VIDEO: Berkeley Cops Sit in Patrol Car and Watch as Trump Supporters Attacked

As one journalist who witnessed the scene tweeted: “As the violence escalated, police in Berkeley stood down and retreated from the crowds. I have never seen so few police at an event like this.”

Another tweeted about the bloody violence, and failure of police to act.

Literally blood on the streets and the police ran away from the live now on twitter

The events unfolded on Saturday, with many eye-witnesses saying police didn’t just casually stand by and do nothing — they actively and intentionally left the scene.

The American Mirror reports:

“‘As the violence escalated police in Berkeley stood down and retreated from the crowds,’ reporter Tim Pool tweeted. ‘I have never seen so few police at an event like this.’

“One observer claimed police “ran away,” despite several Trump rally attendees being attacked.

“Mother Jones reporter Shane Bauer saw two officers at a patrol car, not engaged in protecting citizens from violence.

“‘Hey, how come you guys are hanging back?” he asked an officer standing in an open door of the car and another sat in the back seat.

“‘That would be a question for the chief of police,’ an officer sitting in the driver’s seat responded.

“‘You want a public statement, right?’ the standing officer asked the reporter.

“‘I would refer you to our public information officer.’

“‘Do they told you to hang back?’ Bauer said.

“‘As I said, I refer you to our public information officer,’ the cop responded.

“‘I’ve been watching all day people get beat up pretty bad and I haven’t seen you guys around much,’ Bauer said.

“‘Okay, and?’ the officer responded.

“Numerous videos show Trump supporters being beaten in the streets as police failed to keep the two sides apart.

“At one point, several black-clad agitators isolated a lone Trump supporter and pummeled him with fists and feet.

“Someone jumped in and clubbed him with a skateboard.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

BUILD THE WALL: Why? To Reduce Murders and Rapes, for Starters

Some horrific stories are just too common, and incensing. They do not need to be happening, but occasionally we need to be faced with the raw, brutal reality of an issue too often talked about in anti-septic terms.

In a New York City suburb an illegal immigrant, who has been deported four times and is a known member of the barbaric MS-13 street gang, sexually assaulted a two-year-old girl and then felt so little remorse he went out stabbed two women in a New York City suburb — including the girl’s mother.

A two-year-old girl. Deported four times. Tommy Vladim Alvarado-Ventura, 31, was in the country illegally for at least the fifth time.

But this is not unusual. Let’s look at several specific, heart-breaking stories that never should have happened and make a decent person’s blood boil.

The avoidable tragedies individually

  • The man who murdered Kate Steinle in San Francisco was an illegal immigrant (CNN uses the obfuscating milktoast phrase “undocumented immigrant”) and a repeat felon who has been deported five times to Mexico. Steinle’s last words to her father as she bled to death were “Help me, Daddy.”
  • An illegal immigrant transgender was arrested by federal agents in El Paso after the “woman” went to the courthouse to file charges for domestic abuse. Turns out the “woman” is actually a man, Irvin Gonzalez, who is a transgender involved with a man and that he/she is in the country illegally for the eighth time and has a lengthy criminal record including domestic violence and assault.
  • Illegal immigrant Tomas Martinez-Maldonado brutally raped a 13-year-old girl on a Greyhound bus in Kansas last September. He had previously been deported 10 times.
  • Illegal immigrant Eduardo Gonzalez-Rios, who had been previously deported three times over the past 11 years, ran over a police officer.
  • Illegal immigrant Guaymar Cabrera-Hernandez was previously deported from the country, returned, was arrested again and immediately after being released from jail allegedly carjacked a woman with a knife.
  • Illegal immigrant Javier Antonio Martinez was first deported from the United States in 1992 after a felony drug conviction. He returned to the U.S. and accumulated several additional convictions in Florida under aliases without ever being detected as a deportable alien. He ended up being sentenced to 65 years in Federal prison and is still waiting to be tried in Alaskan state court for the shooting death of his boss. He should never have been here.
  • Illegal immigrant Edgar Vargas Arzate: He was charged with attempted burglary, battery of a police officer, resisting arrest and tampering with a vehicle in 2014. Prior to that he had been deported twice before and had prior felony convictions. Arzate should have been surrendered to federal ICE agents but Orange County police twice refused to honor detainer orders.
  • Illegal immigrant Prudencio Fragos-Ramirez, who was deported in 2013 is accused of fatally shooting and burning a Washington woman and her son.
  • This could go on and on. Mercifully, here’s a final example that points to an ancillary breakdown. A 29-year-old illegal alien charged with raping and murdering a 64-year-old Santa Maria woman in her home had been arrested four times previously, and federal ICE officials issued a detainer to deport him. But local law enforcement released him because Santa Maria is a sanctuary city. In this case, he never even had to turn around and come back. He was just set free.
ms13 gang members

MS 13 gang members.

You see the pattern. The problem. And it is totally unnecessary.

We can and do deport illegals, but they just turn around and come back over. If they commit small-time crimes, it’s cheaper to send them back south of the border than house them in our expensive prisons. Except, of course, they come right back. For serious crimes, we have a duty to the American victims and sense of justice to try them and imprison them here.

These crimes are heart-breaking and they should enrage every decent person.

But so can the statistics, because there is a story behind every number.

The avoidable tragedies by statistics

No, Mexico does not “send” its worst people, as Trump said during the campaign. But in a very practical sense by policy, it does allow some of its worst people to come to the United States by having virtually no border protection on its border with us (but very tight border protection along its southern border) and by tacitly encouraging the crossings.

Mexico’s poorest and most needy residents come across illegally, taking a weight off the bottom end of the Mexican economy and the Mexican government. And yes, a disturbingly large percentage of them are criminals, some escaping sporadic Mexican justice and others expanding their crime syndicate here.

About 15 percent of the federal prison population are Mexican citizens, but only 3.4 percent of the people in the United States are illegal immigrants, not all Mexican, if you take the standard media metric of 11 million illegals here. So they are more than four times over represented in the federal prison system, although many of those may be immigration-related crimes.

But if we look at national crime statistics, illegal immigrants make up:

  • 14 percent of those sentenced for all committed crimes in the country
  • 12 percent of those sentenced for murder
  • 16 percent of those sentenced for trafficking

Those numbers are all many times higher than the percentage of illegal immigrants here, meaning that we are indeed getting a high percentage of Mexico’s criminals. Those are just undeniable numbers.

The wall is an essential tool

We have to build the wall.

It is not a silver bullet, but it is an absolutely essential tool to get ahold of our costly immigration mess. The expenses we are constantly paying associated with crimes by illegal immigrants and deportation must be counted against the cost of a wall and the personally devastating losses. It does not need to be the Great Wall of China, but it does need to be physical and all but impossible to scale. Multiple levels of protection. It is too important to not do right.

And as I said on ABC last week, if we do not, Trump is a one-term president and Republicans probably lose Congress. (This is all the more true with the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare.) Too many Americans have realized the danger of at least one element of the triple threat of illegal immigration — depressing low-end wages, running up service costs for governments, crime.

Opponents are throwing everything at stopping the wall. It’s disturbing.

It’s long been “racist” they claim self-righteously — although Mexicans are not a race. It has long been said that such a wall is “not who we are.” But actually we are indeed a nation of laws, and laws to mean anything require enforcement, and enforcement requires the necessary tools. So actually, it is exactly who we are. We are built on — apologies for doing this — LEGAL immigration, because we are a nation of laws.

These are all easy arguments.

So now the final big argument is that the wall could cost up to $34 billion! How are we going to pay for that? Entitlement programs in the United States cost about $2.6 trillion last year, out of a budget of $3.9 trillion. So that is less than nine-tenths of a percentage point of the federal budget — and it would be spread out over years.

A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime net cost — taxes paid minus services used — of immigrants by education. Taking the average cost estimates from that study and cross-tabbing them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net financial drain of $74,722 per illegal immigrant.

That adds up in a hurry when talking millions of illegal immigrants crossing the border, meaning the wall would start racking up savings quickly.

And the sorrow upon sorrow laid out above.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fresno shooting rampage – 3 people killed, suspect yelled ‘Allahu Akbar,’ made posts against white people

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Somalis arrested in Clarkston, Georgia a long-time haven for ‘refugee diversity’

President Trump may be admitting new Somalis to the U.S. every day, but at least the Administration is arresting those here illegally.

No time to say much about it, but want readers to see this story from Georgia (hat tip: Joanne):

Federal immigration authorities have started arresting Somali nationals in parts of DeKalb and Gwinnett counties that have long been havens for newcomers, including in Clarkston, according to African advocacy groups.

Clarkston Mayor Ted Terry welcoming new mosque!

The arrests came after Somalia’s U.S. ambassador recently told Voice of America his embassy has learned that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is planning to deport about 4,000 of his countrymen. ICE confirmed that, as of last week, there were 4,801 Somalis in the U.S. who have been ordered removed. The vast majority of them are not being detained.

Until about a year ago, according to ICE, U.S. authorities could not get travel documents to deport people to Somalia, which has endured persistent deprivation and violence. Since Oct. 1, ICE has deported 237 Somalis, according to federal figures through April 1.

[….]

Omar Shekhey, the executive director for the Somali American Community Center in Clarkston, said as many as 10 Somalis have been arrested in Clarkston, Stone Mountain and in Gwinnett this week alone. He worries they could be deported to Somalia, which is now in the grips of a deadly drought. Those who have been arrested have been in the U.S. for many years, Shekhey said.

[….]

Clarkston Mayor Ted Terry said he is looking into ICE’s activities in his city, adding he is worried how the arrests could impact the relationships between immigrants and refugees and local police.

See my previous post on Somali deportations, here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Reader: Why isn’t Trump sending them all to Hawaii?

19,000 teachers sue the School Board of Miami-Dade for $60 million

Why would 19,000 teachers sue the School Board of Miami Dade Public Schools for $60 million in lost salaries?

Because a law passed by the Florida Legislature in 2011 required that as of July 1, 2014, whatever salary schedule was in place would thence forth be frozen in time, or, as the statute phrased it, grandfathered.  But the school district just didn’t do it.

The term grandfathered goes back a long way.  During the Jim Crow era, grandfather clauses were used by seven southern states to exempt those who already possessed the right to vote prior to 1866 (end of the Civil War) from new laws imposing educational, property or tax requirements for voting.  The grandfathered laws had the effect of disenfranchising freed African Americans who did not gain the right to vote until passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870.  But grandfathering allowed impoverished and illiterate whites to continue to vote as before.  They had been grandfathered.

The current law (Fla. Stat. §1012.22) was intended to prevent further annual increases to district salary schedules for teachers hired before July 1, 2014.  Teachers hired after that date would receive performance pay, which would be calculated or derived from the greatest increment between levels of the grandfathered schedule, depending upon a teacher’s effectiveness.  In theory, performance pay would quickly out-pace the frozen schedule forcing veteran teachers to relinquish their tenure to join the new comers.

However, M-DCPS just kept on bargaining new schedules to attack the higher end salary steps for teachers approaching retirement.  It was something like knocking off West Virginia mountain tops for the benefit of coal companies.  And not incidentally, for two years, the District did not award any performance pay whatsoever.   The damage to teacher salaries is estimated at $20 million per year.

“Wait a minute,” you say.  “How did the District get around grandfathering?”  The District’s position was that the grandfathered salary schedule was any schedule they “designated as such.”  Wonder how they interpret a 70-mph speed limit?

Soros-Funded Group Chaired By Elizabeth Warren’s Daughter Fighting Voter Integrity Lawsuits

George Soros and his henchmen are determined to make sure that the American people do not wrest power from the political and media elites that he bankrolls. They are doing their best to make sure that America never, ever becomes great again.

“Soros-Funded Group Chaired By Elizabeth Warren’s Daughter Fighting Voter Integrity Lawsuits,” by Joe Schoffstall, Washington Free Beacon, April 11, 2017:

An organization funded by liberal billionaire George Soros and chaired by Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s daughter is fighting lawsuits brought forth by election integrity groups in a number of cities.

Demos, a New York City-based progressive public policy organization, is assisting unions in pushing back against election lawsuits filed in North Carolina and Florida. The group is also writing letters of interest in another lawsuit in Pennsylvania. Amelia Warren Tyagi, Warren’s daughter, chairs the board of Demos.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an Indiana-based legal group that litigates to protect election integrity, filed a lawsuit against Wake County, N.C., on behalf of Voter Integrity Project NC, a research organization dedicated to fair elections, after the county had failed to accurately maintain their voter rolls.

The county also failed to provide records related to the maintenance of their voter rolls and possible noncitizen voting, as required by federal law.

“According to publicly-available data, Wake County has more registered voters on the rolls eligible to cast a ballot than it has citizens who are alive,” PILF wrote. “The complaint states that ‘voter rolls maintained by the Defendant for Wake County contain or have contained more registrants than eligible voting-age citizens. The number of registrants in Wake County, North Carolina has been over 100 percent of eligible voting-age citizens.”

A motion to dismiss the lawsuit was filed February 21 by the Wake County Board of Elections and three attorneys. Senior U.S. Judge W. Earl Britt ruled in favor of the Voter Integrity Project and denied the request.

Cameron Bell, a legal fellow at Demos, is assisting the attorneys on the case. One of the main goals of Demos is to reduce the role of money in politics and to guarantee “the freedom to vote,” according to its website. Demos received hundreds of thousands in funding from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

Individuals from the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a progressive nonprofit in North Carolina, are also assisting on the lawsuit. The Southern Coalition for Social Justice has also received funding from Soros.

PILF filed a separate lawsuit in Broward County, Fla., against Brenda Snipes, the county’s supervisor of elections, for violations of federal roll maintenance. PILF brought the lawsuit forward on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union, an Alexandria, Va.-based legal group that has been described as the conservative ACLU.

Broward County, like Wake County, has more registered voters on their rolls than the number of eligible citizens who can vote in 2014, PILF said.

Cameron Bell, the Demos attorney who is involved in North Carolina, also interjected in Broward County. In addition to Bell, Scott Novakowski and Stuart C. Naifeh, counsel from Demos, are involved in Florida.

Individuals from Project Vote, a nonprofit that formerly teamed up with the scandal-plagued and now defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), are also in Broward County….

“Just like when leftist financiers tried and failed to block voter ID laws from coast to coast, the checkbooks are open again to preserve the status quo were poor record maintenance is concerned,” Logan Churchwell, PILF’s spokesman, told the Washington Free Beacon. “When you view vulnerability as currency, it must come natural to want to protect not only the weaknesses in a system, but the actors who exacerbate them.”

Democrats have scrambled to build up a massive network to counter voter integrity efforts after Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.

Marc Elias, the former top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton, led challenges against voter identification laws in numerous states leading up to the 2016 elections. The effort was bankrolled by millions of dollars from Soros….

Last year, after documents from Soros’ Open Society Foundations were leaked, the Washington Free Beacondiscovered a memo that spoke of Soros’ goal of enlarging the electorate by 10 million voters by 2018….

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Crack in Democrat Party: ‘Islamic Supremacists’ fighting ‘Union Infidels’

In the Daily Caller article Influential Muslim Group Fights Employees Over Efforts To Unionize by Ted Goodman it appears that two pro-Democrat organizations are fighting one against the other. This is a classic battle between the Muslim lead Islamic supremacist organization Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Both CAIR and SEIU have historically supported the Democrat Party (go here and here).

Is this a crack in the Democrat base – the Muslim versus the non-Muslim (infidel)?

Goodman reports:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an influential Muslim advocacy group, is fighting efforts by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to unionize its staff.

SEIU Local 500, which represents 20,000 teachers, health care workers and non-profit employees in Washington, D.C. and Maryland, submitted union authorization cards that were filled out by over half of CAIR’s eligible staff, Christopher Honey, communications director for SEIU Local 500 told The Daily Caller News Foundation Tuesday.

CAIR appealed to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), according to the Washington Examiner, arguing that it is a religious organization and therefore exempt from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Congress passed the NLRA in 1935, which protected the rights of employees to organize under a union but included exemptions, including one for religious organizations.

The NLRB’s Region 05 rejected CAIR’s argument Friday, asserting the the group is primarily a civil rights organization, not a religious one. The NLRB also set April 24 as the date for employees to vote on whether or not to join the SEIU Local 500 chapter.

Read more…

According to Discover the Networks:

CAIR was co-founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber, all of whom had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and functioned as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States. Awad and Ahmad previously had served, respectively, as IAP’s Public Relations Director and President. Thus it can be said that CAIR was an outgrowth of IAP.

CAIR opened its first office in Washington, DC, with the help of a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a self-described charity founded by Mousa Abu Marzook.

CAIR is a Hamas (Muslim Brotherhood) affiliated organization. The United Kingdom designated the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) a terrorist organization in 2015. Lead by Senator Ted Cruz, legislation has been introduced by the U.S. Congress to also designate the MB a terrorist organization, which would in effect designate CAIR because of its ties to Hamas, a terrorist organization.

Discover the Networks reports the following about SEIU:

Designated as a “527 organization,” SEIU in 2003 became a national partner in the America Votes (AV) coalition. AV, in turn, belongs to the so-called Shadow Democratic Party, a nationwide network of leftwing unions, activist groups, and think tanks engaged in supporting the Democrats. To view SEIU’s fellow partners in America Votes, click here.

[ … ]

A noteworthy affiliate of SEIU is its powerful and militant, New York City-based Local 1199, which has more than 300,000 members and is the world’s largest union local. Sixteen years after its 1932 founding, 1199 was investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee on suspicion of Communist “infiltration.” When the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) split in 1991, several officials of Local 1199 took many comrades with them into the breakaway group, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. One of those officials, Rafael Pizarro, also went on to help establish the New Party, a socialist organization that Barack Obama would join in 1995. At a March 2007 meeting, 1199’s executive vice president Steve Kramer spoke enthusiastically about the role which CPUSA had played in building up his union.

[ … ]

In November 2003, SEIU dispatched thousands of volunteers to work on the presidential campaign of Howard Dean. After Dean dropped out of the race in early 2004, Andrew Stern played a major role in persuading the Democratic nominee, John Kerry, to select John Edwards as his running mate. By June 2004, SEIU had already committed $65 million to voter-registration, voter-education, and voter-mobilization initiatives on behalf of the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Moreover, the union pledged to assign 50,000 of its members as get-out-the-vote “volunteers” just prior to, and on, election day.

[ … ]

In 2008, SEIU spent approximately $60.7 million to help elect Barack Obama to the White House, deploying some 100,000 pro-Obama campaign volunteers who “knocked on 1.87 million doors, made 4.4 million phone calls … and sent more than 2.5 million pieces of mail in support of Obama.” During his campaign, Obama told an SEIU audience: “Your agenda has been my agenda in the United States Senate…. Just imagine what we could do together…Imagine having a president whose life’s work was your work…” After Obama’s election, the SEIU became an enormously influential force in his administration: and to SEIU.

Read more…

It appears the red (Communist)/green (Islamist) alliance may be splitting on ideological grounds?

Unionizing CAIR would empower its predominantly Muslim employees to dictate working conditions to its Islamic supremacist superiors. We shall see how this turns on on April 24th, 2017 when the employees vote on becoming members of SEIU.

Complicity & Negligence in Domestic Political Espionage

Below, is the latest edition of Chris Farrell’s On Watch.

Transcript:

I’m Chris Farrell . . . and this is “On Watch”

Keep your eye on the ball.  There are a lot of distractions and misdirection’s in Washington, D.C.  Some of them are deliberate, some of them are mistakes and errors exploited by political opposition and the media.  You’ve got to remain focused and not fall for the curveballs, change-ups and sinkers.

Today, I’m talking about a domestic political intelligence operation that dwarfs and trivializes Nixon’s Watergate.  It’s now clear that the Obama White House used national signals intelligence collection means to spy on political opponents.

Leftists are quite comfortable exercising all of the lever of the organs of the state. They come from a Franco-Germanic political philosophy that, historically, has always placed the state over the citizenry.  They derive their power and exercise it vigorously thru the state.

We KNOW that the Obama administration weaponized the Internal Revenue Service to obstruct and punish political opponents who had organized themselves as Tea Party groups.  It’s not an open question.

Through litigation, Judicial Watch obtained thousands of pages of material detailing the actions of Lois Lerner and others in a concerted operation to thwart the free expression of political opposition and organizing guaranteed in the First Amendment.

Were there any criminal prosecutions for this outrageous abuse of power and corruption?  No.  Why? Because the highly politicized FBI and Justice Department were complicit in the scheme.  After all, the IRS transferred 1.25 Million taxpayer files to the FBI so that they could thumb through them and look for anything “interesting.”

Now, we know that so-called “incidental collection” was the ruse exploited to target Obama opponents.  Even the use and emphasis of the term “incidental” has been manipulated to minimize and trivialize the unlawful exploitation of signals intelligence. After all, it’s just “incidental” – you remember the elementary school excuse used by children caught doing something “accidentally on purpose.”  That’s the insulting excuse you’re being asked to believe.

The Obama Administration National Security Advisor, and designated liar, Susan Rice appears to have orchestrated much of the unmasking  — that is — ordering the names and identities of US persons to be revealed.

With great irony, the American Left keeps crying wolf over Russia.  A few weeks back I dissected their false and misleading claims in a segment called “The So-called Hack” – I encourage you to go back and view that episode.  Russia has run Active Measures Campaigns against the United States since 1917 – sometimes with the active, witting assistance of people like NY Times reporter Walter Duranty and Senator Ted Kennedy.  To be frank – we’ve done the same thing – run various influence operations around the globe to encourage or assist various political factions.  There is nothing new under the sun.

Through all of the smoke, deflections and distractions – keep your eye on the ball concerning the Obama administration’s criminal abuse of national intelligence collection platforms and systems to spy on their political opponents.  There’s been nothing even remotely like it in the history of our country.

It is not just an abuse of individual rights – it’s an abuse of the power of the government and a crime against the Constitution.  The story will be frustratingly slow to develop, because many in government were either complicit or negligent in allowing it to happen.

Judicial Watch will pursue this corruption with every legal tool available to us.  You have my word.

I’m Chris Farrell . . . On Watch

RELATED ARTICLES:

76 Times Obama’s White House Illegally & Unethically Abused Its Power as Documented by Ted Cruz

A Shoe Drops: Obama Administration Spied On Carter Page [Updated]

How did Susan Rice know which Trump campaign and transition surveillance intercepts to unmask?

Susan Rice unmasked

A Response to Media Biases Against Restoring Checks and Balances

NOTE: Several liberal Florida newspaper columnists responded without research or thought to Rep. Julio Gonzalez’s proposal to create judicial accountability and restore governmental balance of powers. They were predictably snide and shallow. Some were just factually wrong. Here is Gonzalez’s response to one specific column— which they could have had if any had even called him for an interview.

By Representative Julio Gonzalez

This morning, I awoke to the displeasure of reading Tom Lyons’s Sarasota Herald-Tribune piece on my proposal for a legislative override of a judicial opinion, otherwise known as a Notwithstanding Clause.

I was displeased, not at learning that Lyons disagreed with my proposal, as a robust discussion representing all sides of such an important matter is of central importance to the continued existence of a vibrant republic, but because of the shear negligence, disingenuousness, and ignorance displayed in Mr. Lyons article.

For starters, Lyons purposely fails to inform his readers that it was not I who first identified this problem, but Thomas Jefferson. 

Looking to Jefferson

In 1820, Jefferson wrote a letter to Jarvis Williams regarding a series of essays Williams wrote where he mentioned the judiciary’s role in overturning laws it found to be unconstitutional.  Perfectly on point, Jefferson said, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Moreover, Jefferson pointed out that the situation was made even more dangerous, “as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

As with so many other issues, Jefferson’s thoughts on this matter were prescient.

Lyons also neglected sharing that Canada has such a provision in its Constitution that has been working seamlessly since 1982.

This information and so much more was available to Lyons, but he failed to disclose it to his readers. Fortunately, the facts he did not present are available in an article I wrote and published at TheRevolutionaryAct.com and in my book, The Federalist Pages.

The fact is that Americans have been concerned over the courts’ plenary authority when speaking on constitutional issues for decades. They recognize that in a system characterized by checks and balances, there is no check on the Supreme Court. Contrary to Lyons’s ill-informed opinion, any serious constitutional law observer will tell you of the courts’ increasing activism over the past 100+ years. And it is an issue that was discussed at length in law school.

Recognizing the threat that giving plenary authority on any matter to a branch of government represents to a republic, Canada enacted a solution. And other variations exist in England, Israel, and Australia, among others, none of which are mentioned by Lyons.

It’s time we have the same discussion about our own system

Whether Florida, and indeed our nation, ought to implement a judicial override is a very serious matter, and if it is in anyway forehead-slap-worthy as Lyons states, it’s in the astonishment that it fell upon the physician/lawyer son of a Cuban immigrant who haphazardly landed in his state’s legislature to suggest it nearly 200 years after the problem was first identified.

Let a thoughtful debate begin 

The Notwithstanding Clause is not a radical proposal, as Lyons calls it, nor is it the result of partisan strife as his article feeblemindedly suggests.

No. The Notwithstanding Clause is a serious proposal designed to address a quintessential threat to our American system of government and a loophole in the system of checks and balances the Framers built. And once again, I cannot take credit for identifying the threat, as George Washington spoke about it in his farewell address. He called such an intrusion into another branch’s function usurpation and said, “though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

I hope Floridians, and Americans in general, shut out the sophomoric rants from irresponsible and under informed pseudopundents like Lyons and learn more about this very important topic. Doing so will place them on a path of discovering more about our great foundational documents and of the people who proposed them. Once they do, I bet more than 60% of the people will agree with Jefferson, Washington, and countless others on the necessity and wisdom of an American Notwithstanding Clause.

ABOUT DR. JULIO GONZALEZ

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon, lawyer and State Representative for South Sarasota County, Florida.  He is the author of The Federalist Pages, available at thefederalistpages.com or at Amazon.  He is available for speaking engagements and can be reached at gonzopod@gmail.com.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Freedom Wins! Pro-Second Amendment Judge Will Join U.S. Supreme Court

On Friday, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm Neil M. Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch’s nomination was heavily backed by the NRA, both because of the pro-Second Amendment views expressed in his judicial writings and his originalist approach to jurisprudence. Justice Antonin Scalia exemplified originalism in his landmark Heller opinion in 2008 that recognized the Second Amendment protects an individual right grounded in the principle of self-defense.

Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation capped a dramatic series of events that began with Scalia’s sudden, unexpected death on Feb. 13, 2016. Not only was Scalia the Supreme Court’s leading Second Amendment champion, his was one of only five votes cast in the five- to-four Heller decision, and its five-to-four follow-up, McDonald v. Chicago. Although two justices voting against the Second Amendment in Heller had since left the court, they were replaced in the interim by two equally anti-gun Obama picks, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Thus, with Scalia’s untimely passing, the court was at best split four to four on its continued support for the Second Amendment’s individual right.

History will record that the balance of power on the Supreme Court was in fact a key issue in the 2016 presidential election and that Obama’s hand-picked successor, Hillary Clinton, suffered a crushing defeat after emphasizing her own view that the Heller Court had been “wrong on the Second Amendment.”

Candidate Donald Trump, meanwhile, made no secret of his determination to nominate a pro-Second Amendment judge to the fill Scalia’s vacant seat.  After his victory in November, President Trump kept his promise by nominating Judge Gorsuch.

In the intense media and political scrutiny that followed Trump’s selection, there was never any serious argument against Judge Gorsuch’s credentials, integrity, impartiality, and ability. He has been praised by legal professionals across the political spectrum.

Yet anti-gun loyalists in the Democratic Party, blinded by ideology and unable to recover from their stinging rebuke in the election, launched the first partisan filibuster in U.S. history to block Neil Gorsuch’s nomination.

In practical terms, their strategy gained them nothing.

Senate Republicans on Thursday responded by applying the Senate rules instituted by Harry Reid (NV-D) in 2013.  At that time, Reid pushed through the elimination of the Senate filibuster on executive appointments and lower-court nominees. The “Reid Rule” now applies to Supreme Court nominations as well.

Judge Gorsuch was then confirmed on Friday by a bipartisan 54-45 vote.

While there may be no end to the hypocrisy, rancor, and obstruction that liberal loyalists are willing to inflict on the American political process, all citizens of goodwill can rest assured that in Judge Gorsuch, they have a decent, unbiased, and highly-qualified Supreme Court justice who will uphold the law.

And Second Amendment advocates in particular should sleep more soundly knowing that when the Supreme Court again hears a case on the right to keep and bear arms, Justice Scalia’s seat will be occupied by a man dedicated to ensuring that the Framers’ vision of constitutional freedom is upheld.

PHONY: Chuck Schumer’s Fraudulent Opposition to Neil Gorsuch

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer — who has feasted in Washington political office for 37 years — is the poster child for what Americans hate about fraudulent D.C. politics, and what is slowly draining our country of its vitality.

The New York Democrat is in blustery high dudgeon about maintaining the Senate tradition of 60 votes for a Supreme Court nominee and the “terrible” idea of changing Senate rules.

Except there is no such tradition.

As recently as 2006, Justice Samuel Alito was approved to the Supreme Court 58-42. Another current member of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, was barely approved 52-48. Both were nominated by Republican presidents. Republicans contributed to Obama’s picks being approved by large margins — even though they were hardened ideologues.

Further, Sen. Harry Reid, also a Democrat, changed the Senate rules in 2013 with a slim majority to bypass the filibuster and stacked the D.C. Court of Appeals. And Schumer supported Reid blowing up the Senate rules.

It was not just the “nuclear option” that the media loves to drone on about — blowing out the filibuster with a simple majority vote — but as talk radio host and law professor Hugh Hewitt has pointed out, the Reid Rule was actually more about the Senate being able to change any of its rules with a simple majority — when that traditionally required a supermajority of 60 votes.

Reid’s short-term power play, supported by Schumer just four years ago, is now coming back to bite Democrats just as Sen. Mitch McConnell said it would when he pleaded with Reid not to do it.

Schumer, true to form as a lifelong partisan D.C. denizen, now blames Republicans. But don’t think his chutzpah stops there.

Meet the truth, Senator

Schumer was on Meet the Press Sunday, and host Chuck Todd did yeoman’s work trying to point out Schumer’s colossal hypocrisy over such a short span of time.

Schumer made his talking point to Todd: “That’s how you get a mainstream justice. Mitch (McConnell) calls it a filibuster, we call it the 60-vote standard. Most Americans believe in the 60-vote standard.”

First, of course, that is nonsense, constitutionally speaking. And thinking that most Americans even know what the 60 votes is referring to, and that it was ever a standard is just more nonsense piled upon nonsense.

But this one wild prevarication during the interview, and attempt to re-write reality is simply astonishing.

Todd points out the two justices on the Court who received less than 60 votes to get confirmed. Schumer’s answer is pure mind-numbing swamp-speak:

“Well, actually Clarence Thomas is the only one, because when the filibuster came up with Alito, there were 72 votes to go forward. So there’s just one, just about every nominee gets 60 votes because in the past, presidents have actually consulted the other side before picking someone.”

Here’s how this works in the D.C. establishment mind of a Democrat leader:

Sure, sure Thomas only got 52 votes and not 60 — exactly like Chuck Todd said. But see, Schumer and others had wanted to filibuster the Thomas vote so it would never even happen. The Senate, however, including several Democrats, voted against the filibuster with 72 votes. So Schumer counts those votes to close the filibuster as as Thomas getting more than 60 votes — not the actual 52 votes he did get.

It’s just leaves one almost speechless.

Goes around, comes around

In the second part of that breathtaking quote is the idea that past presidents consulted the other side before picking a nominee. Maybe some did. But President Obama did not. In fact, his haughty quote that elections have consequences is directly on point to getting judges and justices he wanted on the bench.

Cases in point are Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Both of these justices are liberal ideologues, but Sotomayor is virtually a radical leftist.

The New York Times reports that Sonia Sotomayor is to the left of even liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg based on her voting record and opinions. “Justice Sotomayor, Mr. Obama’s first nominee to the court, surpassed Justice Ginsburg as the court’s most liberal justice.” Yet she was confirmed 68-31, with many Republicans voting for her.

Obama never consulted Republicans or conservatives on the Kagan and Sotomayor nominations. Schumer is just making stuff up, saying it on national television, and expecting to get away with it. But his team was the rule-breaker, so now there is precedent.

Elections have consequences, Obama said. Yup. They sure do.

The data points are clear. It is the Democrats who have continued to politicize the courts. So when Schumer does his shtick on Meet the Press or any gaggle of microphones, remember, it’s all a big fraud. He’s a gold level supporter and beneficiary of the Swamp.

Swamp does not want draining

Living organisms typically attack threats.

Washington, D.C.’s sprawling government industrial complex, from politicians to an army of entrenched bureaucrats and lobbyists enriched by leviathan government to a powerful and self-insulated media establishment — all with self interests — is in a sense a living organism. It is a bit akin to a swamp parasite attached to the body of the American public, drawing sustenance in the form of taxes and power and driven always to grow. When it is attacked, it fights back viciously.

Trump, for all his faults — and some doubts that he will truly carry through — is still acting like he may try to make major changes in Washington that would benefit the American people — minus the parasitic class. Because of those efforts, from deregulation to tax reform to bypassing the media, the organism is fighting back.

Schumer disseminating, government functionaries leaking, reporters protecting the status quo, are all part and parcel of the beast lashing out at those threatening its sustenance.

The question is: Will President Trump really try to drain the swamp and destroy the menacing and formidable parasite as best he can, or was it just campaign talk. If it is the latter, he will turn out to be just another politician and a major disappointment to his supporters.

So far, however, he has been working to keep campaign promises right and left, rousing the parasite. If he continues, the organism will lash out with more virulence. But its attacks will also become more obvious for what they are.

And maybe it will be a chance for the body to expel it.

Please check our Youtube Channel

RELATED ARTICLES:

DEFUND: The Dazzlingly Bad Idea of Government-Funded Media

BUILD THE WALL: Why? To Reduce Murders and Rapes, For Starters

EXPLAINED: Government Healthcare is not Christian

HEALTHCARE REFORM: Freedom Is Its Own Indispensable Goal

CULTURE WATCH: Looking Through the Black Hole in the Big Bang

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.

Facebook, Twitter SUED by more victims of Islamic terror

Filing a lawsuit against the internet is like filing a lawsuit against Johannes Gutenberg in the late 1400s. It’s absurd. Technology and progress are not the problem. Ideology is the problem. Why don’t victims of jihad terror sue the mosques and the world’s leading Islamic institutions such as Al Azhar university? Why not sue the publishers that print Qurans and hadiths that incite to jihad? Jihad terror has been plaguing humanity long before the interwebs came into existence.

Suing Twitter, Google, and Facebook is killing the messenger. It’s folly.


TWITTER, FACEBOOK TARGETED BY MORE PULSE SHOOTING VICTIMS

social-iconsBy Paul Brinkmann, Orlando Sentinel. April 3, 2017:

TEN NEW PLAINTIFFS HAVE JOINED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT THAT TARGETS TWITTER, GOOGLE, AND FACEBOOK WITH ALLEGATIONS THAT ISIS USED SOCIAL MEDIA TO RADICALIZE THE PULSE NIGHTCLUB GUNMAN.

The lawsuit is the second in recent weeks where more than a dozen Pulse victims or their families are now suing over the tragedy. The other big lawsuit is directed at the G4S security firm, where the shooter worked as a security guard, and his wife.

ne of the new plaintiffs in the social media case is Christine Leinonen, mother of deceased victim Christopher “Dru” Leinonen. She has been one of the most visible activists among the Pulse victims’ families, appearing at the Democratic National Convention during the presidential campaign to speak about curbing gun violence.

“I think this is one lawsuit that may actually work, so that we could prevent some future tragedies. It’s not going to eliminate them altogether because the [expletive] that want to distribute this kind of carnage can still meet in a coffeehouse or a cave or wherever,” Leinonen said. “They are taking men who might be slightly angry because they’re not getting along with their boss or their wife, and they’re making monsters out of them.”

Money from the lawsuit would be put into her son’s foundation, called The Dru Project, to help start up and support gay-straight alliances in schools.She said the lawsuit is not about money.

“Even if the damages are minimal, that’s irrelevant. I have the opportunity to eradicate future evil. That would promote my son’s honor, his name, his legacy,” Leinonen said.

The lawsuit seeks a judge’s order declaring the social media companies to have violated the Anti-Terrorism Act by allowing ISIS sympathizers to use their services. The act defines terrorism as acts dangerous to human life, which appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, among other things, and provides for penalties against anyone aiding terrorists.

Twitter, Google and Facebook have fought back in court, filing a motion to dismiss the case already.

The social media lawsuit was first filed in December by family members controlling estates of three deceased victims, by the Michigan-based firm 1-800-Law-Firm. Ten more joined the suit last week, according to a new amended complaint.

The social media suit alleges that the shooter, Omar Mateen, was radicalized by ISIS’s use of social media websites to conduct terrorist operations. However, the companies have argued that the suit alleges no facts indicating that the Orlando attack “was in any way impacted, helped by, or the result of ISIS’s presence on the social networks.”

Mateen opened fire at Pulse, a gay nightclub south of downtown Orlando, about 2 a.m. on June 12, killing 49 people and injuring at least 68 others.

Besides Leinonen, the new plaintiffs are family or estate representatives of deceased victims including: Lydia Perez and family members of the late Jean Carlos Mendez Perez; Carlos Sanfeliz and Maria Sanfeliz-Mendoza, family of the late Christopher Joseph Sanfeliz; Jose Luis Vielma, family of the late Luis Sergio Vielma; Jackson J. Josaphat, family of the late Jason B. Josaphat; Stanley Almodovar, family of the late Stanley Almodovar III.

Four of the new plaintiffs are Pulse victims who recovered: Chris Littlestar, Nicholaz Perez, Asael Abad and Jillian Amador.

The lawsuit cites numerous media accounts of investigations into the shooting by the FBI and by a Congressional committee.

Although the suit says the FBI believes Mateen was radicalized by viewing online material, including videos, the suit doesn’t have any specific examples of Mateen viewing ISIS material. The only direct reference in the lawsuit to Mateen using social media is about him going on Facebook during the shooting itself to find reaction.

Another lawsuit filed by victims’ families, filed targets the G4S security firm, where the shooter worked as a security guard, and his wife.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

Locals Address Crime Plagued Baltimore

I love conversations with my 89-year-old black preacher dad. We chat over the phone. I live in Florida and Dad lives in the Baltimore area of Maryland. Blacks are killing each other in record numbers in Baltimore. Dad said a young black male crazy from taking a new street drug held two elementary school kids hostage with a knife. Police tried to talk the man into letting the children go. Unfortunately, SWAT was called and they had to shoot him. He died.

We chatted a bit about how the police were in a no-win situation, branded racist whatever they did. Some said SWAT shot too quickly. Had the drug-crazed man stabbed the kids, SWAT would be criticized for acting too slowly.

The incident inspired a young black man from Pumphrey, Maryland, the community I grew up in, to plan a prayer vigil. He asked my dad to come and speak. The young man agreed to pick up Dad because he no longer drives. Dad will be 90 in April.

The prayer vigil was scheduled to be outside the Pumphrey Community Center because the young man who planned the event could not afford to rent the facility. When the custodian who was inside the center cleaning realized Rev Marcus was outside, she opened the doors.

Dad said over 100 black men (young, old, clergy, church deacons, community leaders) and around 50 women showed up inside the community center.

Dad shared with his audience a story from when I was around 9 or 10 years old. I remember the incident well.

A neighbor, Miss Frances cautioned dad not to go swimming in the huge body of water a few blocks from our home. She said it was deep with dangerous currents. Dad blew her off as a frightened old woman. Dad said, “You swim on top of the water so it does not matter how deep it is.”

After church one Sunday in August, Dad and I could not wait to go swimming at what we called “The River.” When we arrived, a crowd from the city was there swimming. Not 10 feet from the shore, a boy went under the water and did not come back up.

Dad and a couple of men dove in, looking for him. The pressure was hurting dad’s ears as he felt around for the boy in the dark cold water. Dad dove two times staying down as long as he could. Dad said just as he was about to dive for the third time, I said, “Dad don’t go back down there.” He obeyed my request.

It took the fire department three hours dragging the bottom before they hooked the boy’s body. Dad said his point in telling the story was somebody had to die before he listened to Miss Frances.

Dad said, “Somebody had to die to bring us here today.” He went on to speak about issues plaguing the black community. Knowing my dad, I’m sure he talked about the importance of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Dad said after he spoke a man came forward and put a 20 dollar bill on the table. Spontaneously, the crowd followed his lead. The young prayer vigil organizer was blown away by the crowds’ generosity. He had more than a enough money to cover the rental fee of the center. Group consensus was to donate the rest to a needy family.

I told dad that sounds like the Bible story when Jesus fed the five thousand. Matthew 14:20 “…and there were twelve baskets left over.”

Dad chuckled.

Hawaii Judge uses fake news about a fake document to halt President’s travel ban

by John Hindraker, PowerLineBlog.com, March 28, 2017

At Breitbart.com, Michael Patrick Leahy has what strikes me as an explosive story: “Mystery Surrounds Leaked Leaked Draft DHS Document at Center of Controversial Travel Ban Decisions by Two Federal Judges.” Actually, though, it doesn’t seem to be much of a mystery.

On February 24, AP reporters Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell published an AP “exclusive”: “DHS report disputes threat from banned nations.” The story was based on an anonymous draft Department of Homeland Services document that was leaked to the Associated Press, presumably by someone at DHS. The document seemed to have been created for the express purpose of undermining President Trump’s travel order. Indeed, it likely was created for that purpose.

The document is here. It says:

DHS I&A assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.

The two judges who issued orders blocking implementation of the president’s travel ban relied explicitly on the AP story and the leaked DHS document. Judge Chuang, the federal district court judge in Maryland, wrote:

Among other points, they note that the Second Executive Order does not identify examples of foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen who engaged in terrorist activity in the United States. They also note that a report from the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, concluded that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity” and that “few of the impacted countries have terrorist groups that threaten the West.” l.R. 158.

Emphasis added. The Hawaii judge, Derrick Watson, wrote:

The February 24, 2017 draft report states that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of terrorism threats against the United States and that very few individuals from the seven countries included in Executive Order No. 13,769 had carried out or attempted to carry out terrorism activities in the United States. …

According to Plaintiffs, this and other evidence demonstrates the Administration’s pretextual justification for the Executive Order.

Judge Watson was in error: the draft report, which was never approved or finalized by DHS, is neither dated nor signed. February 24 was the date of the AP story based on the leaked document. No one at DHS has taken responsibility for writing it.

The judges were wrong to base their decisions in part on the leaked document. President Trump had clear constitutional and statutory authority to issue the travel order, and whether the judges, or some anonymous person at DHS, agreed with his judgment is irrelevant.

But Leahy skillfully unpacks what happened here. The draft report came from DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which was headed by David Grannis, an Obama holdover bureaucrat. Grannis is a partisan Democrat who previously worked as a staffer for Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Jane Harman. A DHS spokesman “would neither confirm nor deny that Grannis was the author of, or had reviewed, the leaked document….”

How about the reporters? It pretty much goes without saying that AP reporters are Democrats. But Leahy also points out that Vivian Salama formerly worked for Rolling Stone, where she wrote that Yemen–one of the countries covered by the travel order–“holds a special place in my heart.” She has bitterly denounced U.S. drone strikes in Yemen.

So it appears that what happened here is that Democratic Party activists in the Department of Homeland Security either created a bogus document or dug up a poorly-researched draft document that had never been issued, and fed it to Democratic Party activists at the Associated Press. The Democratic Party activists at the AP published a story based on the anonymous document, which two Democratic Party activists on the bench used as a pretext for orders enjoining the president’s travel order.

Those orders should be viewed as purely political acts that have no basis in any valid judicial reasoning or authority.

State Department Employee Arrested for working with Communist Chinese agents

state_departmentA federal complaint was unsealed today charging Candace Marie Claiborne, 60, of Washington, D.C., and an employee of the U.S. Department of State, with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the FBI, both felony offenses, for allegedly concealing numerous contacts that she had over a period of years with foreign intelligence agents.

The charges were announced by Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary B. McCord for National Security, U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

“Candace Marie Claiborne is a U.S. State Department employee who possesses a Top Secret security clearance and allegedly failed to report her contacts with Chinese foreign intelligence agents who provided her with thousands of dollars of gifts and benefits,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General McCord. “Claiborne used her position and her access to sensitive diplomatic data for personal profit. Pursuing those who imperil our national security for personal gain will remain a key priority of the National Security Division.”

“Candace Claiborne is charged with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements in connection with her alleged concealment and failure to report her improper connections to foreign contacts along with the tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits they provided,” said U.S. Attorney Phillips. “As a State Department employee with a Top Secret clearance, she received training and briefing about the need for caution and transparency. This case demonstrates that U.S. government employees will be held accountable for failing to honor the trust placed in them when they take on such sensitive assignments”

“Candace Claiborne is accused of violating her oath of office as a State Department employee, who was entrusted with Top Secret information when she purposefully mislead federal investigators about her significant and repeated interactions with foreign contacts,” said Assistant Director in Charge Vale. “The FBI will continue to investigate individuals who, though required by law, fail to report foreign contacts, which is a key indicator of potential insider threats posed by those in positions of public trust.”

The FBI arrested Claiborne on March 28. She made her first appearance this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

According to the affidavit in support of the complaint and arrest warrant, which was unsealed today, Claiborne began working as an Office Management Specialist for the Department of State in 1999. She has served overseas at a number of posts, including embassies and consulates in Baghdad, Iraq, Khartoum, Sudan, and Beijing and Shanghai, China. As a condition of her employment, Claiborne maintains a Top Secret security clearance. Claiborne also is required to report any contacts with persons suspected of affiliation with a foreign intelligence agency.

Despite such a requirement, the affidavit alleges, Claiborne failed to report repeated contacts with two intelligence agents of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), even though these agents provided tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits to Claiborne and her family over five years. According to the affidavit, the gifts and benefits included cash wired to Claiborne’s USAA account, an Apple iPhone and laptop computer, Chinese New Year’s gifts, meals, international travel and vacations, tuition at a Chinese fashion school, a fully furnished apartment, and a monthly stipend. Some of these gifts and benefits were provided directly to Claiborne, the affidavit alleges, while others were provided through a co-conspirator.

According to the affidavit, Claiborne noted in her journal that she could “Generate 20k in 1 year” working with one of the PRC agents, who, shortly after wiring $2,480 to Claiborne, tasked her with providing internal U.S. Government analyses on a U.S.-Sino Strategic Economic Dialogue that had just concluded.

Claiborne, who allegedly confided to a co-conspirator that the PRC agents were “spies,” willfully misled State Department background investigators and FBI investigators about her contacts with those agents, the affidavit states. After the State Department and FBI investigators contacted her, Claiborne also instructed her co-conspirators to delete evidence connecting her to the PRC agents, the affidavit alleges.

Charges contained in a criminal complaint are merely allegations, and every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The maximum penalty for a person convicted of obstructing an official proceeding is 20 years in prison. The maximum penalty for making false statements to the FBI is five years in prison. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

At her court appearance today, Claiborne pleaded not guilty before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather. A preliminary hearing was set for April 18.

The FBI’s Washington Field Office is leading the investigation into this matter. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys John L. Hill and Thomas A. Gillice for the District of Columbia and Trial Attorney Julie Edelstein of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.

2017 03 29 Claiborne Complaint and Redacted Affidavit

RELATED ARTICLE: Candace Claiborne: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Promising Advice on Car Injury Claims

When a person makes a car injury claim, two things come up to mind: settle or go to court?

Many people do not know that settling can be the more viable option. Settling is even a good choice even if the possibility of going to court has yet to surface.

Settling can be a good option, but what if the insurance company ignores you? Or the terms presented to you might be considered too small? How about when you strongly feel that you are a victim of injustice? Going to court might be the wisest option you can have.

In this article, we weigh in the advantages of both Settling and Going to court.

Settlement

As mentioned above, settlement can be the most viable option there is. If you find that the company that you are suing presents you with fair and appropriate solutions, settling may not be such a bad idea.

Here are some advantages of settling:

You can get compensation much faster

You’ll be able to get a quicker settlement because the terms between you and the company you are suing, are usually settled off the court. Therefore you can avoid those long hearing schedules which could delay you much more in the long run.

Avoiding Expensive Attorney’s fees

Depending on your agreement with your attorney, you might have to incur expensive costs. These charges are sometimes too expensive to the point that the whole settlement and compensation you make out of this lawsuit can be just for the payment fees.

Make it a point to your lawyer to talk about his fees and always consider some lawyers who do pro bono services that may greatly be beneficial for you.

Cost Efficient

Hearing schedules are what you need to endure should you decide to go to court. When you do go to court, hearings are not given automatically, instead they are scheduled. The wait for your time in court may reach a few weeks, months and even worse, some cases even take years.

Avoiding an Unpredictable Decision From the Jury

Panel members significantly affect the outcome of your trial. If you don’t understand how a jury makes its decisions, then settle to avoid any unpredictability when it comes to your trial.

Even if the trial or hearing has started, you can reach the company you are suing to agree on settling. It is always safe to say to try and talk at any point in the case to come to an agreement.

The central question that we should ask ourselves is, how much risk is there in losing the trial? If you are confident and feel good about the outcome of the case, ask for guidance from a good lawyer and proceed to court.

Going to Court

Proceeding to a hearing should be the last thing you consider. If all conditions do point towards it, then you must be prepared with the work that comes with it.

Here are some advantages of going to court:

Receiving full compensation

If a settlement is out of the question or if you feel that the compensation is unfair, then going to court can help you in claiming what is rightly yours. A court decision can legally enforce your rights for you, making the company liable for paying for the damages wrongfully done to you.

Gratification

Sometimes, companies can also refuse a re-negotiation. Compelling the defendant through the court’s powers can reverse that. If you do win in a court, gratification can sometimes be even a much greater thing than the compensation itself.

People at times feel that they have been wronged too much and be victims of injustice that they feel the whole process of going to court is the only way to alleviate their feelings. Compensation, as they say, can be the “icing on top.”

Takeaway

Settlement and going to court is a coin toss. Either you win the case, or you lose it. To avoid this situation, you have to carefully weigh your arguments and claims to make sure that no facts can disprove it. Knowing the advantages and the risks that come with it is hugely beneficial because it can make or break you when the time finally comes.