
Primarily, those individuals were asking for what they called the “cast vote record.” They believed the 2020 data was going to be destroyed on Sept. 3. They wanted the information preserved and handed over to them.
However, the individuals, the clerks and other state officials had no clear idea what a cast vote record was.
The Indiana Secretary of State Election Division determined the CVR would identify each voter and his or her ballot selections. Because, under Indiana state law, such information is confidential, the division advised the clerks that the data being sought could not be made public.
Also, the Indiana public access counselor issued an opinion that reflected the confusion over the CVR. A “homogenous definition” was not available, and there was “significant and disparate disagreement” about what data the clerks had available.
In all, the public access counselor’s office received 19 complaints stemming from clerks not giving access to the CVR. Also, Britt estimated his office was receiving about 100 calls a week during roughly a two-month period from individuals wanting the voting data. Several of the complaints were filed as letters, many of which were exact copies of each other.
They all requested “ballot tabulation reports, ‘Ballot Log’, a ‘Vote Log File’, or a ‘Tabulation Report, aka ‘CVR’ Records’” for the Nov. 3, 2020, election. Also, they quoted directly from the “Indiana election Admin Manual, page 243” and included a chart that appears to list the other states that are complying with CVR requests.
Specifically, the complainants asked Britt to advise the Indiana secretary of state to preserve all records from the 2020 general election “in conjunction with Mr. Mike Lindell’s Notion of Preservation filing on each and every county clerk and commissioner.”
Indiana First Action, an organization that describes itself as a “citizen-driven team” working to ensure Indiana’s elections represent “the will of Hoosiers,” claimed state officials were wrongly denying access to the CVR data.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita issued a statement Sept. 4 recommending county clerks “retain and preserve all election material from the 2020 elections … .” He cited the need to have the records available if a lawsuit is filed.
Septer noted that by law, the clerks could have destroyed the records after 22 months had passed from the last presidential election, but many heeded the attorney general’s advice. They are holding on to the materials “while things calm down.”
“It’s just a very different time in our country right now. There’s a lot of extreme on all sides, everywhere,” Septer, of Huntington County, said. “(My) advice to our Indiana clerks is, we’re bipartisan clerks and we just have to keep our integrity intact and be very transparent and protect the voters.”
In writing his opinion, Britt said he had the dual task of figuring out what exactly the complainants wanted while not being dismissive of their concerns.
The push for the 2020 general election records seems to have abated, but Britt said he is uncertain if the 2022 midterms will reignite the fight for Indiana’s voting records.
“(In) this election cycle, I will say the rhetoric has been more heated than any I’ve encountered during my tenure” as the public access counselor, Britt said. He noted that in every election, candidates call asking for public records on their opponents.
“But this one’s been a little more different.”•
https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/requests-for-cast-vote-record-create-havoc-for-state-officials-hoosier-voters-demand-access-to-2020-election-materials
Requests for ‘cast vote record’ create havoc for state officials: Hoosier voters demand access to 2020 election materials
Near the end of this past summer, county clerks across Indiana became inundated with demands from individual voters that officials provide copies of their oaths and bonds and release voting data from the 2020 general election.
Primarily, those individuals were asking for what they called the “cast vote record.” They believed the 2020 data was going to be destroyed on Sept. 3. They wanted the information preserved and handed over to them.
However, the individuals, the clerks and other state officials had no clear idea what a cast vote record was.
The Indiana Secretary of State Election Division determined the CVR would identify each voter and his or her ballot selections. Because, under Indiana state law, such information is confidential, the division advised the clerks that the data being sought could not be made public.
Also, the Indiana public access counselor issued an opinion that reflected the confusion over the CVR. A “homogenous definition” was not available, and there was “significant and disparate disagreement” about what data the clerks had available.
In all, the public access counselor’s office received 19 complaints stemming from clerks not giving access to the CVR. Also, Britt estimated his office was receiving about 100 calls a week during roughly a two-month period from individuals wanting the voting data. Several of the complaints were filed as letters, many of which were exact copies of each other.
They all requested “ballot tabulation reports, ‘Ballot Log’, a ‘Vote Log File’, or a ‘Tabulation Report, aka ‘CVR’ Records’” for the Nov. 3, 2020, election. Also, they quoted directly from the “Indiana election Admin Manual, page 243” and included a chart that appears to list the other states that are complying with CVR requests.
Specifically, the complainants asked Britt to advise the Indiana secretary of state to preserve all records from the 2020 general election “in conjunction with Mr. Mike Lindell’s Notion of Preservation filing on each and every county clerk and commissioner.”
Indiana First Action, an organization that describes itself as a “citizen-driven team” working to ensure Indiana’s elections represent “the will of Hoosiers,” claimed state officials were wrongly denying access to the CVR data.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita issued a statement Sept. 4 recommending county clerks “retain and preserve all election material from the 2020 elections … .” He cited the need to have the records available if a lawsuit is filed.
Septer noted that by law, the clerks could have destroyed the records after 22 months had passed from the last presidential election, but many heeded the attorney general’s advice. They are holding on to the materials “while things calm down.”
“It’s just a very different time in our country right now. There’s a lot of extreme on all sides, everywhere,” Septer, of Huntington County, said. “(My) advice to our Indiana clerks is, we’re bipartisan clerks and we just have to keep our integrity intact and be very transparent and protect the voters.”
In writing his opinion, Britt said he had the dual task of figuring out what exactly the complainants wanted while not being dismissive of their concerns.
The push for the 2020 general election records seems to have abated, but Britt said he is uncertain if the 2022 midterms will reignite the fight for Indiana’s voting records.
“(In) this election cycle, I will say the rhetoric has been more heated than any I’ve encountered during my tenure” as the public access counselor, Britt said. He noted that in every election, candidates call asking for public records on their opponents.
“But this one’s been a little more different.”•
https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/requests-for-cast-vote-record-create-havoc-for-state-officials-hoosier-voters-demand-access-to-2020-election-materials
👍1
1933 was the year of implementing United States governmental enslavement of its citizens. That “Corporation” system is being dismantled along with the Federal Reserve.
Think I’m wrong? Research the Chevron determination by the US Supreme Court passed last week. The entire corrupt system is coming down.
Think I’m wrong? Research the Chevron determination by the US Supreme Court passed last week. The entire corrupt system is coming down.
🙏6💯4🔥1
TRENDING
Supreme Court Ruling Alters January 6 Charges: From Insurrection to Trespassing
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. U.S. has struck down one of the most common charges against January 6 defendants: “obstruction of an official proceeding.” This ruling has profound implications for the numerous cases that relied on this charge, rendering many of these convictions invalid.
For years, the narrative around January 6 has centered on the idea of an “insurrection.” Politicians and pundits alike have used this term to describe the events of that day, often framing it as an organized attempt to overthrow the government. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling signals a significant shift in how these actions are legally interpreted. The events of January 6 are now increasingly seen as a case of mass trespass and unlawful entry rather than an insurrection.
The Justice Department’s decision to use the obstruction charge, which stems from a law enacted post-Enron to criminalize the destruction of evidence, has now been called into question. The broad interpretation of this law allowed it to be applied to hundreds of January 6 cases. At least a quarter of the prosecutions included this charge. The ruling will result in resentencing for many, and pending cases will proceed without the obstruction claim.
Former President Donald Trump is also affected by this decision. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against Trump in Washington, D.C., includes obstruction charges. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, half of this indictment could be dropped, necessitating a potential superseding indictment. This development could derail Smith’s efforts to bring Trump to trial before the election, a goal that has been prioritized by both Smith and Judge Tanya Chutkan.
The ruling challenges the long-held belief that January 6 was an insurrection. Polls show that a majority of citizens view the events as a protest that escalated into a riot, not an attempt to overthrow the government. This perspective is reinforced by the Supreme Court’s decision, which suggests that the legal framework used to prosecute many of the January 6 defendants was flawed.
The narrative of January 6 as an insurrection has been a critical point for many in the media and politics. However, this ruling undermines that claim, shifting the focus to charges of trespass and unlawful entry. President Biden’s statements about democracy being on the ballot and the hyperbolic claims surrounding Trump’s potential re-election are increasingly being questioned. Recent polls indicate that a significant portion of the public views Biden, not Trump, as a greater threat to democracy.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. U.S. marks a turning point in the legal and political discourse surrounding January 6. As the obstruction charges are invalidated, the narrative shifts from insurrection to trespassing, challenging the Justice Department’s prosecution strategy and altering the public’s perception of the events. This ruling underscores the need for accurate legal interpretations and highlights the potential misuse of broad legal provisions in politically charged cases.
https://theleadingreport.com/supreme-court-overturns-jan-6-convictions/
Supreme Court Ruling Alters January 6 Charges: From Insurrection to Trespassing
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. U.S. has struck down one of the most common charges against January 6 defendants: “obstruction of an official proceeding.” This ruling has profound implications for the numerous cases that relied on this charge, rendering many of these convictions invalid.
For years, the narrative around January 6 has centered on the idea of an “insurrection.” Politicians and pundits alike have used this term to describe the events of that day, often framing it as an organized attempt to overthrow the government. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling signals a significant shift in how these actions are legally interpreted. The events of January 6 are now increasingly seen as a case of mass trespass and unlawful entry rather than an insurrection.
The Justice Department’s decision to use the obstruction charge, which stems from a law enacted post-Enron to criminalize the destruction of evidence, has now been called into question. The broad interpretation of this law allowed it to be applied to hundreds of January 6 cases. At least a quarter of the prosecutions included this charge. The ruling will result in resentencing for many, and pending cases will proceed without the obstruction claim.
Former President Donald Trump is also affected by this decision. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against Trump in Washington, D.C., includes obstruction charges. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, half of this indictment could be dropped, necessitating a potential superseding indictment. This development could derail Smith’s efforts to bring Trump to trial before the election, a goal that has been prioritized by both Smith and Judge Tanya Chutkan.
The ruling challenges the long-held belief that January 6 was an insurrection. Polls show that a majority of citizens view the events as a protest that escalated into a riot, not an attempt to overthrow the government. This perspective is reinforced by the Supreme Court’s decision, which suggests that the legal framework used to prosecute many of the January 6 defendants was flawed.
The narrative of January 6 as an insurrection has been a critical point for many in the media and politics. However, this ruling undermines that claim, shifting the focus to charges of trespass and unlawful entry. President Biden’s statements about democracy being on the ballot and the hyperbolic claims surrounding Trump’s potential re-election are increasingly being questioned. Recent polls indicate that a significant portion of the public views Biden, not Trump, as a greater threat to democracy.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. U.S. marks a turning point in the legal and political discourse surrounding January 6. As the obstruction charges are invalidated, the narrative shifts from insurrection to trespassing, challenging the Justice Department’s prosecution strategy and altering the public’s perception of the events. This ruling underscores the need for accurate legal interpretations and highlights the potential misuse of broad legal provisions in politically charged cases.
https://theleadingreport.com/supreme-court-overturns-jan-6-convictions/
👍6👏1
INDIANA
2008. Election Irregularities
Barack Obama qualified for the primary with 534 signatures. The prosecutor discovered 100 to 200 signatures were forged. Barack Obama was never qualified for the primary in Indiana.
Election Fraud is real.
VIDEO CLIP 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1808607136865529860/pu/pl/aXFcJ232hSOLdsZ4.m3u8?tag=12
2008. Election Irregularities
Barack Obama qualified for the primary with 534 signatures. The prosecutor discovered 100 to 200 signatures were forged. Barack Obama was never qualified for the primary in Indiana.
Election Fraud is real.
VIDEO CLIP 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1808607136865529860/pu/pl/aXFcJ232hSOLdsZ4.m3u8?tag=12
👍8🤬4
BRICS To Accept Local Currencies for Fish Exports, Sideline US Dollar
BRICS is looking to dominate the food and crops sector and reduce the US dollar’s hegemony for trade settlements. Russia recently proposed a plan to allow countries to settle trade in local currencies for grain exports. The plan termed ‘grain exchange’ allows import and export companies to buy grain directly from farm producers and firms. The exchange could be initiated in local currencies sidelining the US dollar. However, BRICS has now gone a step further and plans to use the same mechanism for fish exports, where local currencies will be the primary mode of payment and not the US dollar.
BRICS member China is the second biggest exporter of fish in the world exporting $10.40 billion worth of seafood. Its counterpart, India also exports nearly 17% of its fish and seafood products around the globe. The total worth of India’s fish exports stands close to $4.6 billion a year. Russia is looking to monetize its BRICS counterpart’s global fish exports to diminish the US dollar’s dominance.
https://watcher.guru/news/10-sco-countries-ready-to-ditch-us-dollar-for-trade
https://watcher.guru/news/brics-start-of-de-dollarization-52-trade-in-china-settled-in-yuan
BRICS is looking to dominate the food and crops sector and reduce the US dollar’s hegemony for trade settlements. Russia recently proposed a plan to allow countries to settle trade in local currencies for grain exports. The plan termed ‘grain exchange’ allows import and export companies to buy grain directly from farm producers and firms. The exchange could be initiated in local currencies sidelining the US dollar. However, BRICS has now gone a step further and plans to use the same mechanism for fish exports, where local currencies will be the primary mode of payment and not the US dollar.
BRICS member China is the second biggest exporter of fish in the world exporting $10.40 billion worth of seafood. Its counterpart, India also exports nearly 17% of its fish and seafood products around the globe. The total worth of India’s fish exports stands close to $4.6 billion a year. Russia is looking to monetize its BRICS counterpart’s global fish exports to diminish the US dollar’s dominance.
https://watcher.guru/news/10-sco-countries-ready-to-ditch-us-dollar-for-trade
https://watcher.guru/news/brics-start-of-de-dollarization-52-trade-in-china-settled-in-yuan