Tag Archives: Lawsuit

YouTube Bans Creators From Questioning 2020 Presidential Election; Bans Investigating Possible Fraud

YouTube bans creators from questioning the 2020 Presidential election; bans investigating possible fraud, and yet massive questions remain about the integrity of the vote in multiple states. According to the Thomas More Societies Amistad Project, there are hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots which were cast in as many as 5 states. We break it down in the video below.

BREAKING: Texas Files Lawsuit Asks SCOTUS To Block 4 States From Participating in Electoral College – powered by ise.media


Learn about our new media platform project, ISE Media: https://ISE.Media

Learn how to invest in our project: https://wefunder.com/ise.media

NEW: Avoid big tech censorship and receive reports from me sent to your mobile device. Send a text to: 1-404-467-5809

BREAKING: German Lawsuit Against “Fact-Checkers” Would Force Them To Prove Legitimacy of C0VID Tests

A German lawsuit against “Fact Checkers” would force them to prove the legitimacy of Covid tests.

Check out our sponsor for this episode, Createtailwind.com, and click here to see our 25 minute interview that explains how to secede from the banking system.


Learn about our new media platform project, ISE Media: https://ISE.Media

Learn how to invest in our project: https://wefunder.com/ise.media

NEW: Avoid big tech censorship and receive reports from me sent to your mobile device. Send a text to: 1-404-467-5809


Monsanto Facing Wave of Lawsuits After WHO Cancer Study

Monsanto Company, one of the world’s leading Agri-chemical companies, has had a difficult year regarding public relations. Not only has Monsanto been the focus of two studies by the World Health Organization which found its products are “possibly” and “probably” carcinogenic, but the company has been forced to cut 12% of its employees due to declining stock value. Monsanto’s problems only seem to be increasing as personal injury lawyers are now looking for plaintiffs who have been harmed by the corporations products.

Reuters reported:

“The latest lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Delaware Superior Court by three law firms representing three plaintiffs.

The lawsuit is similar to others filed last month in New York and California accusing Monsanto of long knowing that the main ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, was hazardous to human health. Monsanto “led a prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general population that Roundup was safe,” the lawsuit states.”

Monsanto continues to deny the charges against its products. Company spokewoman Charla Lord told Reuters, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. The most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product contradict the claims in the suits.”

The California lawsuit was filed by 58-year-old Enrique Rubio, a former farm worker in California, Texas, and Oregon. The Anti Media reported on his case:

“One of his main duties included spraying fields with RoundUp and other herbicides. Mr. Rubio maintained these tasks until he was diagnosed with bone cancer in 1995, the lawsuit states.

Attorney Robin Greenwald, a representative in the Enrique Rubio case, says she believes additional lawsuits will emerge because RoundUp is the most widely-used herbicide and the WHO statements support ongoing concerns surrounding glyphosate.”

Another lawsuit filed against Monsanto comes from 63-year-old New Yorker Judy Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald claims that her cancer was caused by exposure to RoundUp when she worked in a horticulture company during the 1990s. Judy Fitzgerald was diagnosed with leukemia in 2012.

In March of this year Truth In Media reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.
The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in biotech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. Glyphosate is only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer, however. In June the IARC also found that the weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans.

The IARC reviewed the latest scientific research before deciding to classify 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” a step below “probably carcinogenic.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been receiving pressure to restrict or prohibit the use of 2,4-D, while some farm group and pesticide industry groups say the chemical does not need any more restriction.

Of particular interest with the recent findings is the fact that in April the EPA approved the use of Dow AgroScience’s Enlist Duo herbicide which contains 2,4-D and glyphosate. Enlist Duo is part of a partnership between Monsanto and Dow known as the Enlist Weed Control system.

Monsanto has not released a statement on whether or not they will also convene a panel to study the IARC’s claims about 2,4-D.

In 2013, Ben Swann examined several controversies surrounding Monsanto in a Truth in Media episode, seen below.


Trump Threatens Pro-Paul, Cruz Conservative Group With Multi-million Dollar Lawsuit

September 23, 2015– On Tuesday, the campaign of billionaire reality TV star Donald Trump sent a letter to the media detailing a multi-million dollar legal threat against Club For Growth, one of Washington’s most conservative political groups, for libel.

Last week, Club for Growth announced it was spending upwards of $1 million in Iowa on two attack ads that accuse Trump, the current GOP front-runner, of wanting to raise taxes, as well as referencing his past support of socialized healthcare, Hillary Clinton, and the use of eminent domain for corporations to steal private property from property owners.

Insisting he only supported a one-time tax increase on the super wealthy 15 years ago and does not hold that belief anymore, Trump repudiated the claims, and says they aren’t true.

“This is the very definition of libel,” said Trump.

However, less than one month ago, Trump suggested raising taxes.

In fact, Trump’s suggestion to raise taxes were the catalyst for praise from the far left, including progressive liberal U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Keynesian economist Paul Krugman.

“Simply stated, your Attack Ad is not only completely disingenuous, but replete with outright lies, false, defamatory attacks and destructive statements and downright fabrications which you fully know to be untrue, thereby exposing you and your so-called ‘club’ to liability for damages and other tortious harm,” Trump’s legal counsel Alan Garten wrote to Glub for Growth.

[RELATED: Post-Debate Poll Shows New GOP Frontrunner Has Emerged]

In response to Trump’s threatened lawsuit, Club for Growth issued a press release titled “Club for Growth Action Responds to Trump’s Whining.”

“Tough guy Donald Trump starts whining when his liberal record is revealed,” McIntosh said.

[pull_quote_center]Trump has advocated higher taxes numerous times over many years, just like he’s advocated for universal health care, the Wall Street bailout, and expanded government powers to take private property. Trump’s own statements prove that our ads are accurate. They will continue to run. We suggest that Donald grow up, stop whining, and try to defend his liberal record.[/pull_quote_center]

Club for Growth describes itself as the leading free-enterprise advocacy group in the nation according to its website. The group has spent millions supporting candidates like libertarian-leaning Congressmen Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), as well as United States Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who are both running for President alongside Trump.

In fact, Club for Growth just recently endorsed Paul’s proposed presidential tax plan. “Senator Rand Paul is not just a reliable vote in Congress for pro-growth policies; he is a true champion of economic freedom,” said Club for Growth in their 2016 presidential candidate profile of Paul.

[PETITION: A Joint Town Hall with Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders]

Trump’s threat has little chance of success for two reasons. First, because he went on record weeks ago and suggested raising taxes. Second, because libel cases are incredibly hard to win in the world of American politics. In fact, political entities (candidates or groups) have a legal right to lie in political ads. Therefore, even if Trump hadn’t suggested raising taxes only weeks ago, he’d still likely lose his case in court. Even if he won, Supreme Court precedent would make it virtually impossible for Trump to collect any damages.

FOLLOW MICHAEL LOTFI ON Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn.

Upcoming Trial May Reveal Saudi Financing of 9/11 Terrorists

A former investigator with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and former attorney with the Justice Department will likely testify soon about their role in the 9/11 Commission and information related to Saudi financing of the terrorists.

Former FBI investigator Michael Jacobson and former Justice Department attorney Dana Lesemann both investigated leads connecting Saudi royalty to the attacks. While working with the 9/11 Commission they also uncovered evidence linking terrorist activity and the Saudi Embassy in Washington and the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

The New York Post reported:

“During a July 30 court hearing, lawyers for 9/11 victims’ families and insurers revealed that the staffers’ most serious allegations against the Saudis were stricken from the final draft of the 9/11 Commission report as well.

“They were removed at the 11th hour by the senior staff,” plaintiffs’ attorney Sean Carter of Cozen O’Connor said, explaining that the decision was a “political matter.”

Carter said that the staff investigators “felt they had documented a direct link between the Saudi government and the Sept. 11 plot based on the explosive material they had uncovered concerning the activities of Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar al-Bayoumi.”‘

The lawsuit claims that two of the Saudi hijackers were funded through the Saudi embassy and consulate via Thumairy, who was working as a Saudi religious cleric and diplomat in Los Angeles, and Bayoumi, who was working for the Saudi Arabian civil aviation authority in San Diego.

The Post reports that the judge will decide whether or not to dismiss the case based on Saudi immunity or let the lawsuit from the 9/11 victims’ families continue. The decision should come within 60 to 90 days.

The Saudi Connection

In early April TruthInMedia reported that Saudi Arabia asked a New York City judge to reject another lawsuit from the families of the 9/11 victims. Lawyers representing Saudi Arabia filed papers in a Manhattan federal court claiming that no evidence exists linking the nation to the attacks. The family members of the 9/11 victims point to testimony from so-called “20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui.

Lawyers representing the Saudi Kingdom called Moussaoui’s comments “colorful but immaterial hearsay statements.” Moussaoui was previously found to be a paranoid schizophrenic by a psychologist testifying in his trial.

In late March the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report that attempts to discredit a previous report that hinted at connections between a Saudi family in Prestencia, Florida and the 9/11 hijackers. The FBI 9/11 Review Commission told Congress that a 2002 report from the FBI “was poorly written and wholly unsubstantiated.”

An agent with the bureau originally found that the Saudi family left in a hurry two weeks before 9/11, leaving behind cars, furniture, clothes, and other items. The information was revealed in a 2010 Freedom of Information Act request which found that an unidentified family member was a student at the same flight school that two of accused 9/11 hijackers attended.

The FBI 9/11 Review Commission largely ignored any evidence of Saudi involvement. The New York Post notes, “The review panel highlighted one local FBI report generated from the investigation that said Abdulaziz and Anoud al-Hijji, the prominent Saudi couple who “fled” their home, had “many connections” to “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.”

The is only the latest attempt to hold the Saudi royalty accountable. A previous lawsuit from the families was rejected when a judge found that Saudi Arabia was protected because of sovereign immunity. The decision was reversed by a federal appeals court and the families continue their fight.

Despite the denials from Saudi officials, former Senator Bob Graham said he is convinced the Saudi government funded “at least some of the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.” Graham is the former co-chairman of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into the attacks. He recently told the New York Times that he was not giving up his pursuit of finding out who was funding the 9/11 attacks.

Lawsuit Alleges Jail Guards Allowed To Rape Women In NYC Prison

By Casey Harper

A new lawsuit alleges rampant sexual abuse at an all women’s jail facility in New York.

A Rikers Island corrections officer and the city of New York face a federal lawsuit from two female inmates alleging that the guard was allowed to repeatedly rape them and that the city didn’t do enough to stop it, CNN reports.

The class action suit filed Tuesday by two women, identified only as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, claims that 8 corrections officers total were involved in sexually abusing inmates at the all-female Rose M. Singer Center.

The women claim the rampant sexual abuse was known by many but not stopped. Jane Doe 2 says she reported the rapes to a mental health professional but nothing was done. The suit also claims that one woman was impregnated by her rapist.

The officer allegedly took the women to areas out of the view of security cameras and timed it so supervisors would not be around.

When one inmate reported that she was raped, the officer allegedly let other inmates out of their cells to go torment the woman. He also allegedly threatened the family of one woman outside the jail.

The suit cited a 2012 Department of Justice survey which says 5.9 percent of inmates at the Rose M. Singer Center claim they were sexually abused by staff.

“Sexual violence is at record proportions in DOC, and rape and other sexual abuse of women are endemic at the Rose M. Singer Center,” Seymour W. James, the attorney-in-chief of The Legal Aid Society, told CNN.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has said he wants to reduce the jail’s population by clearing the backlog of state court cases. As of March, 400 people had been in the jail for over two years without being convicted of a crime.

Follow Casey on Twitter and like him on Facebook


Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

BREAKING: Michael Brown’s Parents File Civil Lawsuit Against City Of Ferguson

At a press conference on Thursday, the parents of Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was shot and killed by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9, 2014, announced that they have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city of Ferguson, former police chief Thomas Jackson, and former police officer Darren Wilson.

Reuters reported that the Brown family is seeking “unspecified punitive damages, $75,000 in compensation and changes in policing,” and the lawsuit requests a court order “prohibiting the use of police techniques that demean, disregard, or underserve its African-American population.

During Thursday’s press conference, the attorneys representing Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr. said pursuing the civil lawsuit will lead to new evidence that will show that Wilson should have been indicted and held responsible for Brown’s death.

The attorneys said that this lawsuit is a way to “challenge the police officers who kill people of color,” and they used the recent examples of shooting victims such as Walter Scott, and Tamir Rice, to highlight the fact that “the standard police narrative is contradicted by the objective evidence” in many cases.

USA Today reported that the lawsuit alleges “Wilson violated Brown’s civil rights through a deprivation of his right to unlawful detention and the use of excessive and deadly force,” and it accuses both the city of Ferguson and former chief Jackson of “failing to hire, train, supervise, retain, and conduct a fair and impartial investigation, alleging the police department had a custom or policy of negligently hiring and retaining officers, failing to property train and/or supervise officers in the use of deadly force.

On March 4, the Department of Justice announced that it declined to indict Wilson with any civil rights violations in the shooting that killed Michael Brown on August 9, 2014. Both the initial shooting, and the decision not to indict Wilson led to protests and riots throughout the city of Ferguson.

Michael Brown’s parents originally announced that they would file the lawsuit during a press conference on March 5. During that conference, their lawyer Anthony Gray, maintained the fact that they have felt from the very beginning that “Officer Darren Wilson did not have to shoot and kill Mike Brown, Jr. in broad daylight in the manner that he did, that he had other options available to him.”

Just days before the announcement was made that Wilson would not be indicted, the DOJ released a report, which revealed that the police department in Ferguson, Missouri, exercised discrimination against the black community by using excessive force, issuing minor citations and making unnecessary traffic stops.

Michael Brown’s Parents Will File Lawsuit Against City of Ferguson, Darren Wilson

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice announced that it will not charge Darren Wilson, a white police officer from Ferguson, Missouri, with any civil rights violations in the shooting that killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager on August 9, 2014.

Brown’s parents, Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr., have confirmed that they will pursue a wrongful death lawsuit against both Wilson and the city of Ferguson.

Anthony Gray, one of the attorneys representing the Brown family, spoke at a press conference on Thursday, and maintained the fact that the Brown family has felt from the very beginning that “Officer Darren Wilson did not have to shoot and kill Mike Brown, Jr. in broad daylight in the manner that he did, that he had other options available to him.”

“We are officially in the process of formulating a civil case that we anticipate will be filed very shortly on behalf of the family,” Gray said. “In our case, we plan to show and outline pretty much the same evidence; however, you will get a more clearer, a more accurate of what took place that day.”

Darryl Parks, another attorney representing the Brown family, said that the family is not surprised by DOJ’s findings, and that they were only choosing to file a lawsuit now, because they did not want to get in the way of the DOJ’s ongoing investigation before, and they are now “entering a different phase of this action.”

As previously reported, the DOJ’s decision not to charge Wilson with any civil rights violations in the shooting that killed Brown, comes at the same time as a report from the department, which revealed that the Ferguson police department exercised discrimination against the black community by using excessive force, issuing minor citations and making unnecessary traffic stops.

Federal law enforcement officials told the Associated Press that upon investigation, they found that 88 percent of the time use of excessive force was documented by Ferguson police, it was being used against a black individual, and that out of the city’s 53 police officers, only three were black.

Lawsuit: Cop Choked Woman Until She Went Limp During Forced Blood Extraction

24-year-old prior high school valedictorian and misdemeanor driving while intoxicated suspect Caroline Callaway is suing the City of Austin, Travis County, the Austin Police Department, the Travis County Sheriff’s Department, Austin Police officers Patrick Oborski and Sergeant Adam Johnson, Pro-Touch Nurses, and Pro-Touch Nurses employee Shannon Ramsey-Graham for unspecified damages after the lawsuit’s defendants allegedly brutalized her, causing injuries to her neck, post-traumatic stress disorder, and potentially inflicting permanent nerve damage, during a forced blood extraction associated with a Feb. 4, 2013 DWI stop. Callaway says, according to Courthouse News Service, that the incident forced her to face medical bills, pain and suffering, embarrassment, lost wages, humiliation, indignity, emotional injuries, and legal fees. Her lawsuit claims that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated, that police committed assault and battery and used excessive force, and that Pro-Touch Nurses employees were negligent in their duties and committed medical malpractice.

The Austin Chronicle notes that Callaway is being represented in the suit by high-profile defense attorney Daphne Silverman, who is known for handling civil cases for West Point graduate Antonio Buehler, founder of the police accountability group Peaceful Streets Project. Buehler was wrongfully arrested and allegedly brutalized on New Years Day of 2012 after he asked police to stop assaulting a female passenger who had been riding in a car with a DUI suspect.

During Callaway’s Feb 4, 2013 police encounter in which she was charged with misdemeanor DWI based on blood test results, she refused to take a breathalyzer and was transported, rather than to a hospital, to the Travis County Jail for a forced blood extraction. Prior to arriving, she informed officers that she suffers from anxiety for which her doctor had prescribed medication. Upon arrival at the jail, officers strapped her into a chair in a padded room, which triggered her anxiety and caused her to tremble. Though she was not actively resisting, officers allegedly took aggressive measures to keep her still in response to her involuntary trembling and placed a Tranzport Hood over her head, which made it difficult for her to breathe. The first attempt at an extraction went awry as the nurse lost control of the needle and spilled Callaway’s blood on one of the officers on the scene.

Courthouse News Service notes that the lawsuit states, “(D)efendants continued the abuse determined to take Ms. Callaway’s blood. In order to stop Ms. Callaway from trembling, one of the officers used choke hold pressure points on her neck, until her body went limp. Defendant Ramsey-Graham stabbed Ms. Callaway again while Ms. Callaway was limp. When the officer released her neck, Ms. Callaway gasped for air. She could not see because there was a bag over her head, but she felt the weight of a boot in the crook of her arm, which, along with the rest of her body, was still tied to the chair. Ms. Callaway was suspected of committing a misdemeanor.”

Callaway’s attorney Silverman says that police policies should change such that officers are required to conduct blood draws at a sanitary medical facility, and the lawsuit claims that the extraction was performed in an “improper manner without following the medical profession’s commonly recognized procedures for safe and sanitary blood draws.”

Callaway is set to face her DWI charge in court in April of this year. Courthouse News Service notes that the City of Austin claims that it has not yet received paperwork on the pending excessive force and civil rights lawsuit. The Austin Chronicle is reporting that the Travis County Sheriff’s Department and Pro-Touch Nurses did not respond to a request for a comment on the case. Callaway hopes that her case will cause officials nationwide to examine forced blood-draw policies.

Exclusive: Jesse Ventura Says American Sniper “Falls Short in Honor Department”

Washington D.C.- “One must not be a liar to have honor, which means that Navy SEAL Chris Kyle falls short on the honor department,” said former Minnesota Governor and SEAL Jesse Ventura in an exclusive interview with Ben Swann.

Swann talked to Ventura about the stunning success of the movie American Sniper, which has taken in over $200 million dollars in its first two weeks.

In an interview focusing on the controversy surrounding the movie “American Sniper,” Ventura explained why he felt he needed to sue over Chris Kyle’s claim that he punched out the former Governor and why after winning that suit, he is now suing again. Ventura is now suing the publisher Harper Collins for enriching themselves off the story for which a federal judge said there was “substantial evidence” was fabricated.

Darren Wilson Grand Juror Sues Prosecutor For The Right To Speak

Washington, D.C.- A grand juror in the Darren Wilson case is suing the St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch for the right to speak out about the grand jury proceedings. The juror says that McCulloch and his staff have “mischaracterized” the grand jury proceedings.

The grand juror, referred to only as “Grand Juror Doe” in the lawsuit, takes issue with how McCulloch characterized the case. McCulloch released evidence presented to the grand jury and publicly discussed the case after the grand jury decided not to indict Wilson, then a Ferguson police officer, in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American.

According to the lawsuit, “The current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges.”

The grand jurors are under a permanent gag order unless a court grants them the right to speak out about the case.

Meanwhile, in New York, a hearing was postponed on Monday that would allow the the grand jury proceedings in the Eric Garner case to be released to the public.

In the video above, Ben Swann talks about the cases.

Legislator’s open letter to Obama: Welcome to Rocky Top, We’ll See You In Court

DRESDEN, Tenn., December 9, 2014–

President Obama,

Welcome back to Rocky Top. Polls across the State of Tennessee have consistently indicated strong opposition to amnesty; especially unilateral, executive amnesty which you have chosen to force upon an unwilling populace.  While I am sure you will be greeted with a warm welcome at Mayor Dean’s Casa Azafran Center, I want to ensure that the voice of millions of Tennesseans, which your recent executive order will undoubtedly disenfranchise, is heard. This is why I have initiated a lawsuit against your administration, based on this aforementioned unconstitutional action, in the Tennessee General Assembly.

Mr. President, let me be clear: my opposition isn’t necessarily about immigration, and it’s not about party politics. My opposition is deeply rooted in principle and my constant effort to maintain the delicate balance of power; a separation of powers which has served our nation well for many, many years.

You do not have the power to commandeer state resources to fulfill your roughshod and unwelcome plans for immigration. Not even Congress has that power, as the Supreme Court of the United States has made this explicitly clear in more than 180 years of precedent. The most recent Court decision holding this doctrine being the ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius (Obamacare). Here is an excerpt from the majority opinion to refresh your memory:

“For this reason, ‘the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.’ New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.”

-But you already knew that.

While many, including myself, maintain that your executive order is illegal, some disagree. After all, “Bush did it!” Let’s say the Court does decide to grant the Executive Branch even more power by upholding your executive action as a constitutionally legitimate power. If your executive order is deemed the law of the land, then such laws are not allowed to mandate state implementation. At that point, based on precedent previously cited, if one dollar of state resources are required to carry out your demands, the anti-commandeering principle gives every state in America the power to render your lawless executive order null and void.

We plan to wage a full scale resistance to your executive action in Tennessee, and I hope that other states will continue to follow suit.

Enjoy your stay, and we soon hope to see you in court soon,

– State Representative Andy Holt (R- Dresden)

Press Release: State Representative Andy Holt (R-Dresden) In Response To President Obama’s December 9, 2014 Visit To Nashville, Tennessee To Discuss Recent Immigration Executive Order

Follow Michael Lotfi: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn

BREAKING: Tennessee moves to sue Obama over amnesty

NASHVILLE, November 21, 2014– On Friday, in response to President Obama’s plan to take executive action on illegal immigration reform, two Tennessee legislators are filing a Joint Resolution requesting Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam (R) file a lawsuit against the Obama Administration on behalf of the state.

“Article II of the United States Constitution is explicitly clear on the powers vested within the Executive Branch. President Obama lacks the authority to execute even the slightest change in policy. The Constitution delegates President Obama the power to make suggestions concerning policy and nothing more,” said State Representative Andy Holt (R- Dresden) Thursday night after President Obama delivered a prime-time speech announcing his plan of action. “Anything beyond making suggestions is an illegal usurpation of undelegated power, and we simply cannot allow it to go unchecked.”

The two legislators are citing the commandeering of state resources, which would be required to execute the President’s Executive Order, and the lack of enforcement of deportation statutes as warrant for legal recourse.

“President Obama’s moves are a dangerous and insidious display of blatant abuse of power. Tennesseans will not stand for it, and I am here to demand the integrity of our Constitution and our state is protected,” said State Senator Mae Beavers (R- Mt. Juliet). “As state legislators, we have a constitutional responsibility to ensure our state is not illegally commandeered by the federal government.”

Holt and Beavers cite 180 years of Supreme Court precedent protecting state governments from the federal commandeering of resources.

“Illegally assigning millions of illegal immigrants what equates to pseudo de jure citizenship will cost Tennessee incalculable tax-payer dollars,” said Beavers. “Not even Congress has the power to place this undue burden on Tennessee tax-payers, so it’s unclear why President Obama, acting alone, believes he has the authority to do so. Let me be clear– he doesn’t.”

“The United States Supreme Court has been very clear concerning the commandeering of state resources by means of federal legislation and initiatives through coercion,” said Holt. “For more than 180 years the Court has explicitly repudiated such acts of commandeering in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, New York v. United States, Printz v. United States, and most recently in NFIB v. Sebelius.”

Both legislators believe the need for reform exists, but that it must be delivered by legal means.

“Our immigration system is wrecked, and I doubt anyone denies that. However, we are a nation of laws, not men, and we must work together to resolve these issues while maintaining the integrity of our Republic,” said Holt.

Holt will draft and sponsor the House Resolution, and Beavers will carry it in the Senate. 


Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook & Twitter.

The U.S. Government Sues AT&T

WASHINGTON, DC, October 29, 2014 – On Tuesday, officials with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued AT&T, America’s second largest cellular provider, for allegedly misleading customers by selling them “unlimited” data plans that were then “throttled” by the company by slowing internet speeds of customers who consumed an excess of data past a certain point.

The FTC claims AT&T has used this practice since 2011 and estimates that it has affected over 3.5 million customers on at least 25 million occasions.

Customers experienced these data slow downs an average of 12 days a month and in some cases internet speeds were cut up to 90%. The FTC reportedly received thousands of complaints about the practice.

FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez stated, “AT&T promised its customers ‘unlimited’ data, and in many instances, it has failed to deliver on that promise. The issue here is simple: ‘unlimited’ means unlimited.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, AT&T emphasized the unlimited amount of data available to consumers who signed up for their unlimited plans. When these unlimited plan consumers renewed their contracts the company failed to inform them of the throttling program. Customers who later attempted to cancel their contracts after experiencing the throttling were charged early termination fees, often amounting to several hundred dollars.

Ramirez stated, “They stopped providing the service that customers understood they had purchased when they entered into their contract. Customers would be subject to an early termination fee if they wanted to get out of their existing contract.”

In a statement AT&T’s general counsel Wayne Watts called the FTC’s complaint “baseless” and stated, “We have been completely transparent with customers since the very beginning. We informed all unlimited data-plan customers via bill notices and a national press release that resulted in nearly 2,000 news stories, well before the program was implemented.”

Watts also stated, “ It’s baffling as to why the FTC would choose to take this action against a company that, like all major wireless providers, manages its network resources to provide the best possible service to all customers, and does it in a way that is fully transparent and consistent with the law and our contracts.”

However, the FTC found in its investigation that AT&T was aware consumers found the throttling practice inconsistent with the promise of unlimited data. According to the FTC’s complaint, AT&T received over 190,000 customer calls complaining about the throttling practice. Consumers in AT&T focus groups strongly objected to the practice and felt “unlimited should mean unlimited.”

After the findings of the focus group, AT&T’s own researchers urged the company’s marketers to change their verbiage, cautioning that “saying less is more” when selling related services.

The FTC worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission on this issue. The FTC voted 5-0 authorizing the staff to file the complaint. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

The official complaint charges state that, “AT&T violated the FTC Act by changing the terms of customers’ unlimited data plans while those customers were still under contract, and by failing to adequately disclose the nature of the throttling program to consumers who renewed their unlimited data plans.”


Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook & Twitter.


NJ Judge Dismisses Lawsuit for Equal Voter Rights

Last week, a New Jersey Federal District Court Judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of New Jersey’s closed primary system, and ruled that only Republicans and Democrats are “qualified” to vote.

The lawsuit was originally filed by the organization End Partisanship, a coalition of leaders from different political organizations who seek to break the two-party system’s hold on primary elections. They stood up for the 47%, or 2.6 million voters in New Jersey who are not affiliated with a political party, and who do not currently have a voice.

The lawsuit asserts “all voters have a fundamental right to equal and meaningful access to all integral stages of the electoral process.”

In May, New Jersey Secretary of State Kim Guadagno responded by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. She argued that U.S. citizens in New Jersey do not have a right to vote in primary elections, but political parties do have a right to use taxpayer dollars to fund them.

The lawsuit replied, highlighting the fact that the “primary conditions a voter’s right to participate on giving up their right to not join a private political party,” the fact that the “partisan primary effectively dilutes the voting power of non-party voters,” and the fact that the “system violates New Jersey’s own constitutional prohibition against the private use of taxpayer funds.

In July, Guadagno submitted a reply to the lawsuit, on behalf of the State of New Jersey, arguing “a voter who feels disenfranchised because of a regulation that conditions participation in primary elections on party membership should simply join the party.”

On August 12, the plaintiffs filed a surreply, claiming that the State is  “suggesting that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the individual right to cast a meaningful vote and the right of the Democratic and Republican parties to operate as private organizations,” which is confusing the real issue.

The surreply stated that, “Fundamental rights are, by nature, nonpartisan.” It went on to say that the State of New Jersey’s position is one that every voter in New Jersey should reject, due to the fact that their “rights within the democratic process may be conditioned on membership in one of two private organizations which almost half of all voters have chosen not to associate with.

Once the Judge’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit was announced, attorneys from the End Partisanship coalition told the Independent Voter Network that they are “preparing an appeal of the decision which will be sought on an accelerated basis.”

Both parties knew when this case was filed that because of its magnitude and effect on the primary system, and because the plaintiffs were asking a legal question the Supreme Court has not yet opined on, that the real fight would be taken forward through the appellate level and, potentially, the Supreme Court.” said an Advisor to the Independent Voter Project, Michael Thorsnes. “By dismissing the lawsuit, with prejudice, the court has confirmed that the case contains no factual, but only legal issues, creating a stage for the next level of review.”

New Jersey laws now require 47 percent of voters in New Jersey not affiliated with a political party to, against their will, join one of the two major parties to vote in the primary,” said Thorsnes.

New York Lawsuit Fights for Right to Record Police Officers

New York – Last week, a Federal lawsuit was filed against the New York Police Department, which requested that individuals are granted the right to film or record officers working in public places. The suit lists several accounts of arrests where people recorded confrontations with police, and it was filmed by one of the people arrested.

According to the New York Times, the suit “seeks a permanent injunction barring New York City employees from retaliating against those who record them in public.”

Despite the fact that New York’s Police Department Patrol Guide says that “taking photographs, videotapes or tape recordings” is not probable cause for an arrest, the lawsuit maintains that there is still “a widespread policy, practice and custom” of police intervention with those who choose to record them.

The lawsuit contained eight accounts where individuals were recording police activity in public, and were ordered by the police officers to either leave the scene, or to delete the data.

The testimonies ranged from Debra Goodman, who was arrested in 2013 for taking a video of emergency medical technicians speaking to a woman in a wheelchair, while police officers watched, to Diego Ibanez, who was arrested in 2013 for recording videos of police officers making arrests inside of a subway station.

One of the lawyers involved in filing the lawsuit, Norman Siegel, hopes the City of New York will adopt a policy along the same lines as the one used by the Baltimore Police Department.

After dealing with a lawsuit in 2010, in which a Baltimore man claimed that the police had taken his cellphone and deleted a video he had taken of an arrest, the Justice Department concluded that people have the right to record police officers.

In a letter regarding the decision, the department wrote, “the justification for this right is firmly rooted in longstanding First Amendment principles.

Lawsuit Alleges FBI Used No-Fly List To Pressure American Muslims To Become Informants

New York April 24, 2014- In a lawsuit filed in New York on Tuesday, four Muslim men who are United States residents accused the FBI of using their “no-fly” list as a tactic to pressure them to serve as informants by reporting on other Muslims in their communities. The plaintiffs also allege that they were either placed or kept on the no-fly list as punishment for their refusal to become informants.

One of the plaintiffs, Jameel Algibhah, lives in the Bronx and used to visit his wife and children in Yemen several times a year. The lawsuit claims that the FBI made several attempts in 2009  to recruit Algibhah as an informant, including asking him “to attend certain mosques, to act ‘extremist,’ and to participate in online Islamic forums and report back to the FBI agents,” as written in the lawsuit. After Algibhah refused to comply with these repeated requests, he realized that he was on the no-fly list in 2010.

The lawsuit claims that an agent said “that he would take Mr. Algibhah off of the No Fly List in one week’s time should their present conversation ‘go well’ and should Mr. Algibhah work for them.”

Muhammad Tanvir, an additional plaintiff who lives in Queens, experienced similar treatment from the FBI. Tanvir alleges that after his passport was taken by authorities following a trip to Pakistan, the FBI implored him several times in 2008 to become an informant. The lawsuit stated, “…the FBI agents threatened Mr. Tanvir, warning him that if he declined to work as an informant, then he would not receive his passport and that if he tried to pick up his passport at the airport he would be deported to Pakistan.”

Tanvir said that in 2010 he was informed that he was not allowed to fly, and that the FBI would only assist him in being removed from the list “in exchange for relaying information about his community”.

Plaintiff Naveed Shinwari is a Connecticut resident who had also refused the FBI’s prompts in 2012 to become an informant. After his refusal and several interrogations, Shinwari alleges he was placed on the no-fly list. He was able to board a flight this year, but he is unsure if he is still on the list or was merely given a one-time waiver.

Plaintiff Awais Sajjad, a New York resident, alleges in the complaint that he was interrogated at the John F. Kennedy International Airport while attempting to fly to Pakistan to visit family. Sajjad said he was informed that he was on the no-fly list and was offered a job as an informant for the FBI. After he refused, he was subjected to additional interrogation and a polygraph exam. Sajjad alleges that he was told that he’d failed the polygraph exam, and that he would only receive assistance to be removed from the no-fly list  if he submitted to another polygraph exam and more questioning.

All four of the men have neither been accused or found guilty of being a threat to flight safety.

The lawsuit stated that the plaintiffs have all suffered from disruptions in their family and work life due to being placed on the no-fly list. “Plaintiffs are among the many innocent people who find themselves swept up in the United States government’s secretive watch list dragnet. Defendants have used the No Fly List to punish and retaliate against Plaintiffs for exercising their constitutional rights,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs requested in the lawsuit to be removed from the no-fly list, and are seeking “declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief”. The FBI has declined comment.

Follow Annabelle on Twitter.








LOTFI: Libertarians wrong on federal lawsuit for ballot access


NASHVILLE, March 10, 2014– Many Libertarians repudiate the idea of being linked to the GOP. Their dissent does not change the fact that the Libertarian wing of the GOP does exist and is currently battling the establishment for control of the Republican Party. Meanwhile, those who are not battling for control of the GOP are battling for control over GOP voters.

Nowhere in the country was this battle more evident than in Ohio last week. The Ohio Libertarian Party is currently locked inside a battle of historic proportions with the Ohio Republican Party.

Libertarians often refer to themselves as strict constitutionalists and champion the restoration of the American republic. They often hold themselves in a state of moral superiority over their Republican counterparts, which is a perch they have earned, more often than not.

Journalist Ben Swann interviewed Ohio Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate Charlie Earl (pictured above) over the weekend. “They see us as a threat and a challenge [to Governor John Kasich], we are coming from a Constitutional perspective.  We are on his right” says Earl, who served for a number of years as a Republican State Rep in Ohio.

Earl drives the point that he and Attorney General candidate Steven Linnabary were both kicked off the ballot for holding the Constitution in higher regard than the Ohio GOP establishment.

However, the move to file a federal lawsuit on behalf of the two Libertarian Party candidates is an acute deviation from the Constitution and foundation of the American republic. In fact, this move contradicts the very idea that the two candidates are holding the Constitution in high regards.

Where in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to change state election laws? Nowhere. Why? Because election laws are a power of police, which means the power is reserved to state governments.

“The power of the State to impose restraints and burdens on the persons and property in conservation and promotion of the public health, good order and prosperity is a power originally, and always belonging to the States, no surrendered by them to the General Government nor directly restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive, and the suppression of lotteries as a harmful business falls within this power, commonly called of police,” writes Justice Peckham in dissent. (Champion v. Ames)

In fact, the very practice of the federal government usurping power from sovereign state governments with regards to election laws has been clarified as unconstitutional.

Regarding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Chief Justice Roberts noted that the law impedes on state sovereignty and equality among states to run their own elections. Roberts calls it a departure from the principles of the Constitution. “The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been pre-cleared by federal authorities in Washington, D.C.,” writes the Chief Justice. He clarifies that if the Act was being drafted today it would in no way have become law due to the clear unconstitutionality of federal action in state elections (Shelby County v. Holder).

Knowing this, the Ohio Libertarian Party’s lawsuit focuses on something entirely different. “What we are asking for is the right to be able to use our First Amendment rights to be able to select our own candidates,” said Earl.

By framing their argument as a First Amendment violation, the party grossly misinterprets the federal Constitution as a means to an end.

The First Amendment has nothing to do with state law election laws, or state law in general. This is a hard pill to swallow for some. The Bill of Rights technically only applies to federal laws.

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the Bill of Rights was not bound to state laws. Even Chief Justice John Marshall, American history’s greatest proponent of centralized federal power, knew this much. “The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states,” wrote Chief Justice Marshall for the Court (Barron v. Baltimore).

It is settled law (emphasis added) that the clause of the Fifth Amendment, protecting a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself, is not made effective by the Fourteenth Amendment as a protection against state action on the ground that freedom from testimonial compulsion is a right of national citizenship,” Justice Reed for the Court plurality (Adamson v. California).

The Founders never intended the Bill of Rights to be bound to state governments. Why? They were building a republic and nothing else. The Constitution only applies to federal laws. By keeping the Constitution restrained to the federal government only, the result is vast decentralization of power. This was the goal of the republic.

Eventually, the federal government came to an insidious conclusion. If they were to rule that the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporated” the bill of rights then they could vastly expand federal power and begin manipulating state law.

The Fourteenth Amendment never bound the Bill of Rights to the states. In fact, no such language to insinuate so can be found in this historical record. The Fourteenth Amendment applied exclusively to freed black slaves. Regardless, the Fourteenth Amendment has been used to grow the federal government at an alarming pace.

Where is the Court granted the power to “incorporate”, thus creating laws for all fifty states? Nowhere. But who cares, right? The incorporation doctrine now allows the federal government complete control over all police powers. This is the portrait of a dead republic.

Although the intentions of incorporation may have seemed innocuous, the move was dangerous because it centralized federal power.

Libertarians will gladly argue that the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments may have never been properly ratified. However, the Fourteenth Amendment was certainly never ratified. Historical record definitely proves this much. Ohio Libertarians seem to be silent in their dissent now that they are relying on faulty theory as a means to an end.

Most important is to realize the precedent Ohio Libertarians are trying to set. By requesting the federal government rule with favor to their cause they are abandoning the principles of the constitutionally restrained federal government.

The federal Constitution delegates no power for federal involvement in state elections. Because of this, the federal judiciary, a branch of the federal government, has no jurisdiction to rule in favor, or against the Libertarian Party of Ohio. However, as a means to an end, the Libertarian Party is willing to abandon this constitutional principle.

The precedent? How can libertarians argue Obamacare is unconstitutional with this cognition in place? They can’t. Due to abandoning the principles of a constitutionally restrained federal government, liberals successfully sought the very same cognitive path to justify Obamacare.

Of course the Court upheld Obamacare. We have abandoned the principle of constitutional restraint in order to justify our individual means to an end. Once you abandon this principle you cannot protest the same actions by others. It is grossly hypocritical and the Courts will rule in favor of “equality” to ensure an ever expanding federal government.

The Solution? Remember the republic. The republic was designed with one goal in mind, which was decentralization of power. This decentralization of power allows for change on the local level. Running to the feds for help only sets the precedent that the feds can intervene where they cannot. Take responsibility of your state and local governments. No one said it was easy, but running to the feds creates corruption and usurpation of power on a much larger scale in the long run.

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…”- John F. Kennedy.

Reach for the stars Ohio.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

Exclusive: Business Owner Sues The NSA & DHS and WINS!

A small business owner and T-shirt maker who had his products forced off of internet marketplaces by the NSA has WON his fight against the agency.

Dan McCall is the owner of Liberty Maniacs which is a T-shirt company based out of Minnesota. We were the very first to tell you about McCall and his fight with the NSA last August when we featured him during one of our Truth in Media episodes.

You can watch the episode here to get you up to speed.

This week a major victory for McCall and all those who believe in rule of law.

The NSA has backed off its claim that McCall’s T-shirt “The NSA” had infringed on their intellectual property rights. As Ben showed you, the NSA’s claim violated the law because what McCall had done with his shirt was protected speech under the guidelines of being a “parody”. Shortly after the NSA began getting McCall’s shirts pulled from online marketplaces like Zazzle.com, DHS or the Department of Homeland Security began doing the same thing claiming that T-shirts that mocked their agency were also infringing on intellectual property.

In the video below, Ben Swann talks with DanMcCall via Skype.

“When we finally filed, I was like, ‘Wow, this is real now’, you know?” says McCall. “I’m actually suing the DHS and the NSA and they only have an army of lawyers and everything else.”

McCall’s lawsuit appears to have been well worth it. McCall’s lawyer recently contacted him saying that both agencies wanted to settle. This is a huge victory for those who believe in Liberty and are taking a stand against federal agencies that are bullying the public. McCall says to be able to force the NSA and DHS to contact online marketplaces and admit that they were wrong to try to force his products off the marketplaces and that McCall does in fact have every right to create his parody shirts.

During the interview with McCall, Swann says “There has never been a time as far as I can tell, any question that you were in the right. There was no question that they were in the wrong. What is important here is, that doesn’t matter anymore in our current system of government. It doesn’t matter if they are right or wrong, it matters if they are able to muscle you into submission and in your case they weren’t able to. I think that’s a victory for a whole lot of people.”

McCall: “I think that’s right. Would any of this have happened if (the story) had not come out and the light had not been shined on this issue? Of course not. It would have been swept under the rug, they would have strong armed. Obviously they felt content to do so until enough stories came out and enough people were mad and we filed the suit and then they said, ‘Ok’, and they backed down.”

Senator Rand Paul Suing Obama Administration

Rand Paul
Photo credit Gage Skidmore

United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is leading a class action lawsuit against the the Obama administration’s National Security Agency (NSA) spying program. Paul has actually been collecting signatures for petitioners for months now.

Paul will appear on Fox News with Eric Bolling at 10 PM ET on Friday to discuss the lawsuit. So far more than 300k people have signed Paul’s class action lawsuit, which will focus on the NSA’s violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter: @MichaelLotfi