Obama Judicial Appointees: 'Murder Jews, No Harm, No Foul'

As the AP reported, a three judge panel for the U.S. 2nd District Court of Appeals tossed out a $654 million jury verdict for damages against the Palestinian Authority and the PLO today for terrorist attacks it coordinated and sponsored in Israel that killed or wounded Americans.

The court's ruling was based on a very curious interpretation of the law involved, the U.S. Anti Terrorism Act, which allows American victims of foreign terrorist attacks to sue state sponsors of terrorism in U.S. courts for damages.

The original verdict was the result of a case called Sokolow v. PLO that was tried by jury in the Federal District Court in Manhattan and was brought by American victims and survivors of six terrorist attacks in Israel between 2001 and 2004. The evidence showed clearly that not only had the PLO under Yasser Arafat planned, financed, and executed the attacks but that it continued to pay generous stipends to the perpetrators and their families.

The 2nd Circuit refused to allow any of the evidence linking the Palestinian Authority and the PLO to the attacks and the attackers to be heard, although as a sop, they admitted the attacks occurred and were 'horrendous'. What they based their ruling on is that Palestine is not a state and therefore, the Federal District Court lacked jurisdiction to rule against them!

Now, the PLO and the Palestinian authority have always said that they're a sovereign state ever since Oslo and have always successfully insisted in being treated as one by the U.S. and other entities. They have their own flag, a national anthem, their own military, a presidential compound, a capitol, they belong to international organizations and institutions like UNESCO and the International Red Crescent whose rules prohibit non-states from joining, and they have what passes for a parliament, courts and laws.

In America, they have diplomatic missions in New York and Washington and lobbyists working on their behalf, they have bank accounts in America, and they receive huge amounts of foreign aid from the Obama Administration both directly and through a UN entity, UNRWA. But Judge John G. Koeltl, the Obama appointee who wrote the opinion on the case said the panel found that Palestine, when it comes to being sued is not a state, that the attacks didn't specifically target Americans and were 'fortuitous' (a very curious use of that word, by the way) and that according to the judges on this panel there was no link between the PLO's activities in America and their activities in the Middle East even though Arafat ruled both groups and appointed and hired their representatives in America. Or as the judges put it, there's no evidence showing the attacks "resulted from their actions that did occur in the United States."

Apparently these judges also believe that if a customer is shot and killed during a bank robbery or a motorist is killed by a drunk driver's negligence, the victim's family have no right to a civil suit for damages. It was just 'fortuitous.'

That judgment also ignored extensive evidence that shows that at least part of the funding for the attacks and stipends for convicted killers and their families came from money siphoned off from American aid obtained through the efforts of PLO, Palestinian personnel and lobbyists here in America...which the panel refused to hear.

Even more interesting, Judge Koeltl wrote in his decision: "The overwhelming evidence shows that the defendants are 'at home' in Palestine, where they govern. Palestine is the central seat of government for the PA and PLO. The PA's authority is limited to the West Bank and Gaza, and it has no independently operated offices anywhere else. All PA governmental ministries, the Palestinian president, the Parliament, and the Palestinian security services reside in Palestine," the ruling said.

Aside from the gaffe about the PLO having authority in Gaza (they don't) doesn't this sound like a description of a sovereign state to you? Don't a country's leader, its security forces and its parliament and its governing bodies normally reside in its own territory? And can you think of any government that has independently operated offices in any foreign country? Aren't embassies and foreign offices abroad run by the sovereign state they represent?

So one one hand, the judges based their ruling on Palestine not being a state, which the PLO and PA obviously consider that it is on every occasion except being responsible for terrorism committed on its behalf. And on the other hand, they go out of their way to describe it exactly as one would describe a sovereign state!

Actually, this isn't so hard to figure out if you dig a little. The panel consisted of Judges John G. Koeltl (Obama appointee), Pierre N. Leval (Clinton appointee), and and Christopher F. Droney (Obama appointee) all of them left wing Democrats. And the Obama Administration went out of its way here to do whatever they could to get the original verdict tossed and and protect Abbas and the PA from having to pay a dime to the Americans they murdered and maimed.

In the original trial, President Obama had his Justice Department lean successfully on the judge in the case, George B. Daniels, to substantially lower the bond the Palestinians would have to post in order to appeal, normally 111 per cent of the judgement in these cases. The Justice Department filed a 'friend of the court' brief that claimed that a high bond would negate millions of dollars spent to promote Democracy and a Two State solution, and the judge complied over the objections of the victim's attorneys.

That same Obama Justice Department brief was allowed to be introduced as evidence by the defense, and given that there were two Obama appointees on the panel, there's no doubt that it carried a great deal of weight in this skewed judgment.

The Anti-Terrorism Act which allows United States citizens who are the victims of international terrorism to sue in the federal courts was passed some years after the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer in the Palestinian hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. It was designed to provide American citizens with redress and such judgments have already been made against state sponsors of terrorism against American like Syria and Iran, even though Iran has no offices or diplomats here in the U.S. Notably, such outstanding judgments were ignored by the Obama Administration during negotiations over the Iran deal and during the recent $400 million dollar ransom paid Iran for American hostages.

Kent A. Yalowitz, a lawyer for the families in the case, said in a statement that the law had been passed by Congress “to protect Americans wherever in the world they traveled.”

“The very terrorists who prompted the law have now hidden behind the U.S. Constitution to avoid responsibility for their crimes,” Mr. Yalowitz said. “This cruel decision must be corrected so that these families may receive justice.”

Mr.Yalowitz is entirely correct, and frankly, I think the fact that most if not all of the victims were American Jews who were attacked in Israel also plays into this. This president's animus towards Israel is well known.

 


But aside from the possibility of an appeal to correct this, there's a bright side.

If Palestine isn't a state according to the Obama Administration, than the Israelis can declare Oslo and the Road Map null and void (the Palestinians already have) and proceed accordingly. They can cancel any and all agreements signed with the Palestinian Authority and the PLO since they were signed as agreements between two sovereign entities. Even the areas of sovereignty and control were clearly defined. But if Palestine isn't a state, then the Obama administration has no moral or legal right to treat it as one at any time, not just when it's convenient for the President's agenda. That 'non-state' status applies across the board.

If Palestine isn't a state, then Judea and Samaria (AKA The West Bank) belongs entirely to Israel, since the only state that ever physically controlled any part of it in recent times aside from Israel was Jordan, who illegally invaded it in 1948, were driven out in 1967 after they attacked Israel and have since relinquished all claims to the area. If Palestine isn't a state,there is no 'occupation' (not that there ever was) and Israel can annex it as sovereign territory. Moreover, since many of the 'Palestinians' including Mohammad Abbas hold Jordanian citizenship and Israel and Jordan have no dual citizenship agreement, Israel can legally remove these non-Israeli citizens from its new borders and repatriate them to Jordan. Israel can also insist that all UNWRA camps in this region be located elsewhere.

Since Palestine isn't a state, Israel can also avoid repatriating the tax monies it collects on the PLO's behalf, deposit it in a fund, and allow Israelis and American Jews and their families to sue in Israeli courts and collect damages accordingly.

The Obama Administration and its minions can make the decision to treat Palestine as a state in every respect except the basic one of responsibility for its actions. That's pretty much been the president's policy since he took office, and not just when it comes to Palestine. Essentially, it's an endorsement of the same old BDS horse manure that 'resistance to occupation is not terrorism.' At least when it comes to Israel, the Jew among nations.

But aside from being brutally immoral in terms of what America has always stood for, this action opens up a whole new door. If Palestine isn't a state, then the Obama Administration doesn't have a leg to stand on when talking about 'Palestinian land,' 'occupation,' or demanding further Israeli concessions.

Loretta Lynch Makes It Official...Case Closed

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has made it official...all charges regarding Hillary Clinton's e-mail investigation is to be closed with no charges.


Which means Mr. Bill is off the hook as well, because that  included the investigation into the criminal collusion between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department and large donors including foreign countries who had business pending before the State Department...

Well,that didn't take long did it?

 

The obvious corruption involved is bad enough. But what's worse is that most of Hillary Clinton's supporters don't seem to care.

Tyranny In Black Robes - The Scotus Approves Gay Marriage

 

The Supreme Court today ruled to impose same sex marriage on the entire United States. Essentially, like the ObamaCare decision, it bypasses the Tenth Amendment and creates fertile ground for further attacks on Christians, Jews and religious freedom.The Court, once again, is writing legislation from the bench.

The grounds, of course, was the ever elastic 14th Amendment which has become a rich hunting ground for justices seeking 'rights' that were never in the Constitution or intended to be.

The 5-4 decision had Justices Kagen, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kennedy ruling in favor. Justice Roberts ruled against, but I have it on reasonably good authority that he and Justice Kennedy arranged this beforehand so that Roberts could avoid even more severe fallout in addition to what he's already getting for rewriting ObamaCare.

Most of the press is making this seem like the majority of the states already allow homosexual marriage. The number cited is '37 states.' What they'd rather not reveal is that only three of those states voted to approve same sex marriage. In 8 states, same sex marriage was imposed by the legislature, often in defiance to the wishes of the electorate. And in the remaining 26, it was imposed by court order pending this decision,also known as lawfare.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, saying,"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."

'Define and express their identity?' Where is that in the Constitution?

"These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples." [...]

Of course, Justice Kennedy didn't actually elaborate on what 'rights' or 'terms and conditions' gay couples in civil unions are excluded from that married heterosexual couples are not, but then, this was never a civil rights issue even though its advocates invariably used that language and that stance. No CEO has ever been fired for being gay, but they've certainly have been fired merely for airing their their opposition to same sex marriage. Remember Mozilla?

Ironically, Justice Roberts based his dissent on the fact that the Court was essentially legislating from the bench!

"Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be…."

"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

"Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. "

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

Pity he didn't apply that same standard to his ObamaCare decision.

Justice Scalia, of course, went right to the heart of the matter:

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. "

"This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."

And Justice Alito, in his dissent hits out at what this sordid usurpation will actually be used for:

"Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."

Actually,this will encompass more than merely being labeled as 'bigots.' We've already seen how bakers, photographers and florists have been heavily fined, forced out of business and deprived of their livelihood merely for politely telling homosexual couples that their religious beliefs preclude their participating in a same sex marriage ceremony.

Now, thanks to another decision the Court sneaked through that no one's writing about, this is going to be expanded to the point of making it open season on Christians, and in areas that have nothing to do with marriage..especially with the Obama Justice Department itching to slap 'dissidents' around.

How long do you think it's going to be before the same activists who hunted down bakers and photographers knock on the door of a church and demands that their wedding be held there? And sues when the clergyman refuses? Watch how those churches, synagogues and other 'bigoted' religious institutions lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to bend to the New Order.

Another effect, one which I've written about before is something same sex marriage activists are not counting on. What the SCOTUS did today was to forcibly change the very definition of marriage.

You might have noticed, and even been puzzled by the fact that while Islam opposes homosexuality more vociferously than any other religion, Muslim groups, especially Islamists been almost completely silent on the gay marriage question. And with good reason.

There is already a substantial movement to legalize polygamy - or to use the new, fashionable term, 'polyamory'. Today's ruling and what it was based on, 'defining and expressing identity' means that there is absolutely no legal basis to continue to ban it, so polygamy will undoubtedly become legal as soon as the first court challenge hits the docket. So will a lot of other things Americans can't even imagine yet.

Islamist groups like CAIR see this as a spear point for their ultimate aim, to make sharia law recognized and enforceable here in America as it already is in Britain.

This is no fantasy, especially since at least one Supreme Court Justice is already quite sharia friendly.

So it's not just judicial tyranny,  the disregarding of the Constitution and the rule of law we're talking about here. We are talking about radical changes in American life that are going to change what was a free society into something very different. ..something unrecognizable.

An attempt at gun confiscation is the next step in the agenda. Just watch.

Guess What Else The Scotus Approved No One's Talking About?

 

In another 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today on Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project that you can be held liable for housing discrimination whether or not you or anyone in your organization actually intended to discriminate.

Mere thought crimes - or as Justice Kennedy put it, “unconscious prejudice” or “stereotyping” are enough to get you sued in hiring, renting property or numerous other activities if your decision can be found to have 'disparate impact' on the favored protected groups.

This decision was deliberately left quite broad, and it's a wet dream for race pimps or 'community organizers,' not to mention predatory lawyers and the Obama Justice Department.

 

This nonsense has long been a part of employment law, especially in fascist progressive states like California. Asking someone about their criminal record, work history or credit can be seen as 'discriminatory' in the once Golden State, even if this might have a direct bearing on their suitability for a prospective position. Even references are a thing of the past as most employers will only confirm the person once worked there and will not disclose anything else, even if they were discharged for cause.

This is one reason many employers no longer hire employees per se, but independent contractors as needed.

Now this nonsense is going to be extended to the renting of property, extending credit and even local decisions on where to build housing. It can also be used to force property owners to rent to Section 8 tenants whether they want to or not. And again, things like credit, prior rental history or a prior criminal record don't matter provided the prospective tenant is part of one of those 'protected groups.' Somebody who's a registered sex offender wants to rent in your building, even though you have families with young children living there? Provided this person belongs to certain groups, you can be sued for your decision to rent to them or not for any reason based on 'disparate impact.'

In the actual case the SCOTUS ruled on, there's another wonderfully Kafka-esque twist. It involves a decision by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs on the location of low-income housing, and as the dissenting opinion points out, no matter where they decide to locate it, they can be sued on the grounds of 'disparate impact' by one group or another.

This also plays in nicely with the new Obama diktat on forced neighborhood diversity.

And you thought we lived in a free country?

'Constitution? What Constitution?' SCOTUS Saves ObamaCare

 

As I expected, The US Supreme Court today ruled to allow nationwide subsidies on ObamaCare even though they are clearly illegal according to the law as written. The Court's long awaited decision in King v. Burwell was 6-3 for Burwell, ruling that the federal subsidies can still be paid to states that elected not to establish an exchange, a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment as well as the explicit wording of the law.

Voting with Justices Ginsberg, Sontamayor and Breyer were Justices Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, whom wrote the majority opinion. While his opinion is a model of illogic and doublespeak, he at least had the honesty to admit that the Court's majority ignored the actual wording of the law itself as well as the Constitution:

“In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

This was challenging, he said, because there were “more than a few examples of inartful drafting that “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.”

Or to translate this, the law itself is so poorly written, nonsensical and contradictory that the Supreme Court, in its wisdom had to actually rewrite it in order to continue to foist it on the American people.

Justice Roberts is frankly admitting that in this case, politics trumps not only what the law says but the Constitution. This is a classic case of what Lawyers refer to as a Stare Decisis 'because we said so' ruling. The actual wording of the law is what Roberts and his cohorts think it should be rather than what it actually is.

Justice Scalia had the right if it, as he frequently does. He read his dissent from the bench, a rare sign of profound disagreement.

In his dissent, Scalia said that we should start calling ObamaCare, “SCOTUSCare.” At the end of his dissent, Scalia wrote, “[t]he somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Or as Senator Ted Cruz said, if these justices want to write law rather then interpret it, "They should run for Congress."

He's exactly right. This is the second time the Supreme Court has rewritten this law, not to mention the times this president has unilaterally (and illegally, I might add) done so.

 

The current ruling went right to the heart of what ObamaCare is all about - reducing benefits, increasing co-pays and raising premiums sky high on the middle class to subsidize all those new migrants the president is bringing in...with, of course, exemptions for the well connected. That includes every member of the Supreme Court, their employees and their families.

Those of the middle class whom can't pay will be fined by the IRS..and those who can't afford the co-pays after paying the high premiums to avoid the fine will simply go without care.

 

This is so far away from the Constitution our Founders bequeathed us or even the normal standards of jurisprudence as to be ludicrous. When judges write law on the fly to suit themselves and their political agenda, then there is no justice and no law.

There are several things to take away from this that are simply self-evident truths.

The Left now noisily celebrating this should understand that this creates a precedent that can be used against them in the future in ways they won't like. Blatant disregard for justice and the law eventually comes home to roost for those whom champion it.

Second, this ruling doesn't change the basic nature of ObamaCare. It merely preserves it as a poorly written law that makes no fiscal or common sense whatsoever. Half of the exchanges are already bankrupt or headed that way, because most of those who signed up are people who are taking advantage of full subsidies and pay no premiums anyway. There's a limit to how far the fiction will stretch until it cracks.

As Europe is now finding out, you can have an immigration society or a lavish welfare state, just not both.Many of the migrants this president is bringing in are going to turn out to be net tax consumers rather than tax payers by a huge margin. States like California are already seeing this at work. Far from helping to cure the deficit, ObamaCare is now estimated to increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.

As President Obama continues his amnesty by executive order, expect this figure to increase markedly.

Congress, of course, could still use the power of the purse to defund ObamaCare. Under the present leadership, I rate the chances of that as roughly the shy side of zero.

Why this is true is unimportant right now, although as I've speculated on these pages the unprecedented amount of spying on American citizens, the enormous amount of data collected and President Obama's past use of such weapons and tactics against his political opponents might be an answer. Apparently I'm not the only one thinking that way.

None of this matters, really. We can be outraged, justifiably so, but as I pointed out yesterday, what really is important right now is answering Tolstoy's question: what then must we do?

I've said before that America's destiny is either to reaffirm the republic our forefathers bequeathed to us or to become Rome. The powers that be have apparently decided they're fine with Rome as long as their perks and bottom line are taken care of. Unless we're prepared to go along with that as a population of pauperized serfs supporting their rule and whatever they decree, we are going to have to band together to institute massive political change using what left of our republic and our rights as citizens..before we lose those as well.

Think this over:

What principles do you stand for, and what are you not willing to compromise on?

What are you prepared to do to change things?


Stay tuned.

Justice: US Jury Awards Terror Victims $218M From PLO

Justice delayed, but justice at last.

An American jury ordered the Palestine Liberation Organization and The Palestinian Authority as co-defendants to pay $218 million in damages for PA and PLO funding and abetting terrorist attacks in Jerusalem that killed and gravely injured American citizens.

The trial, which took place in federal court in Manhattan found in favor of 10 American families suing over six attacks attributed to the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Fatah) and Hamas. The award might be tripled under the US Anti-Terrorism Act:

"Now the PLO and the PA know there is a price for supporting terrorism," said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in an interview after the verdict. [...]

Victims and their families had requested more than $350 million, or over $1 billion after tripling, over shootings and bombings from 2002 to 2004 that killed 33 people and injured over 450.

In closing arguments, plaintiff attorney Kent Yalowitz had urged the Manhattan jury to order the PLO and Palestinian Authority to pay $350 million for providing material support to terrorists involved in six bombings and shootings from 2002 to 2004.

No amount could make up for the human toll, he said. "But if the only thing you can give them is money, then money has to stand in as compensation for the unspeakable loss," he added.


The PLO's lawyers, of course, stated that their clients wouldn't even hurt a Jewish bunny rabbit, and that these 'radicals' (whom the PLO is paying salaries to,using as heroic role models, lionizing in their mosques, schools and media and naming public buildings after) did what they did for their own reasons.

They will of course appeal, but this is still a landmark verdict. Hopefully these damages could be collected by going after the $2 billion Palestine Investment Fund(PIF) Fatah's slush fund created using stolen donor funds, the personal assets of the PLO and PA official involved or subtracted from any aid given to 'Palestine.'

Throughout the trial, US District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan largely denied bids by the Palestinian Authority and the PLO to dismiss the long-running lawsuit. At a court hearing in December, Daniels also reaffirmed his decision in 2008 finding that his court had jurisdiction over claims against the Palestinian Authority and PLO despite changes in law at the appellate level.

The Sokolow family, the lead plaintiff in the trial, testified three weeks ago; a January 2002 bombing injured Jamie Sokolow, her sister Lauren, her mother Rena and her father Mark, all of whom testified.


Adding some unintentional comedy to the proceedings was the despicable Hannan Ashrawi, a member of the PLO's executive committee. According to her testimony - wait for it - Yasser Arafat worked very hard with US and Israeli officials to combat terrorism.

I'm sure the judge had to bang his gavel to restore order after the bitter laughter that undoubtedly broke out after that disgraceful lie.

Kol Hakavod to Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Kent Yalowitz and the rest of their team whom won an important victory for human decency and justice today.

Judge Throws Out Arizona Immigration Suit Against Obama

 

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed against President Barack Hussein Obama's amnesty order on the grounds it was unconstitutional and bypassed congress:

Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the demand by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a preliminary injunction to halt the policies. {...}

Arpaio's lawsuit said the reforms, which eased the threat of deportation for about 4.7 million undocumented immigrants, amounted to an amnesty and would encourage more people to cross the border illegally.

Beryl's 33-page decision said Arpaio did not meet the legal requirements to qualify as a person of standing in bringing the case on constitutional grounds

Oh, and Judge Howell? She's a loyal apparatchnik,  was one of the radical judges shoved through by President Obama to the DC Circuit Court using Majority Leader Harry Reid's nuclear option. A look at her background shows all the signs of a radical 'progressive,' which of course is why she was appointed in the first place.

I'm certain Judge Howell was totally unbiased and based her ruling strictly on the legal facts of the case and not her personal politics, aren't you?

Actually, she didn't rule on the legal facts of the case. She denied the injunction on the grounds that the top law enforcement official in an Arizona border county heavily affected by illegal migration 'had no standing.'

No, according to this judge in spite of his sworn duty to uphold the law and protect the citizens of Maricopa County, Sheriff Arpaio had no right to go to the courts and seek an injunction to stop policies that are directly impacting his ability to do so.

That's pretty much what we've come to.Justice is just whatever the Left says it is..and subject to change whenever it suits their agenda.

Palestinian Authority Desperate To Stave Off Landmark NY Terrorism Trial

The Palestinian Authority is desperately trying to weasel out of a January trial date in front of the US District Court in New York.

Shurat Hadin, an Israeli civil rights organization is suing the Palestinian Authority and the PLO for over one billion dollars on behalf of 11 families for involvement of PA and PLO members in seven terror attacks between 2001 and 2004 during the Second Intifada...attacks that the PA and PLO directed or funded.

The PA and PLO already lost a November trial in an attempt to get the case thrown out when the court ruled that was sufficient evidence to present to a jury that the PA and PLO provided material support for the attacks that murdered American citizens. The PA is liable on six of the seven attacks.

The court also ruled that there was enough evidence for a jury to determine that PA employees conducted terrorist attacks against civilians in Israel, and that the PA and PLO provided weapons, money and other material support in violation of U.S.laws, as well as safe haven to the terrorists, as well material support to Hamas and Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the "military wing" of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction.

The trial date for this landmark case is set for January and the PA and PLO's lawyers have already seen the evidence. So they're doing everything possible to avoid going to trial. They already tried the sovereign immunity argument and failed, so their next step was to file a request for a writ of mandamus, asking the court to recuse itself as an improper venue:

"For years the PA provided funding and every measure of support for the murderous terrorist operations in Israel that devastated the country and left so many civilians dead," said Shurat Hadin director Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner.

Darshan-Leitner added "the decision and trial will provide an unprecedented opportunity to present to a New York jury all that the evidence that has been amassed documenting the Palestinians use of terrorism as an official policy to advance their goals."

If Shurat Hadin wins their case, all of the assets of the PA,Fatah and the PLO will become subject to judgement. In fact,Mahmoud Abbas,who according to former PLO Security Chief Mahmoud Dahlan personally stole at least $1.3 billion in donor aid could see his personal assets subject to judgment.So could Fatah's Palestine Investment Fund, worth about $2 billion or so.

Even better,the $100 million per month in PA taxes Israel collects for them could be levied as well. I've never understood why the Israelis, who are footing the bill for the care and rehabilitation of hundreds of terrorism victims didn't put these funds in escrow years ago and allow the families of these victims to sue in Israeli courts and obtain financial judgments against th ePA that could be paid out of those funds.

If this case goes to trial, and it looks like it will, an American jury is finally going to hear first hand how the Palestinian Authority planned, hired out, financed and assisted in the murder of their fellow Americans.

Of course,the next question that needs answering is why the Clinton,Bush and Obama Administrations continued to fund these creatures and pressure Israel to make concessions to them as 'peace partners.'

All three administrations had to have known about this.

Jordan's Arab Bank Found Liable for Funding Hamas Terrorist Attacks

Bloomberg News reported this afternoon that the Arab Bank, the biggest lender in Jordan and one of the largest in the Middle East, has been found liable for helping "Hamas militants carry out a wave of violence in Israel that killed and wounded hundreds of Americans."

The Amman-based lender did business with more than 150 Hamas leaders and operatives in the early 2000s, helping finance about two dozen suicide bombings and other attacks, jurors decided today in federal court in Brooklyn, New York.

The case highlights the ways banks can play a role in funding terrorist groups and the extent to which they can be held responsible for monitoring their customers, even those who aren’t on government lists of terrorists. Credit Lyonnais SA and Bank of China Ltd. are facing similar cases in the U.S., alleging they served as conduits for terrorism financing.

The plaintiffs were nearly 300 Americans who were victims or were related to victims of Hamas attacks.

 

The New York Times adds:

The burden of proof was high: The plaintiffs had to prove that the terrorist attacks were indeed conducted by Hamas, and that the bank’s support of Hamas was the “proximate cause” of the events. In addition, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate that their injuries were “reasonably foreseeable” as a consequence of the bank’s acts.

After 10 years of litigation and a five-week trial, the jury apparently found that the plaintiffs met the legal threshold, and ruled that the bank was liable. A separate hearing will be held to determine damages.

The verdict in the trial, which started in August, "was the first against a bank on civil claims of violating the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, making the verdict a potential industry landmark," according to Bloomberg.

Cross posted at The Tower. Reprinted by permission.

The GOP Has Just Picked Up Another Senate Seat

 

Republicans already have three for sure senate pickups in the mid terms in West Virginia, Montana, (Dem. John Walsh just dropped out over a plagiarism scandal) and South Dakota.

A federal court ruling today has likely added North Carolina to the list.

 

Eric Holder and the Obama Department of Justice have fought every attempt by the states to combat voter fraud tooth and nail. Last month, the Justice Department requested an injunction to prevent the state of North Carolina from implementing changes the North Carolina State legislature made to state election law,including strict voter ID laws to combat voter fraud and ensure more honest elections.

Today, a Federal district court refused to grant the injunction,which means that the new laws will remain in place through the midterms, and Democrat incumbent Nina Hagen, already trailing in the polls to Republican Thom Tillus has sustained a major blow to her re-election hopes.

 

The provisions are almost a checklist for honest elections. From the opinion:

Apart from the voter ID provisions, which were new, the bill largely purported to repeal, amend, or update existing law. Other amendments included:
(1) making it illegal to compensate persons collecting voter registrations based on the number of forms submitted (Part 14);
(2) reducing the number of signatures required to become a candidate in a party primary (Part 22);
(3) deleting obsolete provisions about the 2000 census (Part 27)
(4) changing the order of candidates appearing on the ballot (Part 31);
(5) eliminating straight-ticket voting (Part 32);
(6) moving the date of the North Carolina presidential primary earlier in the year (Part 35);
(7) eliminating taxpayer funding for appellate judicial elections (Part 38);
(8) allowing funeral homes to participate in canceling voter registrations of deceased persons (Part 39); and
(9) requiring provisional ballots to be marked as such for later identification (Part 52).
The bill also proposed mandating that several matters be referred for further study, including requiring the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee to examine whether to maintain the State’s current runoff system in party primaries. (Part 28.)

The court held that, although the court didn’t justify simply dismissing the DOJ lawsuit, the attorneys for the plaintiffs failed to show clearly the legal merits of their claims or that they would suffer irreparable harm before trial if an injunction wasn't granted.

Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, whose organization helped defend the law said,  “It is an embarrassing defeat for the Holder Justice Department. The court’s decision eviscerates Eric Holder’s politicized and racially inflammatory legal assault on commonsense election integrity measures. The court expressly rejected the Department of Justice’s contention that minorities are harmed by commonsense measures that help secure honest elections. The court’s dramatic rejection of Holder’s legal theory shows that that the DOJ’s lawsuit, which was coordinated with political activists at the White House, was always more about cynical political and racial appeals than upholding the law.”

 

The Wisconsin voter ID law, which was struck down by a partisan judge in Dane County is likewise proceeding through the justice system and the North Carolina decision makes it fairly likely the issue will proceed to the Supreme Court. It far too early to bring out the champagne yet, but we may yet see a time when Democrats are unable to prevail using illegal aliens, felons and the deceased to win elections.

Man Can't Sue Judge Who Had Affair With His Wife During Child-Support Case

 

That's the ruling of the Sixth Circuit Appeals court in a case brought by a Detroit man against disgraced Wayne County former judge Wade McCree Jr.

McCree, the son of the first black Justice to sit on the Sixth Circuit was disrobed and lost his judgeship for cute tricks like propositioning bailiffs, having sex in his chambers, trading sex for judicial rulings, sending inappropriate selfies and other misconduct was being sued by a Detroit man who the former judge slapped with outrageously high child support payments - while Judge McCree was having an affair with the other litigant in the case, the man's former wife. Mccree was sexting her from the bench, having sex with her in his judicial chambers and actively enjoying an affair that ultimately ended in an abortion.

 

The Michigan Supreme Court removed him from the bench and he was subsequently suspended without pay for 6 years, something the Michigan Supreme Court imposed because they honestly thought McCree could easily win reelection on racial grounds in Wayne County regardless of his carrying on.

But the Sixth Circuit held that Judge McCree couldn’t be sued civilly for any harms he caused while on the bench, regardless of his record.

According to the strict letter of the law, they're correct. Judicial civil immunity was upheld in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 348 (1871):

If civil actions could be maintained… against the judge, because the losing party should see fit to allege in his complaint that the acts of the judge were done with partiality, or maliciously, or corruptly, the protection essential to judicial independence would be entirely swept away.

Since then, courts have consistently ruled against plaintiffs attempting to sue judges.

There have been a few successful cases (In 1996 in Tennessee, a juvenile court judge who was accused of violating the civil rights of three women by sexually assaulting them and threatening to take their kids away if they reported it was denied judicial immunity by the same 6th Circuit) but not many.

Detroit attorney Joel Sklar, who represented the plaintiff in this case wants to take it to the Supreme Court.

“This conduct is absurd,” Sklar said. “It’s so beyond description. A judge uses his chambers to have sex with a litigant? ... If this isn’t too far, what is too far?”

There has been a movement, albeit a small one to waive judicial immunity in cases where a judge's misconduct has caused him to be removed from th ebench. We'll see if the Supremes hear this one.
 

Federal Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To ObamaCare; Most Subsidies Illegal

 

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today on a landmark case, Halbig vs. Burwell that would deal a huge blow to ObamaCare

The three judge panel, based on what they called a close reading of the law ruled that most of the ObamaCare subsidies are illegal.The 2-1 ruling said the subsidies can only be given to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia—and not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov.


"Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith.

"We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly."

Both Judge Randolph and Judge Griffith were appointed by President George HW Bush and President George W. Bush, respectively. The dissenting jurist,Judge Harry Edwards is a Carter appointee and an African-American, and his dissent was mainly based on a political stance, that this was "an attempt to gut ObamaCare."

You may draw your own conclusions.

The reality is that, as the law was written, people who enroll in Obamacare through the federal exchange aren’t eligible for subsidies. The text of the law only provides subsidies for people enrolled through “an Exchange established by the State,” according to the text of the Affordable Care Act. Only 16 states decided to establish the exchanges.

In Halbig vs. Burwell, the fed's argument was that the IRS issued a regulation expanding the number of enrollees who qualify for the subsidies. The plaintiff's argument was that the IRS does not have the authority to make that change. And if we're going by the law, it doesn't, because that amounts to legislation.

The IRS has no independent power to tax, borrow and spend. Only Congress can do that.It can only deviate from law in the case of obvious typos or ambiguous language, or in the case of something simply not making sense. Unfortunately for proponents of ObamaCare, the language in Section 36B is explicit, has a clear meaning and cannot be said to contain any typos, since the exact same language was written into numerous drafts of the law, including the final one sent to Se4nate Majority leader Harry Reid before the vote. The plaintiffs were able to clearly establish that, which is why the panel ruled as it did.

I guess the Dems really should have read the bill to see what was in it before jamming it down our throats.

 

The effect of this ruling, if it's upheld, would be to substantially cripple ObamaCare,perhaps terminally. ObamaCare, thus far, has mainly been attractive to those people who are interested in free stuff someone else is paying for. ObamaCare as free stuff mainly relies on the subsidies, and without them, it goes under without a massive federal bailout. Twenty seven states decided not to set up ObamaCare exchanges, and another nine states opted out.

A whopping 87% of ObamaCare's 'customers' are getting the subsidies. More than half of them signed up via the federal exchange. If the subsidies aren't available for them, they would be able to opt out, circumventing the law that requires them to get insurance or pay a tax penalty. The same applies to a great many other people the Obama Administration was relying on to pay for those subsidies through the IRS penalties.

And if ObamaCare goes down? Well, we can just write off the literally billions of dollars it cost to put together the dysfunctional website, the costs of the Justice Department defending this legal abortion,  the costs to market it and try to sell it, the lost productivity and man hours in both the private and public sector, and any other monies already paid out. All because this president and his party were so arrogant, so intent on getting their own way, so anxious to get this through no matter what the American people wanted that they were willing to ignore the law and circumvent the normal reconciliation process with the senate that is supposed to iron out errors like this because of Scott Brown's surprise election in Massachusetts.

There is not one member of congress who went along with this costly charade worthy of re-election. They knew how wrong it was, but they did it anyway.


 


Don't pop the champagne corks yet. The Obama Department of Justice is sure to appeal this, and the Supremes can either abrogate the ruling, agree with the lower court or simply refuse to hear the case, so that the lower court's ruling stands. Or they can appeal to the DC Court for an en banc hearing, requiring the full court to hear an appeal. Given some of the legal detritus the Regime has been able to pack the DC Circuit with, they might just prevail, in which case it is the plaintiffs whom would have to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Stay tuned...

A Sheep In Wolf's Clothing: The Supreme Court Runs And Hides

 

The Roberts Supreme Court issued two decisions today that are essentially sheep in wolf's clothing. That is, they are intended to look like originalist decisions that support the Constitution, but they are so hedged and nuanced as to be almost meaningless.

One of the cases, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is fairly well known. The issue here was whether the Obama Administration could require a corporation or other institution ( such as a Catholic University) to include abortificants and other contraceptive items required by ObamaCare in violation of its religious principles.

The other was Harris v. Quinn, where the matter in question was whether home health care workers, many of whom take care of disabled relatives are required to kick in an 'agency fee' for negotiating pay and benefits to public employee unions even if the workers involved are not members of the union and do not want to join or support the union.

Let's look at Harris vs. Quinn first, which was PR'ed as a 'death blow' to public employee unions. Nothing could be further from the truth. What the Court did here was to rule so narrowly that it avoided the essential issue.

Pamela Harris gets paid to take care of her developmentally disabled son in Illinois, which made a deal with the SEIU as the union of choice to collect those 'fees'. She challenged the state's right to designate a union of public employees as their sole representative.

In a 1977 ruling, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Court ruled that public employee Unions could collect such fees but not use them for political activities, although pro-labor politicians made sure that there was little or no oversight to give it any teeth.

The argument for Ms. Harris was a simple First Amendment one - whether the compulsory fees violated her right of free speech, since the State of Illinois was in essence forcing her to support an organization, the SEIU, whose politics she disagreed with.

That was the essential issue, and anyone who understands the Constitution knows that compelling someone to support politics they disagree with - say, spending $40 million dollars to get Barack Obama elected president-as a condition of employment violates their First Amendment rights.

Yet so ingrained is the Ponzi scheme by which the Democratic party funds itself through forced contributions from public employee union paychecks paid for by the public and then 'negotiates' pay and benefits with the very people that put them in office that she actually lost in a couple of th elower courts and had to appeal.

 

The Court sidestepped that by ruling that only home care workers were exempted and noting in the decision that prior rulings legalizing this enforced levy from workers and from taxpayers could continue. The obvious question no one's asking is that if Ms. Harris' rights were deemed violated, aren't the rights of a janitor or a clerk's who likewise has to kick in to support the union's political agenda? This was a chance for a sweeping ruling that would have defended the First Amendment the Court deliberately avoided. Since it was 5-4, I suspect Chief Justice John Robert's hand in this.

At best, this may be a precedent to take down public employee unions like the SEIU and AFSCME and end their racket at a later date.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was an even bigger example of deliberately avoiding the defense of a clear constitutional principle.

The Court never even bothered to go near the main argument, the fact that by requiring Hobby Lobby to provide abortificants and contraceptives as part of the ObamaCare mandate the free practice clause of the First Amendment was being urinated on. Instead, they again narrowed down their ruling to the point that it was meaningless. First, they limited the things Hobby Lobby need not pay for to three specific abortificants, most notably the morning after pill. Upon ''certifying that it opposes contraceptive coverage', the insurance company involved is required to provide these items 'for free', which of course means that Hobby Lobby will still be paying for them because they will be figured into the premium the insurance company charges them!

What we're talking about is an average cost for these items of around $9 a month over the counter -  without any insurance offset.

What everyone seems to want to avoid is that contraception, like sex itself,  is a choice. In fact, that's really what both these decisions were about. Who chooses? Is it government or the individual? And does the government have the right to force such basic choices on people? Who you have to pay off as a condition of employment? What you have to provide as an employer beyond the obvious realms of a safe working environment and an agreed upon rate of pay no matter what your principles? Would the Court have ruled, for instance, that Muslims are to be required to handle pork and alcohol if that's part of their job requirement? Isn't that the same principle, the free practice of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment? Obviously not anymore.  Welcome to Obama's America.

 

The Roberts Court is going to be remembered for its cowardice and willingness to punt rather than the exercise of what is supposedly its job, to interpret and rule on the Constitution.

And the fact that this was yet another 5-4 decision doesn't bode well for our liberties.Not at all.

Unanimous! Supremes Rules Obama's Recess Appointments Unconstitutional

I guess he's not a king after all. At least not yet.

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al that President Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. The president's excuse at the time was that the Senate was 'in recess' when it actually wasn't, but he simply pushed the appointments through anyway.

The senate sued, and today's ruling was the result.

In a real slap in the face, the majority opinion was written by the most left-leaning justice on the Court, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. A concurring opinion written by Antonin Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

"The Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or inter-session—of sufficient length. A Senate recess that is so short that it does not require the consent of the House under that Clause is not long enough to trigger the President's recess-appointment power."

Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution.

Apparently even the left-leaning justices on the court are worried about this president's lawless behavior and disregard for the Constitution he swore to uphold.

Court Ruling: Israeli And US Terrorism Victims Now 'Own' Iran's Internet

 
ه هدف مقدس!  What happened to "Monday Night Jihad?"


The United States District Court ruled today that the .ir domain name, along with Iran’s IP addresses
are assets that can be seized to satisfy judgments totaling over a billion dollars, owed by Iran to Israeli and US victims of terrorism perpetrated by Iranian-supported proxies like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah organizations, among others.

The verdict was won by attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Shurat Hadin Law Center and what it means is absolutely delicious. The fees paid by Iran to keep its Internet going could be levied and given to the victims, or their lawyers now have to legal right to force an auction of Iran’s Internet assets to help satisfy the judgment.

 

Shurat Hadin and others have been pursuing Iran in court for over a decade and have obtained numerous judgments against The Islamic Republic which Iran has refused to pay.

Faced with Iranian refusal to provide such compensation, Darshan-Leitner has been pursuing these judgments in the courts. “We’ve been able to seize numerous Iranian assets to satisfy these judgments,” Darshan-Leitner told The Times of Israel. “Last year, for example, we were awarded a building on New York’s Fifth Avenue, and we have a case pending for seizure of an Iranian government-owned art collection at the University of Chicago.”

But today's ruling might end up being the most costly for Iran.

The Iranians, like every other country pay fees to The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an agency that's part of the US Department of Commerce which administers the World Wide Web. The court ruling today leaves the way clear for those fees Iran pays every year to renew its' domains and its country prefix, .ir to be collected by Sharat Hadin and distributed to the plaintiffs to help satisfy the judgments. Included in the judgment are all the “top-level domain” (TLD) names provided by ICANN to Iran, including the .IR TLD, the Persian-language ایران TLD, and all Internet Protocol (IP) addresses being utilized by the Iranian government and its agencies.

At this point, according to Darshan-Leitner, the only question is how ICAAN is going to respond.They have ten days to do so.

But wait, there's more.

Since ICANN will essentially not be paid its fees since they're going to the terrorism victims, they may simply decide not to do business with Iran anymore. If that happens, ICANN can actually pull the plug on Iran's internet, suspending its use of the .ir domain and disconnecting Iranian IP addresses from the web.

 

If ICANN decides to carry the Iranians, it gets even worse. Shurat Hadin would likely pursue an auction of the Iranian Internet assets, (which would probably generate a lot more cash) and Iran's websites and domains could be purchased by anyone. The possibilities are endless. Can you imagine the Saudis or the Israelis getting hold of Iran's official government website? And the effect on Iranian commerce would be a disaster.

“The payments are just one aspect of the judgment,” Darshan-Leitner said. “It’s the assets themselves that we were awarded. This is the first time that terror victims have moved to seize the domain names, IPs and Internet licenses of terror-sponsoring states like Iran in an attempt to satisfy their court judgments. The Iranians must be shown that there is a steep price to be paid for their sponsorship of terrorism. In business and legal terms it is quite simple — we are owed money, and these assets are currency worth money. We remain committed to helping these American families satisfy their judgments.”


Well done, Ms. Darshan-Leitner!

UPDATE: I've received a couple of e-mails that mention that the Europeans and EU internet organizations will not go along with this. Au contraire! First of all, EU groups like RIPE are bound by international treaty to be subservient to ICANN when it comes to internet and domain rulings.

And second, almost all European countries have treaties with the U.S. agreeing to reciprocation. That means that we honor financial judgments in those countries' courts as valid in ours, and they do the same for judgments in U.S. courts. As a matter of fact Iran lost a nice chunk of money a couple of years ago when Italian courts honored a U.S. District court judgement and allowed the seizure of two Iranian government bank accounts to help satisfy that judgment.

I also plead guilty to not bothering to run a number of comments like this one ( anonymous, of course):

In a total breakdown of international law, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, a Jewish attorney, has successfully triggered a judgement by the U.S. district court (which is totally overrun by corrupt Jewish judges) which will allow the seizure of Iran's internet assets via theft of their national .ir web designation.

Here is what went down: The Israeli Mossad, in the name of Iran, staged a large number of rocket attacks against Israel from Gaza, which gave Israel the "right" to inflict hundreds of billions of dollars of damage against Palestine in the form of bulldozings and murder campaigns, and as a bonus, provided a front from which a lawsuit could be launched against Iran to steal their assets. Since ICANN, which regulates the web is in America, this theft can be enforced via this court order.

This signals an entirely new era of Jewish corruption, if they get away with this I cannot possibly see how the web around the world will survive, and VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY ANSWER. You HAVE TO have a hot war over something like this.

You cannot have a stable world which is so web dependent being subjected to bogus judgements such as this. Into the mix as part of the settlement was the ENFORCED FACT that IRAN DID 911 AND HAD TO PAY REPARATIONS. Yet obviously no mention of Urban Moving systems was made, and the fact that Larry Silverstein himself had explosives planted in building 7 to bring it down, and himself gave the order to do so. The fact that Iran was judged responsible for 911 proves corruption at the highest levels of the American government, where Kikedom is living an orgy of deception and injustice. It cannot get any worse than this.

This judgement against Iran is so unjust it amounts to an act of war or a mugging by a crack head, and it is STUNNING NEWS that is NOT BEING REPORTED IN THE MSM.

This CANNOT and WILL NOT be reported in the MSM despite it being EARTH SHATTERING NEWS simply because too many people out there know Iran is completely innocent. This means that this court proceeding has to proceed in secrecy the same way antidepressant damage and tainted vaccines are totally not allowed in the press, as is the real truth about Fukushima, nuclear blackmail, and the Japan earthquake. The only way the Jews can get away with a crime this big is to keep it buried entirely.

And I do not believe for a minute that Nitsana Darshan-Leitner believes her case is real, she simply knew she had a corrupt judge available and WENT FOR IT for Israel. And one thing I have learned about thieves is once they discover they can get away with stealing, the thefts increase until they wreak total destruction on the innocent. This could be the end of the web and the end of all pretend global stability, who is next?

When we stop laughing, it's important to realize a little something that's true about 90% plus of the  creatures whom call themselves 'anti-ZIonists' or are involved the BDS movement. As the above screed makes clear, when they say  'Israel' they mean Jews. It's simply a more politically correct way of saying it. And that applies to a number of people with Jewish surnames who are part of this movement, or want the viewpoints of people like a Jewish Voice For Peace acknowledged as legitimate 'dialogue'.

-Selah-

Supreme Court Upholds Digital Privacy In Major Decision

In a far reaching decision that establishes a major precedent for digital privacy, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that warrantless searches of cell phones are unconstitutional except in very narrowly defined circumstances for “exigencies” that arise, such as major security threats.

The case involved was Riley v. California, a case the Court chose out of a group of ten cases involving warrantless searches of cell phones after an arrest.

 

In a 1973 decision, United States v. Robinson, the Court had ruled that the police can conduct a complete search of an arrestee's person, but they recognized in today's decision that a cell phone represents different territory, as Chief Justice John Roberts explained:

Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life,” Boyd, supra, at 630. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant.

While Robinson’s categorical rule strikes the appropriate balance in the context of physical objects, neither of its rationales has much force with respect to digital content on cell phones. On the government interest side, Robinson concluded that the two risks identified in Chimel—harm to officers and destruction of evidence—are present in all custodial arrests. There are no comparable risks when the search is of digital data. In addition, Robinson regarded any privacy interests retained by an individual after arrest as significantly diminished by the fact of the arrest itself. Cell phones, however, place vast quantities of personal information literally in the hands of individuals. A search of the information on a cell phone bears little resemblance to the type of brief physical search considered in Robinson.

Justice Roberts wrote that a cell phone could lay bare someone’s entire personal history, from their medical records to their “specific movements down to the minute” and noted that there was a huge difference between asking someone to turn out his pockets versus “ransacking his house for everything which may incriminate him.”

The storage capacity of cell phones has several interrelated consequences for privacy. First, a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of information—an address, a note, a prescription, a bank statement, a video—that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record. Second, a cell phone’s capacity allows even just one type of information to convey far more than previously possible. The sum of an individual’s private life can be reconstructed through a thousand photographs labeled with dates, locations, and descriptions; the same cannot be said of a photograph or two of loved ones tucked into a wallet. Third, the data on a phone can date back to the purchase of the phone, or even earlier. A person might carry in his pocket a slip of paper reminding him to call Mr. Jones; he would not carry a record of all his communications with Mr. Jones for the past several months, as would routinely be kept on a phone.


This is a huge win for the Fourth Amendment and protection against unusual searches and seizures, and the first victory for an individuals right of privacy in some time.

Tyranny: Supremes Won't Hear Appeal from Photographer Fined For Refusing to Shoot Gay Wedding

 

The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear an appeal from Elane Photography, a Christian-owned New Mexico business who was fined for turning down business that involved photographing gay marriages on religious grounds.

The New Mexico State Supreme Court had ruled against Elane Photography in 2013, ruling she discriminated against a gay couple because she refused to shoot their same-sex ceremony. Since the Supreme Court has clearly decided to ignore Elane's First Amendment rights, refusing even to hear the case, their cowardice means that this tyrannical ruling will stand as a precedent.

The implications are monstrous. What's next...will clergymen be forced to officiate over homosexual weddings and hold them in their mosques, synagogues, churches and temples regardless of their beliefs? Do private businesses no longer have the right to refuse  services to anyone for any reason?

We apparently are no longer a nation of laws anymore. Or a nation of G-d-given freedoms.

Justice - Former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert Convicted

It took a lot longer than it should have, but Israel former PM Ehud Olmert is going to jail.

He was convicted of accepting bribes and perjury in connection with the Holyland building project in Jerusalem. They were able to convict him because his former assistant, Shula Zaken decided to accept a plea bargain with limited jail time in exchange for her testimony against her former boss, who was always as dirty as they come.She was found guilty of accepting 100,000 shekels (almost $29,000).

What Olmert did was to accept and give bribes in connection with the development of a massive Jerusalem construction project promoted while Olmert was mayor of the city over a decade ago.

According to the decision, the state’s witness, Shmuel Dachner, (now deceased) gave Olmert’s brother Yossi Olmert post-dated checks for NIS 500,000 ($143,000) at Olmert’s behest. Dachner was representing a real estate developer Hillel Charney, who was convicted on Monday of money laundering and bribing Olmert, his then-assistant — and future Jerusalem mayor — Uri Lupolianski, and a number of others.

Judge David Rosen of the Tel Aviv District Court talked about "corrupt and filthy practices," while reading out the verdict, his statements repeated in headlines throughout Israeli media.

In his decision he wrote, "Hundreds of thousands of shekels were transferred to public leaders. The dirty money was given in order to advance the business of the people who gave the money. Every defendant has his own corruption case. Dachner came up with the idea and carried out the bribery deals. In the court, he answered the lawyers' questions as best he could.”

Dachner essentially bought the services of then Mayor Olmert who, Rosen noted sarcastically, considered Dachner a “magical treasure that stood at his disposal.”

Then Olmert lied to the court in a bid to "blacken the name" of the state's witness, according to Judge Rosen.

Olmert's crime carries a maximum 10 year jail sentence, but a decade ago when the crimes were committed it was only 7 years. There's a good possibility that when Olmert is sentenced, they'll lean towards what the penalty was when the crimes were committed.

What bothers me most is first, that this was the only thing they were able to pop him on, and second, that there's unfortunately no statutory penalty for his treasonous incompetence as Israel's prime minister.

read the rest at the Times of Israel

Justina Pelletier: Judge Awards 'Permanent Custody' To Mass. DFC

Judge Joseph Johnston has ruled that The Massachusetts Department of Families And Children (DFC) will have 'permanent custody' of 15-year-old Justina Pelletier, taking her away from her parents in spite of her own wishes and her rapidly declining health in state custody.

This case is a textbook example of child abuse promulgated by the legal system and an embedded bureaucracy, and it is worth looking at to see how far out of hand our ruling class has gotten.

Fourteen months ago, Justina, a Connecticut teen was being treated for mitochondrial disease, a group of rare genetic disorders affecting cellular energy production.Her physician who had been treating her, Dr. Mark Korson at Tufts, wanted the girl to visit gastroenterologist Dr. Alejandro Flores at Boston Children's Hospital, who had treated Justina at Tufts in the past. Being loving and concerned parents, the Pelletiers made the appointment with Dr. Flores and duly went to Boston Children's Hospital to have Justina seen.

When they got there, instead of seeing Dr. Flores, Justina was essentially kidnapped. She was taken to emergency where a resident refused to let her see Dr. Flores. Instead, he decided that this was a psychiatric case and sent Justina to a psychologist who diagnosed her with somatoform disorder -- a mental condition in which a patient experiences symptoms that are real but are psychosomatic.

When the Pelletiers rejected the new psychiatric diagnosis and wanted to bring Justina back to Tufts, the hospital first tried to force the girl's parents to sign papers admitting her as a psychiatric patient and when they refused and understandably became insistent at taking their daughter out of Boston Children's, the hospital got the state Department of Family and Children involved and accused the parents of medical child abuse.

They were not permitted to bring Justina home or to another facility. Instead, the teen was kept at Boston Children’s psychiatric ward for nearly a year where her physical condition deteriorated while the parents unsuccessfully fought the system to get Justina released.The DCF has allowed the parents only one hour per week to visit their daughter, but always with DCF personnel present. DCF would not allow the parents to photograph their daughter, and even filed a motion to hold Lou Pelletier in contempt of court for speaking to national media.

"Tufts was working fine with her, diagnosed medically, going to school, ice skating and doing all those things," Lou Pelletier said. "Look at her then and look at her now."

The DCF also has refused to provide the medical care Justina's condition requires, will not allow her access to a priest or to communion (she's Catholic) has refused to make any accommodations for her education, with the result that she is now almost two years behind her classmates in school.

Three weeks ago, Judge Johnston approved a written agreement transferring care back to Tufts Medical Center from Boston Children’s Hospital. That still hasn't been done, as Boston Children's has refused to make any appointments with the doctors there in spite of Justina's condition.

This decision by Judge Johnston was in response to a motion presented by the 15-year-old’s court-appointed lawyer and the lawyers for her parents, Linda and Lou Pelletier. It called for the girl's parents to be awarded “conditional custody” of their daughter.

Instead, the judge has granted permanent custody of Justina Pellatier to the DFC...who have done absolutely nothing to help her.

In his order, Johnston noted that the court considered granting conditional custody to the Pelletiers but “very concerning conduct … does not give this court any confidence they will comply with the conditions of custody.” The evidence? That Lou Pelletier once threatened a DFC social worker, who was afterward removed from the case, and oh yes..the media presence.

“Instead of engaging in quality visits with Justina, the parents use profanity directed at MA DCF personnel in Justina’s presence,” Johnston’s ruling said.

Johnston also included that he thinks Lou and Linda Pelletier should be “psychologically and clinically evaluated,” but refused to have the state of Massachusetts do it, insisiting that it must be coordinated through the State of Connecticut’s own DCF.

You bring your daughter in for medical treatment, she gets kidnapped, you see her dying in front of your eyes and you lose it with some heartless bureaucrat drone who's keeping her prisoner? And when you finally get fed up with doing the dance for months and go to the media to try to shed some sunlight on what's happening to your child, you need to be “psychologically and clinically evaluated?”

To tell you the truth, if the Pellatiers hadn't done that, I'd think they needed to be psychologically evaluated.

This is one of those canary in the coalmine moments. It is the State shoving our noses in the fact that they own our children and they know what's best, and we're just the sperm and egg donors.

What's next? On May 25th, Judge Johnston is expected revisit the decision to award permanent custody in a follow-up court hearing on May 25. His ruling leaves it up to the state DCF to decide whether or when Justina should be returned to her family, which means she could end up in state care until she turns 18. If she survives.

Meanwhile, the Pelltiers haven't given up. They're appealing the decision and have filed a writ of habeus corpus against Massachusetts for wrongful imprisonment. Hopefully this will get Justina freed by order of the Appellate courts, although it might just be that the attention this is generating could get Justina Pellatier freed sooner..perhaps at the review hearing in May.