An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.

Need Your Help on the Feres Doctrine

Prepare for a little work on your part, it is a fight we need to win.

Reckless medical care, malpractice or malfeasance in the civilian world includes lawsuits and the removal of medical licenses. In the military….any and all active or former military service members can take NO action due to the Feres Doctrine.

OUTRAGEOUS

On newsstands this week photo

In 2002, the Senate Judiciary Committee had a hearing to amend the Feres Doctrine or to at least include waiver language. It went no where.

You can read about that hearing at this link and see who was on the committee at the time.

This has nothing to do with the VA, these are military hospitals wherever they are across the world. The military has sovereign immunity.

From an article in 2017:

Under the Feres doctrine, service members are categorically banned from filing suits for harm incurred while on duty. Period, end of story. There are no exceptions, it is absolute.

Since its creation, courts and commentators have vehemently condemned the Feres doctrine. One of its most ardent critics was Antonin Scalia, the legendary conservative Supreme Court justice. In United States v. Johnson, Justice Scalia wrote that “Feres was wrongly decided and heartily deserves the ‘widespread, almost universal criticism’ it has received.” Yet, the Feres doctrine persists as national policy.

The given justification for the Feres doctrine is the protection of good order and discipline within the military. Without a doubt, commanding officers shouldn’t face the threat of a lawsuit for decisions made in combat or in preparing troops for battle. The Feres doctrine, though, goes too far by banning all suits “incident to service.”

Good order and discipline simply would not be harmed by the suit of a soldier burned due to known faulty wiring in his barracks, or a sexual assault victim, or a soldier who was secretly administered LSD to test its effects, or a Marine who had a towel left in his stomach during a routine procedure. Yet, the Feres doctrine summarily bans each of these suits.

By immunizing the military from civil liability, the Feres doctrine increases abuse of power and corruption by military officials. It is common sense that when officials are not held accountable for their misconduct, they tend to abuse their authority. That is why the Founders split the government’s power into three branches and allowed the courts to review the conduct of the other two branches. Judicial review is a cornerstone of our democracy.

Protected from lawsuits, however, military officials are freed from this constitutional accountability framework. Lawsuits not only allow victims of misconduct to be made whole, they inform the public of governmental wrongdoing. This information flow is critical in a representative democracy, where voters cannot change what they do not know.

*** How about the case of a wife and new mother dying due to malpractice?

On March 9, 2014, Walter Daniel’s wife, Lt. Rebekah Daniel, a Navy nurse stationed at Naval Hospital Bremerton in Washington, gave birth to a healthy baby girl at the facility where she worked. Four hours after the low-risk childbirth, she died due to blood loss.

In court documents, Daniel alleged the care team failed to prevent postpartum hemorrhaging, which caused Rebekah to lose “more than 1,500 ml of blood – nearly one-third of the amount of blood in the average human body” according to a statement put out by the Luvera Law Firm.

*** Now a terminal cancer case of a Green Beret that the hospital saw during an exam and did nothing, even refused to tell him. He has a year to live.

Sgt. 1st Class Richard Stayskal was deployed to Ramadi, Iraq, in 2004 when he was shot by a sniper. The round, which he kept as a souvenir, pierced his left lung and nearly killed him.

The round is “a reminder of how fragile life is,” he told Charlotte’s Fox 46. “Something could change everything in an instant.”

Despite beating the odds of such a grievous wound in combat, something else did change in an instant for the 37-year-old Green Beret when, following a June 2017 visit to a civilian doctor to address severe breathing issues the Army told him was a simple case of pneumonia, he received terrible news.

“Did a biopsy and when I woke up my wife was crying,” Stayskal told Fox 46. “And he [the doctor] was telling her that I had cancer.”

The tumor in Stayskal’s lungs had been egregiously misdiagnosed by Army doctors, the report said, allowing it to double in size and spread to other vital organs — and into stage four terminal lung cancer.

This is a fight we need to win for our war fighters….can you help and call your congress-person or senator and demand a new hearing and amendment to the Feres Doctrine? PLEASE?

There is an unknown number of victims of medical malpractice at military hospitals but does it matter?

 

This the Reason N Korea Cancelled the Meeting?

The excuses both sides explain scheduling conflicts. C’mon, lil Kim is not exactly that busy to take a meeting with America, right? As North and South Korea have begin to dismantle 20 guard posts along the DMZ. South Korea has 60 such positions while North Korea has an estimated 160. Allegedly, all firearms have been already removed from the guard posts. Personnel is still there but it is said they are unarmed.

Back to that cancelled meeting….

 A satellite image of a secret North Korean ballistic missile base. The North has offered to dismantle a different major missile launching site while continuing to make improvements at more than a dozen others.CreditCreditCSIS/Beyond Parallel, via DigitalGlobe 2018

More detail is explained here.

What is the reason then? Missile sites….hummm

North Korea are still operating undeclared missile bases and even improving some of their missile sites instead of shutting them down.

The latest report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington said it had identified 13 of an estimated 20 secret missile operating bases inside North Korea.

They could be used to house ballistic missiles of various ranges, with the largest believed to be capable of striking anywhere in the United States.

The report, written by researcher Joseph Bermudez, said maintenance and minor infrastructure improvements have been observed at some of the sites.

The sites identified in the report are scattered in remote, mountainous areas across North Korea.

It even identified improvements being made to its Sakkanmol site, close to the border with South Korea.

President Trump is still hoping to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.

The North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump pledged to work towards ‘denuclearization’ at their landmark June summit in Singapore.

Shortly after the summit, Trump tweeted that there was no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.

North Korea declared its nuclear force ‘complete’ and halted missile and nuclear bomb testing earlier this year.

North Korea has said it has closed its Punggye-ri nuclear testing site and the Sohae missile engine test facility.

It also raised the possibility of shuttering more sites and allowing international inspections if Washington took ‘corresponding measures’.

Last week, North Korea called off a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in New York.

The country’s state media said on Monday the resumption of some small-scale military drills by South Korea and the United States violated a recent agreement aimed at lowering tensions on the Korean peninsula.

‘Missile operating bases are not launch facilities,’ Bermudez wrote.

‘While missiles could be launched from within them in an emergency, Korean People’s Army (KPA) operational procedures call for missile launchers to disperse from the bases to pre-surveyed or semi-prepared launch sites for operations.’

None of the missile bases have been acknowledged by North Korea, and analysts say an accurate disclosure of nuclear weapons and missile capabilities would be an important part of any denuclearization deal.

 

FBI Deployed for Voting Integrity

Voting day is almost here but millions of votes have already been cast. We can only hope the early voting ballots and the absentee ballots are part of the scrutiny the FBI will be assigned to validate.

In recent days, I have received emails from the FBI regarding assignments for watch for irregularities or abuses. As a sample of the FBI agent deployment, below is one example for the state of New Jersey. Here is another for the Washington DC area. Boston, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Anchorage, New Orleans, Louisville, Omaha, Jackson, Tampa, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh are some of the other cities that have asked for and received FBI voter integrity assistance.

***

Election Crimes

In democratic societies like the United States, the voting process is a means by which citizens hold their government accountable; conflicts are channeled into resolutions and power transfers peacefully. Our system of representative government works only when honest ballots are not diluted by fraudulent ballots. The FBI, through its Public Corruption Unit, has an important but limited role in ensuring fair and free elections. Election crimes become federal cases when:

  • The ballot includes one or more federal candidates;
  • The crime involves an election official abusing his duties;
  • The crime pertains to fraudulent voter registration;
  • Voters are not U.S. citizens.

Federal election crimes fall into three broad categories—campaign finance crimes, voter/ballot fraud, and civil rights violations.

Campaign finance

  • A person gives more than $4,600 to a federal candidate (various limits apply for donations to and from committees and groups);
  • A donor asks a friend to give money to a federal candidate, promising to reimburse the friend; the friend makes the donation and the real donor reimburses him;
  • A corporation gives corporate money to a federal candidate;
  • A person who is neither a citizen nor a green card holder gives money to a federal, state, or local candidate.

Civil rights violations

  • Someone threatens a voter with physical or economic harm unless the voter casts his ballot in a particular way;
  • Someone tries to prevent qualified voters from getting to the polls in a federal election;
  • A scheme exists to prevent minorities from voting.

Voter/ballot fraud

  • A voter intentionally gives false information when registering to vote;
  • A voter receives money or something of value in exchange for voting in a federal election or registering to vote;
  • Someone votes more than once in a federal election;
  • An election official corrupts his or her office to benefit a candidate or party (e.g., lets unqualified voters cast ballots).

What is NOT a federal election crime:

  • Giving voters a ride to the polls;
  • Offering voters a stamp to mail an absentee ballot;
  • Giving voters time off to vote;
  • Violating state campaign finance laws;
  • Distributing inaccurate campaign literature;
  • Campaigning too close to the polls;
  • Trying to convince an opponent to withdraw from a race.

If you think an election crime is occurring, call the election crimes coordinator at your local FBI office.

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

U.S. Attorney’s Office Reminds New Jersey Voters about Election Day Hotline for Complaints of Voting Irregularities or Abuses

NEWARK, N.J. – U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced today that Senior Trial Counsel Allen B.K. Urgent will lead the office’s efforts in connection with the Justice Department’s nationwide Election Day Program for the Nov. 6, 2018, general election.

Urgent, Senior Trial Counsel Mark McCarren and Assistant U.S. Attorney Gabriel Vidoni have been appointed to serve as District Election Officers (DEOs) for the District of New Jersey, and are responsible for handling complaints of election fraud and voting rights abuses in consultation with Justice Department Headquarters in Washington.

“Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy,” U.S. Attorney Carpenito said. “Every voter must be free to cast a ballot without being intimidated or harassed, and their votes must be counted accurately and without being subjected to fraud of any kind.”

Federal law protects against such crimes as intimidating or bribing voters, buying and selling votes, impersonating voters, altering vote tallies, stuffing ballot boxes, and marking ballots for voters against their wishes or without their input. It also contains special protections for the rights of voters, and provides that they can vote free from acts that intimidate or harass them. Actions designed to interrupt or intimidate voters at polling places by questioning or challenging them, or by photographing or videotaping them, under the pretext that these are actions to uncover illegal voting, may violate federal voting rights law. Federal law protects the right of voters to mark their own ballot or to be assisted by a person of their choice (where voters need assistance because of disability or illiteracy).

In order to respond to complaints of election fraud or voting rights abuses on Nov. 6, 2018, and to ensure that such complaints are directed to the appropriate authorities, U.S. Attorney Carpenito said the DEOs will be on duty in this District while the polls are open. They can be reached by the public at: (888) 636-6596.

The FBI will have special agents available in each field office and resident agency throughout the country to receive allegations of election fraud and other election abuses on Election Day. The local FBI field office can be reached by the public at (973) 792-3000.

Complaints about possible violations of the federal voting rights laws can be made directly to the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section in Washington, by phone at (800) 253-3931 or (202) 307-2767, by fax at (202) 307-3961, by email to [email protected] (link sends e-mail) or by complaint form at http://www.justice.gov/crt/complaint/votintake/index.php.

Birthright v. Jurisdiction

Let’s begin with the 39th Congress shall we?

1865-1867, it was a time of reconstruction. For context, scan this summary of the activity of Congress.

On the matter of ratification of the 14th Amendment, a year long study was completed by a 15 member committee. Much of the debate was on citizenship for slaves. For reference, the Joint Resolution was H.R. 127.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of particular note is the text in the middle column under ‘Reconstruction’. This document is found in the Library of Congress. This matter has been debated often over many decades and there is no law defining natural born v. foreign ownership, loyalty or jurisdiction. Hence the reason the debate continues and proposed legislation in addition to President Trump considering an Executive Order. Frankly, the common existing definition on birthright gives an additional argument to chain migration, somewhat in reverse.

Here is a cogent presentation on the case against birthright.

Need more?

Claremont Senior Fellow Matthew Spalding

Spalding raised the question in “Should the Children of Illegal Aliens Be U.S. Citizens?” and his U.S. News & World Report op-ed: “14th Amendment Doesn’t Make Illegal Aliens’ Children Citizens

Others

Frequent Claremont Review of Books contributor and summer fellowship faculty member Richard Samuelson provides more historical and legal context in his essay for The Federalist: “Birthright for Whom?”

*** Is it okay that there are actually birthing hotels in California where Chinese woman take full advantage?Federal agents raided several maternity hotels in January of 2018 where these pregnant women paid between $40,000 to $80,000 to give birth in the United States. This has been the case for many years. There was/is a list of sites for birthing tourism for California.

Chinese birth tourism booms in Southern California - The ... Channel 5 News Birth tourism raid in Irvine Ca. - YouTube

How about pregnant Russian women making the long trip to Miami just to give birth? Birthing tourism is a thriving business for Russians in Miami. It is all for dual citizenship. If the mainstream media complains about President Trump authorizing an Executive Order, the text is most important. He cannot alter any Constitutional amendment but he can issue an order to stop birthing tourism. Even NBC News is quite aware of the issue.

“for a growing number of Russian women, the draw isn’t sunny beaches or pulsing nightclubs. It’s U.S. citizenship for their newborn children. In Moscow, it’s a status symbol to have a Miami-born baby, and social media is full of Russian women boasting of their little americantsy.”

*** If President Trump signs an Executive Order it will be legally challenged with a lawsuit before the end of the day. Perhaps this is a good thing to begin a final legal opinion on the matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

European Courts Rule Against Thought and Free Speech

BERLIN (AP) — The European Court of Human Rights says an Austrian woman’s conviction for calling the prophet of Islam a paedophile didn’t breach her freedom of speech.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled Thursday that Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

The woman in her late 40s, identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.” A Vienna court convicted her in 2011 of disparaging religious doctrines, ordering her to pay a 480-euro ($547) fine, plus costs. The ruling was later upheld by an Austrian appeals court.

The ECHR said the Austrian court’s decision “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”

*** European Court of Human Rights Ruling: Free Speech Bows to ...

Free speech in Europe has stipulation according to the high court. It is important to know that the European Union rules over all laws and legal cases for each country in the European Union. Hence at least one reason for Brexit.

Isn’t speech a human right? Nope, not in Europe. Anyone remember the Magna Carta? You know the cornerstone of liberty in England. Seems it does not apply to any basis in Europe or England and it is being challenged all over here in the United States where the Magna Carta was the basis of the U.S. Bill of Rights.

1929 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, of the US Supreme Court, outlines his belief in free speech: ‘The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.’

1948 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is adopted virtually unanimously by the UN General Assembly. It urges member nations to promote human, civil, economic and social rights, including freedom of expression and religion.

With the horrific massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh against Jews, blame is being pointed to President Trump causing the anger. But yet Louis Farrakhan attacks Jews all the time and then there is the pesky organization known as BDS, Boycott, Divest and Sanction has representation across U.S. college campuses and they too preach hate against Jews but that is okay? Huh?

Meanwhile, back to that European Court of Human Rights….check it out, but submit your complaint application first.

Proceedings before the Court

Proceedings before the Court are conducted primarily in writing; public hearings are rare.

There is no cost associated with submitting an application and the applicant may apply for legal aid to cover expenses that arise later in the proceeding.

While a lawyer is not necessary to lodge a complaint, applicants should have representation after the case is declared admissible, and must be represented by a lawyer in any hearing before the Court.

Applications to the ECtHR go through two phases: admissibility and merits. The specific nature of the case will dictate the speed and course of the proceedings. However, it may be months or years before an applicant receives a decision or judgment.

Admissibility

When the Court receives an application, the Court must determine if it meets all of the admissibility requirements. An admissibility decision may be made by a single judge, a three-judge committee, or a seven-judge chamber. To be declared admissible, an application must meet the following criteria:

  1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
  2. Six-month application deadline (from the final domestic judicial decision)
  3. Complaint against a State party to the European Convention on Human Rights
  4. Applicant suffered a significant disadvantage

If an application fails to meet any of these requirements, it will be declared inadmissible and cannot proceed any further. There is no appeal from a decision of inadmissibility.

Applicants may use the ECHR’s Online Admissibility Checklist to determine if their complaint satisfies the requirements.  Additionally, the Court has created a short video on Admissibility Conditions.

Merits

If an application is not struck from the list or declared inadmissible at an earlier stage, it will be assigned to one of the ECtHR’s five sections and the State will be notified of the complaint. At this time, both parties will have the opportunity to submit observations to the Court. These observations may contain specific information requested by the Chamber or President of the Section, or any other material that the parties decide is relevant. The Chamber has the option to consider admissibility and merits separately or concurrently, but it must notify the parties if it plans to consider admissibility and merits together.

When a Chamber issues a judgment on the merits, there is a three-month period before the decision becomes final. During this period, either or both of the parties may request that the application be referred to the Grand Chamber. However, the Grand Chamber only hears a limited number of exceptional cases.

If the Court ultimately decides a case in favor of the applicant, it may award just satisfaction (monetary compensation for the damages suffered) and require the State to cover the cost of bringing the case. If the Court finds that there has been no violation, then the applicant is not liable for the State’s legal expenses.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is responsible for enforcing the Court’s judgments. States are bound by the decisions of the Court and must execute them accordingly. Often this means amending legislation to ensure that the violation does not continue to occur. However, the Court does not have the authority to overrule a national decision or annul national laws.

Friendly Settlement

Prior to a decision on the merits, the Court will try to facilitate the arrangement of a friendly settlement.  If a friendly settlement cannot be reached, the Court will then deliver a judgment on the merits.  In instances where the Chamber hearing the case decides to issue an admissibility decision in conjunction with a judgment on the merits, the parties may include information about friendly settlements in the observation they submit to the Court.

Interim Measures

In exceptional cases, the Court may grant applicants “interim measures,” which are designed to protect the applicant from further harm while the case proceeds before the Court. Requests for interim measures are only granted when there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm such as death or torture. They are most often granted in extradition and deportation cases.