WHAT ARE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS OF CONGRESS DOING EXACTLY?
Up Dated 11/12/2019
Leading Democratic members of Congress are violating House rules, meeting in secret, barring anyone including members of Congress from their closed door meetings, fabricating evidence, denying due process, playing to the media , the list is endless.
Their activities which everyone knows are to one purpose, to force out of office the duly elected President of the United States while seemingly treasonous to most observers, in fact have been carefully planned to avoid an actual charge of treason. The Constitution of the United States very narrowly defines "Treason". Recently Republican House members literally stormed into the closed doors meeting of the impeachment inquiry and demanded their rights under the House Rules and Manual which specifically gives ownership and access to the documents and transcripts of such activities to all of the members of the House. As demonstrated by Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas in a recently posted tweet with video, only the co-conspirators in that locked room have access to anything and the sole ability to release whatever spun documents they have , and to withhold any exculpatory evidence from the rest of the House, the Senate , and ultimately the American Public. This continues today after the announcement of Public Hearings. While the hearings will be televised The democrats still control the witness list and have even retained for themselves the right to eject the Presidents counsel.
The political reaction so far to this misbehavior by House democrats has been to threaten to cite them for "Treason" and "Sedition". As explained in the paragraphs below the democrats have engineered their assault on the civil rights of the people, other House Members, and the Senate very carefully to avoid such charges . Their target is, a man named Donald Trump who happens to be the President of the United States. The ring leaders of this cabal avoid prosecution on such charges through Constitutional language that ties these charges to actual declared war against the United States. The death penalty has, in fact, never been on the table. That is not to say that the conspirators of the House have not violated House Rules, and Federal law, as well as committed many torts. It is time to lay out a script that could lead to criminal indictments and law Suits. It 's not easy or simple and the House conspirators know it and are counting on the complexity of the criminal case against them to protect them against repercussions for their misbehavior. It is time to drop the rhetoric of "treason and Sedition" and get on with the charges that will stick. Below is an explanation of why Treason and Sedition are out. Below that are some suggestions for felony charges to civil torts that the conspirators could face if the Republicans aimed "law fare"at them with real charges that can stick.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SUPPORT A CHARGE OF TREASON IN THIS CASE DUE TO NARROW CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEFINITION OF TREASON:
Article 3 of the Constitution provides this definition:
" Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. ..."
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".. The British over used the charges of "Treason" during the Revolution and hanged too many American's for the Founding Fathers taste. To prevent that from happening again under the new government they were forming they very narrowly defined treason. It is very difficult to make a charge of treason stick outside of war time. But the activities of Nancy Pelosi, et al do seem to lend themselves to a pretty good cause for arrest and prosecution for the lesser included the crime of SEDITION. But again a sort of "war clause" makes such a case difficult if not impossible, Note:
Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918)
"Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and is beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy. Sedition is distinguished from treason, which requires actual betrayal of the government, or "espionage."
The federal Sedition Act of 1918 states, in part, (repealed on December 13, 1920.)
"...Anyone who attempts to urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both...."
As was the case with the constitutional definition of treason, the statutory definition of sedition was first linked to the United States being in an active state of declared war.
Later during the Cold War, acts similar to sedition as defined above were made illegal without reference to the war status of the United States,
HERE ARE SOME LAWS THE CONSPIRATORS ARE LIKELY TO BE FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING IN FRONT OF A REAL JURY.
Subversive activities. The Smith Act ( 4 Stat. 670, 4 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385)
Sets federal criminal penalties that included fines or imprisonment for as long as twenty years and denial of all employment by the federal government for five years following a conviction for anyone who:
"...with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or...organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof."
The Smith Act's prohibition of proselytizing on behalf of revolution repeated language found in previous statutes. It went beyond earlier legislation in outlawing action to "organize any society, group, or assembly" that works toward that end and then extended that prohibition to "membership" or "affiliation"—a term it did not define—with such a group.It is the "affiliation" charge that could be leveled against AOC and her Squad and should be. The case is not as strong for this charge against Pelosi et al over the hearings.
Title II. Deportation. Because the Supreme Court in Kessler v. Strecker (1939) held that the Immigration Act of 1918 (
ch. 186, 40 Stat. 1012) allowed the deportation of an alien only if his membership in a group advocating the violent overthrown of the government had not ceased,[12] the Smith Act allowed for the deportation of any alien who "at the time of entering the United States, or ... at any time thereafter" was a member of or affiliated with such an organization.
The Smith Act expanded the grounds for deporting aliens to include weapons violations and abetting illegal immigration. It added heroin to the category of drug violations. The actions of many democrats in Congress are clear in abetting illegal immigration. State and municipal legislators in California have set up a system of sanctuary cities, drivers licenses without any proof of place of birth or citizenship while also passing a motor voter law. Congressmen who have openly advocated for open borders might be in constructive violation of this statute.
Alien Registration Act, popularly known as the Smith Act, 76th United States Congress, 3d session, ch. 439, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 is a United States federal statute that was enacted on June 29, 1940. It set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence. .
Subversive activities. The Smith Act set federal criminal penalties that included fines or imprisonment for as long as twenty years and denied all employment by the federal government for five years following a conviction for anyone who:
...with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or...organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof.
The Smith Act's prohibition of proselytizing on behalf of revolution repeated language found in previous statutes. It went beyond earlier legislation in outlawing action to "organize any society, group, or assembly" that works toward that end and then extended that prohibition to "membership" or "affiliation"—(a term it did not define)—with such a group.
Title II. Deportation. Because the Supreme Court in
Kessler v. Strecker (1939) held that the
Immigration Act of 1918 allowed the deportation of an alien only if his membership in a group advocating the violent overthrown of the government had not ceased,
[12] the Smith Act allowed for the deportation of any alien who "at the time of entering the United States, or ... at any time thereafter" was a member of or affiliated with such an organization.
[13]
The Smith Act expanded the grounds for deporting aliens to include weapons violations and abetting illegal immigration. It added heroin to the category of drug violations.Again AOC and the "Squad" might well be criminally liable for violation of the Smith Act.
Violation of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is an out right justification for immediate discharge from the military services
Think of the Lt.Col the Democrats brought before them who admitted to advising Ukraine officials to ignore the policy statements of the President. In doing so he criminally violated the LOGAN ACT 1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953 -which prohibits "shadow diplomacy) . He also has been openly critical of the President in violation of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This article prohibits critical utterances against the President and certain other officials . The article is titled "Contempt Toward Public Officials" and reads in part; " Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President , Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any state, Territory, , Common Wealth, or possession while he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress are as guilty of violation of the Logan Act's prohibition against "shadow diplomacy" as their star military witness is. When the President went over seas to confer with our allies, a democratic party bevel of Congressmen followed behind him to most of the nations visited by POTUS. and urged local leaders to ignore the policies and advice of POTUS..
The democratic leaders of the House parade their military witness before the cameras,and act as if he is a hero vice the criminal that he is.. In their own way., military officers who violate UCMJ Article 88 are more dangerous to the United States than the renegade and lawless Congressmen presently attempting a coup against the sitting President. More over such officers present a clear and present danger to our nation that was feared by the Founding Fathers. At stake is civilian control of the military. Enlisted members are allowed their first amendment rights to complain, even loudly about anything they want. But commissioned officers are the leaders of the armed forces. Before receiving their commissions from the President, their names are first read off in Congress presenting any Congressman with the opportunity to object to a commission and probably eliminate it. Truman fired MacArthur over exactly this same principle. Among the nations of the world recently or presently under authoritarian government .the coup usually came from the officers of their armed forces.
Our armed forces are dedicated to civilian control to such a degree that even speaking about public officials in a contemptuous manner is grounds for court martial. The military especially at the general, and flag officer ranks must be self policing about civilian control of the military. The tool they use is article 88 of the UCMJ. Yet because of the political protection of the Democratic party this aggressor to civilian rule over the military is still walking about in uniform, He has admitted publicly via the bogus hearings of the impeachment cabal that he has substituted his judgement for that of the President , and that he has no respect for the man or the office. His commanding officer should call him in present to him the charges that should follow and ask for his immediate resignation. If the Lt.Col refuses he should be immediately court martialed and discharged from the service. The military would be perfectly able to also hold him in confinement which would work exceptionally well if the Justice\Department should charge him with violation of the Logan Act which he has already publicly admitted to.
Yet the Democrats keep calling him to the Hill in full uniform. Some Army officers have begun to complain that parading this "witness" in uniform tends to implicate the whole army in the coup. The President shouldn't wait for everything to pass before taking measures against this "traitor". As Commander in Chief he can both order his dismissal from the service and launch a criminal investigation for his violation of the Logan Act. This should be a priority to protect civilian control of the military.
Electoral fraud, sometimes referred to as election fraud, election manipulation or vote rigging, is illegal interference with the process of an election, either by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. This will be tough legal row to hoe but it has to be done.Democratic voter fraud is off the scale because the party has been allowed to get away with it for decades. Prosecution for such fraud must reach down to the lowest state legislator who has aided and abetted electoral fraud to the highest level of Congress. But here we step onto a very slippery deck of constitutional issues. The Constitution may be silent on legislative illegal actions that result from conspiracy but it is generally interpreted by the appeals courts to protect the vote of elected representatives. . .The first evidence of electoral fraud is the voting record of each municipal , state, or Congressional legislator involved. Often, when a first piece of evidence is thrown out by a court all subsequent evidence obtained because of the initial evidence is thrown out. This should not deter either the filing of charges or re-prosecution after a case is dismissed. The constitutional protection against "double jeopardy" applies to being TRIED twice for the same crime. When a court tosses out a case there is usually room for a re-indictment if there was no trial and verdict. We will have to show tenacity of prosecution in thee cases.
"Critics of voter ID laws have argued that voter impersonation is illogical from the perspective of the perpetrator, as if they are caught, they will face harsh criminal penalties, including up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 for citizens and possible deportation for non-citizens". The illegal aliens who vote probably are not aware of the Federal penalties. But in places like California they never have to personally do much of anything to become a voter. The combination of loose driver's license requirements, and a motor voter law provide a smooth surface to slide into voting. . Many such illegal immigrants live in the sanctuary cities of the few states with such laws. In such an atmosphere with the encouragement of democratic party campaign workers they go to the polls as if it were a right, duty , and obligation to the democratic party. However it is not just the recruitment and encouragement of illegal alien voting that constitutes electoral fraud. Aliens not identified as such constitute part of the public that each state under the Constitution is supposed to have their number of House representatives based on. This is why democrats are against a citizenship question on the US census forms. Illegal residents are not entitled to Congressional representation. But by packing populous states with such illegals Democrats have more influence in Congress than they would otherwise have. Illegals packing in populous states also give the Democrats an edge in the Electoral College. This is another form of electoral fraud. SEE: Campaign Dirty Tricks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
(a) Election communications and
solicitations. 2 U.S.C. § 441d. . . . . . . . . . . . 80
(b) Fraudulent misrepresentation.
2 U.S.C. § 441h. ...................... 80
13. Retention of Federal Election Records.
42 U.S.C. § 1974. ....................
SEE:
VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (Pub. L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) :
This is the big one and could be made to apply to everyone involved in electoral fraud from Pelosi et al to state legislators and some municipal law makers. In this act Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act provides that if two or more individuals conspire to violate or deny anyone's rights assured by the Constitution the conspirators are guilty of a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Pelosi as speaker would qualify with Schriff as co-conspirators along with many others for conspiracy to deny other members of Congress the access to the impeachment hearings and papers as provided in the House Rules and Manual and in the process denying approximately 230 million Americans their rights to know what their representatives are doing. This is one Act which has been violated by Democrats from the Senate down to municipal and state legislators for decades as they have tried to force socialism down the throats of the American Public. Any communication between the Congressional leadership with local legislators on the issues related to electoral fraud would tend to demonstrate a prohibited conspiracy under the Civil Rights Act. This particular charge should be vigorously pursued.
TORTS See: Lanham Act 41 USC 1125
The Trump Campaign organization has already served notice to CNN of their intent to file a civil suit for false advertising . Mr. Trump himself has standing and probable cause to file suit against a number of media organizations and also Pelosi and Schriff
et al for libel and slander. This is one of the legal resorts to actual justice when criminal charges aren't sticking. Remember the OJ Simpson trial where he was found not guilty in criminal court and found culpable in the follow on civil trial for damages. OJ plead "double jeopardy " protection from the civil suit. The courts held that the "double jeopardy" protection did not extend to civil suits. Schriff read a made up "transcript" before the impeachment committee and made spun releases to the media damning to Mr. Trump. Public figures are not subject to as much protection from libel and slander as ordinary citizens but if what was said or published was not true and the intention was to inflict damage upon the reputation of another , even "public figures" have standing for these civil remedies and the damages awarded can be substantial.
GETTING THE JOB DONE:
It is very dangerous for the President despite his great wealth to finance too much of the effort to literally attack the Democrats. First off the Democrats would like nothing better than to break the President personally and financially and a vigorous program of law fare against these enemies of the Republic will cost a great fortune. The first lawsuit filed has been by the Trump Campaign, a corporate entity against another corporate entity. CNN based on false advertising. Little if any, of the President's personal wealth is involved in this and he is not the personal beneficiary if the Trump campaign wins in court.. The Campaign organization would be able to use the money to buy media time to counter act the actions of the "fake media" . CNN is not the only media offender,.more comparable suits could be filed. The President alone has standing for libel and slander suits but some, if not most of these could be handled on a contingency basis. In a contingency case the handling attorneys take no fees up front nor do they bill the client if the case is lost. Typically they take about 33 to 40% of the court award when they win. President Trump would be the recipient of the resulting balance and could do whatever he wanted with the money including donating it to his Campaign committee.. The hard part of this law fare plan .is getting the criminal prosecutions going in the era of the "Deep State". We will never get the necessary law enforcement agencies to make a real investigation of the criminal accusations foreseeable under this outline. Here is where Trump voters can come in by donating to a "legal defense fund" the seed money for private investigation could be raised. When the agencies like the FBI that are necessary are finally approached they can be shown solid evidence of the crimes involved and would have to run serious personal and professional risk to ignore their duties in this matter..
UNRELATED BUT ALSO CRIMINAL IN NATURE:
There are Federal laws against "Shadow Diplomacy". (see: the LOGAN ACT 1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953 -which prohibits "shadow diplomacy) How often have we seen Pelosi and her co-horts dash off to some part of the world where the President or State Department are conducting diplomacy and meet with heads of state or government, or legislators, or the regional media, and claim that the President's policies are not the Nation's policies and encourage resistance to the administration's initiatives. They have violated the relevant statutes when traveling and while on the floor of the House many times. Time to pay the piper. If they are in jail they can not continue to undermine the duly elected administration. Charges of shadow diplomacy as prohibited by statute might well be the easiest make stick..
It's time to shift from Rhetoric to action. Let's stop tossing around mention of "Treason" or "Sedition" based on the Constitution these charges won't stick. But the democrats haven't pushed us this near to being under their jack boot without violating many laws. Its time to undertake the hard work of law fare investigation, filings, criminal complaints, etc. It is only when these socialists globalists are facing real financial consequences, or jail time that they are likely to reverse course or at least try to avoid a collision course by slowing down..
Please read :
Advertisement:
Attention Maritime executives and admiralty lawyers: Having issues with compliance with the new International Safety Management
If you have serious questions contact our resident ISM expert via E-mail or phone
William H. Toohey III AFNI
Toohey Marine LLC
Master Unlimited
ISO 9001:2015 Lead Auditor Class
(Bureau Veritas)
ISM Lead Auditor (ABS Certified)
IMCA CMID Vessel Inspector
Vessel Compliance/Training/Safety Officer
Cell: 504-432-1958
_______________________________________________________________________________-
