Black Lives Matter Should Be Sued Out Of Existence

The Father of a Dallas Police Officer Is Suing

 Black Lives Matter

 66  27  2  58  165 

 

  6

Last July, the group Black Lives Matter (BLM) held a protest in Dallas, during which five police officers were gunned down and seven others wounded by a sniper who fled and was later killed by a police robot armed with an explosive device. It was the deadliest day for law enforcement since the 9/11 terror attacks.

While committing the shooting spree, the gunman, Micah Xavier Johnson, stated he wanted to “kill white people,” and especially police officers. During a standoff prior to being killed, Johnson said he would only negotiate with black officers. Johnson was reportedly motivated by police shootings of black men and was known to have anger management issues. A friend said he would watch the 1991 video of the Rodney King beating by police repeatedly.

Besides BLM, Johnson sympathized with or “Liked” the Facebook pages of the Black Riders Liberation Army, the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and the Nation of Islam, all of which are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Johnson also liked the page belonging to the African-American Defense League, an organization whose leader had called for the murder of U.S. police officers in the wake of the 2014 police killing of mentally challenged Chicagoan Laquan McDonald.

When street music seller Alton Sterling was killed by police in Baton Rouge, the organization “posted a message… encouraging violence against police,” reported the UK’s Guardian newspaper. According to a representative of NBPP, Johnson had asked the Houston chapter of the group why it had not purchased more guns and ammunition. Before his attack, Johnson had posted an angry diatribe against white people on his Facebook page.

Now, nine months after the incident, Enrique Zamarripa, the father of one of the police victims, 32-year-old Dallas Officer Patrick Zamarripa, is suing BLM and 12 other social justice groups in the Northern District of Texas for $550 million. The suit contends BLM incited “civil war between blacks and law enforcement, thereby calling for immediate violence and severe bodily injury or death” to police officers.

The lawsuit refers to BLM as a “violent and revolutionary gang” and says that “while defendant Black Lives Matter claims to combat anti-black racism, the movement has in fact incited and committed further violence, severe bodily injury and death against police officers of all races and ethnicities, Jews, and Caucasians.”

Enrique Zamarripa says, “I want justice for my son. He served three tours in Iraq, he protected his country, and he protected everybody. And he gave up his life doing that.”

The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Zamarripa by Freedom Watch, a nonprofit group that has sued Hillary Clinton for her role in the Benghazi consulate attacks of 2012 and former President Obama over issues such as immigration, gun control legislation and biological epidemic readiness.

BLM, which up until this point has consisted only of a loose national structure with 30+ regional chapters, was founded by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi in 2013. Despite having no official registration as a formal nonprofit organization, it’s received more than a hundred million dollars in donations from both the Ford Foundation and billionaire philanthropist George Soros, who’s also named in Zamarripa’s lawsuit.

BLM has been criticized for its anti-police stance by Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin and by police officers in the states of Oregon and North Carolina. In the latter case, a police chief in Surf City retired after referring to BLM as a “terrorist group.”

The chief of the St. Louis (Missouri) Police Department, Sam Dotson, coined the term “The Ferguson Effect” to account for the rise in violent crime throughout the U.S. in 2015 following riots in Ferguson, Missouri related to the killing of African-American Michael Brown. According to Dotson, in the wake of many police shootings and subsequent protests, police were less active when enforcing the law because of fears that they might be charged with illegal behavior. As a result, Dotson claims, the homicide rate in 56 American cities rose measurably that year.

In March of 2016, BLM disrupted a planned Donald Trump rally in Chicago, forcing its cancellation. Four BLM protesters were arrested; two were “charged with felony aggravated battery to a police officer and resisting arrest,” according to the Chicago Tribune. One was “charged with one misdemeanor count of resisting and obstructing a peace officer.” The fourth person was “charged with two misdemeanor counts of resisting and obstructing a peace officer.”

BLM has also been accused of prejudice against Israel and has been termed an “inherently racist” group by former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

For its part, BLM has denounced Micah Johnson, but has never denied that he had participated in its protests. Given that BLM has no formal structure (which may be by design to inhibit lawsuits such as this one), it may be difficult to pin blame on it as a national organization. Nonetheless, it’s lawsuits like this one that will determine how much goodwill the group enjoys from the public in the future.

Currently, approximately 42 percent of white Americans were unsure of their opinion of BLM, while 41 percent thought the group “advocated violence.” Less than 47 percent of white Americans see BLM as a movement versus a slogan, while 67 percent of black Americans feel exactly the opposite.

About 40 percent of white Americans support BLM, and less than 35 percent feel the group would “be effective, in the long run, in helping blacks achieve equality.”

~ Liberty Planet

Another View Of Hillary Punishment

NO LET UP: LEGALLY DESTROY CLINTON, OBAMA!

Exclusive: Larry Klayman urges Trump not to waver from holding opposition accountable

Published: 2 days ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/11/Larry-Klayman_avatar.jpg

 LARRY KLAYMAN About | Email | Archive

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png

 Subscribe to feed

224

Share on Facebook

 

Share on Twitter

 

Email

 224

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif

 Print

You know me as the People’s independent counsel, the only lawyer ever to have a court rule that a president of the United States committed a crime; this occurred during the administration of Bill and Hillary Clinton when they illegally released the confidential White House file of a woman Slick Willy had allegedly sexually harassed in the Oval Office: Kathleen Willey, my later client.

This ruling was issued by federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth, the courageous judge who made many important and strong rulings against Bill and Hillary Clinton while I was the head of Judicial Watch, the public-interest group I conceived of and ran for many years. As you know, in 2003, I left Judicial Watch to run for the U.S. Senate in Florida. After the campaign, realizing and re-energized that my real calling is to be an outside force for ethics and honesty in government and the legal system, I founded Freedom Watch. I took the name from the hit drama television show “West Wing,” where the leftist producers begrudgingly created a character after me whom they named Harry Klaypool of “Freedom Watch.” Indeed, I had over the years, through hard work, acquired so much influence and power as the People’s independent counsel, in fact much more than my alma mater the U.S. Justice Department, that even Aaron Sorkin, the left-wing Hollywood producer of “West Wing” was forced to give me my due.

In the years that followed, as the head of Freedom Watch, I continued to be much more than a thorn in the side of the Washington establishment of both political parities. Whether it was Democratic or Republican deceit and corruption, Freedom Watch and I, along with our staff, did not hesitate to take strong remedial action. This is why we won perhaps the biggest victory of any I had before when I succeeded in suing the National Security Agency for its illegal spying on all of us by unconstitutionally obtaining the telephonic metadata of hundreds of millions of American citizens, such as you and your family. Freedom Watch and I were also the leading force in having President Barack Hussein Obama’s executive actions granting amnesty for over 5 million illegal aliens ruled illegal. We represented America’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, in this case, where we took the lead, and 25 states then followed suit to have Obama’s executive amnesty thrown on the ash heap of history.

During this time, Freedom Watch and I also filed suit repeatedly against the Wicked Witch of the Left, Hillary Clinton, and her criminal husband, Bill Clinton, for their racketeering enterprise known as the Clinton Foundation, where they sold access and government influence to State Department services and policies for hundreds of millions of dollars in cash. And, we filed suit for two of the victim families at Benghazi on behalf of Ty Woods and Sean Smith, two brave heroes who died in Benghazi as a result of Hillary Clinton’s criminal misuse of her private secret email server, which compromised the location at the consulate of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his staff. In the words of Hillary Clinton, who herself is thought by many to be responsible for the deaths of many material witnesses against her and her husband over the years, “What difference, at this point, does it make!” This case, designed to finally bring Hillary Clinton to justice, is now in progress. The plaintiffs, Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, and Charles Woods, the father of Ty Woods, are fearless patriots who will not rest until justice is done.

Even though Donald Trump has won the election, now is not the time to let up. As the famous tennis star John McEnroe used to say, once you get the opponent down 5 sets to 0, you crush them and don’t let them “get off the mat.”

And, that is exactly what we need to do now that the Clintons, Obama and the left are down and out. If we do not legally destroy them now, once and for all, they will come back like the ghouls in the film “Rocky Horror Picture Show.”

After George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000, I approached the new attorney general, John Ashcroft, whom I knew, and offered to settle the numerous cases, such as Filegate and Chinagate, that were then pending against the Clintons and their criminal comrades. I thought that this would be a good opportunity to have the nation move on and to seek justice for my clients. However, Ashcroft and the Bush Justice Department did not respond to my offer with gratitude and instead proceeded to have the Department continue to defend the Clintons. W. and his attorney general, part of the Washington, D.C., political establishment, entered into a de facto peace treaty with the Clintons, realizing that if the next president after Bush were a Democrat and if their administration got embroiled in scandal, W. and company would expect a similar “courtesy” from the new crowd taking power. This is the way it works in our nation’s capital; you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.

And, this selfish, political and destructive approach to administering justice is what allowed the Clintons to return to power, at least at the State Department, with a vengeance. It’s why Hillary Clinton, who had committed so many crimes during the Clinton White House years, rose from the dead like the female version of Lazarus, to later nearly win the presidency.

President-elect Trump Thursday held out the hand of reconciliation not just to the equally criminally minded President Barack Hussein Obama, whose eight years in office almost destroyed our country and all it stands for, but also potentially Hillary Clinton. But now is not the time for reconciliation! Its time to legally finish off the Clintons and their accomplices like Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, George Soros and Black Lives Matter so they cannot rise again and threaten the welfare and safety of We the People.

I would like to work with the new Trump Justice Department to accomplish this, but if, like W. and his then attorney general, they are not willing to seek justice and eliminate the two-tier corrupt justice system that gives special treatment to the Washington elites of both parties, then Freedom Watch and I will go it alone.

Now is not the time to get weak-kneed. It’s time to finish off the Clintons, Obama and the leftist criminals that almost took this nation down! God save America!

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/no-let-up-legally-destroy-clinton-obama/#DZPSI34YJeQ5Z3zE.99

Challenging Obama On Gun Rules, Something That Citizens Must Do As Congress Will NOT.

NEW BULL'S-EYE ON OBAMA'S 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' GUN GRAB

Court told actions 'exceed powers of president'

Published: 6 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg

 BOB UNRUH

• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     242

Republish
Reprint

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/02/obama_shoots_gun.jpg

The lawyer who brought the first legal challenge to the brand-new gun limits announced by President Obama last month now is asking a judge for a quick ruling, insisting there’s really nothing to argue over.

The new motion for summary judgment was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Palm Beach Division, by civil rights activist attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch.

His recent lawsuit reasoned that there is “nothing in the U.S. Constitution which offers any authority or role of the executive branch with regard to legislating to change the rights under the Second Amendment.”

Now he’s arguing that the new gun rules, additional background check requirements, changed dealer licensing requirements and a move to abrogate privacy laws to require doctors to report on patient’s “mental health” issues did not follow the Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act.

Besides, he argues, the executive branch admitted it was making the changes “purely because [Obama] does not like the legislative decisions of Congress.”

However, the motion argues, decisions “abridging the fundamental rights of the plaintiff and other U.S. citizens under the Second Amendment” are plainly unconstitutional.

“These actions are unconstitutional abuses of the president’s and the executive branch’s role in our nation’s constitutional architecture and exceed the powers of the president as set for in the U.S. Constitution,” he said.

He cites federal court rules that say a court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

“Defendants openly and voluntarily admit to having changed the law regulating the purchase and sale, transfer, gift, or conveyance, of firearms, and the licensing requirements for those designated as ‘dealers,'” he explains.

That leaves Americans, “including plaintiff,” subject to “potential criminal prosecution … for conduct that was legal prior to Jan. 4, 2016.”

That was when the Obama administration announced numerous new interpretations of rules.

For example, the Obama administration warned that even individuals who sell a single firearm may, under the new interpretation, be considered a dealer and be required to obtain a federal firearms dealer’s license or be criminally prosecuted.

Klayman also notes Obama ordered federal agencies to strip citizens of Second Amendment rights sometimes even if they “have not been formally adjudicated as mentally incompetent by a court of law.”

And, he says, doctors are being encouraged to violate their patients’ privacy and “report their patients who exhibit any poorly defined mental health ‘issues.'”

“Even … those who disagree with the defendants are being labeled as mentally ill for disagreeing with politically correct opinions,” Klayman says.

That should be done, the White House said, by doing away with legal impediments to unrestricted reporting of claims of “mental health issues.”

One of Obama’s specific goals was to “remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing states from reporting relevant information to the background check system.”

“Defendants are clearly legislating, by their own admission, which violates the U.S. Constitution,” Klayman argues.

He says the case is “about the need for this court to order and to create judicial precedent for all presidents to obey the U.S. Constitution and the APA.”

WND reported when the case was filed that Klayman, a terrorist-suing lawyer who depends on his personal firearms for self-defense, was challenging orders Obama gave the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and other agencies.

The lawsuit names as defendants Obama, AFT Deputy Director Thomas Brandon and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Klayman’s case alleged: “Defendants Barack Obama and Thomas Brandon have announced and initiated actions under the purported inherent authority of the president of the United States to rewrite statutes enacted by Congress by executive order or executive action. The president states that he is doing so purely because he does not like the legislative decisions of Congress.”

He said that since the agency assigned by Congress to enforce the law “has already previously interpreted and applied the relevant legislation differently, it is clearly arbitrary and capricious for the defendants … to now suddenly adopt and implement a new and different interpretation for no other reason than the political preferences of temporary occupants of elected office.”

Klayman contends that even if the White House wanted to impose new rules, Obama’s pronouncements this month violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

“The president cannot simply announce sweeping new rules and implement them by giving a speech or issuing an executive memorandum.”

Klayman, a former federal prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice, also is the founder of the Washington watchdog group Judicial Watch.

In a recent WND commentary, Klayman explained: “Obama taught constitutional law as an instructor (not a professor). What we don’t know is which nation’s constitution Obama was actually teaching at the University of Chicago law school. It does not appear that it was the United States Constitution he has ever read. Perhaps it was the so-called constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, where guns are banned under its vicious anti-Christian and anti-Semitic dictatorship.”

WND reported after the new enforcement was announced by Obama that Lynch followed up by admitting that one of her top priorities is to make sure Obama’s policies live on long after she and her boss leave power.

Lynch is quoted in the latest issue of New York Magazine saying: “My goal is to position the [Department of Justice] where it will carry on in all of these issues long after myself and my team have moved on.”

She was speaking about Obama’s executive orders on gun control.

Lynch made the comment in response to a question about how she planned to prosecute gun sellers under the new executive actions.

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2016 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/new-bulls-eye-on-obamas-unconstitutional-gun-grab/#AXGO0opcg3SGoc1e.99