activistpost--2019-08-24--The Politicization of Justice

The Politicization of Justice

The American criminal justice system has long been a sharp painful thorn in the nation’s consciousness as if to remind us of a major flaw in the American way of life.  Mostly, that awareness has focused on the inequities of prosecution and sentencing between the privileged upper class elites and the have-nots of the blue collar underclass and our nation’s minorities.  Since 2016 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has had an increased national  presence initially as it related to the discredited Russiagate collusion campaign and now, as long-standing corruption within the DOJ and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surfaces, the status quo can no longer be tolerated.  Only those with a childlike innocence would be surprised by the sudden, untimely death of Jeffrey Epstein while incarcerated in the US Federal prison system. Attorney General Bob Barr described himself as ‘appalled’ that the planet’s most politically connected trafficker of adolescent female flesh had ‘suicided’ out.  Epstein was also reported to be a valuable Mossad asset who used his unique position to blackmail a multitude of unsuspecting elite schmucks.  If Barr brings the same level of incredulity to the ongoing systemic investigations of the effort to disrupt the 2016 presidential campaign and to unseat a sitting US President, we might as well roll up the last copy of the Constitution and use it for kindling.  Despite a history of prejudicial bias and unethical conduct that is incompatible with a free, open and democratic society, injustice including one’s demise at the hands of the American criminal justice system is nothing new.  Whether Epstein was mortally wounded or is sunning himself on an Israeli beach leads to the same conclusion:  it can no longer be denied that corruption of the nation’s law enforcement system is widespread (i.e. civil asset forfeiture) as its top officials and many of its privileged Federal judges are implicated.  While a Grand Jury Inquiry into 9/11 has been stalled by the US Attorney at the US Southern District since April, 2018, it is anticipated that the DOJ Inspector General’s report on FISA Court abuses will detail systemic criminal behavior at the highest levels of government perhaps reaching into the Obama White House.  Which brings us to the presidential campaign of Sen. Kamala Harris as walking – talking proof of why, as a prosecutor, she should be ineligible for election to any position of public trust. There is little reason to believe that Harris is an aberration but rather the product of an odious infection that Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals described as “an epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.”  Considering its hallowed beginnings with the Judiciary Act of 1789 which established the Supreme Court, created the nation’s Federal Court system including the first US Attorneys and US Marshals and the first Circuit and District Courts, the nation’s law enforcement and judicial institutions are deeply embedded in the Constitutional roots of the Country. The Act also created the office of the Attorney General.  In particular, a Federal Prosecutor is an omnipotent, most powerful person in any legal proceeding and armed with an unlimited pot of taxpayer funds.  With high profile prosecutions as plum assignments, many prosecutors cannot resist the grandstanding and opportunity for fame and glory. They are in total control of the Grand Jury process with unfettered discretion to run roughshod over any defendant.  Losing sight of the fact that they are officers of the Court, they are  untouchable as they possess a legal immunity from their own criminal misconduct.  There is an outstanding opportunity for the American public to better understand the level of corruption at the DOJ with a Must Read of Sidney Powell’s Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the US Department of Justice.  Powell’s book reads like a political exposé, leaving the reader profoundly disturbed and stunned by the level of unimpeded corruption in the absence of any checks and balances.  Reading more like a fast-paced crime novel with one tragic suicide and one suspected murder, all the indictments were based on fabricated criminal allegations, a unanimous Supreme Court reversal, repeated Constitutional violations of withholding evidence (i.e. Brady Rule)  as well as wrongful imprisonments – all conducted by the highest levels of the country’s criminal justice system involving two US District Court Judges and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  All defendants were initially found guilty only to have their convictions reversed on appeal with one still guilty of perjury/obstruction and concluding with the politically-inspired prosecutorial promotions to increased positions of power and influence within the DOJ or the revolving door to some of the nation’s million dollar law firms.  The following summaries of the three cases outlined in Powell’s book do not do justice to the complexity and divergence from the Rule of Law as so effectively detailed in Licensed to Lie:  In March, 2002 with the GW Bush Administration in office, the DOJ began their investigation into the Enron collapse by indicting Arthur Andersen, the country’s leading accounting firm since 1913.  The entire company of AA was indicted rather than any single individuals responsible. As the auditor representing Enron along with 2,300 other publicly traded companies, the immediate impact of the indictment forced Andersen to close its doors leaving its 85,000 worldwide employees unemployed.  One Enron witness who refused to testify and plead guilty was put in solitary confinement for months until he wilted and agreed to testify per DOJ’s instructions.  District Court Judge Melinda Harmon was cooperative of the government’s case amending jury instructions to lessen the prosecution burden to prove their case.  The jury found the company guilty with the conviction affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.  In 2005, the Supreme Court found that AA had committed no criminal conduct and .  In September, 2003, four Merrill Lynch executives were indicted under an ‘honest services’ charge for conspiring to defraud Enron of its CFO services even though no fraud was committed.  Defense Council Powell could find no precedent for making the honest services claim a federal criminal offense .  The basis for the allegation was a five-minute telephone conversation on December 23 regarding Enron’s guarantee to Merrill that they would buy back some Nigerian barges.  The Task Force assured Defense Counsel’s repeated requests that no Brady evidence existed.  “Cooperative” prosecution witnesses included Enron’s CFO Barry Fastow who was criminal master-mind of multiple mega million dollar thefts as compared to the four Merrill defendants who took no money and received no benefits.  Fastow served less than five years in prison.  As the jury returned a guilty verdict, District Judge Ewing Werlien denied all defense motions as the Task Force requested incarceration forcing the defendants to report to prison that day.  The Task Force had requested a 24-year sentence although each received 3-4 years  Always at issue was whether the DOJ prosecutors abided by the Brady Rule which constitutionally requires the prosecution to provide the defense with all exculpatory evidence that might benefit the defense.  Six years later, as one of the four defendants was still in appeals court, the Task Force accidentally revealed their withholding of evidence from Defense Council that would have exonerated the Merrill Four six years earlier.  In July of 2008, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was indicted by a federal grand jury for failure to report gifts related to a home renovation and was found guilty on October 27th.  Less than a week later, Stevens, a forty-year member of the US Senate, lost his re-election bid which changed the balance of power in the Senate as Barack Obama was elected President and the Democrats assumed control of the Senate.  Soon after, in a rare display of ethical and moral fortitude, an FBI whistleblower revealed that the Task Force attorneys had withheld exculpatory evidence from the Stevens defense, again violating the Brady Rule.  Newly appointed Attorney General Eric Holder was forced to dismiss the charges against Stevens with District Judge Emmett Sullivan overturning the Stevens conviction and ultimately appointed a special investigator to review the DOJ’s behavior.  The Schuelke Report targeted mid-level FBI attorneys while vindicating its top supervisors.  The suggestion that the Stevens’ indictment was ideologically driven remains a possibility.  It remains an imponderable curiosity as to how an incestuous group-think led to these stunning levels of abuse of political power.  Why would some of the highest ranking officials within the DOJ seemingly consciously destroy the Constitutional presumption of innocence; that is, that any citizen is innocent until proven guilty – even as the concept has been a political football since the 2016 election.  On Federal matters, the burden is always on the government to prove their case “beyond a reasonable doubt” and yet, the government never met that burden in all three of the cases cited above.   It is as if there was deliberate intent to devastate the reputation and integrity of the country’s leading law enforcement agencies thereby destroying its ability to ever again function as a credible advocate on behalf of the Bill of Rights. The term ‘prosecutorial misconduct’ does not adequately sum up the damage done to the thousands of lives affected in the three cases;  livelihoods ruined, financial instability and physical well-being destroyed due to an improper, excessive display of the politicization of justice. What is equally astounding is that for the DOJ to have failed in all three cases with prosecutorial misconduct, the unanimous Supreme Court reversal and repudiation of the Department’s legal prowess, any one of these cases were sufficient to merit a Congressional oversight hearing including what disciplinary action had been taken. In addition, while Powell’s book should have been a NY Times best seller, that once authoritative “newspaper of record”  refused to ‘review’ the book just as the NY Post backed off a story when the DOJ refused to make comment and book distributors have been less than cooperative. And lastly, given the multiple Brady Rule violations, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced the “Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act of 2012″ which failed to attract more than four co-sponsors. Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31 Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month. Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-08-25--Utility Company AEP Sues FCC Over Rules to Speed Up 5G and Fiber Installation

Utility Company, AEP, Sues FCC Over Rules to Speed Up 5G and Fiber Installation

Activist Post reports regularly about the many individuals and organizations who are opposed to the forced widespread installation of 5G technology.  Utility companies are among them and they have warned the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) that allowing more 5G spectrums for unlicensed and untested WiFi applications will interfere with their already problematic and combustible smart meters and grids.  Equally scary, the Telecom Industry has admitted they have no scientific evidence that 5G is even safe.  AEP has now decided to sue the FCC about their rush to install 5G:  Recently the FCC announced new rules that would help speed up the rollout of 5G. Now the American Electric Power Service Corporation has sued the FCC with the hopes to block the new rules in order to get a court review of the changes the FCC has made. These new rules would allow fiber and small 5G cells to be placed on existing utility poles far faster than under the old rules. These new rules also set limits on how long it utilizes can take to review requests to add equipment to poles and limits what can be charged. Now with the updated FCC rules groups will be required to approve or deny deployment of new small wireless facilities within 90 days, or just 60 days if added to existing equipment. In the past, it often took months to approve new changes to current poles. The FCC also argued that companies were making new compers pay to correct violations that already existed on the pole if they wanted to add new equipment to the pole the new FCC rules put an end to this. As you would expect this has upset some utilities and the American Electric Power Service Corporation has sued to stop these new rules as they request the Judge for a review of the FCC order. The FCC says these new rules are important for the nation as part of the growth of high-speed internet and 5G. In the FCC response to the lawsuit it said: Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!      - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom “After further consideration and in light of the national importance of a speedy rollout of 5G services,” the Commission amended its rules “to allow new attachers to invoke the self-help remedy for work above the communications space, including the installation of wireless 5G small cells, when utilities and existing attachers have not met make-ready work deadlines.” You can read the FCC’s full reply to the lawsuit HERE.  Tens of millions of “Smart” Meters have already been installed in the U.S. and around the world so it’s likely that they are already on your home and throughout your community unless you are fortunate enough to have been able to “opt out.”  In addition to causing fires and explosions, they have been making people sick from their RF emissions.  A documentary was produced about them – Take Back Your Power – and it is free to watch online.  5G is already operating in some communities and people and their pets becoming sick from exposure (see 1, 2, 3).  AEP also isn’t the only one to sue the FCC about 5G (see 1, 2).


activistpost--2019-08-30--How Does This Keep Happening Cop Guilty of Raping 5yo Girl Gets NO JAIL

How Does This Keep Happening? Cop Guilty of Raping 5yo Girl Gets NO JAIL

Honolulu, HI — For years, the Free Thought Project has been reporting on case after case of police officers caught raping, molesting, and abusing their victims. All too often, these officers are let off with little to no punishment. Many of these officers were caught sexually abusing children only to be let loose in society after flexing their blue privilege. In the instance below, that is exactly what happened as a Honolulu cop will avoid any time behind bars despite multiple child sexual assault charges.  Disgraced Honolulu officer Teddy O. Van Lerberghe, 45, flexed his blue privilege when he reached a plea deal with prosecutors guaranteeing he will not go to jail. This plea deal was based on the victim’s desire not to see her abuser locked up. This is likely due to the fact that the victim is a family member.  As the Star Advertiser points out, Deputy Prosecutor Loren Haugen said in state court Tuesday that he offered fired Honolulu police officer Teddy Van Lerberghe a plea deal in the sexual assault case against him involving a victim who was 5 years old when the sexual assaults started because that’s what the victim wanted.  “There was one aspect that she did deem quite important. And that by pleading to the charges, Teddy Van Lerberghe could never, ever again be a police officer or become a police officer in this state or any state,” Haugen said.  Circuit Judge Rowena Somerville said she approved the deal only after she received assurances that the victim and the victim’s family agreed with it, the Star Advertiser reported.  “The court doesn’t take these matters lightly. These are serious offenses,” she said.  Clearly that is a lie, however. For the repeated rape of a small child, Somerville sentenced Van Lerberghe, 45, to just five years of probation for four counts of second-degree sexual assault and three counts of third-degree sexual assault. He will not see one single day behind bars. Disgusting indeed.  While the wishes of the victim should certainly be honored, in certain instances—like child rape—those wishes should only go so far. To keep a child rapist free because a former victim who likely has deep psychological scars wants him to be free, is probably not the best course of action. This is akin to saying the five-year-old girl consented.  According to court documents, in 2017, Van Lerberghe was indicted on multiple counts of first- and third-degree sexual assault. According to the indictment, the abuse took place for years on a victim as young five-years-old.  Four of the charges were Class A felonies carrying mandatory 20-year prison terms.  Van Lerberghe initially pleaded not guilty, but he changed his plea to no contest in May after reaching a disgustingly lenient deal with prosecutors.  As Hawaii News Now points out, felony sex assault charges usually carry long prison terms, but that is not the case with Van Lerberghe.  Despite facing over 100 years behind bars for all the charges, the seven major felony charges he faced were reduced to four Class B felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison and three Class C felonies punishable by up to five years in prison.  Even though the lesser charges all carried multiple years behind bars, prosecutors still let him off, essentially scot free.  Van Lerberghe will also have to register as a sex offender for life — something he’s probably not too worried about considering he just escaped decades behind bars for raping a child.  The Free Thought Project found a profile on Facebook which appears to belong to Van Lerberghe. It shows that he has two small children, raising the question of whether or not they were the victims. Terrible indeed.  Unfortunately, officer-involved sexual misconduct is an all too common reality, and the majority of it happens to children.  In one study over a single 2010 sample, the officers associated with reports of serious sexual misconduct, 51% (180) were involved with reports that involved minors and 49% (174) involved adults.  As Van Lerberghe’s case illustrates, perhaps the most sickening aspect associated with the high rate of sexual assault among officers is the lack of punishment they receive.  TFTP has compiled a short list of cops just like Van Lerberghe who all essentially escaped accountability for preying on society’s most vulnerable. Below are a few of these horrific cases in which cops were convicted of sexual abuse and let off with a slap on the wrist.  In 2015, a former Manatee County Sheriff’s Lieutenant was sentenced for his sadistic and sickening acts against three children. Officer Dale Couch was arrested after children told authorities what he had done to them — violently sexually abused them.  He was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation of a child under age 12, and a third charge of lewd and lascivious molestation against a 12-year-old child. Instead of being locked in a cage for the rest of his life, like Van Lerberghe, Couch flexed his blue privilege and was given 12 months probation — no jail time.  Just before Couch’s trial, we reported on the police officer who was caught with multiple hard drives full of child porn. All the charges were dropped.  The Free Thought Project also reported on the case of officer Christopher Allen Carson who orally forced himself onto a sleeping 7th grader and was only given a 30-day sentence.  And the list goes on.  Former state trooper, 36-year-old Samuel H. McHenry II, responded to a traffic accident in December 2016, and, instead of helping the victim, he threatened to take her to jail because he saw an empty pill bottle and a nasal spray bottle in her vehicle, neither of which are illegal. He then restrained the woman and threw her in the back of the cop car, drove her to a secluded area and raped her. He then left her at a closed store, away from her car, and sped off.  McHenry pleaded guilty to the charges and was given a measly 180-day sentence, 180 days of which he would never have to spend in jail, thanks to his blue-privileged status.  In November of 2013, John Van Trump was accused of sexually assaulting a girl younger than six years old. Since the girl was younger than six, his charge was considered a super crime.  The details of Trump’s crimes were so heinous that they were not released publicly. We only know that Trump sexually assaulted the daughter of his former girlfriend on multiple occasions. At the time of the alleged crimes, she was 5.


activistpost--2019-09-01--After Admitting to Felony Sex Crimes Deputy Gets No Jail Wont Register as Sex Offender

After Admitting to Felony Sex Crimes, Deputy Gets No Jail, Won’t Register as Sex Offender

A Contra Costa County cop who had sex with inmates will not have to face jail time nor will he have to register as a sex offender following what some are calling a sweetheart deal he and his lawyers made with prosecutors.  Patrick Morseman, 28, was allowed to avoid jail time even though he pleaded guilty to four counts of “sexual activity with a confined, consenting adult.” He admitted to having oral and vaginal intercourse with two women detained at the West County Detention Facility in Richmond on or about March 31, 2018 but claims the sex was consensual, even desired by the two female inmates with which he consummated his sex acts.  Both women referred to in court as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 admitted to flirting with Morseman and passing him a jailhouse love note indicating their desire to have sex with the officer. But at least one of the women’s lawyers claims what Moresman did amounts to rape.  Dean Aynechi and his client sued the Sheriff’s office, settling out of court and was quoted as saying the sex acts could hardly be consensual but amounted to “rape” instead.  According to KTVU, the former cop only had to serve two days in jail before his trial and conviction but now must serve out the rest of his sentence being electronically monitored for six months and spend the next three years on felony probation.  Court reporters confirm Morseman was smiling when he received the verdict. He reportedly is now being allowed to leave California and serve out the remainder of his sentence in Nebraska where he is relocating his residence.  Morseman will also not be forced to register as a sex offender under the current penal code of California. It is unclear if he will be allowed to become a police officer in Nebraska. Since he is relocating he is now identified as a “gypsy cop” by police accountability activists who claim officers like Morseman will continue to re-offend simply by pulling up roots and moving somewhere else.  The sex-offending cop now joins the throngs of officers who use their blue privilege to take advantage of women while in custody. Whether or not the sex is consensual is of no consequence. The fact remains judges often side with law enforcement when cops are charged with sex crimes involving inmates. Case in point, the cop in Hawaii who admitted to raping a five-year-old girl and was just sentenced to probation—no jail.  A judge ruled last month 200 women in Lincoln, IL did not have their civil rights violated when the female inmates were forced to bend over and spread their anal and vaginal cavities for inspection. The sexual organ inspection was unnecessary and was unprovoked, and described as part of a training exercise for new recruits.  [Plaintiffs] were required to stand naked, nearly shoulder to shoulder with 8-10 other inmates in a room where they could be seen by others not conducting the searches, including male officers. Menstruating inmates had to remove their tampons and sanitary pads in front of others, were not given replacements, and many got blood on their bodies and clothing and blood on the floor. The naked inmates had to stand barefoot on a floor dirty with menstrual blood and raise their breasts, lift their hair, turn around, bend over, spread their buttocks and vaginas, and cough.


activistpost--2019-09-04--Groped by the TSA MeToo And FINALLY We Can Sue

Groped by the TSA? #MeToo And FINALLY We Can Sue

Last Friday, a US federal appeals court sided with the people – finally. The court ruled that travelers can sue the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers for “abusive conduct.”  This is great news for those of us who are absolutely fed up with the rampant invasive and humiliating screenings at the hands of TSA agents.  You know what? Let us call those “screenings” what they often are: Sexual assaults, under the guise of “security.”  Anyway, back to the story…  In a 9-4 decision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said Transportation Security Administration screeners were “investigative or law enforcement officers” for purposes of searching passengers, waiving the government’s usual immunity from lawsuits. Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro said the “intimate physical nature” of airport screenings brought them within the ambit of law enforcement, allowing travelers to pursue some civil claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act for intentional wrongdoing. He downplayed concern that the decision would open the floodgates to litigation, saying that in 2015 fewer than 200 people, out of more than 700 million screened, filed complaints that might trigger the waiver. (source)  The judges rejected the government’s argument that airport screening is different from a search because airline passengers consent to it. They said it’s indeed a search – noting that screeners can search a passenger’s entire body, including sensitive areas.  It is a win for people like Nadine Pellegrino, who with her husband sued the TSA for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution over an incident that occurred in 2006 at Philadelphia International Airport, Reuters reports:  Pellegrino, then 57, had objected to the invasiveness of a random screening prior to her scheduled boarding of a US Airways flight to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was accused of striking a TSA officer. She was eventually jailed for about 18 hours and charged with assault, making terroristic threats and other crimes, which she denied. Pellegrino was acquitted at a March 2008 trial. “If you think you are a victim of intentional misconduct by TSA agents, you can now have your day in court,” her lawyer Paul Thompson said in an interview. “Nadine never gave up, and it is a real tribute to her courage.” (source)  Here’s more on Pelligrino’s case, from Courthouse News Service:  After she was randomly selected for additional screening, Pellegrino says Transportation Security Administration officers at brought her bags to a private room because she requested discretion. Once the search, concluded, however, Pellegrino allegedly informed the officers that she planned to report them to her supervisor for excessive conduct. She says they went through her cellphone, counted her coins and currency, smelled each and every one of her cosmetics, and otherwise damaged her property during the ham-fisted search. It was while Pellegrino was cleaning up the mess of her belongings, she says, that the officers then accused her of striking them. Federal prosecutors in turn brought 10 criminal counts against Pellegrino, only to abandon the case when TSA could not provide any surveillance video of the incident. As for the officers’ testimony, one failed to appear in court and the other was unable to keep the story straight. (source)  Pellegrino and her husband asked the TSA for $951,200 in damages. When their claim was rejected, they sued the TSA and three TSA employees.  Hopefully, the court’s decision stands. It’s about time we hold people and agencies accountable and responsible for their actions – even those in positions of “authority” like police and other government agents.  It is crucial to retaining the shreds of freedom that remain and perhaps gaining back some lost liberties.  Go to any airport in this country and you’ll see how well our government is dealing with the terrible danger you’re in. TSA staffers are wanding 90-year-old ladies in wheelchairs, and burrowing through their suitcases. Toddlers are on the no-fly list. Lipsticks are confiscated. And it’s all done with the highest seriousness. It’s a show of protection and it stirs the fear pot, giving us over and over an image of being in grave personal peril, needing Big Brother to make sure we’re safe. – Ann Medlock, Home of the Brave  Here are some particularly disturbing examples of TSA “screenings” made under the guise of security.  I share Daisy’s views on this issue (and pretty much everything liberty-related):


activistpost--2019-09-04--Lawyer For Epsteins Madam Says Hundreds Of Names Contained In Upcoming Records Dump

Lawyer For Epstein’s “Madam” Says “Hundreds Of Names” Contained In Upcoming Records Dump

An attorney for Jeffrey Epstein confidant (and alleged groomer) Ghislaine Maxwell told a judge on Wednesday that there are “hundreds” of people named in what is expected to be approximately 2,000 pages of documents ordered unsealed by the federal appeals court in New York, according to Bloomberg.  The lawyer, Jeffrey Pagliuca, told U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska Wednesday that the materials also include an address book with about 1,000 names. Preska is considering how to carry out a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York that she must consider unsealing some of the documents. There was no detail at the hearing as to the identity of the people are named in the documents, and they may include women who say they are victims of Epstein, his friends and others. –Bloomberg  According to court filings, Maxwell was said to have hired, supervised and fired household staff, while directing the visits of dozens of “massage therapists” to Epstein’s residence, according to the Journal.  In depositions taken in 2009 and 2010 as part of civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein, household employees said Ms. . Several said Ms. Maxwell hired, supervised, and fired household staff, while directing the visits of dozens of “massage therapists”—typically young women. Juan Alessi, who said in one of the depositions that he served as the Palm Beach house manager from around 1992 through 2002,  described a basket of sex toys in Ms. Maxwell’s bathroom closet . He said he would find them around when he cleaned up after visits from the young women. –WSJ  The document release stems from a 2015 defamation lawsuit in New York brought by Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre against Maxwell. Giuffre says Maxwell helped Epstein traffic herself and other underage girls to sex parties at the billionaire pedophile’s many residences. Maxwell has denied any wrongdoing and called Giuffre a liar.  The case was settled in 2017 and the records were sealed – however appeals by the Miami Herald, Harvard Law professor (and former Epstein pal) Alan Dershowitz and right-wing blogger Mike Cernovich were successful.  In August, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ordered the partial release of Epstein documents, which revealed that Giuffre said that President Trump was a “good friend of Jeffrey’s,” but that Trump ‘didn’t partake in any sex with any of us,” adding “Donald Trump never flirted with me.”  Epstein was found dead in federal lockup last month after his arrest on child sex-trafficking charges. While the case was dismissed against Epstein, Judge Preska must now consider how to release the sealed records – and from the looks of it, the possibility remains that they may not be released at all.  This article was sourced from ZeroHedge.com  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-09-05--US Government Blacklisting System is Unconstitutional Judge

US Government Blacklisting System is Unconstitutional: Judge

In an opinion issued late today in Alexandria, VA, US District Court Judge Anthony Trenga has upheld the complaint by 23 victims of US government blacklisting that the system pursuant to which the government has designated them as “suspected terrorists” on the basis of secret algorithms applied to secret datasets, without notice or an opportunity to contest any allegedly “derogatory”  information, does not provide those who are stigmatized, and whose stigmatized status is broadcast to tens of thousands of law enforcement and other government agencies and private entities around the world, with the procedural due process required by the US Constitution.  This decision is one of the most fundamental victories for the rule of law since 9/11.  According to today’s opinion, it is undisputed that the DHS and FBI define anyone who has been arrested or charged with an offense related to terrorism as a “known” terrorist, even if they have been acquitted of that charge.  In other words, the DHS and FBI think that what is “known” is what they believe, not what judges or juries have found the facts to be. That presumption that by definition their secret judgements are more reliable than judicial fact-finding pretty much sums up why this decision is correct, why it is so important, and why it should be upheld if, as seems a near certainty, the government appeals.  None of the plaintiffs have even been arrested, much less convicted, for any criminal offense, terrorist or otherwise. The plaintiffs include, among others, several infants whom the government has apparently blacklisted as “suspected terrorists”. But even though the government will neither confirm nor deny that anyone is or is not, or has or has not been, included in the “Terrorist Screening Database” (TSDB), the court found that the plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficient basis for their belief that they have been blacklisted.  The “No-Fly List” is only a subset of the TSDB, and not being allowed to fly is only a subset of the consequences of blacklisting detailed in the plaintiffs’ submissions to the court and the government’s admissions during discovery and depositions. The TSDB is used as the basis for a plethora of decisions, as the plaintiffs have experienced, from whether to have them arrested at gunpoint when they try to cross land borders  to whether to interrogate them for hours about their religious beliefs, seize their electronic devices for copying and forensic analysis of the data stored on them, or deny them public or private-sector jobs.  The government’s use of secret criteria, secret datasets, and guilt by association as the basis for secret decisions — communicated to tens of thousands of other decision-makers, but not to those who have been blacklisted —  resembles the worst of McCarthyism, just with “terrorist sympathizer” or (literal) “fellow traveler” substituted for “Communist  sympathizer” or (ideological) “fellow traveler”.  Judge Trenga found that inclusion on the TSDB deprives those who are blacklisted of their liberty interest in freedom of movement, both internationally and domestically; that the government stigmatizes them by distributing the blacklist to many other entities; that the secret, standardless, and non-adversarial (i.e. one-sided) decision-making process is inherently likely to result in errors; and that all of this is unconstitutional:  We congratulate the plaintiffs for risking retaliation to challenge the government’s supposedly anti-terrorist, and in practice anti-Muslim, witch-hunting program, and  attorneys Gadeir Abbas, Lena Masri, and the rest of CAIR’s legal team for their legal leadership.  Judge Trenga has ordered the parties to submit additional briefs over the next six weeks with respect to what he should order to be done to redress the violations of the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights that he has found to have occurred and to be ongoing.  We think the answer is clear: the way to provide procedural due process, when the government wants to restrict someone’s movements or other lawful activities, is for the government to apply to a judge for an injunction or restraining order. No new laws or procedures are needed. Courts have procedures for considering requests for orders restricting movement, and act on them every day in domestic violence and other cases.  But the government has never tried to use existing laws to request a no-fly injunction or other restraining orders against a “suspected terrorist”, preferring to substitute the infallible clairvoyance of the pre-cogs in the Terrorist Screening Center for the fallibility of judges and juries using established adversarial fact-finding procedures.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-09-07--Seattle Lawyer Lowers the Bar

Seattle Lawyer Lowers the Bar

Seattle, WA –  August 5th, 2019 was only one court day after the tragic suicide of the 38-year-old head attorney for a Seattle-based veteran’s advocacy group that had actively worked to remove former U.S. Attorney for the Western District Annette Hayes.  Yet at 9:05 a.m. in room w-325 of Seattle’s King County Courthouse, Seattle evictions attorney Evan Loeffler stood in front of the judge’s bench, face-to-face with King County, WA Court Commissioner Henry Judson demanding the court refuse to postpone the case even one hour. In doing so, Evan Loeffler demanded the court deny the right to counsel for key members of a veterans advocacy group Loeffler is alleged to be illegally trying to evict, according to extensive documents in the court record.  If Loeffler appeared to display an attitude of invincibility, it may have resulted from Melinda and Evan Loeffler’s lucrative career evicting thousands of unrepresented people – including defenseless veterans, widows, orphans, the disabled and terminally ill. The Loefflers are expected to gain national infamy within the legal profession for their efforts to fight postponing the case due to the suicide, according to the Seattle-based veterans advocacy group with a national mandate who refer to Loeffler’s action as an historic benchmark in legal practice.  “We researched the issue of an attorney dying in the middle of a case, and we couldn’t find a single example of any party objecting to a postponement. Not one, ever. Based on our research, what the Loefflers tried to do appears to be unprecedented in the history of the legal profession in the United States,” said a paralegal for the veterans group. “We are working with several veterans’ groups and several national media channels to expose what would seem to be among the lowest points in the history of the practice of law.”  Although the Loefflers have an ethical duty to make a good faith effort to resolve the property title dispute for the benefit of the Loeffler’s client, the veterans group emphatically state that the Loefflers have been unwilling to even discuss any manner of settlement, and appear to have acted contrary to their clients’, the Kangs, interest in violation of the practice rules of the Washington State Bar Association – at a cost to the Kangs estimated by the veterans group in excess of $50,000 and rising.  One fact that does not appear in the court record is if the Loefflers have explained to their clients, the Kangs, the Loefflers’ past differences with a key member of the veterans group. In 2014, Evan Loeffler’s personal client, William “Luke” Lukoskie, the self-proclaimed tofu tycoon based on Vashon Island, WA illegally nearly doubled the rent of a terminal cancer patient for having a live-in caregiver, which is rent-exempt under law. Lukoskie then threatened to shoot her professionally trained service dog, according to multiple legal declarations in the 2014 King County, WA court record. With full access to all of these facts, Evan Loeffler agreed to evict the cancer patient contrary to his legal rights.  The family member who had fought the eviction – one of the same veterans advocates the Loefflers are now alleged to be illegally attempting to evict – made clear in the court record evidence of Lukoskies’ predatory practices, including consistently renting his several properties to vulnerable women whom he then harassed and surveilled, sexual harassment of employees, opioid use, human trafficking, FDA violations at Lukoskies’ tofu manufacturing plant, tax evasion, and other criminal activity. Regardless of the law or the facts presented in the court record, Evan Loeffler aggressively litigated against the dying cancer patient and his family who died within days of the eviction.  According to witnesses, Loeffler was allegedly hysterical about both the evidence entered into the court record about his widely reviled client Lukoskie, and the several law enforcement investigations of Lukoskie that followed. According to allegations of the veterans group, the Loeffler’s ongoing eviction efforts are at their clients’, the Kangs, expense, who may now be paying a potentially run-on bill for the Loefflers’ personal revenge. It is unclear if the Loefflers have disclosed this conflict to their clients, the Kangs, who have not been available for comment.  “Evan Loeffler’s actions are in serious violation of the practice rules of the Washington State Bar and uniquely unprofessional. We intend to hold he and the staff of his law firm accountable and are organizing a national effort within the veteran’s community to call for a boycott of his client’s businesses as well as the organizations Loeffler’s affiliated with. We are coordinating efforts to disbar him and his staff attorneys involved in illegal conduct,” said one of the paralegals for the veterans group. “We ask that anyone with a business or social relationship with Melinda and Evan Loeffler please consider the actions against of the Loefflers’ law firm against veteran advocates, vulnerable people, and their practices. We are asking anyone with knowledge of any of the Loefflers’ or their law firm’s illegal or unethical practices to contact us. They may remain anonymous if they prefer.”  Regardless of their daily contributions to Seattle’s homeless crisis, the Loefflers would like you to know what great folks they are. On their law firm’s website, Evan Loeffler boasts of his Porsche, his fashion guidelines, and his sailing hobby. Ironically, Evan and Melinda Loeffler, who make a fortune evicting the defenseless, appear to want you to believe they are advocates for the homeless.  According to the dedicated web page for the self-defined philanthropists on Social Venture Partners/SVP, Melinda Loeffler is on the Community Outreach Committee for the nonprofit Washington Multi-Family Housing Association (WMFHA), and Evan is a member of the WMFHA Government Affairs Committee, involved in lobbying efforts to make eviction laws more aggressive. And he’s a Seafair Clown.  Evan Loeffler’s clowning extends to his humor articles, depending on one’s definition of humor. Posted on his law firm’s website, topics include his opinion that his abuse of a child was amusing; a description of his apparently obsessive-compulsive collections practices; his opinion of law enforcement officers as “donut engorged;” and references to his own clients as “morons,” “retards,” and “imbeciles.” Notwithstanding the fact that many of his own clients are gay, Loeffler’s humor articles include both direct and thinly veiled homophobic references.  Perhaps most telling about the direction of Evan Loeffler’s moral compass, and the philosophical and psychological foundation of the Loefflers’ allegedly intoxicated abuse of power emboldened by decades of regularly litigating unopposed against thousands of vulnerable people from whom they make a killing evicting, may be found in Evan Loeffler’s own description of his experience hunting:  Evan Loeffler’s humor would unlikely be a surprise to the distraught and defenseless victims of the Loefflers’ eviction practices that make them homeless. Loeffler just pulls the trigger. Nor is his humor a surprise to housing advocate attorneys who regularly see Loeffler in court. The references “sadistic,” and “arrogant” were used consistently, as well as “the most abrasive [and/or] unprofessional attorney [they] have encountered in [their] careers.” Insiders testify that the entire Loeffler law firm is alleged to act strictly at the direction of Loeffler in lockstep with his ethical and moral example, potentially exposing clients and his own legal staff to significant liability.  Melinda and Evan Loeffler’s eviction practice is not limited to the thousands of people they evict through their Seattle, WA law firm supported by staffers Jeana K. Poloni, Brant M. Olson and Carinne E. Jaeger in addition to Melinda and Evan Loeffler. The Loefflers also broadcast their eviction tactics to Washington State’s legal profession through “how-to” online seminars with Lorman Education Services, in addition to live presentations and publications in affiliation with the King County and Washington State Bar Associations.  Contrary to their public relations efforts and apparent attempts to purchase social capital, Melinda and Evan Loeffler’s actions may provide more clarity as to their contributions to society. The Loefflers are alleged to have illegally and repeatedly attacked members of the Seattle veterans group, misrepresented key facts of the case, and ignored federal laws, according to allegations by members of the veterans group in court documents.  The late attorney for the veterans group who committed suicide was one of the occupants of the disputed property whom the Loefflers were trying to evict. As mentioned, the following court day after the suicide the Loefflers immediately attempted to demand the court deny any delay of the hearing and thus deny legal representation to the rest of the veteran advocates. The Loefflers continue to attempt to illegally evict the remainder of the veteran advocates to this day according to current court records.  Members of the veterans group are now actively seeking the disbarment of Loeffler and his legal staff – multiple complaints are being filed with the Washington State Bar Association. In addition, separate legal actions are being brought against the Loefflers and their client Kang for damages resulting from Loeffler’s practice violations and misrepresentations alleged by members of the veteran’s group in the court filings, according to their representatives.  Loeffler’s clients in the disputed property occupied by the veterans group are Rajinder S. Kang and his husband. Based in Canada, the Kangs appear to be somewhat less transparent in their practices than the Loefflers. Raj Kang works in customer service as a truck rental clerk at Ryder’s Oakville, Ontario branch near Toronto. On the surface, Mr. Kang appears to have transformed his job with the Ryder Truck Rental office into the purchase of several million dollars of Seattle-area properties – personally, not through a business.  Exactly what role if any the Loefflers and their legal staff may have played in the flow of millions of mysterious dollars flowing over the border from Canada is yet unclear. More clear is the fact that Loeffler & Co are aggressively working to facilitate the Kangs’ business interests, together with the Kangs’ Renton, WA-based realtor, Phillip Rodocker of John L. Scott who has aided the Kangs in the purchase of several properties in the Seattle area.  As the causes of homelessness are being endlessly discussed around the greater Seattle area with countless white papers being circulated, committee meetings about committee meetings, and endless hand-wringing, Melinda and Evan Loeffler will be driving their Porsche all the way to the bank and sailing off into the sunset as one of the state’s greatest profiteers of homelessness.  As unfortunate as the Loefflers’ actions against the veterans advocates are in this ongoing case, the big questions now being asked are: why are King County courts allowing the Loefflers’ extensively documented alleged illegal actions and defiance of federal law to go unchecked, how many innocent, defenseless people have Melinda and Evan Loeffler, together with their staff attorneys, stripped of their legal rights and made homeless, and most of all, why do the Washington State Bar Association’s Hearing Officers allow these people to continue to practice law? Also called into question are Loeffler’s affiliations – why are the King County, WA, Washington State, and American Bars publishing Loeffler’s materials? How credible are the attorney ratings by AVVO and Martindale-Hubbard? What is the basis for Washington Law and Politics Magazine’s “Washington Super lawyer” designation, as well as Seattle Metropolitan Magazine’s “Top 100 Lawyers rating?” Exactly what have they reviewed or checked? Evan Loeffler may be a Seafair Clown, but when it comes to adding to Seattle’s legions of homeless – regardless of the methods, it appears – Melinda and Evan Loeffler are not clowning around. For their part, the Director of the veterans group’s only comment is the same quote that may be found on their website: “The limits of tyrants are defined by the endurance of those whom they attempt to oppress.” If you want to join them in their efforts to endure, they may be reached by email at [email protected], or through their website. This is the first installment in a year-long investigative series titled “Your Courts, Their Fraud:” Next in the Series – Part Two: King County, WA Commissioner Henry Judson’s invisible role in homelessness and guardianship/probate fraud. Top image: Melinda and Evan Loeffler at their Seattle Eviction Law Practice