ALoHi

Loyola High school of lower learning of 4200 religions

Tax payer funding leaves nothing left to attest with nobody to arrest and nothing to eat but people
HE
Holy Excrement

Scatter brain common SYNC sense yo-yo neurosis constipation Titanic sink a bust to rid
Child Trafficking Stink

Dear Lord ... Holy Shit and like that ... Who or what the Holiest!??!! Do tell is smell to high heaven the only way and
what for the other con senses?
Familiarity redirect contempt to court
They fought the law and the spirit won
Rule of thumbs when the people go coherent on 2 handed governments
Two handed over and under egalitarianism

In positions of trust opportunity knocks too great when fingers caught in cookie jar due regard must be to due
punishment with the highest regard to crookie due deterrence

www.hijack13.com
Think for Christ sake its for your sake too eh!!
6s ESP sane spirit sees state secrets satanic NAP non applicable privilege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks


Channelling

Pat Hand

Do not do to others what you would not want for self

Recompense injury with justice and recompense kindness with kindness
2 thumbs 8 fingers 2 arms 1 spirit

www.Hi13.net
After Gross Essence
AGE
Attorney General Elusivity
Resignation to wrists slaps as in Mulroney doesnt work eh!!
Thumb to nose 4 finger salute!

www.DamageControl13.com
Who Knew?


www.Frank13.com
WOTOKs
Wizard of The Outhouse Knows Shit
State Secret Privilege
Bush 9/11 Cover - up
The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in
exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might
disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security.
[1][2][3][4][5][6]
United States v. Reynolds,
[7]
which involved military
secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.
Following a claim of "state secrets privilege", the court rarely conducts an in camera examination of the evidence to evaluate whether
there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the
veracity of the assertion.
[1]
The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the
unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.
[3][5]

[edit] Function
The purpose of the state secrets privilege is to prevent courts from revealing state secrets in the course of civil litigation (in criminal
cases, the Classified Information Procedures Act serves the same purpose). The government may intervene in any civil suit, including
when it is not a party to the litigation, to ask the court to exclude state secrets evidence. While the courts may examine such evidence
closely, in practice they generally defer to the Executive Branch. Once the court has agreed that evidence is subject to the state secrets
privilege, it is excluded from the litigation. Often, as a practical matter, the plaintiff cannot continue the suit without the privileged
information, and drops the case. Recently, courts have been more inclined to dismiss cases outright, if the subject matter of the case is
a state secret.
[edit] Distinguished from other legal doctrines
The state secrets privilege is related to, but distinct from, several other legal doctrines: the principle of non-justiciability in certain
cases involving state secrets (the so-called "Totten Rule");
[8]
certain prohibitions on the publication of classified information (as in
New York Times Co. v. United States, the Pentagon Papers case); and the use of classified information in criminal cases (governed by
the Classified Information Procedures Act).
[edit] History
[edit] Origins
The doctrine was effectively imported from British law which has a similar privilege.
[1][2]
It is debatable whether the state secrets
privilege is based upon the President's powers as commander-in-chief and leader of foreign affairs (as suggested in United States v.
Nixon) or derived from the idea of separation of powers (as suggested in United States v. Reynolds)
[1]
It seems that the US privilege
"has its initial roots in Aaron Burr's trial for treason." In this case, it was alleged that a letter from General James Wilkinson to
President Thomas Jefferson might contain state secrets and could therefore not be divulged without risk to national security.
[1]

[edit] Supreme Court recognition in United States v. Reynolds
The privilege was first officially recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1953 decision United States v. Reynolds
(345 U.S. 1). A military airplane, a B-29 Superfortress bomber, crashed. The widows of three civilian crew members sought accident
reports on the crash but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret
mission.
[1][2][3][4][5][6][9][10]
The court held that only the government can claim or waive the privilege, and it is not to be lightly invoked,
and last there must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after
actual personal consideration by that officer.
[1]
The court stressed that the decision to withhold evidence is to be made by the
presiding judge and not the executive.
[1]

In 2000, the accident reports were declassified and released, and it was found that the assertion that they contained secret information
was fraudulent. The reports did, however, contain information about the poor condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been
very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many commentators have alleged government misuse of secrecy in this landmark case.
[11]

Despite this ruling, a case might still be subject to judicial review since the privilege was intended to prevent certain, but not all,
information to be precluded.
[1]

[edit] Recent use
According to former White House Counsel, John Dean:
While precise numbers are hard to come by (because not all cases are reported), a recent study reports that the "Bush administration
has invoked the state secrets privilege in 23 cases since 2001." By way of comparison, "between 1953 and 1976, the government
invoked the privilege in only four cases."
[9]

While Henry Lanman reports in Slate:
"... the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press reported that while the government asserted the privilege approximately 55
times in total between 1954 (the privilege was first recognized in 1953) and 2001, it's asserted it 23 times in the four years after Sept.
11."
[10][12]

However, at least one article has retracted these figures, finding they were based on erroneous information:
"Correction: In this article, we incorrectly reported that the government invoked the state secrets privilege in 23 cases since 2001. The
figure came from the 2005 Secrecy Report Card published by OpenTheGovernment.org. The privilege was actually invoked seven
times from 2001 to 2005, according to the corrected 2005 report card, which is not an increase from previous decades"
[13]

Lanman continues to cite two political science professors at the University of Texas-El Paso who concluded that
"courts have examined the documents' underlying claims of state secrecy fewer than one-third of the times it has been invoked. And,
..., courts have only actually rejected the assertion of the privilege four times since 1953."
[10]

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the privilege is increasingly used to dismiss entire court cases, instead of only withholding
the sensitive information from a case.
[1]
Also in 2001, George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233extending the accessibility of the
state secrets privilege to also allow former presidents, their designated representatives, or representatives designated by their families,
to invoke it to bar records from their tenure.
[5]


An article in the NYT, in August 2007, on a lawsuit involving Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication
concludes that it would seem that the unprecedented frequency with which the Bush administration invoked and invokes this principle
has made judges more skeptical and willing to ask the government to validate its claims. In the words of Tom Blanton, director of the
National Security Archive at George Washington University
"What seems clear is that until a year or two ago, the judges rarely even questioned it when the government raised the 'state secrets'
claim. It was a neutron bomb no plaintiffs left standing. But we're now seeing that judges are starting to actually look behind the
government's secrecy claims and see what's really there."
[14]

[edit] Criticism
Since 2001, there has been mounting criticism of the state secrets privilege. Such criticism generally falls into four categories:
[edit] Weak external validation of executive assertion of privilege
Many commentators have expressed concern that the courts never effectively scrutinize executive claims of privilege.
[1]
Lacking
independent national security expertise, judges frequently defer to the judgment of the executive and never subject executive claims to
meaningful scrutiny.
[edit] Executive abuse of the privilege to conceal embarrassing facts
Commentators have suggested that the state secrets privilege might be used as often to prevent disclosure of embarrassing facts as to
protect legitimate secrets.
[1][2][3][4][5][10][15][16]
Or, in the words of Professors William G. Weaver and Robert M. Pallitto in an article in the
Political Science Quarterly:
"[T]he incentive on the part of administrators is to use the privilege to avoid embarrassment, handicap political enemies, and to
prevent criminal investigation of administrative action."
[13][17]

In several prominent cases, the evidence that the government successfully excluded was later revealed to contain no state secrets. i.e.
United States v. Reynolds, Sterling v. Tenet, Edmonds v. Department of Justice and the Pentagon Papers.
[edit] Expansion into a justiciability doctrine
Some academics and practitioners have criticized the expansion of the state secrets privilege from an evidentiary privilege (designed
to exclude certain pieces of evidence) to a justiciability doctrine (designed to exclude entire lawsuits). Under its original formulation,
the state secrets privilege was meant only to exclude a very narrow class of evidence whose revelation would harm national security.
However, in a large percentage of recent cases, courts have gone a step further, dismissing entire cases in which the government
asserts the privilege, in essence converting an evidentiary rule into a justiciability rule. The government response has been that in
certain cases, the subject of the case is itself privileged. In these cases, the government argues, there is no plausible way to respond to
a complaint without revealing state secrets.
[edit] Elimination of judicial check on executive power
Glenn Greenwald alleges that the Bush administration attempted to expand executive power, as evidenced by the unitary executive
theory propagated by John Yoo. The theory suggests that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, cannot be bound by Congress or any
law, national or international. By invoking the state secrets privilege in cases involving actions taken in the war on terror (i.e.
extraordinary rendition, allegations of torture, allegedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)
[18]
Greenwald opines the
administration tried to evade judicial review of these claims of exceptional war powers. In effect, this is preventing a judicial ruling
determining whether there is a legal basis for such expansive executive power.
[12][19]
With that in mind, applying this privilege makes
impeachment the only possible means left for Congress to exercise their duty to uphold the checks and balances constitutionally
intended to prevent abuse of power.
[2][13][16]

[edit] Calls for reform
See also: State Secrets Protection Act
In recent years, a number of commentators have called for legislative reforms to the state secrets privilege.
[20][21][22]
These reforms
center around several ideas:
1. Requiring judges to review each piece of evidence that the executive claims is subject to the privilege.
[20][23][24]

2. Requiring the executive to craft alternative evidence that is not subject to the privilege, for the opposing party to use in place
of the original, privileged evidence.
[23]
Such substitute evidence should only be required when it is possible to do so without
harming national security.
3. Prohibiting courts from dismissing claims on the basis of the state secrets privilege until after they have reviewed all
available evidence.
4. Permitting the court to appoint an outside expert to scrutinize the evidence for national security content.
[21]

5. Excluding illegal government action from the definition of "state secrets," or otherwise allowing the court to address the
legality (instead of just the secrecy) of government conduct. This would prevent the government from using the state secrets
privilege to conceal its illegal conduct.
[21]

On January 22, 2008, Senators Edward Kennedy and Arlen Specter introduced S. 2533, the State Secrets Protection Act.
[25]

[edit] Court cases
[edit] United States v. Reynolds
Main article: United States v. Reynolds
In United States v. Reynolds (1953), the widows of three crew members of a B-29 Superfortress bomber that had crashed in 1948
sought accident reports on the crash, but were told the release such details would threaten national security by revealing the nature of
the bomber's top-secret mission. The Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch could bar evidence from the court if it deemed
that its release would impair national security. In 1996, the accident reports in question were declassified and released, and when
discovered in 2000 were found to contain no secret information. They did, however, contain information about the poor condition of
the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many legal experts have alleged government
abuse of secrecy in this landmark case.
[2][3][5][9][10]

[edit] Richard Horn
Main articles: Richard Horn and Horn v. Albright
Former DEA agent Richard Horn brought a suit against the CIA for bugging his home. The case was dismissed because of the
privilege.
[1][6]

Richard Horn's case was reinstated on July 20, 2009 by USDC Judge Royce C. Lambreth on the basis that the CIA had engaged in
fraud on the court.
On 30 March 2010, as a result of a multi-million dollar settlement agreement between Horn and the government, Lamberth dismissed
the underlying case with prejudice. Subsequently, later that same year, in a 22 September order, Lamberth issued a final order vacating
his earlier opinions and orders finding that CIA lawyers, Tenet, and Brown had committed fraud on the court. Lamberth also
specifically ordered that a sentence be removed from his 30 March 2010 Memorandum. The removed sentence had stated that
"allegations of wrongdoing by the government attorneys in this case are not only credible, they are admitted."
[edit] Notra Trulock
In February 2002 it was invoked in the case of Notra Trulock, who launched a defamation suit against Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho
Lee, charged with stealing nuclear secrets; President Bush stated that national security would be compromised if Trulock were
allowed to seek damages from Lee; though it resulted in the case being dismissed, another suit was launched directly attacking then-
FBI Director Louis Freeh for interfering and falsely invoking the state secrets privilege.
[edit] Sibel Edmonds
Main article: Sibel Edmonds
The privilege was invoked twice against Sibel Edmonds.
[1][2][6]
The first invocation was to prevent her from testifying that the Federal
Government had foreknowledge that Al-Qaeda intended to use airliners to attack the United States on September 11, 2001; the case
was a $100 trillion action filed in 2002 by six hundred 9/11 victims' families against officials of the Saudi government and prominent
Saudi citizens. The second invocation was in an attempt to derail her personal lawsuit regarding her dismissal from the FBI, where she
had worked as a post-9/11 translator and had been a whistleblower.
[edit] Thomas Burnett
The privilege was invoked in Thomas Burnett vs. Al Barka Investment & Development Corporation (Civil No. 04ms203) a motion to
quash a subpoena for the testimony of Sibel Edmonds. The government's motion to quash based on state secrets privilege was granted
in part.
[edit] Sterling v. Tenet
Main articles: Sterling v. Tenet and Jeffrey Alexander Sterling
Jeffrey Sterling was a black CIA agent who started a racial discrimination suit. It was thrown out on account of this privilege.
[1][6]

[edit] Nira Schwartz
The privilege was invoked in Schwartz vs. TRW (Civil No. 96-3065, Central District, Cal) a Qui-Tam claim by Schwartz. Intervention
and assertion of the state secrets privilege, by the government, resulted in case dismissal.
[edit] Crater Corporation
The privilege was invoked in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case of Crater Corporation vs. Lucent
Technologies Inc. and AT&T Company, (Crater Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, September 7, 2005). Crater was prevented from
proceeding with discovery in its patent infringement case (U.S. Patent No. 5,286,129) by the United States' assertion that discovery
could cause "extremely grave damage to national security". The infringement case centered on WetMate underwater fiber optic
coupling devices beneath the sea.
[edit] ACLU vs. NSA/CIA
On May 26, 2006, the U.S. Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss ACLU v. NSA, the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA by
invoking the state secrets privilege. On July 26, 2006, the case was dismissed. In a different case in Michigan, brought by the ACLU
against the NSA on behalf of various scholars, journalists, attorneys, and national non-profit organizations, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor
ruled on August 17, 2006, that the program was unconstitutional and should be halted. She upheld the doctrine, but ruled that the
government's public statements concerning the operation were admissible and constituted sufficient proof for the case to continue
without any privileged evidence or discovery. On July 6, 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Taylor's decision, ruling
2-1 that the ACLU could not produce evidence to prove that the ACLU had been wrongfully wiretapped by the NSA, and therefore
did not have the standing to bring such a case to court, regardless of the legality question. On February 19, 2008, the Supreme Court
declined to hear the ACLU's appeal. See ACLU v. NSA.
[edit] Center for Constitutional Rights et al. v. Bush et al.
On May 27, 2006 the Justice Department moved to preempt the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) challenge to warrantless
domestic surveillance by invoking the state secrets privilege. The Bush Administration is arguing that CCR's case could reveal secrets
regarding U.S. national security, and thus the presiding judge must dismiss it without reviewing the evidence.
[edit] AT&T and NSA wire-tap case
Main articles: NSA call database, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, and Hepting v. AT&T
In April 2006, the Bush administration took initial steps to use the state secrets rule to block a lawsuit against AT&T and the National
Security Agency brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF alleged that the government has secret computer rooms
conducting broad, illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens.
[5][10]
Testifying at a January 29, 2008 House Judiciary Committee hearing on
reform of the state secrets privilege, EFF attorney Kevin Bankston contended that the administration's interpretation of the privilege
was overly broad, and failed to properly consider the evidentiary procedures provided for by Section 1806(f) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
[26]
However, the case was dismissed on June 3, 2009,
[27]
citing retroactive legislation (section 802 of
FISA) stating that in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication
service provider was in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was authorized by the President during
the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or
activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of
written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of
such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was authorized by the President; and
determined to be lawful.
[28]

[edit] Khalid El-Masri
Main articles: Khalid El-Masri and Extraordinary rendition

In May 2006, the illegal detention case of Khalid El-Masri was dismissed based on the privilege, which was invoked by the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA). Khalid El-Masri alleged that he was falsely held by the CIA for several months (which the CIA
acknowledges) and was beaten, drugged, and subjected to various other inhumane activity while in captivity. He was ultimately
released by the CIA with no charge ever being brought against him by the United States government. Judge T.S. Ellis, III of the U.S.
District Court dismissed the case because, according to the court, the simple fact of holding proceedings would jeopardize state
secrets, as claimed by the CIA.
[3]
[2]. On March 2, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. [3] On
October 9, 2007, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the Fourth Circuit's decision, letting the doctrine of state secrets
privilege stand.
[29]

[edit] Maher Arar
Main articles: Maher Arar and Extraordinary rendition
The privilege was invoked against a case where Maher Arar, a wrongfully-accused and tortured victim, sought to sue Attorney
General John Ashcroft for his role in deporting Arar to Syria to face torture and extract false confessions. It was formally invoked by
Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey in legal papers filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. The invocation read, "Litigating [the] plaintiff's complaint would necessitate disclosure of classified information", which it later
stated included disclosure of the basis for detaining him in the first place, the basis for refusing to deport him to Canada as he had
requested, and the basis for sending him to Syria.
[edit] Jane and John Doe
On January 4, 2007 District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the dismissal of Jane Doe et al. v. CIA, 05 Civ. 7939 based on
the state secrets privilege. Jane Doe and her children sued the CIA for money damages after her husband's covert employment with the
CIA was "terminated immediately for unspecified reasons".[4].
[edit] Quotes
"Because it is so powerful and can trample legitimate claims against the government, the state secrets privilege is not to be
lightly invoked" (United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953)) [5]
"The state secrets privilege is a common law evidentiary rule that allows the government to withhold information from
discovery when disclosure would be inimical to national security." Zuckerbraun v. General Dynamics Corp., 935 F.2d 544,
546 (2d Cir. 1991).
[edit] See also
Espionage Act of 1917
Executive privilege
Extraordinary rendition by the United States
Mosaic theory
Unitary executive theory
Whistleblower
Federal Tort Claims Act
Classified Information Procedures Act, Silent witness rule
State Secrets Protection Act
Silent witness rule
[edit] External links
In The Name Of National Security: Unchecked Presidential Power And The Reynolds Case, Louis Fisher. Lawrence:
University Press of Kansas, 2006, ISBN 0700614648.
State Secrets and the Limits of National Security Litigation Robert Chesney, Wake Forest University School of Law
The State Secrets Privilege and Separation of Powers AMANDA FROST, American University Washington College of
Law
Selected Case Files Involving "State Secrets" Project on Government Secrecy, Federation of American Scientists
[edit] References
1. ^
a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

m

n

o
The state secrets privilege: Expanding Its Scope Through Government Misuse by Carrie
Newton Lyons, the Lewis & Clark Law Review, published by Lewis & Clark Law School, Volume 11 / Number 1 / Spring
2007.
2. ^
a

b

c

d

e

f

g
The State Secrets Privilege and executive Misconduct by Shayana Kadidal, one of the lead attorneys on
the Center for Constitutional Rights, JURIST, May 30, 2006
3. ^
a

b

c

d

e

f
Dangerous Discretion: State Secrets and the El-Masri Rendition Case by Aziz Huq, Director of the Liberty
and National Security Project at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, JURIST, March 12, 2007
4. ^
a

b

c
The Suit Challenging the NSA's Warrantless Wiretapping Can Proceed, Despite the State Secrets Privilege
The Suit Challenging the NSA's Warrantless Wiretapping Can Proceed, Despite the State Secrets Privilege:
Why The Judge Made the Right Call By JULIE HILDEN, FIndLaw, August 15, 2006
Examining Two Recent Rulings Allowing Suits Against the NSA's Warrantless Wiretapping To Proceed,
Despite the State Secrets Privilege: Part Two in a Series By JULIE HILDEN, FindLaw, August 23, 2006
5. ^
a

b

c

d

e

f

g
Building the Secrecy Wall higher and higher by Glenn Greenwald, Unclaimed Territory, April 29, 2006
6. ^
a

b

c

d

e
Bush Wielding Secrecy Privilege to End Suits By Andrew Zajac, The Chicago Tribune, March 3, 2005
7. ^ United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, paragraph 8 (1953) (the privilege against revealing military secrets, a
privilege which is well established in the law of evidence). Text
8. ^ Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1 (2005)
9. ^
a

b

c
ACLU v. National Security Agency: Why the "State Secrets Privilege" Shouldn't Stop the Lawsuit
Challenging Warrantless Telephone Surveillance of Americans By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, June 16, 2006
10. ^
a

b

c

d

e

f
Secret GuardingThe new secrecy doctrine so secret you don't even know about it By Henry Lanman, Slate,
May 22, 2006,
11. ^ Stephens, Hampton. Supreme Court Filing claims Air Force, government fraud in 1953 case: Case could affect
'state secrets' privilege Inside the Air Force March 14, 2003. Retrieved May 3, 2007.
12. ^
a

b
Rechecking the Balance of Powers The Bush administration has finally been rebuked for its repeated efforts to
evade judicial review By Glenn Greenwald, In These Times, July 21, 2006
13. ^
a

b

c
[1] By Susan Burgess, The News Media and the Law, Fall 2005
14. ^ Lichtblau, Eric (August 31, 2007). "U.S. Cites Secrets Privilege as It Tries to Stop Suit on Banking Records".
The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/us/nationalspecial3/31swift.html?ref=us. Retrieved 2009-07-09.
15. ^ Congress and Judges Gagged Arlen Specter and a CIA torture victim know Only the Oval Office decides what
the law is by Nat Hentoff, Village Voice, June 19th, 2006
16. ^
a

b
Closing Our Courts Crying 'state secrets,' the administration seals the courts to avoid scrutiny by Nat Hentoff,
Village Voice, June 9th, 2006
17. ^ House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007
Testimony of William G. Weaver, J.D., Ph.D. Senior Advisor, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition and Associate
Professor University of Texas at El Paso, Inst. for Policy and Econ. Development and Dept. of Political Science, February 13,
2007
18. ^ Secrecy and Foreign Policy by Robert Pallitto, Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), December 8, 2006
19. ^ Snapshots of the U.S. under the Bush administration by Glenn Greenwald, Unclaimed Territory, May 23, 2006
20. ^
a

b
Florence, Justin and Gerke, Matthew: "State Your Secrets: The smart way around telecom immunity."
http://www.slate.com/id/2177962/
21. ^
a

b

c
"State Secrets and the Limits of National Security Legislation" by Robert Chesney. George Washington Law
Review (2007).
22. ^ "The State Secrets Privilege: Expanding Its Scope Through Government Misuse" by Carrie Newton Lyons, 11
Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 99 (2007).
23. ^
a

b
Report on Reforming the State Secrets Privilege, American Bar Association, 2007.
24. ^ "State Your Secrets" by Lou Fisher. Legal Times, 2006.
25. ^ "Introduction of the State Secrets Protection Act". Federation of American Scientists. 2008-01-22.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2008_cr/statesec.html. Retrieved 2008-02-08.
26. ^ "Statement of Kevin S. Bankston, Senior Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation" (PDF). Oversight
Hearing on Reform of the State Secrets Privilege by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 2008-01-29.
http://www.eff.org/files/EFF_HJC_SSP_written_testimony_Final.pdf. Retrieved 2008-02-08.
27. ^ Hepting v. AT&T, U.S. District Court (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California 3 June 2009).
Text
28. ^ Bazan, Elizabeth B. (7 July 2008). "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of Selected Issues"
(PDF). Congressional Research Service. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34279.pdf.
29. ^ Greenhouse, Linda (2007-10-10). "Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Torture Appeal". The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10scotus.html?ref=us. Retrieved 2007-10-10.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege"
Categories: United States government secrecy | Evidence law | George W. Bush administration controversies | Executive branch of the
United States government | Classified information
This page was last modified on 20 May 2011 at 06:09.

Political Corruption
Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Misuse of government power
for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political corruption. Neither
are illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly involved with the government. An illegal act by an officeholder
constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties.
Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. While corruption
may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and human trafficking, it is not restricted to these
activities.
The activities that constitute illegal corruption differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. For instance, certain political funding
practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some cases, government officials have broad or poorly defined
powers, which make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions. Worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over
1 trillion US dollars annually.
[1]
A state of unrestrained political corruption is known as a kleptocracy, literally meaning "rule by
thieves".
Political corruption

Corruption Perceptions Index, 2010
Concepts


Electoral fraud Economics of corruption
Nepotism Bribery Cronyism Slush fund
Corruption by country


Angola Armenia Canada
Chile China (PRC) Colombia
Cuba Ghana India Iran Kenya
Ireland Nigeria Pakistan
Paraguay Philippines Russia
South Africa Venezuela United States
This box: view talk edit


Contents
[hide]
1 Effects
o 1.1 Effects on politics, administration, and institutions
o 1.2 Economic effects
o 1.3 Environmental and social effects
o 1.4 Effects on Humanitarian Aid
o 1.5 Other areas: health, public safety, education, trade unions, etc.
2 Types
o 2.1 Bribery
o 2.2 Trading in influence
o 2.3 Patronage
o 2.4 Nepotism and cronyism
o 2.5 Electoral fraud
o 2.6 Embezzlement
o 2.7 Kickbacks
o 2.8 Unholy alliance
o 2.9 Involvement in organized crime
3 Conditions favorable for corruption
o 3.1 Size of public sector
4 Governmental corruption
5 Fighting corruption
6 Whistleblowers
7 Campaign contributions
8 Measuring corruption
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links
[edit] Effects
[edit] Effects on politics, administration, and institutions



Detail from Corrupt Legislation (1896) by Elihu Vedder. Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.

Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by flouting
or even subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and distorts
representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law; and corruption in public administration
results in the inefficient provision of services. It violates a basic principle of republicanism regarding the centrality of civic virtue.
More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off,
and public offices are bought and sold. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic
values as trust and tolerance.
[edit] Economic effects
See also: Corporate crime
Corruption undermines economic development by generating considerable distortions and inefficiency. In the private sector,
corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments themselves, the management cost of negotiating with
officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although some claim corruption reduces costs by cutting bureaucracy, the
availability of bribes can also induce officials to contrive new rules and delays. Openly removing costly and lengthy regulations are
better than covertly allowing them to be bypassed by using bribes. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the
playing field, shielding firms with connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.
[2]

Corruption also generates economic distortions in the public sector by diverting public investment into capital projects where bribes
and kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical complexity of public sector projects to conceal or pave the way
for such dealings, thus further distorting investment. Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other
regulations, reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure, and increases budgetary pressures on government.
Economists argue that one of the factors behind the differing economic development in Africa and Asia is that in the former,
corruption has primarily taken the form of rent extraction with the resulting financial capital moved overseas rather than invested at
home (hence the stereotypical, but often accurate, image of African dictators having Swiss bank accounts). In Nigeria, for example,
more than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury by Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.
[3]
University of Massachusetts
researchers estimated that from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 sub-Saharan countries totaled $187bn, exceeding those nations'
external debts.
[4]
(The results, expressed in retarded or suppressed development, have been modeled in theory by economist Mancur
Olson.) In the case of Africa, one of the factors for this behavior was political instability, and the fact that new governments often
confiscated previous government's corruptly-obtained assets. This encouraged officials to stash their wealth abroad, out of reach of
any future expropriation. In contrast, Asian administrations such as Suharto's New Order often took a cut on business transactions or
provided conditions for development, through infrastructure investment, law and order, etc.
[edit] Environmental and social effects
Corruption facilitates environmental destruction. Corrupt countries may formally have legislation to protect the environment, it cannot
be enforced if officials can easily be bribed. The same applies to social rights worker protection,unionization prevention, and child
labor. Violation of these laws rights enables corrupt countries to gain illegitimate economic advantage in the international market.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has observed that "there is no such thing as an apolitical food problem." While
drought and other naturally occurring events may trigger famine conditions, it is government action or inaction that determines its
severity, and often even whether or not a famine will occur. Governments with strong tendencies towards kleptocracy can undermine
food security even when harvests are good. Officials often steal state property. In Bihar, India, more than 80% of the subsidized food
aid to poor is stolen by corrupt officials.
[5]
Similarly, food aid is often robbed at gunpoint by governments, criminals, and warlords
alike, and sold for a profit. The 20th century is full of many examples of governments undermining the food security of their own
nations sometimes intentionally.
[6]

[edit] Effects on Humanitarian Aid
The scale of humanitarian aid to the poor and unstable regions of the world grows, but it is highly vulnerable to corruption, with food
aid, construction and other highly valued assistance as the most at risk.
[7]
Food aid can be directly and physically diverted from its
intended destination, or indirectly through the manipulation of assessments, targeting, registration and distributions to favour certain
groups or individuals.
[7]
Elsewhere, in construction and shelter, there are numerous opportunities for diversion and profit through
substandard workmanship, kickbacks for contracts and favouritism in the provision of valuable shelter material.
[7]
Thus while
humanitarian aid agencies are usually most concerned about aid being diverted by including too many, recipients themselves are most
concerned about exclusion.
[7]
Access to aid may be limited to those with connections, to those who pay bribes or are forced to give
sexual favours.
[7]
Equally, those able to do so may manipulate statistics to inflate the number beneficiaries and syphon of the
additional assistance.
[7]

[edit] Other areas: health, public safety, education, trade unions, etc.
See also: Police corruption
Corruption is not specific to poor, developing, or transition countries. In western countries, there have been cases of bribery and other
forms of corruption in all possible fields: under-the-table payments made to reputed surgeons by patients willing to be on top of the
list of forthcoming surgeries,
[8]
bribes paid by suppliers to the automotive industry in order to sell poor quality connectors used for
instance in safety equipment such as airbags, bribes paid by suppliers to manufacturers of defibrillators (to sell poor quality
capacitors), contributions paid by wealthy parents to the "social and culture fund" of a prestigious university in exchange for it to
accept their children, bribes paid to obtain diplomas, financial and other advantages granted to unionists by members of the executive
board of a car manufacturer in exchange for employer-friendly positions and votes, etc. Examples are endless. These various
manifestations of corruption can ultimately present a danger for the public health; they can discredit certain essential institutions or
social relationships.
Corruption can also affect the various components of sports activities (referees, players, medical and laboratory staff involved in anti-
doping controls, members of national sport federation and international committees deciding about the allocation of contracts and
competition places).
There have also been cases against (members of) various types of non-profit and non-government organisations, as well as religious
organisations.
Ultimately, the distinction between public and private sector corruption sometimes appears rather artificial and national anti-
corruption initiatives may need to avoid legal and other loopholes in the coverage of the instruments.
[edit] Types
[edit] Bribery
Main article: Bribery
A bribe is a payment given personally to a government official in exchange of his use of official powers. Bribery requires two
participants: one to give the bribe, and one to take it. Either may initiate the corrupt offering; for example, a customs official may
demand bribes to let through allowed (or disallowed) goods, or a smuggler might offer bribes to gain passage. In some countries the
culture of corruption extends to every aspect of public life, making it extremely difficult for individuals to stay in business without
resorting to bribes. Bribes may be demanded in order for an official to do something he is already paid to do. They may also be
demanded in order to bypass laws and regulations. In addition to using bribery for private financial gain, they are also used to
intentionally and maliciously cause harm to another (i.e. no financial incentive). In some developing nations, up to half of the
population has paid bribes during the past 12 months.
[9]


In recent years, efforts have been made by the international community to encourage countries to dissociate and incriminate as
separate offences, active and passive bribery. Active bribery can be defined for instance as the promising, offering or giving by any
person, directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage [to any public official], for himself or herself or for anyone else, for him or her
to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions.(article 2 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173)
of the Council of Europe). Passive bribery can be defined as the request or receipt [by any public official], directly or indirectly, of
any undue advantage, for himself or herself or for anyone else, or the acceptance of an offer or a promise of such an advantage, to act
or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions (article 3 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173)). The
reason for this dissociation is to make the early steps (offering, promising, requesting an advantage) of a corrupt deal already an
offence and, thus, to give a clear signal (from a criminal policy point of view) that bribery is not acceptable. Besides, such a
dissociation makes the prosecution of bribery offences easier since it can be very difficult to prove that two parties (the bribe-giver
and the bribe-taker) have formally agreed upon a corrupt deal. Besides, there is often no such formal deal but only a mutual
understanding, for instance when it is common knowledge in a municipality that to obtain a building permit one has to pay a "fee" to
the decision maker to obtain a favourable decision. A working definition of corruption is also provided as follows in article 3 of the
Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174): For the purpose of this Convention, "corruption" means requesting, offering, giving
or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any other undue advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper performance
of any duty or behavior required of the recipient of the bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof.

[edit] Trading in influence

Trading in influence, or influence peddling in certain countries, refers to the situation where a person is selling his/her influence over
the decision process involving a third party (person or institution). The difference with bribery is that this is a tri-lateral relation. From
a legal point of view, the role of the third party (who is the target of the influence) does not really matter although he/she can be an
accessory in some instances. It can be difficult to make a distinction between this form of corruption and certain forms of extreme and
poorly regulated lobbying where for instance law- or decision-makers can freely "sell" their vote, decision power or influence to those
lobbyists who offer the highest retribution, including where for instance the latter act on behalf of powerful clients such as industrial
groups who want to avoid the passing of certain environmental, social, or other regulations perceived as too stringent, etc. Where
lobbying is (sufficiently) regulated, it becomes possible to provide for a distinctive criteria and to consider that trading in influence
involves the use of "improper influence", as in article 12 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173) of the Council of
Europe.
[edit] Patronage
Main article: Patronage
Patronage refers to favoring supporters, for example with government employment. This may be legitimate, as when a newly elected
government changes the top officials in the administration in order to effectively implement its policy. It can be seen as corruption if
this means that incompetent persons, as a payment for supporting the regime, are selected before more able ones. In nondemocracies
many government officials are often selected for loyalty rather than ability. They may be almost exclusively selected from a particular
group (for example, Sunni Arabs in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union, or the Junkers in Imperial
Germany) that support the regime in return for such favors. A similar problem can also be seen in Eastern Europe, for example in
Romania, where the government is often accused of patronage (when a new government comes to power it rapidly changes most of
the officials in the public sector).
[edit] Nepotism and cronyism
Main articles: Nepotism and Cronyism

Favoring relatives (nepotism) or personal friends (cronyism) of an official is a form of illegitimate private gain. This may be combined
with bribery, for example demanding that a business should employ a relative of an official controlling regulations affecting the
business. The most extreme example is when the entire state is inherited, as in North Korea or Syria. A milder form of cronyism is an
"old boy network", in which appointees to official positions are selected only from a closed and exclusive social network such as the
alumni of particular universities instead of appointing the most competent candidate.
Seeking to harm enemies becomes corruption when official powers are illegitimately used as means to this end. For example,
trumped-up charges are often brought up against journalists or writers who bring up politically sensitive issues, such as a politician's
acceptance of bribes.
In the Indian political system, leadership of national and regional parties are passed from generation to generation creating a system in
which a family holds the center of power, some examples are most of the Dravidian parties of south India and also the largest party in
India Congress.
[edit] Electoral fraud
Main article: Electoral fraud

Electoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring about an election result,
whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. Also called
voter fraud, the mechanisms involved include illegal voter registration, intimidation at polls, and improper vote counting.
[edit] Embezzlement
Main article: Embezzlement
Embezzlement is outright theft of entrusted funds. It is a misappropriation of property.
Another common type of embezzlement is that of entrusted government resources; for example, when a director of a public enterprise
employs company workers to build or renovate his own house.
[edit] Kickbacks
See also: Anti-competitive practices and Bid rigging

A kickback is an official's share of misappropriated funds allocated from his or her organization to an organization involved in corrupt
bidding. For example, suppose that a politician is in charge of choosing how to spend some public funds. He can give a contract to a
company that is not the best bidder, or allocate more than they deserve. In this case, the company benefits, and in exchange for
betraying the public, the official receives a kickback payment, which is a portion of the sum the company received. This sum itself
may be all or a portion of the difference between the actual (inflated) payment to the company and the (lower) market-based price that
would have been paid had the bidding been competitive. Kickbacks are not limited to government officials; any situation in which
people are entrusted to spend funds that do not belong to them are susceptible to this kind of corruption. Kickbacks are also common
in the pharmaceutical industry, as many doctors and physicians receive pay in return for added promotion and prescription of the drug
these pharmaceutical companies are marketing.
[edit] Unholy alliance
An unholy alliance is a coalition among seemingly antagonistic groups, especially if one is religious,
[10]
for ad hoc or hidden gain. Like
patronage, unholy alliances are not necessarily illegal, but unlike patronage, by its deceptive nature and often great financial resources,
an unholy alliance can be much more dangerous to the public interest. An early, well-known use of the term was by Theodore
Roosevelt (TR):
"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the
first task of the statesmanship of the day." 1912 Progressive Party Platform, attributed to TR
[11]
and quoted again in his
autobiography
[12]
where he connects trusts and monopolies (sugar interests, Standard Oil, etc.) to Woodrow Wilson, Howard
Taft, and consequently both major political parties.
[edit] Involvement in organized crime
An illustrative example of official involvement in organized crime can be found from 1920s and 1930s Shanghai, where Huang
Jinrong was a police chief in the French concession, while simultaneously being a gang boss and co-operating with Du Yuesheng, the
local gang ringleader. The relationship kept the flow of profits from the gang's gambling dens, prostitution, and protection rackets
undisturbed.
The United States accused Manuel Noriega's government in Panama of being a "narcokleptocracy", a corrupt government profiting on
illegal drug trade. Later the U.S. invaded Panama and captured Noriega.
[edit] Conditions favorable for corruption
It is argued that the following conditions are favorable for corruption:
Information deficits
o Lacking freedom of information legislation. The Indian Right to Information Act 2005 has "already engendered
mass movements in the country that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing
power equations completely."
[13]

o Lack of investigative reporting in the local media.
o Contempt for or negligence of exercising freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
o Weak accounting practices, including lack of timely financial management.
o Lack of measurement of corruption. For example, using regular surveys of households and businesses in order to
quantify the degree of perception of corruption in different parts of a nation or in different government institutions
may increase awareness of corruption and create pressure to combat it. This will also enable an evaluation of the
officials who are fighting corruption and the methods used.
o Tax havens which tax their own citizens and companies but not those from other nations and refuse to disclose
information necessary for foreign taxation. This enables large scale political corruption in the foreign
nations.
[14][citation needed]

Lacking control of the government.
o Lacking civic society and non-governmental organizations which monitor the government.
o An individual voter may have a rational ignorance regarding politics, especially in nationwide elections, since each
vote has little weight.
o Weak civil service, and slow pace of reform.
o Weak rule of law.
o Weak legal profession.
o Weak judicial independence.
o Lacking protection of whistleblowers.
o Lack of benchmarking, that is continual detailed evaluation of procedures and comparison to others who do similar
things, in the same government or others, in particular comparison to those who do the best work. The Peruvian
organization Ciudadanos al Dia has started to measure and compare transparency, costs, and efficiency in different
government departments in Peru. It annually awards the best practices which has received widespread media
attention. This has created competition among government agencies in order to improve.
[15]

Opportunities and incentives
o Individual officials routinely handle cash, instead of handling payments by giro or on a separate cash desk
illegitimate withdrawals from supervised bank accounts are much more difficult to conceal.
o Public funds are centralized rather than distributed. For example, if $1,000 is embezzled from a local agency that has
$2,000 funds, it is easier to notice than from a national agency with $2,000,000 funds. See the principle of
subsidiarity.
o Large, unsupervised public investments.
o Sale of state-owned property and privatization.
[citation needed]

o Poorly-paid government officials.
o Government licenses needed to conduct business, e.g., import licenses, encourage bribing and kickbacks.
o Long-time work in the same position may create relationships inside and outside the government which encourage
and help conceal corruption and favoritism. Rotating government officials to different positions and geographic
areas may help prevent this; for instance certain high rank officials in French government services (e.g. treasurer-
paymasters general) must rotate every few years.
o Costly political campaigns, with expenses exceeding normal sources of political funding, especially when funded
with taxpayer money.
o Less interaction with officials reduces the opportunities for corruption. For example, using the Internet for sending
in required information, like applications and tax forms, and then processing this with automated computer systems.
This may also speed up the processing and reduce unintentional human errors. See e-Government.
o A windfall from exporting abundant natural resources may encourage corruption.
[16]
(See Resource curse)
o War and other forms of conflict correlate with a breakdown of public security.
Social conditions
o Self-interested closed cliques and "old boy networks".
o Family-, and clan-centered social structure, with a tradition of nepotism/favouritism being acceptable.
o A gift economy, such as the Soviet blat system, emerges in a Communist centrally planned economy.
o Lacking literacy and education among the population.
o Frequent discrimination and bullying among the population.
o Tribal solidarity, giving benefits to certain ethnic groups
According to a study of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, lack of economic freedom explains 71% of corruption
[17]

[edit] Size of public sector
It is a controversial issue whether the size of the public sector per se results in corruption. As mentioned above, low degree of
economic freedom explains 71% of corruption. The actual share may be even greater, as also past regulation affects the current level
of corruption due to the slowing of cultural changes (e.g., it takes time for corrupted officials to adjust to changes in economic
freedom).
[18]
The size of the public sector in terms of taxation is only one component of economic un-freedom, so the empirical studies
on economic freedom do not directly answer this question.
Extensive and diverse public spending is, in itself, inherently at risk of cronyism, kickbacks, and embezzlement. Complicated
regulations and arbitrary, unsupervised official conduct exacerbate the problem. This is one argument forprivatization and
deregulation. Opponents of privatization see the argument as ideological. The argument that corruption necessarily follows from the
opportunity is weakened by the existence of countries with low to non-existent corruption but large public sectors, like the Nordic
countries.
[19]
However, these countries score high on the Ease of Doing Business Index, due to good and often simple regulations, and
have rule of law firmly established. Therefore, due to their lack of corruption in the first place, they can run large public sectors
without inducing political corruption.
Like other governmental economic activities, also privatization, such as in the sale of government-owned property, is particularly at
the risk of cronyism. Privatizations in Russia, Latin America, and East Germany were accompanied by large scale corruption during
the sale of the state owned companies. Those with political connections unfairly gained large wealth, which has discredited
privatization in these regions. While media have reported widely the grand corruption that accompanied the sales, studies have argued
that in addition to increased operating efficiency, daily petty corruption is, or would be, larger without privatization, and that
corruption is more prevalent in non-privatized sectors. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that extralegal and unofficial
activities are more prevalent in countries that privatized less.
[20]

There is the counter point, however, that oligarchy industries can be quite corrupt ( "competition" like collusive price-fixing,
pressuring dependent businesses, etc. ), and only by having a portion of the market owned by someone other than that oligarchy, i.e.
public sector, can keep them in line ( if the public sector gas company is making money & selling gas for 1/2 of the price of the private
sector companies... the private sector companies won't be able to simultaneously gouge to that degree & keep their customers: the
competition keeps them in line ). Private sector corruption can increase the poverty/helplessness of the population, so it can affect
government corruption, in the long-term.
In the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity is applied: a government service should be provided by the lowest, most local
authority that can competently provide it. An effect is that distribution of funds into multiple instances discourages embezzlement,
because even small sums missing will be noticed. In contrast, in a centralized authority, even minute proportions of public funds can
be large sums of money.
[edit] Governmental corruption
If the highest echelons of the governments also take advantage from corruption or embezzlement from the state's treasury, it is
sometimes referred with the neologism kleptocracy. Members of the government can take advantage of thenatural resources (e.g.,
diamonds and oil in a few prominent cases) or state-owned productive industries. A number of corrupt governments have enriched
themselves via foreign aid, which is often spent on showy buildings and armaments.
A corrupt dictatorship typically results in many years of general hardship and suffering for the vast majority of citizens as civil society
and the rule of law disintegrate. In addition, corrupt dictators routinely ignore economic and socialproblems in their quest to amass
ever more wealth and power.
The classic case of a corrupt, exploitive dictator often given is the regime of Marshal Mobutu Sese Seko, who ruled the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (which he renamed Zaire) from 1965 to 1997. It is said that usage of the termkleptocracy gained popularity
largely in response to a need to accurately describe Mobutu's regime. Another classic case is Nigeria, especially under the rule of
General Sani Abacha who was de facto president of Nigeria from 1993 until his death in 1998. He is reputed to have stolen some
US$34 billion. He and his relatives are often mentioned in Nigerian 419 letter scams claiming to offer vast fortunes for "help" in
laundering his stolen "fortunes", which in reality turn out not to exist.
[21]
More than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury by
Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.
[22]

More recently, articles in various financial periodicals, most notably Forbes magazine, have pointed to Fidel Castro, General
Secretary of the Republic of Cuba since 1959, of likely being the beneficiary of up to $900 million, based on "his control" of state-
owned companies.
[23]
Opponents of his regime claim that he has used money amassed through weapons sales, narcotics, international
loans, and confiscation of private property to enrich himself and his political cronies who hold his dictatorship together, and that the
$900 million published by Forbes is merely a portion of his assets, although that needs to be proven.
[24]

[edit] Fighting corruption
Mobile telecommunications and radio broadcasting help to fight corruption, especially in developing regions like Africa,
[25]
where
other forms of communications are limited.
In the 1990s, initiatives were taken at an international level (in particular by the European Community, the Council of Europe, the
OECD) to put a ban on corruption: in 1996, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, for instance, adopted a
comprehensive Programme of Action against Corruption and, subsequently, issued a series of anti-corruption standard-setting
instruments:
the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173);
the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174);
the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 191);
the Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption (Resolution (97) 24);
the Recommendation on Codes of Conduct for Public Officials (Recommendation No. R (2000) 10); and
the Recommendation on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns
(Rec(2003)4)
The purpose of these instruments was to address the various forms of corruption (involving the public sector, the private sector, the
financing of political activities, etc.) whether they had a strictly domestic or also a transnational dimension. To monitor the
implementation at national level of the requirements and principles provided in those texts, a monitoring mechanism the Group of
States Against Corruption (also known as GRECO) was created.
Further conventions were adopted at the regional level under the aegis of the Organization of American States (OAS or OEA), the
African Union, and in 2003, at the universal level under that of the United Nations.
[edit] Whistleblowers
Main article: Whistleblower
[edit] Campaign contributions
In the political arena, it is difficult to prove corruption. For this reason, there are often unproven rumors about many politicians,
sometimes part of a smear campaign.
Politicians are placed in apparently compromising positions because of their need to solicit financial contributions for their campaign
finance. If they then appear to be acting in the interests of those parties that funded them, it could be considered corruption. Though
donations may be coincidental, the question asked is, why are they funding politicians at all, if they get nothing for their money.
Laws regulating campaign finance in the United States require that all contributions and their use should be publicly disclosed. Many
companies, especially larger ones, fund both the Democratic and Republican parties. Certain countries, such as France, ban altogether
the corporate funding of political parties. Because of the possible circumvention of this ban with respect to the funding of political
campaigns, France also imposes maximum spending caps on campaigning; candidates that have exceeded those limits, or that have
handed in misleading accounting reports, risk having their candidacy ruled invalid, or even being prevented from running in future
elections. In addition, the government funds political parties according to their successes in elections.
In some countries, political parties are run solely off subscriptions (membership fees).
Even legal measures such as these have been argued to be legalized corruption, in that they often favor the political status quo. Minor
parties and independents often argue that efforts to rein in the influence of contributions do little more than protect the major parties
with guaranteed public funding while constraining the possibility of private funding by outsiders. In these instances, officials are
legally taking money from the public coffers for their election campaigns to guarantee that they will continue to hold their influential
and often well-paid positions.
As indicated above, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recognised in 1996 the importance of links between
corruption and political financing. It adopted in 1837 the Recommendation on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of
Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4). This text is quite unique at international levels as it aims i.a. at increasing
transparency in the funding of political parties and election campaigns (these two areas are difficult to dissociate since parties are also
involved in campaigning and in many countries, parties do not have the monopoly over the presentation of candidates for elections),
ensuring a certain level of control over the funding and spending connected with political activities, and making sure infringements are
subject to effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions. In the context of its monitoring activities, the Group of States Against
Corruption has identified a great variety of possible improvements in those areas (see the country reports adopted under the Third
Evaluation Round).
[edit] Measuring corruption
Measuring corruption statistically is difficult if not impossible due to the illicit nature of the transaction and imprecise definitions of
corruption.
[26]
While "corruption" indices first appeared in 1995 with the Corruption Perceptions Index, all of these metrics address
different proxies for corruption, such as public perceptions of the extent of the problem.
[27]

Transparency International, an anti-corruption NGO, pioneered this field with the Corruption Perceptions Index, first released in 1995.
This work is often credited with breaking a taboo and forcing the issue of corruption into high level development policy discourse.
Transparency International currently publishes three measures, updated annually: a Corruption Perceptions Index(CPI) (based on
aggregating third-party polling of public perceptions of how corrupt different countries are); a Global Corruption Barometer (based on
a survey of general public attitudes toward and experience of corruption); and a Bribe Payers Index, looking at the willingness of
foreign firms to pay bribes. The Corruption Perceptions Index is the best known of these metrics, though it has drawn much
criticism
[27][28][29]
and may be declining in influence.
[30]

The World Bank collects a range of data on corruption, including survey responses from over 100,000 firms worldwide and a set of
indicators of governance and institutional quality. Moreover, one of the six dimensions of governance measured by the Worldwide
Governance Indicators is Control of Corruption, which is defined as "the extent to which power is exercised for private gain, including
both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as 'capture' of the state by elites and private interests."
[31]
While the definition itself is
fairly precise, the data aggregated into the Worldwide Governance Indicators is based on any available polling: questions range from
"is corruption a serious problem?" to measures of public access to information, and not consistent across countries. Despite these
weaknesses, the global coverage of these datasets has led to their widespread adoption, most notably by the Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
[26]

In part in response to these criticisms, a second wave of corruption metrics has been created by Global Integrity, the International
Budget Partnership, and many lesser known local groups, starting with the Global Integrity Index, first published in 2004. These
second wave projects aim not to create awareness, but to create policy change via targeting resources more effectively and creating
checklists toward incremental reform. Global Integrity and the International Budget Partnership each dispense with public surveys and
instead uses in-country experts to evaluate "the opposite of corruption" which Global Integrity defines as the public policies that
prevent, discourage, or expose corruption.
[32]
These approaches compliment the first wave, awareness-raising tools by giving
governments facing public outcry a checklist which measures concrete steps toward improved governance.
[26]

Typical second wave corruption metrics do not offer the worldwide coverage found in first wave projects, and instead focus on
localizing information gathered to specific problems and creating deep, "unpackable" content that matches quantitative and qualitative
data. Meanwhile, alternative approaches such as the British aid agency's Drivers of Change research skips numbers entirely and favors
understanding corruption via political economy analysis of who controls power in a given society.
[26]

Rule of Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law.
Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is
legitimately exercised only in accordance with,
publicly disclosed laws,
adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process.
The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy.
According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly include a
clear separation of powers,
legal certainty,
the principle of legitimate expectation
and equality of all before the law.
The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that
"the phrase the rule of law has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over-
use"









CLIP god Homer Ace circle race due process sandbagging
GOD HOME RACE SOLACE

Innate Complicity


Capitalist Law Inequity Precedence CLIP god Gold Override Dominance
Rote

NEWS
Never Ending War Story

de facto



GOD HOME RACE SOLACE
Genuine Ordained Dominance Humanity One Mother Earth Reality Almighty Consecrated Element
Spirit of Law Amicable Coherence Effect
Wrote

de jure
Innate Simplicity
Wake up Satans Little Helpers
Aiding and Abetting will be taken as serious as serious is!!

www.IyffyI.com
In your face for your Information

Absolutely everything they do is not only evil antithesis Humanity, but self-evident

Such as
Satan - See and Tell Active Negligence - AUTO Admitted Unfair Trials Omnipresence
http://www.scribd.com/doc/166531506/Done-What-I-Can-to-Save-World-Ball-Now-in-Your-Court


http://www.scribd.com/doc/113882977/Spirit-Intent-Precedence-de-Jure-Constitution-or-Romans-13-Gaming-
the-System-de-Facto

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105694093/RCMP-Sarge-States-Apparently-I-Thought-Were-Actually-Going-to-
Investigate-Government-Corruption-as-Per-Complaint
Prime Example
www.DamageControl13.com
Mulroney

Forthright Forthwith Forthcoming
FFF

In the name of God of, for and with the People WTF?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbACCGf6q-c

FFF
Fickle Fate Finger

Political Religious Implicit Complicit Explicit
PRICE
Political Religious Insidious Capitalist Emperors
TORT Think Onus Reversal Trend!!

NWO right back at ya NOW New Order World
Ya gonna kill us all!! OK I can die with that!!
Like other financial empires in history, Smith claims the contemporary model forms alliances necessary to develop and
control wealth,
as peripheral nations remain impoverished providers of cheap resources for the imperial-centers-of-capital.[1]
Belloc estimated that, during the British Enclosures, "perhaps half of the whole population was proletarian",
while roughly the other "half" owned and controlled the means of production. Now, under modern Capitalism, J.W. Smith
claims
fewer than 500 people possess more wealth than half of the earths population,
as the wealth of 1/2 of 1-percent of the United States population roughly equal that of the lower 90-percent.

Caught up in Reality Surround
Currency conversion from Hierarchical Elite Liquidity Levitation HELL to
HALL Humanity Associated Logistics Law coherency
God proclaimed de jure administered God de jour in any language

Where
Reality is the truth impervious to perception and perceptions impervious to evil
Truth that which God would observe whether He exists or whether one believes He exists
IDEAL
Simply Reality Sanely Dealt With

Where justice free for all is free for all and HELL accessible to all in HALL of justice
www.Justice13.com
Where Spirit of HALL is the principal principle and the capitalized HELL can freely go to hell
When humanity Law is Spirit - S - ESS - Epitome Simplistic Sanity one need only be sane and human to know
what is and what is not receptive to a fellow human for neurosis to go away!!

Humanity and Genocidal Abrahamic Imperialist Capitalists know no borders
Alas humanity has no representatives as they are a just and easy
TAP
Thought and Pro-crasti-nation
COIL
Conflict of interest Lividity
www.Amen.Infidels2014.com

A gazillion Words of disorderly keep
Them in the hold first to notice the weep
Upper deck wannabes
Where truth lay streaming they scream stop the leaks
Behold below the ignorant attempting plug pull
Working together all in same boat
Of ignorant vote
Jackhammer the hull
That keeps them afloat
A kaleidoscopic freedom of beliefs adhered
Pin ball ricochet inevitable collision course
Let no man put ass under
Lying Imperialist Capitalist Exploiters
L ICE
Lemming Intellectual Cognizant Elusivity



For united NOAH nothing of achieving humanity sailed the seas in Sap Boat of own creation
In his essay Politics and the English Language (1946), Orwell wrote about the importance of honest and clear
language and said that
vague writing can be used as a powerful tool of political manipulation.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four he described how the state controlled thought by controlling language, making certain
ideas literally unthinkable. The adjective Orwellian refers to the frightening world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, in
which the state controls thought and misinformation is widespread. Several words and phrases from Nineteen
Eighty-Four have entered popular language.
Newspeak is a simplified and obfuscatory language designed to make independent thought impossible.
Doublethink means holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
Thought Police are those who suppress all dissenting opinion.
Prolefeed is homogenised, manufactured superficial literature, film and music, used to control and indoctrinate
the populace through docility.
Big Brother is a supreme dictator who watches everyone.
From Orwell's novel Animal Farm comes the sentence, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal
than others", describing theoretical equality in a grossly unequal society. Orwell may have been the first to use
the term cold war, in his essay, "You and the Atom Bomb", published in Tribune, 19 October 1945. He wrote:
"We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of
antiquity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_dumpty
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.[1]

Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he
discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.

I dont know what you mean by glory, Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you donttill I tell you. I meant theres a nice knock-
down argument for you!
But glory doesnt mean a nice knock-down argument, Alice objected.
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean
neither more nor less.
The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master thats all.
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. Theyve a
temper, some of themparticularly verbs, theyre the proudestadjectives you can do anything with, but not
verbshowever, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! Thats what I say![15]

This passage was used in Britain by Lord Atkin and in his dissenting judgement in the seminal case Liversidge
v. Anderson (1942), where he protested about the distortion of a statute by the majority of the House of
Lords.[16] It also became a popular citation in United States legal opinions, appearing in 250 judicial decisions
in the Westlaw database as of April 19, 2008, including two Supreme Court cases (TVA v. Hill and Zschernig
v. Miller).[17]



www.Hiecer13.com


PRICK mi FIBIB
Political Religious Illusion Charlatan Kleptocracy media inciting Fickle Inherent Bias Ignorant Bliss
It is only the wisest and the stupidest that cannot change
Alienation
"Thy kingdom come"

PRO
People Representative Oppressors

Truth Killers
The request for God's kingdom to come is usually interpreted as a reference to the belief, common at the time, that a Messiah figure
would bring about a Kingdom of God.
Traditionally the coming of God's Kingdom is seen as a divine gift to be prayed for,
not a human achievement.
This idea is frequently challenged by groups who believe that the Kingdom will come by the hands of those faithful to work for a
better world. It is believed by these individuals that Jesus' commands to feed the hungry and clothe the needy are the Kingdom to
which he was referring.
Reality Killers

CON
Civil Organized Neutering

AUTO
Alienation Ubiquitous Terrorists Omnipresent
Freedom of Belief
somehow will not allow them to believe in the existence of truth as the immune scream
WTF
Is It
Does the Lemming know its destiny?

Does a neurotic know what is this thing
Neurosis
Neurosis is a class of functional mental disorders involving distress but neither delusions nor hallucinations,
whereby behavior is not outside socially acceptable norms.
[1]
It is also known as psychoneurosis or neurotic disorder, and thus those suffering from it are said to be
neurotic.
NAZI
Nibiru Alien Zionist Illuminati
Alien Nation
Almighty Luxuriates Incestral Elite Nepotist Neurotic Apathetic Throne Inbred Omnipresent Neurosis




As the
Dr
Deranged righteous
warn humans of the
AC DC
Anterior consequences Direct current
of
incestral breeding
O
Overload

Alas ignored because there is no such thing as an UFO for the OWL Osmosis Worldly Learned of FIBIB
Know Everything
WOE
With One Exception
WE
For the NAZI were Perceived Innocent as they must be WE when entranced NE non existent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJxdIXgMGAI
The other Israel
Pharisees killed Jesus Talmud OK to kill indirectly
Zionists will have no other Gods before them caused Romans to carry out their deeds keeping hands filthy clean
BS sayeth the neurotic in FIBIB in a
MOI
Majority Osmosis Ignorance

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority to be
oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of governmental or constitutional protections of
individual and/or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections
that are fair both substantively [15] and procedurally.[16] Furthermore, freedom of political expression,
freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential, so that citizens are adequately
informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them.[17][18] It has also been
suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to participate freely and fully in the
life of their society.[19]




Implicit Complicit Explicit
ICE
Imperialist Capitalist Emperors

Like other financial empires in history, Smith claims the contemporary model forms alliances necessary to
develop and control wealth,
as peripheral nations remain impoverished providers of cheap resources for the imperial-centers-of-capital.[1]
Belloc estimated that, during the British Enclosures, "perhaps half of the whole population was proletarian",
while roughly the other "half" owned and controlled the means of production. Now, under modern Capitalism,
J.W. Smith claims
fewer than 500 people possess more wealth than half of the earths population,
as the wealth of 1/2 of 1-percent of the United States population roughly equal that of the lower 90-percent.

Osmosis
The gradual, often unconscious, absorption of knowledge or ideas through continual exposure
rather than deliberate learning
OW!!
Or What?
www.DamageControl13.com
US Peacekeepers responsible for world turmoil
Turn back kids leaving to cohort doG child traffickers consistent with MO
God proclaimed de jure administer antithesis anti Christ and uncle Sam de facto doG
The costs to protect is better served by forwarding to the wealthy job giving enslavers
Pleasing God Father at the Vatican

SOLO CLIP DR JECKYLL
Spirit of Law Overrides Common Law Inferred Precedence Deranged Rhetoric Justice Exploiters Complicit
Kleptocratic Yahoos Liquidity Levitation

Criminal Lawyer sustainable growth is as Criminal Element sustainable growth

Charity tax evaders sustainable growth is as the sustainable growth of the needy

Medical profession sustainable growth is as the sustainable growth of illnesses
Them who purport to act on behalf of humanity that claim Copy Right infractions act on behalf ulterior purpose




www.Justice13.com

Ole!!


www.HomeRace13.com
Humanity one mother earth Reality almighty consecrated element
Truths Holistic Interactive Retrospect Transcendental Electromagnetism Enslavers Nemesis
Ever wonder how much proletariat lives are sucked royally
for the R&R Raze and Rebuild of the Mc SARL of the RPM Religious Political Media NEWS Never
Ending War Story OHMS Oppressor Holy Molies Subterfuge

Their success in the DAY Dark Abyss Yoke
Its them or us!!

Desperate times call for desperate measures
Bring In

www.Ladder13.com
Truth Permeator




Must all in Israel die for Zionist NWO indiscretions
TEA
Then all earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_years_war
The Thirty Years' War (16181648) was a series of wars principally fought in Central Europe (primarily present-day
Germany), involving most of the European countries.
[10]
It was one of the most destructive conflicts in European history,
and one of the longest continuous wars in modern history.
Initially, religion was a motivation for war as Protestant and Catholic states fought even though many of them were or had
been members of the Holy Roman Empirea situation which was not atypical of the Empire, which had become
decentralized and fragmented following the death of Charlemagne (814 AD). Changing the relative balance of power
within the Empire was at issue. Gradually, it developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers of
Europe.
[11]
In this general phase, the war became less specifically religious and more a continuation of the Bourbon
Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence, leading in turn to further warfare between France and the Habsburg
powers.
[12]

A major consequence of the Thirty Years' War was the devastation of entire regions, denuded by the foraging armies
(bellum se ipsum alet). Famine and disease significantly decreased the population of the German and Italian states,
Bohemia and the Low Countries; most of the combatant powers were bankrupted. While the regiments within each army
were not strictly mercenary, in that they were not units for hire that changed sides from battle to battle, some individual
soldiers that made up the regiments were mercenaries. The problem of discipline was made more difficult by the ad hoc
nature of 17th-century military financing: armies were expected to be largely self-funding by means of loot taken or
tribute extorted from the settlements where they operated. This encouraged a form of lawlessness that imposed severe
hardship on inhabitants of the occupied territory.
The Thirty Years' War was ended with the treaties of Osnabrck and Mnster, part of the wider Peace of Westphalia.
[13]

Some of the quarrels that provoked the war went unresolved for a much longer time.
DTs
Destructive Technology Sanctified
HA
Human Achievement

All blown to kingdom come
As all get to illustrate the power of their secret weapons showing off how advanced they are!!

"Thy kingdom come"
The request for God's kingdom to come is usually interpreted as a reference to the belief, common at the time, that a
Messiah figure would bring about a Kingdom of God.
Traditionally the coming of God's Kingdom is seen as a divine gift to be prayed for,
not a human achievement. (4
th
)
This idea is frequently challenged by groups who believe that the Kingdom will come by the hands of those faithful to
work for a better world. It is believed by these individuals that Jesus' commands to feed the hungry and clothe the
needy are the Kingdom to which he was referring.
www.Connect.Frank13.com

They say the Lord works in mysterious ways!!

Gee I never saw that cumin!!
Guess why Freedom of Belief the only one enforced
It is said there are 4200 religions surprised not closer to 7 billion?
Ever heard of the great divide and who conquered?



Thats right not yet conquered!!
Reality Test
Present due process status quo of the Lemming due course

Does your government seem spaced out about human reality?
If not perhaps its just me maybe you!!!
www.Frank13.com

Freedom of Belief
Neurosis
Neurosis is a class of functional mental disorders involving distress but neither delusions nor hallucinations,
whereby behavior is not outside socially acceptable norms.

It is related to attention span deficit
Oft referred to as

In your rocker Brainwashed Alzheimer memory flashes 1
st
Dementia
PRICK mi FIBIB
Political Religious Illusion Charlatan Kleptocracy media inciting Fickle Inherent Bias Ignorant Bliss

First step to making politicians believable

All Seriously Sick



Betcha cant derive at the seriousness of it all and even if you do not a clue what to do!!

Result
Make a serious attempt to comprehend the reality

Dumb ass Mules financing the Mule Jack Ass to boot
Converting magnificent immaculate God given user friendly brains to a fluffed up pillow to sit on
in a co-op struggle of humankind beast to burden
Proving there is no limit to human achievement when the goal is meaningless

BS is Law if you buy it ergo BS is Law
Say Hi get an iH Invisible hand bye
Thumb to Nose 4finger salute

Clear separation of powers?
Conflict of interest?

Rule of Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law.
Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is
legitimately exercised only in accordance with,
publicly disclosed laws,
adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process.
The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy.
According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly include
a clear separation of powers,
legal certainty,
the principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all before the law.
The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that
"the phrase the rule of law has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over- use"

GO POE
General Over-use Proclamations Only Elusivity

publicly disclosed laws
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada
is
the supreme law of Canada,
and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution
is,
to the extent of the inconsistency,
of no force or effect.
"Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of Law"
The following was extracted from the Law Society of Upper Canada - Lawyers Rules of Conduct
1.03 f - Interpretation
(f) rules of professional conduct cannot address every situation, and a lawyer should observe the rules
in the spirit as well as in the letter.
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep and taste not the Pierian spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain;
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope 1688 - 1744

They have now added Mary Jane to their Arse nol

Ever attentive to clear case scenario
Smoking Gun


http://www.scribd.com/doc/113882977/Spirit-Intent-Precedence-de-Jure-Constitution-or-Romans-13-Gaming-
the-System-de-Facto

Excerpt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1982
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights.
The Charter is intended to
protect certain political and civil rights of people in Canada
****from****
the policies and actions of all levels of government.

It is also supposed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights.[3][4]
The Charter was preceded by the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was introduced by the government of John
Diefenbaker in 1960.
However, the Bill of Rights was only a federal statute, rather than a constitutional document.
Therefore, it was limited in scope and was easily amendable. This motivated some within government to
improve rights protections in Canada.
The movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged after World War II also wanted to entrench the
principles enunciated in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[5]


http://www.scribd.com/doc/112431371/Would-a-Government-Appointed-Court-of-Competent-Jurisdiction-
Independent-Judiciary-Be-Appropriate-to-Protect-Us-From-Appropriating-Governments


www.Frank13.com

YO - You Owe not IOS Its Over Satanic yo-yos
Debt incurred in the faade of, for and with the people THEIRS Terrestrial Holy Essence Imposters Righteous Salacious
NETSO
No Evidence To Suggest Otherwise

http://www.scribd.com/doc/166531506/Done-What-I-Can-to-Save-World-Ball-Now-in-Your-Court
PS FU SUN OY
Puppet Satanic Forgiveness Ultimatum Speak Up Now Onus Yours

AGRAVATE
Attorney General Responsibly Accountable Veneer Alienation Terrestrial Exacerbation

Guardian of Public Interest
GOPI
?

Ah So!
EA
Enunciated Asshole

PM
Pertinent Matter


Forthright Forthwith Forthcoming
FFF

In the name of God of, for and with the People WTF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbACCGf6q-c

FFF
Fickle Fate Finger


www.DamageControl13.com



Why the crazy world Lord works Mysterious Eccentric Nightmare
It has not yet been explained how eccentrics became immune to neurosis
Im thinking never sprinkled with gold dust having a lust for cents

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wHw-xuToIc
Sumerians and the Annunaki Zecharia Sitchin NAZI Niburu Aliens Zionist Interest here for Gold
Nepotism Incest War Mongers for Power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-zsMiCZOmU
The Satanic Bloodline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT3kG2RW1nE
The Royal Red Dragon Bloodlines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=X5L_x6RHE4s
Empire of the City Vatican, London, DC
AMEN
Satanic God

NEWS
Never Ending War Story
Political Religious Babble On Explained
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53187051/To-United-Nations
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57985401/To-United-Nations-Again
UNAZIP
United Nations Alien Zionist Insidious Puppets

The Star of David in the Leningrad Codex, 1008 CE
Upon independence in 1948, the new Jewish state was formally named Medinat Yisrael, or the State of Israel,
after other proposed historical and religious names including Eretz Israel ("the Land of Israel"), Zion,
and Judea, were considered and rejected.
[25]
In the early weeks of independence, the government chose the term
"Israeli" to denote a citizen of Israel, with the formal announcement made by Minister of Foreign Affairs Moshe
Sharett.
[26]

The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage, to refer to the biblical Kingdom of
Israel or the entire Jewish nation.
[27]
According to the Hebrew Bible the name "Israel" was given to the
patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisrael, Isrl; Septuagint Greek: Isral;
"struggle with God"
[28]
)
after he successfully wrestled with the angel of the
Lord.
[29]

Jacob's twelve sons became the ancestors of the Israelites, also known as the Twelve Tribes of Israel or Children
of Israel. Jacob and his sons had lived in Canaan
but were forced by famine to go into Egypt for four generations until Moses, a great-great grandson of Jacob,
[30]

led the Israelites back into Canaan during the "Exodus". The earliest archaeological artifact to mention the word
"Israel"
is the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt (dated to the late 13th century BCE).
[31]

The area is also known as the
Holy Land,
being holy for all Abrahamic religions including
Judaism, Christianity, Islam
and the Bah' Faith.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJxdIXgMGAI
The other Israel
Pharisees killed Jesus Talmud OK to kill indirectly
Zionists will have no other Gods before them caused Romans to carry out their deeds keeping hands filthy clean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=436kMY8OFNQ&feature=related
Dark Truth of Religion
2013 years ago had another "struggle with God" and upon success called it


Good Friday
Old reptilians never die they just shed their skins
as
Old Money Evolves Nefariously
OMEN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=X5L_x6RHE4s



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ
An honest Jew tells the Truth about Israel

The Most SHOCKING Psychiatry Documentary EVER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II96QkZaz1E

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_francis_of_assisi
1181/1182 - 1226

St. Francis of Assisi (Italian: San Francesco d'Assisi, baptized Giovanni, born Francesco di Pietro di
Bernardone;[2] 1181/1182

October 3, 1226)[3] was an Italian Catholic friar and preacher. He founded the men's Franciscan
Order, the womens
Order of St. Clare, and the Third Order of Saint Francis for men and women not able to live the lives of
itinerant preachers followed by the early members of the Order of Friars Minor or the monastic lives of the Poor
Clares.[4] Though he was never ordained to the Catholic priesthood, Francis is one of the most venerated
religious figures in history.[4] In 1219, he went to Egypt in an attempt to convert the Sultan to put an end to the
conflict of the Crusades.[6] By this point, the Franciscan Order had grown to such an extent that
its primitive organizational structure was no longer sufficient.
He returned to Italy to organize the Order.
Once his community was authorized by the Pope,

he withdrew increasingly from external affairs.
In 1223, Francis arranged for the first Christmas manger scene.[5] In 1224, he received the stigmata,[5] making
him the first recorded person to bear the wounds of Christ's Passion.[7] He died during the evening hours of
October 3, 1226, while listening to a reading he had requested of Psalm 140. In order to organize the Order
must have the Pope's blessing NEWS Never Ending War Story Hellion order continues to this very DAY Dark
Abyss Yoke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_140

Psalm 140 is the 140th Psalm from the Book of Psalms. It describes putting one's trust in God while threatened
with evil.

Domine, clamavi. A prayer against sinful words, and deceitful flatterers. A psalm of David.

[1] I have cried to the, O Lord, hear me: hearken to my voice, when I cry to thee. [2] Let my prayer be directed
as incense in thy sight; the lifting up of my hands, as evening sacrifice. [3] Set a watch, O Lord, before my
mouth: and a door round about my lips. [4] Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins. With
men that work iniquity: and I will not communicate with the choicest of them. [5] The just shall correct me in

mercy, and shall reprove me: but let not the oil of the sinner fatten my head. For my prayer also shall still be
against the things with which they are well pleased:

[5] Let not the oil of the sinner: That is, the flattery, or deceitful praise.-- Ibid.

[5] For my prayer: So far from coveting their praises, who are never well pleased but with things that are evil; I
shall continually pray to be preserved from such things as they are delighted with. [6] Their judges falling upon
the rock have been swallowed up. They shall hear my words, for they have prevailed: [7] As when the thickness
of the earth is broken up upon the ground: Our bones are scattered by the side of hell. [8] But o to thee, O Lord,
Lord, are my eyes: in thee have I put my trust, take not away my soul. [9] Keep me from the snare, which they
have laid for me, and from the stumbling blocks of them that work iniquity. [10] The wicked shall fall in his
net: I am alone until I pass.

[6] Their judges: Their rulers, or chiefs, quickly vanish and perish, like ships dashed against the rocks, and
swallowed up by the waves. Let them then hear my words, for they are powerful and will prevail; or, as it is in
the Hebrew, for they are sweet.

[10] I am alone: Singularly protected by the Almighty, until I pass all their nets and snares.

Douay-Rheims Bible

www.Amen.Infidels2014.com The Most SHOCKING Psychiatry Documentary EVER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II96QkZaz1E


PRICK mi FIBIB
Political Religious Illusion Charlatan Kleptocracy media inciting Fickle Inherent Bias Ignorant Bliss

Neurosis
Neurosis is a class of functional mental disorders involving distress but neither delusions nor hallucinations,
whereby behavior is not outside socially acceptable norms.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/191773511/Circle-of-Life-to-Wits

Who created the Pirates of Nibiru? Should humankind ever determine that then they can keep busy finding out
who created the creator and Babble On like that

www.gstP13.com
God Save the People

I know I will never see a poem as lovely as a tree nor a brighter life form

http://www.scribd.com/doc/230499255/Three-Mice-Attempt-to-Run-Out-the-Clock-What-s-Up-Doc

WON
War on Neurosis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql2yz7XDs2A
Is Religion Man-Made? How Did Religion Start? The Evolution of Belief

A few words from a
PRICK
Political Religious Illusion Charlatan Kleptocrat

Ordinary people just do not understand the
BAR
But mainly the general public doesn't understand legal ethics.
They are mainly the antithesis of real world ethics.
Legal ethics Le Oxymoron
SINNEST
Stubbornness in Neurosis No Exception Sinners Tranquility
FINESSE
Fiduciary Infinite Negligence Essential Sovereign Statute Exploitations

How else ya gonna maintain the status quo Rich richer Poor poorer due process?

Bar to Bar Justice causes eccentric to saddle up to the Bar

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep and taste not the Pierian spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain;
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope 1688 - 1744

Not sober yet
From: lawmen@googlegroups.com
[mailto:lawmen@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Hurt
Sent:
Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:16 AM
To: 'Lawmen'
Subject:
[Lawmen: 3525] Attorney Brad Henschel on becoming an attorney and the practice of law
I thought you might appreciate this attorneys perspective on the practice of law and what it takes to become
an attorney.
Bob Hurt

2460 Persian Drive
#70
Clearwater, FL
33763 +1
(727) 669-5511
Scholar
Fund Jurisdictionary Law
Newsletter Archives Downloads GetZooks!


From: Brad Henschel
Sent:
Monday, March 22, 2010 8:38 PM
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com; Bob
Hurt; Lawmen; John Findley
Subject: Re: Rich Cantwell's scurrilous screed about lawyers
I went to law school in 1984 in order to help others with Tax problems and following the great example of
Larry Becraft. I was 39 at the time.
It was really difficult, especially at age 39 to go back to school. I had to go day and night and I had to study
ALL THE TIME to get all the confusing information being presented to me. I found out later the teaching
methods used in law schools, known was the socratic method was different from paralegal schools were the
paralegals were simply told the truth of the course instead of just reading cases to learn what the law really
was about, as was done in Law school. The cost was expensive even at UWLA, a State Bar but not ABA
approved law school. I had 325 classmates, 1/2 being women. Only about 40-43 graduated and of them 20,
including me, passed the State Bar Exam. 20 out of 325 people. Those 325 people were ALL better educated
than I was. Most of them were already successful business people. One brought instant printing to the US from
Japan. Another was a real estate investor who drove his rolls royce to school. These two dropped out.

Another was the paralegal for King of Torts lawyer in San Francisco - she flunked out in Civil Procedure class.
Another was a government employee.
- He moved to Texas never having passed the Bar Exam and he told me that information face to face.
Another was the former Iranian Health Minister. Another was the daughter of a lawyer who quit 8 weeks ahead
of graduation because she didn't want to be a lawyer, her father pressured her into it, so she quit. - She had the
highest grade average in the school.

Learning the law is only 1/2 of the equation. Then you have to apply it, that's another learning curve. The
pressure on lawyers is so extreme and the loss of sleep so pervausive that lawyers usually die before age 50.
Cancer is rampant among lawyers as is mental illness due to the pressures.
IF you worked two jobs at minimum wage you would have more money and work less than most lawyers work.
Most of my law school classmates only wanted to make money. I wanted to learn the law and be good at it.
When they saw me coming they would run away so they wouldn't have to talk law with me.
I won a lot of cases before the Bar entered my life. Then I learned about how the Bar is really in place to
prevent disruption to the large law firms, many of whom are now victims themselves of the economy.
The law is like every other occupation, it has great people and it has scum and everything in between.
The Bar is used to silence people like Richard Fine.
But mainly the general public doesn't understand legal ethics.
They are mainly the antithesis of real world ethics.
Clients think a bar complaint will force the attorney to be
better.
Richard Fine was disbarred after exposing judicial corruption of the highest
order.
The Bar and the legislature covered it up.

I
had the State of Calif sanctioned $30k for programming their computers to violate the US Bankruptcy laws.
I
won case after case in criminal court and my motions in bankruptcy court for my clients resulted in
the expungement of millions in taxes.
Clients in CA are now facing a lack of affordable attorneys or no attorneys to provide legal services to them as
the CAL bar took out thousands of attorneys, leaving these people without legal representation and left them at
the mercy of the government and it's lawyers. - Brad Henschel, JD, now an inactive member of the State Bar of
CA.

HENSCHEL NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:
This message is private and confidential.
It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and
federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you
get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No
recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording
it is
illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.

From: Bob Hurt
<bob@bobhurt.com>
To: Lawmen
<lawmen@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 4:48:32
PM
Subject: Rich Cantwell's scurrilous screed about lawyers
Rich:
In your screed below, you denounce the MAJORITY of attorneys but supply NO facts to support your
allegation. Because the lawyers bathwater has become dingy you seem to want to drown them, spank them, or
toss them out. That seems a little crazy to me.
We Need Attorneys.
Lawyers comprise virtually the ONLY PEOPLE IN THIS NATION who can handle litigation competently, so
the non-lawyer world generally cannot do without them. Even the lawyers admit that only a fool represents
himself in court, and because of vexatious litigant laws, methods of blocking evidence from juries, and
frivolous argument standards, even THEY cannot get justice in courts. They pay a fortune for education, pay a
fortune to maintain offices, pay a fortune in personal time doing legal research, and pay a fortune for online and
other law research services. They risk terrible sanctions and contempt citations whenever they stand up against
deluded, incompetent, or corrupt judges, risk absolute destruction of their careers by professional foes in the
bar, and then suffer substantial losses of income to clients who stiff them. Many, if not most, attorneys work 70-
hour weeks, live on the edge of financial disaster, and take 5 to 10 years to build up a law practice that will
allow them enough time and money to take their families on vacation every year. In spite of all that, most
attorneys do pro bono work, giving of themselves to help those they consider deserving and unable to afford
legal services.
So why do you seek to excoriate them with colossally unfair generalizations like those in your obloquy below?
Methinks thou doth protest too much. Way too.
Licensing.
Furthermore, you err in your pronouncements about licensing. The Constitution of Florida in Article V Section
15 empowers the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law: The supreme court shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted. It
integrated the bar in 1949 partly for that purpose. It has established,
through the bar, rules for an independent examiner to determine the qualifications of applicants for membership.
Upon successful qualification, the bar issues a bar number and card to the new member, and the Supreme Court
clerk issues the LICENSE as attorney and counselor at law which the new attorney typically frames and
hangs on the wall in the law office. You have seen many of these licenses, and if you visit the Florida Bar web
site you will find the bar number (the equivalent of the license number) for every attorney and jurist bar
member in Florida.
A Note about Smart People.
You seem to imply that smart people (like most attorneys) screw other people (the relatively stupid, I
presume). You fail to note that in many, if not most, cases a screwing simply cannot be helped. Should a teacher
grind the education of a classroom of students to a snails pace in order to accommodate the stupid children in
the classroom? Before busing that did not present much of a problem
because smart people generally lived in different school districts from stupid people, owing to their relative
abilities to buy nice houses in nice neighborhoods. Now, after busing, schools have honors classes to
segregate the smart from the stupid. No matter what, stupid kids dont end up with as good an education as
smart kids for the same reason that a pint jar cannot hold the amount of water that a quart jar can hold: inherent
capacities simply cannot be exceeded.
So, naturally, smart people generally exhibit more sense in managing money and their other affairs, and that can
make them seem to take advantage of stupid people, particularly in a free-enterprise capitalist economic system.
OUR particular system has in the past 100 years become burdened with thousands of laws and regulations that
protect the stupid from the smart and the weak from the strong. But at the same time, our nations states have
eliminated every vestige of eugenics laws that might eventually have obviated those protectionist laws. What do
I mean here? Our land needs fewer stupid people in it, by at least an order of magnitude. Then caveat emptor
wont seem like such a dirty term because far fewer people will seem screwed. And I mean that everybody,
not just attorneys, need to learn the equivalent of the first two years of law school in their public education.
Legitimate Complaints, with Solutions. Regardless of the licensing issue, you dont have a valid point to
make in your anti-lawyer tirade, even though you could make some very valid points. Please allow me to make
some of them for you:
1.
Bar
Integration Destroys Republic.
a.
The integration of the bar with the Supreme court makes every bar member a member of the
Judicial Branch of government. The Florida Constitution requires in Article II Section 3 that
The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial
branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers
appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided
herein. It does not permit bar members outside the judiciary except as Attorney General and
State Attorneys and their assistant attorneys. All legislator attorneys and staff attorneys in the
Legislative and Executive branches operate in violation of the Constitution and to that extent
create a judicial oligarchy because the Supreme Court can and does exercise dominion over all of
them. That violates CUSA Article IV Section 4 which provides in pertinent part The United
States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

b.
Solution: de-integrate the bar and turn the regulation of the practice of law over to the Executive
branch.
2.
Attorneys dont regulate judges, but tolerate judicial immunity.

a.
Attorneys form the pool from which judges rise to office, and so attorneys comprise the group best suited to
lead in judicial reform for eliminating judicial corruption. They have the requisite skills and the proximity to
judges, so they know better than any public other than victims of corruption which jurists have become corrupt
or downright evil. They have let the people down because they dont use their bar to police the judiciary. In case
you havent noticed, the bar governors and grievance committees ignore grievances against jurists. But they can
and should work to revoke the bar licenses of corrupt judges, for that would disqualify the judges from office
(the state constitutions typically make bar membership a qualification for becoming a jurist). Many attorneys
fail to hold the courts accountable or engage in guerilla activism against crooked judges. By guerilla I mean a
form of activism like hiring a Private Investigator to dig up the dirt on a judge, and then hiring a Public
Relations agency to expose that dirt to the press and the public through blogs, etc, without the attorney coming
under fire for bring disrepute to the profession.

b.
Solution:
litigate and lobby against judicial immunity and for empowerment and independence of grand juries to
investigate government employee crimes.
3.
Unfair
Business Practices.
a.
Some law firms overcharge for services rendered and overbill clients by charging for services not
rendered. Some attorneys suffer from incompetence or laziness and dont give clients their best
effort at advocacy. As a consequence, many people who need advocacy simply cannot afford the
service, and of those who manage to afford it, many dont get adequate advocacy, and lose the
case as a result. Pro bono work does not balance this out. The bar seems to turn a blind eye to
much of this, and the public has no clue whether the attorney for hire will do a good job or not.
b.
Solution:
Lobby for laws to require attorneys to give clients satisfaction questionnaires and make the
results public.
4.
Legal
Services Monopoly.
a.
Attorneys seem loathe to campaign against the unfair Unlicensed Practice of Law statutes with
which the bar and state attorneys attack private citizens who help one another with legal matters.
They have helped create a legal services monopoly that has led to their overcharging for legal
services. Attorneys really should become leaders in the communities of their residence, guiding
people in ways to keep our governments constitutional. Many dont seem to participate nearly to
the extent they should or could.
b.
Solution:
Lobby for change in UPL to apply only to specifically defined activities that actually require
knowledge gained in law school or other special certification.
The law should allow anybody to practice an area of law upon a demonstration of competent
knowledge in that area.
You
have probably noticed that I offered solutions to each problem. Lawyers cannot implement three of the solutions
by themselves. They need public support. You could help educate the public about their need to provide that
support. You could encourage attorneys to do the lobbying.
Many Attorneys Deserve Our Appreciation. Bottom
line, instead of flaying the flesh off the stooped backs of overworked Patriot Attorneys, you ought to bless them
for their general goodness and generosity, and encourage more to join their ranks and help them excise and
bring to justice crooked judges and over-zealous prosecutors.
What law professionals do you know who have created web sites and led movements to educate patriots in the
law and constitutional principles, and to mobilize people to effective political activism? Can you name any? I
can name three:
1.
Larry Becraft
http://hiwaay.net/~becraft - for at least 20 years, Larry has at some expense hosted a web site that does not sell
his legal services, but educates people in the law and guides patriots away from harmful myths that will land
them in prison, and guides students toward sound principles of economics.
Larry spent hundreds of hours scanning and converting to searchable text the Statutes at Large for the income
tax laws and the related Code of Federal Regulations, put them on DVDs, and makes them available via the web
and on disk to serious students. He operates a radio show at his own expense weekly to educate people about
tax issues and patriot myths, encouraging people to learn and use the law, and participate in honest government.
2.
Tom Cryer
http://truthattack.org
for the past 2+ years, Tommy has led patriots in attacking the errors of the IRS, making a public, political issue
of those errors (such as the Stop Thief rallies at post offices at tax time) and educating people about income tax
laws and issues. He has posted all of Larrys searchable laws and codes on his web site, making them freely
available to everyone. He co-hosts the radio show with Larry, as a public service, free.
3.
Jon Roland
http://constitution.org
Jon does not practice as an attorney, but as an educator and law philosopher he devotes his life to helping our
governments adhere to the Constitution and our people become better Citizens. He interacts with many
attorneys and leaders in the Patriot movement to encourage people to become activists in reforming our
government and courts. His web site constitutes a treasure trove of related educational information, including
Larrys searchable laws.
I love these men. I invoke Gods most precious blessings upon them. I honor them for their devotion to truth
and their selfless contributions to our nations underlying greatness. I dont examine them under a microscope
for their peccadilloes, vices, and sins. I dont expect perfection of them. But, I do encourage them toward
whatever perfection they can achieve in their short lives on this whirling rock.
I encourage you to do the same.
Bob Hurt

2460 Persian Drive
#70
Clearwater, FL
33763
+1 (727)
669-5511
Scholar
Fund Jurisdictionary Law
Newsletter Archives Downloads GetZooks!
You received this because you have membership in the "Lawmen" Google Group.
Comment to group owner - reply to the message (only the owner posts messages).
See the archives, change options - visit http://groups.google.com/group/Lawmen
Join
/ Subscribe - send email to Lawmen+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Resign /
Unsubscribe- send email to Lawmen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawmen+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or
reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.

********************************************

*** Note****

I looked into it further to find that Richard Fine was not only dismissed from the Bar, but put behind bars and
has been in solitary confinement for over 18 months without charges laid against him presumably holding him
there until the Bilderberg New World Order is in place having been meeting since 1954 began their initiative in
2007 with the world financial collapse that we ain't seen nothing yet.



10 Years if you think Government corrupt USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSYLdoRwkrs




Richard a Fine example goes to jail






11/15/10

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine/
Please join the Facebook Cause: FREE THE LA-FIPs (Los Angeles
Falsely Imprisoned Persons)

http://www.causes.com/causes/222335/about

INTRODUCTION - MULTI-IDIOMAS

English Intro:

Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not
permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed
"retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009
Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los
Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.

Richard Fine attempted to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District
Court, through the US Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States; however, all United States
courts involved in the matter denied Richard

DOCUMENTS

The two records below, produced by the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and by the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department as the legal foundation for the holding of Richard Fine are alleged as
fraud, each on its own. Moreover, the production of contradictory records by the two justice system agencies of
Los Angeles County is alleged as additional fraud to top it off.

1) View the FALSE AND DELIBERATELY MISLEADING records provided by Sheriff Lee Baca in letter to
Los Angeles County Supervisor, Michael Antonovich, in response to request for access to the California public
records that were the non-existing warrant and booking records of Richard Fine. For over a year, Sheriff Lee
Baca insists on providing false records - claiming that Richard Fine was arrested on location and by authority of
the "San Pedro Municipal Court". No such court has existed for almost a decade:

http://inproperinla.com/10-01-08-antonovich-ltr-repeat-mailing-w-attch-env-s.pdf

2) View the FALSE ON ITS FACE March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt. Such judgment record is
missing any authentication at all. It was stamped on its face "FILED" with the date of March 4, 2009, but signed
on its last page by Judge Yaffe and dated March 24, 2009. Such judgment was never entered as required by
California Code to make it "effectual for any purpose":

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-false-fine-judment-record-copy-from-us-
dist-ct-habeas-corpus-doc-16-response-by-la-sup-ct-filed-may-1-2009.pdf

MISSING DOCUMENTS

The case of Richard Fine documented a pattern of publication of false records in online public access systems,
and denial of access to or missing true judicial records:

1) The Los Angeles Superior Court in Marina v LA County (BS109420) published a false online "Case
Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management
system of the court.

2) The Sheriff of Los Angeles County in re: Richard I Fine, (Inmate #1824367) published false online arrest
and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County
Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine.

3) The US District Court, Los Angeles in Fine v Baca (2:09-cv-01914) published a false online "PACER
docket", which the Clerk of the Court refuses to certify, but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic
Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and to the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing
record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court.

4) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) and Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) published
false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs
(Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the
appeal.

5) The US Supreme Court in Fine v Baca (09-A827)
published a false online "docket" noting denials on both March 12, 2010 and April 23/26, 2010, which were not
supported by the Court records in the case. Any evidence of valid judicial review of the Application was
missing from the Court file.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35193676/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34940014/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35149271/

COMPLAINTS

Below are links to two complaints filed with the office of US Attorney, Central District of California - for
public corruption and deprivation of rights in the case of Richard Fine:
1) View complaint filed with US Attorney Office, alleging public corruption and deprivation of rights by the
California Judicial Council and California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George, relative to their conduct
in the habeas corpus at the US District Court:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33879469/

2) View the Complaint filed July 8, 2010 against Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca - for Public
Corruption and Deprivation of Rights in re: Imprisonment of Richard Fine:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34057033/

3) View the Complaint filed July 1, 2010, against Counsel Danny Bickell, of the US Supreme Court, alleging
public corruption and deprivation of rights relative to his conduct in the Application Fine v Baca (09-A827).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/

PETITION

WE ASK SHERIFF LEE BACA TO USE HIS DUE AUTHORITY AND PROPERLY ADDRESS THE
LEGAL, CIVIL, AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF AN AMERICAN, INMATE RICHARD
FINE (CJ INMATE 1824367). WE PRAY SHERIFF LEE BACA REVIEW THE ARREST AND BOOKING
RECORDS, AND IF FOUND NOT CONFORMING WITH THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE LAW -
INITIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND IMMEDIATELY RELEASE ATTORNEY RICHARD FINE.
WITH IT, THE SHERIFF MAY MARK A NEW BEGINNING FOR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
JUSTICE SYSTEM, WITH DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL, CIVIL, AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL...

Executive Summary:

Instant petition is filed with Los Angeles County Sheriff LEE BACA, to use his due authority and properly
address the legal, civil and human rights of an American, inmate RICHARD FINE (#1824367).
Reconstructed Chronology:
- Prior to the March 4, 2009 proceeding, a request was forwarded by the court of Judge David Yaffe to the
Sheriff Department to have the Warrant Detail present in the proceeding, with the understanding that the
proceeding would end with the sentencing and jailing of Attorney Richard Fine for contempt.

- On March 4, 2009 Judge David Yaffe indeed pronounced such sentence in open court, as evidenced in the
Court Reporter's transcript. Through such oral directives, Judge Yaffe misled the Sheriff's Warrant Detail to
arrest Attorney Richard Fine at 11:05 am - albeit - with no written, valid, and effectual warrant at all.
- On March 4, 2009, at 11:05 am, the Sheriff's Warrant Detail arrested Richard Fine in open court, at the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, albeit - with no warrant at all.
- On March 4, 2009 Judge Yaffe then left the courtroom, and likewise - left the Warrant Detail with no record
as an adequate legal foundation for the arrest. Instead, Judge Yaffe proceeded to create a second, contradictory
record in the court file. The court file to this date does not reflect any sentencing or jailing at all. In fact, the
March 4, 2009 proceeding was entirely omitted from the record!
- On March 4, 2009, at 12:32 pm, the Sheriff's Warrant Detail, having no record as foundation for the arrest and
jailing, recorded the arrest and booking of Richard Fine as if they had taken place on location, and pursuant to
the authority of the non-existent "San Pedro Municipal Court." Such records were a false and deliberately
misleading records, and out of compliance with the law. They had no valid court order or judgment as its
foundation. No such court had existed for almost a decade! The false and deliberately misleading booking
record is the main subject of instant petition.

- On March 4, 2009, at 4:31 pm, papers were received by the Sheriff's Department through an anonymous fax
transmission, unauthenticated, and with no cover sheet, from "Judicial Services". Such papers reflected yet a
third, again false and deliberately misleading set of retroactive records for the arrest and booking of Richard
Fine. Such records included invalid records: (a) The March 4, 2009 Remand Order and (b) the March 4, 2009
Judgment for contempt.

On such background it was understandable why Sheriff Lee Baca refused to respond to Attorney Richard Fine's
habeas corpus petition, and likewise - why Sheriff Lee Baca has refused to allow access to the California public
records, which are the arrest and booking record of Richard Fine.

Pleading: We pray Sheriff Lee Baca review the arrest and booking records, and if such records are found failing
to conform with the fundamentals of the law - take corrective actions and immediately release Attorney Richard
Fine. With it, the Sheriff may mark a new beginning for the Los Angeles County justice system, with dignity of
the legal, civil, and human rights of
all.

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Jz12345@earthlink.net

Human Rights Alert (NGO)
o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f"
stroked="f">

style='width:201pt;height:103.5pt'>

o:href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4QooSf0l1yE/S7GNMg5PW6I/AAAAAAAABRQ/sdbzbE4EqpM/S1600-
R/HRA%20Logo.jpg"/>

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights
violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County,
California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems
in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.


Frank, You signed on May 25, 2010.

Your signature has been
delivered to:

Sheriff Lee Baca, Los Angeles County, California

About


What have the
experts said over the past decade?

* "Innocent people remain in prison"

* "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the
justice system that the Blue Panel Report

recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have
not produced any response that we know of...

LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)

* judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they
did not commit."

Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000)

* This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police
states and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are
convicted.

Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000)

Please see additional information and sign the petition:

FREE RICHARD FINE

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free...

Positions

1.
Richard Fine is held under false records - he must be immediately released
2.
Official reports show that thousands were falsely imprisoned as part of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) - they
must be immediately released.
3.
Review of the computerized records of the Sheriff's Department documented routine ongoing false
imprisonments - they must be stopped.
4.
US and/or international investigation must be instituted of the widespread public corruption in Los Angeles
County, California.

How large is the cause?

The innocent must be freed and the guilty made to recompense the victims
NOT THE TAXPAYER


The following was published on the web
www.4urjustice.com

Legal Associates | Everyone Deserves Equal Justice

We give Everyone Equal Access

Etched above the doors of the US Supreme Court are the words "Equal Justice Under Law."
It's one of the basic principles of democracy. Unfortunately, in reality we
receive about as much justice as we can afford.

The wealthiest ten percent can afford to have a lawyer on retainer, and are
accustomed to consulting with one before making decisions. On the other hand,
the bottom ten percent has access to public aid. But what about the rest of
us?
?

For most people, the idea of calling a lawyer before taking legal action or
making an important decision just isn't an option -- either because we think we
don't need one or because it would simply cost too much.

But there is a solution.

Legal Associates is
currently serving the legal needs of well over one million families for less than a dollar a day!

Content copyright 2009. Legal Associates. All rights reserved.

So I sent them an e-mail

From: Frank Gallagher
[mailto:frankly1@rogers.com]
Sent: October-22-09 2:31 PM

To: 'Jesse Magee'
Subject: RE: Legal Associates | Feldman, Kramer & Monico

Obviously any lawyer is in the business to cash in on the illegal administration and enforcement of purported to
be democratic governments that demands equality and they publicly proclaim it, but do not enforce it, whereas
private sector lawyers are set up to debate the non-debatable permitted by the obvious criminal frauds as you
people admit on your site as I am well aware that a person can buy or rent all the rights they can afford, with the
legal profession profiting from the woes of society that the legal system responsible to deal with it refuse to do
so.

The root of societys woes is the illegitimate legal system as CanLaw www.canlaw.com a Canadian national
Lawyer referral service states on their front page that the Law Society cannot be trusted as they protect their
members not the consumer.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9829583/Can-Law-August-182008
I went on to read more published on their site that gave me the crazy idea that they would help me in exposing
the illegitimate legal system and they confirmed that I was a wild and crazy guy

It is time to change to a legitimate government legal system that protects every individuals equality democratic
rights internally as financed by the taxpayer to do so.

I am Frank Gallagher Director/Operations Charter Democracy Force Justice Inc. www.cdfji.ca federally
incorporated to Solicit Victims of Crime for Class Action Suits against Government Personnel whereas the
majorities are victims 80 percent as you publish.

We are operating under company name 1 LIFE www.1life.cC and have the site being professionally developed
to sell membership and C-Note certificates for the express purpose to organize the majority providing them the
democratic voice they are entitled to with equality, an entity every individual of the majority desires but not a
probability unless equally supported to ensure the governments consistently enforce it.

The Law Society is going down and abrupt change is eminent, not having a leg to stand on in an informed
populace.

I am considering attempting to bring a Law Firm on side with us though seemingly a venture into futility but
nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I provide you the opportunity to scrutinize my sites for consideration and eagerly await your response, though
well aware of the depth of thought required to do an about face and the length of time it will take to study the
evidence to be coherent to the validity and firmness of the rationale that can only conclude with the collapse of
the present government legal systems once the public become informed.

Please acknowledge receipt and your intention whether or not to consider

Thank you

Frank














I published on my Scribd site and not long after
poof

their web site was gone

Not much longer
"Double Poof"


the document along with 250 others on my Scribd site were gone

www.Frank13.com
Fiduciary Responsibly Accountable Nefarious Kink
Truths Holistic Interactive Retrospect Transcendental Electromagnetism Enslavers Nemesis

http://docket13.frank13.com
Illegal Aid Illegal

Law Society Act administered by the Attorney General Guardian of the Public Interest asserts we are all
entitled to competent legal representation consistent with the Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney
General, however history, reality and all evidence irrefutably shows the Public Interest will be supported only if
consistent with the Law Society personnel personal interests and that of the Queen

http://www.scribd.com/doc/140515945/Attorney-General-the-Crown-Independent-Judiciary-the-Rest-Just-de-
Facto-Words

An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal
prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest - which includes not only the
community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court
to present all the credible evidence available.






http://www.scribd.com/doc/71070946/Economic-Democracy-the-Satanic-Way
Inherent precedence must keep the slaves working for SS Sustainable Satanic growth a most onerous and
formidable challenge for our purported to be representative PRICE puppets

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148685029/When-the-Queen-is-Tried-and-Found-to-Be-Criminal-What-Are-Her-
Representatives

www.JUSTICE13.com

Justice begins when a legal system installed capable thereof!!
The Law Provides as Does the Taxpayer

And then


www.Hi13.net
Humanity Index 13 Neurosis Extinction Terminal
Truths Holistic Interactive Retrospect Transcendental Electromagnetism Enslavers Nemesis

If not addressing this HO head on not there yet

Forthright Forthwith Forthcoming
FFF

In the name of God of, for and with the People WTF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbACCGf6q-c

FFF
Fickle Fate Finger

And of Course
www.Hijack13.US