Entry Submitted by Vee at 12:38 PM EDT on July 13, 2021
To my follow IDC sojourners..
Being that I like to analyze things in a legal perspective, I had to question to what effect was Prez T. law suit seeking ? So I’ve downloaded the facebook pdf to see what the purpose caption was.
“Class action Complaint .. First Amendment violations.. Jury Trial Requested”
So that’s the Nature ..but there has to be a cause..(nature and cause) or it can be dismissed for FRCP 12 b 3. Motion to dismiss, “Failure to State a claim for which relief may be granted” that’s Fed..each State has its own rule section number. “The Complant is for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief.”
Let me state ..at the start..this will take years. How long did the tobacco industry class action law suit last? I question why is it for a jury trial..it’s not for a monitary purpose..so it must be for transparency..public exposure.
The defence will use every trick in the book for dragging it out. Requesting more time for things..not providing things…stalling, stalling, and stalling. Wonder how much the Attorneys of the complantant are making. Set rate or billing ?
The Communications Decency Act of 1996
What is the purpose of the Communications Decency Act?
Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in an attempt to prevent minors from gaining access to sexually explicit materials on the InternetAs part of its broader review of market-leading online platforms, the U.S. Department of Justice analyzed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances.§ 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act. Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230. … But thankfully, CDA 230 remains and in the years since has far outshone the rest of the law.
Which of the following are the two main arguments against the Communications Decency Act accepted by the courts? It was too vague and broad, and it did not use the least restrictive means accomplishing the goal of protecting children.
What flaw did the US Supreme Court find in the 1996 Communications Decency Act?
Free Speech on the Internet Preserved in Reno v. ACLU
In a landmark decision issued on June 26,1997, the Supreme Court held that the Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.
Ok so let me see ..So what is it. The Government aren’t protecting the rights of individuals using market-leading online platforms?
The purpose of this post is for me to glean some perspectives on this.
So is it to expose certain one’s of corruption…treason? Dave of x22 report has be hammering on this for something. Will it expose criminality actions or non-actions of certian people …thus to charge them ?
The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted for certain causes … ” …endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
First and foremost is to serve and protect…
So was the “Government” negligent in its reponceablity to these ends in the issue of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act? Could and should it be sued for its negligence ?
I’m reading a book about a civil rights lawyer back in the late 60’s-70’s” A lawyer’s Journey… the Morris Dees story” … fascinating and enlightening.
He writes about the harshness and blatant ignorance of most southerners to the colored-blacks of that time…in and about the civil rights movement in Birmingham and Montgomery Alabama and other places.
He relates his story to certain civil rights acts made at the time.. These were laws. Laws of protecting the rights of certain individuals (rights aren’t given..benifits are)..but the southerners mind viruses could not compehend it. They could not relate to the rule and law of nature.
Unless certain ones that are charged with a oath and postion to server and protect and were giving strick orders to adhere to this..they also would be amongst the others of mind viruses and assault and tresspass on others civil rights..be it black or white.
Example.. A week before a 49 miles civil rights marchfrom Selma to the state capital, MontgomeryAlabama civil right activist were beaten by tbe state troopers. What was the purpose of the march from Selma to Montgomery in 1964?
After Jackson died of his wounds just over a week later in Selma, leaders called for a march to the state capital, Montgomery, to bring attention to the injustice of Jackson’s death, the ongoing police violence, and the sweeping violations of African Americans’ civil rights. Selma March, also called Selma to Montgomery March, political march from Selma, Alabama, to the state’s capital, Montgomery, that occurred March 21–25, 1965. Led by Martin Luther King, Jr., the march was the culminating event of several tumultuous weeks during which demonstrators twice attempted to march but were stopped, once violently, by local police… https://www.britannica.com/event/Selma-March
So orders were given for theses public servants to protect.
The reason I’m showing this is to relate it to this…equal protection under the law. “Ruby Bridges was the first African American child to integrate an all-white public elementary school in the South. When the first day of school rolled around in September, Bridges was still at her old school. All through the summer and early fall, the Louisiana State Legislature had found ways to fight the federal court order and slow the integration process. After exhausting all stalling tactics, the Legislature had to relent, and the designated schools were to be integrated that November.
Fearing there might be some civil disturbances, the federal district court judge requested the U.S. government send federal marshals to New Orleans to protect the children. On the morning of November 14, 1960, federal marshals drove Bridges and her mother five blocks to her new school. While in the car, one of the men explained that when they arrived at the school, two marshals would walk in front of Bridges and two would be behind her…When she entered the school under the protection of the federal marshals, she was immediately escorted to the principal’s office and spent the entire day there. The chaos outside, and the fact that nearly all the white parents at the school had kept their children home, meant classes weren’t going to be held at all that day…The fact that Bridges was born the same year that the Supreme Court handed down its Brown v. Board of Education decision desegregating schools is a notable coincidence..”
Why didn’t the Government -Fed. step up to the plate and do its duty in regards to § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act. for individuals ? Why doesn’t the Government-Fed. step up to the plate in serving and protecting in regards to individual in Taxation ..the income tax? Why doesn’t the Government-Fed. step up to the plate in serving and protecting in regards to individual in banking and loans-mortgages.
Lately and not lest.. Why doesn’t the Government-Fed. step up to the plate in serving and protecting in regards to individual rights when it comes to providing for the necessities of life..the right to travel in ones own private conveyance to and frow..for their personal private daily life business… unencumbered by licensing and harassment by state and local municipalities agents ?
Just posted by Fleming
HERE ARE TRUTHFUL FACTS MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW, …. BUT SHOULD…
- The IRS is Not a US government agency. It is an agency of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Diversified Metal Products v I.R.S et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391)
- The IMF (International Monetary Fund) is an agency of the U.N. (Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816) and continued..
Here are a few more truths..“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” (Emphasis added). See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways § 163.
The RIGHT to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. (Emphasis added). See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125. . . [T]he streets and highways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516.
All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.
The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highways his place of business and uses it for private gain . . . . (Emphasis added). See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.
. . . [F]or while a Citizen has the RIGHT to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that RIGHT does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…. (Emphasis added). See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140
Why isn’t the Government- Fed. stepping up to the plate and protecting these-this inalienable-imprescriptible rights? The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois ruled:
Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the RIGHT to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this RIGHT might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. (Emphasis added). See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22.
“Regulated” here can only mean traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..
Why hasn’t anyone done as xPresident Trump is doing and taken it to a US Distinct CourtFor ” Complant is for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief ” “A Class action Complaint for 9th Amendment violations” ? Why aren’t we sueing the US. Government for non-equal protection as it gave Ruby Bridges ? We should be taking all our grievances and constitutional – civil rights violations by the States to the US Distict courts of our redress of grievance complaints.
This is what I wanted to convey..that the Fed-Government stepped up to the plate and gave special protection and treatment to one individual as Ruby..we all should be getting this individual attention for all our civil- constitutional ammendment rights. Is it that the only way is by taking a matter to court ?
I hope I’ve given to you IDC patrons something to think about..and conveyed it in a comprehensive manner.
Constitutional Amendments and Major Civil Rights Acts of Congress
more before this..
|Civil Rights Act of 1875||18 Stat 335–337||Barred discrimination in public accommodations and on public conveyances on land and water. Prohibited exclusion of African Americans from jury duty. Passed by the 43rd Congress (1873–1875) as H.R. 796.|
|Civil Rights Act of 1957||P.L. 85–315; 71 Stat. 634||Created the six-member Commission on Civil Rights and established the Civil Rights Division in the U.S. Department of Justice. Authorized the U.S. Attorney General to seek court injunctions against deprivation and obstruction of voting rights by state officials. Passed by the 85th Congress (1957–1959) as H.R. 6127.|
|Civil Rights Act of 1960||P.L. 86–449; 74 Stat. 86||Expanded the enforcement powers of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and introduced criminal penalties for obstructing the implementation of federal court orders. Extended the Civil Rights Commission for two years. Required that voting and registration records for federal elections be preserved. Passed by the 86th Congress (1959–1961) as H.R. 8601.|
|Civil Rights Act of 1964||P.L. 88–352; 78 Stat. 241||Prohibited discrimination in public accommodations, facilities, and schools. Outlawed discrimination in federally funded projects. Created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to monitor employment discrimination in public and private sectors. Provided additional capacities to enforce voting rights. Extended the Civil Rights Commission for four years. Passed by the 88th Congress (1963–1965) as H.R. 7152.|
|Voting Rights Act of 1965||P.L. 89–110; 79 Stat. 437||Suspended the use of literacy tests and voter disqualification devices for five years. Authorized the use of federal examiners to supervise voter registration in states that used tests or in which less than half the voting-eligible residents registered or voted. Directed the U.S. Attorney General to institute proceedings against use of poll taxes. Provided criminal penalties for individuals who violated the act. Passed by the 89th Congress (1965–1967) as S. 1564.|
|Civil Rights Act of 1968|
(Fair Housing Act)
|P.L. 90–284; 82 Stat. 73||Prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of approximately 80 percent of the housing in the U.S. Prohibited state governments and Native-American tribal governments from violating the constitutional rights of Native Americans. Passed by the 90th Congress (1967–1969) as H.R. 2516.|
|Voting Rights Act|
Amendments of 1970
|P.L. 91–285; 84 Stat. 314||Extended the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for five years. Made the act applicable to areas where less than 50 percent of the eligible voting age population was registered as of November 1968. Passed by the 91st Congress (1969–1971) as H.R. 4249.|
|Voting Rights Act|
Amendments of 1975
|P.L. 94–73; 89 Stat. 400||Extended the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for seven years. Established coverage for other minority groups including Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans. Permanently banned literacy tests. Passed by the 94th Congress (1975–1977) as H.R. 6219.|
|Voting Rights Act|
Amendments of 1982
|P.L. 97–205; 96 Stat. 131||Extended for 25 years the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Allowed jurisdictions that could provide evidence of maintaining a clean voting rights record for at least 10 years, to avoid preclearance coverage (the requirement of federal approval of any change to local or state voting laws). Provided for aid and instruction to disabled or illiterate voters. Provided for bilingual election materials in jurisdictions with large minority populations. Passed by the 97th Congress (1981–1983) as H.R. 3112.|
If you wish to contact the author of any reader submitted guest post, you can give us an email at UniversalOm432Hz@gmail.com and we’ll forward your request to the author.
All articles, videos, and images posted on Dinar Chronicles were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes.
Dinar Chronicles is not a registered investment adviser, broker dealer, banker or currency dealer and as such, no information on the website should be construed as investment advice. We do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content or communications posted on this site. Information posted on this site may or may not be fictitious. We do not intend to and are not providing financial, legal, tax, political or any other advice to readers of this website.
Copyright © 2021 Dinar Chronicles