At least One Judge Agrees Your Property Should Be Yours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, December 18, 2006
Vol. 8 No. 250
In Today's Letter:
Comment: At Least One Judge Agrees...
Offshore: Panama Has Come a Long Way
Sovereignty: Price Inflation vs. Money Inflation
At Least One Judge Agrees Your Property Should Remain Yours
Today's comment is by Mark Nestmann, our Wealth Preservation and Tax Consultant and President of The Nestmann Group.
Dear A-Letter Reader,
Over the years, I've been criticized for my skeptical view of the "War on Terror." But my critics have become most vocal when I dared to condemn the President Bush's authority to simply name some person or group as a "terrorist" and confiscate their property based merely on that bald assertion.
I've been called a "terrorist sympathizer," a "traitor" and "an apologist for militant Islam." But now, I'm delighted to report there's at least one courageous federal judge who agrees with me.
In a ruling made public Nov. 28, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins struck down a major part of Bush's Sept. 24, 2001 order tagging 27 groups and individuals as "specially designated global terrorists." The order gives the president the authority to label groups "terrorists," and to seize their property, without any legal process, and give them no way to challenge the designations.
Judge Collins ruled that the order was too vague and infringed on the right of free association, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, any person or group could be named a "terrorist" under the President's authority for any reason. Or, as Judge Collins observed, "for no reason."
Judge Collins also concluded that the Executive Order giving the Treasury Secretary the right to designate other persons or groups as "Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) was unconstitutional. Under the Executive Order, the Treasury Secretary could dub anyone a "terrorist" based only on their association with any of the 27 groups or individuals on the original list. That's because it "contains no definable criteria" for designating individuals and groups as SDGTs, and because it "imposes penalties for mere association."
However, Judge Collins' decision is hardly the end of the systematic dismantling of constitutional protections made in the name of the War on Terror (and in earlier "wars" such as the War on Drugs and the War on Money Laundering). The government will surely appeal this decision, and while the appeal is pending, it is likely to petition to permit seizures of "terrorist property" to continue.
Moreover, as I've pointed out in my blog, the Treasury Department says there is nothing the government can't confiscate once the President declares a national emergency, as President Bush has on numerous occasions to pursue the "War on Terror" (see http://nestmannblog.sovereignsociety.com/2006/10/the_us_says_it_.html ).
Not to mention the shameful laws enacted by the U.S. Congress, such as the Military Commissions Act. That particular act allows the President to throw anyone in prison, including U.S. citizens, without any judicial process whatsoever. So long as you're classified as an "enemy combatant," there's no requirement that a trial via military tribunal, or in civilian courts, ever take place.
Still, Judge Collins (who also was the first magistrate to invalidate any portion of the USA PATRIOT Act) represents an encouraging, albeit small, countertrend in the U.S. judiciary. Judge Collins represents someone willing to stand up to the President, even in the face of overwhelming public support for the War on Terror.
I hope more courageous jurists like Judge Collins step forward. They represent one of the last hopes of rescuing our republic from the scourge of totalitarianism.
MARK NESTMANN, Wealth Preservation and
Tax Consultant on behalf of The Sovereign Society
Phoenix AZ
assetpro@nestmann.com
www.nestmann.com
P.S. Now your property, your assets, and anything else you own can be seized in the name of the War on Terror. Learn how you can legally fight back.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Vol. 8 No. 250
In Today's Letter:
Comment: At Least One Judge Agrees...
Offshore: Panama Has Come a Long Way
Sovereignty: Price Inflation vs. Money Inflation
At Least One Judge Agrees Your Property Should Remain Yours
Today's comment is by Mark Nestmann, our Wealth Preservation and Tax Consultant and President of The Nestmann Group.
Dear A-Letter Reader,
Over the years, I've been criticized for my skeptical view of the "War on Terror." But my critics have become most vocal when I dared to condemn the President Bush's authority to simply name some person or group as a "terrorist" and confiscate their property based merely on that bald assertion.
I've been called a "terrorist sympathizer," a "traitor" and "an apologist for militant Islam." But now, I'm delighted to report there's at least one courageous federal judge who agrees with me.
In a ruling made public Nov. 28, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins struck down a major part of Bush's Sept. 24, 2001 order tagging 27 groups and individuals as "specially designated global terrorists." The order gives the president the authority to label groups "terrorists," and to seize their property, without any legal process, and give them no way to challenge the designations.
Judge Collins ruled that the order was too vague and infringed on the right of free association, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, any person or group could be named a "terrorist" under the President's authority for any reason. Or, as Judge Collins observed, "for no reason."
Judge Collins also concluded that the Executive Order giving the Treasury Secretary the right to designate other persons or groups as "Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) was unconstitutional. Under the Executive Order, the Treasury Secretary could dub anyone a "terrorist" based only on their association with any of the 27 groups or individuals on the original list. That's because it "contains no definable criteria" for designating individuals and groups as SDGTs, and because it "imposes penalties for mere association."
However, Judge Collins' decision is hardly the end of the systematic dismantling of constitutional protections made in the name of the War on Terror (and in earlier "wars" such as the War on Drugs and the War on Money Laundering). The government will surely appeal this decision, and while the appeal is pending, it is likely to petition to permit seizures of "terrorist property" to continue.
Moreover, as I've pointed out in my blog, the Treasury Department says there is nothing the government can't confiscate once the President declares a national emergency, as President Bush has on numerous occasions to pursue the "War on Terror" (see http://nestmannblog.sovereignsociety.com/2006/10/the_us_says_it_.html ).
Not to mention the shameful laws enacted by the U.S. Congress, such as the Military Commissions Act. That particular act allows the President to throw anyone in prison, including U.S. citizens, without any judicial process whatsoever. So long as you're classified as an "enemy combatant," there's no requirement that a trial via military tribunal, or in civilian courts, ever take place.
Still, Judge Collins (who also was the first magistrate to invalidate any portion of the USA PATRIOT Act) represents an encouraging, albeit small, countertrend in the U.S. judiciary. Judge Collins represents someone willing to stand up to the President, even in the face of overwhelming public support for the War on Terror.
I hope more courageous jurists like Judge Collins step forward. They represent one of the last hopes of rescuing our republic from the scourge of totalitarianism.
MARK NESTMANN, Wealth Preservation and
Tax Consultant on behalf of The Sovereign Society
Phoenix AZ
assetpro@nestmann.com
www.nestmann.com
P.S. Now your property, your assets, and anything else you own can be seized in the name of the War on Terror. Learn how you can legally fight back.
posted by Bob at Friday, December 22, 2006
6 Comments:
"The order gives the president the authority to label groups "terrorists," and to seize their property, without any legal process, and give them no way to challenge the designations."
Or: The order gives Dawkins the authority to label buildings as "problem" without any legal process (no the city council hearing is a joke} and give them no way to challenge the designations.
"Judge Collins ruled that the order was too vague and infringed on the right of free association, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, any person or group could be named a "terrorist" under the President's authority for any reason. Or, as Judge Collins observed, "for no reason." ".
OR: The federal courts ruled that the order was too vague and infringed on the right of not only free association but Amendments 1, 4, 14 and 19 guaranteed by the US Constitution. Yep, any person, landlord or building, could be named a problem under Dawkins for any reason or no reason other than to line their pockets with TIF money and trickle the booty down to associates and their friends.
The city of St. Paul doesn't need an order letting them do anything, nor would they respect any order requiring them to respect anyones rights. They just do what they want without any regard to anyone's rights.
They order hits on property owners much like organized crime. no, exactly that way! They have their own Ways and Means Committee. It consists of thinking up Ways in which in which they can take property, and the means that are put into effect so that you can't get out from under them both by police present and bogus council hearings. Now that sounds pretty mean to me, not to mention a taking away of every victim involved civil rights.
CODE--COPS --PULL -- Weiner's
Sewer Gas, in a Disabled Native American's home.
Chuck Repke know and seen all, in Bill Dahn's home at 256 W. Morton St. in St.Paul, MN. 1996
I had some FREE work done on my home, It was by a Government sponsored Agency called Ramsey Action Program -- aka -- RAP in St.Paul.
They messed up my home so bad that even Jesse Ventura and his side kick -- Dean Barkley became sick in it.
YOU ASK ?
What were they doing in my home.
Getting me to change Political Parties, From Reform -- to -- Republican.
www.billdahn.com to see the movie of Jesse Ventura getting me to switch parties.
We all are people, but when we are treated lick Shit from the city of St.Paul.
We have RIGHTS in America.
It's called the American Disability Act -- aka -- ADA !
That is the Biggest BULL SHIT, in America.
Remember -- Bill Dahn Has His FOOT UP Every Body's BUTT.
Because, "I CAN" !
Bill Dahn is and always will be the ONE THAT Points The Finger, and it's NOT the INDEX FINGER !
Chris Cold Cut Coleman and and that other Council man ? or Woman--
Dave - the tune - Thune !
Billy Boy Dahn, Here !
Merry Chrismas to the GOOD PEOPLE.
So are you saying that Repke was in on the cover up of the bad insulation? That would suprise me considering his self rightousness all the time. Tell us more....we want dirt on Repke.
Post a Comment
<< Home