The Hard Truth

Journal of Political News & Constitutionalism

Archive for the ‘secret service’ Category

Homeland Security Sets up Suspicionless Checkpoints Along Roads in Washington State

leave a comment »

Seattle Indymedia Center
September 13, 2008


Homeland security has setup up 3 internal checkpoints on the Olympic Peninsula. These checkpoints are in addition to checkpoints at Washington Ferry docks and highway border crossings. According to the U.S. Border Patrol, it has a jurisdiction of about 100 miles from the border. This puts most of Washington state in an area where border checkpoints are authorized, including Seattle.













In August and again in the beginning of September, the Department of Homeland Security has set up suspicion-less checkpoints on the Washington peninsula. The checkpoints are in the town of Forks, at the west side of the Hood Canal bridge going east bound, and at the third near Discovery Bay on US 101. Forks is a timber town of 3,200 people that is 56 miles from the nearest ferry terminal connecting Washington to Canada. At the road checkpoints there and elsewhere, the border patrol ask drivers different types of questions to gauge their status in the U.S., including questions about citizenship. Please review this video to understand how to deal with this illegal check points:


You don’t have to answer Border Patrol’s questions. Ask if you are being detained.


At the end of August, about 60 people demonstrated against the Forks Border Patrol checkpoint. Edgar Ayala, a Forks High School athlete who graduated with honors in June, was arrested on August 20th at the Border Patrol checkpoint and deported to Mexico. Tanya Ward, one of the organizers of the protest, is a member of the Hoh tribe and told a reporter from the Penninsula Daily News that she felt that immigrants are treated with the same unfairness shown to Native Americans. She said, “I don’t think it’s right for them to be taken out of their homes when their children are here and they’re not doing anything wrong.”


If you are interested in protesting these illegal road blocks please contact me: ceakins at gmail dot com


I live in the Peninsula, in Kitsap county.

Obama Eligibility Challenges Still Alive; “President” Meets with Justices in Secret

with 3 comments

Posted: January 23, 2009
12:25 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

A lawyer working on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges the eligibility of President Obama is raising concerns over a meeting between the defendant in the case and the judges who are expected to review it.

The case is one of many brought before U.S. courts that allege Obama doesn’t meet the “natural born” requirement of the U.S. Constitution for the president. It’s one of about half a dozen that have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which already has declined to grant hearings to several cases.

Orly Taitz, whose case is scheduled to be heard tomorrow in a conference among justices – a private meeting at which they review cases and decide whether they should hold a hearing – confirmed on her website today that a supplemental brief in her arguments had been distributed.

But the website also reported she “had to explain … many of us citizens are also concerned about the eight out of nine justices meeting privately with Mr. Obama (while the cases are pending).”

The blog continued, “No reporters were allowed. No attorneys were invited on behalf of the plaintiffs. This causes many of us citizens to question the rules of judicial ethics and causes us to question the impartiality on behalf of the justices.”

The report said “quite a number of people” have raised their questions with their U.S. representatives over the issues.

According to a CBS report, Obama visited the Supreme Court before his inauguration at the invitation of Chief Justice John Roberts. The report described it as a protocol visit.

According to a separate published report, Obama and then-Vice President-elect Joe Biden met in a court conference room with Roberts and seven other justices for about 45 minutes.

The report said the only absent justice was Samuel Alito.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 215,000 others and sign the petition demanding proof of eligibility now!

The supplemental documents in the Taitz case cite an executive order concerning qualifications issued by President Bush Jan. 16.

“This action is seeking the mandate for the U.S. State Department, the FBI and the Director of the Personnel Department to seek the documents for verifying Obama’s legitimacy as president and also his citizenship of the United States,” the blog reported.

The Supreme Court document reveals that the Taitz case is scheduled for conference tomorrow, and her supplemental briefs have been distributed to the justices.

Taitz said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of the ruling. The Constitution requires a president to be 35. Her case raises the issue of Obama’s birthplace and citizenship status, which also are specified in the Constitution.

The lawsuits allege in various ways that Obama does not meet the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some allege his birth took place in Kenya, and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They argue Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time and would have handed down British citizenship.

There also are questions raised about Obama’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed and his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.

One case, handled by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, is seeking Obama’s school records from Occidental College, which could reveal if Obama attended class on aid intended for foreign students.

Another lawyer working on similar allegations, Philip J. Berg, has written to Congress seeking an investigation, while Taitz’s filings have been before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, said the issue isn’t going to disappear.

Others agreed.

“Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void,” argues a California case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a presidential candidate. “Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

WND twice has organized opportunities for readers to send FedEx letters to the Supreme Court, asking for consideration of the issue on its merits.

The most recent campaign generated 12,096 messages, following the earlier effort that resulted in 60,128 letters.

Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other details provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama despite lawsuits and public demands for release.

Meanwhile, a separate report has emerged in the Buffalo, N.Y., News about a woman who said she recalled being told about Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Barbara Nelson reported she was having a dinner with Dr. Rodney T. West, an obstetrician, when he discussed the birth of a baby boy to Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother.

She said she later taught Obama as a high school student in Hawaii.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Written by bkl1

January 26, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Obama Eligibility Challenges Continue

with one comment

Posted: January 18, 2009
12:05 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

Officials at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Calif., have been served with a demand to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980s because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national – in one of three fronts now established by those contesting the president-elect’s constitutional eligibility for the Oval Office.

The Supreme Court and Congress also both are being challenged to address the worries that Obama doesn’t meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution that the president be a “natural born” citizen.

WND has reported on a long list of legal cases raising questions over the issue, and several of those have reached the U.S. Supreme Court already. Justices have so far declined to give any of the cases full hearings on their merits, but another conference remains on the Supreme Court docket for Jan. 23 on the issue.

“If Obama is sworn in as president, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as president because he is ‘not qualified,'” said Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who has brought several cases to court. Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, indicated the issue isn’t going away.

Orly Taitz, a California lawyer whose dispute remains pending before the high court, agreed, noting that one of the hearings already is scheduled for the days following Obama’s inaugural on Tuesday.

Taitz said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of that ruling. The Constitution requires a president to be 35.

In one of the latest developments, Gary Kreep of theUnited States Justice Foundation petitioned Occidental College with a demand for its records concerning Obama.

“The gravamen of the petition is the question as to whether United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama, of Illinois, is eligible to serve as president of the United States pursuant to the requirements for that office in the United States Constitution,” he wrote. “The records sought may provide documentary evidence, and/or admissions by said defendant, as to said eligibility or lack thereof.”

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 200,000 others and sign the petition demanding proof of eligibility now!

College officials confirmed they had gotten the notice, but had not decided how to respond, a decision that may be removed from their hands because of the team of lawyers Obama has engaged to prevent such inquiries into his past.

“Senator Obama has filed responsive pleadings in this matter and is represented by counsel, and has the opportunity to object to this production, should he so desire,” the affidavit from Kreep said.

“Good cause exists for this production under Subpoena Duces Tecum, in that testimony will be elicited from the original records obtained through the witness named herein, and there is no other process available to secure said testimony,” he wrote.

The lawsuits allege in various ways Obama does not meet the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some allege his birth took place in Kenya, and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They argue Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time and would have handed down British citizenship.

There also are questions raised about Obama’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed and his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.

The lawsuit on which USJF is working was filed on behalf of presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others, and describes the potential damage an ineligible president could create.

“Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void,” argues a case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a presidential candidate. “Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

On his ObamaCrimes.com website, Berg sent his message directly to the U.S. Congress.

He’s asking in an open letter to members of Congress for congressional hearings “to determine the truth regarding qualifications of Barry Soetoro, otherwise known as Barack Hussein Obama…”

“As you must be aware, there are many unresolved questions concerning Soetoro/Obama’s status or lack thereof, as a ‘natural born’ American citizen, as required by ‘our’ U.S. Constitution,” he wrote.

He noted the failure by Congress to challenge Obama’s eligibility during the process through which the Electoral College vote was adopted.

“Because of your failure to ‘question’ the eligibility of Soetoro/Obama, we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis.’ Yes, a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ because Soetoro/Obama who appears not to be a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen is ‘ineligible’ under ‘our’ U.S. Constitution to serve as president,” he said.

He cited the document published on the Internet by Obama’s campaign, the “Certification of Live Birth,” as no more than an effort to “quash” questions. Other critics have noted the state of Hawaii granted such certifications to parents of children not born in the state at the time.

“Without truthful information concerning Soetoro/Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, ‘We the People’ have been injured,” he wrote.

Taitz took a different route, submitting to the U.S. Supreme Court a motion “to declare that by default, the president elect respondent Barack Obama has failed to qualify under [the] U.S. Constitution.”

“Does the burden of proof lie with the petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/president elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR does the [Constitution] place the burden of proof on the president-elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the president elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?”

Not only has the respondent, Obama, “failed to submit proofs … for any of the qualifications,” she wrote. “Respondent has hindered discovery.”

She argued that having Obama declared ineligible until he would provide documentation would “cause far less political trauma” than allowing his inauguration because it would uphold the constitution.

She also raised the issue of the concealment of Obama’s records.

“Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form ‘vault’ birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted,” she said. “Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.”

Her letter included a warning, too.

“Thirty-three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century by failing to uphold constitutional protections,” she said. “Petitioner humbly prays this Court evaluate the Petitioner’s case in context of how best to enforce restrictive qualifications for president to preserve the Constitution and Republic from tyranny.”

WND twice has organized opportunities for readers to send FedEx letters to the Supreme Court, asking for consideration of the issue on its merits.

The most recent campaign generated 12,096 messages, following the earlier effort that resulted in 60,128 letters.

Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other details provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama despite lawsuits and public demands for release.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

New World Order? Biden’s on Board!

leave a comment »

By Brian K. Lutes

 It is THE HARD TRUTH  that these United States of America are being, and have been, led down the primrose path to destruction by the very people we have elected. Face up to it!

 Many people have heard the term “New World Order” (NWO), but how many understand what it means?

 Unfortunately, many equate the term only with professional wrestling due to a fighting “tag team” duo named The New World Order. Others who know nothing of pro wrestling and have heard the term believe it is some crazy conspiracy theory about the United Nations taking over the world cooked up by goofy religious zealots.

 The New World Order is not a crazy theory. It is however, a conspiracy, and it most certainly does exist.

 In a nutshell, the NWO will be the culmination of actions that have been and are being taken by the political power-brokers of not only our country, but from around the world.

 In the NWO, there will be no sovereign nations. There will be no borders. There will be no paper or metal monies. There will be no U.S. Constitution or any of the God given rights it protects. And there will be absolutely no worshipping of Jesus Christ permitted.

 All rights will emanate from and be exercised at the will of a one world government. If there is any worshipping to be done, it is mother Earth that will be worshipped through the goddess of  nature, Gaia.

 The United Nations (UN) World Summit known as Earth Summit 2, officially called the Summit on Sustainable Development, was held in Johannesberg, South Africa on September 11, 2002  (The first Earth Summit was held in 1992 in Rio De Janeiro). At the Summit in Johannesberg the festivities opened with children forming a human tower (of Babel?) and singing beneath a huge globe; the Earth Charter ( visit www.johannesbergsummit.org)  was released as the new 10 Commandments.

 Those that are implementing the NWO do not believe that the majority of people on this planet are not capable of adequately governing themselves and that they have a divine right to rule the world.

 The problem the would be rulers have is that the people they believe can’t govern themselves outnumber them and they don’t want to surrender themselves to a small group of rulers that will control every aspect of their lives from far, far away land.

 So if the people who can’t govern themselves won’t consent to a change in world order, the change will have to be put upon them by stealth. This is already being done!

 There are many “secret societies” in our world; there always have been. (see The Secret Societies Handbook by Michael Bradley printed exclusively for Barnes & Noble, Inc by Gusto Company AS (2004)). The people within these societies are the installers of the NWO. They meet in secret, decide what needs to be done, and then go back to their public lives and jobs and implement the decisions that were agreed to in the secret meetings. The same thing is done in small town America by the members of the local Rotary & or the Chamber of Commerce.

 One of the first secret societies to admit to aims for control of a world order was The Order of Illuminati, a Luciferian society founded by Adam Weishaupt on May 1, 1776. Weishaupt is quoted as saying: ” Do you realize sufficiently what it means to rule – to rule in a secret society? Not only over the lesser or more important of the populace, but over the best men, over men of all ranks, nations, and religions, to rule without external force, to unite them indissolubly, to breathe one spirit and soul into them, men distributed over all parts of the world. The Order will rule the world. Every member therefore becomes a ruler. we all think of ourselves as qualified to rule. It is therefore an alluring thought both to good & bad men. Therefore the order will spread.”

 Another secret society is the Order of Skull & Bones .This society is rooted at Yale University and its members include George H. W. Bush (GWHB), the 41st President of these United States, U.S. Senator John Kerry, former Presidential candidate, and George W. Bush (GWB), the 43rd President of these United States. The book referenced above, The Secret Societies Handbook, has on page 104, a picture of GHWB carrying GWB on his shoulders on the campus of Yale University.

 The interesting point about this society is that it is obviously non partisan, the Bushes are Republican & Kerry is a Democrat. But in reality all of the groups pushing the NWO are bi-partisan. It doesn’t matter what political party they are in. All that matters is that the NWO continues moving forward.

 This brings me to Senator Joe Biden. Our, as of this writing, current Vice President elect. I hear so many people saying they voted for Biden & Obama because they aren’t like President Bush; they’re for the little people. And, they actually believe this non-sense.

 Well, please allow me to again to slap them in the face with a hard dose of reality.

 On April 23, 1992 on page A 15 of The Wall Street Journal there appeared an Opinion piece entitled “How I learned to Love the New World Order” authored by none other than that champion of the little people, Joe Biden.

 In his article Biden describes himself as a solid “internationalist” who believes in the doctrine of “collective security” under the “U.N. Charter”. He goes on to say that U.S. tax dollars that were allocated to the Pentagon for the U.S. military should have been diverted to the UN  to meet the more urgent needs of sustaining democracy in the Soviet Union and supporting UN troops in Yugoslavia, Cambodia, & El Salvador.

 Did you get that? Biden said that U.S. tax dollars that were allocated to the Pentagon for the U.S. military should have been diverted to the UN to meet the more urgent needs of sustaining democracy in the Soviet Union and supporting UN troops in Yugoslavia, Cambodia, & El Salvador.

 A little more than a year after he wrote the article in the Wall Street Journal, July 14, 1993, Biden introduced Senate Resolution 112 calling upon President Clinton to initiate discussions to establish a standing UN Army.

 Under Biden’s proposal to elevate the UN to a position over these United States, US military bases and facilities would be made available to train UN Soldiers and the President of these United States would not have to obtain the authorization of Congress to make American troops, facilities, or other assistance available to the UN Security Council when they requested such assistance. Such an act obviously renders our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, totally irrelevant.

 Joe Biden, the friend of the little people, is totally on board with the New World Order.

More Gun Shows = Fewer Murders

with one comment

World Net Daily

Jose Farah

P osted: December 29, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
 

 

 

© 2008 

 

I’ll bet that’s a headline you’ve never seen before.

You will probably never see it, again.

But it’s the truth.

With a new Congress and a new president taking office next month, you are bound to hear more calls for closing the so-called “gun-show loophole,” that permits American citizens in many states to buy guns without ridiculous and counterproductive waiting periods.

There will be an all-out effort to renew the slow, plodding, incremental, long-term goal of banning and restricting the sale of as many firearms as possible. It will likely start with gun shows – one of the easiest targets of the gun-grabbers.

They will cite all kinds of bogus statistics to support their claims that gun shows spell nothing but death and destruction.

What they won’t cite, however, is a groundbreaking study of the impact of gun shows on homicides. They can’t – because it shows just the opposite of what they claim to be true.

Mark Duggan and Randi Hjalmarsson of the University of Maryland and Brian A. Jacob of the University of Michigan teamed up to examine the evidence in a scientific study of the impact of gun shows on murder and suicide and accidental deaths.

What they found is shocking because it supports the headline above.

They looked at 3,417 gun shows in two very different states – Texas and California – during an 11-year period. And they examined vital statistics data on suicides, homicides and accidental gun deaths in the weeks following them.

What were the results?

“We find a sharp decline in the number of gun homicides in the weeks immediately following a gun show,” they concluded. Furthermore, in Texas they found “gun shows reduce the number of gun homicides by 16 in the average year.”

Once again, here’s hard evidence of the theory that more guns equals less crime. And it shouldn’t shock us. It only does because we’ve been so conditioned to accepting the illogic of the gun-grabbers that states the opposite as fact – without any evidence to support it.

Think about it.

If you are a criminal, are you more likely to target someone who is armed or unarmed?

The answer is as obvious as the .45 on my desk.

(Story continues below)

   

Criminals seek out victims who are not going to fight back or offer resistance, let alone shoot them.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens means they are less likely to become victims.

Anyone who disagrees with this simple, straightforward logic should be required to post a sign on the outside of their home or office that says: “Gun-free zone.”

So far, I have not seen even one private citizen invite criminals into their home with such a ridiculous sign. Instead, governments post them around schools!

But now you know the facts – as inconvenient as they might be to the incoming administration and the new Democrat-stacked Congress.

There’s only one thing that will prevent them from taking away your Second Amendment-guaranteed right to self-defense: the truth.

You will be hearing a lot of lies about firearms in the months ahead.

You need to be armed with the facts – as well as your trusty old firearms.

And you need to be prepared to fight back against attacks on what may well be your first freedom.

Remember, every totalitarian regime in the history of the world has succeeded in maintaining power by first disarming the citizenry.

Don’t let it happen in the USA. Don’t accede to any more efforts to ban classifications of firearms because they look like “assault weapons.” Don’t accept any more restrictions on gun shows, now that you know they actually reduce gun homicides. Don’t believe any statistics you hear from Barack Obama or the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate about the need to reduce the availability of firearms or to make them “safer.”

Get ready to protect your constitutional rights across the board, because they are about to come under fire from the worst assault weapon ever devised, a real weapon of Mass Destruction and Mass Distortion – Big Government.

Arrest for Obama Threats Leads to Questions

leave a comment »

By Brian K. Lutes

The recent arrest of a North Carolina man for allegedly threatening to kill Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (please see “NC Man Arrested, Jailed for Supposedly Threatening Obama” posted 9-23-08) has led me to ask a few questions and make a few observations.

Q: Just where does the US Secret service get the authority to protect “Major” presidential candidates?

 A: Section 3056, Sub-Section A7 of Title 18 of the US Code (18 USC 3056 A7) says: “Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the US Secret Service is authorized to protect the following persons: “Major” presidential & vice presidential candidates within 120 days of  a general presidential election.

Q: Where does the US Secret Service get the authority to arrest someone for “threatening” a “Major” presidential candidate?

A: Section 3056, sub-section b1 of Title 18 of the US Code (18 USC 3056 b1) says: “Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security the US Secret Service is authorized to detect & arrest any person who violates” certain sections of the US Code.

Q: Who decides what candidates for the office of President are “Major” candidates for the purposes of Secret Service protection?

A: Section 3056, Sub-section A7 of Title 18 of the US Code (18 USC 3056 A7) says:”Major Presidential & Vice Presidential candidates will be identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House, the Majority & Minority Leaders of the Senate, & 1 additional member selected by the above listed members of the committee. * This section also says that the advisory committee shall NOT be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 USC Appendix 2) which requires, among other things: that “Congress and the public should be kept informed with respect to the number, purpose membership, activities, and costs of committees.”

Q: What can happen to someone who interferes with the Secret Service while they are protecting the President, Vice President, other person?

A: Section 3056, Sub-section d of Title 18 of the US Code (18 USC 3056d) says: “Whoever knowingly & willfully obstructs, resists, or interferes with a federal law enforcement agent engaged in the performance of the protective functions authorized by this section or section 1752 of this title shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.

Q: Can the Secret Service order me to stay out of a particular building or area of a building or grounds?

A: Yes. Section 1752, Sub-section A1 of Title 18 of the US Code (18 USC 1752 a1) says: “it shall be unlawful for any person or group of people to willfully or knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret service is, or will be, visiting.

Q: Can the US Secret Service give me a traffic ticket?

A: No; At least not in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Price,543 Pa. 403, 672 A.2d 280 (1996), held that federal agents are not authorized under either state or federal law nor under common law to make warrant-less arrests for traffic or for misdemeanor crimes. Federal agents are “authorized to make warrant-less arrests only where he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed or is committing any felonycognizable under the laws of the United States (Federal)” as per section 3052 of Title 18 of the US Code(18 USC 3052).

Written by bkl1

September 24, 2008 at 5:51 pm

NC Man Arrested, Jailed For Supposedly Threatening Obama

leave a comment »

A Charlotte, NC man has been arrested & jailed for supposedly threatening to kill Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

According to the federal criminal complaint (case # 3:08-mj-164) filed on August 12, 2008 at the US Federal Courthouse for the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte by US Secret Service Special Agent Sean Leddy, Jerry Michael Blanchard, 48, of 1227 Flat Rock Road in Charlotte was charged with violating  Section 879 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 USC 879) which makes it illegal to make “Threats Against Former Presidents & Certain Other Persons.”

According to the criminal complaint Blanchard was arrested after the Secret Service conducted two seperate investigations into threats allegedly made against Obama by Blanchard.

In the first alleged instance of threats made by Blanchard, Special Agent Leddy states that his office was contacted by a male who is identified in the criminal complaint only as “CW-2”, this term usually means confidential witness #2, on July 15, 2008 after “CW-2” and an associate were eating breakfast at a Waffle House restaurant on Pineville-Matthews Road in Charlotte when they were approached by a man later identified as Blanchard who asked “CW-2” if they had met before because “CW-2” looked familiar to him.

“CW-2” states that a conversation between the three individuals ensued and Blanchard stated “I’m worth $50 million dollars, I have a plane and can get a jet…Obama and his wife are never going to make it into the White House… he needs to be taken out and I can do it in a heartbeat and I might anyway…that man will never know what hit him…I hate that man with a passion…I just may do that, I’ve got the money and the clout to do that…”

The other individual in the conversation, identified only as “CW-1” claims to have heard Blanchard state that it was his intention to purchase a .40 caliber Ruger pistol from Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte.

Both the “CWs” stated, according to the complaint, that Blanchard told them he was a Certified Public Accountant and that “CW-1” asked Blanchard for his name & telephone # prior to his leaving the Waffle House ‘under the guise’ that “CW-1” was looking for a new accountant and might want to hire Blanchard and Blanchard provided “CW-1” with his name & cell phone #.

Special Agent Leddy goes on to state that he later showed both “CW-1 & 2” a photograph of Jerry M. Blanchard and both individuals positively identified Blanchard as the man who made the threatening statements about Obama to them. Leddy does not say in the complaint where he obtained photographs of Blanchard, but Blanchard does have several arrests in Mecklenburg County, NC for drunk driving and driving without a license and the photographs could have been uncovered through public records searches.

Leddy states that he located and interviewed Blanchard, the complaint does not state where or when,  and Blanchard denied making any threats toward Obama, but that Blanchard did tell him that he was considering purchasing a .40 caliber Ruger for self-defense purposes,  and that he (Blanchard) stated that he believed Obama to be the “Anti-Christ” as prophesied in the Bible’s Book of Revelation.

Leddy also states that he informed Blanchard that it was a violation of federal law to threaten Obama and that Blanchard acknowledged that he understood and again denied making any threats to Obama.

In the second alleged instance of threats made by Blanchard, Leddy states in the complaint that on July 28, 2008 his office was contacted by an employee of the Crown Plaza Hotel, identified only as “CW-3”, in Charlotte who reported that he went into the lobby restroom of the hotel around 8:45 AM and overheard a man talking on a cell phone who said: “I’ll get a .40 cal Ruger and a .50 cal sniper rifle and take care of it myself. I can get a $3,000 laser scope that will let me take the center out of a quarter from 2 miles away. Somebody has got to do it” and “we both know that Obama is the Anti-Christ.”

“CW-3” told Leddy, according to the complaint, that after overhearing the man on the cell phone he went into the hotel lobby and waited for the man to exit the restroom and observed the man stay in the lobby, still on the phone, for 15 to 20 minutes. “CW-3” said that another hotel employee told him that the man on the phone had been “thrown out” of the hotel due to intoxication at a July 4, 2008 party and that the employee remembered the man’s name as Blanchard.

“CW-3” stated that he approached the man and asked if he could help him prompting the man to leave the hotel. “CW-3” said that a short time later the man approached him outside the hotel and asked if he could speak with him. During the conversation the man, according to “CW-3”, said: “I have an application for a .40 caliber Ruger and a .50 caliber sniper rifle. I will get a $3,000 laser scope for that rifle and I can take the center out of a quarter from 2 miles away” and “I believe Obama is planning to outlaw the ownership of firearms and said he had filed a $50 million lawsuit against the federal government.”

Leddy stated in the complaint that “CW-3” identified a photograph of Blanchard as the man he heard make the threatening statements against Obama.

Leddy states that he has interviewed several former colleagues and “other individuals with personal connections to Blanchard” that have confirmed Blanchard has developed a serious alcohol abuse problem and that he has demonstrated unusual behavior since recently sustaining serious head injuries and that he finds the information provided by witnesses and “other individuals” to be accurate and that he has corroborated “much of the information by reviewing various documents including criminal background checks and ‘open source databases.”

Mr. Blanchard was incarcerated in the Mecklenburg County jail on August 4, 2008 at 7:48 PM and released into Federal custody on September 23, 2008 at 9:20 AM. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons web-site Blanchard was “in transit” as of this writing.

Please see my additional articles on this subject.

Written by bkl1

September 23, 2008 at 6:24 pm