Skip to main content

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The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, passed by Congress, repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown.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 While this territorial government was repealed by Congress in 1874, the legislation was significant as it marked the creation of a single municipal government for the Federal District.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

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.

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. 

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. 

Hidden History of U.S. School System – What to Expect from New World Order

Our education system has experienced quite some changes over its history. We don’t think too much about schooling systems when we’re children, so many of these “adjustments” over the past few decades probably flew over our heads.

At their core, schools are supposed to be environments to stimulate learning and socializing. However, haven’t you stopped to think about how many schools forget that we’re all unique and have different learning needs?

We’ve had years of standardized tests and countless hours of learning things that we probably won’t use when we’re older. Many people argue that the current education system promotes mindless conformity by using outdated methods to assess your intelligence.

When you think about it, it doesn’t make too much sense. Why is the education system like that? What influenced institutions to offer these resources to people? That’s what we’ll try to uncover here.

I’ll dive deep into the hidden history of our school system and how it has influenced teachers, students, and people in general.

How Has the U.S. Education System Changed Over Its History?

Not everyone is a fan of history, but understanding where we come from will help us see why society is the way it is today.

You’ll get a better idea of the true purpose of schooling in our nation, and why it may be scary to keep going with this classroom system in the future.

Early 90s

Our school system started back in the 1900s. Several oligarchs, including Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie, were looking for ways to increase and preserve their wealth.

One of the ideas involved tax-exempt, non-profit organizations. These organizations were marketed as something “good” for people, which allowed them to easily sell them to the general public.

Back in 1900, we only had 21 of these organizations. By the end of 1990, however, there were more than 50,000.

J.D. Rockefeller established the General Education Board (GEB) in 1905. Its goal was to “keep the working class from having control over public teaching.” Rockefeller started to get support from Guggenheim, Carnegie, Morgan, Mellon, and Vanderbilt shortly after the board started.

The General Education Board’s first mission statement mentioned the following:

In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into men of learning or philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters, great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, statesmen, politicians, creatures of whom we have ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

Eight years later, the Congress concluded the following about the GEB:

“The domination of men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees but is being rapidly extended to control the education and social services of the nation. The giant foundation exercises enormous power through direct use of its funds, free of any statutory entanglements so they can be directed precisely to the levers of a situation; this power, however, is substantially increased by building collateral alliances that insulate it from criticism and scrutiny.”

What happened later? Between the 1920s and 1950s, the “founding fathers” of the General Education Board started the American Historical Association (AHA). Their purpose now was to create U.S. history professors.

Later, the founding group endowed “Columbia Teachers College,” and here’s when things get interesting: This institution produced one-fifth of American public school teachers, one-third of presidents for teacher-training groups, and even one-quarter of superintendents.

The institution had full control over textbooks and literature in public schools. In other words, what was taught had a specific narrative in place.

Rockefeller was able to get control over many policies in the educational system, which also allowed him to control the flow of taxpayer funds through property ownership. He used his influence and power to open more educational institutions.

You can consider this the origin phase of our education system. Most of the efforts were put into opening institutions and gaining control over the historical narrative that was shared with students.

Unfortunately, things only get worse from here.

Mid 90s

In 1952, Edward E. Cox led the “Cox Committee Investigation” program, which aimed to learn more about tax-exempt foundations and how they’re using their resources. Cox also wanted to determine whether these organizations were using resources for subversive activities or other factors that were not in the nation’s best interest.

Then, in 1954, the House authorized Norman Dodd’s “Reece Committee,” which aimed to investigate why these organizations were founded and how they influenced public life. According to his research, funds from major foundations like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace were used to deteriorate teaching techniques to enable oligarchical collectivism.

Later in the 1960s, the UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination aimed to “end discrimination,” although some people could also see that as an effort by the United Nations to have control and influence over schools in the U.S.

During these years, the Feminist movement started to get more powerful too. This allowed more women to work in the industry. Since the educational system had already gained power over the past 60 years, there was a higher demand for early education and daycare workers.

As you can see, the system had already become suspicious for a portion of the population back then. Even though there was already some awareness about how schools were influencing kids, adults, and culture in general, the last few decades in the 90s had more plans.

Here’s a rundown:

  • 1967-1974: The government (specifically the Department of Education) started testing the Prussian education model for the nation’s system. This system focused on behavior modification, which aimed to maintain control and teach specific ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ behavior.
  • 1972-1980: Several professors from funded institutions started to write books that may have pushed biased opinions. To summarize, these promoted the idea that parents and their children had to learn a global perspective to “avoid rejection of values being taught in school.” Most people could find these writings/ideas in different media channels, including professional educator journals in the nation.

Late 90s

The 1990s saw new laws that promoted standardized teaching. They encouraged to train children for particular career paths within the global workforce. In other words, we started getting educated to follow the same idea instead of being encouraged to make our own decisions based on current knowledge.

In this era, the Clinton Administration passed these three main laws:

  • Elementary and Secondary Education Act
  • Goals 2000 Act
  • School-to-Word Act

The 90s also started benefiting from computers, which people used to collect information about students and other relevant areas within the industry.

2000s

By the time the 2000s arrived, the traditional educational system was a “success.” There weren’t too many changes during this era, but there are a couple of things worth mentioning:

  • The Common Core State Standards Initiative began in 2010. Its goal was to establish the skills that students should have in different subjects at every grade, particularly English and Math. More than 40 states adopted the “Common Core” standards to increase consistency within the system.
  • We got the Zero-to-Three program. Essentially, it works to ensure that “all babies and toddlers have a strong start in life.” While this non-profit organization says its goal is to provide parents, policymakers, and professionals with the tools to educate children as early as possible, some people argue that this could be just another way to force the current education system on toddlers as early as possible.

How Will Schools Perform in the Future?

Is the current educational system meant to prepare people to work, or is it shaped to allow students to explore their creativity?

When you think about it, most schools promote three main factors:

  • Punctuality
  • Obedience
  • Repetitiveness

These could be great values to learn and apply later in life, but what about everything else? You could argue that these three factors are just requirements to produce factory workers and that’s why schools don’t focus on other important areas of life.

We live in an era where the internet and social media are more accessible than ever. Both have transformed the way how we learn, so there’s no doubt that many schools are getting worried about their influence on people.

It may be tricky to tell what will happen with schools specifically. Considering how technology has advanced to this point, we could expect institutions to use augmented reality and AI to make the learning experience more immersive for students.

While that sounds exciting for some and scary for others, we’ll have to wait and see what happens. We’ve reached a point where it’s hard to control what people consume on the internet, which has its pros and cons. While we can only hope that schools change and promote a healthier and more effective environment where students can think for themselves, you can guarantee the internet will have a heavy influence on that.

How Can We Solve the Problems with Our Educational System?

Changing the entire education system may seem impossible, so what can we do?

Spreading this information may be a great step to take. Bringing awareness to these problems may one day yield positive results.

I also recommend expanding your learning horizons as much as possible. With responsible and safe use of the internet, you can learn many new things without worrying about narratives or manipulation most of the time.

We Have to Take Action

You may have seen how it’s much easier now to voice your opinion.

As you learned from this page, most education systems have remained the same over the past few decades despite all the technological advancements.

However, we’re not in the industrial age anymore; we’re now living in an era led by the internet and AI, making these older educational systems outdated and irrelevant. This is why homeschooling has become more popular.

Even if we’re not able to change the entire system anytime soon, you can take action by exploring alternative education options for your children (and yourself). It’s never too late to learn something new.