The Hammer is Used to Steal Presidential Elections
In 2012, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts was directly opposed to Obamacare and stated so in his own legal argument. In a bizzare move, Roberts completely changed his mind during the 11th hour. The cause of his sudden reversal can be attributed to “The Hammer”.
🔹Inventor and software designer Dennis Montgomery, a CIA/DOD/DHS/NSA/FBI contractor-turned-whistleblower, alerted FBI Director James Comey’s office a few years later (in 2015) that President Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan and Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had turned the super-surveillance system that Montgomery designed for foreign surveillance, known as The Hammer, into a domestic surveillance system.
🔹Montgomery became alarmed when Obama and his intelligence chiefs Brennan and Clapper turned the super-surveillance system against the American people.
🔹Montgomery, under a second limited immunity agreement, also in 2015, provided the FBI and the DOJ with sworn testimony about The Hammer and the contents of 47 hard drives. Particularly concerning was the fact that the Obama team used a Hammer application called “Scorecard” to steal the 2012 presidential election in Florida.
🔹By 2020, the Hammer’s Scorecard was used to steal the presidential election for Obama’s controlled and compromised Joe Biden.
🔹A week prior to the 2020 election day, The American Report warned about the stealing of the election:
🔹The Hammer was developed only to be used for foreign surveillance, not to be weaponized for domestic surveillance against the American people, according to Montgomery and to U.S. military sources.
🔹Montgomery realized that Obama, Brennan, and Clapper used The Hammer in a diabolically intrusive manner in order to spy on the American people and collect massive amounts of surveillance data for “leverage” and “blackmail.”
🔹By October 2020, it was revealed by citizen journalists and confidential sources that Scorecard would be stealing votes in Florida, Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona. Now we know this was true.
🔹Scorecard stole the elections by tampering with the computers at the transfer points of state election computer systems and outside third party election data vaults as votes were being transferred. The Obama team had an encrypted VPN in order to access The Hammer at will.
🔹Also in August 2015, Montgomery revealed the federal government continuously targeted Joe Biden and Hunter Biden with electronic surveillance via The Hammer. Among the evidence stored on the 47 hard drives, was information implicating Hunter Biden in illegal activities. Montgomery told the FBI there were 10,000 pages of documents regarding Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, including compromising videos and images.
Hunter Biden popular meme
🔹According to U.S. military sources, Montgomery’s surveillance technology was designed to spy on foreign enemies. However not only did it save American lives as America’s “War on Terror” broadened, but also featured built-in safeguards to prevent the system from ever being used for domestic surveillance.
🔹“Multiple echelons” of government, including the FISA court, had to sign off on each and every foreign surveillance operation conducted with the use of THE HAMMER.
🔹Montgomery revealed that Brennan and Clapper used the super-surveillance system Montgomery designed to spy on 156 Article III federal judges, including the onetime head of the FISA court Judge Reggie Walton, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts, members of Congress, Wall Street executives, Rudy Giuliani, Lt. General Michael Flynn, Donald Trump, Trump Tower, multiple Trump businesses, and members of the Trump family.
Brennan and Clapper
🔹Montgomery’s revelations about his super-surveillance system, Hammer, call into question Chief Justice Robert’s strange and inexplicable 2012 decision that stood in direct opposition to his own stated legal argument. At the eleventh hour, Roberts flipped and supported the individual mandate for President Obama’s highly unpopular Affordable Care Act.
Interviews, conducted from January 9 through March 1, 2021 with Georgia Attorney Linn Wood’s office literally gave me nauseous shivers when I first read them two years ago. Since then, mainstream media has tried to silence this information with some degree of success. Here is a portion of the interviews regarding Vice President Mike Pence, Supreme Court Justice and their connection to Jeffrey Epstein.
“This is an interview with Ryan Dark White,” the Interviewer announced so the transcriptionist, Kimberly H. Nolan, could hear properly. “This is an interview for Attorney Lin Wood. This is Saturday, January 9th, 2021.”
“Now, VP Pence hated President Trump because he had taken his slot as rightful president — he felt that he did — and Paul Ryan was actually — considered running as well for the vice presidential slot, and Mitt Romney was also involved. But they don’t — they thought President Trump was an outsider who has not paid his dues; they just didn’t like him.”
Pence, a Compromised White House Mole
“So, once VP Pence was in there, once President Trump was elected — and obviously Vice President Pence, he just walked away and everything became very quiet. That was their mole inside, so he could run interference and make certain things and just keep tabs on the president and manage him.”
“There was leverage on Mike Pence because of surveillance from way back in the 2013 range. They had gotten FISA warrants to exploit, and Rod had that.”
Rod Rosenstein “wanted the vice president slot himself. Then if they could remove President Trump, Vice President Pence becomes president, and Rod felt that he would be the natural selection for it. Paul Ryan felt differently, as did Mitt Romney, but unfortunately that was the overall goal, each one of them vying for the vice presidential slot.”
Rosenstein
“Rod thought he was the clear winner because of his legal brilliance and his management of the Mueller investigation and special counsels and things, you know, he would be the one to remove the president, damage him so thoroughly he could be removed, and he deserved it.”
The Interviewer asked, “Do you know what type of leverage would’ve existed over the vice president?”
Pence
“The vice president has had homosexual relations in the past — it’s not a problem. Many of them were adults,” White revealed. “This is something he had done throughout his time in the Congress. When he became governor he had thought that he was free to explore them more.”
“There were two specifically that they had recorded. One gentleman roughly 20 years his junior. They had a fairly steady relationship.”
“There was one about half his age that was much more sporadic, because it was more dangerous, harder to get time alone. This person would introduce others, bring people with him. He’d have people waiting when he showed up.”
“And it was that second one that introduced younger and younger people, ‘This is whomever, he’s 17’ and he’s really 15, ‘This is whomever, he’s 15’ and he’s really 13.”
“And Rod and Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts — a lot of the younger people involved, the ones that were brought as favors, were supplied by Jeffrey Epstein’s channels, through his channels, his people.”
“We were able to get FISA warrants because Chief Justice Roberts had vice court and helped prepare them, but it was also — Epstein was an intelligence asset of some type to various agencies around the world.”
“They used his information. They exploited it for their own good. So, when he was here, or his people were here, it was easy enough to justify a FISA warrant on them.”
“You know, they would enact a warrant, surveil everything, document it, but they would not help and they would not save the child.”
“They would not, you know, reveal it, it was more important for them to have the leverage on everything. And, of course, this was under their own corrupt ideas, but under Rod, his tutelage. And they wanted the leverage.”
Jeffrey Epstein and John Roberts first met when Roberts “was under Bush, not too long after he was appointed, somewhere along in there, just meeting powerful people, something like that. He did help him with his adopted children.”
“From what was said there and what was, you know, discussed openly in this little Dirty Trick Squad, the children are not genetically brother and sister, but they’re raised that way, so that’s more valuable to them.”
“One if not both were originally from Wales, but they were in the Epstein channels and were easily removed from their version of foster care to Ireland, which has much more open adoption type records.”
“He facilitated this for Roberts so he could adopt them both at the same time. There was a little gap, but it was just paperwork. And Epstein had done that for him. So, they met, they worked together, and he was doing favors at some point.”
Children Used as a Commodity
“Children are often used as the commodity, a way to buy yourself into certain inner circles. And these people are all wealthy, they’re all powerful, and they don’t trust you unless you’re as compromised as they are. So, you provide children to them, your children, adopted children, whatever.”
Epstein and Clinton
“This is how they trust you, you’re as dirty as they are. You cannot be exposed because you can’t expose them, they can’t expose you. If everybody’s just as dirty, you know you’re safe.”
Is there any documentation to prove this?
“Yep Yanni [phonetic] has copies of the videos from the FISA surveillance. It was discussed — but I can’t prove it — that Roberts had a copy. Rod Rosenstein certainly has a copy. Shawn Henry of CrowdStrike, who was FBI at the time, he took two copies back to the FBI with him.”
“So, the copies were made and then — that was actually Shaun Bridges who encrypted them and gave them keys. So, there are copies out there.”
White said Roberts, Pence and their homosexual lovers and victims would be on the videos, tapes and copies.
“This was mostly in the country, illegal surveillance, with Roberts’ children and whomever they were with. They’d set it up. They knew that they weren’t going to be exposed because it’s Chief Justice Roberts’ children. And please keep in mind that these children have been abused since birth, and I don’t want anything else happening. They’ve already lived through hell. They don’t need anything else. But they were getting loaned out for these different groups, and they did surveil many of them.”
Bridges
Plot to Kill Supreme Court Justices
The Interviewer then asked about a known plot that “Roberts was allegedly a part of where they discussed murdering other judges on the Supreme Court under the Hillary Clinton administration.”
“This is something the FBI set up under their guidance, their political people, going to be a false flag. This had gone out two years almost before the election. And it was a sovereign citizen group.”
“Obama did not want any terrorism unless it was white terrorism, so this is a sovereign citizen group that the FBI had infiltrated and armed and instigated against other targets. They were for the most part pro-America, but they were racist in some of their origins. They were — a lot of them were divorced fathers with a grudge against the court system anyway, and the FBI people had infiltrated and exploited this.”
“They moved them up to the level of assassinating federal judges, political people, things like that. You want the names, I can tell ya.”
“So, anyway, part of their (inaudible) was various types of attacks on the Supreme Court, to take down as many judges as they could, and Roberts was aware of this. He actually provided some scheduling, because apparently the justices are not all there at one time, they come and go as they please, and these three would be working on something, these three — and he provided this to the group so they could finalize their plan…the maps, they had the weapons, they had everything planned.”
Were these assassination teams American or foreign?
“No. These were Americans. A third would be the sovereign citizen group and two-thirds would be FBI people, or people working with the FBI. They were gonna get rid of them anyway. And, actually, I have recordings of their planning on the phone with me as, you know, part of this group.”
“And then they did not hang up the phone, they did not kill the phone, and we were listening to them talk about killing me and my wife, things like that. And another time they actually butt-dialed me and they were talking about — he was on the phone talking to various people about their plans, about who they were going after and what they were gonna do to us because we knew too much and we were outside at the time.”
“So, they could not do their plan. We got the people under surveillance. We saved them, got credit for saving them. They were very upset that their plans had gone to crap. They were very upset with me, especially when they came and picked me up, but it stopped it.”
“Their plans were written out. They were — they had maps, they had surveillance, they had quite a bit of equipment.”
“This would be right after — within the first year of Hillary Clinton’s presidency. She was not supposed to lose.”
“So, this was all planned up and — it was more than just then. It was twofold. They wanted to pack the court and take out as many as they could.”
“Roberts was actually helping because he didn’t wanna be one of them, and he wanted some choice in who would serve on the bench after that. He wanted to maintain some form of control, so he did provide information.”
Roberts in earlier days.
“But this was to be done within the first year of Hillary Clinton’s campaign so that they could ban firearms as well and impact the Court, so they’d have plenty of time to do that. That was their two main goals.”
Please Support These American Owned Businesses Today
“Do you believe the death of Antonin Scalia was a part of this same plot,” the Interviewer asked Ryan White during a series of interviews in early 2021. “Or is that — do you know if that was a separate?”
“It was the same people,” White, being interviewed for Georgia Attorney Lin Wood, replied. “He had a backup plan. He was their biggest threat being the most conservative justice.”
“Justice Scalia actually — I believe he found out about this, the plans, and he went to the White House. Like a week before his death I believe he found out what they were trying to do, when they moved away from the overall attack of where these people lived or, you know, they would attack around the holidays when more than one justice would be in their home, things like this. And, again, Roberts was providing this.”
“But they had to take him out. He was seen as their biggest obstacle. So, the same basic group that was involved were given access to the ranch where he was found. They talked about how they did it. They had a couple different options.”
“But it was discussed prior to his death, what they intended to do, where they could possibly do it, how they could do it, who they would need. The records are there at the Cibolo Ranch.”
“One person was brought in — there was three men. One person was brought in as a temp worker. The other two — same team — were brought in as servants for a group that was there hunting.”
“And they discussed how it was done, that they used dipso –dimethylsulfoxide, which is a fairly inert chemical. It just goes through your skin. But if you mix it with a poison or a drug or something like that, it’ll go directly in your system and overload you.”
“I believe that’s why he was found with the pillow over his face; he was struggling to breathe. He couldn’t breathe, he was choking.”
“And this particular chemical, you can tailor it to the person; if they have a drug problem, you could put Fentanyl in it and overdose them, if they have a heart condition, it would take very little to go directly in.”
“It would be like a direct injection into the heart. And they talk about how they did it. And Roberts is on the phone with these people discussing the successor, that he wanted a say in it because now it was only gonna be one person and he wanted to pick that person, and he wanted a say in who was going to take it.”
“And, of course, there was a lot of people that were talking about Eric Holder taking it, all kinds of people, but he wanted a say in who was going to take over Justice Scalia’s spot. And I don’t think he got it. I mean, obviously it didn’t happen because President Trump was here, but he did want it.”
“And this was all prior, the discussions and him complaining that he wasn’t getting any say prior to his death, his sudden death.”
INTERVIEWER: “So, aside from the — aside from Roberts being (inaudible) on this, did (Rod) Rosenstein or anyone outside of the White House — had they been made aware of the plans, perhaps in Hillary’s camp, that you can speak about?”
“Oh, Hillary and Obama knew about it. I mean, it was supposed to be done under her watch, her term, so that they could pack the Court. They were fully aware of it.”
“Rod has an intense hatred of Hillary even though he worked with her, and he had to. He’s not fond of Obama, really. He’s only fond of himself. But this was plans to be enacted through them, and Rod was integral in wanting the Hammer system through Baltimore.”
Note: The Hammer was a system designed for spying on foreign parties that began being utilized on domestic Americans at least as early as the Obama Administration.
“This was why he was the only U.S. attorney to keep his job under Obama. Now, Obama fired every U.S. attorney at the same time except Rod — he was the only one — and this is why, because he was running things for them. He was involved in their plans, and he was running the Hammer and things through Baltimore.”
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is expected to be released from Silbey Memorial Hospital in Washington DC soon after being treated for “flu like symptoms” over the weekend.
Justice Thomas was hospitalized with an infection on Friday and according to Supreme Court spokesperson Patricia McCabe, “His symptoms are abating, he is resting comfortably, and he expects to be released from the hospital in a day or two.”
“Justice Thomas will participate in the consideration and discussion of any cases for which he is not present on the basis of the briefs, transcripts and audio of the oral arguments,” McCabe announced in a statement.
He was diagnosed with an infection after undergoing tests and is being treated with intravenous antibiotics.
The high court reconvened Monday to hear more cases. While Thomas is not expected to participate in oral arguments in person, he will be voting on the matters after reviewing all the documents and transcripts of the arguments.
Perhaps the most prominent case is the already heard Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which Justice Thomas is expected to vote to overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey cases.
“Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey haunt our country,” Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart told the Supreme Court as it opened hearings on the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
“They have no basis in the Constitution,” he argued. “They have no home in our history or traditions. They’ve damaged the democratic process. They’ve poisoned the law. They’ve choked off compromise. For fifty years they’ve kept this Court at the center of a political battle that it can never resolve. And fifty years on, they stand alone: nowhere else does this Court recognize a right to end a human life.”
Under the existing laws, statesare prohibited from banning abortions before viability. The result for decades has been the loss of nearly 63 million babies. Thousands of mothers have died in supposedly “safe,” legal abortions. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to re-consider this precedent and decide “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion are unconstitutional.”
Joe Biden’s executive order of Sept. 9, 2021, which was set to take effect on Nov. 22, 2021 has been successfully blocked for three months.
On Feb. 9, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s injunction on Biden’s vaccine requirement for federal workers. The court’s vote was 2-1. The injunction was initially issued on Jan. 21 by District Court Judge Jeffrey Brown, one of President Donald J. Trump’s appointees.
Biden was attempting to force federal employees to be fully vaccinated, unless they had an approved religious or medical exemption. If an employee did not receive a vaccine or an approved exemption, they could face disciplinary action or have their employment terminated.
This ruling follows several others surrounding the Biden administration’s vaccine policies. The current White House resident’s vaccine requirement for federal workers has been suspended by a federal court injunction since December 2021.
In January, the United States Supreme Court reinstated a stay on Biden’s vaccine requirement for companies with more than 100 employees.
The Supreme Court also lifted an injunction on Biden’s vaccine requirement for healthcare workers at facilities that participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
Jonathan Mellis is one of dozens of people who have been in painful custody at the Washington DC prison–the “American Gulag” or “DC Gitmo” –due to being at the Capitol protest of January 6, 2021. Last year, Mellis was denied release to attend his father’s funeral. His father was a Vietnam and Korean war veteran with two Purple Hearts, a Silver and Bronze star.
Here is Mellis’ complete letter with pleas for help:
My Dear Fellow Americans:
I feel like I have been buried alive. The darkness has closed in and the world has forgotten about us. The American people are totally unaware of the cruel and unusual treatment I have had to endure along with about three dozen other January 6 detainees. We are in the DC jail under such conditions that would make your skin crawl if you witnessed it with your own eyes. This old jail has a reputation going back decades for being Hell on Earth. I assure you that it is a special kind of Hell for the unlucky Trump supporters who find themselves inside these walls.
I was arrested almost a year ago. Since February 16, 2021 I have spent the vast majority of my life under strict solitary confinement. We are currently on 22 hour per day lockdown as I write this letter. I have also lived this last year of my life without being allowed to see my loved ones faces. We are not even offered video visitation like the rest of the jail. I feel lost and alone. In a weird way I am glad my family can’t see me because I look horrible. We are not offered shaving or barber services ever and only rarely do we have access to fingernail clippers. With long hair and a big beard I look like a caveman castaway. I am also pale from lack of sunlight and sickly from the terrible jail food. The food here is simply disgusting and lacks the nutritional value and portion size appropriate for a grown man. Add this to the black mold circulating through the vents and the putrid brown water we are forced to drink, then you will start to understand why we all look so sickly.
Along with the solitary confinement for this last year I have also lived under the constant threat of violence from the same correctional officers tasked with watching us. We Jan 6ers are in our own pod locked in cells by ourselves. There has been multiple times when a group of racist and hateful officers will open someone’s cell door in the middle of the night and beat them. We are all very aware and alert when doors open at night. To live on this kind of high alert for an entire year is exhausting and harmful to ones mental health. Being surrounded by the unbridled hatred of DC correctional officers every day causes a sense of hopelessness to set in. Whenever certain officers begin to like us they are removed from working our pod and we never see them again. We are the most respectful and well-behaved inmates this jail has ever had. We have been told this a lot. Yet the reasons for officers to target one of us in the middle of the night range from us singing God Bless America too loud, to one of us getting in an argument with one of the officers for refusing to give him toilet paper. I have personally been threatened and called racial slurs multiple times by officers, and even been refused meals.
Mellis
We live under the clear and present danger of correctional officers who listen to lies from CNN and the Democrat politicians. Our food has been spiked with cleaning chemicals on several occasions as retaliation when this jail gets in trouble because of us. Like when this jail failed the surprise inspection from the US Marshals and lost their federal contract. Or when a court finally held this jail in criminal contempt for refusing one of us, who has cancer, medical treatment. There have even been a couple of Jan 6ers sexually assaulted by officers in this jail. The jail administration does not care about our safety or well being. Deputy Warden Kathleen Landerkin has made this clear with over 40 of her personal social media posts. She says things publicly like, “F*** all Trump supporters.” and she clearly hates white men.
This brings me to my last point. We are diverse. We are white, black, brown, Arab, Christian, Jewish, straight, and even transgender. This Patriot Pod in the DC jail looks like America. Even though we are enduring serious violations of our Constitutional rights and violations of our dignity, we still sing the Star Spangled Banner every night at 9pm. We love this country. There was no insurrection on January 6. We are good men I promise.
I hope everyone out there are living your lives happily and lovingly. I pray that all of you are doing your part to make the world a better place. Love your neighbors and protect your family. Focus on being the best version of yourself. Don’t let the truth of the torturous conditions that I am enduring get you down. I am strong and will never give up on loving this country. Please pray for us, pray for our country, and never give up.
Please help my legal fund. They have locked me in a tiny cage. I cannot work or make money being locked up behind bars or else I would do anything I could. They have tied my hands. I need a trial lawyer and they are so expensive.
“Big news out of Pennsylvania,” wrote 45th President Donald J. Trump in a statement, “great patriotic spirit is developing at a level that nobody thought possible. Make America Great Again!”
On Jan. 28, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court struck down Act 77, which made absentee/mail-in voting available to all eligible voters, as a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The court voted 3-2, with Judges Mary Hannah Leavitt, Patricia McCullough, and Christine Fizzano Cannon (all Republicans) forming the majority and Judges Michael Wojcik and Ellen H. Ceisler (both Democrats) dissenting.
As a result, and pending action by the state supreme court, absentee/mail-in voting eligibility in Pennsylvania is governed by Article VII, Section 14, of the state constitution. This section allows absentee/mail-in voting for “qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation, or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee.”
As expected Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf criticized the ruling, saying “We need leaders to support removing more barriers to voting, not trying to silence the people.”
Judge Leavitt, writing for the majority, analyzed Act 77 within the context of three provisions of the state constitution:
Article VII, Section 1, of the Pennsylvania Constitution says a voter must have “resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least 60 days immediately preceding the election[.]”
Leavitt said, “Our Supreme Court has specifically held that the phrase ‘offer to vote’ requires the physical presence of the elector, whose ‘ballot cannot be sent by mail or express, nor can it be cast outside of all Pennsylvania election districts and certified into the county where the voter has his domicile.'”
Leavitt added, “There is no air in this construction of ‘offer to vote.’ … Our Supreme Court has further directed that before legislation ‘be placed on our statute books’ to allow qualified electors absent from their polling place on Election Day to vote by mail, ‘an amendment to the Constitution must be adopted permitting this to be done.”
Article VII, Section 4 establishes that “all elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law,” provided “that secrecy in voting be preserved.” Leavitt said, “To read Section 4 as an authorization for no-excuse mail-in voting is wrong for three reasons.
🔹First, no-excuse mail-in voting uses a paper ballot and not some ‘other method.’
🔹Second, this reading unhooks Section 4 from the remainder of Article VII as well as its historical underpinnings. It ignores the in-person place requirement that was made part of our fundamental law in 1838.
🔹Third, it renders Article VII, Section 14, surplusage.”
Article VII, Section 14, allows absentee/mail-in voting for “qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation, or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee.”
Leavitt wrote, “Section 14 can only be understood as an exception to the rule established in Article VII, Section 1, that a qualified elector must present herself at her proper polling place to vote on Election Day, unless she must ‘be absent” on Election Day for the reasons specified in Article VII, Section 14(a).”
State Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman (R) said, “Today’s ruling should serve as a call to action to open up a serious conversation about the reforms necessary to make voting both accessible and secure for all Pennsylvanians. Governor Wolf has ignored this debate for over a year, but hopefully this ruling will help bring him to the table so we can address concerns about our election system once and for all. ”
State Sen. Doug Mastriano (R) said, “I welcome the end of ‘no-excuse’ mail-in voting in Pennsylvania and I introduced legislation this session that does just that.”
Currently, seven states conduct their elections predominantly by mail (i.e., all voters automatically receive mail-in ballots.
Twenty-five states allow all voters to vote absentee/by mail, but voters must request a ballot themselves.
The remaining states allow voters meeting specific eligibility criteria to vote absentee/by mail.
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court released its January argument calendar for the 2021-2022 term. The eight cases set for argument range from immigration to campaign finance.
Jan. 10 Gallardo v. Marstiller concerns tort claims and state Medicaid program reimbursement.
“Whether the federal Medicaid Act provides for a state Medicaid program to recover reimbursement for Medicaid’s payment of a beneficiary’s past medical expenses by taking funds from the portion of the beneficiary’s tort recovery that compensates for future medical expenses.”
Jan. 11 Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez concerns the right of non-citizens in immigration detention to a bond hearing.
“Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community.”
Garland v. Gonzalez concerns the right of non-citizens in immigration detention to a bond hearing and the jurisdiction of federal courts to grant certain types of relief in such cases.
“1. Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community. 2. Whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (f) (1), the courts below had jurisdiction to grant classwide injunctive relief.”
Jan. 12 Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue concerns the time limit to file petitions with the United States Tax Court to review Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determinations.
“Section 6330(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code establishes a 30-day time limit to file a petition for review in the Tax Court of a notice of determination from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1). The question presented is:
“Whether the time limit in Section 6330(d)(1) is a jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule subject to equitable tolling.”
Jan. 18 Shurtleff v. City of Boston concerns religion, government speech, and whether a city flagpole is a public forum.
The case concerns religion, government speech, and whether a city flagpole is a public forum.
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collections Foundation concerns Foreign Services Immunities Act (FSIA) and Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act (2016) claims.
“Whether a federal court hearing state law claims brought under the FSIA must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules to determine what substantive law governs the claims at issue, or whether it may apply federal common law.”
Jan. 19
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate concerns federal election law and political campaign finance rules and spending limits.
“Whether appellees have standing to challenge the statutory loan-repayment limit.
“Whether the loan-repayment limit violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
Concepcion v. United States concerns sentencing requirements and reductions for drug offenses under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and the First Step Act.
“Whether, when deciding if it should “impose a reduced sentence” on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, 21 U.S.C. § 841 note, a district court must or may consider intervening legal and factual developments.”
To date, the court has agreed to hear 49 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar. Eight cases have not yet been scheduled for argument.
___________________________
Please Support These Patriotic American Owned Businesses
Do you remember the 2018 Supreme Court case ruled in favor of the Colorado baker Jack Phillips who was sued because he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple?
Phillips
The bakery received a phone call during Phillips’ first legal battle in 2017 from Denver attorney Autumn Scardina requesting a cake in honor of his/her gender transition. Philips said the attorney asked for “a cake pink on the inside with blue icing on the outside.”
“We told the customer, this caller, that this cake was a cake we couldn’t create because of the message, the caller turned around and sued us,” Phillips told Fox News in March. “This customer came to us intentionally to get us to create a cake or deny creating a cake that went against our religious beliefs.”
“This customer had been tracking our case for multiple years. This case was just a request to get us to fall into a trap,” Phillips explained.
Now, a group of state attorneys general are officially going on record for the baker for this second lawsuit.
In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton joined the multistate amicus brief in support of religious liberty, in the case that is pending in the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Phillips. Scardina.
Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop is the second case brought against Jack Phillips, a baker, under state public accommodation laws—this time because he refused on religious grounds to make a custom cake celebrating a customer’s gender transition.
The previous case against Phillips was resolved in his favor by the United States Supreme Court.
This amicus brief argues that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prevents the government from enforcing state laws that interfere with Americans’ exercise of their religious beliefs.
“The federal government cannot attack certain religious practices and overburden our way of life under the guise of public accommodation. We are a country where people of various faiths share the common goal of freedom and that must be protected,” Attorney General Paxton said. “I will continue to fight for the religious liberty of every Texan.”
The United States Supreme Court is about to be tested again regarding Big Tech censorship and law.
“Facebook’s wrongful interpretation of Section 230 is being used to protect social media giants, while Americans are being silenced,” stated Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, explaining while the Lone Star State were filing against them in court. “A disturbing increase in heinous crimes such as human trafficking and illegal activity have eroded the fabric of our great nation. ”
The State of Texas has filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court arguing against Facebook’s vague and inaccurate legal interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Facebook’s stance and Section 230 is intended to shield them from liability for human trafficking that was facilitated using the social media platform. This would leave trafficking victims without effective relief or financial remedy while Facebook takes advantage of this vulnerable demographic in exchange for advertising dollars.
Texas Capitol
Texas is recommending that Section 230 be amended to clarify that online platforms may be held accountable and to effectuate Congress’s intent to protect Americans from exploitation, illegal activity, and violence.
“I will fight to uphold the rule of law and hold internet platforms like Facebook accountable,” Attorney General Paxton said.
U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution, and James Lankford (R-Okla.) yesterday filed an amicus brief signed by 11 other Senators and 14 Representatives in support of Coach Joe Kennedy in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.
The brief asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision that allowed Coach Kennedy to be fired for silently kneeling and praying after school football games.
U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) is co-leading the brief for the House.
The attorney generals of Alaska, Arizona and Texas led a 23-state coalition defending religious liberty for the coach who was unjustly fired for praying after games.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Coach Joseph Kennedy’s religious discrimination claim against the school district, saying that because Coach Kennedy prayed in view of students, his prayers are considered government speech that the district can censor.
The coalition urges the Supreme Court to review and reverse that decision because of the serious First Amendment concerns it raises.
“The Ninth Circuit’s conclusion threatens to make everything a public employee does while on the clock into government speech,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said. “In turn, that would require public employers to control their employees’ every word in order to avoid liability.”
“Americans do not abandon their religious liberties at the door of their workplace,” Arizona AG Mark Brnovich said in a statement. “Especially at this moment in our country’s history, it is imperative that heavy-handed government be restrained from trampling on our rights to personal expression as recognized and protected by the First Amendment.”
The Ninth Circuit’s decision curtails the First Amendment liberties of public employees, which will deter individuals from seeking public employment to avoid being forced to give up their constitutionally protected liberties.
Senate co-signers include Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), and John Thune (R-S.D.).
___________________________
Please Support These Patriotic American Owned Businesses
There are basically three recommended strategies to tip more odds in your favor if you are under the threat of being terminated for not taking the experimental COVID “vaccines.”
STRATEGY #1
1. Hire an attorney to a) defend you in court, b) sue your employer, c) start or join a file class action lawsuit with others and attorneys. You might find an attorney here.
STRATEGY #2
2. Don’t quit. Wait to be terminated so you can sue or counter your employer’s bluff.
STRATEGY #3
Document. Document. Decline the experimental “vaccines” and document.
This strategy is NOT to necessarily refuse the “vaccine,” but send a letter similar to the following (or have your attorney send one), preferably certified and signature required, showing your employer your conditional acceptance.
I write with regard to the matter of potential covid vaccine and my desire to be fully informed and appraised of ALL facts before going ahead.
I’d be most grateful if you could please provide the following information, in accordance with statutory legal requirements:
1. Can you please advise me of the approved legal status of any vaccine and if it is experimental?
2. Can you please provide details and assurances that the vaccine has been fully, independently and rigorously tested against control groups and the subsequent outcomes of those tests?
3. Can you please fully advise of all the adverse reactions associated with this vaccine since its introduction?
4. Can you please advise of the full list of contents of the vaccine I am to receive and if any are toxic to the body?
5. Can you please confirm that the vaccine you are advocating is NOT ‘experimental mRNA gene altering therapy’?
6. Can you please confirm that I will not be under any duress from yourselves as my employers, in compliance with the Nuremberg Code?
7. Can you please advise me of the likely risk of fatality, should I be unfortunate to contract Covid 19 and the likelihood of recovery?
Once I have received the above information in full and I am satisfied that there is NO threat to my health, I will be happy to accept your offer to receive the treatment, but with certain conditions – namely that:
1. You confirm that I will suffer no harm.
2. Following acceptance of this, the offer must be signed by a fully qualified doctor who will take full legal and financial responsibility for any injuries occurring to myself, and/or from any interactions by authorized personnel regarding these procedures. Have it notorized to ensure legality.
3. In the event that I should have to decline the offer of vaccination, please confirm that it will not compromise my position and that I will not suffer prejudice and discrimination as a result?
4. I would also advise that my inalienable rights are reserved.
They likely CANNOT provide that information but you’ve NOT refused their request nor their bullying (whatever the case may be) to have the “vaccination.”
Note: Always seek legal advice and opinion from a qualified attorney registered to practice law in your state.
Clever Journeys 