Thursday, November 25, 2010

Natural Rights and The Patriot Act

Text with below video:
1DonLoe | November 24, 2010 | likes, 0 dislikes

Born June 6, 1950 in Newark, New Jersey is a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and now a political and legal analyst for Fox News Channel. Napolitano started on the channel in 1998, and currently serves as the network's senior judicial analyst, commenting on legal news and trials.

Natural Rights and The Patriot Act 1

Natural Rights and PATRIOT ACT 2

Natural Rights and the Patriot Act 3

Natural Rights and PATRIOT ACT 4

Natural Rights and PATRIOT ACT 5

USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens

Text with below video:
SPIRITUALLYSMARTxCOM | May 02, 2009 | likes, 41 dislikes

Sixteen-year-old Ashton Lundeby's bedroom in his mother's Granville County home is nothing, if not patriotic. Images of American flags are everywhere on the bed, on the floor, on the wall.

But according to the United States government, the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat from his home on the night of Feb. 15.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Pavlovian Prelude to US Border Closure?

Are those traveling through the US being conditioned for eventual border closure? Have the TSA aka US Government Police State Thugs gone too far sexually molesting children, families, and using the US Constitution as toilet paper?

Would citizens in the former USSR in massive numbers put up with government thugs groping their genitals? Would citizens of the former USSR allow their government to continue running after they realized the equivalent of trillions of dollars of taxpayer money can’t be accounted for? Well, with the former USSR, not only did the monetary false house of cards crash, the people in numbers, finally had enough.

Text with video:
TheAlexJonesChannel | November 19, 2010 | likes, 2 dislikes

TruTV will air the first TV program to put forward admissions from those involved, and probe deep into the proofs of a conspiracy

Aaron Dykes
November 19, 2010 Long-time prober of the JFK assassination, Jesse Ventura will have his first chance to prove on television that a conspiracy, not a lone gunman, killed Kennedy. The proof includes a shocking audio confession and much more; airs this Fri, Nov. 19 at 10 PM EST / 9 PM CST

In the next episode of the hard-hitting second season of Conspiracy Theory, former Governor Jesse Ventura will take on what he has long regarded as the most significant event of his generation and the 60s era-- the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The program will air this Friday, Nov. 19 at 10 PM EST / 9 PM CST, just days before the 47th anniversary of the iconic president's death. But TruTV will air more than just memories and heated debate about the grassy knoll. For the first time ever on television, viewers will witness, at last, a confession in one of the most-controversial murders in all of history.

A "major figure" from recent U.S. history admits to involvement in the plot in an audio tape that will blow audiences away. The source names names, and Lee Harvey Oswald isn't on the list. According to the show's producers, Ventura's team has even established new evidence that suggests the individuals allegedly involved in the assassination have powerful ties that even go as high as former President and former CIA director George H. W. Bush. Is this the key at last to why the media has been so reluctant to admit that someone else was shooting at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963? Ventura qualified as an expert shot while in naval special forces training, and qualified again as an expert during his term as Governor in Minnesota, yet he could not duplicate the time and accuracy of Oswald's fateful shots.

In the course of the episode, Jesse Ventura, a former Navy SEAL and Underwater Demolitions expert, attempts to recreate Oswald's alleged shooting that day. He tracked down the exact make and model, as well as ammunition stock that the Warren Commission claims Oswald used. But despite the fact that Ventura qualified as an expert shot while in naval special forces training, and qualified again as an expert during his term as Governor in Minnesota, he could not duplicate the time and accuracy of Oswald's fateful shots. Yet Lee Harvey Oswald only qualified as a "marksman," two grades lower than Ventura. (Witnesses who shot with Oswald have said for years that he had "Maggie's drawers"—that he frequently missed the target and generally did not meet the high standards of a serviceman.)

* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for:

Hypothetically, What if 9-11 was an Inside Job?




Friday, November 19, 2010

New Jersey Legislators Take on the TSA

Text with below video:
senatenj | November 15, 2010 | likes, 4 dislikes

Update: Sign the petition to stop invasive TSA screening!

Help spread the word about invasive TSA screening by visiting and sharing:

TRENTON— Senator Michael J. Doherty (R-Hunterdon, Warren) and Senator James Beach (D-Camden) today announced they will present resolutions to the Senate and Assembly calling on the U.S. Congress to end TSA screening procedures requiring full body scans and pat downs at U.S. airports Their action comes in response to widespread concerns over privacy and radiation, as well as reports of inappropriate conduct by TSA agents during the screening process.

"The pursuit of security should not force Americans to surrender their civil liberties or basic human dignity at a TSA checkpoint," said Doherty. "Subjecting law-abiding American citizens to naked body scans and full body pat downs is intolerable, humiliating, vulnerable to abuse, and is fast becoming a disincentive to travel. Particularly concerning to us is the fact that physical searches result in children being touched in private areas of the body. Terrorists hate America because of the freedoms upon which this great nation was built. By implementing these screening measures, the TSA has already handed a victory to those who seek to destroy our freedoms."

For full press release, visit


Thursday, November 18, 2010

Justice, Not in the US

Text with below video:
RTAmerica | November 17, 2010 | likes, 2 dislikes

Before having presented their evidence to a US court of justice against Viktor Bout, the Prosecution has already labeled the Russian a notorious international arms trafficker. They claim no international or United States law was violated in extraditing Bout, saying he conspired in a fight against the US. RT's Anastasia Churkina reports from New York.

A fair trial? Not in Viktor Bout's case

* * * *

[click here] for a recent article written by Roger Shuler called, "Judges Routinely Favor the Interests of the Legal Profession"

Please check the comment that I left in Mr. Shuler's article.



Sunday, November 14, 2010

"The Second Fraud" Documentary Panel Discussion

Text with video:
SvenVonErick | November 14, 2010

Judges and Lawyers make Ponzi schemes possible. This panel explains how the fraud works and why it will continue to occur unless there is order brought to the courts.

Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff is now most famous for the Ponzi Scheme. Thomas "Tom" Petters is the architect of another big one in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Lawyers who represent these Ponzi Scheme operators, and who commit crimes, can embezzle the assets of the Ponzi Scheme Operators' assets preventing the victims from getting even partially reimbursed fairly. There you have the 2nd Fraud, the Documentary.

With a Judicial and Investigatory Policing which had civilian oversight, the banking and corporate frauds would not have happened in the first place.

Keywords: Bribes Public Corruption Judicial Judiciary Legislative Misconduct Courts Judge Ann Montgomery Minneapolis FBI Investigation Richard Hettler Connecticut Hartford Courant investigative reporter

Andrew Kreig reports:


Friday, November 12, 2010

In by Divorced Father Group spam chain email:

I haven't verified any of the below. I just cut and pasted out of my email:

Take Action

0ne Big Ass Mistake America!

Obama Administration Claims Unchecked Authority To Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones

Federal Court Hears Arguments Today In ACLU And CCR Case Challenging Administration's Claimed Authority To Assassinate Americans It Designates Threats


November 8, 2010, WASHINGTON – The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. Government lawyers made that claim in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charging that the administration's asserted targeted killing authority violates the Constitution and international law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments from both sides today.
"Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply," said CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei, who presented arguments in the case. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government's claim to an unchecked system of global detention, and the district court should similarly reject the administration's claim here to an unchecked system of global targeted killing."
The ACLU and CCR were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asks the court to rule that, outside the context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asks the court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
"If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, who presented arguments in the case. "It's the government's responsibility to protect the nation from terrorist attacks, but the courts have a crucial role to play in ensuring that counterterrorism policies are consistent with the Constitution."
The government filed a brief in the case in September, claiming that the executive's targeted killing authority is a "political question" that should not be subject to judicial review. The government also asserted the "state secrets" privilege, contending that the case should be dismissed to avoid the disclosure of sensitive information.
The lawsuit was filed against CIA Director Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Barrack Obama in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Attorneys on the case are Jaffer, Ben Wizner, Jonathan Manes and Jennifer Turner of the ACLU; Kebriaei, Maria LaHood and Bill Quigley of CCR; and Arthur B. Spitzer of the ACLU of the Nation's Capital. Co-counsel in Yemen is Mohammed Allawo of the Allawo Law Firm and the National Organization for Defending Human Rights (HOOD).
For more information on the case, including fact sheets and legal papers, visit

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Should judges be judging judges?

It was about 26 years, give or take, that the US Court System held a public hearing on some very key matters. The public hearing was obscured and not widely known to be held. The arrogance of judges and the unfairness can be summed up in the video included in the link below.

New York Justice Ralph Winter presides. A longer version, shot with a different camera in the video below.

This blogger's email: stevengerickson AT yahoo Dot Com

Sunday, November 07, 2010


The below re-posted [from here]

Helen “Ginger” Berrigan was appointed to a federal judgeship in the Eastern District of Louisiana on November 18, 1993 by former President Bill Clinton, and was confirmed by the Senate the following year. Edwin Edwards was in the second year of his fourth term as Governor of Louisiana when Berrigan secured the federal judgeship appointment. She had been closely associated with legendary attorney and political power broker Camille Gravel since her graduation from the Louisiana State University Law School in 1977. Gravel served as Edwards’ executive counsel during the governor’s first two terms in office (1972-1980) and his Alexandria-based law firm had actively defended Edwards in a litany of federal corruption probes. Berrigan worked on the Edwards’ defense team which secured a mistrial for the governor in 1985 on a number of federal corruption charges and which won an acquittal at the governor’s re-trial in 1986. Grateful for the legal assistance she had provided to his defense team, Edwards lent the support of his political machine to back Berrigan for the federal judgeship once Bill Clinton became president.

In his memoir, In The Place of Justice (Random House 2010, Wilbert Rideau said he first met Berrigan, who was just “Ginger Roberts” then, while she was still a law student at LSU and who, along with a number of other law students, had joined Louisiana Corrections Secretary C. Paul Phelps in a project to work with jailhouse lawyers at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. A staunch political liberal and longtime supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Berrigan formed a personal relationship with Rideau (at Phelps’ behest) which subsequently morphed into a pro bono attorney-client relationship.

I met Berrigan in the late 1970s or early ‘80s. I retained her briefly in 1984 to represent me in a habeas corpus proceeding I had pending in a local federal court. Ginger and I maintained a cordial, professional relationship with her. It never resembled the personal relationship she maintained with Rideau although our paths frequently crossed during the course of all our relationships, including the one with Phelps. I never really trusted Ginger because she was too close to Edwards and the political power base in Baton Rouge which, at the time, was devoted to keeping me in prison for the rest of my life. Ginger, I suspect, had the same distrust for me.

Rideau stated in his memoir (page 315) that “ … Since it was my truthfulness while testifying that was at stake, we [the “million dollar defense team”] would call ‘character witnesses’ only to establish that single point.” Berrigan, who was Chief Judge of the Eastern District at the time, was called to testify about whether Rideau had truthfully testified that he had written a letter of apology to his crime victims decades earlier. She confirmed that portion of his testimony. Later in his memoir (page 321) Rideau referred to Berrigan as a “character witness.”

“Did it raise red flags with the jury that so many of the character witnesses for me were prevented from saying much?” he wrote. “I prayed that having a federal judge, a state appellate judge, two wardens, and a corrections officer vouching for my truthfulness would mean something to those all-important ten women and two men who held my fate in their hands.”

I don’t know how Rideau’s defense team presented Judge Berrigan as a witness at the trial. She may have been called to simply verify one single point: that Rideau had in fact written a letter to his crime victims decades earlier; that he had given the letter to her because she was his attorney at the time; and that she made sure the victims received the letter. That did not necessarily make her a “character” witness unless she vouched for Rideau’s overall character for truthfulness.

That’s an important distinction because Canon 2(B) of the “Code of Conduct for United States Judges“ specifically states: “Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.”

Rideau presented Judge Berrigan as a “character” witness in his memoir—and that’s why federal judges are prohibited from testifying as character witnesses in judicial proceedings. It allows “others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge,” which is what Rideau did in his memoir. Judge Berrigan had obvious “private interests” in Rideau due to her longstanding personal and professional relationship with him. Rideau implied in his memoir that the federal judge just so happened to show up at his trial as the exact moment when her testimony was needed to corroborate his testimony about the letter of apology to the victims. That may or may not have been the case.

But one thing is clear: if Judge Berrigan was not put on the defense team’s “witness list” and had not been expected to testify to vouch for Rideau’s truthfulness, then she “voluntarily” chose to testify in a situation which allowed the famed prison journalist to describe her as a “character witness” in his memoir.

This would not mark the first time Judge Berrigan has faced serious questions about the propriety of her judicial conduct. She has been roundly accused of handling cases from the bench in which she had “conflicts of interest,” to the point that some have called for her impeachment and censure. I am really not certain that Judge Berrigan’s testimony—if it concerned the sole issue about the letter of apology—could properly be characterized as “character witness” testimony. But that’s not the point: the point is that Rideau called her a “character witness” in his memoir—and that may not be true.

It depends. Either Judge Berrigan was or wasn’t a “character witness” for Rideau. If she was, then she violated her own canons of judicial conduct. And if she wasn’t a character witness, then Rideau lied when he said she was in his memoir—and isn’t that ironical! He lists a number of “character witnesses” in his memoir who vouched for his truthfulness yet he lied about one of them. As I have said repeatedly in various posts on this website, the truth is never enough for Rideau. He has an insatiable need to embellish to enhance his own sense of importance. He is a genuine “spin doctor.”

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Malicious, Illegal Conduct of Prosecutors Common in US

More Connecticut Judicial Misconduct. The below story should be exposed to the nation to show what is wrong with the "justice" system.

The below, re-posted from the Hartford Courant and was [found here]

Patrick Lenarz walks outside the courthouse in Manchester after he was set free Tuesday. (CHRISTINE DEMPSEY / HARTFORD COURANT / November 2, 2010)

Simsbury Man Freed From Prison

State Supreme Court Ordered Patrick Lenarz's Immediate Release


1:00 p.m. EDT, November 2, 2010

MANCHESTER — A Simsbury man serving a four-year sentence for child endangerment walked out of Superior Court in Manchester a free man Tuesday, days after the state Supreme Court ordered his immediate release.

Patrick Lenarz, 54, hugged his wife Roberta at 11:40 a.m., shortly after a judge, at the order of the Supreme Court, released him on a promise to appear in court.

"I am excited beyond belief," Lenarz said after court. He thanked his lawyer, Kevin C. Ferry, and several others who worked on the appeal of his 2007 conviction on a single count of risk of injury to a minor.

Lenarz, a former karate instructor, was accused by three children, including former karate students, of improperly touching them.

A jury acquitted him on eight of nine counts at trial.

Now that he's out of prison, Lenarz said he plans to call his 19-year-old daughter, who's away at college, and his son, who is serving in Afghanistan with the armed forces.

"I hope to meet my grandson soon," Lenarz added.

Ferry appealed Lenarz's conviction, arguing Lenarz's Constitutional rights were violated, and the state Supreme Court took it up on Thursday.

On Friday, the court ordered Lenarz freed, although it has not yet issued its ruling on Ferry's claims.

Ferry argued that Lenarz was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the prosecutor in the case, Christopher Parakilas, read five documents that Lenarz had prepared to help his attorney in defending him. Those documents were on Lenarz's computer, which police seized after his third arrest.

Those documents, Ferry argued to the court, were protected by attorney-client privilege. Ferry argued at the trial that the case against Lenarz should have been dismissed because the prosecutor read the documents, even after discovering that they were covered by attorney-client privilege. The trial judge agreed that the documents were privileged, but declined to dismiss the charges.

The trial judge also barred Ferry from calling an expert to counter the testimony of the victims in the case.

After hearing the arguments Thursday the Supreme Court, in a highly unusual move, ordered Lenarz's immediate release on a promise to appear in court.

Ferry said he suspects the court found merit in his claim that Lenarz was denied his Sixth Amendment rights when the prosecutor read the privileged documents.

"That order by the Supreme Court directing Mr. Lenarz be released loudly suggests that it believes Mr. Lenarz was a victim of a serious Sixth Amendment violation by the office of the state's attorney," Ferry said. The documents "outlined our entire trial strategy, how we were going to attack the credibility of the accusers," he said.

The documents gave the prosecution an advantage of "knowing our every move at trial," Ferry said.

Parakilas could not be reached for comment Monday.

Lenarz was convicted in March 2007 of risk of injury to a minor after a trial at Superior Court in Manchester. He was acquitted of eight other charges, including fourth-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. Lenarz had been arrested by police in Granby and Simsbury.

In June 2007, he was sentenced to four years in prison and, upon his release, six years of special parole. At his sentencing, Lenarz maintained his innocence. He was scheduled to be released from prison Feb. 18, 2011.

* * * *
* * * *

Chris Kennedy suffered prosecutorial misconduct perpetrated by Prosecutor Chris Parakilas and judicial misconduct at the hands of Vernon, Rockville Connecticut Superior Court Judge Jonathan J. Kaplan. Elected officials and legal authorities can't claim they haven't been tipped about bad prosecutors and judges over and over. This needs to be looked into for remedy. Chris Kennedy explains well, what too many Americans need not suffer, daily:

Chris Kennedy testifies in front of the Connecticut Legislative Judiciary Committee in February 2010. Bad judges and prosecutors are exposed for their crimes committed. Legislators side with the official abusers, not their constituents. Where is representation for our taxation? Who are these officials really for? Does a high percentage of lawyers "working" as legislators in the Legislative Branch a conflict of interest if these lawyers make their money in the Judicial Branch?

* * * *

A Connecticut retired FBI agent tipped me off about a Mr. David Cummings suffering continued judicial abuse in Connecticut, and that I should investigate more into that case. Mr. Cummings allegedly has been falsely arrested again in Connecticut for exposing judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. My last blog post on Mr. Cummings:

* * * *

Are police and courts too busy wasting tax dollars abusing citizens, retaliation, and covering up public corruption to actually protect and serve the citizens who need it? Dr. William Petit's family was violated, his wife and daughters suffered rape, sodomy, and died in a horrific fire at the family's home, known as the "Cheshire Home Invasion". Citizens on target lists can be arrested on sight for blogging critically of Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell. Criminals who invaded the Petit home should be the ones watched and tax dollars used to keep track of, not bloggers critical of judicial, police, and prosecutorial misconduct.

[click here] for:

11 year old sodomized and set on fire

At the same time the Petit's home was invaded in Cheshire Connecticut, Ken Krayeske was critical of Governor M. Jodi Rell in his blog. Rell's staffers had a google alert set up for Rell's name. So, if you are critical of Governor Rell and other politicians, police, judges, etc., you can be put on their arrest on sight, enemies list. Criminals who murder, rape, rob, and steal aren't as important for police to arrest on sight or have under 24/7 surveillance and harassment. [That Story]

From left: Hayley, Michaela and parents Jennifer and Dr. William Petit. Image [found here].

* * * *

Green Party Campaign Manager, law student, and journalist Ken Krayeske was placed on the Connecticut State Police "Arrest on Sight", Target List and Secret Enemies List, to be arrested on sight. A google alert set up by Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell's staffers allows them to read anything posted on the Governor. Anyone critical of Governor Rell can be placed on the maliciously target, arrest, and maliciously abuse in Connecticut Courts, anyone on the list. I, Steven G. Erickson, Kenneth Krayeske, and Chris Kennedy were placed at the very top of the list. The State of Connecticut is not after real, or pretend terrorist or organized criminal threats, they're after bloggers and fathers critical of police, judicial, prosecutorial, and official misconduct.

The story of Ken Krayeske on the "Target List":

* * * *

This blogger's email: stevengerickson AT yahoo Dot Com

If you are blacklisted, police will refuse to protect and serve, and will only falsely arrest you, make false statements, solicit false witness statements, and set you up to be railroaded to prison. If you are in court, you are going to get barbecued. If you are blacklisted, judges will refuse to hear your cases against others, especially officials, their corrupt organized crime friends, and the system. If you finally get a hearing in court, it can be 2 months after the hearing, and there is no obligation for them to send you an official answer from court. It has 2 months since I finally got a court hearing in Vermont. Still no answer from the court for this: