We achieved a new moment of clarity when Ana Toledo writes in her reply brief to the Honorable Judges of the 5th Circuit: "The Arguments of the Government Defendants are Based on Deceit."
Ep 42: "Calling A Spade A Spade" I would insert an interesting quote from my case <852370_Briefs_20231120231702D1393207_4966.pdf> quoting pg 9 of 44 , quoting Supreme Court Judge Brightenbach in case State v. Hornaday 105 Wn.2d 120 (1986) 713 P.2d 71 quoting -"While this Petitioner is tortured daily6 so are the Laws, the State and US Constitutions that are allegedly protecting him, are also being tortured. Francis Bacon, in "Of Judicature," Essays (1625) said: "Judges must beware of hard constructions and strained inferences, for there is no worse torture than the torture of laws." Tripp, International Thesaurus of Quotations 330 (1970).7
Basically, Justice Brightenbach was "Calling a spade a spade" when he issued his dissent opinion. Maybe Ana can apply similar argument as I did in my case, <852370_Briefs_20231120231702D1393207_4966.pdf>
See below quoting from WA Supreme Ct. case "State v. Hornaday 105 Wn.2d 120 (1986) 713 P.2d 71":
Here is the challenged conclusion of law:
"Defendant violated RCW 66.44.270, minor in possession of liquor.
The District Court held there was a violation and, therefore, the arrest was valid. So did the Superior Court, and so did a majority of the Court of Appeals. No one challenges the fact that the defendant was intoxicated. Yet, a majority of this court holds that everyone else was wrong because the intoxicated defendant was not in "possession" of intoxicants.
Oh, I concede the accuracy of the majority's citations. What I do not concede, however, is the absence of logic and rational analysis. Common sense is not a bad precedent. To hold that an admittedly intoxicated person is not in possession of intoxicants is an exercise in sophistry beyond my comprehension unless we, like spiders, are content to spin fine but temporary webs.
Francis Bacon, in "Of Judicature," Essays (1625) said: "Judges must beware of hard constructions and strained inferences, for there is no worse torture than the torture of laws." Tripp, International Thesaurus of Quotations 330 (1970).
The majority tortures the law; I am reminded of a phrase well known to appellate judges: "I dissent for the reasons stated by the majority."
Very good I can't believe how dumb that woman is who said she didn't know of that case. I mean if your going to lie, lie believable.
Plus Ray or Wray his stupid answers. "That's before our changes". OMFG dude your a tyrant and a liar and one when being questioned the hard questions you can tell he's bothered by it, but still says something cop out. I hate how the democrats Coddle him. Booker OMFG and the others just say you kiss his ass and be done with it. don't go into a spew of thank you for your services crap... Sometimes the Republicans should let him answer but still the guy is an out right liar.
Thank you for watching the podcast, Doug! It is good to know that the points we make resonate with our viewers. Christopher Wray definitely lost that conversation to Sen. Lee. The latter is apparently deeply informed about the FISA/702 situation. I would like him on our team when we go to the Supreme Court. One must dream!
Thanks and yeah. I hope that we win and soon. My and yours and everyone else's constant v2k is killing us. It's taken my hearing ability to almost nothing. All I hear is singing and drums and it keeps trying to go to both sides of my brain and ears or cochlea. But when we go to the Supreme Court? Aren't we wanting to win at the 5th circuit? I'd rather win there get our your court date and then we can prove v2k is real and torment is real and not mental illness.
The Supreme Court and I don't know about the states Supreme Court but they don't have to give us the day of time if they don't want to. But yeah whatever we need this exposed to the world. One way or another...
In the video clip where the assistant A. G. Was being questioned, did anyone notice the robotic-seeming person behind the questioner (dressed in orange) whose facial expressions did not waiver, no movement at all EXCEPT Frequent blinking of eyes? Very very odd and non-human acting......anyone else notice this???
Yes. "Deer in the headlights" comes to mind. I want to remind everyone, that despite losing the case at the district level, and at the appeal level, the Gov't insists on going to the Supreme Court. This is a First Amendement Case with such a strong uncontroverted evidence, that I am honestly dumbfounded by the Gov't Defendants strategy. I have a hunch that his strategy is not coming from the attorneys defending the government, but from the gov't bureaucrats of the highest rank drunk on their power.
Doesn't the Patriot Act state of emergency support their use of the TSDB information for any purpose that they want? I assume you've said that in past reports... which I have not heard.
The short answer is no. For a longer question you will have to watch this Sunday’s episode. I always wanted to address this questions. Thank you for the nudge, Robin D!
Spiritually, I witness and support your efforts, because I lack the knowledge and experience you have. I watched the later half if this video and your first episode to know your intent. It's difficult to jump into this case at this time. I feel these actions need to be taken to hold them accountable.
The majority of 'implants' are the strongholds of parasites which are both biological (ex. tapeworm or Bartonella which forms cysts and lesions in the brain) and the innumerable synthetic biology chimeras and hydras. Parasites amass and build their colonies (hives, nests - strongholds) collecting heavy metals, toxins, molds, yeasts and sentient fibers in plaques, and Wifi and 5G cause these pollutants to form networks which are EMF singnal-controlled - and control the body and mind, emotions, and ultimately the hearts and minds of the individual - JUST AS DR. GIORDANO SAID.
To read my books and make the changes needed to remove them is more than most can bear to do, and, I believe, draws a line in the sand of being truly human.
I am a TI. I have had surgeries (not for obesity but subjected to early-life dental work before the age of 18, a C-section and then two severe car 'accidents' (there are no accidents) and what recovery entailed. The code word for parasite damage is inflammation and cancer. They are the cause of all diseases.
All the military-industrial evil complex has done - including the Trojan Horse called "genetic alteration therapy" - is a culmination of species dominance which has gone from a large flat rock thrown upon the first Humans to a cymatic Fowler's Snare put in place by every alphabet agency you can name, to hide Jesus Christ and the fact that He is the Creator of all that is and rose from the dead and by believing in Him, either one will Rapture when the solar flash that the governments call an EMPCOE or Cyber Takedown or Nuclear Strikes occurs, or die beheaded in the next seven years of tribulation that the UN's SDGs of Agenda2030 and the COP28 is lining up right now as you read this.
We are in a Holy War and the Biodigital Convergence with the demanded mark of the beast and upload of soul to the cloud is about to bring every concept of justice to a halt in an instant.
Perhaps you have the same God Code The Creator does?
This should not be about the terrorist watchlist. Ana Toledo is barking up the wrong tree. This should only be about weapons deployment against citizens. By dragging in the largely irrelevant watchlist, Toledo is misdirecting and obfuscating the issue.
One step at the time strategy, I suppose, and you got a point. As a victims of DEWs and laser attacks-physical assaults, daily torture we want worldwide ban on their use against civilians. Period.
FYI: Karen Melton Stewart is a Plaintiff in the afformentioned lawsuit. The impression that "Targeted Justice v. Garland" is not about "weapons deployed against citizens" stems from being uninformed about the lawsuit and its strategy.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the question of traceability is a challenging one. The connection through the TSDB has been proven a viable path, and the one that definitely struck the nerve with the government defendants. You can discern it by the strategy the defendants employed. And by the way, Director of the Terrorist Screening Center, Mr. Charles Kable, submitted his resignation within days of being served with the lawsuit. Yet, the defendants kept it a secret from the Courts even past the point when a new Director was placed in his position.
Reminder to everyone: your comments and constructive criticism are always welcome. I mean it. Otherwise, I wouldn't be reading the comment section. However, please take the time to think and assess the situation and all the caveats, that we spend so much time mulling over. Just this past year, since the lawsuit was filed in January 2023 , we have had 42 episodes, and 95% of them were dedicated to nothing but refining our legal strategy.
This strategy has been tried over 200 times before the present case, and ended up nowhere. The question of traceability is a valid question you would have to support in the way that is direct and unambiguous.
Let me ask you a straightforward question - do you not support our legal efforts?
I support honest legal efforts to resolve the heinous use of unconventional weapons against US citizens. By focusing your efforts on the terrorist watchlist--which has already been adjudicated and determined to be legal--you are spinning your wheels. And as there is no evidence that the terrorist watchlist is the same as the list of those who are targete with unconventional weapons, you are de facto reframing the issue is a way that is iinaccurate and will not bear fruit. That straightforward enough?
Janet, you are uninformed about the situation with the TSDB. The constituationality of TSDB is being challenged in multiple lawsuits, one of which has finally reached the Supreme Court (FBI vs. Fikre), with the oral arguments being scheduled for January of 8, 2024.
Your insinuation that our legal efforts fall outside "honest" is simply misplaced. If you are making such an accusation, please be specific and factual. Otherwise, it is just name calling.
The perception that "Targeted Justice v. Garland" does not include "the heinous use of unconventional weapons against US Citizens" stems from being uninformed about the lawsuit and its strategy. Please consider reading the filings, and/or listening to the podcast, and avoid sweeping accusations. Genuine constructive criticism would be be a welcome modus operandi. Please, leave baseless insinuations for another social media platform.
As a journalist who has been covering these sorts of lawsuits for over a decade, I find your insinuations that my concerns are "baseless" and "uninformed" to be laughable. I certainly disagree with the formatting of the TJ lawsuit and it would behoove honest efforts to attend to informed critiques., raher than engaging in ad hominem denigrations of the sort you posted here. Bottom line is by equating the list of those who are targeted with the terrorist watchlist and then attempting to legally attack the watchlist you have scuttled your own efforts. This airplane aint gonna fly.
Dear Janet, you have not provided any reason why you consider the legal effort of "Targeted Justice v. Garland" dishonest. You disagree with "formatting" of the lawsuit. Do you have any constructive suggestions as to how we can better format our lawsuit? You have an open invitation to come on the podcast for a free-form conversation, air your grievances, and advocate for your suggestions. I hope you accept my invitation. I pride myself on maintaining civility while conducting one-on-one conversations. I think the entire TI community would benefit from it. Thank you. lenbermd@substack.com
Thank you so much for your offer. One of the issues that concerns me is that weapons deployment against US citizens is NOT mentioned in the causes of action. What this means, in layman's terms, is that the TJ lawsuit is not suing about weapons deployment. I understand you are not an attorney (neither am I) so you can check the veracity of this perception with Ms. Toledo. So through this grave omission the lawsuit is, in fact, attacking the watchlist and not attacking the weapons deployment. As the terrorist watchlist has already been deemed constitutional by sevveral circuit court decisions, this strategy simply will not work. Thank you again for the opportunity to weigh in here,
Ep 42: "Calling A Spade A Spade" I would insert an interesting quote from my case <852370_Briefs_20231120231702D1393207_4966.pdf> quoting pg 9 of 44 , quoting Supreme Court Judge Brightenbach in case State v. Hornaday 105 Wn.2d 120 (1986) 713 P.2d 71 quoting -"While this Petitioner is tortured daily6 so are the Laws, the State and US Constitutions that are allegedly protecting him, are also being tortured. Francis Bacon, in "Of Judicature," Essays (1625) said: "Judges must beware of hard constructions and strained inferences, for there is no worse torture than the torture of laws." Tripp, International Thesaurus of Quotations 330 (1970).7
Not sure the metaphor works for me. "Torture of Law" is lack of compliance with the law.
Basically, Justice Brightenbach was "Calling a spade a spade" when he issued his dissent opinion. Maybe Ana can apply similar argument as I did in my case, <852370_Briefs_20231120231702D1393207_4966.pdf>
See below quoting from WA Supreme Ct. case "State v. Hornaday 105 Wn.2d 120 (1986) 713 P.2d 71":
Here is the challenged conclusion of law:
"Defendant violated RCW 66.44.270, minor in possession of liquor.
The District Court held there was a violation and, therefore, the arrest was valid. So did the Superior Court, and so did a majority of the Court of Appeals. No one challenges the fact that the defendant was intoxicated. Yet, a majority of this court holds that everyone else was wrong because the intoxicated defendant was not in "possession" of intoxicants.
Oh, I concede the accuracy of the majority's citations. What I do not concede, however, is the absence of logic and rational analysis. Common sense is not a bad precedent. To hold that an admittedly intoxicated person is not in possession of intoxicants is an exercise in sophistry beyond my comprehension unless we, like spiders, are content to spin fine but temporary webs.
Francis Bacon, in "Of Judicature," Essays (1625) said: "Judges must beware of hard constructions and strained inferences, for there is no worse torture than the torture of laws." Tripp, International Thesaurus of Quotations 330 (1970).
The majority tortures the law; I am reminded of a phrase well known to appellate judges: "I dissent for the reasons stated by the majority."
I would affirm.
ANDERSEN, J., concurs with BRACHTENBACH, J.
Very good I can't believe how dumb that woman is who said she didn't know of that case. I mean if your going to lie, lie believable.
Plus Ray or Wray his stupid answers. "That's before our changes". OMFG dude your a tyrant and a liar and one when being questioned the hard questions you can tell he's bothered by it, but still says something cop out. I hate how the democrats Coddle him. Booker OMFG and the others just say you kiss his ass and be done with it. don't go into a spew of thank you for your services crap... Sometimes the Republicans should let him answer but still the guy is an out right liar.
Thank you for watching the podcast, Doug! It is good to know that the points we make resonate with our viewers. Christopher Wray definitely lost that conversation to Sen. Lee. The latter is apparently deeply informed about the FISA/702 situation. I would like him on our team when we go to the Supreme Court. One must dream!
Thanks and yeah. I hope that we win and soon. My and yours and everyone else's constant v2k is killing us. It's taken my hearing ability to almost nothing. All I hear is singing and drums and it keeps trying to go to both sides of my brain and ears or cochlea. But when we go to the Supreme Court? Aren't we wanting to win at the 5th circuit? I'd rather win there get our your court date and then we can prove v2k is real and torment is real and not mental illness.
The Supreme Court and I don't know about the states Supreme Court but they don't have to give us the day of time if they don't want to. But yeah whatever we need this exposed to the world. One way or another...
In the video clip where the assistant A. G. Was being questioned, did anyone notice the robotic-seeming person behind the questioner (dressed in orange) whose facial expressions did not waiver, no movement at all EXCEPT Frequent blinking of eyes? Very very odd and non-human acting......anyone else notice this???
Yes. "Deer in the headlights" comes to mind. I want to remind everyone, that despite losing the case at the district level, and at the appeal level, the Gov't insists on going to the Supreme Court. This is a First Amendement Case with such a strong uncontroverted evidence, that I am honestly dumbfounded by the Gov't Defendants strategy. I have a hunch that his strategy is not coming from the attorneys defending the government, but from the gov't bureaucrats of the highest rank drunk on their power.
Doesn't the Patriot Act state of emergency support their use of the TSDB information for any purpose that they want? I assume you've said that in past reports... which I have not heard.
The short answer is no. For a longer question you will have to watch this Sunday’s episode. I always wanted to address this questions. Thank you for the nudge, Robin D!
Spiritually, I witness and support your efforts, because I lack the knowledge and experience you have. I watched the later half if this video and your first episode to know your intent. It's difficult to jump into this case at this time. I feel these actions need to be taken to hold them accountable.
The majority of 'implants' are the strongholds of parasites which are both biological (ex. tapeworm or Bartonella which forms cysts and lesions in the brain) and the innumerable synthetic biology chimeras and hydras. Parasites amass and build their colonies (hives, nests - strongholds) collecting heavy metals, toxins, molds, yeasts and sentient fibers in plaques, and Wifi and 5G cause these pollutants to form networks which are EMF singnal-controlled - and control the body and mind, emotions, and ultimately the hearts and minds of the individual - JUST AS DR. GIORDANO SAID.
To read my books and make the changes needed to remove them is more than most can bear to do, and, I believe, draws a line in the sand of being truly human.
I am a TI. I have had surgeries (not for obesity but subjected to early-life dental work before the age of 18, a C-section and then two severe car 'accidents' (there are no accidents) and what recovery entailed. The code word for parasite damage is inflammation and cancer. They are the cause of all diseases.
All the military-industrial evil complex has done - including the Trojan Horse called "genetic alteration therapy" - is a culmination of species dominance which has gone from a large flat rock thrown upon the first Humans to a cymatic Fowler's Snare put in place by every alphabet agency you can name, to hide Jesus Christ and the fact that He is the Creator of all that is and rose from the dead and by believing in Him, either one will Rapture when the solar flash that the governments call an EMPCOE or Cyber Takedown or Nuclear Strikes occurs, or die beheaded in the next seven years of tribulation that the UN's SDGs of Agenda2030 and the COP28 is lining up right now as you read this.
We are in a Holy War and the Biodigital Convergence with the demanded mark of the beast and upload of soul to the cloud is about to bring every concept of justice to a halt in an instant.
Perhaps you have the same God Code The Creator does?
This should not be about the terrorist watchlist. Ana Toledo is barking up the wrong tree. This should only be about weapons deployment against citizens. By dragging in the largely irrelevant watchlist, Toledo is misdirecting and obfuscating the issue.
One step at the time strategy, I suppose, and you got a point. As a victims of DEWs and laser attacks-physical assaults, daily torture we want worldwide ban on their use against civilians. Period.
I do not disagree!
The terrorist watch list is just one avenue/part of the puzzle. I agree that weapons deployment against citizens should be addressed too.
Check this out... found this by Karen Melton Stewart (NSA whistle blower)
NSA Intelligence Analyst Addresses New York Times Schizophrenic Coverage of Energy Weapons
https://www.activistpost.com/2018/09/nsa-intelligence-analyst-new-york-times-coverage-energy-weapons.html
Laws mentioned in the article...
10 US Code §950t (2) which forbids attacking non-combatant civilians with weapons of war;
18 USC §2441 which prohibits the Federal governments and agents thereof from committing acts of war upon unarmed, non-combatant civilians;
42 USC 1985 – which prohibits conspiracy to interfere with civil rights;
18 US Code (sections) §241 and §242, which prohibits conspiracy to deprive anyone of their Constitutional Rights.
Executive Order/E.O. S-1233
DoD Directive S-3321.1
National Security Directive 130
FYI: Karen Melton Stewart is a Plaintiff in the afformentioned lawsuit. The impression that "Targeted Justice v. Garland" is not about "weapons deployed against citizens" stems from being uninformed about the lawsuit and its strategy.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the question of traceability is a challenging one. The connection through the TSDB has been proven a viable path, and the one that definitely struck the nerve with the government defendants. You can discern it by the strategy the defendants employed. And by the way, Director of the Terrorist Screening Center, Mr. Charles Kable, submitted his resignation within days of being served with the lawsuit. Yet, the defendants kept it a secret from the Courts even past the point when a new Director was placed in his position.
Reminder to everyone: your comments and constructive criticism are always welcome. I mean it. Otherwise, I wouldn't be reading the comment section. However, please take the time to think and assess the situation and all the caveats, that we spend so much time mulling over. Just this past year, since the lawsuit was filed in January 2023 , we have had 42 episodes, and 95% of them were dedicated to nothing but refining our legal strategy.
Thank you!
This strategy has been tried over 200 times before the present case, and ended up nowhere. The question of traceability is a valid question you would have to support in the way that is direct and unambiguous.
Let me ask you a straightforward question - do you not support our legal efforts?
I support honest legal efforts to resolve the heinous use of unconventional weapons against US citizens. By focusing your efforts on the terrorist watchlist--which has already been adjudicated and determined to be legal--you are spinning your wheels. And as there is no evidence that the terrorist watchlist is the same as the list of those who are targete with unconventional weapons, you are de facto reframing the issue is a way that is iinaccurate and will not bear fruit. That straightforward enough?
Janet, you are uninformed about the situation with the TSDB. The constituationality of TSDB is being challenged in multiple lawsuits, one of which has finally reached the Supreme Court (FBI vs. Fikre), with the oral arguments being scheduled for January of 8, 2024.
Your insinuation that our legal efforts fall outside "honest" is simply misplaced. If you are making such an accusation, please be specific and factual. Otherwise, it is just name calling.
The perception that "Targeted Justice v. Garland" does not include "the heinous use of unconventional weapons against US Citizens" stems from being uninformed about the lawsuit and its strategy. Please consider reading the filings, and/or listening to the podcast, and avoid sweeping accusations. Genuine constructive criticism would be be a welcome modus operandi. Please, leave baseless insinuations for another social media platform.
Thank you.
As a journalist who has been covering these sorts of lawsuits for over a decade, I find your insinuations that my concerns are "baseless" and "uninformed" to be laughable. I certainly disagree with the formatting of the TJ lawsuit and it would behoove honest efforts to attend to informed critiques., raher than engaging in ad hominem denigrations of the sort you posted here. Bottom line is by equating the list of those who are targeted with the terrorist watchlist and then attempting to legally attack the watchlist you have scuttled your own efforts. This airplane aint gonna fly.
Dear Janet, you have not provided any reason why you consider the legal effort of "Targeted Justice v. Garland" dishonest. You disagree with "formatting" of the lawsuit. Do you have any constructive suggestions as to how we can better format our lawsuit? You have an open invitation to come on the podcast for a free-form conversation, air your grievances, and advocate for your suggestions. I hope you accept my invitation. I pride myself on maintaining civility while conducting one-on-one conversations. I think the entire TI community would benefit from it. Thank you. lenbermd@substack.com
Thank you so much for your offer. One of the issues that concerns me is that weapons deployment against US citizens is NOT mentioned in the causes of action. What this means, in layman's terms, is that the TJ lawsuit is not suing about weapons deployment. I understand you are not an attorney (neither am I) so you can check the veracity of this perception with Ms. Toledo. So through this grave omission the lawsuit is, in fact, attacking the watchlist and not attacking the weapons deployment. As the terrorist watchlist has already been deemed constitutional by sevveral circuit court decisions, this strategy simply will not work. Thank you again for the opportunity to weigh in here,