Texas governor threatens lawsuit against Syrian resettlement contractor

Abbott vs. Miliband!

The threat is directed at the International Rescue Committee*** headed by the former British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. The lawsuit would pit Abbott against Miliband who came to the US in 2013 to head up the largest (financially) of the nine US resettlement contractors.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Texas health commissioner Chris Traylor issued the first lawsuit threat over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend in a letter to the Dallas branch of the International Rescue Committee, which said earlier this month that it supports accepting Syrian refugees. AUSTIN – Texas officials are escalating their opposition to Syrian refugees with a new order aimed specifically at resettlement groups that have indicated they will accept people fleeing the war-torn country: change your mind or risk getting sued by the state.

miliband bananas

David Milliban, friend of George Soros and Hillary Clinton.

“We have been unable to achieve cooperation with your agency,” Traylor wrote in the letter, which was released to the Houston Chronicle late Sunday, adding that, “Failure by your organization to cooperate with the State of Texas as required by federal law may result in the termination of your contract with the state and other legal action.”

Similar letters are expected to be sent to any refugee resettlement group that takes a similar position against Gov. Greg Abbott.

Go to the Houston Chronicle for more and to see the letter.  Alas, it isn’t just Syrian Muslims going to Texas, but the state has been a target for the resettlement of large numbers of Somali and Iraqi Muslims as well.

Eight of nine major resettlement contractors operating in Texas:

Abbott may have to sue eight of the nine federal resettlement contractors (this is from Part II of my Texas trilogy of posts).  These are the nine federal resettlement contractors:

Please go to this list of subcontractors everywhere and scroll down to Texas.

Texas is the number one resettlement state in the nation! And, never forget, Democrats and the No borders agitators are working day and night to turn Red states Blue—Texas is their number one target!

Recognizing how lucrative the ‘welcoming’ Texas turf is (contractors are paid by the head to resettle refugees), eight of the nine contractors have set up shop somewhere in Texas.  The only one with no office there yet is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society!

For more on Texas, go here to our three part series from earlier this summer.

And for much more on David Miliband and his friends in high places, click here.   Hillary adores him!

***From this post:

International Rescue Committee (secular)
(From 2012 Form 990)

Total revenue: $456,122,865
Govt. grants and contracts (including travel loan income): $332,271,151
Percent taxpayer funded: 73%
Top salary: $485,321  (this is the salary of the former CEO, but we assume Miliband is pulling down similar numbers).


Meet the State Lawmaker Who Wants to Slap $5K-a-Day Fines on Sanctuary City Officials

50 “faith leaders” pressure Ohio Governor Kasich on Syrian refugee stance

Are you in a Wilson-Fish state? ‘Zip, zero, nada’ states’ rights for you!

Is your church lobbying Congress for 100,000 Syrians to be admitted to the U.S.

Liberals in Canada change their minds: Let’s not rush into this Syrian refugee thing we promised

Impeachment is Litmus Test for New Speaker of the House

There is no debate over the fact that the Barack Hussein Obama regime is by far the most impeachable regime to ever seize and hold the people’s White House. Even most House Republicans have openly acknowledged the fact that> Obama & Co. are guilty of everything presented in the North American Law Center (TNALC) proposed Articles of Impeachment.

In fact, despite Republican propaganda on the subject, the recent sudden resignation of Speaker John Boehner may have in part, been due to growing support in the House for Impeachment. A Boehner promise to keep impeachment “off the table” may no longer be within the reach of anyone in the House.

Last week, I created and posted a flash poll for over a dozen “conservative” or Republican-leaning active Facebook groups asking, “Do you favor a litmus test for the next House Speaker, WILL YOU IMPEACH?” and the response was crystal clear…. 97% answering YES to that question. Conservative Republican voters DO want the next House Speaker to pass a litmus test agreeing to Impeach the Obama regime.

This could also explain the current internal civil war within the Republican Party over who will be the next Speaker… RNC establishment types tried to rush Boehner-lite, Kevin McCarthy into the position. But members of the House Freedom Caucus made it clear that no Boehner-lite candidate would have their support, forcing McCarthy to promptly withdraw from the race.

The RNC quickly moved to insert Republican turncoat Paul Ryan, who is also viewed by conservatives in America as at best, another Boehner-lite establishment Republican with zero conservative or constitutional intestinal fortitude.

To say the least, the Republican Party is at a crossroads in American history. A time at which they must choose to let the Grand Ole Party drift off into the abyss with the Whig Party, as a political machine that has lost its will to fight for our Constitutional Republic, or, to make a stand for the Republican form of self-governance with ‘the people,’ here and now…

But ‘the people’ are making the choice even more stark, by simply saying, no matter what you may or may not have done in the past, if you will not impeach the most impeachable regime in 240 years of American history, if treason, tyranny, treachery and traitorous acts are no longer impeachable offenses, then we no longer need a Speaker of the House, or even a do-nothing Congress for that matter.

Impeachment is the key to the Speakership of the House…

Most Congressional Republicans do not have the courage to lead on anything that actually matters, including impeachment of admittedly the most impeachable regime in U.S. history. Some will not even have the decency or courage to follow when someone else takes the lead.

In fact, many House Republicans would love you to believe that they need not keep their oath because their crystal ball tells them that Senate members will not keep their oaths.

However, unless and until House Republicans do their job by initiating impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee, Senate members have no job. It is not Senate members or congressional democrats who have blocked the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama, it is cowardly and complicit House Republicans who have done this under the direction of Speaker John Boehner.

There are reasons why impeachment is the only peaceful constitutional solution today…

Obama controls the courts, the military, the Executive branch and up until today, even Congress. He controls the election system, with SEIU maintaining the electronic election booths, illegal aliens and dead people voting democrat in hundreds of districts. He controls the press, both mainstream and secondary outlets, including once respected Fox News.

The mountain of evidence against Obama and his evil regime is massive and growing by the hour. But there is no place in America to present that evidence other than in a televised impeachment trial, where the American people can watch as all of the evidence is presented.

If Obama is allowed to leave office other than via impeachment, all of the fraud, tyranny, treachery and yes, treason, will stand unchallenged, rendering these crimes against America no longer “impeachable offenses.”

Contrary to the false propaganda circulated about how Obama “can’t be impeached because he isn’t really a president,” and that “impeaching him will validate his presidency,” no bank robber has ever been validated by the prosecution and conviction for his crimes. This is a silly claim that can only be intended to also block impeachment and accountability for Barack Hussein Obama.

Yes, the House must impeach Barack Hussein Obama and the right time to do it is today…

This means that who the next House Speaker is will be critical to the future of this nation, freedom, liberty and the Rule of Constitutional Law.

The next Speaker must be ready to shepherd Impeachment to conviction in the Senate, and then be capable of becoming the interim President of the United States until the 2016 election.

Because Vice President Joseph Biden has been a complicit co-conspirator in all of Obama’s crimes, starting with his fraudulent seizure of White House power in 2008, Joe Biden cannot succeed Barack Obama to the Presidency…. He is a criminal co-conspirator.

Next in line for the Presidency is the House Speaker. John Boehner was also directly complicit and a co-conspirator to Obama’s many crimes. Boehner did the nation a great favor by resigning, opening a window of opportunity for “the people” to force into that position, someone who would impeach, as well as someone capable of holding the Oval Office until the 2016 elections.

This is why 97% of Facebook Conservatives have answered YES, we want impeachment to be a litmus test for the next House Speaker.

Without impeachment, every crime Obama and his henchmen have committed will stand unchallenged. Our Constitution will be gone, our Bill of Rights, gone, the Rule of Law, gone…. Our Constitutional Republic will have gasped its last breath, and “the people” will have allowed it to happen.

The people have NO RIGHT to demand House Republicans do the right thing unless they are willing to

Further, no House member has the moral authority to seek the office of Speaker today, unless they are prepared to shepherd Impeachment through to conviction and then become the next interim President.

If any American can watch these Articles of Impeachment presented by North American Law Center Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon and not be on board, they have no right to call themselves American, much less patriots…

In addition, the only way to stop Hillary Clinton and the democrat party in 2016 is to hold her accountable for her role at the State Department, in the crimes against the USA by the Obama regime.

Last, whoever rises to the Oval Office in the next election, will enter a dictatorship created by Barack Obama. Unless Obama is held fully accountable and his crimes are reversed via impeachment, the Constitutional Republic will not exist for whomever wins the next election.

NOW is the time for “the people” to reclaim their country… To reclaim the Speakership of the House… To hold the Obama regime fully accountable for their criminal acts… to begin the process of returning the United States to an honorable nation of self-governed people who respect the Rule of Constitutional Law and will accept no less from their elected servants…

A Constitutional Accountability Coalition has been formed in more than thirty states, supporting the TNALC Articles of Impeachment and working to force House Republicans to initiate impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee.

Many Americans are doing something that really matters…. If you are not one of them, you are not part of any solution to our Constitutional Crisis known as Barack Obama.


Lawsuit against Florida Gun Store’s “Muslim Free Zone” Dismissed

Today (November 24, 2015), a Florida federal judge granted a motion to dismiss filed by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), dismissing a lawsuit filed by CAIR Florida against AFLC’s client, Florida Gun Supply.

In the lawsuit, CAIR alleged that Florida Gun Supply’s refusal to equip Islamic terrorists is religious discrimination in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act.

On July 29th, CAIR Florida filed the lawsuit against Florida Gun Supply because its owner declared in a YouTube video that his retail gun store is a “Muslim Free Zone” following the Chattanooga, Tennessee terrorist attack in which five service members were gunned down.

The owner of the gun store, Andy Hallinan, refuses to equip the next Paris-type terrorist with dangerous firearms.  Consequently, pursuant to its official, written policy, Florida Gun Supply will not serve “[a]nyone who is either directly or indirectly associated with terrorism in any way . . .”

Despite Hallinan’s legitimate concerns about public safety—concerns which have been confirmed most recently with the deadly terrorist attacks in France and the claims by ISIS to engage in similar attacks here in the United States—CAIR Florida sued Florida Gun Supply in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging religious discrimination.

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented:

“As our motion and now the court’s ruling make clear, CAIR’s lawsuit was patently frivolous if not outright dangerous.  No firearms dealer or gun range owner for that matter should be required to sell weapons to or train anyone that the dealer or owner has reason to believe is a terrorist threat.  We all have a civic responsibility to prevent the next terrorist attack.  CAIR’s lawsuit was an effort to prevent business owners from doing so.”

In its ruling granting AFLC’s request to dismiss CAIR’s lawsuit, the court stated that it

“must agree that [CAIR] has insufficiently alleged imminent harm.  The Complaint contains only bald, conclusory allegations devoid of factual enhancement.”

The court stated further that

“the general desire of [CAIR] in this case to have Muslims able to access [Florida Gun Supply’s] shooting range someday in the future is insufficient . . .  There are simply no facts grounding the assertion that [CAIR] and/or one of its constituents will be harmed—[CAIR] has failed to allege when and in what manner the alleged injuries are going to occur.”

Consequently, because CAIR could not show any harm or injury, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi commented:

“This dismissal was yet another AFLC victory against CAIR and its jihadi lawfare against patriotic Americans across the country.  This victory follows on the heels of a recent victory against CAIR in a Michigan federal court where CAIR’s subpoenas were quashed and CAIR’s nefarious client sanctioned for abusive practices.  CAIR was born from a jihadi terrorist conspiracy, and it has done little to distance itself from those bona fides.  CAIR is on notice: if you attempt to use the courts to conduct your civilizational jihad, AFLC will be there to defend law-abiding, patriotic Americans and our nation’s national security.  We will match and defeat your civilization jihad with our constitutional lawfare in every courtroom across the nation.”

Victory for Common Core Opponents in Missouri Appellate Court

In a big victory for opponents of Common Core, the Missouri court of appeals dismissed the State’s appeal, leaving in place a lower court decision that blocked Missouri’s membership in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (“SBAC”).  The ruling, issued on November 17th, dismissed as moot an appeal by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, and thereby upheld the lower court’s decision that Missouri’s participation in SBAC was a violation of the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution and numerous federal and state statutes.

Victory for Common Core Opponents in Missouri Appellate Court

The Compact Clause challenge to SBAC was first conceived and implemented by Missouri attorney, D. John Sauer, of the James Otis Law Group, based in St. Louis, who brought the action on behalf of state taxpayers.   The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, filed a friend of the court brief supporting the lower court decision in that case.

Since then, the Thomas More Law Center and the James Otis Law Group have joined forces to bring similar challenges to the constitutionality of the Common Core testing consortia in several other states, including North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia. Erin Mersino, TMLC senior trial counsel, has worked alongside Sauer in developing the three additional lawsuits.

Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, commenting on the collaboration between the two firms.  “John Sauer is an extraordinary attorney.  We are privileged to work alongside John.  In this truly cooperative effort, several other attorneys have donated their time as local co-counsel: Arnold Fleck, of Bismarck, ND, Jeffrey Kimble and Ryan Kennedy of Robinson & McElwee, PLLC, in Charleston, WV, and Robert J. Rohl of Johnson Eiesland Law Offices, PC, in Rapid City, SD.”

John Sauer obtained his law degree from Harvard Law School where he graduated magna cum laude. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia before becoming an assistant U.S. attorney. He eventually entered into private practice and recently founded the James Otis Law Group. Prior to his law degree, Sauer attended Duke University before attending Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He subsequently received his Masters from the University of Notre Dame.

Thompson, commenting on the appeals court ruling, said “The effect of the court of appeals ruling is to leave in place the first and only state court ruling that tears down the Common Core edifice constructed by the federal government.”

Shortly after the lower court decision holding SBAC unconstitutional, the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill 2, later signed by Governor Nixon, which expressly prohibits the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) from using funds to pay SBAC license fees or membership dues. An opinion from DESE General Counsel stated that the language contained in H.B. 2 specifically prohibited the state from participating as a member or as a licensee of SBAC and recommended that Missouri’s membership in SBAC be terminated immediately.

As a part of its continuing efforts to help parents combat Common Core, the Thomas More Law Center developed a Test Refusal and Student Privacy Protection Form and a Common Core Resource Page as a general reference and guide.

A Free and Just Society Needs This

There is a time to be accepting of just about anything that is moral and ethical.  I know, you think I forgot legal.  But what is legal?  What was once legal is now illegal because someone in power decided that you and I would be better off with that once legal thing now being illegal.

But I am talking about things that are beyond our definition of what is legal and illegal and that is a higher power.  That higher power has set forth what is moral and ethical and tries as we might as humans; those “laws” do not change. We also know these things to be principles.  I often say methods are many; principles are few because methods often change, but principles never do.

Indeed, if you look at what basic principles man has, you will notice they are the same today as they were 5,000 years ago.  Modern man, as we like to call ourselves, often makes the mistake of substituting laws for principles.  There are only two kinds of basic laws and they are as follows: First there is societal law which is the law that allows us to interact with each other on a daily basis safely.  Laws against murder, rape, burglary, etc, are laws in which principles are attached. Murder has always been illegal and that will never change.  However, you can say that human life and the right to life is a principle.

Second there are the self-preservation or self-protection laws which we also call lifestyle laws.  Examples of these laws are seat belt laws and limits on how big your soft drink can be but if you notice these laws have nothing to do with principles at all.  These laws are arbitrary and made up by one human who thinks he knows better than every other human out there and thus needs to prove it by putting it into law.

These are the kinds of laws that will destroy a just society because what these laws do is attempt, in no small way, to usurp the authority of God and His principles of basic human life.   God said you were born with “free speech” yet a government official decides that only certain kinds of speech are good for you and your neighbors.

God said you have a right to life yet a government lackey will tell you that you are only human if you are born alive.  And even then, we have some folks in government that believe even after you are born alive you still are not fully human until you reach a certain age. You may say that is nothing but pure evil and you would be correct.

However, these very same people will rule in favor of laws that cheapen human life and even allow it to be snuffed out without just cause simply because the mother in question doesn’t want to carry the child to full term.  When you have non-principled, manmade laws, that begin to usurp the principles and laws of God, you will find you have a society that is not free, that is in steep decline, and there will be a severe lack of respect for human life.

Look around you because have more laws on the books than at any time in human history.  Yet we still complain that many kinds of crimes are on the rise.  People are not feeling safe in their own neighborhoods, in their own homes.  We have more police than ever before yet crime in many areas is on the rise.

This is due to the fact that we have allowed man’s laws to usurp God’s laws.  In other words, we have abandoned principle for a feeling of progress and safety. Today we have a society that does not care about its fellow man or God and has given man’s changing morals more sway than the proven morals of God.

So you have to ask yourself, will making and implementing even more laws make you safer or will going back and adopting principles like respect and responsibility be better?   We have tried the more and more laws approach and it is a total and complete failure.

What we need is to teach principles and morals because when you have a moral and just and principled people, then you will have a moral, just, and principled nation.  And when you have a moral, just, and principled nation, you will have true freedom without the need for an abundance of laws.

VIDEO: How to Stop Violent Crime

In a strongly worded five-minute video, National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre is calling on Barack Obama and other politicians to help stop violent crime by focusing on prosecuting violent criminals—not further restricting law-abiding gun owners.

“We’ve lived through the Clinton administration’s utter lack of federal gun prosecutions, and the Obama administration is following suit, while the country suffers,” LaPierre said. “And we know that a second Clinton administration will just mean more of the same.”

LaPierre added that gun-banners—whether politicians or media—won’t silence the men and women of the NRA.

“No organization has been louder, clearer or more consistent on the urgent need to enforce the federal gun laws than the NRA,” he said. “And in the face of mounting political and media pressure to demean, shame and silence us … we will fight.”


How Georgia Became a Haven for Violent Illegal Immigrants

Congress Shouldn’t Ground Air Marshals Amid Current Threats, Their Boss Says

Vassar College Professor: ‘The Constitution is an oppressive document’

Assistant Director of Equal Opportunity at Vassar College caught on hidden camera shredding constitution and “The Constitution is an oppressive document” says Carol Lasser, Professor of History-Oberlin College.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Winston Churchill Thought the American Constitution Was Important

EDITORS NOTE: The music used in this Project Veritas video is provided by international Hip Hop sensation Murdakkh. You may follow Murdakkh on Twitter and Instagram. To learn more about Project Veritas go here, donate here, like them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

America has Become a Nation of Stupid Laws

In America, at least in the America that I used to know, people believed in themselves and they believed in freedom and the individual pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, we do not seem to believe that anymore.

The reason I say this is because at the beginning of this month, the state of Oklahoma added more laws to their books.  In fact, more than 200 new laws took effect on Sunday. Here in New Hampshire, we had our day of new law reality including a law that makes a citizen a criminal for taking a cell phone picture of an undercover police officer while you are stopped at a traffic light.

And the silliness continues because, in California, farmers raising egg-laying chickens cannot confine them to cages. Also, the so-called Yes Means Yes Consent Law went into effect.  In this law, if both man and woman are drunk and they have agreed upon drunk sex, the man, and only the man is guilty of sexual assault and if found guilty must register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

In Michigan, you now have a limit on the amount of cold medicine you can purchase at any one time.  In New York, you are required to recycle old computers, video game consoles, and televisions, even if there is no recycling center in your town and even if your town does not pick up such materials.  Also in New York, in 2015, it became illegal to take a photo with a lion, tiger, or any other big cat.

Louisiana implemented a ban on smoking within 25 feet of an entrance to a state office building.  In Nevada, high school students can be denied a driver’s license if they miss too much school and if you home school, you must prove it.

Of course, municipalities add to the plethora of new laws as well. In Los Gatos, California banned gas-powered leaf blowers.  Yes, just leaf blowers but other gas powered lawn and yard equipment is still legal.

In total, by some estimates more than 10,000 new local, state, and federal laws took or will take effect in the United States in 2015.  That does not include the gigantic new book of regulations and rules that also come into effect during this year.

Every law that is enacted takes away a bit of your liberty and it strips you of making your own choices.  For example, the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare took away your ability to choose how you garner your health insurance or if you want to have it at all.

In America, we used to be a free people that had the ability to go from coast to coast without unjust government regulation but now we have so many laws that it is estimated that most Americans break the law daily and they don’t even know it.  Someone once said the average American breaks about 5 laws every morning by the time they get to work and they don’t even know they broke a single one of them. I am not talking about speeding either.

It is often said we are a nation of laws.  Of course, that statement originally meant that our government was based on the Constitution on the Federal level and the Constitution on the State level. Now that statement has a whole new meaning and there is no end in sight.

Our legislatures all across the Fruited Plain are writing and debating bills that may become laws.  These are laws that will restrict you and me from realizing the dream of our Founders.

The politicians always say that these new laws are needed to allow us to live a safer and more enjoyable life.  I don’t know how enjoyable life is when you are getting a ticket or being arrested for something that used to be thought of as a simple bad decision.

The funny thing about all these laws, one of the most important ones is often ignored, and that is the one on illegal immigration. These laws are not just being ignored by the illegal immigrant, but they are also being ignored by the legislators that wrote the law in the first place. It seems that only Americans are being held accountable for all the laws in our nation.

Yet through all of our troubles, through all of our nation’s ills, immigrants, legal and illegal, still seem to think this is the place to be. Unfortunately, it is too bad that when they get here, they won’t have the freedom to explore all that this nation once had to offer.  After all, somewhere in this country, enjoying your liberty is against the law.

The Texas Estates Code – Weapon of Mass Destruction

“Money Talks, Disability Does Not.”  

The Texas Estates Code qualifies the disqualified and disqualifies the qualified for Cash.

Cause No. 415959; In re Andrew Stephen Keith Guardianship (Probate Court 3)

I am a licensed Texas attorney (1998) and certified attorney ad litem (AAL) bythe State of Texas. I graduated in the top 1% of my law school class and worked at top Texas law firms until founding a non-profit for disabled children, Attorneys For Special Needs Children, in 2010. In 2013, ElderLaw Advocates was formed and our Radio Program expanded its scope to the elderly and disabled in guardianship.

I am also a pre-med major with three years of training at the University of Texas Austin Health Science Center and later, studied to become a psychotherapist at the University of Houston program pre-doctorate. I understand dementia, autism, Alzheimers, and medical / psychological conditions more than most, although my true expertise is special education.

My journey in disability law began under the mentorship of Texas Education Agency Hearing Officer James Holtz. James Holtz is without question on a short list of special education hearing officers. Mr. Holtz served 25 years as a mediator and Judge for the State of Texas, charged with the duty to determine whether children receive a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”), the minimum required by federal law under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). This became my job as well.

The IDEA mandates that disabled students be tested in every area of suspected disability every three years unless the parent waives this right. Andrew’s father was so cruel and incompetent, he waived Andrew’s testing for 7 straight years before my client, Sharon Keith, had the opportunity to help her son by having the benefit of knowing what was going on. Her ex husband made sure that the school district kept her in the dark until I got involved when Andrew was a free agent at 18.

Andrew’s father waived testing for 7 years, rendering his program absolutely deficient. His father removed him from medically necessary speech and occupational therapies because the multimillionaire, Randall Keith, did not want to be inconvenienced by his son’s need to acquire the simple ability to communicate. Denying medical care to a disabled child is criminal medical neglect and contempt of Court when one has been ordered for 7 years to take Andrew to therapy and PAY FOR IT. Randall did neither because “it was a waste of time.”


In terms of special education, I qualify as an expert under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 702. Judge Rory Olsen, 20-year probate judge, does not. Nor did the two ad litems he appointed to represent Andrew’s best interests and make the life changing decision that sealed his fate–choosing his wealthy father over the qualified mother–who was HANDS DOWN, AN EXPERT FAR EXCEEDING MY KNOWLEDGE.

In my expert opinion, all of the foregoing individuals were incompetent despite being Board Certified in Probate Law and on the Legislative Committee writing the Law or sitting on the Bench in front of me. It is also my expert opinion that not one person knows an autistic or speech impaired child or adult than the family member closest to that person.

Like a baby, one who cares simply knows how to read the subtle cues strangers miss. Moreover, private paid guardians and lawyers simply don’t care because they aren’t invested in the person’s future. Out of sight, out of mind? Not for me. I have a child with special needs who has remarkably overcome, so I understand and I care.

The appointed lawyers were board certified, meeting State of Texas requirements for certification as an attorney/guardian ad litem and decide a person’s best interests, but then could not tell me what is in their best interests when on the stand. In fact, I was informed that I had no right to even call them to testify, which would be such such a denial of due process as to be laughable–if any of this were funny.


Harris County disqualified the only qualified applicant and qualified the disqualified abuser for MONEY because, as I would learn, nothing else was relevant. The expert mom had insufficient funds to hire the number of experts needed but a speech therapist was retained, who secured a medical prescription for speech therapy as “medically necessary.” This did not move the ad litems to even allow us to take Andrew to speech therapy so that he could TELL THE JUDGE whom he wanted to be his guardian in violation of Section 689.

His lawyers told us up front there be no experts because we had no money, ignoring their duties to even put on a case for 2 ½ years. Harris County had insufficient funds, so no one even bothered to get an interpreter, statutorily required, despite conceding that the two board certified lawyers had no idea what he wanted after 2 1/2 years. Andrew clearly stated what he wanted, but it was irrelevant because the ILLEGAL BOND was the only relevant factor.

Linda Goehrs, Andrew’s temporary guardian, wrote the bond provision in the estates code and knew in 2012 it was not effective, but she wrote a motion to be paid $375/hour in violation of Harris County fee guidelines. Andrew was never declared incompetent, his lawyer did not introduce one exhibit or call one witness, and the lawyers ILLEGALLY objecting to my own client paying me, so I worked for free for 2 1/2 years for Andrew.

Ironic that I am the only attorney representing what Andrew wants or needs and the other two want over $100,000 while I get zero from Harris County or my own client. My client was only interested in helping her son speak so he could tell the Judge what he wanted, but his temporary guardian and attorney would have no such thing.

Linda would not allow speech therapy or require it until 2 weeks before trial. Then, she quashed my subpoena and would not allow him to testify. In what was clearly an effort to make me think we were getting due process, the Judge, took Andrew into chambers with donuts and an iPad–at which time Judge Olsen said (off the record) that Andrew said he wanted to live with his father. Andrew would do (or say) anything for a donut or an iPad. Funny how Linda always complained about the iPad before–I had a language app on it that was purchased by a Georgia businessman for Andrew. It was meant to help Andrew speak.

Ironically, I pled via emergency petition 2 1/2 years prior that if the Judge did not remove him from Randall Keith’s house, Andrew would parrot those very words. I suppose I should not have tipped him off. Judge Olsen ultimately stated, off the record, that Andrew didn’t know the truth from a lie. Is anyone really surprised?

The Judge was not competent because he asked during the hearing “what is an ARD meeting?” I was left in the position of trying to qualify a board certified lawyer in probate who was incompetent to testify as an expert by an incompetent judge who never read Andrew’s educational or medical records since age 3–as I cried because I understood. They did not.


Linda Goehrs and Fatima Breland either did not read the summaries of 864 pages of Andrew’s medical and school records I provided, a ten year vicious family court file of abuse and neglect from family court, or a two year stream of emails about child abuse, hoping against hope that a light bulb would turn on, knowing time was running out. All had 2 1/2 years but ultimately, did not have time…

Linda testified that she did not allow us to get Andrew speech because she did not understand autism. Judge Olsen stated on the record “Wouldn’t it be nice if Harris County had the money?” Yes, it would. Andrew would have possibly be given due process. Oh well. Too bad for Andrew.

He was denied a jury trial and Judge Olsen disqualified my qualified applicant and qualified a disqualified child abuser. And at the end of the day, representing Andrew and my client in a system that cared only about the bond was my job. I lost and Andrew is a hostage being abused with no hope of us helping him escape because of these reckless people.

When the case began, I prayed Charles Bearinger, would make it to testify. He volunteered pro bono for me when his rate is $700/hour. Charles is Board Certified in Special Education and Psychology/Counseling with a combined total of more than 50 years of experience. He wanted to testify for Andrew, but was afraid.

I offered him to Linda and Fatima and they never even called him. As fate would have it, at 82 and no stranger to legal abuse in courts, he could not testify for Andrew. He explained by written report to those too lazy to read Andrew’s records that special education is warehousing and autistics regress if they are not moving forward.

Sharon was disqualified in violation of 681 for $2000 in child support owed to Randall Keith not Andrew and not allowed to have a jury trial or stay in the case and pay the debt later because Rory Olsen is the ultimate arbiter of fact.


In December of 2013, I sought a TRO to save the life of Willie Jo Mills— notifying the Judge that death was imminent if the TRO was not granted. Willie Jo Mills died being starved with only spoonfulls of water as she was given morphine in hospice, along with Haldol and Valium when she had only a urinary tract infection and the Doctor hired to terminate her life was the Doctor who placed Willie Jo in guardianship illegally with a rule 11 agreement and no finding of incompetency. She never had a jury trial despite my two TRO’s and three pleas for jury trial as she cried, “why are you doing this to me”?

Willie Jo was dying for a drink. Willie Joe DIED WHILE THE COURT DENIED MY PLEAS TO HELP HER. I filed two TROs and three motions for a jury trial but after being threatened to get out, Sherry learned that speech is not free. Sherry happened to be present at the recusal hearing in Sharon Keith’s case. She was critical of the Judge, but fair. I don’t know if I will ever get over thinking that the affidavit she filed against Judge Rory Olsen to recuse him cost her Willie Jo.

Sherry almost felt as if her mother’s death was intentional and she was the “expert” and only person who knew her mother and how to help her, as demonstrated by her saving her mother’s life with nutrition in 2012 when David Dexel tried to put her on hospice. The Doctor has been sued for handing out pills too generously for money and almost had his license removed and has a conflict of interest because he is the Director of Hospice.

He put her on hospice because of “family conflict” and admitted that on tape. Sherry was denied guardianship because of family conflict and her power of attorney ignored because of family conflict. Willie Jo Mills was never evaluated by a physician who wasn’t biased against her for continued payments from her own money–and Harris County’s decision that Willie Jo was profitable.

Lawyers made hundreds of thousands of her money from a Section 867 Court Created Trust, benefitting the lawyers, County, Judge and Willie Jo to some degree. Her guardian sold her home for almost 1/2 its value at illegal interest rates for profit. David Dexel bought pre-need funeral services and made 5% going in and coming out as he threatened the daughters to not get in his way–or they would never see their mother again.

The Judge created the trust before she was even in guardianship and sold her house. The Judge refused to honor the estate planning documents naming Sherry and her sister Cindy as guardians and power of attorney–because of family conflict. Isn’t there always family conflict? Larry Mills, the son, did not even have standing to contest, but was given carte blanche because his lawyer was an insider.

Larry never had standing because he stole his mother’s estate and the district court ordered him to give it back. The Judge knew this and ignored it, allowing Larry Mills’ power of attorney to control and blocked the caring daughters from access to information to even help their mother. Willie Joe was taken to Methodist ICU, at which time medical records were shredded which stated what foods, liquids and medications she was given.

Willie Jo had to sign herself into the Methodist Hospital as she was left with a note on her stomach from her guardian and Sherry was by her side. She briefly got better and was handed back over to her guardian, Ginger Lott, a prior court coordinator who was so incompetent, I have hardly ever witnessed a more reckless guardian being in charge.

Reports of abuse, exploitation and neglect were made to the Department of Aging and Disability, who has jurisdiction over assisted living facilities. It was at this time I learned that out of 78,000 Texas facilities, only 11-actions were pursued by the Attorney General, suggesting that Texas’ elderly were doomed without even knowing it.

I saw Willie Jo within days of her death and will never forget the feeling that she was blind. She was terrified and her eyes did not track my movements, so I quietly stepped away. I later learned that her official cause of death was multiple organ failure involving untreated diabetes, all of which puzzled everyone because she did not have diabetes. The pain of watching your mother die slowly and painfully is inconceivable but for watching it in Realtime. After the attorney, Howard Reiner, realized he had consented to taping of Willie Jo for months, I was threatened “GET OUT OR ELSE,” SO I DID BRIEFLY and re-appeared but was ignored. Willie Jo died September 27, 2014 and never got a jury trial.

Cause No 427298, RUBY PETERSON, DECEASED (Probate Court 1)

In July of 2014, I filed an application for emergency TRO and Temporary Injunction to save the life of Ruby Peterson. After 4 days of testimony, establishing that she was being falsely imprisoned and assaulted via illegal chemical restraints (Seroquel, FDA black box warning), the injunction was summarily denied. The emergency that took Ruby’s life was Seroquel, which is NOT to be given to elderly patients with dementia— particularly if they had cardiac complications, which Ruby did.

Despite my pleas, the Court ignored Ruby’s screams for help and she died January 2015 after being ill a mere three days. In the life of an elderly individual, three days can be fatal. I can hardly describe the emotional suffering her children (my clients) have endured.

I was sickened to see lawyers sit around waiting to be paid after not even pretending to comply with their duties as ad litems. Russ Jones, the attorney ad litem and Jill Young, the guardian ad litem, did nothing for Ruby but mock her suffering, children and me as they taunted and threatened Ruby’s “real lawyers” and the only doctor who cared enough to try to save her life–with TRESPASS AND ARREST.

The expert retained by Sarah Pacheco, Dr. Chris Merkl, testified on the stand that he was retained to create a legal document stating that Ruby was incompetent (when the Code says she is presumed competent and the doctor admitted not knowing the law). Dr. Merkl testified that he “just gets together” WITH SARAH PACHECO and decides whether people are incompetent or competent, stating that a few occasions, Sarah had the idea that no guardianship was needed, so he found them competent and SARAH was perfectly happy with that. I have no doubt she was.

Our Doctor was extremely qualified and the Judge almost did not let him see her. He denied subsequent visits to follow up on Merkl’s gross negligence of not treating Ruby’s cardiac insufficiency, which caused death. The heart problems also caused her to fall–with one fall at Silverado Senior Living almost fracturing her skull. Dr. Merkl did a fellowship in Cardiology. He also testified he and Dr. Lalani were looking to see if the cause of Ruby’s confusion was her heart. Dr. Merkl knew it was but did not treat it because Sarah decided Ruby was never getting out.

Ruby wanted to disown Sarah’s client from inheritance and so she was locked up and my clients were threated by the police and told they would be arrested if they came back, when all they did was bring a power of attorney on the premises to get her out of lock down as she asked them to. Ruby asked her sons to hire two lawyers and they complied. The two lawyers were Phil Ross and I–threatened and sanctioned for daring to challenge the system.

Ruby’s guardian ad litem, Jill Young, was appointed to determine what Ruby’s “best interests” but refused to do her job–even after I pointed out via several motions that she was not doing her job, but aligned with Sarah Pacheco. Jill never once even spoke to me or Phil Ross, regarding Ruby. Jill blocked my email address along with Sarah because I pointed out to the Judge how Sarah was lying to him. Jill sat with the Defendant, Carol Ann, giggling like sorority sisters. Sold out to Sarah, Jill categorically refused to even hear a contrary point of view.

We retained a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. John Tennison, who wrote a 9-page expert report concerning Ruby’s heart problems and dementia. Had Jill merely read it, she could have summoned a Cardiologist and saved Ruby’s life. But, she wasn’t interested in knowing what any other expert said–well aware that she wasn’t an expert. Far from it, Jill Young, a school teacher, admitted she knew nothing about dementia or powers of attorney.

Carol Ann was exploiting Ruby’s finances with a power of attorney and Jill thought that made it a “power of attorney” account. When I asked her on the stand why she believed without further investigation what Dr. Merkl opined, she said “because I have worked with him many times.” She refused to even read our expert report because she “didn’t have time” to read 9 pages. Apparently her lawyer was too engrossed in the book he read during our emergency hearing to care either.

At one point, my cross exam became almost painful in terms of exposing her ignorance and the Judge interrupted me, stating on the record his stipulation that “Jill is not an expert.” I responded, “I know that. I’ll represent that I’m not an expert but I know this and so should she.” In other words, how do you make a decision on someone’s best interest if you don’t even understand their disability–or care? You cannot.

So, what I see in every case are greedy lawyers who care only about getting paid and going to play golf, while the disabled suffer. Jill testified that she never bothered to read our expert’s report and now I know why–it did not matter. Jill’s mind was made up before I ever filed the lawsuit. She was sold out to Sarah Pacheco. Evidence of this became clear when she filed joinders in every motion Sarah filed.

Ruby’s lawyer Russ Jones did the same thing. I predicted to the Judge that every motion Jill and Russ would file would go along with Sarah Pacheco and really wondered at that point why I had to fight 4 lawyers in every case to save the life of a disabled person only to watch them die and the lawyers get paid? It’s the worst nightmare you can imagine because before probate court, I never lost one case except my son’s special education case, which was similarly “rigged” before I ever began.


Ruby was presumed competent until proven uncompetent by a jury trial that never came and she died being falsely imprisoned and assaulted with dangerous drugs. Ruby was drugged by Seroquel which is fatal for heart patients and denied a pacemaker which would have saved her life. Apparently, that was not the goal. Dr. Merkl testified under oath that it’s okay to lie to elderly patients to get them to take drugs that are dangerous for them.

Her son testified that “if you gotta lie, you gotta lie. Bill Clinton did it.” We tried to introduce the fraudulent Will and Testament of Fannye Bell, David Peterson’s aunt–when we were accused of witch hunting. If the shoe fits? David Peterson, Ruby’s son, admitted as he bragged to his sisters and brothers that he stole his cousin’s inheritance by having a disabled aunt with dementia change her will at 98 for $300.

RUBY PETERSON’s medical records (entered into evidence by her own lawyer) demonstrate false imprisonment and repeated assaults—crimes. Ruby was found screaming and crying to leave SILVERADO or drugged to the point of being passed out in her wheelchair and not once did any of DEFENDANTS’ five+ lawyers and guardian ad litems deem their crimes problematic!

Russ Jones mocked Ruby as he entered her records and sealed her fate—and left for golf. Her lawyer threatened our doctor with arrest for trespass and never read the medical records he introduced into evidence against his own client because they had instance after instance of falls for the low blood pressure and blood pressure low, high and everywhere because it was not regulated. No one cared who treated her. She died in 6 months and the Judge punished me $15,000 for blogging and asking for help because I brought on too much publicity to get her out of Silverado Senior Living–where they were killing her.

Within six months of the Court’s denial of my EMERGENCY TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, RUBY DIED! RUBY PETERSON DIED OF NEGLECT WHILE SURROUNDED BY MEDICAL CARE PROVIDERS. Ruby’s COURT APPOINTED lawyer charged with representing what she wanted told the Court that Ruby’s screamed to go home were apparently the screams of a woman desiring her “childhood home” with no credentials to make such a ludicrous, self-serving statement. Why would Ruby’s lawyer threaten a Doctor from seeing his own client or a guardian ad litem not care what a doctor thought? Keeping Dr Tennison away probably killed her.

How can experienced probate lawyers be so ignorant? RUBY PETERSON was a person in need of protection while in the protection of Harris County probate courts. RUBY was isolated in a predictably lethal combination of circumstances. Ironic is the fact that the entire system designed to protect RUBY killed her.

Res Ipsa Loquitur: In the absence of proof, with res ipsa loquitur- the person who had custody, control, and possession of Ruby is presumed to have done it. SUGARLAND POLICE–those entrusted with her protection protected her from a Doctor. Ruby was Little more than the Property of Harris County and was not even in guardianship ever because she died first in the protection of the guardianship program. The Code kind of agrees, so it’s a civil matter. Absurd results: the lawyer that Ruby told to hire was sanctioned for making too much noise to get her out of Silverado!

I went to probate court and everyone died or was held hostage. It wasn’t a nightmare. It was real. Jury trials are denied because as Sarah Pacheco put it, “the Constitution doesn’t apply in probate court” that is–unless the right to privacy is concerned to hide exploitation of the ward. I have watched mothers die and an autistic boy be taken hostage with not one ward “protected” from anything but their money 100% of the time. The work is not fun but I cannot stop trying. I cannot understand how decent people can do this to one another, but then, I am dealing with lawyers.

VIDEO: Hillary Supporters Want Muslim Shariah Law in America

Hillary Clinton supporters in California mindlessly agree with anything and everything Hillary supposedly says. In an experiment, media analyst Mark Dice tells Hillary fans that one of her primary campaign promises is to implement Muslim Sharia Law in America.

Discover the Networks defines Sharia Law as:

Shari’a tries to describe in detail all possible human acts, dividing them into permitted (halal) and prohibited (haram). It subdivides them into various degrees of good or evil such as obligatory, recommended, neutral, objectionable or forbidden. This vast compendium of rules regulates all matters of devotional life, worship, ritual purity, marriage and inheritance, criminal offenses, commerce and personal conduct. It also regulates the governing of the Islamic state and its relations to non-Muslims within the state as well as to enemies outside the state. Shari’a influences the behavior and worldview of most Muslims, even in secular states where it forms no part of the law of the land.

Islam teaches that shari’a, as God’s revealed law, perfect and eternal, is binding on individuals, society and state in all its details. By logical extension, any criticism of shari’a is heresy. Muslims who deny the validity of shari’a in any way are labeled as non-Muslims (infidels) or apostates (those who convert to another religion) by traditionalists and Islamists. As such, they face the threat of being prosecuted for apostasy, a crime that carries the death penalty in shari’a.

Read more.

Mark Dice’s shocking Man on the Street Monday series continues.

Please follow Mark Dice on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Less Politics — More Prosecutions!

Government officials are breaking the law, stop the congressional game playing and PROSECUTE them!

Lawfare: The Crucifixion of Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders has, once again, been accused, of violating hate laws in The Netherlands over a  remark he made during a March 19, 2014  Freedom Party (PVV) campaign rally for the European Parliament elections that occurred in May of last year: “fewer and fewer Moroccans”.  Complaints were filed by alleged aggrieved Dutch Moroccans on the grounds that his remarks were racist and violated hate laws in The Netherlands.  These remarks in the U.S. would be protected under our First Amendment to the Constitution. No such protections currently exist under the laws in The Netherlands, let alone the EU. We noted this in a December 2014 Iconoclast post about a statement Wilders made before his interrogation by Dutch police in The Hague:

The words Orwellian, Kafkaesque appear inadequate to describe the trammeling of the Hon. Geert Wilders’  free speech by Dutch prosecutors at the Hague in The Netherlands.   We write this with the imagery of the fictional victim of Kafka’s posthumously published novel, The Trial. Joseph K was  arrested by police inspectors for unknown reasons and every word of his scrutinized before  his climactic death.

What Wilders is going through is not fiction, but a living nightmare.  All because he spoke his mind during a local elections Freedom Party (PVV) campaign rally last spring about “fewer Moroccans”. That was a reference to his platform of controlling mass immigration of Muslims who have exhibited substantial criminal behavior incited by Islamic doctrine and preaching by Imams in Dutch Mosques.

We thought his exoneration in the May 2011 Amsterdam District Court  trial on alleged hate speech  law violations would end his nightmare of prosecution for what we in the US take for granted as protected speech under the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Public Prosecutors in The Hague are preparing for a trial on these trumped up charges in 2016. Wilders was exonerated from similar charges in a well publicized 2011 trial in the Amsterdam district court. Wilders’ has retained one of the best known defense attorneys Geert-Jan Knoops. However, the trial judge remarks and denial of what we in US trial procedure would consider customary discovery requests would lead one to believe that The Hague  court proceedings on these charges are politicized and biased this bolstering of both Knoops and his client Wilders that a fair trial would not be possible. Those are the contention of this front page interview with Wilders and his defense counsel, Knoops in this De Telegraaf article by Messrs. Wouter de Winther and Rudd Mikkers. Wilders says, if that is the case then why show up at the trial, as the decision has already been made and the prosecution would be a proverbial media circus.

What follows is an English translation of the De Telegraaf  interview article,”Wilders awaits unfair trial”.

Der Telegraf Wilders article 10-29-15(1)Wilders awaits unfair trial
by Wouter de Winther and Ruud Mikkers
The Hague

PVV leader Geert Wilders awaits an unfair trial if he stands trial next year for stating that he wants “fewer Moroccans”. That is what his lawyer Geert-Jan Knoops says.

The lawyer is upset about the fact that the judge has allocated only 1 percent of the investigation requests of Wilders’ defense. “These include doing further research by experts. The defense has serious concerns about whether Mr. Wilders in his criminal case can adequately defend himself,” Knoops says in a statement. “When all reasonable requests are rejected, they apparently want to convict me at all costs,” the PVV leader concludes. Wilders is expected to appear in court sometime in 2016. “A correct picture of the context of the alleged statements of Mr. Wilders is essential,” says Knoops. “In order to present this picture to the judge, Wilders should get the chance that he gets the investigation he has asked for.” The lawyer says that Wilders is seriously harmed in his defense. “This way, Mr. Wilders does not get a fair trial.”

PVV leader Wilders feels provoked. He says he will not get a fair chance to defend himself in the trial in which he is being sued for group insult and incitement to hatred and discrimination. Almost all his requests to hear experts or to examine whether there has been tampered with declarations against him have been dismissed. He has appealed, because this way the chance of a fair trial would be reduced to nil.

What are the indications that suggest that you will not get a fair chance at a defense? “I notice that the judicial authorities get more intransigent as we rise in the polls. At the first meetings, the magistrate still said to me, ‘You are entitled to a fair chance; the law will be interpreted broadly. But the opposite has happened. The magistrate uncritically follows the prosecutor. If all reasonable requests are rejected, then they apparently want to convict me at all costs.”

Why would Lady Justice suddenly take off her blindfold for Geert Wilders? “For months, we have been working on the defense and therefore you suggest that further investigations be conducted. For example, what about government ministers who already declared me guilty before the trial had begun, such as [Justice Minister] Opstelten? And we also want to know what has happened with all the pre-printed complaint forms. We have discovered that various forms have same signatures on them! We also want to hear experts, for example about the accusations of racism. A nationality is not a race, so how can I be guilty of racism? I am convinced that if today I ask “Do you want more or fewer Syrians,” no one would take offense at that, let alone that there would be complaints would be filled.”

But then we are dealing with refugees without a residence permit. Not Dutch citizens who have already been here for thirty or forty years. “Yes, but I’m talking about the concept of nationality versus race. That is what everyone objected to, while I think that would now no longer be the case. If I would ask, ‘Do you want more or fewer Belgians; I do not believe that many people would feel offended. I want to hear the opinion of experts about this. I want to defend myself, but I must also be able to defend myself. The frustrating thing is that we have made 39 requests and zero have been granted. One of them has been kept in deliberation.”

During your previous trial, you had you done serious and less serious requests, you asked to hear Gaddafi or invite the Iranian president as a witness. What requests did you do this time? “I have noticed that the director of a mosque filed several complaints with different handwritings but the same signature. Hundreds of complaints were done on forms delivered in that mosque. About such matters I would want to hear the opinion of experts, because this cannot be allowed. I cannot give you all the names, because that information is not public.  For example, Tom Zwart, professor at the University of Amsterdam, and Professor Paul Cliteur were willing to testify. But they have been rejected. “

What is behind all this? I do not know. However, I have seen on television there are people in the judiciary who say that PVV members cannot become judges. In the newspaper I read that the Public Prosecutor had already appointed two media judges even before the decision to prosecute had been taken. And as we rise in the polls, the rejections from the judicial authorities become more blunt and unfriendly. If this continues, then it seems as if the verdict has already been written. Then I will have to consider whether I need to attend. Perhaps they should just rule in absentia. For me, it makes little sense to come. If this persists, it will be a political trial and a PVV-hate trial.”

Are you saying that the judiciary in the Netherlands is not independent? “I want to talk about my case. If this persists, it will not be a fair trial. Obviously, I am also referring to the statement by the judge who said that PVV members should not be allowed to become judges. That is the atmosphere in which this is all happening.”

You are again seeking the role of the underdog, you and the PVV fighting the established order on your own. Is that not becoming a bit déjà-vu? “I would rather not have been prosecuted, because I think I’ve done nothing wrong. I do not seek the role of the victim here because I would rather have preferred that I could defend myself. But if all requests are rejected, then it is no use. Let them then quickly sentence me in absentia. I hope it does not come to that. Because it will be a circus.”

What consequences will a conviction have for you? “I will always continue to say what I have to say. However, with the difference that I would only be able to express certain messages in the microphone of parliament. Because there I have immunity. If freedom of expression is curtailed, I can no longer express certain opinions anywhere.”

Virtually nowhere you get what you want. But when you do think your trial will actually be fair? “That depends on which requests are granted and in what way. Knoops also needs to have the impression that he can truly defend me. If such a person, the best criminal lawyer in the Netherlands says it is not fair … that’s quite something. Knoops is not someone whom you can abuse politically.”

Given all the hassle afterwards, don’t you regret having made the statements about “fewer Moroccans”? “I think an excuse to make it harder for the PVV will always be found. We are under more scrutiny than politicians of D66 or the Green Left because we are very outspoken. I understand that. We also oppose the establishment and do not mince our words. If you do that you do not make it easy for yourself.”

Ultimately, this trial is about the freedom of expression. You always draw the line very clearly at calling to violence, but should everything else be said? “I think you should be able to say if you want fewer Mexicans or Syrians. That is not discriminatory and certainly no call to violence. I will always continue. Nothing will stop me to express my opinion. Not a hundred judges, not a thousand verdicts or fatwas will be able to change that.”

Can you imagine that Moroccan Dutch people feel excluded by such a fewer Moroccans statement? “I do not really care what they feel or don’t feel. The point is whether it is illegal or not and I do not think that I have done anything wrong. If people feel hurt they should address a psychologist or someone similar.”

Today or tomorrow you would as easily say “fewer, fewer, fewer Syrians”? “I’m not saying I will do that, but if I would, it would in my opinion no longer cause a lot of commotion.”

Yet you do not say it so explicitly today. Has this reluctance to do with the
upcoming trial? “We are calling for fewer Syrians that is absolutely true. But today or tomorrow, I will not be holding such a speech as last year. But if I would, and if I would say it… then I think that nothing would happen. In America, any politician can advocate fewer Mexicans. No-one would object.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Muslim Lawfare against America: How it can be Fought

In Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts, David Yerushalmi, Esq., Director of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) and General Counsel for the Center for Security Policy, and AFLC co-founder Robert J. Muise, Esq. describe the use by our Islamic supremacist enemies of U.S. jurisprudence to compel submission to the doctrine they call shariah. As with so many other facets of the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy, pre-violent jihad against this country, most of us are unaware that such lawfare is taking place, let alone with such deleterious effects.

david yerushalmi

David Yerushalmi, Esq., Director of the American Freedom Law Center

Even more importantly, Messrs. Yerushalmi and Muise lay out their recommendations for an offensive strategy to defend the U.S. Constitution and the rights it guarantees our countrymen and women from any further encroachment by Islamic law. In stark contrast to the longstanding use of such techniques to intimidate or suppress freedom-loving peoples, offensive lawfare against the Brotherhood and its ilk is a relatively nascent area of the law, in which the authors are true pioneers and formidable innovators.

Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said on the occasion of the publication of the latest monograph in the Center’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series:

“In Offensive and Defensive Lawfare, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, have added to the great service they perform for the nation every day through their public interest law firm’s pro bono representation of exponents of religious and other freedoms. We hope that this treatment of their battle space – with its clear depiction of the Islamic supremacists’ lawfare and insights into how this front of the civilization jihad can best be countered – will inspire many other accomplished litigators to join the authors in this fight.”

Click here for a full PDF of the newly released monograph.

About The Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.SecureFreedom.org.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.

Florida: Targeting Elder Guardianship Abuse [Video]

I had the opportunity to be interviewed by ABC’s I Team on guardianship abuse in Florida. Please take a few moments to learn about a hidden war against our senior citizens in the Sunshine state:

Time to Do the Constitutional Thing

Nearly every American can sense that the U.S. Constitutional Republic is on the brink of total collapse. That they are living under a pre-WW Germany form of tyranny through mass propaganda and that the clock is ticking down on American sovereignty, security, freedom and liberty.

They may not know why, or how, or who is the blame for it, or even what to do about it… but more than 70% of Americans know that their country is headed in the wrong direction and that they are fast running out of time and opportunity to do something about it.

Yet, the answer is quite simple… The problem isn’t “them,” it’s “us.” The issue isn’t what “they” won’t do, but rather what “we” will do…

The more complicated and complex the problem, the more simple and basic the solution must be… And unless the American people are ready to deal with all of it in one swift constitutional move, they will never be able to deal with any of it, ever…

Everything Obama has done during his unconstitutional tenure must be erased as if it never happened and the people have but only ONE way to do that…

The Threat

There is no question anymore where the greatest threat to America is coming from… It is coming from within the halls of our government. All three branches of the Federal government have been compromised.

The Judicial Branch is no longer in the business of upholding or defending the Constitutionally protected Rights of all legal American citizens, or enforcing the constitutional laws of the United States as passed by Congress. They are in the unconstitutional business of “social justice” – making up national policy to suit global interests by way of totalitarian judicial fiat, often in direct violation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The judicial branch has gone completely rogue…

The Legislative Branch, the only branch of the Federal government with any law-making authority whatsoever, Congress, has abdicated all constitutional law-making and oversight authority of Congress to the unconstitutional Senate, Executive and Judicial branches… Congress has rendered itself, especially the House of Representatives, a vacant useless body no longer operating as “the people’s representatives” in Washington DC. The House is a reckless and feckless enemy of “the people” today, with no promise of self-correction anywhere in sight, no matter who the next Speaker may be.

The Executive Branch has been changed from an administrative branch obligated to uphold, enforce and administer the Laws of this Land, to a lawless tyrannical dictatorship actively aiding and abetting known enemies of the United States, violating the US Constitution and Bill of Rights on a daily basis, and ignoring all legitimate U.S. Laws while inventing new “laws” via unconstitutional Executive orders and memos, as if the White House is the Kremlin.

The Right of the People to Alter or Abolish

The Declaration of Independence is the nation’s most cherished symbol of liberty and Thomas Jefferson’s most enduring monument. In it, our Founders set the foundations for freedom, liberty and self-governance via a Constitutional Republic.

It also establishes the fundamental Right of the people to alter or abolish their systems of government, if and when those systems become destructive towards the sole purpose of government, the protection of the Rights of the people to live in peace, freedom and liberty.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Founders had plenty of experience with everything we face today. They knew that all governments, no matter how carefully designed, had the potential to eventually become destructive of the sole purpose of government. They fought a bloody battle to win our sovereignty, security, freedom and liberty. They knew the price of freedom all too well…

So, they made it possible for all future generations to avoid the need for mass bloodshed in order to free themselves from a government of, by and for the people, once that government had become destructive towards the people. They set Constitutional Solutions in place for the people to follow, in order to peacefully alter their government, before abolishing through bloodshed, would become the people’s only option.

Article I – House

Section I“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Which means, only statutes passed by Congress through legitimate constitutional legislative process, initiated in the House, approved by the Senate and signed into law by a legitimate President, all in pursuance of the foundations of freedom, are “laws.” Nothing else is “law,” according to the Constitution.

Section II“The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.”

Despite rhetoric aimed at blaming the US Senate for not impeaching Obama, the most impeachable Oval Office occupant in U.S. history, the “sole power of impeachment” belongs to the House, not the Senate. As of today, the simple majority needed to impeach Obama in the House is 100% in the hands of the House Republican majority.

There is no one else to blame for why the most impeachable person in U.S. history is still running roughshod over our entire nation. The blame rests clearly with House Republicans who have simply refused to keep their oaths to the American people.

Article II

Section IV“The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

As very carefully established in the North American Law Center (TNALC.org) Articles of Impeachment, a mountain of evidence exists that Barack Hussein Obama is in fact guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Specifically…

  1. Usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity fraud
  2. Malfeasance, misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office
  3. Aiding and Abetting known enemies of the United States

If Barack Hussein Obama is found guilty of the three impeachable offenses asserted by the law center above, including usurpation of office via fraud, then everything that happened during Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office, happened under “color of fraud.” Every act that happens under the “color of fraud” is also itself, an “act of fraud,” rendering those actions “null and void” upon conviction.

Nowhere does the constitution talk about suing, arresting, charging with crimes, dragging the occupant out of the White House in handcuffs or a military coup, to remedy a criminal in the Oval Office — although many angry Americans have indeed expressed interest in all of the above.

The Constitution says “we impeach.” Every document signed by Obama is an act of fraud… every Executive appointment, also an act of fraud, if he is proven to hold the office via criminal fraud.

Upon a simple majority vote in the House, Barack Hussein Obama will in fact have been impeached. Only House Republicans can make that happen.

Article I (Senate)

Section III“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.”

It isn’t Sen. Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell who must preside over the impeachment trial in the US Senate, but rather the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. At present, that would be Chief Justice John Roberts… and in the event that Roberts were to recuse himself, as the individual who fraudulently administered the Oath of Office to Barack Hussein Obama, next in line would be Justice Anthony Scalia or maybe Justice Clarence Thomas, presiding.

“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

After impeachment and removal from office, then those who want to see Barack Hussein Obama charged in criminal court, arrested, jailed and prosecuted, can have their day in court, according to the above quoted constitutional text.

The Role of the People

The future of impeachment, American sovereignty, security, freedom and liberty is not in the hands of our elected servants alone, unless the American people choose to leave everything in their hands…

It’s no secret that no branch of our Federal government has performed in a constitutional manner in decades. It’s also no secret that our elected and appointed servants of the people never do the right thing, unless the people force them to do the right thing…

At the end of the day, the buck stops with “the people.” At no time in history is our government of, by and for the people, any better or worse than “the people.” Of course, evil anti-American people will vote for anti-American servants and agendas… But only when good people do nothing, or nothing that matters, can evil prevail.

The constitutional role of “the people” is to force their elected and appointed servants to “do the right thing,” and in this case, at this point in American history, the only “right thing” that can turn this ship around is “the constitutional thing,” IMPEACHMENT!

Last week, Constitutional Attorney and Lead Counsel for North American Law Center Stephen Pidgeon was interviewed on One America News. The following evening, Pidgeon spoke for two hours and took caller questions regarding the facts about impeachment. The case Pidgeon lays out for Impeachment and the Role of the People in that process is unmistakable, and inescapable…

The message to Americans from TNALC is simple…

“Only people who expect someone else to do something, have something to worry about. People willing to take responsibility for what happens next, and act accordingly, are in control of their own destiny.”

Millions of well-meaning Americans have donated over $200 million in campaign funds for an election that is over a year away, despite the reality that no election has even the potential to ever reverse all of the damage done to our Republic over the past seven years of Obama’s tyrannical reign.

But it takes only ONE member of the House to introduce TNALC Articles of Impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow morning.

It takes only 20 of 23 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee to send Articles of Impeachment to the full House, and only 218 of 247 House Republicans to vote for these Articles of Impeachment, in order to Impeach Barack Hussein Obama for the following impeachable offenses.

  1. Usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity fraud
  2. Malfeasance, misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office
  3. Aiding and Abetting known enemies of the United States

The only open question is this… How many Americans will it take to force ONE House Republican to initiate the Constitutional Solution and how many Americans are ready and willing to take control of their own destiny?

If “the people” wait to see what happens next, they are not going to like what happens next, any more than they like what has been happening in America for the past seven years.

But if “the people” decide to stand together and force the Constitutional Solution to happen, there is a chance they can regain control of their runaway Federal government and reinstate the Rule of Constitutional Law, protecting and preserving the Constitutional Republic for our posterity.

Only in appropriate action is there any reason to be hopeful for a better tomorrow in America. It all comes down to what “we” do…

The people must accept their role in this mission today, or they have accepted the natural consequences of their failure to act.