The General Orders Chain of Command

cropped-a-crips.jpg

The General Orders Chain of Command:

Directive by: DBA Jesus Christ – General of the Army

Date: 17 July 2017

Effective Immediately: 

I wrote a lot of stuff while I was locked down in Highlands County Super-Max, this is where Springfield Super-Max is located.  I thought my letters was going out to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, so I thought you all knew this stuff.  But when I got out, I notice a lot of what I was telling you to do, they was trying to do, but simply they do not have the man-power to do much until it gets cold.

In Orlando, I notice they was running it.  I notice on the road, they had post going towards Augusta, GA., from Florida, I notice they steal was holding down Macon Inn and had control of the Greyhound Bus Stop in Macon, so they tried to carryout my order I was sending to you, so these updates you probably never received.  Those thing above need to be carryout ASAP.  I was played again in Macon Inn. The white man tried to beat me and the Indian women as in India, smiled at me, when I came back for my $3.79 and said, he was scared and wanted to know where to send it to you. I wonder if she is one of my Queens?  Because she allowed me to see inside of where she lives down-stairs.  This is what they are doing. It is the real life end of prohibition operations whereby lawlessness is practiced to the degree whereby the strong arm hotels and just takeover them as if nobody owns them.  You cannot squatter a hotel by law.

Attorney General and Surgeon General, who I AM the only clients are Loretta Lynch who will be Queen of Queens Angie Jones and Mona Rodriquez, who will be Mona Jones, both have the authority of four stars.  My swing man is General Dr. Kevin Jackson, who will be an acting Command Sergeant Major for both the  Surgeon General and the Communications Corps at Fort Gordon and the Communications Corps will be under General Dr. Sam Lawhorne.  This allows me to borrow his expertise in medication and to he side by side with Sam in the development of  Digital Systems and Technology in the one two punch of IBM and Microsoft.

The Library of Congress is under General Blond Eva Austin Jones, this is Copyrights, patents and Trademarks, her Command Sergeant Major is William Billy Jackson. His expertise is Record Keeping. Then you have her arms, Maj Gen Kathrine Jones aka Ms. Virgie and Command Sergeant Major Keith Hampton, she is over The Society, which is ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, plus Actors and Guild, and we eliminate the Oscars or the Pictures Association, who is clearly a feed to terrorist in that they fund the Freedom of Speech Movement.  The name in full is The Universal Society of Composers, Artist and Producers & Actors and Guild.  USCAP & AG. Maj Azalea Jones and Command Sergeant Major Reed Hutchinson gets the United State Public Library System, to become the New E-Library as we transition to E-books and remove those old books with the new.

This places General Dr. Dick Gregory aka Boozier as Education Czar or Director of Education.  Our language is Hebrew as defined by the American Heritage English Dictionary and the NIV Holy Bible show its use and he needs to add a slang dictionary to this. For slang is a part of the Hebrew language and African Zulu culture.

General Jesse Jackson is over Trade and that is the Chamber of Commerce, who is the NAACP, which is owned by DBA Jesus Christ.

Lt. Gen. C.B. Coleman Sr. – Legal Team and Assignments Civil Law

Maj. Gen. C.B. Coleman Jr. Attorney General Charity State – Florida

Maj. Gen. Williams Attorney Gen. State of Georgia

Maj. Gen. Sherita Jones aka Stuart – Office of Public Defender – Under Martial Law Nationwide

Brig. Gen. Donsky – 10th Circuit Court Judge Florida

Assignments are to be approved by United States Attorney General after approval as State of territory Levels.

The Military and Combat Command

Command Sergeant Major of Armed Forces Bobby Grimes

General Colin Powell – The Pentagon

General Colin Powell Jr. – The 5th Division the Diamond Corps of Fort Jones – Formerly Fort Bragg

General Booker – Supplies and Logistics

General Warren Samuels – Department of Treasury – Command Sergeant Maj. of Treasury Victor Fleming

Gen. George H.W. Bush – The Navy

Gen. George W. Bush – Military Fortresses or Military Properties

Gen. Austin – Central Command and NASA

Gen. B. Clinton – Municipality Management

Gen. Carter – Department of Agriculture

General Barnes – Top COP Covert Operations – Command Sergeant Maj. of Covert Operations Vern Fleming

Lt. Gen. Stephen Wright – Covert Operations and Accounting and Development – Deep Cover

Lt. General Timothy Shands – X-Communicated until internal Review is Completed and will be Gen. Dr. Tim Shands, PhD. Sociology as the basis of Healthcare and Medical  Distribution and Allocations.  Until Cleared his is simply X-Communicated and placed Under House Arrest.

Lt. Gen. Dante Bush – Administration and Covert Documentation and Head of Homeland Security

Lt. Gen. Victor Requena – Covert Operation Personnel

Lt. Gen. Jeh Johnson – Homeland Security moved to the Central Command under Gen. Austin

Lt. Gen. Maron Jackson – FBI Director and Comey is X-Communicated and under internal Investigation for what he did to me in Super-Max.

Replaced by Lt. Gen. Maron Jackson now FBI Director

Lt. Gen. Pete Green – Municipality Law Enforcement and Command Sergeant Major Louis Farrakhan, this is the oversight of all law enforcement to replace The National Sherriff Association, who was deemed unconstitutional.

Lt. Gen. Copper – Department of Corrections U.S.

Lt. Gen. Simmons – Fire Department and EMS – Emergency Military Services – Controlling the EMS to move our people around and into restricted areas un-noticed.

Lt. Gen. Eric Hutchinson – Department of Transportation

Maj. Gen. Darrell Forster – Logistic for Special Operations and teams

Maj. Gen. Dr. Kane – Hospitals

Maj. Gen. Lipmann, Esq – The Veterans Administration under Chapter 38

Maj. Gen. H. Clinton – Universal Healthcare

Brig. Gen Heath – the Elite FIST Division – Fort Jones

Brig. Gen. Rucker – The Army- Marines Amphibious Division – Fort Jones

Brig. Gen. – R. Hilton – The Multi Task and K-9 Assault Division – Fort Jones

Brig. R. Starks – Acting Command Sergeant Major – Covert Operations and Accounting and Development – Deep Cover. Ansaaru Allah Community Transition to Chapter under Jesus Christ, INC

Brig. Gen. B. Giles – Probation and Parole

Brig. Gen. J. Moss Covert Operations Southern District U.S.

The Research and Execution of the REAL ID Act of 2005

Research and Historical Data Gathering:

  • Confirm the AMTRAK Love Train of 10 is up and running and secure.
  • Confirm and assign interpersonal controls at Federal or AMTRAK Union leva at all Love Train Hubs.
  • Establish proper procedure and verification of all commuters at Homeland Security Data Based linked to the Federal Oversight of all DMV in every state of the Union, under The REAL ID Act which should now be in full effect.
  • The REAL ID Act Veterans Advantage under the United States Constitution is simple.

 

Do the research this is out of my head but on point.

The Execution of the REAL ID Act of 2005

  • Under the REAL Act understand the interpretation and the research document already exist to prevent the infiltration of French Foreign Legion offensive at out Nationwide DMV.
  • A veteran only requires a U.S Department of Veterans Affairs – VA Healthcare Enrollee ID, you know the new VA health care ID & Verification’s any VA Clinic under Martial Law, which without VA assistance to accomplish the same level of authentications, two more credentials, to establish a birth record, a social security card and minimum health insurance identification.
  • But the problem is people cannot ever get everything for state to state (A CONSPIRACY), meanwhile people from all over the world get State ID and driver licenses with only a passport? Come on! At a minimum you need an unexpired VISA, a I think it is a I-94 and documentation of every stop you made beginning with you home of origin and something else, not really need to know to prove and explain my offensive.
  • All these people have is an ID based on a Passport. That simple. Yet we cannot gain citizenship from state to state. Meaning they are restricting the movement of America. This can make us defenseless.
  • Yet they are all illegal aliens under REAL ID Act of 2005.
  • Now we start paying veterans travel pay and nationwide appointment in different VA facilities nationwide, which the real intent of the VA Network and configuration, but they are doing it and the Real veteran cannot.
  • And under the REAL Act of 2005 they admit exist, but simply misinterpreted.
  • The purpose is to defend our hotel establishments and transportation systems first.
  • The Mission is simple, start arresting anyone suspected as being wrong, who has a state ID based on Fraud and lack American Citizenship.
  • The REAL ID Act of 2005 is an Anti-Terrorism Act, for what is happening right now. And they are as stupid and arrogant as to use it against me. They should have hid this shit.

 

Made Simple and Proved:

The REAL ID Act of 2005, basically confirms the truth of a Veteran. A veteran is the first and last line of the defense of our nation. Only in a nation under foreign control can a veteran lose his rights as a free man.  The Transportation Reimbursement Act confirm America commitment to the United States Veteran, by saying under the Union Agreement a veteran by law gets 50% lounging and gas money that a Veterans Affairs Employee gets. Under the agreement is a quid pro quo arrangement meaning if the Worker gets it the Veteran gets it.   Freedom simply means the right to travel throughout the Union free of cost. And that is the Veterans benefit in a nutshell.

Furthermore, under the REAL ID Act of 2005, the United States Veteran, who entered prior to 1 January 1977 and has the old GI Bill and citizens who have their original birth certificate are the only people in America who can verify their birth, which is required to be a citizen in America.  A certified birth certificate, does not satisfy the requirements to prove an original ever existed.

Only a Veteran of the Arms Forces under the old GI bill is in fact an American Citizen under the REAL ID Act of 2005.  Therefore the Veteran must enforce it for all Americans under the Emancipation of 4 July 2015.

Placed into Effect Immediately Due to lack of Liquid Capital and State of Emergency:

Americans Right to Travel under Martial law

  1. Veterans who have their Veterans ID card or can verify their veterans status via the VAMC of home of records, an hereby travel on Greyhound and AMTRAC, without cost.  All payments will be paid for by the Veterans Affairs as a result of this executive Order.  The oversight of movement will be the Homeland Security Office, who I have planed Lt. Gen Dante Bush as the Director of these activities, He will be assisted by Lt. Gen Johnson as he transitions to Central Command.
  2. Everyone will be giving $400 per month in Food stamps.  Food stamps is hereby the Universal Currency to food purchase be it in supermarkets or restaurants. And the information gained by the consumer market will be used to protect our food supplies.  Every America must have a food stamp account by the end of August 2017.  Everyone who applies for food stamps will have in fact registered to vote and the will be a draft as, we are under attack by a foreign government.
  3. Every Veteran under Martial Law can rent a hotel room for between $100 and $300 per day per person as a way to end homelessness in the Veterans population. All payment will be paid the Veterans Affairs of the Veteran home of record providing VAMC.  This is a decree under martial law and under Chapter 38 of the USC.
  4. I hereby place both Greyhound and AMTRAC under Government Contract. They will receive 1 for 1 on all food purchases and will be compensated for all travel provided under  this state of Emergency decree.
  5. Both Greyhound and AMTRAC is under Federal Jurisdiction and therefore this bars any State or local agency or law enforcement groups any access to these transport systems, unless the authority comes from Homeland Security and or the United States Department of Justice.  Thereby making AMTRAC and Greyhound transportation systems and hubs a safe haven from all non-federal agencies and law enforcement groups.
  6. All AMTRAC and Greyhound employees are hereby place under the Federal Government and they are hereby considered Federal employees.  And all will receive a living wages, if in commodity credits and governments stamps, until new currency is issued.
  7. Persons placed under the protected group criteria based on being descendants of African Slaves under Field Order Number 15, will get first priority to all hate crimes funds.

PART 202—NATIONAL SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANNING AND EXECUTION


Contents
§202.0   Objectives.
§202.1   Policies.
§202.2   Criteria and guidance.
§202.3   Plans preparation and execution.

THIS REQUIRES A LEGAL TEAM AS OF YESTERDAY, ALL REQUIRED IS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS

Shown Here:
Public Law No: 113-200 (12/04/2014)

[113th Congress Public Law 200]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]



[[Page 128 STAT. 2059]]

Public Law 113-200
113th Congress

              An Act


 
  To amend the Communications Act of 1934 and title 17, United States 
 Code, to extend expiring provisions relating to the retransmission of 
    signals of television broadcast stations, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF 
                              CONTENTS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``STELA 
Reauthorization Act of 2014''.
    (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as 
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. No additional appropriations authorized.

                   TITLE I--COMMUNICATIONS PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Extension of authority.
Sec. 102. Modification of television markets to further consumer access 
           to relevant television programming.
Sec. 103. Consumer protections in retransmission consent.
Sec. 104. Delayed application of JSA attribution rule.
Sec. 105. Deletion or repositioning of stations during certain periods.
Sec. 106. Repeal of integration ban.
Sec. 107. Report on communications implications of statutory licensing 
           modifications.
Sec. 108. Local network channel broadcast reports.
Sec. 109. Report on designated market areas.
Sec. 110. Update to cable rates report.
Sec. 111. Administrative reforms to effective competition petitions.
Sec. 112. Definitions.

                     TITLE II--COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Reauthorization.
Sec. 202. Termination of license.
Sec. 203. Local service area of a primary transmitter.
Sec. 204. Market determinations.

                         TITLE III--SEVERABILITY

Sec. 301. Severability.

SEC. 2. NO ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED.

    No additional funds are authorized to carry out this Act, or the 
amendments made by this Act. This Act, and the amendments made by this 
Act, shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized or 
appropriated.

[[Page 128 STAT. 2060]]

                   TITLE I--COMMUNICATIONS PROVISIONS

SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.

    Section 325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b)) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``December 31, 2014'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2019''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``January 1, 2015'' 
        each place it appears and inserting ``January 1, 2020''.
SEC. 102. MODIFICATION OF TELEVISION MARKETS TO FURTHER CONSUMER 
                        ACCESS TO RELEVANT TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.

    (a) In General.--Section 338 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 338) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(l) Market Determinations.--
            ``(1) <<NOTE: Notification.>> In general.--Following a 
        written request, the Commission may, with respect to a 
        particular commercial television broadcast station, include 
        additional communities within its local market or exclude 
        communities from such station's local market to better 
        effectuate the purposes of this section.
            ``(2) Considerations.--In considering requests filed under 
        paragraph (1), the Commission--
                    ``(A) may determine that particular communities are 
                part of more than one local market; and
                    ``(B) shall afford particular attention to the value 
                of localism by taking into account such factors as--
                          ``(i) whether the station, or other stations 
                      located in the same area--
                                    ``(I) have been historically carried 
                                on the cable system or systems within 
                                such community; or
                                    ``(II) have been historically 
                                carried on the satellite carrier or 
                                carriers serving such community;
                          ``(ii) whether the television station provides 
                      coverage or other local service to such community;
                          ``(iii) whether modifying the local market of 
                      the television station would promote consumers' 
                      access to television broadcast station signals 
                      that originate in their State of residence;
                          ``(iv) whether any other television station 
                      that is eligible to be carried by a satellite 
                      carrier in such community in fulfillment of the 
                      requirements of this section provides news 
                      coverage of issues of concern to such community or 
                      provides carriage or coverage of sporting and 
                      other events of interest to the community; and
                          ``(v) evidence of viewing patterns in 
                      households that subscribe and do not subscribe to 
                      the services offered by multichannel video 
                      programming distributors within the areas served 
                      by such multichannel video programming 
                      distributors in such community.
            ``(3) Carriage of signals.--
                    ``(A) Carriage obligation.--A market determination 
                under this subsection shall not create additional 
                carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is 
                not technically

[[Page 128 STAT. 2061]]

                and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish 
                such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at 
                the time of the determination.
                    ``(B) Deletion of signals.--A satellite carrier 
                shall not delete from carriage the signal of a 
                commercial television broadcast station during the 
                pendency of any proceeding under this subsection.
            ``(4) <<NOTE: Deadline.>>  Determinations.--Not later than 
        120 days after the date that a written request is filed under 
        paragraph (1), the Commission shall grant or deny the request.
            ``(5) No effect on eligibility to receive distant signals.--
        No modification of a commercial television broadcast station's 
        local market pursuant to this subsection shall have any effect 
        on the eligibility of households in the community affected by 
        such modification to receive distant signals pursuant to section 
        339, notwithstanding subsection (h)(1) of this section.''.

    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 614(h)(1)(C) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii)--
                    (A) in subclause (I), by striking ``community'' and 
                inserting ``community or on the satellite carrier or 
                carriers serving such community'';
                    (B) by redesignating subclauses (III) and (IV) as 
                subclauses (IV) and (V), respectively;
                    (C) by inserting after subclause (II) the following:
                          ``(III) whether modifying the market of the 
                      television station would promote consumers' access 
                      to television broadcast station signals that 
                      originate in their State of residence;''; and
                    (D) by amending subclause (V), as redesignated, to 
                read as follows:
                          ``(V) evidence of viewing patterns in 
                      households that subscribe and do not subscribe to 
                      the services offered by multichannel video 
                      programming distributors within the areas served 
                      by such multichannel video programming 
                      distributors in such community.''; and
            (2) by moving the margin of clause (iv) 2 ems to the left.

    (c) <<NOTE: Public information. Web posting. 47 USC 338 
note.>> Market Modification Process.--The Commission shall make 
information available to consumers on its website that explains the 
market modification process, including--
            (1) who may petition to include additional communities 
        within, or exclude communities from, a--
                    (A) local market (as defined in section 122(j) of 
                title 17, United States Code); or
                    (B) television market (as determined under section 
                614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
                U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C))); and
            (2) the factors that the Commission takes into account when 
        responding to a petition described in paragraph (1).

    (d) <<NOTE: 47 USC 338 note.>> Implementation.--
            (1) Deadline for regulations.--Not later than 9 months after 
        the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall 
        promulgate regulations to implement this section and the 
        amendments made by this section.

[[Page 128 STAT. 2062]]

            (2) Matters for consideration.--As part of the rulemaking 
        required by paragraph (1), the Commission shall ensure that 
        procedures for the filing and consideration of a written request 
        under sections 338(l) and 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act 
        of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 338(l); 534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the 
        purposes of the amendments made by this section, and update what 
        it considers to be a community for purposes of a modification of 
        a market under section 338(l) or 614(h)(1)(C) of the 
        Communications Act of 1934.
SEC. 103. CONSUMER PROTECTIONS IN RETRANSMISSION CONSENT.

    (a) Joint Retransmission Consent Negotiations.--Section 325(b)(3)(C) 
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b)(3)(C)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(iv) prohibit a television broadcast station from 
        coordinating negotiations or negotiating on a joint basis with 
        another television broadcast station in the same local market 
        (as defined in section 122(j) of title 17, United States Code) 
        to grant retransmission consent under this section to a 
        multichannel video programming distributor, unless such stations 
        are directly or indirectly under common de jure control 
        permitted under the regulations of the Commission; and''.

    (b) Protections for Significantly Viewed and Other Television 
Signals.--Section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 325(b)(3)(C)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(v) prohibit a television broadcast station from limiting 
        the ability of a multichannel video programming distributor to 
        carry into the local market (as defined in section 122(j) of 
        title 17, United States Code) of such station a television 
        signal that has been deemed significantly viewed, within the 
        meaning of section 76.54 of title 47, Code of Federal 
        Regulations, or any successor regulation, or any other 
        television broadcast signal such distributor is authorized to 
        carry under section 338, 339, 340, or 614 of this Act, unless 
        such stations are directly or indirectly under common de jure 
        control permitted by the Commission.''.

    (c) <<NOTE: Deadline. Regulations. Review. 47 USC 325 note.>> Good 
Faith.--Not later than 9 months after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Commission shall commence a rulemaking to review its totality 
of the circumstances test for good faith negotiations under clauses (ii) 
and (iii) of section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 325(b)(3)(C)).

    (d) Margin Corrections.--Section 325(b) of the Communications Act of 
1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b)) is further amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3)(C), by moving the margin of clause 
        (iii) 4 ems to the left; and
            (2) by moving the margin of paragraph (7) 2 ems to the left.

    (e) <<NOTE: 47 USC 325 note.>> Deadline for Regulations.--Not later 
than 9 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Commission shall promulgate regulations to implement the amendments made 
by this section.

[[Page 128 STAT. 2063]]

SEC. 104. DELAYED APPLICATION OF JSA ATTRIBUTION RULE.

    A party to a joint sales agreement (as defined in Note 2(k) to 
section 73.3555 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations) that is in 
effect on the effective date of the amendment to Note 2(k)(2) to such 
section made by the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and 
Order adopted by the Commission on March 31, 2014 (FCC 14-28), shall not 
be considered to be in violation of the ownership limitations of such 
section by reason of the application of the rule in such Note 2(k)(2) 
(as so amended) to such agreement before the date that is 6 months after 
the end of the period specified by the Commission in such Report and 
Order for such a party to come into compliance with such ownership 
limitations.
SEC. 105. DELETION OR REPOSITIONING OF STATIONS DURING CERTAIN 
                        PERIODS.

    (a) In General.--Section 614(b)(9) of the Communications Act of 1934 
(47 U.S.C. 534(b)(9)) is amended by striking the second sentence.
    (b) <<NOTE: Deadline. 47 USC 534 note.>> Revision of Rules.--Not 
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Commission shall revise section 76.1601 of its rules (47 CFR 76.1601) 
and any note to such section by removing the prohibition against 
deletion or repositioning of a local commercial television station 
during a period in which major television ratings services measure the 
size of audiences of local television stations.
SEC. 106. REPEAL OF INTEGRATION BAN.

    (a) Termination of Effectiveness.--The second sentence of section 
76.1204(a)(1) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, terminates 
effective on the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (b) Removal From Rules.--Not later than 545 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete all actions 
necessary to remove the sentence described in subsection (a) from its 
rules.
    (c) Preservation of Waivers.--Any waiver of section 76.1204(a)(1) of 
title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, in effect as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act or granted after such date shall be extended 
through December 31, 2015.
    (d) <<NOTE: Establishment.>> Working Group.--
            (1) <<NOTE: Deadline.>> In general.--Not later than 45 days 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the 
        Commission shall establish a working group of technical experts 
        representing a wide range of stakeholders, to identify, report, 
        and recommend performance objectives, technical capabilities, 
        and technical standards of a not unduly burdensome, uniform, and 
        technology- and platform-neutral software-based downloadable 
        security system designed to promote the competitive availability 
        of navigation devices in furtherance of section 629 of the 
        Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 549).
            (2) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the working group shall file a report 
        with the Commission on its work under paragraph (1).
            (3) Commission assistance.--The Chairman of the Commission 
        may appoint a member of the Commission's staff--

[[Page 128 STAT. 2064]]

                    (A) to moderate and direct the work of the working 
                group under this subsection; and
                    (B) to provide technical assistance to members of 
                the working group, as appropriate.
            (4) <<NOTE: Deadline.>> Initial meeting.--The initial 
        meeting of the working group shall take place not later than 90 
        days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 107. REPORT ON COMMUNICATIONS IMPLICATIONS OF STATUTORY 
                        LICENSING MODIFICATIONS.

    (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall 
conduct a study that analyzes and evaluates the changes to the carriage 
requirements currently imposed on multichannel video programming 
distributors under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et 
seq.) and the regulations promulgated by the Commission that would be 
required or beneficial to consumers, and such other matters as the 
Comptroller General considers appropriate, if Congress implemented a 
phase-out of the current statutory licensing requirements set forth 
under sections 111, 119, and 122 of title 17, United States Code. Among 
other things, the study shall consider the impact such a phase-out and 
related changes to carriage requirements would have on consumer prices 
and access to programming.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the 
appropriate congressional committees a report on the results of the 
study conducted under subsection (a), including any recommendations for 
legislative or administrative actions. <<NOTE: Recommenda- tions.>> Such 
report shall also include a discussion of any differences between such 
results and the results of the study conducted under section 303 of the 
Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (124 Stat. 
1255).
SEC. 108. <<NOTE: 47 USC 338 note.>> LOCAL NETWORK CHANNEL 
                        BROADCAST REPORTS.

    (a) Requirement.--
            (1) In general.--On the 270th day after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, and on each succeeding anniversary of 
        such 270th day, each satellite carrier shall submit an annual 
        report to the Commission setting forth--
                    (A) <<NOTE: Time period.>> each local market in 
                which it--
                          (i) retransmits signals of 1 or more 
                      television broadcast stations with a community of 
                      license in that market;
                          (ii) has commenced providing such signals in 
                      the preceding 1-year period; and
                          (iii) has ceased to provide such signals in 
                      the preceding 1-year period; and
                    (B) detailed information regarding the use and 
                potential use of satellite capacity for the 
                retransmission of local signals in each local market.
            (2) Termination.--The requirement under paragraph (1) shall 
        cease after each satellite carrier has submitted 5 reports under 
        such paragraph.

    (b) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the terms ``local market'' and ``satellite carrier'' 
        have the meaning given such terms in section 339(d) of the 
        Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 339(d)); and

[[Page 128 STAT. 2065]]

            (2) the term ``television broadcast station'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 325(b)(7) of the 
        Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b)(7)).
SEC. 109. REPORT ON DESIGNATED MARKET AREAS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the appropriate 
congressional committees a report that contains--
            (1) an analysis of--
                    (A) the extent to which consumers in each local 
                market have access to broadcast programming from 
                television broadcast stations located outside their 
                local market, including through carriage by cable 
                operators and satellite carriers of signals that are 
                significantly viewed (within the meaning of section 340 
                of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 340)); and
                    (B) whether there are technologically and 
                economically feasible alternatives to the use of 
                designated market areas to define markets that would 
                provide consumers with more programming options and the 
                potential impact such alternatives could have on 
                localism and on broadcast television locally, 
                regionally, and nationally; and
            (2) <<NOTE: Recommenda- tions.>> recommendations on how to 
        foster increased localism in counties served by out-of-State 
        designated market areas.

    (b) Considerations for Fostering Increased Localism.--In making 
recommendations under subsection (a)(2), the Commission shall consider--
            (1) the impact that designated market areas that cross State 
        lines have on access to local programming;
            (2) the impact that designated market areas have on local 
        programming in rural areas; and
            (3) the state of local programming in States served 
        exclusively by out-of-State designated market areas.
SEC. 110. UPDATE TO CABLE RATES REPORT.

    Section 623(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 543(k)) 
is amended to read as follows:
    ``(k) Reports on Average Prices.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall annually publish 
        statistical reports on the average rates for basic cable service 
        and other cable programming, and for converter boxes, remote 
        control units, and other equipment of cable systems that the 
        Commission has found are subject to effective competition under 
        subsection (a)(2) compared with cable systems that the 
        Commission has found are not subject to such effective 
        competition.
            ``(2) Inclusion in annual report.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall include in 
                its report under paragraph (1) the aggregate average 
                total amount paid by cable systems in compensation under 
                section 325.
                    ``(B) Form.--The Commission shall publish 
                information under this paragraph in a manner 
                substantially similar to the way other comparable 
                information is published in such report.''.

[[Page 128 STAT. 2066]]

SEC. 111. ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS TO EFFECTIVE COMPETITION 
                        PETITIONS.

    Section 623 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 543) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(o) Streamlined Petition Process for Small Cable Operators.--
            ``(1) <<NOTE: Deadline. Regulations. Urban and rural 
        areas.>> In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall complete 
        a rulemaking to establish a streamlined process for filing of an 
        effective competition petition pursuant to this section for 
        small cable operators, particularly those who serve primarily 
        rural areas.
            ``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
        construed to have any effect on the duty of a small cable 
        operator to prove the existence of effective competition under 
        this section.
            ``(3) Definition of small cable operator.--In this 
        subsection, the term `small cable operator' has the meaning 
        given the term in subsection (m)(2).''.
SEC. 112. <<NOTE: 47 USC 153 note.>> DEFINITIONS.

    In this title:
            (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
        ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee on 
        Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
        and Transportation and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
        Senate.
            (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
        Communications Commission.

                     TITLE II--COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 111(d)(3)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
                striking ``clause'' and inserting ``paragraph''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``clause'' and 
                inserting ``paragraph''; and
            (2) in section 119--
                    (A) in subsection (c)(1)(E), by striking ``2014'' 
                and inserting ``2019''; and
                    (B) in subsection (e), by striking ``2014'' and 
                inserting ``2019''.
SEC. 202. TERMINATION OF LICENSE.

    (a) In General.--Section 119 of title 17, United States Code, as 
amended in section 201, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Termination of License.--This section shall cease to be 
effective on December 31, 2019.''.
    (b) <<NOTE: Repeal.>> Conforming Amendment.--Section 107(a) of the 
Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (17 U.S.C. 119 
note) is repealed.

[[Page 128 STAT. 2067]]

SEC. 203. LOCAL SERVICE AREA OF A PRIMARY TRANSMITTER.

    Section 111(f)(4) of title 17, United States Code, is amended, in 
the second sentence--
            (1) by inserting ``as defined by the rules and regulations 
        of the Federal Communications Commission,'' after ``television 
        station,'';
            (2) by striking ``comprises the area within 35 miles of the 
        transmitter site, except that'' and inserting ``comprises the 
        designated market area, as defined in section 122(j)(2)(C), that 
        encompasses the community of license of such station and any 
        community that is located outside such designated market area 
        that is either wholly or partially within 35 miles of the 
        transmitter site or,''; and
            (3) by striking ``the number of miles shall be 20 miles'' 
        and inserting ``wholly or partially within 20 miles of such 
        transmitter site''.
SEC. 204. MARKET DETERMINATIONS.

    Section 122(j)(2) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by moving the margins of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) 
        2 ems to the left; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(E) Market determinations.--The local market of a 
                commercial television broadcast station may be modified 
                by the Federal Communications Commission in accordance 
                with section 338(l) of the Communications Act of 1934 
                (47 U.S.C. 338).''.

                         TITLE III--SEVERABILITY

SEC. 301. <<NOTE: 47 USC 111 note.>> SEVERABILITY.

    If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the 
application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance 
is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the 
amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or 
amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

    Approved December 4, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5728:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Nov. 19, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 20, considered and passed Senate.

Title 47: Telecommunication

RE: Executive Order – The Formation of Veterans Rights to Freedom Act # FL: 000,011

 Martial law: Under the Emergencies Act:

Supplemented by: The REAL ID Act, U.S.C. 5, Chapter 38, and Martial Law under God, Copyright Law, Trademark & Patent Law and all laws under the Constitution of the Union.

REAL ID ACT 2005 – Places all U.S. DMV – Under Homeland Security Management and Database:

Foreign passport no proof of identity:

To use a passport as proof of identification, under the REAL ID Act of 2005, these three documents must be presented.  Though it states certain people do not need a U.S. Visa for U.S. Citizenship under this anti-terror act to gain a state ID, all three of the below are required under the law.  Why?  A passport is not proof of identification un the REAL ID Act, it is not a real identification and every government knows that. This is basic intelligence information.  A passport highlighted in red is an identification only for travel. By New York State accepts a foreign passport as proof of identification, which does not meet the criteria. And therefore any New York State Citizenship based on this is hereby revoked.’

Visa requirements for United States citizens are administrative entry restrictions by the authorities of other states placed on citizens of the United States.

In 2014, holders of a United States passport could visit 174 countries and territories visa-free or with visa on arrival, and the United States passport was ranked 1st (tied with GermanySwedenUnited Kingdom, and Finland) in terms of travel freedom according to the Visa Restrictions Index.[

A Certified  Copy of a Birth Certificate not proof of Birth date or anything?

certified copy is a copy (often a photocopy) of a primary document, that has on it an endorsement or certificate that it is a true copy of the primary document. It does not certify that the primary document is genuine, only that it is a true copy of the primary document.

I would revoke any birth certificate I check and it is not verifiable.

 

  1. The 1st Brigade – Consist of Multi-Task High Technology Units Manpower Covert.
  2. The 2nd Brigade or the Saints Brigade – 144,000 – the Angels of Haiti– Who will fight in the Battle of Armageddon and as war veteran in a Polygamist Union. About 1,000,000 become the second Sector surrounding the Center. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines will escort them in and they will come in and March in Full Dress Uniforms, wearing the Blue 5th ID patch.

Under Joint Union Command to include, Homeland Security, The CRIPS who are said to be about 2.4 million strong a Black Panther Program, many whom is spirit angels (cherubs Immortals), they become the Circle surrounding the Queendom of God.

The Order of Zews – Numbers unknown to mankind: All living quarters occupied under this accountability operation, goes under a lease to a member of Zew,s this separate God and Satan and any tax requirements and because the Zews own nothing, this same separation is reality, because under the Constitution anyone of God, need not answer to man.

Drug Kingpin: Nicky Barnes: Shuts down the whole Washington D.C. Area on one hours’ notice is required.

Move marijuana in place of all medication prescribe, place patients under observation to determine permanent damages needing treatment.

The Mafia Dom: John J. Gotti: Empty all Psychiatrist Hospitals and convert wards to places of emancipation, love, services and respect to the found captured and very talented and intelligent group of people (The Mentally ill is a lie) They under the constitution are kidnapped and assaulted Americans.  The mistake is they did not find them incompetent, they take inhibitors as medications and they wear off in two weeks and side effects can be determined in about one year.  To find a person incompetent it takes two psychologist to agree after hours of clinical study.  At about $5,000 a pop and they are innate enemies.  Pow, these people within one month can all testify in court, this no good motherfucker kidnapped me, killed many people, tried to kill me, got people disappearing and I have way more motherfucking education then these Nazi Gestapo bastards.  And it will not only hold up in court, but think about the number of charges.  They really get 1,000 years each easy, if not just the firing squad.  Seriously.

Homeless shelters, nationwide we must place all shelters under Black Panther management, these are my smart Human – Hu-Women.  And deploy CRIPS into them as security, they control our movement with foreign militias and the French Foreign Legion.  They come through the DMV and under REAL ID Act 2005, we took control of all data going in and out of these DMV’s nationwide.

Under REAL ID Act 2005, the only citizens in the United States is the Veteran under the old GI Bill.

  • The Right bear arm is the law to all veterans
  • All criminal conviction pardoned, if a free man kills someone, he is just a killing free man, you cannot convict a Veteran under the Constitution, and first his Veteran status must be removed.
  • All Government under the Constitution are jobs that go to veterans, where they get veterans preference? Under the Emergency Act

 

  • The Veteran in law enforcement patrol Highway Check Points –
  • The Veterans ID is the only REAL ID a State ID is not really required unless you want driving That is the law under the REAL ID Act of 2005.  And under martial law these men must only answer to God.  That is the intent of the Law, defeat this British Invasion (music).
  • The Veterans Control all VA facilities and the command is from the 5th
  • The Veterans Control all Courts – County – State – Federal Why? You must be a Citizen of the United States to work a government job. This is the intent of the law.
  • Under the squatter’s law and under martial law, we will end homelessness in about 2 months from now.
  • The REAL ID Act Intent is not to get a driver license, but to verify you citizenship, but the only citizen is the veteran or those old people who just keep their original birth certificate all these years. The REAL ID Act is the solution to the British Invasion since 1776.
  • All the Public Libraries will go under veteran oversight to insure the freedom of Information act is protected and controlled in the battles over media control. And to insure fairness in services.
  • Is the Baker Act Constitutional?
  • Is the law of marriage constitutional?
  • Do the supreme Justice protections extend to the Family of the United States Supreme Justices?  If yes.  How do we protect the integrity of the courts, ?once your family is allowed to go beyond these legal boundaries?
  • Is God above the United States Constitution?

State of Florida v. Frank Paul Jones

Case: #28-2016-MM

Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution;[1] the status of a law, a procedure, or an act’s accordance with the laws or guidelines set forth in the applicable constitution. When one of these (laws, procedures, or acts) directly violates the constitution, it is unconstitutional. All the rest are considered constitutional until challenged and declared otherwise.

Under Baker Act You Have No rights as a Citizen:

This is an easy one to solve.  To lawfully Baker Act someone under this unconstitutional act to steal ones right to think as they place, practice their faith in God and it is even an end run to one’s rights under Miranda.  When you are Baker Act, you are being taken into custody by law enforcement to be transferred to a hospital not even of your choice, but you are not being arrested under the law in the State of Florida, so the Miranda Rights is not acknowledged.

Violation of the 5th Amendment

You are being said to be a danger to yourself or someone else and it means homicidal or suicidal. And the main flaw is it is based on your own testimony, which is against the 5th Amendment right, you no longer in acknowledged as having anyway, because you do not require Miranda Right, meaning you have no rights as a citizen on this law.  And the claim to take your rights, is that have ideas in your head to harm yourself or others, with is a civil action as punishment for even thinking about a criminal offense you never even tried too carryout.  And even in civil court, you are subject to being found guilty by a preponderance of evidence at least. But under Baker Act, you go straight to lock down and two weeks later and bunch of shoots also, they say you feel better you can go home. Leaving you without any civil or criminal recourse.  This is NAZI written all over it.

Baker Act is Florida Law & not Federal Law Enforcement:

The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (Florida Statute 394.451-394.47891 (2009 rev.)), commonly known as the “Baker Act,” allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual. The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment).

RE: MENTAL HEALTH–BAKER ACT–UNITED STATES–LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS–VETERANS AFFAIRS–federal veterans’ affairs police officer not a law enforcement officer for purposes of Baker Act. ss. 394.462 and 394.463, Fla. Stat.

Federal law enforcement officers do not constitute law enforcement officers for purposes of Florida’s Baker Act, and thus possess no authority under the act to initiate the involuntary examination of a person or to transport such person as law enforcement officers.

The Martha Mitchell effect is the process by which a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health clinician labels the patient’s accurate perception of real events as delusional and misdiagnoses accordingly.

Description

According to Bell et al., “Sometimes, improbable reports are erroneously assumed to be symptoms of mental illness”, due to a “failure or inability to verify whether the events have actually taken place, no matter how improbable intuitively they might appear to the busy clinician”.[1] They note that typical examples of such situations, may include:

 

  • Infidelity by a spouse
  • Physical issues

Quoting psychotherapist Joseph Berke, the authors note that “even paranoids have enemies”. Any patient, they explain, can be misdiagnosed by clinicians, especially patients with a history of paranoid delusions.

Of note is how habitually patients are diagnosed as delusional when their grievances concern health care workers and/or health care institutions, even when the patient has no history of delusion. “A patient arriving claiming to have been injured by another health care professional is regarded as a crazy person who potentially could ruin the career of an innocent colleague.”[2]

Here are five key points about the PATRIOT Act:

WIKI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

  1. It protects civil liberties and provides for the common defense. The Constitution requires the President and Congress to respect and defend individual civil liberties but also provide for the common defense. The Constitution weighs heavily on both sides of the debate over national security and civil liberties—it is important to recognize both factors.
  2. Expectation of privacy is not unlimited. The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans enjoy a “reasonable” expectation of privacy; however, this is not an unlimited expectation of privacy. This means that anything one exposes voluntarily to the public—or even to a third party—is not considered protected. Congress of course can expand these rights (and it has repeatedly); however, these protections yield to criminal and national security investigations.
  3. The law provides significant safeguards. The PATRIOT Act does not provide investigators with unfettered power to spy on innocent Americans. What it does do is ensure that national security investigators have the same tools at their disposal to investigate terrorists that law enforcement agents have to investigate and prosecute drug dealers and rapists. These tools come with significant procedural safeguards, oversight, and reporting requirements and are subject to routine and aggressive oversight by the FISA court and Congress.  
  4. It has passed constitutional muster. No single provision of the PATRIOT Act has ever been found unconstitutional. This is a testament to the act’s limited applicability, procedural safeguards, and extensive oversight mechanisms—as well as the fact that it often provides more protections than are afforded in criminal proceedings.
  5. Disagreements over the role of government are different from actual abuse. Mere expansion of executive authority in the context of national security investigations alone does not in itself create actual abuse. Certainly, there are fundamental disagreements over the role of the executive branch during wartime. However, careful monitoring and vigilant oversight are oftentimes the answer to potential abuses of power—not all-out prohibition.

 WIKI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act

 Following a lack of Congressional approval, parts of the Patriot Act expired on June 1, 2015.[5] With the passage of the USA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015, the expired parts were restored and renewed through 2019.[6] However, Section 215 of the law was amended to stop the National Security Agency from continuing its mass phone data collection program.[6] Instead, phone companies will retain the data and the NSA can obtain information about targeted individuals with permission from a federal court.[

The USA Freedom Act (“H.R. 2048”. , Pub.L. 114–23) is a U.S. law enacted on June 2, 2015 that restored in modified form several provisions of the Patriot Act, which had expired the day before. The act imposes some new limits on the bulk collection of telecommunication metadata on U.S. citizens by American intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency. It also restores authorization for roving wiretaps and tracking lone wolf terrorists.[1][2] The title of the act originally was a ten-letter backronym (USA FREEDOM) that stood for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act.“.

Baker Act 2009 – I came to Florida November 2009 – What is the intent?

Fact: I was Baker Act perhaps 20 to 25 or even 35 times in the last 7 years here in Avon Park, FL. by a psychiatrist named Dr. Doris Borden, at the VA clinic in Sebring.  I was even Baker Act out of a U.S. Post Office, under Federal Jurisdiction, by the County Sheriff Department, of Highlands County, Florida and then arrest after 36 days in a psychiatric ward, the next day, for going back to make a complaint to the Postal Inspector because the Van Duyn Family child Vicky Dunn said she owns that Federal Post Office, we the big bad Illuminati Duyn Family because I spotted Chelsea Clinton posing as fatty stealing my mail and shit.  Now you understand how they use these unconstitutional  powers to control the masses.

The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (Florida Statute 394.451-394.47891[1] (2009 rev.)), commonly known as the “Baker Act,” allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual.

The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment). It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person:

  • possibly has a mental illness (as defined in the Baker Act).
  • is a harm to self, harm to others, or self neglectful (as defined in the Baker Act).

Examinations may last up to 72 hours after a person is deemed medically stable and occur in over 100 Florida Department of Children and Families-designated receiving facilities statewide.

There are many possible outcomes following examination of the patient. This includes the release of the individual to the community (or other community placement), a petition for involuntary inpatient placement (what some call civil commitment), involuntary outpatient placement (what some call outpatient commitment or assisted treatment orders), or voluntary treatment (if the person is competent to consent to voluntary treatment and consents to voluntary treatment). The involuntary outpatient placement language in the Baker Act took effect as part of the Baker Act reform in 2005.

The act was named for a Florida state representative from Miami, Maxine Baker,[2] who had a strong interest in mental health issues, served as chair of a House Committee on Mental Health, and was the sponsor of the bill.

The nickname of the legislation has led to the term “Baker Act” as a transitive verb, and “Baker Acted” as a passive-voice verb, for invoking the Act to force an individual’s commitment. Although the Baker Act is a statute only for the state of Florida, use of “Baker Acting” as a verb has become prevalent as a slang term for involuntary commitment in other regions of the United States.

mount-sinai-emsEmergency Means Emergency not Survey looking for Food @ Mount of Deception
Baker Act Transport clearly states – There is no transfer of custody from State to Federal in Baker Act law 

In summary, law enforcement is required to complete the front side of the mandatory CF-MH 3100 form titled “Transport to Receiving facility” for every individual on involuntary status.  if the county contracts with a medical transport company for the primary transport of persons under the Baker Act, the law enforcement officer is still required to complete the form, but the back side of the form must also be completed by law enforcement and the transporter to document that the continued presence of law enforcement is not needed for the safety of the person or others.

7
No one except law enforcement has the authority to take a person against his/her will or without express and informed consent to a facility under the Baker Act unless there is a specific exception under the law.  Only after an officer has determined a lack of dangerousness can the individual be “consigned” to the care of a medical transporter.

Q. I have read the statute on transportation and understand that once a patient is on a BA that LEO must be called to transport to our central receiving center.  The question I have is #1.  How is it that other VA Hospitals that have Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOC) can transport via ambulance to the VA hospital/mother facility?  Are they going against the statute since the CBOCs are in different counties?  Should they be calling LEO and sending those patients to the local receiving facility?  And  #2. If the above is possible, then what would we need to do transport a BA in our county to a VA hospital which is in a separate county?   Would we require a Transportation Exception Plan that would permit us to use an ambulance to transport to the other county?

Only law enforcement is authorized to take persons against their will or without their informed consent under the involuntary provisions of the Baker Act.  The officer can only decline to transport if one of the specified exceptions identified in the Baker Act is met.  There are 4-5 counties in the state that have contracted (at the sole cost of the county) for medical transport of persons under the Baker Act.  In addition, if an officer believes for the safety of the officer or person in custody EMS is required, the officer can request assistance – this often results in EMS conducting the transport.  In any case, the officer is required to report to the scene and must complete the BA-3100 Transport form.  The officer can assess whether medical transport is needed and if so, co-sign the back of the form with the medical transporter documenting that the continued presence of law enforcement personnel isn’t necessary for the safety of the person or others as required by law.

If other VA outpatient clinics around the state aren’t following the law, this should be corrected and shouldn’t be a basis for you to do likewise. The law requires that a person under involuntary examination status be taken to the nearest receiving facility.  Your county has a legally sanction exception to this provision approved by the Board of County Commissioners and the Secretary of DCF that allows adults to be taken to the Central Receiving Center instead of the nearest receiving facility.  This is the only legal exception that has been approved in your County.  You can see the various exceptions approved around the state on page P-6 of the 2011 Baker Act Handbook.

You could seek another Transportation Exception Plan for veterans to be taken to a VA hospital once the law enforcement officer had completed the transport form.  However, this isn’t a quick process and may not be needed by the time your new VA hospital is completed.  For the time being, you may want to collaborate with the CRC to see if the transfer from the CRC to the out of county VA hospital can be expedited.  You might want to investigate whether a “virtual” transfer might work, if legally sufficient to meet the requirements of the law.

One of the authorized reasons for a Transportation Exception Plan is for a “specialized transportation system that provides an efficient and human method of transporting patients to receiving facilities, among receiving facilities, and to treatment facilities” (see bottom of page 89 and top of page 90 in the 2011 Baker Act Handbook.  This would
8
permit VA to arrange and pay for ambulance transport from your county to the out of county VA hospital if the law enforcement officer had completed the 3100 form with concurrence from the ambulance driver and the Board of County Commission/DCF Secretary had formally approved the Plan.

Q. The Baker Act appears very clear in its requirement that law enforcement respond to and transport Baker Acts. In our county, the Sheriff has instituted a policy in which they only respond to and transport violent Baker Acts.  When Staff try to place a call to “911,” the dispatcher asks detailed questions about the individual being Baker Acted. If the dispatcher determines they are not violent at that moment, they instruct the caller to call non-emergency transport. We have attempted to explain the law to dispatchers, EMS, and law enforcement officers, to no avail. Once, a “911” dispatcher hung up on us.  Our clinicians only initiate a Baker Act if the individual is mentally ill, an imminent risk to self or another, as a direct consequence of their illness and refusing voluntary treatment. We do not have the authority to physically restrain someone if they choose to elope. We continue to follow the law and call our local law enforcement agency when we Baker Act someone, but frequently struggle with this issue.

  • Is the Baker Act Constitutional?
  • Is the law of marriage constitutional?
  • Do the supreme Justice protections extend to the Family of the United States Supreme Justices?  If yes.  How do we protect the integrity of the courts, ?once your family is allowed to go beyond these legal boundaries?
  • Is God above the United States Constitution?

State of Florida v. Frank Paul Jones

Case: #28-2016-MM

Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution;[1] the status of a law, a procedure, or an act’s accordance with the laws or guidelines set forth in the applicable constitution. When one of these (laws, procedures, or acts) directly violates the constitution, it is unconstitutional. All the rest are considered constitutional until challenged and declared otherwise.

Under Baker Act You Have No rights as a Citizen:

This is an easy one to solve.  To lawfully Baker Act someone under this unconstitutional act to steal ones right to think as they place, practice their faith in God and it is even an end run to one’s rights under Miranda.  When you are Baker Act, you are being taken into custody by law enforcement to be transferred to a hospital not even of your choice, but you are not being arrested under the law in the State of Florida, so the Miranda Rights is not acknowledged.

Violation of the 5th Amendment

You are being said to be a danger to yourself or someone else and it means homicidal or suicidal. And the main flaw is it is based on your own testimony, which is against the 5th Amendment right, you no longer in acknowledged as having anyway, because you do not require Miranda Right, meaning you have no rights as a citizen on this law.  And the claim to take your rights, is that have ideas in your head to harm yourself or others, with is a civil action as punishment for even thinking about a criminal offense you never even tried too carryout.  And even in civil court, you are subject to being found guilty by a preponderance of evidence at least. But under Baker Act, you go straight to lock down and two weeks later and bunch of shoots also, they say you feel better you can go home. Leaving you without any civil or criminal recourse.  This is NAZI written all over it.

Baker Act is Florida Law & not Federal Law Enforcement:

The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (Florida Statute 394.451-394.47891 (2009 rev.)), commonly known as the “Baker Act,” allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual. The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment).

RE: MENTAL HEALTH–BAKER ACT–UNITED STATES–LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS–VETERANS AFFAIRS–federal veterans’ affairs police officer not a law enforcement officer for purposes of Baker Act. ss. 394.462 and 394.463, Fla. Stat.

Federal law enforcement officers do not constitute law enforcement officers for purposes of Florida’s Baker Act, and thus possess no authority under the act to initiate the involuntary examination of a person or to transport such person as law enforcement officers.

The Martha Mitchell effect is the process by which a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health clinician labels the patient’s accurate perception of real events as delusional and misdiagnoses accordingly.

Description

According to Bell et al., “Sometimes, improbable reports are erroneously assumed to be symptoms of mental illness”, due to a “failure or inability to verify whether the events have actually taken place, no matter how improbable intuitively they might appear to the busy clinician”.[1] They note that typical examples of such situations, may include:

 

  • Infidelity by a spouse
  • Physical issues

Quoting psychotherapist Joseph Berke, the authors note that “even paranoids have enemies”. Any patient, they explain, can be misdiagnosed by clinicians, especially patients with a history of paranoid delusions.

Of note is how habitually patients are diagnosed as delusional when their grievances concern health care workers and/or health care institutions, even when the patient has no history of delusion. “A patient arriving claiming to have been injured by another health care professional is regarded as a crazy person who potentially could ruin the career of an innocent colleague.”[2]

Here are five key points about the PATRIOT Act:

WIKI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

  1. It protects civil liberties and provides for the common defense. The Constitution requires the President and Congress to respect and defend individual civil liberties but also provide for the common defense. The Constitution weighs heavily on both sides of the debate over national security and civil liberties—it is important to recognize both factors.
  2. Expectation of privacy is not unlimited. The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans enjoy a “reasonable” expectation of privacy; however, this is not an unlimited expectation of privacy. This means that anything one exposes voluntarily to the public—or even to a third party—is not considered protected. Congress of course can expand these rights (and it has repeatedly); however, these protections yield to criminal and national security investigations.
  3. The law provides significant safeguards. The PATRIOT Act does not provide investigators with unfettered power to spy on innocent Americans. What it does do is ensure that national security investigators have the same tools at their disposal to investigate terrorists that law enforcement agents have to investigate and prosecute drug dealers and rapists. These tools come with significant procedural safeguards, oversight, and reporting requirements and are subject to routine and aggressive oversight by the FISA court and Congress.  
  4. It has passed constitutional muster. No single provision of the PATRIOT Act has ever been found unconstitutional. This is a testament to the act’s limited applicability, procedural safeguards, and extensive oversight mechanisms—as well as the fact that it often provides more protections than are afforded in criminal proceedings.
  5. Disagreements over the role of government are different from actual abuse. Mere expansion of executive authority in the context of national security investigations alone does not in itself create actual abuse. Certainly, there are fundamental disagreements over the role of the executive branch during wartime. However, careful monitoring and vigilant oversight are oftentimes the answer to potential abuses of power—not all-out prohibition.

 WIKI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act

 Following a lack of Congressional approval, parts of the Patriot Act expired on June 1, 2015.[5] With the passage of the USA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015, the expired parts were restored and renewed through 2019.[6] However, Section 215 of the law was amended to stop the National Security Agency from continuing its mass phone data collection program.[6] Instead, phone companies will retain the data and the NSA can obtain information about targeted individuals with permission from a federal court.[

The USA Freedom Act (“H.R. 2048”. , Pub.L. 114–23) is a U.S. law enacted on June 2, 2015 that restored in modified form several provisions of the Patriot Act, which had expired the day before. The act imposes some new limits on the bulk collection of telecommunication metadata on U.S. citizens by American intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency. It also restores authorization for roving wiretaps and tracking lone wolf terrorists.[1][2] The title of the act originally was a ten-letter backronym (USA FREEDOM) that stood for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act.“.

Baker Act 2009 – I came to Florida November 2009 – What is the intent?

Fact: I was Baker Act perhaps 20 to 25 or even 35 times in the last 7 years here in Avon Park, FL. by a psychiatrist named Dr. Doris Borden, at the VA clinic in Sebring.  I was even Baker Act out of a U.S. Post Office, under Federal Jurisdiction, by the County Sheriff Department, of Highlands County, Florida and then arrest after 36 days in a psychiatric ward, the next day, for going back to make a complaint to the Postal Inspector because the Van Duyn Family child Vicky Dunn said she owns that Federal Post Office, we the big bad Illuminati Duyn Family because I spotted Chelsea Clinton posing as fatty stealing my mail and shit.  Now you understand how they use these unconstitutional  powers to control the masses.

The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (Florida Statute 394.451-394.47891[1] (2009 rev.)), commonly known as the “Baker Act,” allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual.

The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment). It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person:

  • possibly has a mental illness (as defined in the Baker Act).
  • is a harm to self, harm to others, or self neglectful (as defined in the Baker Act).

Examinations may last up to 72 hours after a person is deemed medically stable and occur in over 100 Florida Department of Children and Families-designated receiving facilities statewide.

There are many possible outcomes following examination of the patient. This includes the release of the individual to the community (or other community placement), a petition for involuntary inpatient placement (what some call civil commitment), involuntary outpatient placement (what some call outpatient commitment or assisted treatment orders), or voluntary treatment (if the person is competent to consent to voluntary treatment and consents to voluntary treatment). The involuntary outpatient placement language in the Baker Act took effect as part of the Baker Act reform in 2005.

The act was named for a Florida state representative from Miami, Maxine Baker,[2] who had a strong interest in mental health issues, served as chair of a House Committee on Mental Health, and was the sponsor of the bill.

The nickname of the legislation has led to the term “Baker Act” as a transitive verb, and “Baker Acted” as a passive-voice verb, for invoking the Act to force an individual’s commitment. Although the Baker Act is a statute only for the state of Florida, use of “Baker Acting” as a verb has become prevalent as a slang term for involuntary commitment in other regions of the United States.

mount-sinai-emsEmergency Means Emergency not Survey looking for Food @ Mount of Deception
Baker Act Transport clearly states – There is no transfer of custody from State to Federal in Baker Act law 

In summary, law enforcement is required to complete the front side of the mandatory CF-MH 3100 form titled “Transport to Receiving facility” for every individual on involuntary status.  if the county contracts with a medical transport company for the primary transport of persons under the Baker Act, the law enforcement officer is still required to complete the form, but the back side of the form must also be completed by law enforcement and the transporter to document that the continued presence of law enforcement is not needed for the safety of the person or others.

7
No one except law enforcement has the authority to take a person against his/her will or without express and informed consent to a facility under the Baker Act unless there is a specific exception under the law.  Only after an officer has determined a lack of dangerousness can the individual be “consigned” to the care of a medical transporter.

Q. I have read the statute on transportation and understand that once a patient is on a BA that LEO must be called to transport to our central receiving center.  The question I have is #1.  How is it that other VA Hospitals that have Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOC) can transport via ambulance to the VA hospital/mother facility?  Are they going against the statute since the CBOCs are in different counties?  Should they be calling LEO and sending those patients to the local receiving facility?  And  #2. If the above is possible, then what would we need to do transport a BA in our county to a VA hospital which is in a separate county?   Would we require a Transportation Exception Plan that would permit us to use an ambulance to transport to the other county?

Only law enforcement is authorized to take persons against their will or without their informed consent under the involuntary provisions of the Baker Act.  The officer can only decline to transport if one of the specified exceptions identified in the Baker Act is met.  There are 4-5 counties in the state that have contracted (at the sole cost of the county) for medical transport of persons under the Baker Act.  In addition, if an officer believes for the safety of the officer or person in custody EMS is required, the officer can request assistance – this often results in EMS conducting the transport.  In any case, the officer is required to report to the scene and must complete the BA-3100 Transport form.  The officer can assess whether medical transport is needed and if so, co-sign the back of the form with the medical transporter documenting that the continued presence of law enforcement personnel isn’t necessary for the safety of the person or others as required by law.

If other VA outpatient clinics around the state aren’t following the law, this should be corrected and shouldn’t be a basis for you to do likewise. The law requires that a person under involuntary examination status be taken to the nearest receiving facility.  Your county has a legally sanction exception to this provision approved by the Board of County Commissioners and the Secretary of DCF that allows adults to be taken to the Central Receiving Center instead of the nearest receiving facility.  This is the only legal exception that has been approved in your County.  You can see the various exceptions approved around the state on page P-6 of the 2011 Baker Act Handbook.

You could seek another Transportation Exception Plan for veterans to be taken to a VA hospital once the law enforcement officer had completed the transport form.  However, this isn’t a quick process and may not be needed by the time your new VA hospital is completed.  For the time being, you may want to collaborate with the CRC to see if the transfer from the CRC to the out of county VA hospital can be expedited.  You might want to investigate whether a “virtual” transfer might work, if legally sufficient to meet the requirements of the law.

One of the authorized reasons for a Transportation Exception Plan is for a “specialized transportation system that provides an efficient and human method of transporting patients to receiving facilities, among receiving facilities, and to treatment facilities” (see bottom of page 89 and top of page 90 in the 2011 Baker Act Handbook.  This would
8
permit VA to arrange and pay for ambulance transport from your county to the out of county VA hospital if the law enforcement officer had completed the 3100 form with concurrence from the ambulance driver and the Board of County Commission/DCF Secretary had formally approved the Plan.

Q. The Baker Act appears very clear in its requirement that law enforcement respond to and transport Baker Acts. In our county, the Sheriff has instituted a policy in which they only respond to and transport violent Baker Acts.  When Staff try to place a call to “911,” the dispatcher asks detailed questions about the individual being Baker Acted. If the dispatcher determines they are not violent at that moment, they instruct the caller to call non-emergency transport. We have attempted to explain the law to dispatchers, EMS, and law enforcement officers, to no avail. Once, a “911” dispatcher hung up on us.  Our clinicians only initiate a Baker Act if the individual is mentally ill, an imminent risk to self or another, as a direct consequence of their illness and refusing voluntary treatment. We do not have the authority to physically restrain someone if they choose to elope. We continue to follow the law and call our local law enforcement agency when we Baker Act someone, but frequently struggle with this issue.

ROE v. DBA Jesus Christ (U.S.S.C) 2017

Good Morning Family and Friends

It is a nice morning in New York City. The weather seems to be a little humid. But overall, it is the type of day, when you might want to get you a bottle of water and take a walk and adopts block.

To adopt a block is to go somewhere in your neighborhood or one of a friend or family and clean up the area and show some type of self-love and pride for self, family, community, nation and God.

If a contractor sees potential in this development, he will b attracted by a loving and welcoming community of people, wanting a better way for their children, who are tomorrow and make tomorrow today.

In Washington D.C., they use this type of ordinance to help give community residents and passer byers a safe haven from all types of unconstitutional acts of aggression against the poor and other the Veteran’s community, because everybody knew until today, “Veteran don’t get Veteran Benefits.” So who does? The criminals, who took over America. The criminals, for good is bad, so the baddy, baddie is called the good guys or Wise Guys. The undercover FBI Informant, who call the FBI the Full Blooded Italians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

This is constitutional, because you can tell on someone for doing something wrong and if they are found to have violated the constitution, then that person must stand as a witness. Therefore the basis for assuming the investigation was based on a credible witness and not an adversarial decision based on personal issues.

But if that person is found to have not done ant wrong doings, that person, should know why this investigation took place. Therefore these Whistleblowers should be imported by the new Veterans calls to Arms, granting jobs in the right places, based on VETS First.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_protection

What the Law Implies – The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970

The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922 October 15, 1970), was an Act of Congress sponsored by Democratic Senator John L. McClellan[1] and signed into law by U.S. President Richard Nixon.

The Act was the product of two sets of hearings in the Senate, the Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management hearings of 1957-1959 and the McClellan hearings of 1962-1964.

The Act prohibits the creation or management of a gambling organization involving five or more people if it has been in business more than 30 days or accumulates $2,000 in gross revenue in a single day. It also gave grand juries new powers, permitted detention of unmanageable witnesses, and gave the U.S. Attorney General authorization to protect witnesses, both state and federal, and their families.[2] This last measure helped lead to the creation of WITSEC, an acronym for witness security.

Part of the Act created the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.[3]

 

The Basis of such Needed Protections:

United States

Further information: United States Federal Witness Protection Program

The United States established a formal program of witness protection, run by the U.S. Marshal Service, under the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Before that, witness protection had been instituted under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 to protect people testifying against members of the Ku Klux Klan. Earlier in the 20th century, the Federal Bureau of Investigation also occasionally crafted new identities to protect witnesses.[15]

Many states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York and Texas, as well as Washington, D.C., have their own witness protection programs for crimes not covered by the federal program. The state-run programs provide less extensive protections than the federal program. They also cannot hold or have as many people involved as the federal program.[16][17][18]

Before witness protection funds can be sought, law enforcement must conduct an assessment of the threat or potential for danger. This assessment includes an analysis of the extent the person or persons making the threats appear to have the resources, intent, and motivation to carry out the threats and how credible and serious the threats appear to be. When threats are deemed credible and witnesses request law enforcement assistance, witness protection funds can be used to provide assistance to witnesses which helps law enforcement keep witnesses safe and help ensure witnesses appear in court and provide testimony.[19]

Special arrangements, known as S-5 and S-6 visas, also exist to bring key alien witnesses into the US from overseas.[20] T visas may be used to admit into the United States victims of human trafficking willing to assist in prosecuting the traffickers.[21]

The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13), also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Force Act of 1871, Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, or Third Ku Klux Klan Act, is an Act of the United States Congress which empowered the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to combat the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other white supremacy organizations. The act was passed by the 42nd United States Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871. The act was the last of three Enforcement Acts passed by the United States Congress from 1870 to 1871 during the Reconstruction Era to combat attacks upon the suffrage rights of African Americans. The statute has been subject to only minor changes since then, but has been the subject of voluminous interpretation by courts.

This legislation was asked for by President Grant and passed within one month of the president’s request for it to Congress. Grant’s request was a result of the reports he was receiving of widespread racial threats in the Deep South, particularly in South Carolina. He felt that he needed to have his authority broadened before he could effectively intervene. After the act’s passage, the president had the power for the first time to both suppress state disorders on his own initiative and to suspend the right of habeas corpus. Grant did not hesitate to use this authority on numerous occasions during his presidency, and as a result the first era KKK was completely dismantled and did not resurface in any meaningful way until the first part of the 20th century.[1] Several of its provisions still exist today as codified statutes. The most important of these is 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights.

The Basis Review:

The KKK v. Organized Crime or Civil Law v. Criminal Law

The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13), also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Force Act of 1871, Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, or Third Ku Klux Klan Act, is an Act of the United States Congress which empowered the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to combat the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other white supremacy organizations. The act was passed by the 42nd United States Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871. The act was the last of three Enforcement Acts passed by the United States Congress from 1870 to 1871 during the Reconstruction Era to combat attacks upon the suffrage rights of African Americans. The statute has been subject to only minor changes since then, but has been the subject of voluminous interpretation by courts.

This legislation was asked for by President Grant and passed within one month of the president’s request for it to Congress. Grant’s request was a result of the reports he was receiving of widespread racial threats in the Deep South, particularly in South Carolina. He felt that he needed to have his authority broadened before he could effectively intervene. After the act’s passage, the president had the power for the first time to both suppress state disorders on his own initiative and to suspend the right of habeas corpus. Grant did not hesitate to use this authority on numerous occasions during his presidency, and as a result the first era KKK was completely dismantled and did not resurface in any meaningful way until the first part of the 20th century.[1] Several of its provisions still exist today as codified statutes. The most important of these is 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights.

 

42 U.S.C. Statute 1983

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)

 

ROE v. DBA Jesus Christ (U.S.S.C) 2017

A Precedent Supreme Court Decision – Based on Writ of Certiorari by DBA Jesus Christ

This is a precedence setting case, based on the proper interpretation of ROE v. Wade, the 5th Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona. And also it is supported by the essence of the Department of Families and Children and the offices of Probation and Parole. In that all persons have a right to advocacy, rather an in-emancipated child, one who is retarded under the law or one who has be judicially injured.

And the consequence for doing these types of unconstitutional acts, clearly places the convicted person(s) of the decision of indictments based on 42 U.S.C. Statute 1983.

In ROE v. Wade, two things was made very clear, 1. Marriage is unconstitutional, due to this woman having the right to choose without any joint discussions with her husband, who did not want her to get an abortion.

But then we had to define abortion. To abort it to prevent, before conception, because life begins at conception. Actually this case was her conviction. Yes, you had the right to an abortion, but that child was a living fetus and that constitutes murder in the 1st degree.

Then comes the question of rights to all humankind. As sure as we allow Forster Care to operate and place person’s on probation and parole and have a failing education system, people not only have a right to an advocate, but it is the duty of this nation to provide them to each and every person whose rights are being violated. Therefore that unborn child, had a right to a guardian advocate to prevent her mother from murdering her. Just as we remove a child from a home of an abusive parent how much more urgent is the case of a fetus removed to be killed?

Therefore the same rationality to assist those who are illiterate of or retarded due to the lack of understanding of the nature of the charges being presents for a plea. Due to being judicially injured, without civil rights, all you can do is remain silent as said in the reading and understand Miranda has to be read and not recited. A Convicted Felon has to be mirandized and represented before the court appointed attorney, due to their inability to represent self.

Public Information Laws North Carolina and the United States Federal Agencies

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/772f2676-8b51-417e-9cd9-90fbf7f79133/Understanding-Public-Records.aspx

Understanding Public Records

Questions and Answers:

 

1. What is the public policy regarding public records?

The North Carolina General Assembly has declared as a matter of public policy that the public records and public information compiled by agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. N.C.G.S. § 132-1(b)

 

2. What are public records?

Public records are documentary materials that are either made or received by government agencies in North Carolina in carrying on public business. Public records include documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristic. N.C.G.S. § 132-1

 

3. Who may inspect or get copies of public records?

Any person may inspect and get copies of public records. N.C.G.S. § 132-6

 

4. To whom should a request for public records be directed?

The Public Records Law does not describe any specific procedure that a person must follow in requesting to inspect public records.  Normally, a request to any employee in a government office is sufficient to get access to records in that office. However, it is the custodian of public records who is specifically required to allow those records to be inspected. The public official in charge of an office is designated to be the custodian of records for that office. N.C.G..S. § 132-2

 

5. When are public records available for inspection or copying?

The Public Records Law says that inspection and examination of records should be allowed at “reasonable times” and under the reasonable supervision of the agency. “Reasonable times” is generally understood to mean during regular business hours. N.C.G.S. § 132-6

 

6. May citizens request copies of public records in any media available?

If an agency has the capability to provide copies of public records in different kinds of media (for example, in print or on computer disc), people requesting copies may choose to get copies in any and all the media available. People requesting copies of computer databases may be required to make their requests in writing. N.C.G.S. § 132-6.2(c)

 

7. May an agency charge fees for public records?

Government agencies may not charge fees for inspecting public records. Fees for certifying copies of public records are provided by law. However, unless otherwise provided by law, no public agency shall charge a fee for an uncertified copy of a public record that exceeds the actual cost to the public agency of making the copy. N.C.G.S. § 132-6.2(b)

 

8. Must a public agency provide information in verbal form?

The Public Records Law requires that government agencies permit people to inspect or get copies of information that is in recorded form. The law does not indicate that government agencies are required to provide information verbally to people who request it. N.C.G.S. § 132-6.2(e)

 

9. What about inspecting or getting copies of records that contain both public and confidential information?

Some records contain both public and confidential information. Government agencies may not refuse to permit inspection or to provide copies because public records contain some confidential information. Agencies must permit inspection and provide copies of the public, non-confidential parts of these records. N.C.G.S. § 132-6(c)

 

10. What are the remedies available if an agency refuses to release or disclose a public record?

Any person who is denied access to public records for the purposes of inspection or examination, and any person who is denied copies of public records, may bring a civil action in court against the government agency or official who is denying access or copies.

Courts are required to set public records suits for immediate hearings and to give hearings of these cases priority over other cases. The court may order the agency to permit inspection or provide copies if the court determines that the person seeking the records is entitled to them. N.C.G.S. § 132-9

 

11. Are certain government records exempt from disclosure?

The public records law exempts certain types of records from required disclosure. The law says that records containing certain communications between attorneys and their government clients, state tax information (N.C.G.S. § 132-1.1), trade secrets (N.C.G.S. § 132-1.2), certain lawsuit settlements (N.C.G.S. § 132-1.3), criminal investigation records (N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4), and records about industrial expansion (N.C.G.S. § 132-6(d)), are not public records.

Several statutes regulate public disclosure of personnel information of government employees. Although some personnel information is public (for example, name, age, date of employment, current position, title, current salary, date of most recent salary or position assignment change, location of current assignment and the written notice of final termination decision) personnel files of state, county and municipal employees are generally confidential. See N.C.G.S. §§ 126-22, 153A-98, 160A-168, 115C-321, 115D-29, 122C-158, 130A-42, 131E-97.1, 162A-6.1. These rules apply to personnel information for applicants, current employees and former employees.

 

12. If records containing “criminal investigation” information are not public records, does that mean that all law enforcement records are confidential?

N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4 (a) states that records of criminal investigations conducted by public law enforcement agencies or records of criminal intelligence information compiled by public law enforcement agencies are not public records. However, unless otherwise prohibited by law, certain information collected by public law enforcement agencies is public record as defined by the Public Records Law.

For example, the time, date, location and the nature of an apparent violation of the law reported to a public law enforcement agency, and the name, sex, age, address, employment and alleged violation of law of a person arrested, charged or indicted are public information. N.C.G.S. §132-1.4 (c) (1) & (2)

Note: State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) records are not public records and access to them is not available under the Public Records Law. Case law has held that access to SBI records is controlled entirely by N.C.G.S. § 114-15. Similarly, case law has held that prison records are confidential and are not subject to inspection by the public or by the inmate involved.

 

13. Does the Public Records Law cover access to records of federal agencies?

Records of federal agencies in North Carolina are not covered by the Public Records Law. However, in 1966, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) generally provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, of access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions thereof) are protected by one of the nine exemptions or by one to three special law enforcement record exclusions.

Persons seeking federal records under FOIA should contact an agency public information officer. If this informal contact is not successful, a formal written request should be filed. Appropriate contacts may be determined by calling the agency or by referencing the Federal Register, available in the documents sections of larger institutional libraries or through the state library.

 

 

Have Questions?

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/218/case.html

Argument for the 6th Amendment

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)

The 6th Amendment – Litigation

United States v. Wade

No. 334

Argued February 16, 1967

Decided June 12, 1967

388 U.S. 218

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

fbi witness protection violation rights to cross examination of witness

The Jencks Act 18 U.S.C. Statute 3500

The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, provides that the government (prosecutor) is required to produce a verbatim statement or report made by a government witness or prospective government witness (other than the defendant), but only after the witness has testified. Jencks material is evidence that is used in the course of a federal criminal prosecution in the United States. It usually consists of documents relied upon by government witnesses who testify at trial. The material is described as inculpatory, favoring the United States government’s prosecution of a criminal defendant. The Jencks Act also covers other documents related to the testimony, or relied upon by government witnesses at trial. Typically, the material may consist of police notes, memoranda, reports, summaries, letters, related to an indictment or verbatim transcripts used by government agents or employees to testify at trial.[1] This also includes a witness’s grand jury testimony, if the witness testified at trial.[2]

After the government’s witness testifies, the court must, upon motion of the defendant, order the government to produce any statement of the witness in the government’s possession relating to the subject matter as to which the witness testified. The court’s denial of such a motion by a defendant is reversible error, although the court need not order the disclosure sua sponte.[3] The usual remedy for failure of the government to produce the documents is a mistrial and dismissal of criminal charges against the defendant.[4]

Call United States Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division: 1- 301 583 7350

Under the Jencks Act, every record and the name and fictitious name of any and all witnesses protected by the FBI Witness Protection Program, must be upload as public information on the Official FBI vault website.  This is the duty of the Department of Justice, to be carried out with due diligence and in sound mind and memory, for the people, who this information belongs and to the accused as a their right to cross-examination in all future court appeals.

AMSCOT: RICO for Loan Sharking

15 July 2017

Fact Pattern
Board Bus to Augusta, GA. In Avon Park, FL. at about 2:55 PM Sunday 8 Jan 2017
The original Schedule changed in West Palm Beach due to long holdover.
Due to holdover, I did not arrive as schedule on the 9th during the afternoon, but got to Augusta,GA about 2:30 AM on the 10th. Almost 12 hours behind schedule.
Homeland Security photos will prove:
On the way to Augusta, GA, upon my leaving the bus in Augusta, GA.
1.  Jay-Z and a person got off the bus with me.
2. Michelle Ware aka Obama was on the bus with me, but stayed on as he got off.
3. His phone called the EMS.
4. he made a phone call prior to the last boarding to Augusta, and said Dahoud, as to say the conversation was with Dahoud Smith.
5. He told me he could not red or use a computer.
6. I went directly to the VAMC, Augusta, GA. Emergency room. that morning
7. Here is my second visit requesting travel over 4 months ago. So if travel is behind 4 month, why I never got these emergency room visits as a hate crime victim, who has to come to Augusta, GA., for medical.
8. I and then Beyonce stayed in the shelter in Augusta, GA., where she was hidden.  I say Josephine aka Baker there, we broke bread as well as Brain McKnight.
9. I pleaded with Sandersville, GA and Avon Park, FL. for emergency help.
I realized they did not give a damn and me and Beyonce returned to Florida.
10. She and I was photographed on the bus and she was behind me and the woman Izzy Jones was accused of raping, and my DNA and drivers license was entered into evidence as well as my children blood, with the woman signing an agreement to release her HEPA information to the courts, which was actually my family blood and my semen and Driver license information.
This is a conspiracy. And it constitutes a RICO Act indictment.  Therefore Shawn Carter aka Jay-Z, must be indicted under RICO for stalking with intent to defraud and kidnapped the children of God.

 

RE: The War on Drugs Declared Unconstitutional & Stay of Execution of Releasing Prisoners
In 1973 the Richard Nixon Administration declared a war on drugs.  This is a mythology, can the dope do time in prison?  it was a war against the American people.  And by executive order, to enforce this temporary decree, his administration established both the FDA and DEA. One being Legislative in authority and the other judicially a law enforcement agency.  But the law enforcement agency, being the DEA determined the law by scheduling drugs.  And then 2004, under the George W. Bush administration, the FDA schedule THC at schedule 3.  And today in many health stores CBD is being sold as a vitamin supplement.  The two active ingredients in marijuana is THC and CBD, yet Marijuana is a schedule one drug.  And therefore in the United States though, THC is schedule 3 and by law can be sold over the counter in a drugs store and CBD is found to be a great supplement and cure to many diseases, in the United States, due to the scheduling of marijuana United States pharmaceutical companies cannot develop both THC and CBD.  But if they are in these chemical forms, they can in fact sell them over the counter.
The United States is 51 separate and distinct governments. And no state government can supersede the Federal government.
The United States of America (/əˈmɛrɪkə/; USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic[20][21] composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 6] Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America between Canada and Mexico.
There is no state rights over federal jurisdictions:
In American political discourse, states’ rights are political powers reserved for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states’ rights—that only the states possess.[1][2]
 
 
The Department of Veterans Affairs Act of 1988 (Pub.L. 100–527) changed the former Veterans Administration, an independent government agency established in 1930, primarily to see to the needs of World War I veterans, into a Cabinet-level Department of Veterans Affairs. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on October 25, 1988, but actually came into effect under the term of his successor, George H. W. Bush, on March 15, 1989.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Act of 1988 (Pub.L. 100–527) changed the former Veterans Administration, an independent government agency established in 1930, primarily at that time to see to needs of World War I, into a Cabinet-level Department of Veterans Affairs. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on October 25, 1988, but actually came into effect under the term of his successor, George H. W. Bush, on March 15, 1989.

Public Law 100-527 100th Congress

An Act

To establish the Veterans’ Administration as an executive department, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Department of Veterans Affairs Act”.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATION AS AN EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. The Veterans’ Administration is hereby predesignated as the Department of Veterans Affairs and shall be an executive department in the executive branch of the Government. There shall be at the head of the Department a Secretary of Veterans Affairs, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Department shall be administered under the supervision and direction of the Secretary.
 
The Rockefeller Law:
 
The Rockefeller Drug Laws are the statutes dealing with the sale and possession of “narcotic” drugs in the New York State Penal Law. The laws are named after Nelson Rockefeller, who was the state’s governor at the time the laws were adopted.
Under the Rockefeller drug laws, the penalty for selling two ounces (57 g) or more of heroin, morphine, “raw or prepared opium,” cocaine, or cannabis or possessing four ounces (113 g) or more of the same substances, was a minimum of 15 years to life in prison, and a maximum of 25 years to life in prison. The original legislation also mandated the same penalty for committing a violent crime while under the influence of the same drugs, but this provision was subsequently omitted from the bill and was not part of the legislation Rockefeller ultimately signed. The section of the laws applying to marijuana was repealed in 1977, under the Democratic Governor Hugh Carey.
The Vietnam Conflict:
The Vietnam War was a long, costly armed conflict that pitted the communist regime of North Vietnam and its southern allies, known as the Viet Cong, against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States.
The Vietnam War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh Việt Nam), also known as the Second Indochina War,[56] and known in Vietnam as Resistance War Against America (Vietnamese: Kháng chiến chống Mỹ) or simply the American War, was a war that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955[A 1] to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. It was the second of the Indochina Wars and was officially fought between North Vietnam and the government of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese army was supported by the Soviet Union, China and other communist allies and the South Vietnamese army was supported by the United States, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and other anti-communist allies.[57] The war is therefore considered a Cold War-era proxy war.[58]
 
The Frank Lucas Bust:
In January 1975, Lucas’ house in Teaneck, New Jersey, was raided by a task force consisting of 10 agents from Group 22 of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and 10 New York Police Department detectives attached to the Organized Crime Control Bureau (OCCB).[15] In his house authorities found $584,683 in cash.[15] He was later convicted of both federal and New Jersey state drug violations. The following year he was sentenced to 70 years in prison.[1] Once convicted, Lucas provided evidence that led to more than 100 further drug-related convictions. For his safety in 1977, Lucas and his family were placed in the witness protection program.[16][17] In 1981, after 5 years in custody, his 40-year Federal term and 30-year state term were reduced to time served plus lifetime parole.[1] In 1984, he was caught and convicted of trying to exchange one ounce of heroin and $13,000 for one kilogram of cocaine.[2] He was defended by his former prosecutor Richie Roberts and received a sentence of seven years. He was released from prison in 1991.[3]
 
No bodies was found in drug shipment from Vietnam.
1.  The Veterans Affairs, does not give benefits to veterans. Vietnam is a lie that was to ship heroin into America.
2.  The only district to legalize marijuana within the confines of the United States Constitution was Washington, D.C. and therefore every state that legalized marijuana and not for the intent to change an unconstitutional law, every Governor and Attorney General is to be indicted under RICO statute for Racketeering.  Fr this reason there will be a stay of execution in every state, with the exception of the District of Columbia. Because in Washington, D.C. prior to their legalizing marijuana they ceased to enforce the law, but every state in the Union, continued to enforce this unconstitutional law while they legalized it, showing their intent was to profit and that is called racketeering.
3. I do not agree with this decision by the Congress to takeover the Veterans Administration. Because basically the same people who start wars are in control of the funds that goes to those injured by these wars.  But since it s being enforced at the time and I plan to transition this back to an independent entity.  Under martial, I hereby as the executive over all our Nations affairs, place the Veterans Affairs under God’s Control and management and under military management.
4. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states we must give rights to sexual orientation.  Therefore the Mutant law States Mutants have no civil rights, but do have a right to advocacy.  And until every last claimed Veteran who gets Veteran benefits proves their sexual orientation, all service connected benefits is immediately stopped.
5. I was told, the VA is 4 months behind on travel pay.  Fine. if all my funds is not in my account by Tuesday, every last one of them is fired and will be tried for treasonous act against God and the United States Constitution.
DBA Jesus Christ
The National Sheriff’s Association- Deemed Uncon
National Sheriffs’ Association
1450 Duke St,
Alexandria, VA 22314
 
The National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) is a U.S. trade association. Its stated purpose is to raise the level of professionalism among U.S. sheriffs, their deputies and others in the fields of criminal justice and public safety.
 

National Sheriffs’ Association

National Sheriffs' Association
The National Sheriffs’ Association is a U.S. trade association. Its stated purpose is to raise the level of professionalism among U.S. sheriffs, their deputies and others in the fields of criminal justice and public safety. Since its founding in 1940, NSA has been the advocacy organization for the nation’s sheriffs in Washington, D.C. Its Government Affairs Division, in conjunction with the Congressional Affairs Committee, develops the Association’s policy positions and represents the Association before the United States Congress, the White House, and the various federal agencies.
I hereby declared the National Sheriff’s Association a Terror organization.  And all it’s affiliates are declared unconstitutional.  The reasoning is simple:

United States[edit]

Minor crimes and infractions[edit]

When there exists probable cause to believe that a person has committed a minor crime, such as petty theft, driving on a suspended license, or disturbing the peace, law enforcement agents typically issue the individual a citation but do not arrest them. The person must then appear in court on the date provided on the citation. Prior to the court date, the prosecution will decide whether to file formal criminal charges against the individual. When the accused appears in court, they will be advised if formal criminal charges have been filed. If charges are filed, they will be asked to plead guilty or not guilty at the initial court hearing, which is referred to as the arraignment.[7]

Arrests for serious crimes[edit]

When a person is arrested for a serious crime, in California for example, the accused is entitled to be released upon reasonable bail. The accused will be advised of the bail amount, which is based upon a bail schedule that is established on an annual basis by the judges in each county. When law enforcement agents believe to have probable cause to arrest a person for a serious crime, the police typically handcuff an arrested person. The accused will have their mug shot taken and be held in a police station or jail pending their ability to post bail. If the accused cannot post bail, they will appear at their arraignment where the judge will determine if the bail set by the schedule should be raised, lowered, or remain at the initial amount.[8]

Also, in certain states, the prosecution has 48 hours to decide whether or not to file formal charges against the accused. For example, in California, if no formal charges are filed within the 48-hour period, the accused must be released from custody. If formal charges are filed, the accused will be asked to appear at their arraignment. At the arraignment, the accused will be asked to plead guilty or not guilty, and the judge will set a bail amount (or refuse to set bail) for the accused.[9]

In 2010, the FBI estimated that law enforcement agencies made 13,120,947 arrests (excluding traffic violations). Of those persons arrested, 74.5% were male and 69.4 percent of all persons arrested were white, 28.0 percent were black, and the remaining 2.6 percent were of other ethnicities.[10]

The Miranda warning, which can also be referred to as the Miranda rights, is a right to silence warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings.

Miranda Rights are the result of the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, in which the Supreme Court ruled when a person is taken into police custody, and before being questioned, they must be informed of their Fifth Amendment right against making self-incriminating statements.

ROE v. DBA Jesus Christ (U.S.S.C.) 2017

States everyone has the right to advocacy. And this includes the judicially injured.  The basis of Foster Care, being allowed to remove an abused child from their natural parents home and the authority of the courts to placed person (s) on parole, probation and supervised release under both local under state and federal law, is that these people have a right to advocacy.  A person on parole, probation or supervised release is considered judicially injured in the court of law and is therefore not allowed to advocate for self before a judge.  Therefore he/she cannot even plead guilty or not guilty and that is what his/her probation/parole officer duty is, but he still has the right to legal representation and his only right is to remain silent, but he cannot address the court.

A child under 18 years old and not emancipated, cannot address the court or make his/her own decisions before a judge.

And any person who cannot read or is considered illiterate under the court of law, is deemed, retarded and therefore cannot understand the nature of the charges being presented before him.  For example Jay-Z, is being charged with blasphemy.  Who wants to represent this bitch ass motherfucker. You want spare him, because he cannot read?  Well how it the hell he decide my Queen of Queens every married his illiterate ass?

And blasphemous statement about my children will be taken down of the fucking internet now!!

National Sheriffs’ Association is unconstitutional for a few reasons. 1) They do not have a change of custody after an arrest. The sheriff arrest you and then places you in her damn jail.  2) they do not read persons their Miranda Rights.  3) They do ask a person, do they understand the nature of the charges they face.  4) The force or accept pleas from the illiterate and judicially injured.

Solution: Replace these agencies with the Department of Corrections and the Department of Law Enforcement under Martial Law.

5 Stars

DBA Jesus Christ – General of the Army

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s