Posts Tagged ‘ Government ’

Circle of Evil – highest ranking antiCannabis officials DOXed. Share This!!

For far too long the people of the cannabis community has battled a faceless enemy… that has been hiding behind  lies, different names, different titles, different positions of power, different corporations and corporate logos. This page with names and brief descriptions is an example of the over 400 Narco-Warriors that Team Vendetta has investigated, doxed, and compiled information on.  Let’s end their game. Starting with Dr. Kevin A Sabet; Obama and the Drug Czars Senior Drug Adviser.
Enough is Enough.

We Do Not Forgive

We DO Not Forget

Should Of Expected Us. Continue reading

Federal Credit Union Act

lol cooperative effort

Federal Credit Union Act


The Federal Credit Union Act (FCUA) is the source of authority for all federally chartered credit unions and governs the coverage and terms of insured accounts at all federally insured credit unions. It also determines the structure and duties of NCUA. The Congress of the United States found the following, and embodied the same in the Federal Credit Union Act of 1934 (Amended):

The American credit union movement began as a cooperative effort to serve the productive and provident credit needs of individuals of modest means.

Credit unions continue to fulfill this public purpose, and current members and membership groups should not face divestiture from the financial services institution of their choice as a result of recent court action.

To promote thrift and credit extension, a meaningful affinity and bond among members, manifested by a commonality of routine interaction, shared and related work experiences, interests, or activities, or the maintenance of an otherwise well understood sense of cohesion or identity is essential to the fulfillment of the public mission of credit unions.

Credit unions, unlike many other participants in the financial services market, are exempt from Federal and most State taxes because they are member-owned, democratically operated, not-for-profit organizations generally managed by volunteer boards of directors and because they have the specified mission of meeting the credit and savings needs of consumers, especially persons of modest means.

Improved credit union safety and soundness provisions will enhance the public benefit that citizens receive from these cooperative financial services institutions.

Anonymous takes down USSC.Gov

Anonymous takes down U.S. Sentencing Commission Website and names eroding justice, abuse of prosecutorial discretion, and the suicide by-prosecution of internet pioneer and Harvard fellow Aaron Swartz. http://www.USSC.Gov  LMAO   DOX their top executives!

NCUA.Gov | National Credit Union Association


For the Bank Secrecy Act info scroll all the way down to the bottom!    lol… like white on white rice, we r onto you.  Should of expected us. Continue reading

Magnitsky bill

A Bill that cracks down on corruption, in Russia.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Magnitsky bill, also known as the Magnitsky ActMagnitsky law or, by its formal title, the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, is a bipartisan bill which was passed by the U.S. Congress in November–December 2012.[1][2] The bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 14, 2012. [3]




In 2009, lawyer and auditor Sergei Magnitsky died in a Moscow prison after exposing massive fraud involving Russian tax officials.

In June 2012, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the bill as the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (H.R. 4405).[4] The main intention of the law was to punish Russian officials that were thought to be responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky by prohibiting their entrance to the United States and use of their banking system.[1] The legislation was to be taken up by a Senate panel the next week and was cited in a broader review of the mounting tensions in the international relationship.[5][6] The bill was sponsored by Senator Ben Cardin. The list of Russian officials who are supposed to be subjects of the bill was soon published.[7]

In November 2012, provisions of the Magnitsky bill were attached to a House bill (H.R. 6156) normalizing trade with Russia (i.e. repealing Jackson–Vanik amendment) andMoldova.[2][8] On 6 December 2012 U.S. Senate passed the House version of the law.[1] The law was signed by President Obama on December 14, 2012.[9][10][11][12]

Russian government reaction

Main article: Dima Yakovlev Law

It was reported that Russian authorities, acting through Goldman Sachs Bank, hired a public relations company led by Kenneth Duberstein to lobby against the legislation.[13][14]The Russian foreign ministry has called the Senate decision a “performance in the theater of the absurd”,[15] and Russian President Vladmir Putin said, “This is very bad. This, of course, poisons our relationship” with the United States.[16]

While Russian officials desired to pass a proportional response in their own legislature, a proposal to similarly deny entrance to Americans guilty of gross human rights violations[17]would have less of an impact on the United States than the Magnitsky bill, since fewer Americans take vacations or own assets in Russia than Russians do in the United States. On December 19, 2012, the State Duma voted 400 to 4 to ban the international adoption of Russian children into the United States. The bill was unofficially named after Dmitri Yakovlev(ru) (Chase Harrison), a Russian toddler who died in 2008 of heat stroke after neglect from his adoptive American father.[18][19]

Positive reception

Australian expatriate jurist Geoffrey Roberston, who is representing some of the Magnitksy campaigners, has described the Act as “one of the most important new developments in human rights”. He says it provides “a way of getting at the Auschwitz train drivers, the apparatchiks, the people who make a little bit of money from human rights abuses and generally keep under the radar.”[20]


  1. a b c Kathy Lally and Will Englund (6 December 2012). “Russia fumes as U.S. Senate passes Magnitsky law aimed at human rights”The Washington Post. Retrieved 11 December 2012.
  2. a b Rep. David “Dave” Camp [R-MI4]. “H.R. 6156: Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012”. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
  3. ^ “Obama signs Russia rights law despite Putin fury”. AFP. Retrieved 2012-12-14.
  4. ^ “Russia Human Rights Legislation Passes Foreign Affairs Committee”, committee press release, June 07, 2012.
  5. ^ Baker, Peter“Syria Crisis and Putin’s Return Chill U.S. Ties With Russia”The New York Times, June 13, 2012. Retrieved 2012-06-13.
  6. ^ Belton, Catherine (2012-06-26). “‘Magnitsky law’ makes progress in Senate”. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
  7. ^ “The people who Senator Cardin wants to punish (Russian)”. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
  8. ^ Jeremy W. Peters (November 16, 2012). “House Passes Russia Trade Bill With Eye on Rights Abuses”The New York Times. Retrieved November 17, 2012.
  9. ^ “Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 6156”. 2012-12-14. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
  10. ^ Andrey Fedyashin (15 December 2012). “Russia-US: Normalization fraught with conflictill”The Moscow Times. The Voice of Russia. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
  11. ^ “Obama signs Magnitsky Act linked with Jackson-Vanik Amendment termination”. Interfax. 14 December 2012. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
  12. ^ “Obama Signs Magnitsky Bill”Reuters. The Moscow Times. 17 December 2012. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
  13. ^ Adam Kredo (2012-07-19). “BANK OF PUTIN. Goldman Sachs lobbying against human rights legislation”. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
  14. ^ Unlawful Arrest by Vladimir Abarinov
  15. ^ “Comment of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the approval of «S. Magnitsky law» by the United States Senate”. 2012-12-06. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
  16. ^ Reuters (2012-12-20). “Putin Says U.S. Human Rights Law Poisons Russia-U.S. Ties”The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-12-20.
  17. ^ “Answer of Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia S.V. Lavrov for a question of Russian mass media concerning approval of “Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act” by the United States Senate, Dublin”. 2012-12-06. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
  18. ^ Herszenhorn, David M. (2012-12-19). “Russia Vote Favors Ban on Adoptions by Americans”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-12-20.
  19. ^ Tom Jackman, Toddler’s tragic death in Herndon, in overheated car, continues as political issue in Russia four years later // Washington Post, 12/12/2012
  20. ^ ‘International human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson speaks on fate of Assange’, Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012-12-18

External links

Does the Fed or the government own your children? Looks like it.

It is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as “the contract bearing fruit” – meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as “the contract bearing fruit,” he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally “the parent of the country” or to state it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their childre

n during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don’t offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children – the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property through out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.

Also, the marriage contract “bears fruit” by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a “divorce” results the contract continues in existence. The “divorce” is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage.


Federally Legalize Marijuana

Colorado’s amendment 64 just passed, as did Initiative 502 in Washington. Marijuana prohibition is gradually becoming a thing of the past, and simply needs one final push. Alcohol prohibition turned out to be more harm than good in the early 1900’s, and marijuana prohibition is recreating the same situation. The bottom line is that marijuana prohibition enforcement costs the government 13.7 billion dollars annually, and puts well over 500,000 people in jail every year (sources cited below).

Created: Nov 08, 2012

The end of the war on marijuana

The end of the war on marijuana

By Roger A. Roffman, Special to CNN
updated 8:31 AM EST, Thu November 8, 2012
The costs of marijuana prohibition have hindered rather than helped good decision-making, says Roger Roffman.
The costs of marijuana prohibition have hindered rather than helped good decision-making, says Roger Roffman.
  • On Tuesday, voters in Washington state and Colorado legalized recreational marijuana
  • Roger Roffman: Washington state’s historical measure deserve close attention
  • He says the state has offered the most compelling replacement to prohibition to date
  • Roffman: Prohibition has hindered more than it has helped good decision-making

Editor’s note: Roger A. Roffman is a professor emeritus of social work at the University of Washington, a sponsor of I-502, and author of the forthcoming “A Marijuana Memoir.”

(CNN) — The historic measure to regulate and tax marijuana in Washington State deserves to be looked at closely as a model of how legalization ought to be designed and implemented elsewhere in America.

We’ve turned a significant corner with the approval of Initiative 502, which purposefully offers a true public health alternative to the criminal prohibition of pot.

For the first time in a very long time, the well-intended but failed criminal penalties to protect public health and safety will be set aside. Adults who choose to use marijuana and obtain it through legal outlets will no longer be faced with the threat of criminal sanctions. People of color will no longer face the egregious inequities in how marijuana criminal penalties are imposed. Parents, as they help prepare their children for the choices they face concerning marijuana, will no longer be hobbled by misinformation about the drug and the absence of effective supports to encourage abstinence.

Roger A. Roffman

Roger A. Roffman Continue reading

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875

This is the lie in history that helps hide how our standing in law was switched from Constitutional to corporate. And CANNABIS laws are of a corporate jurisdiction see 27 CFR 72.11.
Most Americans don’t know there was a different 13th Amendment. It was proposed just four years before the 13th Amendment, ending Involuntary Slavery in 1865. It would have secured slavery as a State Right (12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress, This proposed 13th Amendment was called the Corwin Amendment.
On February 28, 1861, the House of Representatives approved the Resolution by a vote of 133-65. On March 2, the United States Senate also adopted the Corwin Amendment with a vote of 24-12.
Since proposed Constitutional Amendment require a 2/3 majority vote, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. As seven Southern States had already decided to succeed from the Union, those states chose not to vote on the Corwin Amendment. Thus, showing a lot of the Northern support for this Pro-Slavery Amendment just before the start of the Civil War.
This Corwin Amendment is an Amendment to the United States Constitution proposed by Congress on March 2, 1861, as House Resolution No. 80. This was originally suggested by President James Buchanan (Mr. President James Buchanan endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unusual step of signing it.). It was then drafted by a committee chaired by Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio. Its purpose was to persuade states that permitted Slavery that the Federal Government would not interfere with Slavery in places where it already existed. So, pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, consideration of the Corwin Amendment then shifted to the State Legislatures.  Continue reading

Appeals Court to Consider Benefits of Medical Marijuana

Out of:

By Sam Favate

Associated Press

For the first time in 20 years, a federal court will review scientific evidence on the therapeutic value of marijuana, as a legal challenge by a group of doctors, medical professionals and patients makes its way to the U.S. court of appeals in Washington, D.C., next week.

Americans for Safe Access is hoping the challenge will change the government’s classification of marijuana from a dangerous drug with no medical benefits, the Guardian reported. Other groups, such as the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the Federation of American Scientists and the American Academy of Family Physicians support either medical access to marijuana or its reclassification to one that has a medical benefit.

“Medical marijuana patients are finally getting their day in court,” Joe Elford, chief counsel for ASA, told the Guardian. “This is a rare opportunity for patients to confront politically motivated decision-making with scientific evidence of marijuana’s medical efficacy.”

Last year, the Drug Enforcement Agency rejected the ASA’s petition to reschedule marijuana, saying there wasn’t substantial evidence the drug should be removed from schedule 1. The DEA cited a five-year-old assessment from the Department of Health and Human Services that said there was no consensus in the medical community on the medical applications of marijuana.

In its reply brief, the ASA says the criteria used by the DEA and HHS to determine scheduling are flawed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in the case on Oct. 16.  Check Out These Amazing Comments!!   Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: