Skip to main content

Sovereign Citizens, Copwatchers Soliciting Trespass Watkins v. Miller Case

I am Michael Ehline, Esq. I am a Willis, Texas, and Los Angeles injury/civil rights lawyer. I was an early supporter of the sovereign citizen movement and traditional common law courts in particular. I [rightly] believed that our court system and police officers generally violate the unalienable rights of the less advantaged. I ended up becoming a lawyer, thinking I could fight the system from within, the same way the secular humanists did to our schools in the 1960s.

Traffic stops and police watch protocols for patriots are rooted in the sovereign citizen movement of the 1980s. Sovereign citizen ideology, and to a lesser degree, cop watcher and First Amendment Auditor beliefs, tend to rely on many unpublished cases or misreading of the law, as discussed. Many sovereign citizens engage police in roadside lawyering.

Sovereign citizens are the extreme of auditors and often hate paying taxes, don’t want a birth certificate (the family bible is okay), and consider most law enforcement officers as enforcing commercial law that does not apply to them. They are also considered to be part of the posse comitatus movement. In the middle, we have ordinary people documenting public buildings and officials and holding them to account. How they do it is often based on legal concepts that do not pass judicial muster.

Sovereign citizen arguments include the concept that police cannot ask a private business to ask the shop owner if they want police to cite (“solicit”) you for trespass. I’m afraid that’s wrong; it is NOT any law I could find, and it could very well land you in jail. As an aside, if you don’t want to be treated like anti-government extremists, get a better understanding of the legal system and how to brief case law. Otherwise, you could end up in jail or even federal prison.

  • It is NOT a Federal Crime for cops to Solicit a Trespass, aka Ask a Manager if they Want Someone to Leave!

This is the case your typical sovereign citizen group will use to say cops can’t ask store owners if they want to “trespass” someone. To understand why cops can’t “solicit a trespass” in the context of filming police, private or public buildings, we must delve into the matter. We’ll start by examining Watkins v. Miller, an unpublished case.

“‘Specifically, the district court found that there was no constitutional violation because Watkins did not allege that he was told that he was not free to leave or that he was wrongfully forced to stay on the property while Miller processed a formal trespass warning.'”

Justia

In this case, Watkins claimed he was seized to cite him as a trespasser. Watkins appeared to argue that he was forced to stay for a trespass warning when all he had to do was leave, and there would be no trespass. (also wrong).

Watkins alleged that Miller unreasonably seized him and denied him of liberty without due process when Miller gave him an unauthorized trespass warning on private property.” “Watkins alleged that Miller unreasonably seized him and denied him of liberty without due process when Miller gave him an unauthorized trespass warning on private property.

In other words, party A (law enforcement officers) encouraged party B (Ex, someone who knows they will trespass if they go along with it) to break the law, aka “solicitation.”

The question arises: Does a cop asking a business or public official if they want to cite a disruptive visitor for trespass constitute solicitation? Generally, the answer is HELL NO! But first, I need you to listen to me. Stop citing unpublished cases like Watkins v. Miller, and stop citing cases out of your jurisdiction until you Sheperdize them.

Depublished Case Defined

The term’ depublished case’ refers to a legal case where the verdict or opinion has been deselected from official law reporting or mentioned in legal databases. This implies that the case can’t be referenced as a legal precedent for future cases, nor can it be used as a trusted resource in law-based discussions. Various reasons might motivate a court’s decision to depublish a case. For instance, they may perceive the verdict as inaccurate or contradict other legal precedents.

Alternatively, specific or confidential factors may be involved in the case, rendering it unsuitable for use as a past example. In essence, the depublishing of a case wipes it from the broad body of recognized law that attorneys and judges use as a roadmap to interpret and enforce the law in ongoing cases. 

Still, it’s crucial to highlight that just because a case has been depublished, it doesn’t mean it has vanished into thin air or lost its value completely. While it doesn’t hold weight as a binding precedent, it could have relevance in specific situations, such as for educational reasons or to offer some context on legal matters. In some regions, depublished cases can also be treated as persuasive authority. Despite not being binding on the Court, they can validate a stance in legal discussions.

Solicitation Defined

Think of criminal solicitation as a scenario where someone tries to persuade, tempt, or provoke another individual to partake in illegal activities. It involves a proactive persuasion or tempting of someone else to perform an illicit act. Solicitation, as a criminal act, typically happens before the intended illegality occurs, and its prosecution can proceed even if the crime above doesn’t come to fruition. 

Consider this: if an individual urges someone else to carry out a robbery or become involved in a drug trafficking operation, they can face charges for soliciting a theft or drug trafficking—even if the intended crime isn’t committed. 

Legal stipulations surrounding criminal solicitation may not be uniform across all regions. Still, it’s typically perceived as a grave violation thanks to its propensity to promote criminal deeds and its harmful implications for the community. The penalties for solicitation can vary greatly, ranging from monetary fines to imprisonment—depending on the local jurisdiction’s laws and the offense’s seriousness.

Trespass in Florida at that Time?

‘”A trespass in a structure or conveyance under Florida law occurs when a person, ‘without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so.’ Fla. Stat. § 810.08(1). In short, Fla. Stat. § 810.08(1) prohibits trespassing inside structures or conveyances when an owner or authorized person gives notice to the person to leave. See id.'”

Enter the Depublished Case – Watkins v. Miller

“In Watkins v. Miller, a key insight was provided into the complex legal nuances discourse surrounding the notion of soliciting a trespass. The court declared that one can only be guilty of criminal solicitation if they’re instigating someone to commit an unlawful act.”

In his § 1983 complaint, Watkins alleged that, on August 30, 2014, he was in a shopping center parking lot when Miller approached him and said that he had received an anonymous call from someone who did not want Watkins on the property. Miller told Watkins that he was trespassing and instructed him to leave the property and not return.

Watkins asked Miller if the owners of the property had said he was trespassing, and Miller responded that he did not know who had called. In response to Miller’s instruction, Watkins refused to leave the property, arguing that Miller did not have the authority or authorization to order Watkins to leave the property.

Eric Watkins v. Brian Miller, No. 18-14165 (11th Cir. 2019)

Thus, the Court’s logic and legal precedent tell us that trespassing is unlawful.

  • Soliciting a trespass implies encouraging, inviting, or otherwise facilitating an individual to enter or remain on certain premises unlawfully. A principal element of soliciting a trespass charge involves the individual knowingly acting against the property owner’s wishes.
  • In Watkins v. Miller, the Court dismissed the appellant’s First Amendment defense, ensuring that free speech rights do not pardon individuals from trespassing on private property. Therefore, any act to solicit a trespass could be considered endorsing an illegal activity.
  • The ‘Copwatch’ movement monitors and documents police activity to deter misconduct and ensure accountability. The ruling in City of Houston v. Hill protected this activity by upholding the public’s First Amendment right to critique or record the police. But what happens when their activities take place on private property?
  • Sovereign citizens often claim exemption from local, state, and federal laws, basing their views on Alternative Law theories. However, the ruling in US v. Hines further reinforced that such claims do not legally exempt them from obeying the laws of the land.

What About No Trespassing Signs?

“Specifically, Watkins claimed that Miller lacked the authority to make such an order under Florida law because there were no “no trespassing” signs. Hence, [according to ] Miller was not the property owner or a person authorized by the owner.” “The district court denied Watkins’s motion to proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed his complaint without prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to 28 USC.”

Despite their sovereignty claims, ‘Sovereign Citizens’ remain bound by the laws and regulations, nullifying their assumed freedom to encourage trespass or disregard property rights. The idea of soliciting a trespass clashes with the legal necessity for consent from the property owner, forming a tight spot for any who try to justify these actions under the guise of alternative legal interpretations. It’s crucial to comprehend that even an invitation to trespass does not bypass this mandate, making it impossible to solicit a trespass legally. 

Here, “Watkins did not identify in his complaint any actual deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest or any constitutionally inadequate process that occurred. To the extent Watkins asserts a liberty interest in remaining in the shopping center’s parking lot, Watkins did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in remaining on that private property. In contrast to public property, Watkins did not have a liberty interest in remaining in a private parking lot, and the officers explained to him that he was trespassing and gave him an opportunity to leave. See Fla. Stat. § 810.09(1)(a)(1); Catron, 658 F.3d at 1266.

Further, Watkins’s argument that Miller lacked the authority or authorization to issue him a trespass warning under Florida trespass law and, therefore, provided him with inadequate process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is unfounded. Watkins’s encounter with Miller occurred in a parking lot on private property, which is property other than a structure or conveyance covered under Fla. Stat. § 810.09(1)(a)(1). See RCW, 507 So. 2d at 702 (explaining that a parking lot of a mall is property other than a structure or conveyance).

Unlike Fla. Stat. § 810.08(1), a trespass warning by an owner or authorized person is not required under § 810.09(1)(a)(1). (See Fla. Stat. §§ 810.08(1), 810.09(1)(a)(1). As Watkins was in a parking lot and not inside a structure or conveyance, Miller provided the requisite notice that Watkins was prohibited from remaining on that property and instructed that he leave. See id. § 810.09(1)(a)(1).”

Here, the Court also ruled that any other reasonable person knew they could have left at any time.

Dabbling into the realm of ”Copwatchers”

Their activities are primarily protected under the First Amendment as they serve to promote transparency and ensure police accountability. However, the protection of free speech may be waived if it involves illegal activities such as trespassing. This means that while Copwatchers are free to document and critique police activities, they must do so while respecting the boundaries of private property and the rights of others. 

Intertwining the law, civil rights, and individual freedom weaves a complex tapestry. Watkins v. Miller serves as a precedent, guiding us through the dilemmas that arise when we delve deep into soliciting a trespass, sovereign citizens, and copwatchers.

“FRIVOLOUS” Watkins v. Miller Case

Trespassing charges were upheld when a citizen was asked to leave the privately owned property. This case helps to set the precedent that one cannot solicit a trespass, as it would involve enticing or encouraging illegal activity. City of Houston v. Hill The Supreme Court struck down a Houston ordinance, making it illegal to obstruct police officers from carrying out their duties.

Copwatchers often cite this case as protecting their right to observe and document police activity. US v. Hines A member of the ‘Moorish Nation’ identified as a sovereign citizen was successfully prosecuted for document fraud. This case affirms that sovereign citizens are not immune from local, state, and federal laws.

Ultimately, Watkins v. Miller serves as a sobering reminder that constitutional freedoms, while vital to preserving democratic society, do not cover the perpetuation of illegal activities. Encouraging trespass, even under pretensions of sovereignty or accountability, is legally untenable and may result in punitive consequences for those advocating such behavior. 

What Soliciting a Trespass IS?

When we say someone has solicited a trespass, we’re talking about someone who has encouraged, prompted, or even asked someone else to trespass or stay and be trespassed. Remember that trespassing means illegally entering or staying within the precincts of someone else’s property without their explicit permission. Thus, soliciting a trespass refers to urging someone else to solicit ANOTHER to TRESPASS. Interestingly, even if the solicited trespass does not happen, the instigation is deemed a crime. 

Despite its regular usage in certain circles, soliciting a trespass as a concept is somewhat novel and unclear in legal history. More often than not, it’s associated with scenarios where people incite others to partake in acts of protest or civil resistance that necessitate trespassing. These instances vary widely, from compelling a sit-in protest at a privately-owned establishment to persuading masses to occupy government-owned premises. 

Soliciting a trespass can get convoluted when you throw sovereign citizens and copwatchers into the equation. Considering that sovereign citizens tend to reject the jurisdiction of the state and its respective laws, including those about property rights, things can get dicey. Copwatchers may argue that their endeavors are safeguarded under the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press, even despite potential trespassing or encouraging others to do so. 

Although it is not directly related to soliciting a trespass, the Watkins v. Miller case offers some interesting insights. The case revolved around whether a police officer could be held accountable for arresting a man filming them from his property. The Court ultimately gave the officer qualified immunity, a legal safeguard typically reserved for government officials. This case underscores the ongoing discourses about boundaries regarding property rights, state authority, and individuals’ rights to scrutinize police activity. 

So, the next time you encounter a potential trespass situation, it’s important to remember always to respect the rights of others. Exercising restraint is vital, as attempts to seek justice, hold someone accountable, or express freedom should never compromise the rights of another individual. 

Organic Act of 1871: Connection to Modern “Sovereign Citizen” Movement

It’s called the District of Columbia Act of 1871. But I digress. “Sovcit,” or “Sovereign Citizen,” means many things to American citizens, especially within the federal government.

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, passed by Congress, repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown. It established a new territorial government for the District of Columbia. While this territorial government was repealed by Congress in 1874, the legislation was significant as it marked the creation of a single municipal government for the Federal District.

The passage of the Residence Act in 1790 fostered a new federal district to serve as the capital of the United States. This District was formed from land donated by the states of Maryland and Virginia. Notably, the capital territory already included two sizable settlements: the port of Georgetown in Maryland and Alexandria in Virginia.

In 1791, a new capital city was founded east of Georgetown in honor of President George Washington. Shortly after, Congress passed the Organic Act of 1801, which organized the federal territory. The territory east of the Potomac River within the federal District formed the new county of Washington. This county was governed by a levy court consisting of seven to eleven justices of the peace appointed by the president. Additionally, it was governed by Maryland law as of 1801.

According to the Sovereign Citizen’s Handbook, The US went bankrupt under Roosevelt and was taken over by banks to bail us out. Sovereigns believe the Organic Act of 1871 set the stage.

“The UNITED STATES corporation now uses your birth certificate, filed as a registered security with the United States Department of Commerce, as collateral to secure credit from the World Bank, England’s private bank, thus making you liable for the national debt..” (International Bankers Guilty of Mass Bank Fraud.)

So-called “sovcits,” say before this, all Americans were “sovereign citizens.” Of course, there are many people with similar views who do not endorse the opinions of others. According to many legal experts, including me, it is a catch-all word used by the administrative state to define anyone who believes in limited government. Sovcits, like most intelligent people, don’t think the mainstream media, aka for-profit media. So, I am hoping you will appreciate this expert information from a legal history expert and civil rights lawyer.

Listed principal municipal authorities of DC

When I use it here, I am using it as a catch-all, so please don’t hold it against me. Have you ever wondered what the Organic Act of 1871 entails and how it compares to modern sovereign citizen ideas? You’re not alone. Understanding historical law could sometimes seem akin to unwrapping a complex legal puzzle. So, let’s dive deep into the matter and shed light on this iconic legislation and its implications in today’s context. 

“Law doesn’t exist merely to place regulations. It’s there to shape society and reflect its changing needs.”

Police and the Southern Poverty Law Center claim that the “sovereign citizen movement” believes individuals can choose whether or not to subject themselves to governmental laws created after 1871. This invites a vast array of legal issues and potential confabulations.

Exploring the Organic Act of 1871

  • Most of our founding fathers did not want a national debt.
  • When America canceled the Charter of the First National Bank in 1811, this precipitated an economic recession and the War of 1812. According to Sovcits, this was punishment for America refusing to do business according to the wishes of the International Banking House of Rothschild.
  • Congress refused to let the National Bank renew its Charter. It was followed by 4500 British troops burning down the “White House, both Houses of Congress, the War Office, the US State Department, and the Treasury and destroyed the ratification records (signed by 12 US states).”
  • Except for Gen. Andrew Jackson’s victory in the Battle of New Orleans, the War of 1812 ended in a string of American military disasters.
  • During the war and the post-war recession, the Republican government, under James Madison, re-established a second National Bank of the United States in 1816.
  • In January 9, 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the Bank’s recharter on the grounds that the Bank was unconstitutional and won! Jackson then paid off the national debt, leaving the U.S. with a surplus of $5,000. 
  • 1868: Ultimately, the Fourteenth Amendment and Sixteenth Amendment were deemed legal. President Lincoln was assassinated before ending [unlawful] martial rule by executive order. (Sovereigns say the Republican’s veto-proof 14th Amendment created a “new citizenship” or “status” for expanded D.C. jurisdiction using UNELECTED carpetbaggers and blacks placed in Southern State assemblies by Republicans guilty of treason.)
  • Soon after, Congress allowed the privately run “Federal Reserve” into power. They began printing FIAT currency, and the republic is now over 75 trillion in debt, teetering on a mass financial depression. Anyone who disagrees with its legality is immediately branded as a nut, parroting “conspiracy theories.” Tens of thousands of Americans say it’s no conspiracy theory at all.

Legislation Key Points District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

  • Repealed the individual charters of Washington and Georgetown
  • Established a new territorial government for the District of Columbia
  • Retained all existing laws relating to the District unless inconsistent with the Act
  • Prompted legislative assembly to enact new laws relevant to restaurants and similar establishments (1872, 1873.)

So Called Sovereign Citizens – Ideology

  • Basically, they argue the Organic Act converted the U.S. into a business (based on municipal corporation terminology)
  • Challenge the validity of Acts by the District’s legislative assembly
  • Debate the conflicting regulations between initial and later legislation in the District
  • Sovereign citizens assert that gold fringes on American flags in courtrooms are evidence of admiralty law in effect. This leads sovereign citizens to believe that U.S. judges and lawyers are agents of a foreign power. This foreign power is typically thought to be the United Kingdom. Another belief they carry is that the word “bar” is an acronym for “British Accreditation Registry.” This is the reason why sovereign citizens challenge our legal system to this day.

Modern Law Perspective

  • Contents legislative assembly acts are valid
  • Sustains the permanency of the District government (1901)
  • Argues Organic Act was implicitly repealed by the Organic Act of 1878

The Organic Act of 1871, officially titled ‘An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,’ primarily aimed at creating a new municipal government for Washington, D.C. It is significant because this act transformed the municipal government of Washington, D.C., from what was formerly a piece of federal territory into something more like a regular city. 

“An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia” (Organic Act of 1871.)

In stark contrast, the sovereign citizen movement posits a controversial and often misunderstood interpretation of personal freedom and governance. These individuals believe themselves exempt from typical legal constraints, usually wielding this belief as a defense in legal altercations. 

Here are some key points that need clarification: 

  • The Organic Act of 1871 is often invoked by the sovereign citizen movement as proof of government overreach, reclaiming that it replaced the federal government with a corporation. However, statists claim this is a misinterpretation.

A municipal corporation and a private corporation are distinct entities with different purposes, structures, and functions. However, many sovereigns say the Act created a “United States corporation” under a commercial code; extending corporate rule over the American people.

Distinguishing Municipal Corp with Private Sector Corp

  • Municipal Corporation: A municipal corporation is a legal entity created by a state government. Its job is administering specific governmental functions within a defined geographic area, such as a city, town, or village. Municipal corporations can provide essential public services and infrastructure. This includes utilities, public safety, transportation, and sanitation.
  • Private Corporation: A private corporation, on the other hand, is a legal entity formed by individuals or entities to conduct business activities and generate profits. Private corporations produce goods and services in the marketplace.

Ownership and Governance:

  • Municipal Corporation: Municipal corporations are owned and governed by the residents or taxpayers within the jurisdiction they serve. They are typically overseen by elected officials. Typical officials include a mayor, city council, and chief of police. These people make decisions for communities.
  • Private Corporation: Private corporations are owned by shareholders or private individuals who hold ownership interests in the company. They are governed by a board of directors elected by the shareholders. The board makes strategic decisions and oversees management.

Legal Status and Powers:

  • Municipal Corporation: Municipal corporations possess limited sovereignty and governmental powers delegated to them by the state government. They can enact local ordinances, levy taxes, issue bonds. They can also provide public services inside their jurisdiction. However, their powers are subject to state laws and regulations.
  • Private Corporation: Private corporations operate under the legal framework of corporate law and are subject to the laws of the state in which they are incorporated with legal rights and obligations similar to individuals. This includes forming contracts, suing owning property.

Yes, municipal corporations existed in the United States prior to 1871. The concept of municipal incorporation dates back to the colonial period, with the establishment of chartered municipalities in the American colonies. In the 19th century, as cities and towns grew, state governments created municipal corporations to govern urban areas, providing essential residential services.

Understanding the differences, misconceptions, and correlations between these two legal paradigms will not only enlighten your grasp of the American legal system. Still, it could also prove to be helpful in courtroom skirmishes and debates. 

As we dissect it further, this complex dance between legal history and modern sovereign citizen ideas will take more twists and turns.

Let’s delve deeper together!

  • The term ‘municipal corporation,’ present in the Organic Act of 1871, has been seized upon by the sovereign citizen movement as proof of the United States being transformed into a business corporation.
  • Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration (179 U.S. 405, 21 S.Ct. 206, 45 L.Ed. 252) is a pertinent legal reference in understanding the Act’s implications.
  • Note that a defendant restaurant keeper once challenged the Act’s legitimacy.
  • Other pertinent cases include Yakus v. United States (321 U.S. 414, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834), Roach v. Van Riswick, MacArthur & M., 11 D.C. 171, and Smith v. Olcott, 19 App.D.C.
  • Legal cases such as Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, Roach v. Van Riswick, and Cooper v. The District of Columbia provide significant insights into the limitations and powers that Congress vested to the legislative assembly of the District.
  • Contrary to a trial court ruling, the widely accepted view is that the Organic Act of 1878 did not implicitly repeal the legislation 1871.
  • The apt evaluation of police regulation in the municipal sense lies in its local relevance.
  • Supreme Court decisions and local appellate court rulings have upheld the viewpoint that local governments have the authority to manage local matters.
  • A discussion exists around the conflict between the Acts of 1872 and 1873 and later regulations in the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 acted as an umbrella governance mechanism, canceling existing town charters and assembling the whole area under a single district government. This marked a significant shift in the jurisdictional arrangement and is a point of active debate amongst law scholars and professionals. 

All laws relating to the District of Columbia that do not conflict with the Organic Act of 1871 were scheduled to remain valid, as stipulated in the Act. This fact forms a significant point of contention and interpretation, particularly about subsequent legislative developments in the District. 

Who has sovereignty in the United States?

As per the Constitution, the sovereignty of the United States rests primarily on the people and the states. However, unique complexities arise when examining the Constitution and the Organic Act of 1871. In the narrative of the Act and its comparison to modern sovereign citizen ideals, the Organic Act’s interpretation and comprehension hold a high degree of significance.

Federal Government Organic Act of 1878

In the progression of the District’s legal landscape, the Organic Act of 1878 brought forth a reorganization of the District Government but did not repeal the laws governing the District established before the Act. Despite a trial court’s upholding of an opposing view, there is an overwhelming consensus amongst legal scholars and practitioners that the 1878 legislation did not implicitly repeal the Organic Act of 1871. 

Thus, in comparing these points of view, it’s crucial to consider the correct interpretation of the act and its implications. 

What does it mean when a country is sovereign?

It implies that the country operates independently, with complete authority over its domestic affairs. It means that the nation is not under the control of any other foreign nation and has full autonomy to determine its laws, regulations, and governance structures. It takes on international obligations of its own volition and can negotiate and sign binding agreements with other nations. 

Essentially, a sovereign nation can control its population, establish its legal framework, regulate its economy, and interact with other sovereign nations on an equal footing. However, the concept of sovereignty is a bit more complex in terms of its practical application. We often find cases where sovereignty becomes conditional or is limited due to international regulations and agreements, global organizations’ rise, and influential nation-states’ influence. Nevertheless, a country retains its ability to make and enforce laws within its borders.

Despite the complexities, deepening your understanding of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 and its roots on modern sovereign citizen thought is essential. The rich tapestry of legal cases, scholarly debate, and historical context surrounding the Act is a valuable foundation for comprehending its intricacies.

Firstly, let’s dive into the legal details of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, a pivotal Act of Congress that forever redefined the governance of the District of Columbia. Erasing the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, the Act established a new territorial government for the whole District. It proclaimed, quite forcefully, that any existing laws relating to the District of Columbia, so long as they didn’t contradict the Act, would remain in full force and effect. 

This Act didn’t just simplify governance by eliminating town charters; it engulfed the entire area under the unifying umbrella of one district government. Perhaps more critically, the Act stated emphatically that the legislative power of the District would extend to ‘all rightful subjects of legislation within the District.’ This was, however, with the clear understanding that the restrictions imposed by the Constitution of the United States would continue to apply. 

What is a state national? 

A state national is a person who is a legal citizen of a particular state within the United States but not a citizen of the United States as a whole. This concept is rooted in the inherent sovereignty of individual states. It coexists with the federal sovereignty of the United States as a nation. State nationals enjoy all the rights and privileges afforded to citizens of their home state. Still, they are technically not entitled to the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship, such as participating in federal elections or holding federal office. Many sovereigns say that are actually governed under the Declaration of Independence, under the laws of the original states before their constitutions were re written to comply with the 14th Amendment.

Modern Definitions vs Historical Origins

However, it’s crucial to understand the origins of the term’ state national’ and how it’s interpreted today, especially in the context of sovereign citizen movements. Historically, state national refers to individuals born or naturalized within a given state pre-Civil War, when state allegiance sometimes precedes national loyalty. 

However, in the modern context, it has been co-opted by the sovereign citizen movement. Today’s sovereign citizens leverage this term to claim immunity from federal laws and taxes. They argue that the federal government lacks jurisdiction over them as they consider themselves bound only by their state’s jurisdiction. 

While this interpretation employs the language of the law, most legal and governmental authorities see it as a distortion of the Constitution and established Constitution statutes, leading to a significant amount of conflict and confusion. 

Debunking Myths

The idea of dual sovereignty — federal and state — is an established part of U.S. jurisprudence. However, the distinction between state nationals and U.S. citizens is not as clear-cut as some believe. Indeed, the 1868 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus, it merges the concepts of state and national citizenship contrary to the claims of the sovereign citizen movement.

Let’s leap forward in time and consider the modern sovereign citizen movement. Proponents of this perspective argue that this Act morphed the United States into a business corporation. Their argument springs from the specific terminology within the Act, precisely the term’ municipal corporation.’ However, from a purely legal standpoint, some critics view this interpretation as an oversimplification or misreading of the text. 

Consider seminal cases like Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, Roach v. Van Riswick, and Cooper v. The District of Columbia to appreciate the nuances better. These cases spotlight the limitations and powers of Congress over the legislative assembly of the District. 

Ironically, while the 1871 Act facilitated the streamlined governance of the District, its interpretation isn’t straightforward. Much like the ongoing debates around the Act’s relevance to the sovereign citizen movement, the tension between the Acts of 1872 and 1873 and later regulations within the District of Columbia further crop up inconsistencies. 

So, in summary, while the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, on the surface, merely rearranged the governance of the District, its ripples continue to shape debates in modern legal and civic society. Tens of thousands of sovereigns want nothing to do with the incorporeal Washington District of Columbia, and claim special privileges, convinced they are right.

  1. Bad Communication: Sovereign citizens reject federal, state, and local laws. They subscribe to their interpretations of the law. This makes it difficult to communicate effectively.
  2. Difficulties in court proceedings: Sovereigns employ unconventional legal tactics. They often file voluminous and “frivolous lawsuits.” They are known for filing lots of motions, and other legal documents. These tactics can disrupt court proceedings, forcing lawyers to devote substantial time and resources.
  3. Personal liability for practitioners. Sovereign citizens often engage in so called ‘paper terrorism.’ This includes filing fidelity bond liens and other legal documents against public officials, law enforcement officers, and private individuals. Practitioners who represent or interact with sovereign citizens may become targets of these tactics. This can can cause financial harm or damage to their professional reputation.
  4. Ethical dilemmas when dealing with sovereign citizens: Sovereigns reject the courts’ authority. They also refuse court orders. This places legal practitioners in a difficult position, similar to what happened with Michael Mie and Chille DeCastro. Attorneys must balance the duty to represent clients with the obligation to uphold laws. Courts expect them to honor the integrity of the legal profession.

Finally, lawyers may encounter challenges advising and representing sovereign citizens due to their unique beliefs and behaviors among the American people generally. Sovereigns often refuse to recognize the authority of legal professionals. They may resist or reject their advice and representation. This makes it difficult for practitioners to establish a productive attorney-client relationship or advocate effectively.

There have been many secret, illegal spying programs by the federal government. We now know that the FBI is labeling people who support the Constitution and Second Amendment, are treated as a sovereign citizen, and are considered a potential domestic violent extremist. If you were arrested or threatened by LEO and falsely labeled a sovereign, you should call a lawyer right away.

Sources:

California’s Pilot Portfolio Bar Examination – Race to Bottom?

At the outset, as a professional, I know that the State Bar Exam is being mischaracterized as a rote memorization test. It is not; it is a problem-solving, speed exam requiring powerful memory. It is designed to make sure a candidate can competently represent clients. Most people know that clients can get stuck with a terrible lawyer. Now imagine carving out exceptions to make it even easier for less qualified people to practice law so “everyone gets a trophy.” It’s no longer out for public comment; it’s on the desk of the California Supreme Court for approval.

What could go wrong? California’s State Bar Board of Trustees has recently presented an alternative plan for licensure, proposing the implementation of a pilot Portfolio Exam (PBE). Many lawyers say the State Bar is hiring experts to support a fallacy that the Bar Exam is all about rote memorization. This is misinformation. It’s also about application.

A vital point of this article is to identify areas in the State Bar recommendation that it does not take into account:

  • No Alternatives: The PBE does not address the underlying proposal, such as reducing passing scores or identifying a program that surgically addresses the needs of a smaller population of students who might benefit from another licensing pathway. Would this not be better than abolishing a proven, merit-based program?
  • Unreliable: The reliability of the PBE proposal is suspect as it is based on a tiny student and student population of tiny states versus California, with a population of over 45 million people. Much more significant than the two small states that pale to CA.
  • Apples to Oranges: We also have 62 law schools or varying accreditations versus the handful of law schools in the smaller population states. Why are we comparing apples to oranges?
  • Ambiguous: The PBE program does not mention the testing process for past graduates of these two classes of law schools, approved by the State Bar. And these candidates probably number in the thousands. These people have not taken the bar or not passed and want to become licensed attorneys. What is their pathway to licensure?

What will PBE mean to the hundreds of thousands who have taken the Bar Exam? Why change the Bar Exam from a test identifying merit as the main ingredient to becoming an attorney? I will expose some State Bar hilites, and then I will expose a few things that were not discussed by the Bar. Now, let’s get into an understanding.

DEI supporters claim equity can be achieved by placing less emphasis on “rote memorization” and “overcoming economic barriers” presented by the “traditional bar exam.” Diligence, study habits, and learning methodology appear to be low on the list of priorities, with forced equity high on the support list. However, my issue is that if DEI is a goal, it should be a mere exam component for specifically identifiable students. Why are we dumbing down the entire Exam to the lowest common denominator?

Understanding ‘Merit’ versus ‘Lesser Merit’ Based Law Licensing

Typically, ‘merit’ refers to an aspirant’s inherent ability, skills, or achievements that qualify them for specific roles or positions, particularly about obtaining a license to practice law. A ‘merit-based system operates on the premise that permits should be granted to the most deserving or well-qualified individuals based on their performance in academic, professional, and practical evaluations. 

In simple terms, while a ‘merit-based’ system seeks the top performers, a lesser merit system aims to widen the field. Both systems have their merits and drawbacks depending on the context, and understanding them can aid in comprehending the landscape and direction of law licensing. Here, ABA schools and CA-accredited law schools are cash-strapped. And now, all of a sudden, the curriculum becomes increasingly diluted. These same people will likely get into government, which could be dangerous.

DEI and Lowering Standards

States like Wisconsin and New Hampshire have already implemented alternatives to the traditional bar exam, with varying degrees of success. In Wisconsin, for example, 51% of attorneys were admitted via diploma privilege, as opposed to 19% the traditional Bar Exam.

It’s worth noting that the state reported no significant difference in the types of disciplinary matters for those admitted via diploma privilege and the traditional bar exam. However, these alternative pathways’ long-term effects and impacts are still under review.

It appears that, besides California, Washington will end its bar exam, following similar arguments. The DEI side claims the traditional method can’t correctly measure an attorney’s ability to practice law effectively and ethically. This new approach could redefine how we determine a new attorney’s competency. Moving away from rote memorization, the PBE focuses on real-world legal skills that new attorneys need. Law graduates will work under the tutelage of licensed attorneys for four to six months, getting graded on their performance, thus ensuring a practical, hands-on approach to legal competency assessment. 

However, the proposal isn’t without its caveats. While the PBE presents an alternative pathway to licensure, it hinges heavily on the availability of lawyer supervisors. Thus, ensuring each candidate gets a fair chance might pose a challenge. Also, there is an implied risk that such a model could compromise the standards of legal practice by not assessing all the knowledge areas a traditional bar exam would cover. 

Supervised Practice is the Old Way

I can’t argue against supervised practice, which is how I became eligible for the Bar Exam. The Oregon Supreme Court approved supervised practice-based attorney licensure methods. The trend of supervision with no bar exam will grow. Concerns remain that policies like these, ostensibly designed to create equal access and opportunity, may instead run the risk of treating potential attorneys as victims needing expert help rather than individuals needing better skills and comprehension. I think it is a grave error to end the bar exam. As it is, there are still crummy lawyers. Lowering standards will NOT improve things.

The question arises: How do we balance creating equal opportunities and maintaining necessary standards? 

  1. Explore alternative pathways: Investigate the possibilities for establishing alternative routes to licensure that still uphold professional standards and requirements.
  2. Address economic disparities: Consider ways to make traditional and non-traditional Bar Exam routes more economically accessible to all eligible applicants, lessening the financial burden of exam preparation.
  3. Promote skill development: Rather than reinforce the victim mentality, initiatives should focus on helping law students and graduate lawyers improve their study and comprehension skills, equipping them for success, regardless of their path to licensure.
  4. Maintain professional integrity: Any significant change to existing systems must uphold the profession’s integrity, ensuring public safety and preventing fraud and malpractice.

The PBE pilot is expected to be launched and concluded by December 31, 2025. It will comprise 113 provisionally licensed lawyers (PLLs) still in the original Provisional Licensure Program (PLP) and are anticipated to be in the program as of the proposed pilot launch.

ALTERNATIVE PATHWAY WORKING GROUP’S OVERALL PORTFOLIO BAR EXAM DESIGN

Key components of the program, as recommended by the working group, include the following:

Eligibility is limited to confident accredited and ABA law school graduates.

After the pilot, JD graduates of ABA-accredited and California-accredited law schools would be eligible to participate in the PBE. Graduates of unaccredited schools would not qualify for this program.

  • Curriculum: After the pilot, candidates must have completed law school courses in the nine doctrinal subjects identified by the BRC as the subject matters necessary for establishing minimum competence.
  • Provisional Licenses: Candidates will be provisionally licensed while participating in the PBE.
  • Practice Scope During Supervised Practice Period: Candidates with provisional licenses would have authority, responsibilities, and duties similar to provisional licensees in the Provisional Licensure Program.
  • Supervisor Qualifications: Supervisors must hold active California licenses and not be immediate family members of candidates. All other supervisor qualifications adopted for the PLP would apply.
  • Required Supervised Practice Hours: Candidates must complete 700–1,000 legal work, capped at no more than 40 hours per week.
  • Portfolio Contents: Candidates must submit work products meeting specific requirements to make up their portfolio. The working group recommends that the number of work products required be between eight and thirteen, including two to three essays covering professional responsibility, professionalism, or civil issues that arose during the practice period. The written work products would reflect the analysis of various substantive legal matters, including materials related to negotiations and client encounters. The work products are intended to allow assessment of all seven of the skills and abilities identified as necessary to establish minimum competence and demonstrate that the candidates have worked with concepts from at least seven of the nine doctrinal knowledge areas identified as essential for minimum competence.
  • Grading: Each portfolio component will be graded anonymously by independent examiners based on grading rubrics established to ensure consistent grading across all examiners. The working group recommends two graders be assigned to each component.

The Supreme Court will authorize the State Bar to establish a proposed cut score for the PBE and to submit that proposed cut score to the Court for approval. This will determine the minimum score a candidate must achieve to pass the PBE.

State Bar Will Fix Problems as They Arise

The State Bar staff, subject to the input of a steering committee, will resolve any outstanding PBE pilot design or implementation issues not addressed by the Court in its action on this request. The steering committee will be composed of representatives of the Committee of Bar Examiners, subject matter experts, and others as appropriate.

Courts Upholding Mediocrity?

Alarmingly, with the Supreme Court upholding this, many in the public appear to be losing faith in the system, saying nothing makes sense. Finally, the PBE pilot is designed to alleviate the significant burdens imposed on candidates by the delivery of the traditional two-day bar exam, especially those with disabilities and those who lack economic resources. It aims to provide a more equitable and accessible pathway to legal licensure.

States Leading DEI Style Law Licensing?

Following in the footsteps of Wisconsin and New Hampshire, California is contemplating a new, alternative path toward law licensure. A move sparking discussions across the country, the proposed pilot Portfolio Bar Examination (PBE) is not only shaking up the traditional bar examination model but reducing the financial and time burden on law graduates. 

Simultaneously, on a related note, Washington state is considering eliminating its bar exam. This trend of simplifying pathways to law licensure is rapidly gaining traction in the US, suggesting a paradigm shift in traditional legal competency assessment. 

Another aspect worth considering is the impact on those participating in the Provisional Licensure Program (PLL) initiated during the pandemic. Under this, law graduates were bestowed limited permits to practice law under supervision. Including such graduates in the PBE could be an avenue for reconciling the disruption caused by the pandemic. 

The Connection to California’s Portfolio-Based Exam (PBE) 

You might be wondering what this has to do with California’s pilot Portfolio Based Exam (PBE). The PBE is a fresh approach to law licensing recently adopted by the State Bar of California. It aims to bring a more comprehensive, holistic method of assessing the adequacy and suitability of aspiring attorneys. 

The PBE, in a sense, blends the ‘merit’ and ‘lesser merit’ concepts as it places equal emphasis on demonstrable skills, practical legal experience, and the commitment to ethical conduct, making it a more accessible pathway to law practice. 

  • Merit-oriented assessment: The PBE evaluates a candidate’s proficiency and knowledge in various legal disciplines and their capability to apply these skills in real-world situations, similar to a merit-based system.
  • Lesser merit-oriented inclusivity: In line with a lesser merit system, the PBE also factors in a candidate’s commitment to ethical conduct, the breadth of their legal experience, and their potential to contribute to representational diversity in law.

Why We Must Delay the PBE – [Pending more Thorough Research]

Adopting the Portfolio Exam in California represents an attempt to balance ‘merit’ and ‘lesser merit’ approaches in law licensing, aiming for inclusive excellence in the legal profession. By understanding these dynamics, we can better appreciate the innovations and ongoing reforms in law.

You might wonder why the rush to implement the Portfolio Exam (PBE) should be stemmed. The truth is, we respect innovation when it serves the interests of justice and progress, due regard must be given to in-depth study with unwavering attention to the potential impacts. The desire to innovate, while admirable, should not be allowed to bypass the need for comprehensive checks and balances. 

Reflect on this: if a structure is suspect, would we allow it to be inhabited before experts have conducted a thorough safety examination? Probably not. Analogously, a new licensing process, such as the PBE, must not replace the existing California General Bar Examination before a detailed content validation study has occurred. As put forth by Chad W. Buckendahl in his report on Conducting a Content Validation Study for the California Bar Exam, this assessment will ensure that the new path adheres to the principles of fairness and justice. 

Approving guiding principles to minimize bias in Bar Exam questions is undeniably a step in the right direction. However, the feasibility of grading the portfolios under the new PBE and their intrinsic lack of uniformity remain vital factors that necessitate further exploration. After all, the law is about ensuring justice is served uniformly and without bias. 

We must also question the likelihood of objectivity within the PBE portfolio submissions. Could these documents potentially include inputs from colleagues or other external sources? If so, how can we guarantee that such influence does not negatively affect the merit assessment? 

DEI Friendly, Cash Strapped Law Schools?

Supporters of the PBE, like The University of West Los Angeles, argue its potential as an alternative path to licensure. UWLA has long associated itself with low GPAs and minority candidates. Lowering standards will bring a potential windfall to this law school. However, many experts agree that we must ensure this doesn’t create unequal representation in official records between traditional bar exam passers and PBE passers. In essence, every legal practitioner, irrespective of their path to licensure, should be presented equally in public records without differentiation. 

Admittedly, the proposed PBE presents a promising advance toward legal licensure. But at what cost? One cannot underestimate the importance of extensive research before ushering in such a dramatic shift in the law licensing process. The tenets of justice and fairness, cornerstones of our legal system, should never be compromised in the rush of innovation.

Why We Already Know We Must Defeat the PBE Proposal?

Delaying or defeating the proposal are more challenging goals – and, in my view – are optimally achieved through a strategy that brings public awareness to the negatives and persistent opposition. Many groups don’t want the PBE, far more than the DEI/Critical Race Theory supporting ones.

Other Concerns

Another significant criticism is directly linked to the broader fight for equality in licensing. Critics argue that the PBE, like the traditional California Bar Exam, may favor advantaged individuals. Much of this argument is based on the premise that these individuals may have the means to assemble a better portfolio through more extensive resources or connections. 

Finally, there’s an ongoing debate on whether the state bar should differentiate between traditional bar exam passers and PBE passers in public records. Those in opposition believe that creating a distinction could unjustly devalue the latter group, affecting their career opportunities ahead. 

In conclusion, while the PBE offers an alternative pathway to licensure, its implementation requires a meticulous balance. This ensures that it not only upholds the standard of competence expected in the legal field but also alleviates rather than exacerbates the existing inequality hurdles. The PBE, therefore, must continually be scrutinized for its potential weaknesses to become a viable and fair alternative.

Note that the motion to pass the proposal came in 6-2 votes. With trustee abstention, you see the biases when you examine who voted for it, given their affiliations. State Bar members change an entire licensing process – why don’t most CA lawyers want it?

Only Seven CA Bar Associations SUPPORT PBE, and Over Sixty One DO NOT SUPPORT PBE

Note that only 7 CA BAR ASSOCIATIONS are in favor of the PBE (DEI pushers)

  1. Alameda County Bar Association
  2. Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Are
  3. Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF)
  4. East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association
  5. La Raza Lawyers of California
  6. Women Lawyers of Alameda
  7. Women Lawyers of Los Angeles.

At Least 61 CA BAR ASSOCIATIONS Oppose PBE

Bar Associations

  1. American Board of Trial Advocates – California Chapter
  2. Arab American Lawyers Association of Southern California
  3. Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles
  4. Association of Defense Counsel – Northern California
  5. Association of Southern California Defense Counsel
  6. Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles
  7. California Association of Black Lawyers
  8. California Defense Counsel
  9. California Employment Lawyers Association
  10. California Lawyers Association
  11. California Women Lawyers
  12. Century City Bar Association
  13. Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
  14. Consumer Attorneys of San Diego
  15. Filipino-American Lawyers of Orange County
  16. Fresno County Bar Association Board of Directors
  17. Fresno County Women Lawyers
  18. Glendale Bar Association
  19. Iranian American Lawyers Association
  20. Irish American Bar Association
  21. Italian American Lawyers Association
  22. Japanese American Bar Association
  23. John M. Langston Bar Association
  24. Korean American Bar Association of San Diego
  25. Korean American Bar Association of Southern California
  26. Lake County Bar Association
  27. Long Beach Bar Association
  28. Los Angeles County Bar Association
  29. Marin County Bar Association
  30. Mexican American Bar Association
  31. Monterey County Bar Association
  32. Muslim Bar Association of Southern California
  33. Newport Harbor Bar Association
  34. North County Bar Association
  35. Orange County Bar Association
  36. Orange County Korean American Bar Association
  37. Orange County Lavender (LGBTQ+) Bar Association
  38. Orange County Women Lawyers Association
  39. Pasadena Bar Association
  40. Riverside County Bar Association
  41. SacLegal (Sacramento’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association)
  42. Sacramento County Bar Association
  43. San Bernardino County Bar Association
  44. San Diego Family Law Bar Association
  45. San Fernando Valley Bar Association
  46. Santa Barbara County Bar Association
  47. Santa Clara County Black Lawyers Association
  48. Santa Cruz County Bar Association
  49. Santa Monica Bar Association
  50. Silicon Valley Bar Association
  51. South Bay Bar Association
  52. Southern California Chinese Lawyers Association
  53. Southwest Riverside County Bar Association
  54. Thai American Bar Association
  55. Tulare County Bar Association
  56. Ventura County Asian American Bar Association
  57. Vietnamese American Bar Association of Southern California
  58. Western San Bernardino County Bar Association
  59. Westside Bar Association
  60. Women Lawyers of Sacramento
  61. Yuba-Sutter Bar Association.

Why is it Crucial to Challenge Portfolio-Based Examination (PBE)?

First, we have the much-debated issue of merit and lesser merit when licensing law professionals. California’s current General Bar Examination protocol has already recently lowered its standards. Yet it is still accused of favoring privileged individuals, raising questions about its meritocracy. On the other hand, the PBE aims to act as an alternative pathway to licensure.

All About that DEI Grant/Loan Money?

Its adoption is championed by institutions like the University of West Los Angeles (UWLA) for its potential to diversify the field by removing barriers to admission. However, this well-intentioned proposal isn’t without concerns. Many UWLA grads, myself included, understand that UWLA champions itself as “pro-black.” What we don’t understand is why lowering standards and treating other races who have lower pass rates as a “sacred cow.”

From Chaos Comes Chaos

One of the most significant concerns is the lack of uniformity in the content of the portfolios under the PBE. The accumulation of input from colleagues and other sources may foster inconsistency in standards. This could arguably dilute the merit-based system for law licensing, introducing a ‘lesser merit scenario due to the distorted comparison criteria. 

The proposed grading of the PBE portfolios also raises concerns. Compared to the standard Bar Exam, the evaluation scheme of the PBE could be potentially biased. A recent presentation on the Approval of Guiding Principles in Examination Development highlighted the need to minimize any potential bias in bar exam questions. This challenge seems to be amplified in the case of portfolio grading. 

It remains vital that implementing another law licensing process – while previous bar exam reformation efforts are still ongoing – may destabilize the industry. Many believe these efforts should be studied before launching a new method that could potentially eliminate the California Bar Exam requirement. 

Indeed, the PBE proposal is quite divisive. While it’s embraced as an alternative method to diversify the law licensing process, its potential for inconsistency and bias raises significant concerns. Moreover, introducing PBE during bar exam reformation might cause more harm than good. Moving forward, an inclusive discussion involving all stakeholders, including potential law professionals, educators, and the public, should precede any implementation decision.

It would be advantageous to contact representatives from some of the critical constituencies – and either get a written statement or have a succession of interviews.

EVIDENCE: The lack of it – which can be identified and addressed – does not justify abandoning a licensing system that has worked for years – responsible for hundreds of thousands of licensed CA attorneys. If you look at supporters’ claims, it’s primarily based on a limited pool of just 100+ trial cases – in addition to states who’ve adopted something like it.

Unresolved Unfairness in this DEI Initiative

The California Bar’s report to the CA SUPREME COURT was 148 pages – including attachments, here. Given the host of ambiguities RAISED BUT NOT RESOLVED, it should have been double that – given questions not addressed – and with complete transparency involved.

When you consider the worthiness of the PBE – without really identifying those who are eligible (beyond reference ABA or CA Accredited candidates) – you have to wonder why they would leave the likely thousands of candidates in licensing limbo who may be a repeater, not currently in an ABA/CA accredited law school, etc. Not to mention candidates from other states or countries.

AMBIGUITY-ON-STEROIDS

If the traditional bar exam disappears, so does an industry dedicated to serving examinees, such as Barbri, PMBR, Cal Bar Tutorial Review, etc. Once the horse is out of the barn – do these companies come back – when the EXPERIMENT fails? Do they stick around to serve those not eligible for the PBE?

Does the State Bar Maintain a Traditional Exam for those not eligible for DEI?

Interestingly, the LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY is against it, leading to this observation: They assert that the State Bar is creating TWO CLASSES of license. In the real world, a private – or PUBLIC – firm would prefer to hire an applicant who has passed a traditional exam. I only noted a handful of law schools that agreed with the proposed levels of tenure in law idea.

Are they marginalizing the value of their degrees? What about the workplace market? Many law firms will not go with a PBE licensure hire. Why deal with the stress of a DEI hire, to begin with? Why would they, when the more competitive potential hire has passed a traditional exam and showed basic knowledge? 

Fallacie of Rote?

At this core to the State Bar’s assertion, traditional bar exams rely on ‘rote memorization.’ But this is disingenuous at best.

The other half of the learning equation is missing from this simplification:

  • Traditional bar exams DEMAND application: This goes to the heart of learning – and I’ve always been taught that the PROCESS to climb the mountain is as important as standing on top—and less applicable to pursuing any significant goal.
  • The subjects deleted by the PBE – about half of the current traditional subject matter – are replaced by courses that promote subjective evaluation. Again, standards are minimized.
  • Alternatives to the PBE alternative are not addressed; possibilities that assist with “DEI Objectives” for the class could be reasonably identified based on financial or other related learning opportunity factors. Scores could be cut. Or could the PBE be offered to them?

I have never met a bar review tutor who could not train an applicant to pass the traditional Exam – though the path can be more difficult for some. Trust me, rote memorization is merely part of the torturous process. No doubt, the State Bar is well-intentioned. For one, I can see the Law Office Study Program fade away, which is terrible. Ambiguity, clarity, and certain things still need to be addressed. Why would the Supreme Court allow a portfolio bar exam? Won’t less legal knowledge encourage incompetency?

Pundits contend it could deliver a more effective way of ensuring public safety and preventing fraud and malpractice. However, this proposal has raised concerns about diluting the requirements and standards for admission to practice law, feeding into the widely discussed race to the bottom phenomenon. 

In conclusion, to many traditionalists, this incrementalism represents a slap in the face to law school graduates. While the PBE proposes a fresh, pragmatic approach to legal licensure, it’s imperative to weigh its pros and cons thoroughly. Given the hundreds of years the test has been around and the thousands of licensed lawyers, this proposal has not been tough enough. It fails to address students from other states and students who have not passed and fails to identify reciprocity or unaccredited law schools. The proposal only suggests that it is prospective, moving forward. The drive to make law licensure accessible and convenient should not undermine the need for rigorous standards to improve public safety and prevent malpractice.

As these debates continue, it’s crucial to remember that the goal is to promote fairness, inclusivity, and high professional standards in the legal field. As always, we must ensure that any changes contribute to improved public safety and deter fraudulent practices. Reducing an institution to something less than it is is not the way. Testing and standards are keys to a safe and fruitful society. Stay tuned for further developments in this evolving analysis.

Citations:

No, You Can’t Always Protest With No Permit 101 for Dummies

Many First Amendment auditors think they know the law, but they mostly don’t. Here, I will try and help the ones intelligent enough to listen. As we navigate social, political, and environmental obligations, protest is vital for voicing concerns and demanding changes. However, balancing citizens’ rights to free speech and assembly with public safety and law and order is crucial. This finely drawn balancing act often necessitates permits when staging large protests and for good reasons. 

You may wonder why police officers at large protests will require a permit. Well, the reasons are multifaceted. Firstly, permits help local authorities manage traffic, prevent unexpected disruptions, and ensure the safety of all involved – protesters and non-protesters alike. Government agencies want to keep antagonistic groups separated as well. Also, in a dispute scenario where a permit has not been issued, having a full understanding of your rights can be pivotal. In such cases, challenging the decision through a lawsuit is viable, and hiring a proficient lawyer can redefine the outcome. 

“The right to protest is a fundamental human right endorsed by the Constitution’s First Amendment, but governments have the right to regulate protests. Permits are often required as part of such regulations. However, if you believe your rights are being infringed upon by the denial of a permit to protest, a suit filed by a competent lawyer can challenge this denial.”

This quote is snipped from our source at the American Civil Liberties Union’s guide on protester’s rights. The ACLU is widely respected for its extensive work defending and preserving individual rights and liberties. 

So, how can a lawyer come to your rescue? Here’s a list of things a lawyer can do: 

  • Help you understand your rights and advise you on your legal standing.
  • Assist with filing a lawsuit if your request for a permit has been unjustly denied.
  • Represent you in court and challenge the denial of your protest permit.
  • Provide guidance on how to keep your protest legal and peaceful in order to ensure your message carries weight without causing unnecessary legal trouble.

Engaging in protests is a powerful way to stand up for your beliefs. Keeping the legalities in check will only serve to strengthen your cause and ensure your voice is heard in the most impactful and respectful way.

Key Considerations for Protest Descriptions Permits

Government authorities can impose restrictions on protests by requiring permits. They are typically needed for large public gatherings to coordinate safety measures and manage potential disruptions.

Government Officials and Protest Rights

You have a constitutionally protected right to protest peacefully, particularly in traditional public forums such as streets, parks, and sidewalks. But when a police officer stops you, especially on private property, local and federal governments will usually err in favor of public safety or peacekeeping. And no, private property owners don’t have to order you away; police can remove protestors when things get crazy.

Preventing Interference

If your protest has a permit issued by government officials, the police may need to ensure private actors are prevented from interfering with your speech, preserving effective communication.

Clear and Present Danger Dispersal Order?

A dispersal order is a detailed notice issued by public officials, often against antagonistic groups blocking public streets. The idea is for police officers to treat protesters fairly since the First Amendment is designed to prevent interference with free expression. Hence, this will be usually be issued when the protestors are deemed hazardous. The police can issue a dispersal order if the gathering presents a clear and present danger of a riot, interference with traffic or a threat to the physical safety of those in the area. Yet, at the same time, shutting down a protest through a dispersal order should be law enforcement’s last resort. But if there is already a public street closure from protest activities, it starts to infringe on the rights of other persons. Also, allowing it to spiral can wrap normal people up in the criminal activity of rioters, including carjacking, etc.

Legal Consequences

Civil disobedience, such as blocking an intersection or chaining oneself to a building, may lead to arrests. An arrest can have different implications depending on your circumstances. It can lead to an excessive force civil rights case, or even a wrongful death. If you’re a non-citizen, it could even impact your immigration status.

Legal Recourse Against Government/Police Officers

The Supreme Court does not consider riots and unruly actions to be free speech. Sometimes, we have to let the courts decide after the fact. You can file a lawsuit if your rights as a protester are violated – like not being issued a permit without cause. The federal government will have laws different from the state, so look up the local laws before setting up a protest. Having a lawyer for this process would be beneficial for navigating through the appropriate procedures and submitting a compelling legal request.

Can Alex Jones Sue the CIA for Targeting Him and Win?

It’s exploding all over X, “That FBI/CIA Attempted To Silence Him [Alex Jones].” Many pundits argue political motivations drive intelligence operations as weapons against at least half of the American population, including Jones company, Free Speech Systems. This article examines the legal landscape surrounding claims of CIA surveillance and political targeting and assesses the viability of legal recourse for affected individuals. If your family was targeted, you should be worried. 

Reporter: “Alex Jones?

CIA Contractor Gavin O’Blennis: “Yea, So We Were After Him. Big Time!”

A: “You Can kind of put in anyone in jail if you know what to do.”

Q: “How?”

A: “You Set ’em Up.” 01:52

What Jones Says?

Jones argues that Musk, Tucker Carlson, and others who support limited government threaten the WEF and WHO agenda. With Mother Jones and the far-left, tax-subsidized NPR leading the way, all things Alex Jones were branded as “untrustworthy.” This happened after a Connecticut jury found him liable in the defamation case on behalf of the Sandy Hook victims, discussed below. This prompted Jones to seek bankruptcy protection.

NPR Is Run By Leftists?

NPR Admitted Days Ago is Buries Bad Press for Democrats?

Yes and it always has.

“In the Texas trial, Bernard Pettingill, a forensic economist hired by the plaintiffs, estimated that Jones and his companies have a net worth of up to $270 million. Pettingill also said Jones withdrew $62 million in 2021. Jones has said his businesses are struggling.” 

Have you ever wondered how certain fringe personalities manage to draw the attention of powerful institutions like the CIA? If you have, then you’re not alone. Today, we dive into the Alex Jones case. He is an outspoken pro-liberty host. He alleges the US intelligence apparatus targeted him. Getting into a legal tussle with such a behemoth might seem daunting, but there’s a method to the madness, and we’ll break it down for you. 

Breakdown

  • Who is Alex Jones, and why does he believe he’s being targeted?
  • Can he sue the CIA? And if yes, how?
  • What strategies could potentially help him win such a case?

“In this fight for truth, justice, and liberty, every move matters. Understanding the steps Alex Jones will need to traverse in a potential lawsuit against the CIA is not just a matter of speculation—it’s also about understanding the very fabric of our rights and freedoms.”

Sandy Hook School Shooting, Sandy Hook Families

“Conspiracy theorist” Alex Jones is known outside the Q and patriot movements for his loss in the Sandy Hook Defamation case. He said it was a hoax and the victims were crisis actors. The Sandy Hook victims (surviving Sandy Hook families) filed multiple lawsuits, and Jones lost.

Many on the right say the defamed Sandy Hook Shooting victims were not accurate and just conspiracy theories. They claimed Sandy Hook was a false flag operation by the CIA, as did Jones. That is why the victim’s families sued him for defamation. 

In that case, an attacker was alleged to have killed 20 children and six educators in Newtown, Conn. Many Jones supporters claim the left used the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting to try and carve away more of our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. 

Jones seized on the story, leading to him being discredited by much of the public as a conspiracy theorist. He thinks the CIA should be held accountable to him for their role in discrediting him without a warrant. 

Evolution of the CIA Leviathan

The CIA’s surveillance activities have historically operated under a veil of secrecy, making it challenging for individuals to ascertain whether they have been subject to surveillance or targeting. Nonetheless, revelations have shed light on illegal surveillance programs. 

This raises many questions about compliance with the law.

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

We already know the CIA has a history of little respect for civil liberties, especially the Bill of Rights. Recently, whistleblowers exposed the political targeting of conservatives and families. This once again prompted calls for NSA accountability and transparency.

The Retired CIA Officials

Many recall that former intelligence officials came out and said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, reinforcing claims by Donald Trump that woke leftists run the CIA. Either way, Jones’ financial fate is now in the hands of Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez. How much money Jones must pay from his bankruptcy filing and how much he can keep are on the agenda. 

If you make his mistakes, you could end up in a struggle session yourself and into bankruptcy proceedings. And this is the message to Musk and Tucker Carlson:

if you don’t comply, you’ll have to curb your spending and “extravagant lifestyle.” Based on this video, we can see if you support a lot of the things Jones does, you are likely targeted as a conspiracy theorist like the “Infowars host.” 

VIDEO: Can I Sue The FBI?

Courts and politicians are using an exception (Data Broker Loophole) in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to circumvent warrantless searches of the American people.

“Section 702 explicitly prohibits the government from targeting Americans.”

Wired

The [OVERSEAS] surveillance program, known as Section 702, empowers the government to collect, without a warrant and from American companies like Google and AT&T, the communications of foreigners abroad who are targeted for intelligence purposes — even when they are talking with or about Americans.

NY Times

The Leviathan-like view the CIA uses to ignore this law is based on misconceptions of common law and statutory procedures for handling supposedly secret evidence.  

  1. Courts have permitted the government to invoke the state secrets privilege in Section 702 cases despite Congress’ explicit creation of a statutory method for a federal court to review illegal surveillance evidence in secret under 50 USC § 1806(f)
  2. Courts have broadened the scope of that privilege, effectively allowing the government to claim secrecy over so-called “widely known facts.” This lets them sneakily terminate litigation if your case also covers ANY public facts. So if I say the CIA planted a wiretap on my bicycle, and I previously posted a photo of my bicycle online, the CIA can tell a court to “pound sand” if I later sue the CIA and demand emails and records of the bike wiretap. The Court can dismiss my case based solely on the government’s unverified assertions. Imagine that?

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is one of the most insidious and secretive mass surveillance authorities still in operation today. The Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act would make some much-needed and long fought-for reforms, but it also does not go nearly far enough to rein in a surveillance law that the federal government has abused time and time again.

EFF

The second major reform the SAFE Act provides is to close the “data brooker loophole,” [Sic.] which EFF has been calling attention to for years. As one example, mobile apps often collect user data to sell it to advertisers on the open market. The problem is law enforcement and intelligence agencies increasingly buy this private user data, rather than obtain a warrant for it. This bill would largely prohibit the government from purchasing personal data they would otherwise need a warrant to collect. This provision does include a potentially significant exception for situations where the government cannot exclude Americans’ data from larger “compilations” that include foreigners’ data.

You can read the full text of the bill here.

Other Issues With Suing the CIA Itself

The CIA hates warrants. To them, you are nothing. Victims of alleged CIA surveillance and political targeting may seek redress through various legal avenues. 

Examples include:

  • Constitutional claims: Alleged violations can include the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. They include the First Amendment’s free speech and association guarantee and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. 
  • Statutory remedies include the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Privacy Act, and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). 
  • Civil litigation: Litigation could arise from tort claims such as invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violations of federal and state laws, etc.

Big Tech and CIA Instrumentalities of Each Otherother?

Understanding the connection with big tech, the FBI, and the CIA is crucial. This helps us know how entities operate as state instrumentalities. Big tech companies have been scrutinized for acting as conduits for government surveillance, a potentially unsettling aspect of a pro-liberty individual’s life. 

Remember, big tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter handle vast user data daily. This allows private companies to help the FBI and CIA. Consequently, these big tech firms are often caught up in controversies involving user privacy invasions – an accusation Jones bases his lawson on. Elon Musk exposed the humongous revolving door employment scheme between military and other administrative agencies, all alarmingly politically left-wing. 

Allow me to paint a clearer picture for you. Big tech companies have elaborate data collection mechanisms, allowing them to analyze, store, re, and transmit user data. In many instances, this data is viewed by agencies like the CIA and the FBI- all in the name of national security. When a public/private connection becomes this strong, these agencies and companies are now “instrumentalities” of the state. This makes them unlawful and even treasonous in the eyes of many experts.

Google Hates Infowars Founder Alex Jones and its Supporters?

Maybe? Many say Google discounts links from sites like Google when factoring in organic search rankings. For example, if you are a liberal-leaning site, such as Associated Press or MSNBC, Google considers you an authority, which means you and the sites you link to will rank higher in the search engine. In the minds of Silicon Valley, anything Jones says is a conspiracy theory.

Study Finds: Google Interfered in US Elections 41 Times

Posted by Alice Green | Mar 28, 2024 | 4  (Source Punching Bag Post.) 

Their agenda is, in fact, a one-world government and TOTAL control over the media narrative. They employ an army of “fact checkers,” who often fact-check things the article does not even argue, or say a piece critical of a WEF supported as “lacks context,” and use that as a social credit “misinformation” strike on your profile. Your account is throttled, and anyone who saw your post is warned you are engaged in DISINFO. Many people, including myself, have seen this happen in real-time, and I break down a Meta “Fake Check” here.

Holding the CIA Accountable: Exploring Legal Avenues for Victims of Political Targeting

Abstract: Recently, concerns about government surveillance and political targeting have become increasingly prevalent. This article covers individuals targeted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for political views. We’ll explore potential causes of action, as well as procedural hurdles. We will also review civil liberties and government accountability by examining relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional principles.

Can He Sue and Win?

It may come as a surprise, but the NSA and FBI surveilled at least one active US Congressman. During a hearing about the renewal of the disputable collective NSA spying authorizations known as FISA Amendments Act section 702, Rep. Darin LaHood from Illinois made this revelation: 

"The member of Congress who was inaccurately queried multiple times using only his name was me." 

It seems that among the Congresspersons named in a footnote (footnote 92) in a recent governmental finding. What’s more dumbfounding is that even though he’s fully aware he was a target, he has no recourse to sue.

In no uncertain terms, government secrecy currently renders many checks and balances for national security surveillance in FISA and the US Constitution practically useless.

 Now that we’ve set the scene, let’s look at some essential facts to consider:

  1. The CIA’s targeting program shows the Orwellian-like nature of the US government’s post-9/11 surveillance measures. It highlights the necessity for more Congressional oversight.
  2. Investigations directed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee are looking into how intelligence agencies target Americans.
  3. The collaboration between the FBI and other US intelligence agencies has drawn considerable criticism. It set off a wave of intense examination from the new Republican-run Congress.
  4. Critics like Patrick Eddington from the Cato Institute propose that FBI practices, such as utilizing informants to sway civil society organizations and probing CIA and NSA data streams on US citizens, should be forbidden by law.
  1. A declassified report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) unveiled alarming evidence of the CIA’s surveillance program. We have direct evidence it was implemented outside of the statutory reforms and scrutiny established for the intelligence community.
  2. The CIA claims it remains committed to respecting US civilians’ privacy and civil liberties in executing “crucial national security missions.”
  3. However, the report exposes disturbing instances of broad, invasive financial snooping of private transactions by American consumers.
  4. Americans are calling for expansive Congressional oversight of surveillance activities, kick-started by an investigation led by House members.

For close to two decades, one of EFF’s significant priorities has been to ensure that you can maintain your privacy online.

A Bit of Background – EFF’s Journey in the Legal Field

The roots of EFF’s involvement in this matter go back even before the introduction of Section 702. We filed a lawsuit in 2006, Hepting v. AT&T, based on first-hand evidence from whistleblower Mark Klein that alleged telecommunications companies were copying the contents of internet traffic at the NSA’s behest.

The passing of the FISA Amendments Act in 2008, which also established Section 702, essentially made this lawsuit redundant by providing the companies with retroactive immunity. Not one to back down, and at the particular suggestion of key Congressional members, EFF yet again launched a lawsuit on behalf of AT&T consumers, this time aiming to hold the government accountable.

This lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, persisted for 14 years and was strengthened by the Snowden revelations and the wave of additional public information regarding the NSA’s extensive spying programs that followed. 

The Case of Jewel v. NSA and the Locking of Legal Remedy

The Jewel lawsuit argued over the unconstitutionality and illegality of the government’s surveillance. Courts accepted the government’s argument that members of the public could not challenge the classified program it harms in a public court. 

Specifically, the Supreme Court rejected granting certiorari and re-evaluating a Ninth Circuit decision (and an initial district court ruling) that asserted that the common law state secrets privilege impeded victims’ attempts to prove their data was intercepted. Courts say they had no standing to sue. A case brought to Court by the ACLU on behalf of Wikimedia faced the same fate. 

As demonstrated by the Jewel case, the judiciary has utilized secrecy to carve out a broad national security exception to the Constitution, FISA, and Section 702. This allows all Americans to be spied upon by their government. It denies us any feasible recourse. It even directly impacts even a sitting member of Congress.

Report regarding the collective spying program, Rep. LaHood was the one whose name an intelligence analyst inappropriately searched numerous times within the 702 database. 

Congress Can Reopen the Courthouse Doors to Surveillance Victims

Congress now stands at a crossroads where it could redress past errors related to Section 702, which is almost at the end of its term. Congress must reinforce its commitment to provide actionable accountability measures in instances where innocent people become surveillance targets and reinstate court access to such individuals seeking to safeguard their rights. 

  1. They can expressly overrule the Supreme Court’s erroneous interpretation of FISA Section 1806 in FBI v. Fazaga, where the Court misconstrued Congress’s intentions to provide legal recourse for individuals wrongfully surveilled. 
  2. They can prove that Section 1806(f) was designed to supersede the state secrets privilege in lawsuits concerning electronic surveillance evidence. 

The Supreme Court ruling effectively renders the promise of FISA’s redress for surveillance law violations as merely symbolic. Congress can reaffirm the correct interpretation and rectify this misstep by the Supreme Court. 

Secondly, Congress can establish that the case should proceed despite the privileges of the relevant state secrets. Discourse for this prospect has existed since 2009 through the State Secrets Protection Act, HR 984, 110th Cong. (2009), which suggests protocols for secure evidence review in courts when the government claims secret status, thus ensuring cases are not dismissed on grounds of state secrecy till plaintiffs exhaust all non-privileged evidence discovery. It’s an overdue reform. Congress must reform Section 702. 

Courts have impeded individuals from pursuing judicial accountability, as envisioned by Congress. Representative LaHood is a prime example, being aware of his surveillance yet with no way to contest it. The average citizen deserves legal redress to uphold their constitutional rights. 

These points only scratch the surface of the reforms needed for accountability and oversight of Section 702. Widespread global surveillance infringes on everyone’s rightful privacy. The NSA’s mass surveillance, spanning two decades, violates Constitutional rights. The facade must end, and this authority must finally be put to rest. 

Looking back, we must remember that the essence of the CIA surveillance program finds its roots in Executive Order 12333. Unlike the NSA surveillance programs, this program comes under fewer checks since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not bind it. The CIA presumes its targets are foreign bodies. This leads to gathering US personal data, potentially infringing on constitutional rights. This is what they claim: everything is Russian disinformation. It’s a pretext!

This raises an intriguing question – Can Alex Jones successfully sue the CIA? The answer may surprise you – Yes, it is possible, although it would necessitate exceptional legal strategy and compelling evidence of harm.  

Standing!

First and foremost, one must establish ‘standing,’ the legal term for demonstrating personal harm caused by the action being sued for. This would mean displaying proof of being a direct target for Alex Jones. He’d need surveillance-reflecting emails, text messages, or other documented exchanges, such as the X video, which is an admission. He already has an admission. Whether it’s enough, only time will tell.

The next step would be to assert that the CIA’s surveillance violated the constitutional boundaries and infringed upon Jones’s Fourth and First Amendment rights, etc. Expert testimony and evidence can strengthen the case.   

Lastly, engaging a legal team ingrained in the national security law is critical. This lawsuit requires extensive familiarity with laws, precedents, and intelligence agency operations. Winning such a high-stake case without understanding the rules is unlikely. 

Although legally challenging the CIA is not a cakewalk, it’s not entirely impossible. The critical determinant is whether Jones can corroborate his allegations with substantial evidence and successfully traverse constitutional rights remains to be seen.

Challenging CIA Immunity: Exploring Legal Remedies for Victims of Surveillance and Defamation

Does the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) enjoy immunity from engaging in illegal surveillance to harm and defame individuals through various channels, including news media, big tech platforms, and corporations? Let’s examine some legal doctrines, case law, and constitutional principles. Next, let’s look at avenues for legal redress for victims. Here are the broader implications for government accountability and individual rights.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is powerful. It has the resources to gather intelligence or destroy people like Elon Musk. It goes beyond intelligence-gathering functions. It illegally surveils Americans and disseminates propaganda. We just saw in the above video that CIA contractor Gavin O’Blennis at 00:19 corroborated the targeting of individuals, including Jones, with private, external entities. It targets Citizens perceived as adversaries. It often claims its targets disseminate Russian disinformation. 

The CIA’s history remains shrouded in secrecy, with little public scrutiny. It has been targeting domestic people using third-party intermediaries, including news media, technology companies, and corporate entities, to further its objectives for years. An agent just admitted it likely engaged in the defamation and character assassination of Alex Jones. His views or activities may be perceived as contrary to the agency’s “woke” interests.

Legal Analysis: CIA immunity hinges on several legal doctrines, including sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and the state secrets privilege. While the government traditionally enjoys certain immunities from liability, these protections are not absolute and may be subject to exceptions under certain circumstances. Victims of alleged CIA surveillance, defamation, or other unlawful activities may pursue legal remedies, including civil litigation. They may be able to sue for constitutional rights violations. Fundamental legal principles they regularly violate include the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and freedom of the press. They regularly violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. They regularly violate the separation of powers doctrine, too.

More on CIA Immunity

The issue of CIA immunity raises profound questions. What should the balance be between national security interests and individual rights? What about accountability for their actions? To offer a fuller perspective of this daunting task, here’s a quick overview of significant CIA surveillance programs over the years, their period of activation, and a summary of their operations:

Other Examples:

 FBI whistleblowers Garret O’Boyle and Stephen Friend, speaking at @OversightPR’s Weaponization of Government Symposium at @Heritage, explain how the FBI directed them to target concerned parents and pro-lifers

After the shocking revelations of the 9/11 attacks, the United States government ramped up its surveillance efforts. With the CIA at the reins, these efforts culminated in a secretive program established under Executive Order 12333. Unlike the NSA’s surveillance programs, which require oversight as per the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), this CIA program was found to have had less scrutiny. 

A declassified report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) disclosed the extent of the surveillance program of the CIA. It found they had been sweeping up US personal data, even potentially domestic data. This was done outside of any statutory reforms and intelligence community oversight. Anecdotal evidence suggested this program was in utter disarray, with compliance to EO 12333 and CIA regulations described as a ‘total mess.’. ​

With the lid blown off the secret bulk data collection program, the NSA’s ILLEGAL surveillance operations were exposed in 2013. This brought the government’s surveillance tactics into the public eye and mounted pressure for legislative intervention. In response to this call, Congress passed legislation in 2015 ending the NSA’s program, which aimed to prohibit mass data collection under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

Another shocking detail emerged with the revelation of the CIA’s internet backbone surveillance. Notably, this was similar to FISA Section 702 and was active even before the 9/11 attacks. Like other surveillance programs, it operated without judicial oversight, raising significant questions about individual privacy and civil liberties. 

Considering these historical contexts, any potential lawsuit against the CIA would need to rely heavily on drawing attention to the lack of transparency, showcasing clear violations of personal privacy laws and constitutional rights, and demonstrating the need for robust oversight mechanisms in intelligence and surveillance operations.

One of the most startling revelations in recent history about the CIA’s surveillance programs comes from a declassified report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). This report unveiled operations that occurred without statutory reforms and the proper supervision of the intelligence community. 

With a presumption that their targets were foreign entities, the CIA fell into a dangerous pitfall — they accrued data on US citizens, thereby risking a constitutional breach. The gravity of this scenario and the ripple effects it can generate are alarming. Critics like Patrick Eddington, a researcher from the renowned Cato Institute, have argued that specific FBI practices, es like the act of using informants to infiltrate civil society organizations and perusing CIA and NSA data streams on US citizens, ns must be proclaimed illegal by the law. 

Another alarming fact revolves around the Central Intelligence Agency’s covert collection practices. There is a prevalent fear that the agency has been amassing private information about American citizens without proper oversight. This action not only goes against the moral fabric of privacy that the country prides itself on, but it may also be unconstitutional, directly infringing upon the civil liberties of individuals. 

A glaring example of the secrecy shrouding these surveillance operations can be found in the many redacted CIA/AG audit pages. The number of redacted portions raises concerns about potential abuses and violations of the rights of US citizens. These concerns highlight the urgent need to address the lack of oversight on government surveillance activities. 

A page from a leaked 2011 copy of the CIA’s rule book shows that section 20.2 deals with name trace requests and using CIA and NSA data in investigations and assessments. While this is legal for foreign surveillance objectives, the danger lies in the lack of clarification, as this process could be used domestically to track American citizens.

With such considerations in mind, Alex Jones, or anyone wishing to sue the CIA, would need to form a compelling argument against these practices to stand any chance at winning a lawsuit. This battle will not be easy to win, but with transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties at its core, it is undoubtedly a fight worth fighting.

Was the Jones Defamation Judge a CIA Operative??

There is no credible Courtnce to suggest that the judge presiding over Jones’ defamation case was a ‘plant’ by the CIA. While such allegations can be rhetorically powerful, they require a solid fact-based foundation to uphold in Court. As such, it remains crucial to separate fact from speculation when approaching this susceptible issue.

No Different With FBI, all in for Democrats?

The FBI targets gun owners, Christians, and supporters of legal immigration. A whistleblower exposed everything. Can this be interpreted as a bias for Democrat policies? 

Critics point out that the FBI has collaborated with US intelligence agencies for over a decade, perhaps leading to aligning strategies. For instance, the expanded use of assessments has drawn bipartisan concern over the years. This is particularly prevalent among civil society organizations who feel targeted due to their political or religious ideologies. 

Notably, groups such as the Concerned Women for America, a New York chapter of the League of Women Voters, and the Muslim Justice League in Massachusetts have all been swept up in these FBI assessments. These instances push forth the notion that there’s a directed focus on individuals and organizations who may not align with a particular political narrative. 

Adding to the alarm, federal law enforcement, including the FBI and the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), have been conducting backchannel discussions with financial institutions to gather Americans’ private financial data. This raises questions about privacy rights and the potential misuse of data for political ends. 

Representatives Nancy Mace and Jamie Raskin have stepped up. They want a comprehensive review of the FBI’s practices. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) needs to step in to stop bias in intelligence agency activities. 

Since the surveillance focus is on specific demographics (White males, Christians, and gun owners), it should be questioned. They are clearly all in for partisan politics, according to their victims. Faith in our intelligence agencies is at an all-time low, according to non-democrats. 

Conclusion

The intersection of national security interests, individual rights, and government accountability presents complex challenges. We must pursue legal recourse against the CIA. We must uphold respect for civil liberties. We need more legal reforms, judicial oversight, and whistleblower protections. CIA and FBI targeting of veterans and at least half of Americans is an outrage.

Data provided by tech giants has aided illegal intelligence gathering. These operations were found illegal by higher courts. This symbiotic relationship, however, enables an opaque and unsettling potential, posing threats to civil liberties. 

So when it comes to the potential success of Alex Jones’ lawsuit, the answer would be found in proving the CIA’s abuse of these connections and demonstrating how they violate the constitutional rights of individuals – a feat that, while challenging, is not impossible. If you were injured in Texas or California, Michael Ehline wants to discuss your case or possibly have you on his show so the world can watch it in real-time.