Posted on 05/04/2012 4:07:25 PM PDT by freeliberty21
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The Federal Ethics Center (FEC), a watchdog organization protecting the rights of United States citizens, urges Congress to promptly hold hearings regarding troubling events occurring in the United States 5th Circuit. FEC's letter to members of Congress outlined several examples of recent erratic 5th Circuit initiatives as follows:
After making the threats of violent punishment in this civil lawsuit, Judge Furgeson handed down an unprecedented order, imposing a federal receivership on Mr. Baron's person, literally making him the chattel property of the judge's colleague. Furgeson's action is the first time in American history that an individual has been placed into a receivership. If this order is not overturned, the consequences for all Americans could be far reaching.
Judge Furgeson's order transfers "possession and control" of "all receivership parties" and "assets", which specifically includes the person Jeffery Baron, to a court appointed receiver. To date, the 5th Circuit Court has declined to stay the actions taken against Mr. Baron. Mr. Baron has been held in a civil lockdown for the past 15 months, without counsel, without trial and without due process.
Despite no criminal or incompetency allegations, the 5th Circuit has taken away Mr. Baron's legal rights and made him a ward of the state. This dangerous precedent is poised to set in motion a rapid expansion of receivership laws against law abiding American citizens.
Part of Mr. Baron's plight may be viewed at WashingtonExaminer.com, LawInjustice.com and facebook.com/savejeff.. In addition, a petition sponsored by human rights organization NOTEGA can be found at SaveJeffBaron.com. The transcripts of Mr. Baron's proceedings can be downloaded at FederEthicsCenter.com
The Federal Ethics Center (FEC) is a watch dog association protecting the Constitutional rights of all United States citizens. FEC's Legal Director David Nolan is a former ethics attorney for the Office of the President-Elect and the White House. He is a co-author of the Ethics Section of the DC Practice Manual. He has trained federal attorneys in continuing legal education (CLE) for their respective state bar ethics requirements.
Contact:
Federal Ethics Center:
8310 Wagon Wheel Road
Alexandria, VA 22309
202–681-2730
571-277-3265
dnolan@federalethicscenter.com
SOURCE Federal Ethics CenterBack to top
Maybe they’re getting away with something because no one can friggin’ understand what this means!
A law, by definition, cannot strip one of their Constitutional rights; only a Constitutional Amendment may change one’s Constitutional Rights. That said, a compliant Supreme Court can redefine what is Constitutional, but only if Congress declines to Impeach.
It would just codify that which has been in effect for decades, if not centuries.
Which law is it that you think Judge Smith disregarded? One from this planet?
Exactly, all I can do is chamber another round and smack a pumpkin at 800 meters
What an absolutely godawful post. It makes absolutely zero sense and doesn’t even approach making a point.
BLUF, dude, BLUF—Bottom Line Up Front. Don’t expect me to click through three dozen links. Outline your issue, argument, and the supporting facts. Supply links as extra resources so your analysis can be verified independently.
This s**t ain’t rocket surgery.
BTTT
just bear in mind this is a press release. somebody paid someone to write it and someone to publish it.
“A law, by definition, cannot strip one of their Constitutional rights; only a Constitutional Amendment may change one’s Constitutional Rights. That said, a compliant Supreme Court can redefine what is Constitutional, but only if Congress declines to Impeach.”
‘Constitutional rights’ is a misnomer. There are no such things because the Constitution does not grant us or give us any rights. The Constitution enumerates certain rights and limits the government as to how it can interact with or infringe on those rights.
Therefore, our rights cannot be extiguished by a law or even by a Constitutional amendment because the Constitution has no authority over our rights. We, the People, are the sole authority of our rights. The Constitution limits the power and scope of government.
...or brain science.
...or brain science.
Or the American people fail to respond and counter!
You’re outraged because I posted a post twice but only clicked it once. Either that or you are outraged to learn something important has been going on decades if not centuries and you, as I, still don’t know precisely what it is. But it matters a lot. And you’re outraged.
LOL
This is an easy one:
All Your Base Are Belong To Us.
And got ripped off. Badly.
/johnny
“Maybe they’re getting away with something because no one can friggin’ understand what this means!”
Whew! I thought it was just me!
‘Reverse pyramid’ writing style never works. lol
Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is “No Bill of Attainder or
ex post facto Law shall be passed”.
Bill of Attainder. Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group
for punishment without a trial.
Me not understand
“A law, by definition, cannot strip one of their Constitutional rights; only a Constitutional Amendment may change one’s Constitutional Rights. That said, a compliant Supreme Court can redefine what is Constitutional, but only if Congress declines to Impeach.”
‘Constitutional rights’ is a misnomer. There are no such things because the Constitution does not grant us or give us any rights. The Constitution enumerates certain rights and limits the government as to how it can interact with or infringe on those rights.
Therefore, our rights cannot be extiguished by a law or even by a Constitutional amendment because the Constitution has no authority over our rights. We, the People, are the sole authority of our rights. The Constitution limits the power and scope of government.
Remember, If you’re not outraged
it means you haven’t been paying attention.
The older I get, the more I learn that many, many things have been going on for centuries...sometimes even longer.
The older I get, the more I learn that many, many things have been going on for centuries...sometimes even longer.
The headline attracted me to this thread and I know these are important rulings that aren’t good for our future. But, being Friday evening, the words of the article just did not sink in on quick first and slower second readings.
So, May the fourth be with you for a few hours longer.
Ah HA! The double-post gremlin has moved to your keyboard!
That works great until government agents kick in your front door at 3 AM...
“That works great until government agents kick in your front door at 3 AM”
The next sounds everyone will hear are .... click, click, BOOM!!!!, BOOM!!!!, (and just in case) BOOM!!!!
The Office of the President-Elect... Isn't this the phoney title Obama's campaign staff created for him with even a fake emblem to put on the podium?
Is this far Left wing propaganda?
it’s actually not possible for the government to strip our rights. if you think it is, you’ve missed the fundamental point of our Constitution
the most they can do is try and deny our rights, trampling on them.
but then again, they’ve been doing that for a number of years already
Please see the site devoted to Mr. Baron’s case.
http://www.lawinjustice.com/d7/
Case overview
http://www.lawinjustice.com/d7/node/2
Federal judge puts Internet pioneer in civil lockdown
Opinion piece - last paragraph:
A former multimillionaire doesn’t get much sympathy nowadays. But if Jeff Baron can be held in this weird form of civil lockdown even though he’s never been charged with any crime and never had any judgments against him, what are you going to do when they come for you?
Close, but this is a judicial act, not legislative. There was no discussion on this one, except by the crazy jurist.
I often wonder how they would kick in the hurricane doors we have in FL.
First off, they open outward. Second they have to withstand 100+ mph winds.
5th Amd: No person shall be [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [...]
Good grief! I knew I shouldn’t have clicked on this....
Sounds like a spammer. Also the whole thing sounds pretty far fetched. There has to be a lot more to this than meets the eye.
What an outrage!!!
I hope you brought enough pancakes for everyone!
The problem with this story is the words...there are just too many of them!
Is there a Cliff Note version of it....or maybe it can be served up in a nutshell?
I’d even settle for courtroom reporter etchings-might make more sense with pictures....
;)
My beeber is stuned
that sounds series!
Hugh and series.
Thailand?
This judge needs to be impeached and more...
Read the letter to Congress and the attachment at http://www.federalethicscenter.com/5thCirFEC.pdf
This starts to explain the situation more clearly.
The judge in the case was appointed by Clinton, but the law will soon apply to all courts.
Basically, a judge will now be able to deny your right to trial and right to a lawyer for any reason the judge dreams up. This is how the court systems in China, Iran, Syria operate. It’s a really bad thing for America.
That is one big freeking bumper sticker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.