MARSHAL LAW CONTINUES TO RESONATE ACROSS THE UNION

Martial law occurs when the military or militarized law enforcement replaces civilian authorities in order to impose military rule during an emergency. Civil liberties are suspended. In the United States, a pivot point that signals  martial law is the suspension of habeas corpus – the right to a hearing on whether an imprisonment is lawful. In practice, habeas corpus means a person cannot be imprisoned without legitimate charges and due process. The U.S. Constitution recognizes the suspension of habeas corpus as an identifying feature of martial law in Article I, Section 9, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Ever since Obama took over the office of the President, there have been a number of people claiming that he was so

MILITARY ON THE STREETS “MARSHAL LAW”

 

interested in power, they could really see him taking steps to ensure that he never had to give it up. Of course, in the past, this kind of talk has been more or less confined to conspiracy theorists and others that mainstream society might consider to be, let’s just say, less than credible.

Now we already know that Obama has signed an executive order giving him the right to declare martial law any time he wants. This is a significant sign that he thinks there might be a good reason for him to need that authority. Say what you want, Obama is at least able to realize the signs of the times. He sees that the Republicans are very likely to capture the Senate, which would give them full control over both houses of Congress. This would put Obama in a very dangerous situation.

Now we already know that Obama has signed an executive order giving him the right to declare martial law any time he wants. This is a significant sign that he thinks there might be a good reason for him to need that authority. Say what you want, Obama is at least able to realize the signs of the times. He sees that the Republicans are very likely to capture the Senate, which would give them full control over both houses of Congress. This would put Obama in a very dangerous situation.

Once this happens, the question then becomes what do the Republicans do with that advantage? It is certainly possible that impeachment proceedings could be started. If this goes to its end, there is also the possibility that Obama could even be tried as a traitor to the USA. It is certainly obvious that he has no love lost for America and its traditional values and principles.

There are a number of people that have talked about this, even some within the government. Obama, being the prideful man and committed liberal that his, could simply not afford to let such a thing stop his extreme agenda. Personally, I think he feels as if no one else can accomplish or be trusted to push his agenda through and it doesn’t matter how many people oppose him…

WHEN MARSHAL LAW IS DECLARED, WHO WILL BE LEFT TO PROTECT AND SERVE?

So what does the government stand to gain by declaring Marshal Law on its own citizens? After the coming economic financial collapse, a state of world-wide martial law will be declared. Considering the current events which are in direct alignment with documented plans for totalitarian one-world government, (white paper plans published by the Tri-Lateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and Club of Rome), martial law will be imposed without official dissent upon the various countries of the world. Martial law is military rule imposed upon civilian populations in a time of war or during a (sic) “State of Emergency”. The following elements can be expected to occur once the t.v. news anchors tell people not to panic, but that a State of Emergency has been declared due to the crash, and a (sic) temporary state of martial law has been declared, which will be rescinded once the State of Emergency has passed.
What the news people won’t tell you is that given the history of martial law, the suspension of such a draconian state is far more difficult to achieve than its original imposition…

1. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE ENDED-Under martial law, the U.S. Constitution is suspended and the citizens immediately lose all the protections, safeguards, and human rights guaranteed by that document. The citizens also lose every rights and privileges granted under The Bill of Rights. The constitutions of other countries will likewise be suspended with similar conditions imposed upon the citizens of those other countries.

2. CURFEW ENFORCEMENT-Anyone caught outside after curfew can be shot dead. There are no exceptions for personal emergencies unless of course, these people have some sort of official written permission or are in possession of other material which gives them a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card.

3. WRIT OF HABEUS CORPUS SUSPENDED-This means that soldiers can bust into your house, or arrest you on the street without warrants, and can throw you into prison without explanation or access to legal counsel. They can hold you there for months, even years, since there are no time limits imposed on how long you can be imprisoned.

4. PERSONAL FIREARMS WILL BE SEIZED-Armed forces can invade your home and force you to surrender any weapons you have, regardless of your constitutional right or need to bear arms for your self-defense. If you refuse, you could be shot dead in your living room, and all your possessions seized. If you’re lucky, you might just get Tasered, or butt-ended with an AK-47, to eventually wake up in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) Detention Center with a Prison Identification Number which you will go by as a “name” instead of your old name, the one on your birth certificate.

5. PERSONAL PROPERTY CAN BE SEIZED-This means that under the excuse of “requisitioning”, soldiers can kick you out of your home, and seize both your home, all the contents inside that home, as well as any vehicles, or other items you have on your grounds. They also can claim the actual real estate of the acreage as well. If you refuse or resist in some way well….I guess you can fill in the blanks or use your imagination.

LEGA L TIP

Fed. R. Civ. Rule 60(b) to Re-Open a Denied Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2255

 

Here is a little tip for those of you who might have a loved one fighting their case in the Feds. In Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 (2005), the United States Supreme Court concluded that a petitioner can seek relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) from the denial of a habeas petition where the petitioner is challenging the integrity of the habeas proceeding. Now some of you may be asking yourself. “What is a Habeas Corpus?” A Writ of Habeas Corpus is a federal procedure for determining the legality of an individual’s incarceration. It requires the production “of the body” of the prisoner in the court so that it may be determined whether the prisoner is properly being held.

 

It turns out that federal courts have subsequently applied Gonzales in a variety of circumstances to allow a petitioner to seek relief from the denial of a habeas petition. So if your man was denied, tell him to keep his head up! One such circumstance where the petitioner is denied the opportunity to reply to the Government’s opposition. See, e.g., United States v. Cleaver, 319 Fed. Appx. 728, 729 (10th Cir. 2009)(unpublished)(motion challenging the government’s failure to serve response on petitioner, and subsequent denial of opportunity to reply, is a “true” Rule 60(b) motion). In this case, the Court never ruled on the request to file a reply and denied the petition without permitting a reply brief. The Defendant was thus denied the opportunity to rebut the Government’s contention that her council had made a tactical decision in failing to pursue an obviously available motion for a downward departure-an argument that she could have easily dispelled through her reply. That’s like a referee tying your hands behind your back and allowing your opponent to hit you without allowing you to defend yourself.

 

Moreover, the Court’s failure to permit Denise to file a reply was clearly an error under the rules governing Section 2255 proceedings. A habeas petitioner has a right to a reply brief. Under Rule 5(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, “[t]he moving party may submit a reply to the respondent’s answer or other pleading within a time fixed by the Judge.” See also Advisory Committee notes to Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings (2004 amendments to rules “adopt[] the practice in some jurisdictions of giving the petitioner an opportunity to reply to the respondent’s answer…”); White v. United States, 175 Fed. Appx. 292, 293(11th Cir. 2006)(under rules, “after the government has responded, the movant has the opportunity to reply”).

 

The reply brief to which the Defendant had a right to file, and which she was denied, would easily have shown that contrary to the Government’s contention at the time, trial counsel’s failure to move for a downward departure based on overstatement of criminal history was not, and could not have been, a strategic or otherwise valid decision. There is no question that counsel could have sought a downward departure based on overstatement of criminal history. See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 909 F.2d 1164, 1169-70(8th Cir. 1990)(departing downward because “the facts of [defendant’s two prior] crimes nonetheless reveal each incident as a somewhat small-time offense…[and] the factors that make the appellant a career offender are only barely present”): United States v. Cavallaro, 2000 WL 230225 (D. Maine Feb. 9, 2000)(trial court granted a downward departure because the defendant’s Criminal History score overrepresented the seriousness of his actual criminal history); United States v. Augustine Vega, No. 992-10358(D.Mass. Nov. 30, 1993)(court departed downward from a range of 188 to 235 months to 78 months because the defendant’s criminal history substantially overstated his culpability). He inexplicably did not do so.

 

By doing so, Denise’s counsel chose not to inform the Court of the circumstances surrounding her college bar fight conviction, and instead to pursue a “strategy” that was doomed to fail. Had the Court granted Denise’s request for reply and allowed her to response to the Government’s Response, which she had a right to do, she would have brought these issues to the Court’s attention and successfully rebutted the Government’s claim that counsel’s decisions were tactical.

 

So always remember, when it looks like you might be down and out just stay down and keep your head up. Life is too short…don’t just give it away.

 

This is Maestro with a tip for today