#Also... U.S. Politica

[1xtechnologies]

Galvanized Steel Strand Wire Manufacturers | Low Price, Good Quality

Galvanized Steel Strand Wire Manufacturers

1XTechnologies manufactures, distributes, and supplies all types of galvanized steel wire strand. Galvanized steel wire is commonly known as "Stay Wire", for its ability to keep things in place and sustaining mechanical load. We'll supply you with guy wire galvanized steel strand product made in the USA, or, if low pricing or global logistics is your main concern we do manufacture and supply this product to you from China, Taiwan, South Korea, and India where we have contract production manufacturing facilities to ensure you are able to get exactly the galvanized steel strand you need when it comes to guy wire galvanized steel strands. Our most popular construction is 1x7 galvanized steel strand and our most popular size is currently 1/4" galvanized steel strand wire. We have the capacity to ship thousands of tons of  galvanized steel strand wire to supply you with millions of feet of steel wire strand per month. We price this product to be the low cost leader so if you are looking to save money let us earn your business. Contact 1X Technologies today to purchase your Galvanized Steel Strand Wire or call 1-888-651-9990 to order.  

Class A Galvanized Steel Strand

Product Description

Concentric-lay stranded conductors made of Zinc-coated Steel wires.

Application

Commonly used for overhead ground/shield wire, guys and messengers, and for steel core in ACSR conductors.

Specifications

ASTM A475 – This specification covers the five grades of class A zinc-coated steel wire strand, Utilities, Common, Siemens-Martin, High-Strength, and Extra High-Strength, suitable for use as guy and messenger wires. ASTM A363 – This specification covers concentric lay stranded steel wire composed of three or seven wires with a Class A coating specifically intended for use as overhead ground/shield wires for transmission lines.ASTM B498 – This specification covers round, class A zinc-coated, steel core wire used for the reinforcement of ACSR conductors.   Minimum Breaking Force of Strand (lb.) Nominal Diameter of Strand (in.) Number of Wires Nominal Diameter of Coated Wires (in.) Approx. Wt. Of Strand (lb/1000 ft.) Utilities Grade High Strength Grade Extra-High Strength Grade 3/16 7 0.062 73 — 2850 3990 7/32 7 0.072 98 — 3850 5400 1/4 7 0.08 121 — 4750 6650 9/32 7 0.093 164 — 6400 8950 5/16 7 0.104 205 — 8,000* 11,200* 3/8 7 0.12 273 11,500* 10,800* 15,400* 7/16 7 0.145 399 18000 14,500* 20,800* 1/2 7 0.165 517 25000 18,800* 26,900* 1/2 19 0.1 504 — 19100 26700 9/16 7 0.188 671 — 24500 35000 9/16 19 0.113 637 — 24100 33700 5/8 7 0.207 813 — 29600 42400 5/8 19 0.125 796 — 28100 40200 3/4 19 0.15 1155 — 40800 58300 7/8 19 0.177 1581 — 55800 79700 1 19 0.2 2073 — 73200 104500 1 1/8 37 0.161 2691 — 91600 130800 1 1/4 37 0.179 3248 — 113600 162200 *ASTM A 363 (Weldless) is also available in these sizes and grades upon request.  

USA - Galvanized steel wire strand United States Manufacturers

1XTechnologies manufactures and supplies Galvanized steel wire strand in the USA. With a typical lead time being immediate shipment for stock sizes, and 4 to 6 weeks for larger made to order quantities.  Typically we will deliver your order within just a couple days after shipment for galvanized steel wire strand made in the USA. American made steel wire strand is very high quality and whenever possible we work to sell a product made by American workers doing our part in the Made in America Movement. In the United States, encouraged by robust domestic demand, domestic steel producers are increasing their steel prices because of increasing input costs and a depreciation in the rupee. Thus, because steel output is growing and prices are increasing, steel companies should see increased earnings and higher share prices. When it comes to Government procurement and increasingly many other industries, having a product that is Buy American Compliant is extremely important. We utilize FedEx Freight and other high quality shippers for of our American made Steel wire strand shipments.  

China - Galvanized Steel Wire strand China Manufacturers

1XTechnologies a leading Galvanized steel wire stand manufacturer in China. Typical production lead time for your China steel strand is 4 to 5 weeks, and if the product is being exported add an additional 4 to 5 weeks for transit. You can conveniently buy your product from 1XTechnologies, an experienced Chinese manufacturer with headquarters in the United States to back up your products while also taking advantage of international trade in China. China is the worlds largest steel manufacturers with a vast number of steel producers rounding out the global top 100 steel manufactures. According to global statistics, China has approximately 10 times the steel-making capacity of the United States. It has been accused of dumping cheap steel on the global market to beat out competitors, and the Trump administration has encouraged Chinese leaders to cut production in order to improve the profitability of U.S. steelmakers. In 2017, China cut overcapacity in the steel sector by shutting down about 50 million tons for domestic environmental and economic reasons, but our China steel wire strand business is still going strong. Although China has attempted to cut steel production to mitigate pollution, some plants are ramping up capacity, and China’s steel output is on the rise. This increase in output has also maintained the demand for high-grade iron ore, a raw material for steel and a determinant of the cost of steel, and has propped up prices, but we aim to be the low price leader on steel wire strand, either way, and no matter what the market is doing. However, if the demand for steel drops, China will export surplus steel and lower international prices. If output falls, the demand for raw materials will slow down and further affect prices. Thus, China is the biggest influencer on global steel. Typically we offer our lowest price exporting from our Chinese steel wire strand facility, but increasingly tariffs and trade tensions have jeopardized orders shipping into the United States. However, for our global customer base this option may be right for you without having to pay 25% steel tariffs. If you are searching for a Galvanized Steel Wire Strand manufacturer in China you came to the right place. Call us now at 1-888-651-9990 to place your order. We typically utilize CH Robinson Worldwide, a top Global logistics company based in Minnesota for our China Steel wire strand orders.  

India - Galvanized Steel Wire strand Indian Manufacturers

1XTechnologies a leading Galvanized steel wire stand manufacturer in India. We can supply your project with low cost, high quality India Steel Wire Strand backed by an American Company you can trust. According to the Indian Steel Expo, Steel is crucial to the development of any modern economy and is considered to be the backbone of human civilization. The level of per-capita consumption of steel is treated as an important index of the level of socio-economic development and living standards of the people in any country. It is a product of a large and technologically complex industry having strong forward and backward linkages in terms of material flows and income generation. All major industrial economies are characterized by the existence of a strong steel industry and the growth of many of these economies has been largely shaped by the strength of their steel industries in their initial stages of development. India’s economic growth is contingent upon the growth of the Indian steel industry. Consumption of steel is taken to be an indicator of economic development. While steel continues to have a stronghold in traditional sectors such as construction, housing and ground transportation, special steels are increasingly being used in engineering industries such as power generation, petrochemicals and fertilizers. India occupies a central position on the global steel map, with the establishment of new state-of-the-art steel mills, acquisition of global scale capacities by players, continuous modernization and up gradation of older plants, improving energy efficiency and backward integration into global raw material sources. India is one of the worlds top producing steel countries, recently replacing Japan taking the global runner up position behind China. The Steel industry in India produces approximately 91.46 million tons of total finished steel per year, and that number is growing every day. If your company has business to attend to in India or requires a global supply chain for your Stay Wire in India we should talk. Our manufacturing capacity on steel strand production in India, like the overall steel industry, is growing every day! We typically utilize CH Robinson Worldwide, a top Global logistics company based in Minnesota for our India Steel wire strand orders.  

Japan - Galvanized Steel Wire strand Japanese Manufacturers

1XTechnologies is proud to offer you a great partnership for manufacturing your steel wire strand in Japan. The steel industry in Japan has always been strong, and there is no exception when it comes to Japanese Galvanized Stay Wire manufacturing, with great capacity of a high quality product. From the text, Governing Global Production by Jeffery D. Wilson:  In the early 1950s, the Japanese government launched a heavy industrialization strategy that aimed to build a modern, internationally competitive steel sector to act as a core industry for its economic development programme. Owing to Japan’s almost complete lack of mineral resources, its rapidly growing steel industry was forced to import iron ore and metallurgical coal from suppliers in the Asia-Pacific, providing an early impetus to resource production networking in the region. However, the distinctive characteristics of the resource networks formed by the Japanese steel industry owe as much to features of the post-war Japanese political economy as its paucity of raw materials. Industrial coordination, achieved through institutionalized patterns of firm-firm and state-firm cooperation, was a critical factor that both facilitated high-speed growth in Japan’s steel industry, and shaped the characteristics of resource networks the industry would develop to secure its supply of minerals from overseas sources.    Typically we offer extremely high quality from our Japan steel wire strand facility. If you are searching for a Galvanized Steel Wire Strand manufacturer in Japan with the known quality of Japan Steel,  you came to the right place. Call us now at 1-888-651-9990 to place your order. We usually lean on CH Robinson Worldwide, a top Global logistics company based in Minnesota to deliver our Japan Steel wire strand orders.  

South Korea - Galvanized Steel Wire strand South Korean Manufacturers

1XTechnologies is proud to be your manufacturer of choice for steel wire strand in South Korea. High quality combined with great prices will give you an alternative to manufacturing your steel wire strand in China and avoiding the 25% tax on Chinese Steel. Korean products are top of the line and you may find the price is competitive with anyone when the special designation South Korea has with no import steel taxes in the United States.  Furthermore, considering our global customer base and thinking about speed of shipping, we can typically produce steel strand in South Korea within 4 weeks and deliver anywhere in the world within another 4 weeks. The South Korean steel industry is the nation’s key industry with high impact on the inter-industries and has played a crucial role in the economic growth of South Korea by steadily providing materials to demand industry such as automobile, shipbuilding and construction. The GDP of the steel industry is marking 1.5% of the entire industry and 4.9% of the manufacturing industry. The South Korean steel industry has been trying to increase self-sufficiency in steel and to improve the balance of trade by raising exports. As a result, exports have increased to USD $27.7 billion in 2016 from USD $7.6 billion in 2000 marking 5.8% in export of entire industry in South Korea. Similarly, imports have tippled to USD $19.4 billion in 2016 from USD $6.8 in 2000. Korean Investment in infrastructure has also increased from 1.7 trillion won in 2000 to 3 trillion in 2016. We typically utilize CH Robinson Worldwide, a top Global logistics company based in Minnesota for our South Korea Steel wire strand orders.    

Common Google Search Terms on our site on this product:

galvanized steel wire strand manufacturers, 1x7 galvanized steel strand, guy wire galvanized steel strands, galvanized stay steel wire strand, Read the full article

[plusorminuscongress]

New story in Politics from Time: President Trump Attacked Mail-In Ballots in Florida. Here Are the Facts

Advocates for overseas voters harshly criticized President Donald Trump for arguing that some mail-in ballots shouldn’t be counted as he spread a conspiracy theory about Florida’s elections on Monday.

In a tweet on Monday, Trump called for the state to stop counting ballots and stick with the results from Election Night, a move that while circumventing state law would also disenfranchise members of the military and civilians overseas, whose ballots can arrive until Nov. 16 and still be counted.

“These overseas and military voters, the worst thing for them is to hear our country’s leaders saying don’t count these votes,” said Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, president and CEO of the U.S. Vote Foundation, a nonprofit that helps overseas voters cast their ballots. “They go to incredible lengths to send their ballots back.”

The tweet came as part of a recent series of attacks by the President on Florida’s ballot counting and re-counting process, including claims made without evidence that Democrats are trying to steal the election.

The state’s own election monitors have said there is no evidence of fraud and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement said on Friday it had received no reports of illegal activity despite comments from prominent Republicans. A circuit court judge on Monday told lawyers for both sides to cool things down.

“I am urging, because of the highly public nature of this case, to ramp down the rhetoric,” Judge Jack Tuter said. “Everything the lawyers are saying out in front of the elections office is beamed all over the country. We need to be careful what we say. These words mean things these days, as everybody in the room knows.”

But Trump argued that narrow leads by Republican Senate candidate Rick Scott and Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis should be frozen in place, saying that “an honest vote count is no longer possible” and that ballots are “massively infected.”

“Must go with Election Night!” he tweeted.

This is not the first time that mail-in ballots have contributed to irritation among both parties about ballot counting, though elections experts say Trump’s attacks on the integrity of the democratic process are unprecedented for the commander-in-chief.

Here’s what you need to know about mail-in ballots.

Which states allow voting by mail?

All states will allow certain voters to cast their ballot on an absentee basis, but in 20 states voters must provide an excuse to receive a ballot in the mail. In 27 states and the District of Columbia, any registered voter can cast an absentee ballot with no excuse.

Three states — Colorado, Oregon and Washington — automatically mail a ballot to every voter.

Members of the U.S. military, their families and other U.S. citizens living overseas can also vote by mail thanks to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. States are required to send ballots to these voters at least 45 days before a federal election.

When did mail-in voting start?

Oregon was the first state in the country to move to an entirely vote-by-mail system. The state approved Measure 60 in 1998, which started its all-mail elections. Then Washington state turned to vote-by-mail elections in 2011 and Colorado passed its vote-by-mail law in 2013.

These states have led the way on mail-in voting, but many Western states now allow voters to cast their ballots by mail or in person for weeks leading up to Election Day. These alternative means of voting have increased significantly over the last 20 years, according to Barry Burden, director of University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Elections Research Center.

“The 2000 election and the meltdown that happened in Florida was also a turning point. A lot of states began to look at their own election laws after that and some of them ended up loosening up their absentee voting requirements or proactively offering early voting centers and other ways of getting ballots before Election Day,” he said.

The pattern continued through the mid 2000s as political campaigns realized they could encourage voters to make use of these new rules to lock in votes ahead of the first Tuesday in November.

“The Obama campaign in particular in ’08 pushed their supporters to get their votes in early,” Burden said. “That actually made voters and election officials aware of some practices that hadn’t been used as much that were available to them.”

Who votes by mail?

While Obama made early voting a focus during his presidential campaign, mail-in voting tends to skew slightly Republican, Burden said.

“In general it skews toward the people who tend to be the most regular voters and those people tend to be older in age, higher in income, more educated and more attached to one of the two parties or one of the campaigns,” he said.

These are also often voters who are committed to their candidate and who don’t think events in the last few weeks of a race are likely to change their mind. In other words, not typically the profile of a young voter.

“Young people are less committed because they haven’t fully determined their views and political beliefs,” says Lonna Atkeson, director of the Center for the Study of Voting, Elections and Democracy at University of New Mexico. “People who are less committed voters vote later.”

Democrats are more likely to vote in person if they vote early, according to Burden. But in the case of Trump’s comments about the 2018 midterm elections, the counties that have been the target of his ire are heavily Democratic counties in Florida and largely urban areas in Arizona, where there are more likely to be Democratic voters.

The other groups that often vote by mail include members of the military and voters who are disabled or have health problems that might make it difficult to leave their homes.

In 2016, there were nearly 33 million absentee votes counted, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. More than 600,000 military and other overseas voters cast ballots in 2016. While there is not much official data on disabled voters, a study from Lisa Schur and Douglas Kruse at Rutgers’ School of Management and Labor Relations found that about 16 million people with disabilities voted in 2016 and about 29% of these voters cast votes by mail.

How long does it take to count mail-in votes?

Mail-in votes can take longer to count than ballots cast in person for a variety of reasons. This starts with the fact that not all votes cast by mail have to arrive on election day.

While the specifics vary by state, many states give military and overseas voters an extra few days to get their ballots in as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. This is often true for other vote-by-mail voters, too.

And even when states do require that all ballots be turned in by Election Day, there can be a rush of ballots sent in on the last day, meaning that election officials have a large volume of votes to count once polls close.

Some states also don’t require that the counting be finished immediately. In Florida, counties had until Saturday to complete their initial tallies. And in California, officials have weeks to count their votes.

Then, many states require that their local elections officials match every signature individually. So if a voter signs the envelope of their absentee ballot, which has to be compared by a human with the signature on file before any counting can occur.

“That’s massively time consuming to open each envelope, find the signature that’s on file, compare it to the one on the envelope, make a determination about whether it matches and then if it does, proceed to put it into the count pile and start the tabulation process,�� says Burden.

Burden also notes that the lawsuits filed this cycle in Florida, Georgia and Arizona challenging the states’ procedures for determining whether signatures match can slow things down.

“The real problem with the signature matching is that in states like Florida and Georgia that do a lot of ballots by mail but not entirely ballots by mail, they generally don’t have a good uniform procedures for checking signatures across the counties in a consistent fashion,” Burden said. “That’s not the case in Oregon and Washington, which have been doing voting by mail for a number of years. They’ve developed really good standardized protocols in which all election officials are trained in a consistent legitimate way.”

“But in states where early voting by mail has crept up on them but there’s still lots of traditional voting, the practices tend to be uneven and so voters get treated differently depending on which county they happen live in,” he added.

Have elections been decided by mail-in votes?

There have been plenty of elections where one candidate wins by a very small number of votes, and several high profile contests in recent years saw their margins change due to absentee votes counted after Election Day.

In the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race between Democrat Al Franken and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, the vote count was incredibly close and required a long recount. The protracted battle meant that Franken was not declared the official winner until months later, and late-counted absentee ballots helped Franken in the end.

In another instance of absentee ballots heightening the drama in a close race, the 2006 U.S. House race for New Mexico’s 1st district between Republican Heather Wilson and Democratic challenger Patricia Madrid came down to less than 900 votes. Absentee votes narrowed the margin considerably in the weeks after the election, and when Wilson ultimately kept her seat, the difference between the two candidates was less than .5%.

Have politicians questioned vote counting before?

Politicians often question vote tabulating when elections are close, according to Atkeson at the University of New Mexico, but she believes the President’s actions are different.

“From a normative perspective it’s really troubling. If you don’t trust Congress that’s one thing,” said Atkeson. “But if you don’t feel that they got there legitimately, that’s the whole integrity of our democratic system.”

If voters stop trusting that their votes are counted accurately, that could have serious implications for future elections. “That’s truly problematic for the long-term health of our democracy,” Atkeson said.

By Abigail Abrams on November 12, 2018 at 10:19PM

[tifanykbaret84]

POLITICO Playbook PM: Trump, Obama split screen

REUTERS’ JEFF MASON (@jeffmason1): “.@realDonaldTrump tells reporters he wants Attorney General Sessions to investigate who wrote @nytimes op-ed.”

-- WHAT EXACTLY would the attorney general investigate?

-- NYT’S MIKE GRYNBAUM (@grynbaum): “Trump also threatened to pull NBC’s license, strengthen libel laws, and sue Michael Wolff’s publisher. Common thread: none of that happened.”

ISAAC DOVERE in Champaign, Illinois: “Obama delivers full-throated rebuttal to Trump’s presidency��: “Barack Obama launched his midterm campaigning Friday at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, arguing that President Donald Trump poses such a threat to America that it forced him to speak out in an unprecedented way for a former president.” POLITICO

-- “THIS IS NOT NORMAL,” Obama said, noting that people inside the administration can’t stop the president from making decisions.

WHAT IS MAKING REPUBLICANS GROAN TODAY …

BLOOMBERG’S JENNIFER JACOBS (@JenniferJJacobs): “BREAKING: Trump says tariffs on another $267 billion in China goods are ready to go, on short notice. This is in addition to the tariffs on $200 billion on China goods the admin is preparing now, he says on AF1.”

-- MORE … “Chances Fade for U.S.-China Trade Deal,” by WSJ’s Bob Davis and Lingling Wei: “Relaxing trade tensions with Mexico and Canada, plus a preliminary trade agreement with the European Union, have made it easier to forge a multilateral front to oppose Chinese trade practices. The U.S., EU and Japan have already held meetings on such a strategy. …

“Chinese officials have tried to reassure markets by stressing that the two sides have continued to talk since the end of last month’s unsuccessful trade negotiations in Washington. On the other hand, few in Beijing expect much improvement before the U.S. midterms.” WSJ

WHAT IS MAKING REPUBLICANS SMILE TODAY …

-- JOBS REPORT: “Tightening job market delivers wage boost,” by Ian Kullgren: “The tightening job market in August delivered workers the largest single-month wage boost in nearly a decade as the economy added 201,000 jobs, the government reported Friday.

“Average hourly earnings rose 2.9 percent over the previous year — up from July’s 2.7 percent and the biggest jump since June 2009. The unemployment rate was 3.9 percent, unchanged from July. The numbers paint an improving portrait of the economy two months ahead of the midterm elections.” POLITICO

-- OBAMACARE FILES: “Modest premium hikes as ‘Obamacare’ stabilizes,” by AP’s Meghan Hoyer and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar: “The Associated Press and the consulting firm Avalere Health crunched available state data and found that ‘Obamacare’s’ health insurance marketplaces seem to be stabilizing after two years of sharp premium hikes. And the exodus of insurers from the program has halted, even reversed somewhat, with more consumer choices for 2019.

“The analysis found a 3.6 percent average increase in proposed or approved premiums across 47 states and Washington, D.C., for next year. This year the average increase nationally was about 30 percent.” AP

MEANWHILE … WHAT’S ON THE PRESIDENT’S MIND -- @realDonaldTrump at 6:56 a.m. Eastern (4:56 a.m. in Montana): “What was Nike thinking?”

… at 7:32 a.m.: “The Woodward book is a scam. I don’t talk the way I am quoted. If I did I would not have been elected President. These quotes were made up. The author uses every trick in the book to demean and belittle. I wish the people could see the real facts -- and our country is doing GREAT!”

… at 12:35 p.m.: “Under our horrible immigration laws, the Government is frequently blocked from deporting criminal aliens with violent felony convictions. House GOP just passed a bill to increase our ability to deport violent felons (Crazy Dems opposed). Need to get this bill to my desk fast!”

Happy Friday afternoon. FIRST IN PLAYBOOK -- ERIC SCHULTZ, president of the Schultz Group and also a senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, has signed on as the political consultant for Netflix’s reboot of “Designated Survivor.” He will be helping writers and advise on set design and what life is like inside the White House. Netflix announced Thursday that it’s bringing back the show after ABC had killed it in May. Season three will debut next year (THR has more on the show).

FOR YOUR RADAR … WSJ: “Verizon’s Internet Boss Tim Armstrong in Talks to Leave”

-- ALSO LEAVING VERIZON … NATALIE RAVITZ and Vanessa Wittman. Ravitz is a former chief of staff to Barbara Boxer, and worked as a top adviser to Rupert Murdoch and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. Wittman was CFO who came from Dropbox.

THE KAVANAUGH HEARING -- JOHN BRESNAHAN, “Watergate figure John Dean calls Kavanaugh nomination ‘troubling’”: “‘If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, I submit we will have the most pro-presidential powers Supreme Court in the modern era,’ said Dean, who served as White House counsel for nearly three years. …

“But Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will counter with several high-profile legal figures of their own, including Ted Olson and Paul Clement, both former solicitor generals.” POLITICO

-- “Booker to McConnell on ethics charges: ‘Bring it!’” by Burgess Everett: POLITICO

SPOTTED: Michael Caputo having lunch on Wednesday with ABC’s Ali Dukakis at the Four Seasons … Anderson Cooper on the 9 a.m. Delta shuttle to New York.

INTERESTING … FIRST IN PLAYBOOK: AMY MCGRATH has been the subject of lots of chatter in political circles of late. She’s a Democrat running against Kentucky GOP Rep. Andy Barr in a district anchored in Lexington and its surroundings. It’s a strong district but McGrath, with the help of Mark Putnam’s viral ads, raised a ton of dough and seemed to have Barr on the ropes, a bit.

-- THE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND -- the House GOP super PAC -- is the leading spender in the district. They’ve dropped $1 million on TV already. They say after she won the primary, her fav/unfav was 55-16, and she led Barr 51-38 -- a scary lead against a GOP incumbent in a red district. After a set of ads painting McGrath as a liberal, CLF says a new poll has Barr up 49-45, and 66 percent see McGrath as a liberal -- which is up 27 percentage points from June. Memo and polling info from CLF

2018 WATCH … “Conservative activists: Trump was ‘tricked’ into Calif. endorsement,” by Carla Marinucci in Cupertino, California: “President Donald Trump’s surprise move to issue an endorsement in California’s only Republican-on-Republican House race has stunned GOP grassroots activists …

“Trump took to Twitter this week to endorse incumbent GOP Rep. Paul Cook … over former Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, a Tea Party favorite and co-founder of the California Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration border watch group. … Donnelly insisted Trump is being [misled] by Deep Staters and ‘Swamp’ insiders determined to undermine him and control his agenda.” POLITICO

-- REMEMBER WHO IS CLOSE TO TRUMP and is from California: Kevin McCarthy.

NYT’s SABRINA TAVERNISE in Fayetteville, Arkansas: “The Future of Abortion Under a New Supreme Court? Look to Arkansas”: “[M]any legal experts say the more likely outcome of the change on the court, at least in the near term, will be less sweeping: States like Arkansas will get their way with smaller cases that reduce — but not eliminate — the right to an abortion. … Arkansas is in the heart of a broad band through the country’s middle and south where abortion access in most states is already down to a few clinics. …

“[T]he number of clinics is back up to three. But many other barriers remain: a ban on abortions after 20 weeks; a 48-hour waiting period, which requires women to make two or three trips to the clinic; parental consent for minors; doctors unable to dispense medication abortion pills remotely by video. … A ruling against the clinics would effectively ban medication abortion in the state and leave Arkansas again with only one clinic.” NYT

THE INVESTIGATIONS … FUN VIDEO -- @ABCPolitics: “‘How did I ever the hell get involved in this mess?’ past Roger Stone associate Randy Credico says to @ajdukakis upon arriving to testify before a federal grand jury in the Mueller probe. ‘What’s a nice guy like me doing in a place like this?’” 1-min. video

WAPO’s DAVID NAKAMURA: “‘There’s a new sheriff in town’: Trump uses official events to wage campaign against press”: “Trump routinely rails against the press corps on Twitter and at his campaign rallies. But he has begun eliciting cheers of support during more-official settings and from audiences once thought to be more immune to naked partisanship.” WaPo

ON THE WORLD STAGE -- “Iran Defies U.S. Bid to Curb Its Middle East Influence,” by WSJ’s Sune Engel Rasmussen in Beirut and Michael R. Gordon: “Iran is signaling that it will buck U.S. efforts to roll back its military presence in the Middle East, moving to cement foreign alliances and continuing to project power abroad despite sanctions that have helped put intense pressure on its economy.

“Tehran signed a long-term security pact with Syria in August, and has kept up the flow of arms and financial support to proxy forces around the region … U.S. officials acknowledge Iran hasn’t stepped back from its assertive posture and say Iranian shipments of missiles and some advanced arms around the region have even accelerated. But they also note that the toughest sanctions are yet to come.” WSJ

-- “As talks with U.S. stall, North Korea preps military parade,” by AP’s Eric Talmadge: “[T]wo big questions remain: Who will attend? And will leader Kim Jong Un use the occasion to thumb his nose at Washington by displaying missiles North Korea claims are capable of striking the American heartland?

“The parade will kick off a series of extravagant celebrations scheduled to mark Sunday’s [70th] anniversary … Although North Korea’s military parades have in recent years culminated in displays of the country’s missiles, the North keeps them under wraps until the day they are rolled out for the parades. … It is possible — even likely — that the upcoming parade will be toned down to reflect Kim’s less provocative posturing.” AP

WAR REPORT -- REUTERS’ IDREES ALI in Kabul: “Mattis, in Afghanistan, tries fostering reconciliation as security worsens”

THE L.A. TIMES ROARS BACK … “How eight elite San Francisco families funded Gavin Newsom’s political ascent,” by the Seema Mehta, Ryan Menezes and Maloy Moore: “Gavin Newsom wasn’t born rich, but he was born connected — and those alliances have paid handsome dividends throughout his career. … A Times review of campaign finance records identified eight of San Francisco’s best-known families as being among Newsom’s most loyal and long-term contributors. Among those patrons are the Gettys, the Pritzkers and the Fishers … Now the families appear poised to see their investments pay off.” LAT

AFTERNOON READ -- “‘I’m Tired of America Wasting Our Blood and Treasure’: The Strange Ascent of Betsy DeVos and Erik Prince,” by Sam Tanenhaus in October’s Vanity Fair: “Trump was a useful vehicle for advancing nationally the revolution the DeVoses had already enacted in Michigan. There was, for instance, Betsy DeVos’s campaign to undo the state’s public-education system and replace it with for-profit and charter schools … There was also the campaign she and her husband had waged to weaken Michigan’s unions. And there was the DeVos-family-funded gentrification of Grand Rapids …

“Other lessons can be found in the pulp-fiction career of Betsy DeVos’s younger brother, Erik Prince, the former navy SEAL who started Blackwater—the mammoth security company, some of whose ‘civilian soldiers’ had gone rogue in Iraq. … Behind all this is the story of a family dynasty that has been a driving force on the far right—the Michigan Medicis of Donald Trump’s America.” Vanity Fair

TV TONIGHT ... Guest host Pete Williams sits down with CNN’s Joan Biskupic, CBS’ Ed O’Keefe and NBC’s Kristen Welker on PBS’ “Washington Week” at 8 p.m. Moderator Bob Costa joins remotely from Indiana.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION JOB MOVES … IN: Teresa Davis will be special assistant to the assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs. She was previously communications director for Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). … Will Levi has started as special assistant to the president for domestic policy. He previously was an associate attorney at Sidley Austin and chief counsel for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). … Judd Deere has been named special assistant to the president and director of media affairs. He previously was director of state communications at the White House. Other administration job moves

-- OUT: Hari Sastry will be senior vice chancellor and chief financial officer at the University of Pittsburgh. He is currently director of the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources at the State Department.

BONUS BIRTHDAY OF THE DAY: Stuart Holliday, president and CEO of Meridian International Center. How he got his start: “Interning for Sen. Scoop Jackson in 1982 during his re-election campaign. Through Scoop, I first met Sen. John McCain and later worked with him while I was running the veterans and national security coalition during President H.W. Bush's re-election campaign. After Bush lost the ’92 election – and after proposing to my wife Gwen M. Holliday that night – I went on to become director of Middle East and North Africa for IRI while McCain served as chairman." Q&A

from Tiffany Favorites https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2018/09/07/trump-obama-split-screen-302918

[tomdwilliams32]

POLITICO Playbook PM: Trump, Obama split screen

REUTERS’ JEFF MASON (@jeffmason1): “.@realDonaldTrump tells reporters he wants Attorney General Sessions to investigate who wrote @nytimes op-ed.”

-- WHAT EXACTLY would the attorney general investigate?

-- NYT’S MIKE GRYNBAUM (@grynbaum): “Trump also threatened to pull NBC’s license, strengthen libel laws, and sue Michael Wolff’s publisher. Common thread: none of that happened.”

ISAAC DOVERE in Champaign, Illinois: “Obama delivers full-throated rebuttal to Trump’s presidency”: “Barack Obama launched his midterm campaigning Friday at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, arguing that President Donald Trump poses such a threat to America that it forced him to speak out in an unprecedented way for a former president.” POLITICO

-- “THIS IS NOT NORMAL,” Obama said, noting that people inside the administration can’t stop the president from making decisions.

WHAT IS MAKING REPUBLICANS GROAN TODAY …

BLOOMBERG’S JENNIFER JACOBS (@JenniferJJacobs): “BREAKING: Trump says tariffs on another $267 billion in China goods are ready to go, on short notice. This is in addition to the tariffs on $200 billion on China goods the admin is preparing now, he says on AF1.”

-- MORE … “Chances Fade for U.S.-China Trade Deal,” by WSJ’s Bob Davis and Lingling Wei: “Relaxing trade tensions with Mexico and Canada, plus a preliminary trade agreement with the European Union, have made it easier to forge a multilateral front to oppose Chinese trade practices. The U.S., EU and Japan have already held meetings on such a strategy. …

“Chinese officials have tried to reassure markets by stressing that the two sides have continued to talk since the end of last month’s unsuccessful trade negotiations in Washington. On the other hand, few in Beijing expect much improvement before the U.S. midterms.” WSJ

WHAT IS MAKING REPUBLICANS SMILE TODAY …

-- JOBS REPORT: “Tightening job market delivers wage boost,” by Ian Kullgren: “The tightening job market in August delivered workers the largest single-month wage boost in nearly a decade as the economy added 201,000 jobs, the government reported Friday.

“Average hourly earnings rose 2.9 percent over the previous year — up from July’s 2.7 percent and the biggest jump since June 2009. The unemployment rate was 3.9 percent, unchanged from July. The numbers paint an improving portrait of the economy two months ahead of the midterm elections.” POLITICO

-- OBAMACARE FILES: “Modest premium hikes as ‘Obamacare’ stabilizes,” by AP’s Meghan Hoyer and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar: “The Associated Press and the consulting firm Avalere Health crunched available state data and found that ‘Obamacare’s’ health insurance marketplaces seem to be stabilizing after two years of sharp premium hikes. And the exodus of insurers from the program has halted, even reversed somewhat, with more consumer choices for 2019.

“The analysis found a 3.6 percent average increase in proposed or approved premiums across 47 states and Washington, D.C., for next year. This year the average increase nationally was about 30 percent.” AP

MEANWHILE … WHAT’S ON THE PRESIDENT’S MIND -- @realDonaldTrump at 6:56 a.m. Eastern (4:56 a.m. in Montana): “What was Nike thinking?”

… at 7:32 a.m.: “The Woodward book is a scam. I don’t talk the way I am quoted. If I did I would not have been elected President. These quotes were made up. The author uses every trick in the book to demean and belittle. I wish the people could see the real facts -- and our country is doing GREAT!”

… at 12:35 p.m.: “Under our horrible immigration laws, the Government is frequently blocked from deporting criminal aliens with violent felony convictions. House GOP just passed a bill to increase our ability to deport violent felons (Crazy Dems opposed). Need to get this bill to my desk fast!”

Happy Friday afternoon. FIRST IN PLAYBOOK -- ERIC SCHULTZ, president of the Schultz Group and also a senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, has signed on as the political consultant for Netflix’s reboot of “Designated Survivor.” He will be helping writers and advise on set design and what life is like inside the White House. Netflix announced Thursday that it’s bringing back the show after ABC had killed it in May. Season three will debut next year (THR has more on the show).

FOR YOUR RADAR … WSJ: “Verizon’s Internet Boss Tim Armstrong in Talks to Leave”

-- ALSO LEAVING VERIZON … NATALIE RAVITZ and Vanessa Wittman. Ravitz is a former chief of staff to Barbara Boxer, and worked as a top adviser to Rupert Murdoch and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. Wittman was CFO who came from Dropbox.

THE KAVANAUGH HEARING -- JOHN BRESNAHAN, “Watergate figure John Dean calls Kavanaugh nomination ‘troubling’”: “‘If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, I submit we will have the most pro-presidential powers Supreme Court in the modern era,’ said Dean, who served as White House counsel for nearly three years. …

“But Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will counter with several high-profile legal figures of their own, including Ted Olson and Paul Clement, both former solicitor generals.” POLITICO

-- “Booker to McConnell on ethics charges: ‘Bring it!’” by Burgess Everett: POLITICO

SPOTTED: Michael Caputo having lunch on Wednesday with ABC’s Ali Dukakis at the Four Seasons … Anderson Cooper on the 9 a.m. Delta shuttle to New York.

INTERESTING … FIRST IN PLAYBOOK: AMY MCGRATH has been the subject of lots of chatter in political circles of late. She’s a Democrat running against Kentucky GOP Rep. Andy Barr in a district anchored in Lexington and its surroundings. It’s a strong district but McGrath, with the help of Mark Putnam’s viral ads, raised a ton of dough and seemed to have Barr on the ropes, a bit.

-- THE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND -- the House GOP super PAC -- is the leading spender in the district. They’ve dropped $1 million on TV already. They say after she won the primary, her fav/unfav was 55-16, and she led Barr 51-38 -- a scary lead against a GOP incumbent in a red district. After a set of ads painting McGrath as a liberal, CLF says a new poll has Barr up 49-45, and 66 percent see McGrath as a liberal -- which is up 27 percentage points from June. Memo and polling info from CLF

2018 WATCH … “Conservative activists: Trump was ‘tricked’ into Calif. endorsement,” by Carla Marinucci in Cupertino, California: “President Donald Trump’s surprise move to issue an endorsement in California’s only Republican-on-Republican House race has stunned GOP grassroots activists …

“Trump took to Twitter this week to endorse incumbent GOP Rep. Paul Cook … over former Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, a Tea Party favorite and co-founder of the California Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration border watch group. … Donnelly insisted Trump is being [misled] by Deep Staters and ‘Swamp’ insiders determined to undermine him and control his agenda.” POLITICO

-- REMEMBER WHO IS CLOSE TO TRUMP and is from California: Kevin McCarthy.

NYT’s SABRINA TAVERNISE in Fayetteville, Arkansas: “The Future of Abortion Under a New Supreme Court? Look to Arkansas”: “[M]any legal experts say the more likely outcome of the change on the court, at least in the near term, will be less sweeping: States like Arkansas will get their way with smaller cases that reduce — but not eliminate — the right to an abortion. … Arkansas is in the heart of a broad band through the country’s middle and south where abortion access in most states is already down to a few clinics. …

“[T]he number of clinics is back up to three. But many other barriers remain: a ban on abortions after 20 weeks; a 48-hour waiting period, which requires women to make two or three trips to the clinic; parental consent for minors; doctors unable to dispense medication abortion pills remotely by video. … A ruling against the clinics would effectively ban medication abortion in the state and leave Arkansas again with only one clinic.” NYT

THE INVESTIGATIONS … FUN VIDEO -- @ABCPolitics: “‘How did I ever the hell get involved in this mess?’ past Roger Stone associate Randy Credico says to @ajdukakis upon arriving to testify before a federal grand jury in the Mueller probe. ‘What’s a nice guy like me doing in a place like this?’” 1-min. video

WAPO’s DAVID NAKAMURA: “‘There’s a new sheriff in town’: Trump uses official events to wage campaign against press”: “Trump routinely rails against the press corps on Twitter and at his campaign rallies. But he has begun eliciting cheers of support during more-official settings and from audiences once thought to be more immune to naked partisanship.” WaPo

ON THE WORLD STAGE -- “Iran Defies U.S. Bid to Curb Its Middle East Influence,” by WSJ’s Sune Engel Rasmussen in Beirut and Michael R. Gordon: “Iran is signaling that it will buck U.S. efforts to roll back its military presence in the Middle East, moving to cement foreign alliances and continuing to project power abroad despite sanctions that have helped put intense pressure on its economy.

“Tehran signed a long-term security pact with Syria in August, and has kept up the flow of arms and financial support to proxy forces around the region … U.S. officials acknowledge Iran hasn’t stepped back from its assertive posture and say Iranian shipments of missiles and some advanced arms around the region have even accelerated. But they also note that the toughest sanctions are yet to come.” WSJ

-- “As talks with U.S. stall, North Korea preps military parade,” by AP’s Eric Talmadge: “[T]wo big questions remain: Who will attend? And will leader Kim Jong Un use the occasion to thumb his nose at Washington by displaying missiles North Korea claims are capable of striking the American heartland?

“The parade will kick off a series of extravagant celebrations scheduled to mark Sunday’s [70th] anniversary … Although North Korea’s military parades have in recent years culminated in displays of the country’s missiles, the North keeps them under wraps until the day they are rolled out for the parades. … It is possible — even likely — that the upcoming parade will be toned down to reflect Kim’s less provocative posturing.” AP

WAR REPORT -- REUTERS’ IDREES ALI in Kabul: “Mattis, in Afghanistan, tries fostering reconciliation as security worsens”

THE L.A. TIMES ROARS BACK … “How eight elite San Francisco families funded Gavin Newsom’s political ascent,” by the Seema Mehta, Ryan Menezes and Maloy Moore: “Gavin Newsom wasn’t born rich, but he was born connected — and those alliances have paid handsome dividends throughout his career. … A Times review of campaign finance records identified eight of San Francisco’s best-known families as being among Newsom’s most loyal and long-term contributors. Among those patrons are the Gettys, the Pritzkers and the Fishers … Now the families appear poised to see their investments pay off.” LAT

AFTERNOON READ -- “‘I’m Tired of America Wasting Our Blood and Treasure’: The Strange Ascent of Betsy DeVos and Erik Prince,” by Sam Tanenhaus in October’s Vanity Fair: “Trump was a useful vehicle for advancing nationally the revolution the DeVoses had already enacted in Michigan. There was, for instance, Betsy DeVos’s campaign to undo the state’s public-education system and replace it with for-profit and charter schools … There was also the campaign she and her husband had waged to weaken Michigan’s unions. And there was the DeVos-family-funded gentrification of Grand Rapids …

“Other lessons can be found in the pulp-fiction career of Betsy DeVos’s younger brother, Erik Prince, the former navy SEAL who started Blackwater—the mammoth security company, some of whose ‘civilian soldiers’ had gone rogue in Iraq. … Behind all this is the story of a family dynasty that has been a driving force on the far right—the Michigan Medicis of Donald Trump’s America.” Vanity Fair

TV TONIGHT ... Guest host Pete Williams sits down with CNN’s Joan Biskupic, CBS’ Ed O’Keefe and NBC’s Kristen Welker on PBS’ “Washington Week” at 8 p.m. Moderator Bob Costa joins remotely from Indiana.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION JOB MOVES … IN: Teresa Davis will be special assistant to the assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs. She was previously communications director for Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). … Will Levi has started as special assistant to the president for domestic policy. He previously was an associate attorney at Sidley Austin and chief counsel for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). … Judd Deere has been named special assistant to the president and director of media affairs. He previously was director of state communications at the White House. Other administration job moves

-- OUT: Hari Sastry will be senior vice chancellor and chief financial officer at the University of Pittsburgh. He is currently director of the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources at the State Department.

BONUS BIRTHDAY OF THE DAY: Stuart Holliday, president and CEO of Meridian International Center. How he got his start: “Interning for Sen. Scoop Jackson in 1982 during his re-election campaign. Through Scoop, I first met Sen. John McCain and later worked with him while I was running the veterans and national security coalition during President H.W. Bush's re-election campaign. After Bush lost the ’92 election – and after proposing to my wife Gwen M. Holliday that night – I went on to become director of Middle East and North Africa for IRI while McCain served as chairman." Q&A

from Tom Williams Blog https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2018/09/07/trump-obama-split-screen-302918

[tumbirus]

Dears , Many country under elected autocratic ,Mr:Trump (America )Mr:Bolsonaro (Brazil )and Mr:Modi (India )have many things in common.In the U.S,India and Brazil ,this toxic combination of messianic populism ,social polarisation, insularity and centralisation has made the pandemic that much worse and poisoned the waters of democracy. But democracies are not just about their leaders.Throughout the crisis ,health -care workers and civil society organisations have stepped up where their ,daters have failed,and democratic institutions have pushed back.Mr:Trump has been exposed by the media and shown the exit by the voters.The Brazilian Senate has launched a very public investigation in to Mr:Bolsonaro's handling of the pandemic and his poll numbers have plummeted. Mr:Modi has just been repudiated in State -level elections and the Indian Supreme Court has called out the incoherence of the government's vaccine policy .But to take comfort in the hope that democracies will demand accountability ,we must remember ,as the pandemic continus to ravage India and Brazil hat it is not only the virus ,but also the hubris of autocrat that kill. Mr:Trump political life is ending in America ,Next Mr:-Bolsonaro's political life ending ones is Brazil peopls and Mr; Modi politica leader ship life no more Indian country this all chances ,in this three leaders political life showing to many truth.selfishnes,underground and non proof unlawful activities also. So any country leaders and goverment vote give one peopls aganist and socia, activities aganist making one selfish activities ,This goverment or po,itica, partied or ,leaders image and accintablity ending in the world. (Thanks for the Patric Heller ,R.J.Joy &De) Published by ioll,World Wide ,Mumbai ,India.Mail:iollworld1@outlook.com /iollofficial2017@gmail (at Mumbai, Maharashtra) https://www.instagram.com/p/CPxhubDHzyV/?utm_medium=tumblr

[christineamccalla]

Writs of, Ex parte Quirin; Habeas corpus; De Facto/De Jure; US Constitution, in entirety, jointly and severally; Katastréfontas tis apomimíseis, symperilamvanoménon ton antirríseon, tis porneías kai ton métron katá tou olokaftómatos (ruin through deminis including vice, prostitution, and holocaustal measures); Itineris forced quartering of soldiers; Tin efarmogí nómon propagándas gia tin apofygí anankastikón ysterektomón, symperilamvanoménon ton dikastikón, dikastikón kai nomothetikón métron ton en lógo themáton (application of propaganda laws to prevent forced hysterectomies including the judicial, judiciary, and legislative measures of said regards); Et liberaliter educatus et inter desertis litteratus meretricium coactus coactus et; Matricibus (abandonment of the educated and literate including forced prostitution and forced breeding); Per damnationem mortis poenam cogi possit tectum (death condemnation and execution through forced and enforced homelessness); Coactus servitutis per pestem pernici oeconomiae eiusque socio oeconomica et politica ratio, comprehendo vehemens et pestiferi ac voluntariam debilitationem creatus per insertionem Natione rei publicae est, United States of America scriptor publicus terras (including intus), aedificia , operatur, artificialia, qualitatibus explicarent, et al; (Forced acceptance of slavery through the ruin and destruction of the economy and its socio-economic and political systems, including forcible, ruinous, and intentional debilitation created through the insertion of the Nation State's, United States of America's public lands (including interior), buildings, works, artifacts, and attributes, et al); Aspergillus niger sine exceptione inter mortem, ignominiam congregat sibi, integritas, et al, by McCalla, Christine Ann, MBA, MS, CBME, CAHR, CBDE, CTW, CPA

As submitted by McCalla, Christine Ann, Ergant, President Gubernatorial, US Supreme Court Justice, Auswich, Supreme Court Justice,

Writs of, 

   Ex parte Quirin

   Habeas corpus

   De Facto/De Jure

   US Constitution, in entirety, jointly and severally

-Katastréfontas tis apomimíseis, symperilamvanoménon ton antirríseon, tis porneías kai 

ton métron katá tou olokaftómatos (ruin through deminis including vice, prostitution, and 

holocaustal measures)

-Itineris forced quartering of soldiers

-Tin efarmogí nómon propagándas gia tin apofygí anankastikón ysterektomón, 

symperilamvanoménon ton dikastikón, dikastikón kai nomothetikón métron ton en lógo

themáton (application of propaganda laws to prevent forced hysterectomies including 

the judicial, judiciary, and legislative measures of said regards)

-Et liberaliter educatus et inter desertis litteratus meretricium coactus coactus et 

Matricibus (abandonment of the educated and literate including forced prostitution and 

forced breeding)

-Per damnationem mortis poenam cogi possit tectum (death condemnation and 

execution through forced and enforced homelessness)

-Coactus servitutis per pestem pernici oeconomiae eiusque socio oeconomica et politica 

ratio, comprehendo vehemens et pestiferi ac voluntariam debilitationem creatus per 

insertionem Natione rei publicae est, United States of America scriptor publicus terras 

(including intus), aedificia , operatur, artificialia, qualitatibus explicarent, et al. (Forced 

acceptance of slavery through the ruin and destruction of the economy and its 

socio-economic and political systems, including forcible, ruinous, and intentional 

debilitation created through the insertion of the Nation State's, United States of America's 

public lands (including interior), buildings, works, artifacts, and attributes, et al)

-Aspergillus niger sine exceptione inter mortem, ignominiam congregat sibi, integritas, et 

Amet (contamination without exception including death, dishonor, integrity, and 

environment)

As a response to the eternal and continuous corruption and invitation of foreign forces into the United States of America for the sole purposes of, (1) destruction, ruin, and murder of Monarch, Barony McCalla, Christine Ann Joseph Nicole, Ergrant, President Gubernatorial, et al; (2) slavery and enslavement of the nation; (3) invasion, sieges, and jeopardy from within the nation; (4) as a penal colony; (5) the most recent stages of holocausts including genophilia; (6) contamination; (7) forced impoverishments and ostracisms; (8) forced, machinated, and orchestrated homelessness and related events; (9) parasites as body disposal systems and organized crimes designs and methodologies, e.g. bugs with fluidities capable of generated energy transformations into wires; (10) parasites including contamination as prosthetic-assistance measures and devices; (11) refusal of education, knowledge, and literature; and, (12) corruption en masse.

Resultingly, laws, statutes, et al, President and Congress; Government Organizations and Employees; Labor; Education; Mandamus; Parens Patriae; Flag, Seat and Seal of the Government; Patriotism, Rites, Ceremonies, and Observances; War and National Defense; Public Health and Welfare; Public Health; Public Lands; Public Welfare; Public Lands: Interior; Alien Enemies; Aliens and Nationality; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Domestic Security; National Security, et al, have all been used as instruments of death transactionable by sex, forced or other, including consideration other than cash and resulting in consideration other than money to secure employment, futures, and other necessities deemed the “inherent right to life”.

A nation willing to set itself bereft through ignorance, illiteracy, inertia, and willingness of suffrage must be corrected and forcibly set straight in the navigation. In doing so, applying, attaching, integrating, and embedding the introduction of the physics quantifications and equivalencies of River Crossing; Any Given Sunday; Forced Gravity Bucket; Efficiency of Carnot Engine; Coulomb's Law REF(River Crossing; Any Given Sunday); Space Around Charge; Closest Approach Between Particles.

 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/1/ 

Justia.com presented a similar writ involving the German Reich. Given the point in history, 2019, it is unclear the reason and causes of these holocausts and related offenses. A federal court may refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus where the facts alleged in the petition, if proved, would not warrant discharge of the prisoner. P. 317 U. S. 24.

Excerpt as presented by Justia.com...

Page 317 U. S. 2

Presentation to the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia of a petition for habeas corpus was the institution of a suit, and denial by that court of leave to file the petition was a judicial determination of a case or controversy reviewable by appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and in this Court by certiorari. P. 317 U. S. 24.

The President's Proclamation of July 2, 1942, declaring that all persons who are citizens or subjects of, or who act under the direction of, any nation at war with the United States, and who during time of war enter the United States through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile acts, or violations of the law of war, "shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals," does not bar accused persons from access to the civil courts for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Proclamation to the particular case; nor does the Proclamation, which in terms denied to such persons access to the courts, nor the enemy alienage of the accused, foreclose consideration by the civil courts of the contention that the Constitution and laws of the United States forbid their trial by military commission. P. 317 U. S. 24.

In time of war between the United States and Germany, petitioners, wearing German military uniforms and carrying explosives, fuses, and incendiary and time devices, were landed from German submarines in the hours of darkness, at places on the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Thereupon they buried the uniforms and supplies, and proceeded, in civilian dress, to various places in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at a sabotage school, and had with them, when arrested, substantial amounts of United States currency, which had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States. Specification 1 of the charges on which they were placed on trial before a military commission charged that they,

"being enemies of the United States and acting for . . . the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United

Page 317 U. S. 3

States . . . and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress . . . for the purpose of committing . . . hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States."

Held:

(1) That the specification sufficiently charged an offense against the law of war which the President was authorized to order tried by a military commission; notwithstanding the fact that, ever since their arrest, the courts in the jurisdictions where they entered the country and where they were arrested and held for trial were open and functioning normally. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. Pp. 317 U. S. 21, 317 U. S. 23, 317 U. S. 36, 317 U. S. 48.

(2) The President's Order of July 2, 1942, so far as it lays down the procedure to be followed on the trial before the Commission and on the review of its findings and sentence, and the procedure in fact followed by the Commission, were not in conflict with Articles of War 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70. P. 317 U. S. 46.

(3) The petitioners were in lawful custody for trial by a military commission, and, upon petitions for writs of habeas corpus, did not show cause for their discharge. P. 317 U. S. 47.

5. Articles 15, 38 and 46 of the Articles of War, enacted by Congress, recognize the "military commission" as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by courts-martial. And by the Articles of War, especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Pp. 317 U. S. 26-28.

6. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, by the Articles of War has exercised its authority under Art. I, § 8, cl. 10 of the Constitution to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, of which the law of war is a part, by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And by Article of War 15, Congress has incorporated by reference, as within the jurisdiction of military commissions, all offenses which are defined as such by the law of war and which may constitutionally be included within that jurisdiction. Pp. 317 U. S. 28, 317 U. S. 30.

7. This Court has always recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the

Page 317 U. S. 4

conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. P. 317 U. S. 27.

8. The offense charged in this case was an offense against the law of war, the trial of which by military commission had been authorized by Congress, and which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. P. 317 U. S. 45.

9. By the law of war, lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war; unlawful combatants, in addition, are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. P. 317 U. S. 30.

10. It has long been accepted practice by our military authorities to treat those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, as unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This practice, accepted and followed by other governments, must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War. P. 317 U. S. 35.

11. Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. P. 317 U. S. 37.

12. Even when committed by a citizen, the offense here charged is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other. P. 317 U. S. 38.

13. Article III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution did not extend the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission or require that offenses against the law of war, not triable by jury at common law, be tried only in civil courts. P. 317 U. S. 38.

14. Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806, derived from the Resolution of the Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, and which imposed the death penalty on alien spies "according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general court martial," was a contemporary construction of Article III, § 2 of the Constitution and of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as not foreclosing trial by military tribunals, without a jury, for offenses against the law of war

Page 317 U. S. 5

committed by enemies not in or associated with our Armed Forces. It is a construction which has been followed since the founding of our government, and is now continued in the 82nd Article of War. Such a construction is entitled to great respect. P. 317 U. S. 41.

15. Since violation of the law of war is adequately alleged in this case, the Court finds no occasion to consider the validity of other specifications based on the 81st and 82nd Article of War, or to construe those articles or decide upon their constitutionality a so construed. P. 317 U. S. 46.

Leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court denied. Orders of District Court (47 F.Supp. 431), affirmed.

The Court met in Special Term, on Wednesday, July 29, 1942, pursuant to a call by the Chief Justice having the approval of all the Associate Justices.

The Chief Justice announced that the Court had convened in Special Term in order that certain applications might be presented to it and argument be heard in respect thereto.

In response to an inquiry by the Chief Justice, the Attorney General stated that the Chief Justice's son, Major Lauson H. Stone, U.S.A. had, under orders, assisted defense counsel before the Military Commission, in the case relative to which the Special Term of the Court was called; but that Major Stone had had no connection with this proceeding before this Court. Therefore, said the Attorney General, counsel for all the respective parties in this proceeding joined in urging the Chief Justice to participate in the consideration and decision of the matters to be presented. Colonel Kenneth C. Royall, of counselor the petitioners, concurred in the statement and request of the Attorney General.

The applications, seven in number (ante, p. 1, n 1), first took the form of petitions to this Court for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus to secure the release of the petitioners from the custody of Brigadier General

Page 317 U. S. 6

Albert L. Cox, U.S.A. Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who, pursuant to orders, was holding them in that District for and during a trial before a Military Commission constituted by an Order of the President of the United States. During the course of the argument, the petitioners were permitted to file petitions for writs of certiorari, directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to review, before judgment by that Court, orders then before it by appeal by which the District Court for the District of Columbia had denied applications for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

After the argument, this Court delivered a Per Curiam Opinion, disposing of the cases (footnote, p. 317 U. S. 18). A full opinion, which is the basis of this Report, was filed with the Clerk of the Court on October 29, 1942.

Page 317 U. S. 18

[Footnote 1]

No. ___, Original, Ex parte Richard Quirin; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Herbert Hans Haupt; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Edward John Kerling; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Ernest Peter Burger; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Heinrich Harm Heinck; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Werner Thiel; and No. ___, Original, Ex parte Hermann Otto Neubauer.

[Footnote 2]

No. 1, United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 2, United States ex rel. Haupt v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 3, United States ex rel. Kerlin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 4, United States ex rel. Burger v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 5, United States ex rel. Heinck v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 6, United States ex rel. Thiel v. Cox, Provost Marshal, and No. 7, United States ex rel. Neubauer v. Cox, Provost Marshal.

[Footnote 3]

The following is the per curiam opinion filed July 31, 1942:

"PER CURIAM."

"In these causes, motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered orders denying the motions. Motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were then presented to this Court, and the merits of the applications were fully argued at the Special Term of Court convened on July 29, 1942. Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the order of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and they have perfected their appeals to that court. They have presented to this Court petitions for writs of certiorari before judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 347(a). The petitions are granted. In accordance with the stipulation between counsel for petitioners and for the respondent, the papers filed and argument had in connection with the applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus are made applicable to the certiorari proceedings."

"The Court has fully considered the questions raised in these cases and thoroughly argued at the bar, and has reached its conclusion upon them. It now announces its decision and enters its judgment in each case, in advance of the preparation of a full opinion, which necessarily will require a considerable period of time for its preparation and which, when prepared, will be filed with the Clerk."

"The Court holds:"

"(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission."

"(2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted."

"(3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus."

"The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied."

"The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith." each element applied as raised to the power, degree, exponential of

According to Full Opinion filed, October 29, 1942{|317 U.S. 1fn4|4},

A federal court may refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus where the facts alleged in the petition, if proved, would not warrant discharge of the prisoner. P. 317 U. S. 24.

The President's Proclamation of July 2, 1942, declaring that all persons who are citizens or subjects of, or who act under the direction of, any nation at war with the United States, and who during time of war enter the United States through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile acts, or violations of the law of war, "shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals," does not bar accused persons from access to the civil courts for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Proclamation to the particular case; nor does the Proclamation, which in terms denied to such persons access to the courts, nor the enemy alienage of the accused, foreclose consideration by the civil courts of the contention that the Constitution and laws of the United States forbid their trial by military commission. P. 317 U. S. 24.

4. In time of war between the United States and Germany, petitioners, wearing German military uniforms and carrying explosives, fuses, and incendiary and time devices, were landed from German submarines in the hours of darkness, at places on the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Thereupon they buried the uniforms and supplies, and proceeded, in civilian dress, to various places in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at a sabotage school, and had with them, when arrested, substantial amounts of United States currency, which had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States. Specification 1 of the charges on which they were placed on trial before a military commission charged that they,

"being enemies of the United States and acting for . . . the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United

Page 317 U. S. 3

States . . . and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress . . . for the purpose of committing . . . hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States."

Held:

(1) That the specification sufficiently charged an offense against the law of war which the President was authorized to order tried by a military commission; notwithstanding the fact that, ever since their arrest, the courts in the jurisdictions where they entered the country and where they were arrested and held for trial were open and functioning normally. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. Pp. 317 U. S. 21, 317 U. S. 23, 317 U. S. 36, 317 U. S. 48.

(2) The President's Order of July 2, 1942, so far as it lays down the procedure to be followed on the trial before the Commission and on the review of its findings and sentence, and the procedure in fact followed by the Commission, were not in conflict with Articles of War 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70. P. 317 U. S. 46.

(3) The petitioners were in lawful custody for trial by a military commission, and, upon petitions for writs of habeas corpus, did not show cause for their discharge. P. 317 U. S. 47.

5. Articles 15, 38 and 46 of the Articles of War, enacted by Congress, recognize the "military commission" as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by courts-martial. And by the Articles of War, especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Pp. 317 U. S. 26-28.

6. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, by the Articles of War has exercised its authority under Art. I, § 8, cl. 10 of the Constitution to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, of which the law of war is a part, by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And by Article of War 15, Congress has incorporated by reference, as within the jurisdiction of military commissions, all offenses which are defined as such by the law of war and which may constitutionally be included within that jurisdiction. Pp. 317 U. S. 28, 317 U. S. 30.

7. This Court has always recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the

Page 317 U. S. 4

conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. P. 317 U. S. 27.

8. The offense charged in this case was an offense against the law of war, the trial of which by military commission had been authorized by Congress, and which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. P. 317 U. S. 45.

9. By the law of war, lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war; unlawful combatants, in addition, are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. P. 317 U. S. 30.

10. It has long been accepted practice by our military authorities to treat those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, as unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This practice, accepted and followed by other governments, must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War. P. 317 U. S. 35.

11. Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. P. 317 U. S. 37.

12. Even when committed by a citizen, the offense here charged is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other. P. 317 U. S. 38.

13. Article III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution did not extend the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission or require that offenses against the law of war, not triable by jury at common law, be tried only in civil courts. P. 317 U. S. 38.

14. Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806, derived from the Resolution of the Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, and which imposed the death penalty on alien spies "according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general court martial," was a contemporary construction of Article III, § 2 of the Constitution and of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as not foreclosing trial by military tribunals, without a jury, for offenses against the law of war

Page 317 U. S. 5

committed by enemies not in or associated with our Armed Forces. It is a construction which has been followed since the founding of our government, and is now continued in the 82nd Article of War. Such a construction is entitled to great respect. P. 317 U. S. 41.

15. Since violation of the law of war is adequately alleged in this case, the Court finds no occasion to consider the validity of other specifications based on the 81st and 82nd Article of War, or to construe those articles or decide upon their constitutionality a so construed. P. 317 U. S. 46.

Leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court denied. Orders of District Court (47 F.Supp. 431), affirmed.

The Court met in Special Term, on Wednesday, July 29, 1942, pursuant to a call by the Chief Justice having the approval of all the Associate Justices.

The Chief Justice announced that the Court had convened in Special Term in order that certain applications might be presented to it and argument be heard in respect thereto.

In response to an inquiry by the Chief Justice, the Attorney General stated that the Chief Justice's son, Major Lauson H. Stone, U.S.A. had, under orders, assisted defense counsel before the Military Commission, in the case relative to which the Special Term of the Court was called; but that Major Stone had had no connection with this proceeding before this Court. Therefore, said the Attorney General, counsel for all the respective parties in this proceeding joined in urging the Chief Justice to participate in the consideration and decision of the matters to be presented. Colonel Kenneth C. Royall, of counselor the petitioners, concurred in the statement and request of the Attorney General.

The applications, seven in number (ante, p. 1, n 1), first took the form of petitions to this Court for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus to secure the release of the petitioners from the custody of Brigadier General

Page 317 U. S. 6

Albert L. Cox, U.S.A. Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who, pursuant to orders, was holding them in that District for and during a trial before a Military Commission constituted by an Order of the President of the United States. During the course of the argument, the petitioners were permitted to file petitions for writs of certiorari, directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to review, before judgment by that Court, orders then before it by appeal by which the District Court for the District of Columbia had denied applications for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

After the argument, this Court delivered a Per Curiam Opinion, disposing of the cases (footnote, p. 317 U. S. 18). A full opinion, which is the basis of this Report, was filed with the Clerk of the Court on October 29, 1942.

Page 317 U. S. 18

[Footnote 1]

No. ___, Original, Ex parte Richard Quirin; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Herbert Hans Haupt; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Edward John Kerling; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Ernest Peter Burger; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Heinrich Harm Heinck; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Werner Thiel; and No. ___, Original, Ex parte Hermann Otto Neubauer.

[Footnote 2]

No. 1, United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 2, United States ex rel. Haupt v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 3, United States ex rel. Kerlin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 4, United States ex rel. Burger v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 5, United States ex rel. Heinck v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 6, United States ex rel. Thiel v. Cox, Provost Marshal, and No. 7, United States ex rel. Neubauer v. Cox, Provost Marshal.

[Footnote 3]

The following is the per curiam opinion filed July 31, 1942:

"PER CURIAM."

"In these causes, motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered orders denying the motions. Motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were then presented to this Court, and the merits of the applications were fully argued at the Special Term of Court convened on July 29, 1942. Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the order of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and they have perfected their appeals to that court. They have presented to this Court petitions for writs of certiorari before judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 347(a). The petitions are granted. In accordance with the stipulation between counsel for petitioners and for the respondent, the papers filed and argument had in connection with the applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus are made applicable to the certiorari proceedings."

"The Court has fully considered the questions raised in these cases and thoroughly argued at the bar, and has reached its conclusion upon them. It now announces its decision and enters its judgment in each case, in advance of the preparation of a full opinion, which necessarily will require a considerable period of time for its preparation and which, when prepared, will be filed with the Clerk."

"The Court holds:"

"(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission."

"(2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted."

"(3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus."

"The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied."

"The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith."

[oderoil]

Ivanka Trump declanșează reacții pe tema despărţirii copiilor de părinţii lor imigranţi clandestini

Ivanka Trump a fost implicată într-o controversă cu privire la politica de ”toleranţă zero” faţă de imigraţia clandestină afişată de tatăl său, care implică despărţirea copiilor de rudele lor atunci familiile intră ilegal în Statele Unite, după ce a postat pe Twitter o forografie în care-şi strânge băiatul în braţe, relatează AFP, potrivit agerpres.

În imagine apare băiatul său în pijama, care-şi ia în braţe mama – fiica preşedintelui american Donald Trump, deasupra mesajului ”Inima mea! #DuminicaDimineaţa”.

My ♥️! #SundayMorning pic.twitter.com/CN5iXutE5Q

— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) May 27, 2018

Această imagine i-a determinat pe navigatori pe Internet să facă o paralelă cu soarta copiilor imigranţilor despărţiţi de părinţii lor.

Secretarul american al Justiţiei Jeff Sessions a reafirmat la începutul lunii politica de ”toleranţă zero” faţă de imigraţia clandestină – afişată de administraţia Trump.

”Dacă treceţi (frontiera în mod ilegal) un copil, vă vom da în judecată. Iar acest copil va fi despărţit de voi, aşa cum cere legea”, a declarat secretarul.

Copii astfel depărţiţi de părinţi pot fi plasaţi în familii de primire.

Un reprezentant al Departamentului Sănătăţii şi Serviciilor Sociale, Steven Wagner, a declarat pe această temă, într-o audiere într-o comisie din cadrul Congresului, luna trecută, că Guvernul a fost ”incapabil să stabilească cu certitudine unde se află 1.475” de minori, după ce a încercat să contacteze persoanele însărcinate cu primirea lor în ultimele trei luni din 2017.

”Nu este cel mai bun lucru să-ţi mângăi copilul – ştiind exact unde este, în securitate, în braţele tale? (…) Nu-i aşa Ivanka?”, şi-a exprimat indignarea pe Twitter umoristul Patton Oswalt.

Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there parents once they cross the Border into the U.S. Catch and Release, Lottery and Chain must also go with it and we MUST continue building the WALL! DEMOCRATS ARE PROTECTING MS-13 THUGS.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 26, 2018

Analistul Brian Klass de la London School of Economics consideră fotografia ”deplasată” având în vedere ”politica (migraţiei) barbară căreia Ivanka Trump îi este complice”.

Mai mulţi navigatori pe Internet folosesc hashtagul #WhereAreTheChildren (unde sunt copiii) pentru a denunţa forografia.

Donald Trump, în schimb, i-a criticat sâmbătă pe democraţi, imputându-le o ”lege oribilă care desparte copiii de părinţii lor”, într-un tweet intempestiv.

Articolul Ivanka Trump declanșează reacții pe tema despărţirii copiilor de părinţii lor imigranţi clandestini apare prima dată în Black News.

vezi sursa: https://blacknews.ro/ivanka-trump-declanseaza-reactii-tema-despartirii-copiilor-parintii-imigranti-clandestini/

Subscribe in a reader

blog afiliat

from politica astazi http://bit.ly/2Jbi1dh via IFTTT

[babarkhatri]

Ivanka Trump declanșează reacții pe tema despărţirii copiilor de părinţii lor imigranţi clandestini

Ivanka Trump a fost implicată într-o controversă cu privire la politica de ”toleranţă zero” faţă de imigraţia clandestină afişată de tatăl său, care implică despărţirea copiilor de rudele lor atunci familiile intră ilegal în Statele Unite, după ce a postat pe Twitter o forografie în care-şi strânge băiatul în braţe, relatează AFP, potrivit agerpres.

În imagine apare băiatul său în pijama, care-şi ia în braţe mama – fiica preşedintelui american Donald Trump, deasupra mesajului ”Inima mea! #DuminicaDimineaţa”.

My ♥️! #SundayMorning pic.twitter.com/CN5iXutE5Q

— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) May 27, 2018

Această imagine i-a determinat pe navigatori pe Internet să facă o paralelă cu soarta copiilor imigranţilor despărţiţi de părinţii lor.

Secretarul american al Justiţiei Jeff Sessions a reafirmat la începutul lunii politica de ”toleranţă zero” faţă de imigraţia clandestină – afişată de administraţia Trump.

”Dacă treceţi (frontiera în mod ilegal) un copil, vă vom da în judecată. Iar acest copil va fi despărţit de voi, aşa cum cere legea”, a declarat secretarul.

Copii astfel depărţiţi de părinţi pot fi plasaţi în familii de primire.

Un reprezentant al Departamentului Sănătăţii şi Serviciilor Sociale, Steven Wagner, a declarat pe această temă, într-o audiere într-o comisie din cadrul Congresului, luna trecută, că Guvernul a fost ”incapabil să stabilească cu certitudine unde se află 1.475” de minori, după ce a încercat să contacteze persoanele însărcinate cu primirea lor în ultimele trei luni din 2017.

”Nu este cel mai bun lucru să-ţi mângăi copilul – ştiind exact unde este, în securitate, în braţele tale? (…) Nu-i aşa Ivanka?”, şi-a exprimat indignarea pe Twitter umoristul Patton Oswalt.

Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there parents once they cross the Border into the U.S. Catch and Release, Lottery and Chain must also go with it and we MUST continue building the WALL! DEMOCRATS ARE PROTECTING MS-13 THUGS.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 26, 2018

Analistul Brian Klass de la London School of Economics consideră fotografia ”deplasată” având în vedere ”politica (migraţiei) barbară căreia Ivanka Trump îi este complice”.

Mai mulţi navigatori pe Internet folosesc hashtagul #WhereAreTheChildren (unde sunt copiii) pentru a denunţa forografia.

Donald Trump, în schimb, i-a criticat sâmbătă pe democraţi, imputându-le o ”lege oribilă care desparte copiii de părinţii lor”, într-un tweet intempestiv.

Articolul Ivanka Trump declanșează reacții pe tema despărţirii copiilor de părinţii lor imigranţi clandestini apare prima dată în Black News.

vezi sursa: https://blacknews.ro/ivanka-trump-declanseaza-reactii-tema-despartirii-copiilor-parintii-imigranti-clandestini/

Subscribe in a reader

blog afiliat

from politica astazi https://ift.tt/2sfP46i via IFTTT

[politicaastazi]

Rush Limbaugh: Apple's Real World Example of How Tax Cuts Increase Revenue

Syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh reports on the news that Apple will be bringing more than $250 billion in overseas earnings back to the U.S. at a special one-time 15% tax rate as a result of the new GOP tax plan. They plan to open a new campus and hire 20,000 new workers. "This news has not yet appeared on CNN," Limbaugh said around noon on Thursday, "it has not yet appeared on MSNBC. I don't know if it has shown up on the NYT or Wash Post, but ABC's World News Tonight did a six-minute feature on this [Wednesday] night." RUSH: Yesterday we broke the news here of Apple, and what they are intending do do directly as a result of tax reform, and Tim Cook the CEO of Apple has admitted that it is because of the tax reform act, that they are repatriating $250 billion. Almost... 2/3 of Apple's business is international... They sell a tremendous amount of product all over the world... And they had $250 billion parked overseas as a result of sales overseas that they were not bringing back to the U.S. over the high corporate tax rate of 35%. Tax reform includes a one-time repatriation rate of 15%. So Apple has decided to bring back a quarter of a billion dollars, they're going to repatriate almost all of it at a tax rate of 15% instead of 35%. Even at that Apple will be paying $37-38 billion in taxes. Even at a 15% rate on their $250 billion, and they're doing this happily. Apple is also going to inject $350 billion into the U.S. economy, they're building a new campus somewhere... They're going to be hiring 20,000 American employees, above and beyond the 150,000 employees they have now. This news has not yet appeared on CNN, it has not yet appeared on MSNBC. I don't know if it has shown up on the NYT or Wash Post, but ABC's World News Tonight did a six-minute feature on this [Wednesday] night, featuring an interview with Tim Cook in Reno where they are breaking ground on a new data center. Why not mention this? CNN and MSNBC no mention of the records set on Wall Street yesterday or of the decision by Apple to bring billions in cash back to the country... And make no mistake, millennials like that... So why not mention this? The reason is very simple. CNN and MSNBC are not talking about it because it is all about Trump. It is all because of Donald Trump and the Republican tax cuts. And remember CNN has had guest after guest after guest saying that it can not be proven that cutting the corporation tax rate will give more money to American workers... and yes it has happened and it is happening. We're up to almost 200 companies now extending bonuses. Every employee gets $2,500 of stock options, which at Apple's stock price ain't bad... And look what's happened in addition to that. here we are lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15% and what is the result? The government is getting $38 billion it didn't have. CNN and MSNBC and every liberal economist out there will tell us that cutting taxes will never raise money for the government... Well right here, millennials. $250 billion Apple had parked overseas helping nobody but Apple. Trump's one-time repatriation tax rate, not 35% but 15% Apple says Hell Yes we'll bring it back. Real life. The real world. Has demonstrated once again the folly and the lying that is routing for the Democrat party and the American drive-by media. Politica in lume - vezi sursa: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/01/18/rush_limbaugh_apples_real_world_example_of_how_tax_cuts_increase_revenue.html from Blogger http://ift.tt/2BfGF4E via IFTTT Like: My Library

[davidtytopuente]

Il 24 novembre 2017 il New York Times pubblica un articolo dal titolo “Italy, Bracing for Electoral Season of Fake News, Demands Facebook’s Help” dove vengono riportati dei dati sui quali avevo già lavorato in parte anche io, in maniera indipendente da loro. Jason Horowitz nel suo pezzo racconta una parte, in questo articolo proverò a fornire un ulteriore “contributo“.

Scrive il New York Times:

The report, which Mr. Stroppa shared with The New York Times, shows that the official web page of a movement promoting Matteo Salvini, leader of the far-right League party, shares unique Google codes with a fan and propaganda page supportive of the Five Star Movement.

The codes, used to track advertising and web traffic, are also shared by an array of other sites, some of which spread wild conspiracy theories, attack Mr. Renzi or deliver explicitly pro-Russian spin.

One site, IoStoConPutin.info, or I’m With Putin, excoriates the United States investigation of Russian involvement in the American election as “fake news” and features posts written by anonymous staff, including one with the headline “Putin Model of a Real Leader,” which features the reporting of Sputnik Italia.

Another, mondolibero.org, peddles a distinctly anti-American and anti-liberal worldview. “Moscow Reveals That Twitter Relies on the U.S. Secret Services,” one headline read.

The assorted sites share a unique ID assigned by Google Analytics to keep track of how a site is performing, as well as an AdSense number through which Google manages advertisements placed on the sites, according to data in Mr. Stroppa’s report and verified by The Times.

All the sites also share a template on their contact pages. But in the murky world of internet propaganda and subterfuge, the tilt of the content is clearer than where it originates, and what the shared codes amount to is not entirely clear.

“We frequently see unrelated sites using the same IDs, so that’s not a reliable indicator that two sites are connected,” said a Google spokeswoman, Simona Panseri.

La mia ricerca era cominciata nel febbraio 2017, riguardava il sito Info5stelle.info e un articolo del 26 febbraio intitolato “Poi Vauro brutalizza la Raggi, lei finisce in ospedale e lui ci marcia sopra” (rimosso e pubblicato nuovamente il 27), un “copia incolla” di quello pubblicato da Libero intitolato “Vauro brutale con la Raggi: la vignetta più feroce sulla sua salute“.

L’articolo rimosso da Info5stelle.info

Qualche utente mi aveva chiesto se il sito facesse parte della “galassia Casaleggio“, ma non ne sarei sicuro. Al contrario ho trovato dell’altro molto interessante. Innanzitutto il dominio a chi è intestato? Purtroppo è attivo un servizio di Whois Privacy, il quale permette una sorta di anonimato.

L’interrogazione Whois del dominio Info5stelle.info

Il sito è collegato ad una pagina Facebook con oltre 95 mila “mi piace” chiamata, appunto, “Info a 5 Stelle” (@lacrisi00) dove nell’area “Informazioni” riscontriamo un’email “staff@infoa5stelle.com“, quindi un nuovo dominio da poter analizzare e privo del servizio di Whois Privacy:

Le informazioni della pagina “Info a 5 Stelle” (@lacrisi00)

Il Whois del dominio “infoa5stelle.com” ci restituisce un nome e un cognome, un tale Marco Mignogna di Afragola (Napoli):

I dati pubblici forniti dall’interrogazione Whois del dominio InfoA5Stelle.com

Oltre ad un nome abbiamo anche un’email, la stessa usata per il dominio “Info5stelle.org” (attualmente libero siccome scaduto) ma con un altro nome (la moglie di Marco Mignogna):

L’interrogazione Whois del dominio Info5stelle.org

Il sito “Info5stelle.info” contiene dei banner pubblicitari Adsense, i quali riportano il codice identificativo “CA-PUB-5559271592522857“. Lo stesso codice lo trovavamo accedendo al dominio “Info5stelle.org“, così come riconducibile anche quello riguardante Analytics (per il .info abbiamo “UA-51582167-54“, per il .org avevamo “UA-51582167-7“).

Le connessioni Adsense individuate a inizio 2017

Il codice Adsense mi aveva permesso di individuare una connessione con altri domini e siti internet che elenco di seguito:

noiconsalvini.org

italyfortrump.info

iostoconputin.info

ilsudconsalvini.info

ilsudconsalvini.org

videoa5stelle.info

imprese5stelle.org

complottisti.com

buzzstory.net

controinformazionetv.info

lospillo.info

lospillo.org

vinciamonoi.org

stopeuro.org

aprilamente.info

mondolibero.org

nonsiamosoli.info

eurocrazia.com

naturalblog.info

Dai siti pro Movimento 5 Stelle (dove abbiamo anche il dominio “Videoa5stelle.info“, “Vinciamonoi.org“, “Imprese5stelle.org“) passiamo a quelli pro Matteo Salvini, infatti dal dominio “Noiconsalvini.org” (che mi domando, essendo ufficiale, perché usufruisce del servizio di Whois Privacy) noto lo stesso codice Adsense (presente anche in “Ilsudconsalvini” sia nel .org che nel .info). Poi arriviamo a siti come “Complottisti.com” (ora diventato “Complottisti.info“), il sito su alieni e ufo “Nonsiamosoli.info“, quello con proposte casalinghe per curare l’influenza come “Naturalblog.info“, l’anti Euro “Eurocrazia.com” (che oggi rimanda a “Eurocrazia.info“) e “Stopeuro.org” (che oggi rimanda a “Stopeuro.news“), al sito pro Trump chiamato “Italyfortrump.info” per poi finire ai due domini “Iostoconputin.info” e “Mondolibero.org” riportati dal New York Times.

Attorno a questi domini non ci sono solo i siti, ma anche account social e pagine Facebook con diversa “potenza di fuoco virale“:

“Noi con Salvini” con oltre 276 mila fan, quella ufficiale e confermata anche da Facebook con il bollino blu;

“Video a 5 Stelle” con oltre 21 mila fan;

“Il Sud con Salvini” con oltre 82 mila fan;

“Iostoconputin” con oltre 13 mila fan;

“ItalyForTrump” con appena 1600;

“Eurocrazia” con appena 4523;

“Non Siamo Soli” con oltre 14 mila fan;

“MondoLibero” con appena 3300;

“Apri la Mente” con oltre 54 mila fan;

“StopEuro” con oltre 86 mila fan;

“ControinformazioneTV” con oltre 15 mila fan;

“Lo Spillo” con oltre 55 mila fan;

“BuzzStory” con oltre 19 mila fan.

Elemento curioso l’indirizzo “@lacrisi00” della pagina Facebook “Info a 5 Stelle“, lo stesso usato per l’account Twitter “La Crisi” che fino al 2015 pubblicava link che rimandavano al sito “StopEuro.org“.

L’account Twitter “@lacrisi00”, stesso indirizzo della pagina Facebook “Info a 5 Stelle”

Devo tornare sul titolare dell’email “marco.mignogna@live.com” usata per registrare il dominio “infoa5stelle.com“. La stessa email la troviamo nel sito Imprese5s.wordpress.com nella sezione “About” dove lo stesso Marco si dichiara attivista del Movimento 5 Stelle:

Questo blog nasce per diventare nel tempo punto di riferimento per le piccole e medie imprese all’interno del Movimento 5 Stelle. Non è assolutamente collegato direttamente al movimento 5 stelle.

Il Blog è stato creato ed è gestito da Marco Mignogna, imprenditore napoletano ed attivista del Movimento 5 Stelle.

A riveder le Stelle!

Per ogni tipo di richiesta o informazione compila il seguente form o scrivi a marco.mignogna@live.com

La stessa email è stata usata per creare il dominio “Iostoconputin.org” che possedeva lo stesso codice Adsense ritrovato nei siti precedentemente citati.

L’interrogazione Whois del sito Iostoconputin.org

Per verificare ulteriormente bastava vedere i due account Twitter “Marco Mignogna” (1, 2) che condividevano diversi riferimenti ai siti menzionati:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Marco Mignogna mostra pubblicamente l’elenco dei suoi amici su Facebook, tanto che possiamo vedere nomi importanti come appunto Luca Morisi (il “guru” della comunicazione di Matteo Salvini), Alessandro Morelli (Gruppo consiliare Lega Nord Lega Lombarda Salvini a Milano), il leghista Toni Iwobi (seguono altri eletti del partito di Salvini), David Gramiccioli (molto attivo sul fronte cosiddetto “free vax“), l’avvocato Marco Mori, Armando Manocchia (ImolaOggi), la politica e giornalista Souad Sbai, Daniele Penna (Saltoquantico.org), il consigliere napoletano del M5S Salvatore Morra e altri attivisti, ma abbiamo anche l’amicizia con il sindaco di Roma Virginia Raggi, il senatore M5S Lello Ciampolillo, il senatore M5S Carlo Martelli, fino al candidato Premier del Movimento 5 Stelle, l’attuale Vice Presidente della Camera dei Deputati Luigi Di Maio.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Luca Morisi gli dedicò un post il 22 gennaio 2015:

Tiene tantissimo al suo figlio virtuale, “Il Sud con Salvini”, fa il baby-sitter online 24×7 per “Noi con Salvini”, ma oggi è in estasi per Alessandro, il suo secondo bimbo (vero!): congratulazioni di cuore all’amico (e grande professionista) Marco Mignogna, e alla bis-mamma Maria Giovanna. Giovani papà salviniani crescono nel cuore del Sud!

Dal sito Noiconsalvini.org notiamo due autori con lo stesso nome “Marco Mignogna“, quello con oltre 2800 articoli pubblicò l’ultimo il 12 gennaio 2016:

L’archivio dell’autore Marco Mignogna su Noiconsalvini.org

Questa situazione pone in dubbio le dichiarazioni di Morisi riportate al New York Times:

Late Friday evening Mr. Morisi acknowledged that the site We’re With Salvini shared the same Google codes as sites outside the League’s political universe. He explained that a former supporter of the Five Star Movement had helped build the We’re With Salvini site and pasted codes from his Five Star fan page, as well as I’m With Putin and his conspiracy sites, onto the official page.

Come riportato da Nextquotidiano:

Ieri, poi, in serata, l’articolo è stato editato con le spiegazioni di Luca Morisi, il Casaleggio di Matteo Salvini che all’inizio, scriveva il NYT, non aveva risposto alle domande del quotidiano. Morisi ha sostenuto che il problema è nato dal fatto che un ex “sostenitore dei M5S ha aiutato a costruire la pagina ‘Noi con Salvini’ e ha copiato ed incollato i codice dalla sua pagina di sostenitore dei M5S, così come quelli di ‘Io StoConPutin.info’” con quelle di Salvini. “Ma noi non abbiano nulla a che fare con i siti pro-Putin o pro-5 Stelle” ha denunciato Morisi.

Considerando che non si “copierebbe il codice” dalle pagine Facebook, immagino si riferisca ai siti internet considerando il fatto che si parla di Google Adsense. Se considero che l’account “Sud76” sul sito Noiconsalvini.org pubblicava articoli dal 15 giugno 2014 al gennaio 2016 mentre riscontro articoli pubblicati su Info5stelle.org nel marzo 2015, era “attivista” su entrambi i fronti?

Potremmo trovarci di fronte ad una persona che compie un’operazione di propaganda politica diffondendo contenuti utili a rafforzare in rete una propria ideologia (grillina e leghista/salviniana), attraverso dei siti usati come “aggregatori di notizie” di parte confezionate ad arte per renderli appetibili con opere di clickbaiting (magari scambiare un politico di Forza Italia come del Partito Democratico), ricavandone un guadagno.

Possiamo vedere un esempio di clickbait nell’articolo ““Si È Falsificato Il Voto”. Bomba Dell’AntiMafia Sulle Elezioni In Sicilia. Ecco Che Sta Succedendo” copia-incollato dal sito Attivistacinquestelle.blogspot.it. Per quest’ultimo si tratta di un copia-incolla dell’articolo di Today.it dal titolo ““Risultati drogati e liste mai verificate”: quel pasticciaccio brutto delle elezioni siciliane“, il quale non riporta affatto che si sia falsato il voto (come si fa credere dal titolo clickbait), ma che non sia stato escluso dalla competizione elettorale l’eletto dell’UDC e subito arrestato Cateno De Luca:

“Il consenso raccolto, anche nel caso in cui non viene eletta la persona che è di fatto ineleggibile, altera il risultato elettorale. Su tutti questi aspetti, sui quali la Commissione sta riflettendo da tempo ha da tempo segnalato, il legislatore deve intervenire. Il senso del nostro lavoro in queste elezioni, come nelle precedenti, è stimolare il legislatore italiano a darsi strumenti più efficaci per assicurare che chi è chiamato a rappresentare i cittadini sia in regola con la legislazione del nostro Paese e che gli elettori siano informati sui rappresentanti che vanno ad eleggere”.

L’articolo copia incolla dal titolo clickbait

Gli articoli di Info5stelle.info venivano condivisi da diversi utenti in gruppi Facebook come “Club Luigi Di Maio” (che ho trattato in passato) considerandolo come fonte da cui diffondere informazioni utili alla propaganda pro M5S.

Alcuni articoli condivisi sul gruppo “Club Luigi Di Maio”

Trovo difficile che i partiti che beneficiano di queste operazioni decidano di prenderne le distanze e allo stesso tempo invitando i loro votanti di starne alla larga o chiedere di cessare certe operazioni, sarei curioso di vedere il contrario.

Nota finale – Ai “personaggetti” che vorrebbero sostenere che questa ricerca non l’abbia fatta prima della pubblicazione del NYT, sappiate che ho tutto documentato.

L’inchiesta del New York Times e qualcosa in più Il 24 novembre 2017 il New York Times pubblica un articolo dal titolo "Italy, Bracing for Electoral Season of Fake News, Demands Facebook’s Help…

[minamarohom-blog]

Film Analysis 08: Narcos

Narcos is a series dedicated to telling the story of the infamous Pablo Escobar. Pablo Escobar runs the drug cartel that produces and distributes cocaine. The series gives audience a glimpse onto the life of Pepe. In addition to that, the audience is drawn to the series through the POV of of Steve Murphy, an American DEA agent working in Colomia. The series depicts how Pablo Escobar became involved in the Cocaine trade in Colombia. With cocaine's growth into a drug of importance in the American market, one that accounts for a large flow of U.S. dollars to Colombia and escalating drug-related violence in the United States, the Americans send a task force from the DEA to Colombia to address the issue. Steve Murphy is tasked to cooperate with Colombian authorities to put an end to the flow of cocaine in United States. As Escobar;s empire grows, the amount of violence that transpired have also worsened.

           Narcos and the subject of drugs and political violence can be very well applied in the context of the Philippines. With the current administration’s campaign for war on drugs, the common denominator between Narcos and the Philippines is the presence of the drugs. In the case of the Philippines, drugs are the main root cause behind the crimes done by drug addicts. The prevalent narrative that drugs is behind al the worst crimes that are happening Is what drivespeople to support the war on drugs advocated by the current president. The difference between Narcos and the current situation of the Philippines is that in Narcos, political violence is mostly done by Pablo in effort  to strengthen his hold. In contrast to the Philippines where the violence is usually targeted to drug users and pushers.

           Psychosocial Theory on Terrorism (Vargas, 2011) can be applied to the case of Narcos. With Pablo Escobar’s means of maintaining his power, the theory can be applied as it was manifested throughout the series. In the case of the Philippines, how Duterte handles the drug problem in the pHilippines can be linked with the theory of Politica repression since the state is the one who sponsored the killings.. Personally, I am against the President’s campaign on war on drugs because I don’t see violence as an option in resolving it. The drug problem in the country is merely the tip of the iceberg. The true war that should be held is against the root cause of drugs: poverty and systemic oppression.

  Vargas, A. (2011). Applying Psychosocial Theories of Terrorism to the Radicalization Process: A Mapping of De La Corte's Seven Principles to Homegrown Radicals. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235206673_Applying_Psychosocial_Theories_of_Terrorism_to_the_Radicalization_Process_A_Mapping_of_De_La_Corte's_Seven_Principles_to_Homegrown_Radical

[christineamccalla]

Writs of,   Ex parte Quirin   Habeas corpus   De Facto/De Jure

As submitted by McCalla, Christine Ann, Ergant, President Gubernatorial, US Supreme Court Justice, Auswich, Supreme Court Justice,

Writs of, 

   Ex parte Quirin

   Habeas corpus

   De Facto/De Jure

   US Constitution, in entirety, jointly and severally

-Katastréfontas tis apomimíseis, symperilamvanoménon ton antirríseon, tis porneías kai 

ton métron katá tou olokaftómatos (ruin through deminis including vice, prostitution, and 

holocaustal measures)

-Itineris forced quartering of soldiers

-Tin efarmogí nómon propagándas gia tin apofygí anankastikón ysterektomón, 

symperilamvanoménon ton dikastikón, dikastikón kai nomothetikón métron ton en lógo

themáton (application of propaganda laws to prevent forced hysterectomies including 

the judicial, judiciary, and legislative measures of said regards)

-Et liberaliter educatus et inter desertis litteratus meretricium coactus coactus et 

Matricibus (abandonment of the educated and literate including forced prostitution and 

forced breeding)

-Per damnationem mortis poenam cogi possit tectum (death condemnation and 

execution through forced and enforced homelessness)

-Coactus servitutis per pestem pernici oeconomiae eiusque socio oeconomica et politica 

ratio, comprehendo vehemens et pestiferi ac voluntariam debilitationem creatus per 

insertionem Natione rei publicae est, United States of America scriptor publicus terras 

(including intus), aedificia , operatur, artificialia, qualitatibus explicarent, et al. (Forced 

acceptance of slavery through the ruin and destruction of the economy and its 

socio-economic and political systems, including forcible, ruinous, and intentional 

debilitation created through the insertion of the Nation State's, United States of America's 

public lands (including interior), buildings, works, artifacts, and attributes, et al)

-Aspergillus niger sine exceptione inter mortem, ignominiam congregat sibi, integritas, et 

Amet (contamination without exception including death, dishonor, integrity, and 

environment)

As a response to the eternal and continuous corruption and invitation of foreign forces into the United States of America for the sole purposes of, (1) destruction, ruin, and murder of Monarch, Barony McCalla, Christine Ann Joseph Nicole, Ergrant, President Gubernatorial, et al; (2) slavery and enslavement of the nation; (3) invasion, sieges, and jeopardy from within the nation; (4) as a penal colony; (5) the most recent stages of holocausts including genophilia; (6) contamination; (7) forced impoverishments and ostracisms; (8) forced, machinated, and orchestrated homelessness and related events; (9) parasites as body disposal systems and organized crimes designs and methodologies, e.g. bugs with fluidities capable of generated energy transformations into wires; (10) parasites including contamination as prosthetic-assistance measures and devices; (11) refusal of education, knowledge, and literature; and, (12) corruption en masse.

Resultingly, laws, statutes, et al, President and Congress; Government Organizations and Employees; Labor; Education; Mandamus; Parens Patriae; Flag, Seat and Seal of the Government; Patriotism, Rites, Ceremonies, and Observances; War and National Defense; Public Health and Welfare; Public Health; Public Lands; Public Welfare; Public Lands: Interior; Alien Enemies; Aliens and Nationality; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Domestic Security; National Security, et al, have all been used as instruments of death transactionable by sex, forced or other, including consideration other than cash and resulting in consideration other than money to secure employment, futures, and other necessities deemed the “inherent right to life”.

A nation willing to set itself bereft through ignorance, illiteracy, inertia, and willingness of suffrage must be corrected and forcibly set straight in the navigation. In doing so, applying, attaching, integrating, and embedding the introduction of the physics quantifications and equivalencies of River Crossing; Any Given Sunday; Forced Gravity Bucket; Efficiency of Carnot Engine; Coulomb's Law REF(River Crossing; Any Given Sunday); Space Around Charge; Closest Approach Between Particles.

 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/1/ 

Justia.com presented a similar writ involving the German Reich. Given the point in history, 2019, it is unclear the reason and causes of these holocausts and related offenses. A federal court may refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus where the facts alleged in the petition, if proved, would not warrant discharge of the prisoner. P. 317 U. S. 24.

Excerpt as presented by Justia.com...

Page 317 U. S. 2

Presentation to the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia of a petition for habeas corpus was the institution of a suit, and denial by that court of leave to file the petition was a judicial determination of a case or controversy reviewable by appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and in this Court by certiorari. P. 317 U. S. 24.

The President's Proclamation of July 2, 1942, declaring that all persons who are citizens or subjects of, or who act under the direction of, any nation at war with the United States, and who during time of war enter the United States through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile acts, or violations of the law of war, "shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals," does not bar accused persons from access to the civil courts for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Proclamation to the particular case; nor does the Proclamation, which in terms denied to such persons access to the courts, nor the enemy alienage of the accused, foreclose consideration by the civil courts of the contention that the Constitution and laws of the United States forbid their trial by military commission. P. 317 U. S. 24.

In time of war between the United States and Germany, petitioners, wearing German military uniforms and carrying explosives, fuses, and incendiary and time devices, were landed from German submarines in the hours of darkness, at places on the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Thereupon they buried the uniforms and supplies, and proceeded, in civilian dress, to various places in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at a sabotage school, and had with them, when arrested, substantial amounts of United States currency, which had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States. Specification 1 of the charges on which they were placed on trial before a military commission charged that they,

"being enemies of the United States and acting for . . . the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United

Page 317 U. S. 3

States . . . and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress . . . for the purpose of committing . . . hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States."

Held:

(1) That the specification sufficiently charged an offense against the law of war which the President was authorized to order tried by a military commission; notwithstanding the fact that, ever since their arrest, the courts in the jurisdictions where they entered the country and where they were arrested and held for trial were open and functioning normally. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. Pp. 317 U. S. 21, 317 U. S. 23, 317 U. S. 36, 317 U. S. 48.

(2) The President's Order of July 2, 1942, so far as it lays down the procedure to be followed on the trial before the Commission and on the review of its findings and sentence, and the procedure in fact followed by the Commission, were not in conflict with Articles of War 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70. P. 317 U. S. 46.

(3) The petitioners were in lawful custody for trial by a military commission, and, upon petitions for writs of habeas corpus, did not show cause for their discharge. P. 317 U. S. 47.

5. Articles 15, 38 and 46 of the Articles of War, enacted by Congress, recognize the "military commission" as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by courts-martial. And by the Articles of War, especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Pp. 317 U. S. 26-28.

6. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, by the Articles of War has exercised its authority under Art. I, § 8, cl. 10 of the Constitution to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, of which the law of war is a part, by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And by Article of War 15, Congress has incorporated by reference, as within the jurisdiction of military commissions, all offenses which are defined as such by the law of war and which may constitutionally be included within that jurisdiction. Pp. 317 U. S. 28, 317 U. S. 30.

7. This Court has always recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the

Page 317 U. S. 4

conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. P. 317 U. S. 27.

8. The offense charged in this case was an offense against the law of war, the trial of which by military commission had been authorized by Congress, and which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. P. 317 U. S. 45.

9. By the law of war, lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war; unlawful combatants, in addition, are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. P. 317 U. S. 30.

10. It has long been accepted practice by our military authorities to treat those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, as unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This practice, accepted and followed by other governments, must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War. P. 317 U. S. 35.

11. Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. P. 317 U. S. 37.

12. Even when committed by a citizen, the offense here charged is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other. P. 317 U. S. 38.

13. Article III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution did not extend the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission or require that offenses against the law of war, not triable by jury at common law, be tried only in civil courts. P. 317 U. S. 38.

14. Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806, derived from the Resolution of the Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, and which imposed the death penalty on alien spies "according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general court martial," was a contemporary construction of Article III, § 2 of the Constitution and of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as not foreclosing trial by military tribunals, without a jury, for offenses against the law of war

Page 317 U. S. 5

committed by enemies not in or associated with our Armed Forces. It is a construction which has been followed since the founding of our government, and is now continued in the 82nd Article of War. Such a construction is entitled to great respect. P. 317 U. S. 41.

15. Since violation of the law of war is adequately alleged in this case, the Court finds no occasion to consider the validity of other specifications based on the 81st and 82nd Article of War, or to construe those articles or decide upon their constitutionality a so construed. P. 317 U. S. 46.

Leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court denied. Orders of District Court (47 F.Supp. 431), affirmed.

The Court met in Special Term, on Wednesday, July 29, 1942, pursuant to a call by the Chief Justice having the approval of all the Associate Justices.

The Chief Justice announced that the Court had convened in Special Term in order that certain applications might be presented to it and argument be heard in respect thereto.

In response to an inquiry by the Chief Justice, the Attorney General stated that the Chief Justice's son, Major Lauson H. Stone, U.S.A. had, under orders, assisted defense counsel before the Military Commission, in the case relative to which the Special Term of the Court was called; but that Major Stone had had no connection with this proceeding before this Court. Therefore, said the Attorney General, counsel for all the respective parties in this proceeding joined in urging the Chief Justice to participate in the consideration and decision of the matters to be presented. Colonel Kenneth C. Royall, of counselor the petitioners, concurred in the statement and request of the Attorney General.

The applications, seven in number (ante, p. 1, n 1), first took the form of petitions to this Court for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus to secure the release of the petitioners from the custody of Brigadier General

Page 317 U. S. 6

Albert L. Cox, U.S.A. Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who, pursuant to orders, was holding them in that District for and during a trial before a Military Commission constituted by an Order of the President of the United States. During the course of the argument, the petitioners were permitted to file petitions for writs of certiorari, directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to review, before judgment by that Court, orders then before it by appeal by which the District Court for the District of Columbia had denied applications for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

After the argument, this Court delivered a Per Curiam Opinion, disposing of the cases (footnote, p. 317 U. S. 18). A full opinion, which is the basis of this Report, was filed with the Clerk of the Court on October 29, 1942.

Page 317 U. S. 18

[Footnote 1]

No. ___, Original, Ex parte Richard Quirin; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Herbert Hans Haupt; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Edward John Kerling; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Ernest Peter Burger; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Heinrich Harm Heinck; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Werner Thiel; and No. ___, Original, Ex parte Hermann Otto Neubauer.

[Footnote 2]

No. 1, United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 2, United States ex rel. Haupt v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 3, United States ex rel. Kerlin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 4, United States ex rel. Burger v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 5, United States ex rel. Heinck v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 6, United States ex rel. Thiel v. Cox, Provost Marshal, and No. 7, United States ex rel. Neubauer v. Cox, Provost Marshal.

[Footnote 3]

The following is the per curiam opinion filed July 31, 1942:

"PER CURIAM."

"In these causes, motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered orders denying the motions. Motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were then presented to this Court, and the merits of the applications were fully argued at the Special Term of Court convened on July 29, 1942. Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the order of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and they have perfected their appeals to that court. They have presented to this Court petitions for writs of certiorari before judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 347(a). The petitions are granted. In accordance with the stipulation between counsel for petitioners and for the respondent, the papers filed and argument had in connection with the applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus are made applicable to the certiorari proceedings."

"The Court has fully considered the questions raised in these cases and thoroughly argued at the bar, and has reached its conclusion upon them. It now announces its decision and enters its judgment in each case, in advance of the preparation of a full opinion, which necessarily will require a considerable period of time for its preparation and which, when prepared, will be filed with the Clerk."

"The Court holds:"

"(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission."

"(2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted."

"(3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus."

"The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied."

"The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith." each element applied as raised to the power, degree, exponential of

According to Full Opinion filed, October 29, 1942{|317 U.S. 1fn4|4},

A federal court may refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus where the facts alleged in the petition, if proved, would not warrant discharge of the prisoner. P. 317 U. S. 24.

The President's Proclamation of July 2, 1942, declaring that all persons who are citizens or subjects of, or who act under the direction of, any nation at war with the United States, and who during time of war enter the United States through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile acts, or violations of the law of war, "shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals," does not bar accused persons from access to the civil courts for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Proclamation to the particular case; nor does the Proclamation, which in terms denied to such persons access to the courts, nor the enemy alienage of the accused, foreclose consideration by the civil courts of the contention that the Constitution and laws of the United States forbid their trial by military commission. P. 317 U. S. 24.

4. In time of war between the United States and Germany, petitioners, wearing German military uniforms and carrying explosives, fuses, and incendiary and time devices, were landed from German submarines in the hours of darkness, at places on the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Thereupon they buried the uniforms and supplies, and proceeded, in civilian dress, to various places in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at a sabotage school, and had with them, when arrested, substantial amounts of United States currency, which had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States. Specification 1 of the charges on which they were placed on trial before a military commission charged that they,

"being enemies of the United States and acting for . . . the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United

Page 317 U. S. 3

States . . . and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress . . . for the purpose of committing . . . hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States."

Held:

(1) That the specification sufficiently charged an offense against the law of war which the President was authorized to order tried by a military commission; notwithstanding the fact that, ever since their arrest, the courts in the jurisdictions where they entered the country and where they were arrested and held for trial were open and functioning normally. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. Pp. 317 U. S. 21, 317 U. S. 23, 317 U. S. 36, 317 U. S. 48.

(2) The President's Order of July 2, 1942, so far as it lays down the procedure to be followed on the trial before the Commission and on the review of its findings and sentence, and the procedure in fact followed by the Commission, were not in conflict with Articles of War 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70. P. 317 U. S. 46.

(3) The petitioners were in lawful custody for trial by a military commission, and, upon petitions for writs of habeas corpus, did not show cause for their discharge. P. 317 U. S. 47.

5. Articles 15, 38 and 46 of the Articles of War, enacted by Congress, recognize the "military commission" as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by courts-martial. And by the Articles of War, especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Pp. 317 U. S. 26-28.

6. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, by the Articles of War has exercised its authority under Art. I, § 8, cl. 10 of the Constitution to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, of which the law of war is a part, by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And by Article of War 15, Congress has incorporated by reference, as within the jurisdiction of military commissions, all offenses which are defined as such by the law of war and which may constitutionally be included within that jurisdiction. Pp. 317 U. S. 28, 317 U. S. 30.

7. This Court has always recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the

Page 317 U. S. 4

conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. P. 317 U. S. 27.

8. The offense charged in this case was an offense against the law of war, the trial of which by military commission had been authorized by Congress, and which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. P. 317 U. S. 45.

9. By the law of war, lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war; unlawful combatants, in addition, are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. P. 317 U. S. 30.

10. It has long been accepted practice by our military authorities to treat those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, as unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This practice, accepted and followed by other governments, must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War. P. 317 U. S. 35.

11. Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. P. 317 U. S. 37.

12. Even when committed by a citizen, the offense here charged is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other. P. 317 U. S. 38.

13. Article III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution did not extend the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission or require that offenses against the law of war, not triable by jury at common law, be tried only in civil courts. P. 317 U. S. 38.

14. Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806, derived from the Resolution of the Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, and which imposed the death penalty on alien spies "according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general court martial," was a contemporary construction of Article III, § 2 of the Constitution and of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as not foreclosing trial by military tribunals, without a jury, for offenses against the law of war

Page 317 U. S. 5

committed by enemies not in or associated with our Armed Forces. It is a construction which has been followed since the founding of our government, and is now continued in the 82nd Article of War. Such a construction is entitled to great respect. P. 317 U. S. 41.

15. Since violation of the law of war is adequately alleged in this case, the Court finds no occasion to consider the validity of other specifications based on the 81st and 82nd Article of War, or to construe those articles or decide upon their constitutionality a so construed. P. 317 U. S. 46.

Leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court denied. Orders of District Court (47 F.Supp. 431), affirmed.

The Court met in Special Term, on Wednesday, July 29, 1942, pursuant to a call by the Chief Justice having the approval of all the Associate Justices.

The Chief Justice announced that the Court had convened in Special Term in order that certain applications might be presented to it and argument be heard in respect thereto.

In response to an inquiry by the Chief Justice, the Attorney General stated that the Chief Justice's son, Major Lauson H. Stone, U.S.A. had, under orders, assisted defense counsel before the Military Commission, in the case relative to which the Special Term of the Court was called; but that Major Stone had had no connection with this proceeding before this Court. Therefore, said the Attorney General, counsel for all the respective parties in this proceeding joined in urging the Chief Justice to participate in the consideration and decision of the matters to be presented. Colonel Kenneth C. Royall, of counselor the petitioners, concurred in the statement and request of the Attorney General.

The applications, seven in number (ante, p. 1, n 1), first took the form of petitions to this Court for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus to secure the release of the petitioners from the custody of Brigadier General

Page 317 U. S. 6

Albert L. Cox, U.S.A. Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who, pursuant to orders, was holding them in that District for and during a trial before a Military Commission constituted by an Order of the President of the United States. During the course of the argument, the petitioners were permitted to file petitions for writs of certiorari, directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to review, before judgment by that Court, orders then before it by appeal by which the District Court for the District of Columbia had denied applications for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

After the argument, this Court delivered a Per Curiam Opinion, disposing of the cases (footnote, p. 317 U. S. 18). A full opinion, which is the basis of this Report, was filed with the Clerk of the Court on October 29, 1942.

Page 317 U. S. 18

[Footnote 1]

No. ___, Original, Ex parte Richard Quirin; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Herbert Hans Haupt; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Edward John Kerling; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Ernest Peter Burger; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Heinrich Harm Heinck; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Werner Thiel; and No. ___, Original, Ex parte Hermann Otto Neubauer.

[Footnote 2]

No. 1, United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 2, United States ex rel. Haupt v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 3, United States ex rel. Kerlin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 4, United States ex rel. Burger v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 5, United States ex rel. Heinck v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 6, United States ex rel. Thiel v. Cox, Provost Marshal, and No. 7, United States ex rel. Neubauer v. Cox, Provost Marshal.

[Footnote 3]

The following is the per curiam opinion filed July 31, 1942:

"PER CURIAM."

"In these causes, motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered orders denying the motions. Motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were then presented to this Court, and the merits of the applications were fully argued at the Special Term of Court convened on July 29, 1942. Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the order of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and they have perfected their appeals to that court. They have presented to this Court petitions for writs of certiorari before judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 347(a). The petitions are granted. In accordance with the stipulation between counsel for petitioners and for the respondent, the papers filed and argument had in connection with the applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus are made applicable to the certiorari proceedings."

"The Court has fully considered the questions raised in these cases and thoroughly argued at the bar, and has reached its conclusion upon them. It now announces its decision and enters its judgment in each case, in advance of the preparation of a full opinion, which necessarily will require a considerable period of time for its preparation and which, when prepared, will be filed with the Clerk."

"The Court holds:"

"(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission."

"(2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted."

"(3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus."

"The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied."

"The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith."

As submitted by McCalla, Christine Ann, Ergant, President Gubernatorial, US Supreme Court Justice, Auswich, Supreme Court Justice,

Writs of, 

   Ex parte Quirin

   Habeas corpus

   De Facto/De Jure

   US Constitution, in entirety, jointly and severally

-Katastréfontas tis apomimíseis, symperilamvanoménon ton antirríseon, tis porneías kai 

ton métron katá tou olokaftómatos (ruin through deminis including vice, prostitution, and 

holocaustal measures)

-Itineris forced quartering of soldiers

-Tin efarmogí nómon propagándas gia tin apofygí anankastikón ysterektomón, 

symperilamvanoménon ton dikastikón, dikastikón kai nomothetikón métron ton en lógo

themáton (application of propaganda laws to prevent forced hysterectomies including 

the judicial, judiciary, and legislative measures of said regards)

-Et liberaliter educatus et inter desertis litteratus meretricium coactus coactus et 

Matricibus (abandonment of the educated and literate including forced prostitution and 

forced breeding)

-Per damnationem mortis poenam cogi possit tectum (death condemnation and 

execution through forced and enforced homelessness)

-Coactus servitutis per pestem pernici oeconomiae eiusque socio oeconomica et politica 

ratio, comprehendo vehemens et pestiferi ac voluntariam debilitationem creatus per 

insertionem Natione rei publicae est, United States of America scriptor publicus terras 

(including intus), aedificia , operatur, artificialia, qualitatibus explicarent, et al. (Forced 

acceptance of slavery through the ruin and destruction of the economy and its 

socio-economic and political systems, including forcible, ruinous, and intentional 

debilitation created through the insertion of the Nation State's, United States of America's 

public lands (including interior), buildings, works, artifacts, and attributes, et al)

-Aspergillus niger sine exceptione inter mortem, ignominiam congregat sibi, integritas, et 

Amet (contamination without exception including death, dishonor, integrity, and 

environment)

As a response to the eternal and continuous corruption and invitation of foreign forces into the United States of America for the sole purposes of, (1) destruction, ruin, and murder of Monarch, Barony McCalla, Christine Ann Joseph Nicole, Ergrant, President Gubernatorial, et al; (2) slavery and enslavement of the nation; (3) invasion, sieges, and jeopardy from within the nation; (4) as a penal colony; (5) the most recent stages of holocausts including genophilia; (6) contamination; (7) forced impoverishments and ostracisms; (8) forced, machinated, and orchestrated homelessness and related events; (9) parasites as body disposal systems and organized crimes designs and methodologies, e.g. bugs with fluidities capable of generated energy transformations into wires; (10) parasites including contamination as prosthetic-assistance measures and devices; (11) refusal of education, knowledge, and literature; and, (12) corruption en masse.

Resultingly, laws, statutes, et al, President and Congress; Government Organizations and Employees; Labor; Education; Mandamus; Parens Patriae; Flag, Seat and Seal of the Government; Patriotism, Rites, Ceremonies, and Observances; War and National Defense; Public Health and Welfare; Public Health; Public Lands; Public Welfare; Public Lands: Interior; Alien Enemies; Aliens and Nationality; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Domestic Security; National Security, et al, have all been used as instruments of death transactionable by sex, forced or other, including consideration other than cash and resulting in consideration other than money to secure employment, futures, and other necessities deemed the “inherent right to life”.

A nation willing to set itself bereft through ignorance, illiteracy, inertia, and willingness of suffrage must be corrected and forcibly set straight in the navigation. In doing so, applying, attaching, integrating, and embedding the introduction of the physics quantifications and equivalencies of River Crossing; Any Given Sunday; Forced Gravity Bucket; Efficiency of Carnot Engine; Coulomb's Law REF(River Crossing; Any Given Sunday); Space Around Charge; Closest Approach Between Particles.

 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/1/ 

Justia.com presented a similar writ involving the German Reich. Given the point in history, 2019, it is unclear the reason and causes of these holocausts and related offenses. A federal court may refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus where the facts alleged in the petition, if proved, would not warrant discharge of the prisoner. P. 317 U. S. 24.

Excerpt as presented by Justia.com...

Page 317 U. S. 2

Presentation to the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia of a petition for habeas corpus was the institution of a suit, and denial by that court of leave to file the petition was a judicial determination of a case or controversy reviewable by appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and in this Court by certiorari. P. 317 U. S. 24.

The President's Proclamation of July 2, 1942, declaring that all persons who are citizens or subjects of, or who act under the direction of, any nation at war with the United States, and who during time of war enter the United States through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile acts, or violations of the law of war, "shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals," does not bar accused persons from access to the civil courts for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Proclamation to the particular case; nor does the Proclamation, which in terms denied to such persons access to the courts, nor the enemy alienage of the accused, foreclose consideration by the civil courts of the contention that the Constitution and laws of the United States forbid their trial by military commission. P. 317 U. S. 24.

In time of war between the United States and Germany, petitioners, wearing German military uniforms and carrying explosives, fuses, and incendiary and time devices, were landed from German submarines in the hours of darkness, at places on the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Thereupon they buried the uniforms and supplies, and proceeded, in civilian dress, to various places in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at a sabotage school, and had with them, when arrested, substantial amounts of United States currency, which had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States. Specification 1 of the charges on which they were placed on trial before a military commission charged that they,

"being enemies of the United States and acting for . . . the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United

Page 317 U. S. 3

States . . . and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress . . . for the purpose of committing . . . hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States."

Held:

(1) That the specification sufficiently charged an offense against the law of war which the President was authorized to order tried by a military commission; notwithstanding the fact that, ever since their arrest, the courts in the jurisdictions where they entered the country and where they were arrested and held for trial were open and functioning normally. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. Pp. 317 U. S. 21, 317 U. S. 23, 317 U. S. 36, 317 U. S. 48.

(2) The President's Order of July 2, 1942, so far as it lays down the procedure to be followed on the trial before the Commission and on the review of its findings and sentence, and the procedure in fact followed by the Commission, were not in conflict with Articles of War 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70. P. 317 U. S. 46.

(3) The petitioners were in lawful custody for trial by a military commission, and, upon petitions for writs of habeas corpus, did not show cause for their discharge. P. 317 U. S. 47.

5. Articles 15, 38 and 46 of the Articles of War, enacted by Congress, recognize the "military commission" as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by courts-martial. And by the Articles of War, especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Pp. 317 U. S. 26-28.

6. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, by the Articles of War has exercised its authority under Art. I, § 8, cl. 10 of the Constitution to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, of which the law of war is a part, by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And by Article of War 15, Congress has incorporated by reference, as within the jurisdiction of military commissions, all offenses which are defined as such by the law of war and which may constitutionally be included within that jurisdiction. Pp. 317 U. S. 28, 317 U. S. 30.

7. This Court has always recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the

Page 317 U. S. 4

conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. P. 317 U. S. 27.

8. The offense charged in this case was an offense against the law of war, the trial of which by military commission had been authorized by Congress, and which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. P. 317 U. S. 45.

9. By the law of war, lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war; unlawful combatants, in addition, are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. P. 317 U. S. 30.

10. It has long been accepted practice by our military authorities to treat those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, as unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This practice, accepted and followed by other governments, must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War. P. 317 U. S. 35.

11. Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. P. 317 U. S. 37.

12. Even when committed by a citizen, the offense here charged is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other. P. 317 U. S. 38.

13. Article III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution did not extend the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission or require that offenses against the law of war, not triable by jury at common law, be tried only in civil courts. P. 317 U. S. 38.

14. Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806, derived from the Resolution of the Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, and which imposed the death penalty on alien spies "according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general court martial," was a contemporary construction of Article III, § 2 of the Constitution and of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as not foreclosing trial by military tribunals, without a jury, for offenses against the law of war

Page 317 U. S. 5

committed by enemies not in or associated with our Armed Forces. It is a construction which has been followed since the founding of our government, and is now continued in the 82nd Article of War. Such a construction is entitled to great respect. P. 317 U. S. 41.

15. Since violation of the law of war is adequately alleged in this case, the Court finds no occasion to consider the validity of other specifications based on the 81st and 82nd Article of War, or to construe those articles or decide upon their constitutionality a so construed. P. 317 U. S. 46.

Leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court denied. Orders of District Court (47 F.Supp. 431), affirmed.

The Court met in Special Term, on Wednesday, July 29, 1942, pursuant to a call by the Chief Justice having the approval of all the Associate Justices.

The Chief Justice announced that the Court had convened in Special Term in order that certain applications might be presented to it and argument be heard in respect thereto.

In response to an inquiry by the Chief Justice, the Attorney General stated that the Chief Justice's son, Major Lauson H. Stone, U.S.A. had, under orders, assisted defense counsel before the Military Commission, in the case relative to which the Special Term of the Court was called; but that Major Stone had had no connection with this proceeding before this Court. Therefore, said the Attorney General, counsel for all the respective parties in this proceeding joined in urging the Chief Justice to participate in the consideration and decision of the matters to be presented. Colonel Kenneth C. Royall, of counselor the petitioners, concurred in the statement and request of the Attorney General.

The applications, seven in number (ante, p. 1, n 1), first took the form of petitions to this Court for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus to secure the release of the petitioners from the custody of Brigadier General

Page 317 U. S. 6

Albert L. Cox, U.S.A. Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who, pursuant to orders, was holding them in that District for and during a trial before a Military Commission constituted by an Order of the President of the United States. During the course of the argument, the petitioners were permitted to file petitions for writs of certiorari, directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to review, before judgment by that Court, orders then before it by appeal by which the District Court for the District of Columbia had denied applications for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

After the argument, this Court delivered a Per Curiam Opinion, disposing of the cases (footnote, p. 317 U. S. 18). A full opinion, which is the basis of this Report, was filed with the Clerk of the Court on October 29, 1942.

Page 317 U. S. 18

[Footnote 1]

No. ___, Original, Ex parte Richard Quirin; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Herbert Hans Haupt; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Edward John Kerling; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Ernest Peter Burger; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Heinrich Harm Heinck; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Werner Thiel; and No. ___, Original, Ex parte Hermann Otto Neubauer.

[Footnote 2]

No. 1, United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 2, United States ex rel. Haupt v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 3, United States ex rel. Kerlin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 4, United States ex rel. Burger v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 5, United States ex rel. Heinck v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 6, United States ex rel. Thiel v. Cox, Provost Marshal, and No. 7, United States ex rel. Neubauer v. Cox, Provost Marshal.

[Footnote 3]

The following is the per curiam opinion filed July 31, 1942:

"PER CURIAM."

"In these causes, motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered orders denying the motions. Motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were then presented to this Court, and the merits of the applications were fully argued at the Special Term of Court convened on July 29, 1942. Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the order of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and they have perfected their appeals to that court. They have presented to this Court petitions for writs of certiorari before judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 347(a). The petitions are granted. In accordance with the stipulation between counsel for petitioners and for the respondent, the papers filed and argument had in connection with the applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus are made applicable to the certiorari proceedings."

"The Court has fully considered the questions raised in these cases and thoroughly argued at the bar, and has reached its conclusion upon them. It now announces its decision and enters its judgment in each case, in advance of the preparation of a full opinion, which necessarily will require a considerable period of time for its preparation and which, when prepared, will be filed with the Clerk."

"The Court holds:"

"(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission."

"(2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted."

"(3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus."

"The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied."

"The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith." each element applied as raised to the power, degree, exponential of

According to Full Opinion filed, October 29, 1942{|317 U.S. 1fn4|4},

A federal court may refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus where the facts alleged in the petition, if proved, would not warrant discharge of the prisoner. P. 317 U. S. 24.

The President's Proclamation of July 2, 1942, declaring that all persons who are citizens or subjects of, or who act under the direction of, any nation at war with the United States, and who during time of war enter the United States through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile acts, or violations of the law of war, "shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals," does not bar accused persons from access to the civil courts for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Proclamation to the particular case; nor does the Proclamation, which in terms denied to such persons access to the courts, nor the enemy alienage of the accused, foreclose consideration by the civil courts of the contention that the Constitution and laws of the United States forbid their trial by military commission. P. 317 U. S. 24.

4. In time of war between the United States and Germany, petitioners, wearing German military uniforms and carrying explosives, fuses, and incendiary and time devices, were landed from German submarines in the hours of darkness, at places on the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Thereupon they buried the uniforms and supplies, and proceeded, in civilian dress, to various places in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at a sabotage school, and had with them, when arrested, substantial amounts of United States currency, which had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States. Specification 1 of the charges on which they were placed on trial before a military commission charged that they,

"being enemies of the United States and acting for . . . the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United

Page 317 U. S. 3

States . . . and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress . . . for the purpose of committing . . . hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States."

Held:

(1) That the specification sufficiently charged an offense against the law of war which the President was authorized to order tried by a military commission; notwithstanding the fact that, ever since their arrest, the courts in the jurisdictions where they entered the country and where they were arrested and held for trial were open and functioning normally. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. Pp. 317 U. S. 21, 317 U. S. 23, 317 U. S. 36, 317 U. S. 48.

(2) The President's Order of July 2, 1942, so far as it lays down the procedure to be followed on the trial before the Commission and on the review of its findings and sentence, and the procedure in fact followed by the Commission, were not in conflict with Articles of War 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70. P. 317 U. S. 46.

(3) The petitioners were in lawful custody for trial by a military commission, and, upon petitions for writs of habeas corpus, did not show cause for their discharge. P. 317 U. S. 47.

5. Articles 15, 38 and 46 of the Articles of War, enacted by Congress, recognize the "military commission" as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by courts-martial. And by the Articles of War, especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Pp. 317 U. S. 26-28.

6. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, by the Articles of War has exercised its authority under Art. I, § 8, cl. 10 of the Constitution to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, of which the law of war is a part, by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And by Article of War 15, Congress has incorporated by reference, as within the jurisdiction of military commissions, all offenses which are defined as such by the law of war and which may constitutionally be included within that jurisdiction. Pp. 317 U. S. 28, 317 U. S. 30.

7. This Court has always recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the

Page 317 U. S. 4

conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. P. 317 U. S. 27.

8. The offense charged in this case was an offense against the law of war, the trial of which by military commission had been authorized by Congress, and which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. P. 317 U. S. 45.

9. By the law of war, lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war; unlawful combatants, in addition, are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. P. 317 U. S. 30.

10. It has long been accepted practice by our military authorities to treat those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, as unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This practice, accepted and followed by other governments, must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War. P. 317 U. S. 35.

11. Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. P. 317 U. S. 37.

12. Even when committed by a citizen, the offense here charged is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other. P. 317 U. S. 38.

13. Article III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution did not extend the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission or require that offenses against the law of war, not triable by jury at common law, be tried only in civil courts. P. 317 U. S. 38.

14. Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806, derived from the Resolution of the Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, and which imposed the death penalty on alien spies "according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general court martial," was a contemporary construction of Article III, § 2 of the Constitution and of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as not foreclosing trial by military tribunals, without a jury, for offenses against the law of war

Page 317 U. S. 5

committed by enemies not in or associated with our Armed Forces. It is a construction which has been followed since the founding of our government, and is now continued in the 82nd Article of War. Such a construction is entitled to great respect. P. 317 U. S. 41.

15. Since violation of the law of war is adequately alleged in this case, the Court finds no occasion to consider the validity of other specifications based on the 81st and 82nd Article of War, or to construe those articles or decide upon their constitutionality a so construed. P. 317 U. S. 46.

Leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court denied. Orders of District Court (47 F.Supp. 431), affirmed.

The Court met in Special Term, on Wednesday, July 29, 1942, pursuant to a call by the Chief Justice having the approval of all the Associate Justices.

The Chief Justice announced that the Court had convened in Special Term in order that certain applications might be presented to it and argument be heard in respect thereto.

In response to an inquiry by the Chief Justice, the Attorney General stated that the Chief Justice's son, Major Lauson H. Stone, U.S.A. had, under orders, assisted defense counsel before the Military Commission, in the case relative to which the Special Term of the Court was called; but that Major Stone had had no connection with this proceeding before this Court. Therefore, said the Attorney General, counsel for all the respective parties in this proceeding joined in urging the Chief Justice to participate in the consideration and decision of the matters to be presented. Colonel Kenneth C. Royall, of counselor the petitioners, concurred in the statement and request of the Attorney General.

The applications, seven in number (ante, p. 1, n 1), first took the form of petitions to this Court for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus to secure the release of the petitioners from the custody of Brigadier General

Page 317 U. S. 6

Albert L. Cox, U.S.A. Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who, pursuant to orders, was holding them in that District for and during a trial before a Military Commission constituted by an Order of the President of the United States. During the course of the argument, the petitioners were permitted to file petitions for writs of certiorari, directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to review, before judgment by that Court, orders then before it by appeal by which the District Court for the District of Columbia had denied applications for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

After the argument, this Court delivered a Per Curiam Opinion, disposing of the cases (footnote, p. 317 U. S. 18). A full opinion, which is the basis of this Report, was filed with the Clerk of the Court on October 29, 1942.

Page 317 U. S. 18

[Footnote 1]

No. ___, Original, Ex parte Richard Quirin; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Herbert Hans Haupt; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Edward John Kerling; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Ernest Peter Burger; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Heinrich Harm Heinck; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Werner Thiel; and No. ___, Original, Ex parte Hermann Otto Neubauer.

[Footnote 2]

No. 1, United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 2, United States ex rel. Haupt v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 3, United States ex rel. Kerlin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 4, United States ex rel. Burger v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 5, United States ex rel. Heinck v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 6, United States ex rel. Thiel v. Cox, Provost Marshal, and No. 7, United States ex rel. Neubauer v. Cox, Provost Marshal.

[Footnote 3]

The following is the per curiam opinion filed July 31, 1942:

"PER CURIAM."

"In these causes, motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered orders denying the motions. Motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were then presented to this Court, and the merits of the applications were fully argued at the Special Term of Court convened on July 29, 1942. Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the order of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and they have perfected their appeals to that court. They have presented to this Court petitions for writs of certiorari before judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 347(a). The petitions are granted. In accordance with the stipulation between counsel for petitioners and for the respondent, the papers filed and argument had in connection with the applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus are made applicable to the certiorari proceedings."

"The Court has fully considered the questions raised in these cases and thoroughly argued at the bar, and has reached its conclusion upon them. It now announces its decision and enters its judgment in each case, in advance of the preparation of a full opinion, which necessarily will require a considerable period of time for its preparation and which, when prepared, will be filed with the Clerk."

"The Court holds:"

"(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission."

"(2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted."

"(3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus."

"The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied."

"The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith."

As submitted by McCalla, Christine Ann, Ergant, President Gubernatorial, US Supreme Court Justice, Auswich, Supreme Court Justice,

Writs of, 

   Ex parte Quirin

   Habeas corpus

   De Facto/De Jure

   US Constitution, in entirety, jointly and severally

-Katastréfontas tis apomimíseis, symperilamvanoménon ton antirríseon, tis porneías kai 

ton métron katá tou olokaftómatos (ruin through deminis including vice, prostitution, and 

holocaustal measures)

-Itineris forced quartering of soldiers

-Tin efarmogí nómon propagándas gia tin apofygí anankastikón ysterektomón, 

symperilamvanoménon ton dikastikón, dikastikón kai nomothetikón métron ton en lógo

themáton (application of propaganda laws to prevent forced hysterectomies including 

the judicial, judiciary, and legislative measures of said regards)

-Et liberaliter educatus et inter desertis litteratus meretricium coactus coactus et 

Matricibus (abandonment of the educated and literate including forced prostitution and 

forced breeding)

-Per damnationem mortis poenam cogi possit tectum (death condemnation and 

execution through forced and enforced homelessness)

-Coactus servitutis per pestem pernici oeconomiae eiusque socio oeconomica et politica 

ratio, comprehendo vehemens et pestiferi ac voluntariam debilitationem creatus per 

insertionem Natione rei publicae est, United States of America scriptor publicus terras 

(including intus), aedificia , operatur, artificialia, qualitatibus explicarent, et al. (Forced 

acceptance of slavery through the ruin and destruction of the economy and its 

socio-economic and political systems, including forcible, ruinous, and intentional 

debilitation created through the insertion of the Nation State's, United States of America's 

public lands (including interior), buildings, works, artifacts, and attributes, et al)

-Aspergillus niger sine exceptione inter mortem, ignominiam congregat sibi, integritas, et 

Amet (contamination without exception including death, dishonor, integrity, and 

environment)

As a response to the eternal and continuous corruption and invitation of foreign forces into the United States of America for the sole purposes of, (1) destruction, ruin, and murder of Monarch, Barony McCalla, Christine Ann Joseph Nicole, Ergrant, President Gubernatorial, et al; (2) slavery and enslavement of the nation; (3) invasion, sieges, and jeopardy from within the nation; (4) as a penal colony; (5) the most recent stages of holocausts including genophilia; (6) contamination; (7) forced impoverishments and ostracisms; (8) forced, machinated, and orchestrated homelessness and related events; (9) parasites as body disposal systems and organized crimes designs and methodologies, e.g. bugs with fluidities capable of generated energy transformations into wires; (10) parasites including contamination as prosthetic-assistance measures and devices; (11) refusal of education, knowledge, and literature; and, (12) corruption en masse.

Resultingly, laws, statutes, et al, President and Congress; Government Organizations and Employees; Labor; Education; Mandamus; Parens Patriae; Flag, Seat and Seal of the Government; Patriotism, Rites, Ceremonies, and Observances; War and National Defense; Public Health and Welfare; Public Health; Public Lands; Public Welfare; Public Lands: Interior; Alien Enemies; Aliens and Nationality; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Domestic Security; National Security, et al, have all been used as instruments of death transactionable by sex, forced or other, including consideration other than cash and resulting in consideration other than money to secure employment, futures, and other necessities deemed the “inherent right to life”.

A nation willing to set itself bereft through ignorance, illiteracy, inertia, and willingness of suffrage must be corrected and forcibly set straight in the navigation. In doing so, applying, attaching, integrating, and embedding the introduction of the physics quantifications and equivalencies of River Crossing; Any Given Sunday; Forced Gravity Bucket; Efficiency of Carnot Engine; Coulomb's Law REF(River Crossing; Any Given Sunday); Space Around Charge; Closest Approach Between Particles.

 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/1/ 

Justia.com presented a similar writ involving the German Reich. Given the point in history, 2019, it is unclear the reason and causes of these holocausts and related offenses. A federal court may refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus where the facts alleged in the petition, if proved, would not warrant discharge of the prisoner. P. 317 U. S. 24.

Excerpt as presented by Justia.com...

Page 317 U. S. 2

Presentation to the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia of a petition for habeas corpus was the institution of a suit, and denial by that court of leave to file the petition was a judicial determination of a case or controversy reviewable by appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and in this Court by certiorari. P. 317 U. S. 24.

The President's Proclamation of July 2, 1942, declaring that all persons who are citizens or subjects of, or who act under the direction of, any nation at war with the United States, and who during time of war enter the United States through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile acts, or violations of the law of war, "shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals," does not bar accused persons from access to the civil courts for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Proclamation to the particular case; nor does the Proclamation, which in terms denied to such persons access to the courts, nor the enemy alienage of the accused, foreclose consideration by the civil courts of the contention that the Constitution and laws of the United States forbid their trial by military commission. P. 317 U. S. 24.

In time of war between the United States and Germany, petitioners, wearing German military uniforms and carrying explosives, fuses, and incendiary and time devices, were landed from German submarines in the hours of darkness, at places on the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Thereupon they buried the uniforms and supplies, and proceeded, in civilian dress, to various places in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at a sabotage school, and had with them, when arrested, substantial amounts of United States currency, which had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States. Specification 1 of the charges on which they were placed on trial before a military commission charged that they,

"being enemies of the United States and acting for . . . the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United

Page 317 U. S. 3

States . . . and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress . . . for the purpose of committing . . . hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States."

Held:

(1) That the specification sufficiently charged an offense against the law of war which the President was authorized to order tried by a military commission; notwithstanding the fact that, ever since their arrest, the courts in the jurisdictions where they entered the country and where they were arrested and held for trial were open and functioning normally. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. Pp. 317 U. S. 21, 317 U. S. 23, 317 U. S. 36, 317 U. S. 48.

(2) The President's Order of July 2, 1942, so far as it lays down the procedure to be followed on the trial before the Commission and on the review of its findings and sentence, and the procedure in fact followed by the Commission, were not in conflict with Articles of War 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70. P. 317 U. S. 46.

(3) The petitioners were in lawful custody for trial by a military commission, and, upon petitions for writs of habeas corpus, did not show cause for their discharge. P. 317 U. S. 47.

5. Articles 15, 38 and 46 of the Articles of War, enacted by Congress, recognize the "military commission" as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by courts-martial. And by the Articles of War, especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Pp. 317 U. S. 26-28.

6. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, by the Articles of War has exercised its authority under Art. I, § 8, cl. 10 of the Constitution to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, of which the law of war is a part, by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And by Article of War 15, Congress has incorporated by reference, as within the jurisdiction of military commissions, all offenses which are defined as such by the law of war and which may constitutionally be included within that jurisdiction. Pp. 317 U. S. 28, 317 U. S. 30.

7. This Court has always recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the

Page 317 U. S. 4

conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. P. 317 U. S. 27.

8. The offense charged in this case was an offense against the law of war, the trial of which by military commission had been authorized by Congress, and which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. P. 317 U. S. 45.

9. By the law of war, lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war; unlawful combatants, in addition, are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. P. 317 U. S. 30.

10. It has long been accepted practice by our military authorities to treat those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, as unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This practice, accepted and followed by other governments, must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War. P. 317 U. S. 35.

11. Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. P. 317 U. S. 37.

12. Even when committed by a citizen, the offense here charged is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other. P. 317 U. S. 38.

13. Article III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution did not extend the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission or require that offenses against the law of war, not triable by jury at common law, be tried only in civil courts. P. 317 U. S. 38.

14. Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806, derived from the Resolution of the Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, and which imposed the death penalty on alien spies "according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general court martial," was a contemporary construction of Article III, § 2 of the Constitution and of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as not foreclosing trial by military tribunals, without a jury, for offenses against the law of war

Page 317 U. S. 5

committed by enemies not in or associated with our Armed Forces. It is a construction which has been followed since the founding of our government, and is now continued in the 82nd Article of War. Such a construction is entitled to great respect. P. 317 U. S. 41.

15. Since violation of the law of war is adequately alleged in this case, the Court finds no occasion to consider the validity of other specifications based on the 81st and 82nd Article of War, or to construe those articles or decide upon their constitutionality a so construed. P. 317 U. S. 46.

Leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court denied. Orders of District Court (47 F.Supp. 431), affirmed.

The Court met in Special Term, on Wednesday, July 29, 1942, pursuant to a call by the Chief Justice having the approval of all the Associate Justices.

The Chief Justice announced that the Court had convened in Special Term in order that certain applications might be presented to it and argument be heard in respect thereto.

In response to an inquiry by the Chief Justice, the Attorney General stated that the Chief Justice's son, Major Lauson H. Stone, U.S.A. had, under orders, assisted defense counsel before the Military Commission, in the case relative to which the Special Term of the Court was called; but that Major Stone had had no connection with this proceeding before this Court. Therefore, said the Attorney General, counsel for all the respective parties in this proceeding joined in urging the Chief Justice to participate in the consideration and decision of the matters to be presented. Colonel Kenneth C. Royall, of counselor the petitioners, concurred in the statement and request of the Attorney General.

The applications, seven in number (ante, p. 1, n 1), first took the form of petitions to this Court for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus to secure the release of the petitioners from the custody of Brigadier General

Page 317 U. S. 6

Albert L. Cox, U.S.A. Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who, pursuant to orders, was holding them in that District for and during a trial before a Military Commission constituted by an Order of the President of the United States. During the course of the argument, the petitioners were permitted to file petitions for writs of certiorari, directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to review, before judgment by that Court, orders then before it by appeal by which the District Court for the District of Columbia had denied applications for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

After the argument, this Court delivered a Per Curiam Opinion, disposing of the cases (footnote, p. 317 U. S. 18). A full opinion, which is the basis of this Report, was filed with the Clerk of the Court on October 29, 1942.

Page 317 U. S. 18

[Footnote 1]

No. ___, Original, Ex parte Richard Quirin; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Herbert Hans Haupt; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Edward John Kerling; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Ernest Peter Burger; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Heinrich Harm Heinck; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Werner Thiel; and No. ___, Original, Ex parte Hermann Otto Neubauer.

[Footnote 2]

No. 1, United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 2, United States ex rel. Haupt v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 3, United States ex rel. Kerlin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 4, United States ex rel. Burger v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 5, United States ex rel. Heinck v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 6, United States ex rel. Thiel v. Cox, Provost Marshal, and No. 7, United States ex rel. Neubauer v. Cox, Provost Marshal.

[Footnote 3]

The following is the per curiam opinion filed July 31, 1942:

"PER CURIAM."

"In these causes, motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered orders denying the motions. Motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were then presented to this Court, and the merits of the applications were fully argued at the Special Term of Court convened on July 29, 1942. Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the order of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and they have perfected their appeals to that court. They have presented to this Court petitions for writs of certiorari before judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 347(a). The petitions are granted. In accordance with the stipulation between counsel for petitioners and for the respondent, the papers filed and argument had in connection with the applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus are made applicable to the certiorari proceedings."

"The Court has fully considered the questions raised in these cases and thoroughly argued at the bar, and has reached its conclusion upon them. It now announces its decision and enters its judgment in each case, in advance of the preparation of a full opinion, which necessarily will require a considerable period of time for its preparation and which, when prepared, will be filed with the Clerk."

"The Court holds:"

"(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission."

"(2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted."

"(3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus."

"The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied."

"The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith." each element applied as raised to the power, degree, exponential of

According to Full Opinion filed, October 29, 1942{|317 U.S. 1fn4|4},

A federal court may refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus where the facts alleged in the petition, if proved, would not warrant discharge of the prisoner. P. 317 U. S. 24.

The President's Proclamation of July 2, 1942, declaring that all persons who are citizens or subjects of, or who act under the direction of, any nation at war with the United States, and who during time of war enter the United States through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile acts, or violations of the law of war, "shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals," does not bar accused persons from access to the civil courts for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Proclamation to the particular case; nor does the Proclamation, which in terms denied to such persons access to the courts, nor the enemy alienage of the accused, foreclose consideration by the civil courts of the contention that the Constitution and laws of the United States forbid their trial by military commission. P. 317 U. S. 24.

4. In time of war between the United States and Germany, petitioners, wearing German military uniforms and carrying explosives, fuses, and incendiary and time devices, were landed from German submarines in the hours of darkness, at places on the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Thereupon they buried the uniforms and supplies, and proceeded, in civilian dress, to various places in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at a sabotage school, and had with them, when arrested, substantial amounts of United States currency, which had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States. Specification 1 of the charges on which they were placed on trial before a military commission charged that they,

"being enemies of the United States and acting for . . . the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United

Page 317 U. S. 3

States . . . and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress . . . for the purpose of committing . . . hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States."

Held:

(1) That the specification sufficiently charged an offense against the law of war which the President was authorized to order tried by a military commission; notwithstanding the fact that, ever since their arrest, the courts in the jurisdictions where they entered the country and where they were arrested and held for trial were open and functioning normally. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. Pp. 317 U. S. 21, 317 U. S. 23, 317 U. S. 36, 317 U. S. 48.

(2) The President's Order of July 2, 1942, so far as it lays down the procedure to be followed on the trial before the Commission and on the review of its findings and sentence, and the procedure in fact followed by the Commission, were not in conflict with Articles of War 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70. P. 317 U. S. 46.

(3) The petitioners were in lawful custody for trial by a military commission, and, upon petitions for writs of habeas corpus, did not show cause for their discharge. P. 317 U. S. 47.

5. Articles 15, 38 and 46 of the Articles of War, enacted by Congress, recognize the "military commission" as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by courts-martial. And by the Articles of War, especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Pp. 317 U. S. 26-28.

6. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, by the Articles of War has exercised its authority under Art. I, § 8, cl. 10 of the Constitution to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, of which the law of war is a part, by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And by Article of War 15, Congress has incorporated by reference, as within the jurisdiction of military commissions, all offenses which are defined as such by the law of war and which may constitutionally be included within that jurisdiction. Pp. 317 U. S. 28, 317 U. S. 30.

7. This Court has always recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the

Page 317 U. S. 4

conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. P. 317 U. S. 27.

8. The offense charged in this case was an offense against the law of war, the trial of which by military commission had been authorized by Congress, and which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, distinguished. P. 317 U. S. 45.

9. By the law of war, lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war; unlawful combatants, in addition, are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. P. 317 U. S. 30.

10. It has long been accepted practice by our military authorities to treat those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, as unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This practice, accepted and followed by other governments, must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War. P. 317 U. S. 35.

11. Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. P. 317 U. S. 37.

12. Even when committed by a citizen, the offense here charged is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other. P. 317 U. S. 38.

13. Article III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution did not extend the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission or require that offenses against the law of war, not triable by jury at common law, be tried only in civil courts. P. 317 U. S. 38.

14. Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806, derived from the Resolution of the Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, and which imposed the death penalty on alien spies "according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general court martial," was a contemporary construction of Article III, § 2 of the Constitution and of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as not foreclosing trial by military tribunals, without a jury, for offenses against the law of war

Page 317 U. S. 5

committed by enemies not in or associated with our Armed Forces. It is a construction which has been followed since the founding of our government, and is now continued in the 82nd Article of War. Such a construction is entitled to great respect. P. 317 U. S. 41.

15. Since violation of the law of war is adequately alleged in this case, the Court finds no occasion to consider the validity of other specifications based on the 81st and 82nd Article of War, or to construe those articles or decide upon their constitutionality a so construed. P. 317 U. S. 46.

Leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court denied. Orders of District Court (47 F.Supp. 431), affirmed.

The Court met in Special Term, on Wednesday, July 29, 1942, pursuant to a call by the Chief Justice having the approval of all the Associate Justices.

The Chief Justice announced that the Court had convened in Special Term in order that certain applications might be presented to it and argument be heard in respect thereto.

In response to an inquiry by the Chief Justice, the Attorney General stated that the Chief Justice's son, Major Lauson H. Stone, U.S.A. had, under orders, assisted defense counsel before the Military Commission, in the case relative to which the Special Term of the Court was called; but that Major Stone had had no connection with this proceeding before this Court. Therefore, said the Attorney General, counsel for all the respective parties in this proceeding joined in urging the Chief Justice to participate in the consideration and decision of the matters to be presented. Colonel Kenneth C. Royall, of counselor the petitioners, concurred in the statement and request of the Attorney General.

The applications, seven in number (ante, p. 1, n 1), first took the form of petitions to this Court for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus to secure the release of the petitioners from the custody of Brigadier General

Page 317 U. S. 6

Albert L. Cox, U.S.A. Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who, pursuant to orders, was holding them in that District for and during a trial before a Military Commission constituted by an Order of the President of the United States. During the course of the argument, the petitioners were permitted to file petitions for writs of certiorari, directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to review, before judgment by that Court, orders then before it by appeal by which the District Court for the District of Columbia had denied applications for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

After the argument, this Court delivered a Per Curiam Opinion, disposing of the cases (footnote, p. 317 U. S. 18). A full opinion, which is the basis of this Report, was filed with the Clerk of the Court on October 29, 1942.

Page 317 U. S. 18

[Footnote 1]

No. ___, Original, Ex parte Richard Quirin; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Herbert Hans Haupt; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Edward John Kerling; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Ernest Peter Burger; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Heinrich Harm Heinck; No. ___, Original, Ex parte Werner Thiel; and No. ___, Original, Ex parte Hermann Otto Neubauer.

[Footnote 2]

No. 1, United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 2, United States ex rel. Haupt v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 3, United States ex rel. Kerlin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 4, United States ex rel. Burger v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 5, United States ex rel. Heinck v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 6, United States ex rel. Thiel v. Cox, Provost Marshal, and No. 7, United States ex rel. Neubauer v. Cox, Provost Marshal.

[Footnote 3]

The following is the per curiam opinion filed July 31, 1942:

"PER CURIAM."

"In these causes, motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered orders denying the motions. Motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were then presented to this Court, and the merits of the applications were fully argued at the Special Term of Court convened on July 29, 1942. Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the order of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and they have perfected their appeals to that court. They have presented to this Court petitions for writs of certiorari before judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 347(a). The petitions are granted. In accordance with the stipulation between counsel for petitioners and for the respondent, the papers filed and argument had in connection with the applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus are made applicable to the certiorari proceedings."

"The Court has fully considered the questions raised in these cases and thoroughly argued at the bar, and has reached its conclusion upon them. It now announces its decision and enters its judgment in each case, in advance of the preparation of a full opinion, which necessarily will require a considerable period of time for its preparation and which, when prepared, will be filed with the Clerk."

"The Court holds:"

"(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission."

"(2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted."

"(3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus."

"The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied."

"The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith."        

[politicaastazi]

Hume On Trump Dossier, Clinton Russian Connections: "Tide May Be Turning" On Trump Probe

FOX News' Brit Hume reacts to Tucker Carlson's source that said Paul Manafort and the Podesta brothers are actually the "central figures" in Mueller's probe of Russian interference in U.S. politics, not President Donald Trump. "How could it be that all these journalists working for other news organizations have been chasing the story, all these many months, and never run across any of this?" Hume asked. "Remarkable indeed." "If all we hear about the Podestas is true, it seems to be the Democrats have been complaining about this and making all kinds of allegations about this all this time are going to be very disappointed in the outcome," Hume said on Tuesday's Tucker Carlson Tonight. From Hume's appearance: TUCKER CARLSON: The fact or the idea from our source that Paul Manafort was working for The Podesta Group on behalf of Russian interests before running the Trump campaign changes this story completely, it seems to me. BRIT HUME: it does to change completely, Tucker. It suggests that what collusion there would have been was between Paul Manafort and The Podesta Group on behalf of Russian interests. And the Podesta Group -- these two guys, Tony and John, they lie at the heart of the Democratic party and certainly of the Clintons and their political endeavors. So this changes the whole character and focus and it does raise also the question, Tucker. You're coming around to getting at this now, and that's remarkable on your part to have gotten this source to come and talk to you, how could it be that all these journalists working for other news organizations have been chasing the story, all these many months, and never run across any of this? Remarkable indeed. CARLSON: That's exactly the point. You've been in journalism longer than I've been alive, how could the central front group that Manafort was representing -- the money goes through The Podesta Group and nobody notices? I mean The Podesta Group has 75 employees in Washington, no one has mentioned this to a journalist in the last 11 months? I find that not believable. HUME: It's pretty striking, and it suggests that the work has been done on the story has not been of the best quality or this would have turned up and I'd also suggest that you have a pack of journalists who are so determined to follow one story line that they completely missed this. But this is a big deal on a lot of levels. And it is particularly noteworthy, Tucker, that we hear that Robert Mueller is on this and it's suggested that his investigation, which might have been initially about Russian efforts to influence the election, is now much more broad gazed effort to determine the extent and depth of Russian efforts to influence American policy going back several years. And if that's the case, and if all we hear about the Podestas is true, it seems to be the Democrats have been complaining about this and making all kinds of allegations about this all this time are going to be very disappointed in the outcome... HUME: If we look at this Uranium One matter that is coming more and more to light, it appears that we have the Obama administration in its effort to seek a closer relationship with Russia acquiescing in a sale of materials that are strategic and that could certainly be argued placed American security interests at some risk and all of this going on of course while -- unlike what you've just reported, this has been known for some time, but it seems to be coming into sharper focus at the moment and will be the subject of Congressional investigations going forward. So Democrats can scream a lot and they no doubt will that all of that is a diversion, but I'm beginning to think that those claims will ring a little hollow in light of your reporting and what else is coming out even as we speak tonight... HUME: It's striking because that dossier, even as it appeared at the time, was pretty widely recognized even among media unsympathetic to Donald Trump as scurrilous and a lot of it was demonstrably false. So this was a pretty shabby piece of business here and if it turns out that, as we now believe, that it was paid for in considerable measure by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party and of course this contained within it, Tucker, were allegations about Trump collusion with the Russians. So that tends to soil that whole allegation even further. So, the tide may be now turning in all this in political terms, and one might also hope in journalistic terms... It certainly reveals another side of this story that may be bigger and more important than these allegations, which have so far remained virtually without evidence. The allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign itself and the president, the man who is now president, and the Russians, is virtually nonexistent. After all these months. And now we hear about all this other stuff. As I suggest Tucker, the tide may now be turning on all of this and not in a way the Democrats are going to enjoy. Politica in lume - vezi sursa: http://ift.tt/2xlBQW8 from Blogger http://ift.tt/2gFYHIX via IFTTT Like: My Library

[politicaastazi]

Jimmy Carter: The media has been harder on Trump than predecessors - USA TODAY

The Independent (blog)

Jimmy Carter: The media has been harder on Trump than predecessors USA TODAY Carter also defended Trump against claims that the current president's aggressive style is souring U.S. relations with the world. “Well, he might be escalating it but I think that precedes Trump,” he told the Times. “The United States has been the ... North Korea, stockpiling weapons, mocks 'lunatic' Trump who has 'war fever'Fox News North Korea's letter attempts to drive a wedge between the United States and its Asian partnersThe Independent (blog) A pressure point for North KoreaFort Worth Star Telegram (blog) NEWS.com.au -The Guardian -The Straits Times all 575 news articles »

Politica in lume - vezi sursa: http://ift.tt/2iv3OfC from Blogger http://ift.tt/2zLm8Fg via IFTTT Like: My Library

[politicaastazi]

Diplomatic tension escalates between US and Russia - CBS News

CBS News

Diplomatic tension escalates between US and Russia CBS News President Vladimir Putin's foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, told Russian news agencies later Friday that the Kremlin "regrets" the latest U.S. move and needs to "think carefully about how we could respond." Ushakov also left room for Russia to ... Russia, digesting US diplomatic retaliation, pledges 'harsh' responseReuters Here's how the diplomatic tit-for-tat between Russia and the US unfoldedWashington Post Trump orders Russia to close San Francisco consulate, scale back presence in DC and NYCUSA TODAY New York Times -Aljazeera.com -ABC News all 436 news articles »

Politica in lume - vezi sursa: http://ift.tt/2iNijuQ from Blogger http://ift.tt/2gy0IGP via IFTTT Like: My Library