Do You Really Own Your Homes? ("The Facts", Page 2, Fact #3)

DECEPTION AT EVERY LEVEL

The difference between a "Domicile" and a "Residence" (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.)

A "Domicile" is your home, a fixed place of habitation; while a "Residence" is a TRANSIENT PLACE OF DWELLING. (Fisher vs. Jordan, C.C.A.Tex., 116 F. 2d, 183, 186; Hartzler vs. Radeka 265 Michigan 451, 251 N.W. 554; Minick vs.Minick 111 Florida, 469 149 So. 483, 488.)

Why is this important for those who don't know the difference?  How many bank accounts, driver's licenses, hunting licenses, marriage licenses, student loans, car contracts, "vehicle" registrations and titles have you filled out the applications for, claiming that you are a TRANSIENT RESIDENT?  If you're buying your home, allegedly, and claiming to own the land it sits on, are you a TRANSIENT?  Hell no.  You are, by doing all of this, claiming to be a TRANSIENT HOMELESS PERSON.

When you purchase a RESIDENCE, you are, in reality, engaging in the practice of REAL ESTATE....you are not buying a home, you are renting the property from the bank and paying the city you live in to do so.  Why do you think you still pay taxes on your home, even AFTER you've paid off the mortgage?  It sure isn't because the city's sewer lines, the roads that run by your home, the power lines that run to your home, etc.  It's because YOU DO NOT OWN YOUR PROPERTY.

Think about this....it's the city that essentially grabs your property away from you if you don't pay the taxes on your home....then, sells it to someone else JUST FOR THE AMOUNT OF TAXES THAT YOU OWE....what a great scam this is!!!  You pay $200,000 for your home; but if you don't pay your taxes, they can take it away from you and sell it for $2,000???  C'mon people....USE YOUR HEADS.

"Residence" is a COMMERCIAL TERM.  It's a term of real estate.  You don't own a residence; you own a HOME, and it should be yours...as should the land it sits on.  Yet, if you don't have a LAND PATENT, issued by the federal government?  It doesn't belong to you.

Your use of a ZIP CODE means that you are a transient in WASHINGTON D.C.; because the use of a zip code puts you in a FEDERAL zone.  Do you see the deception?

Change your "Resident" status to:

DOMICILE
c/o Your Address
Anytown, U.S.A.
[your zip code], or Zip Code Exempt, DMM 602 1.3 (e)(2)
Non-Domestic
Without the U.S.

Then send an official letter to your local postmaster to give NOTICE of the changes.

9/11 Explained in 5 Minutes ("The Facts," Page 4, Fact #4)

Daniel Sunjata: 9/11 was an inside job (part 2) - ("The Facts," Page 4, Fact #4)

Daniel Sunjata: 9/11 was an inside job (part 1) - ("The Facts," Page 4, Fact #4)

The Ten Rules of Hate/Hate Inc. (The Propaganda Media; “The Facts;” Page 4, Fact #6)

Deep rot in American journalism w/Matt Taibbi (Part two) 

In order to properly understand what is happening in our country of late, it's extremely important to figure out what the media is DOING...and what they aren't doing.

What they are doing is what the Government, the elite and corporations (who run the news, own all the resources, control the Governments and finances of the world) tell them to do. What they aren't doing is telling us the truth, and if they are, they are NOT telling us the WHOLE truth, or are mixing the truth with propagandized lies.

This On Contact episode, hosted by a PULITZER PRIZE WINNER, David Hedges, tells it all. Sure, it's basically a book plug...but the truths you hear here are speaking loudly to us that there is danger in this game of propagandized media. It is certainly a MUST SEE.

Here is the list of the TEN RULES OF HATE, as employed by the Corporatocracy. Learn it. Live it. Breath it...and share it with everyone who engages in it and defends “The News.”

1. There are only 2 ideas. Republican and Democrat. No gray areas.
2. These two ideas are in permanent conflict.
3. Hate individuals, not institutions.
4. Everything is someone else's fault.
5. Nothing is everyone's fault.
6. Root, Don't Think.
7. No switching teams.
8. The other side is literally Hitler.
9. In the fight against Hitler, everything is permissible.
10. Feel Superior.

The First 5G Death Towers appear in Sioux Falls ("The Facts;" Page 2, Fact #6)

5G Main Tower; Best Buy Parking Lot

...And for every one that appears, another one of my suitcases gets packed.  It's not so much that they're being put up, folks...it's when they're TURNED ON that is gonna be a fun ride.  Note how very close to the ground...and your HEADS these are.  Now, take 1 of these times 1000.  That's what's comin' folks...how his is this not purposeful genocide again??

The Federal "Government" of Washington D.C. ("The Facts", Page 1, Fact #1)

I won't have to go far with this one.  This is really all you need.  There is more, but I'm having a little trouble locating it at present.  Rest assured that, when it becomes available, you'll have what you may...or may not need, I guarantee you.

The Fed Funny Farm, Takes 1 & 1 - M____ P___ T__ H____, City of Sioux Falls ("The Facts," Page 2, Fact #5)

M____ P___ T__ H____

NOTE:  One thing I'd like to state, immediately, is this:  my favorite thing about "The News" is, just about every time they opt to do a story on me, the first thing they almost ALWAYS do, just to bias their audience, is claim that I state I'm ABOVE "the Law", and that "the Law"....THEIR law, doesn't apply to me.  THIS STATEMENT IS A HALF TRUTH; BUT MAINLY A LIE, AND QUITE SIMPLY, IS LIBEL.  I do say that THEIR law does not apply to me...because it doesn't; not because I don't WANT to obey it....it's because it's not, and has NEVER BEEN the PEOPLE'S law.  I do, by the way, abide by Common Law, Constitutional Law, God's law and NATURAL law.  So until I am involved in some way in the Lawmaking process - I mean really, just because you say something is "against the law" at some point, behind my back, doesn't mean it is "The Law".  What's more, these "laws" come from someone I never voted for or granted authority to,  who never asked me for my opinion before they "passed" it as such.  Part B to that is, just because it's "The Law", according to you, doesn't mean it's good, lawful, reasonable or Constitutional law.  No, folks, I don't claim to be above what these people imagine is "The Law"...but it should be obvious, by the end of this article, that if anyone here believes themselves to be above "The Law"...it's these criminals in elected positions.

Howdy Kids!  I suppose you're all wondering where I've been last coupla months....well please, if you don't mind, I'd like ta tellya...and you know, there's no time like the present....is there?

I've been in the Minnehaha County Jail locked down with a HIGHLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNREASONABLE BOND OF $50,000, CASH ONLY, for a low-level unlawfully charged level 6 felony stalking charge.  Since the Constitution obviously does NOT apply to the lowly sheep of this country, I will tell you that I am being threatened to not speak freely about this, and that I cannot tell you who is behind this charge, as he is the ALLEGED victim in this matter...although the news has already pretty much told EVERYONE who this victim is countless times over the last 2 months; I, as the alleged perpetrator, evidently am not someone who is allowed to spread THE NARRATIVE, and because I want to tell you the TRUTH....I cannot legally provide you with the proof that I have in my possession that shows I am innocent of the charges.

So, since I am not allowed to tell you who this person is, although EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS, I will instead give you the links to two of the hundred or so lying stories that are already out there, so you know....if you don't already.  I'll let "The News" tell you who this asshole "victim" is instead of hearing this from me.  I have ALREADY been threatened with re-arrest, should I "disseminate" any more proof of my innocence this corrupt case.

https://kelo.com/news/articles/2019/jun/07/who-is-christopher-bruce-the-living-man-who-accused-of-threats-to-the-mayor-and-council/

https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2019/06/14/christopher-the-living-man-bruce-has-history-clashing-public-officials/1448694001/

Fortunately for me, this stupid, legally inhibiting, un-Constitutional "law"; something called "Marsy's Law" (that is only a law in just 6 states), that I have never heard of before this month; does NOT and CANNOT stop me from speaking freely about the rest of the criminal officials that are involved here.  Since the alleged "victim" is the ONLY victim in this matter, I can talk about the rest of these idiots all I want to...not that I can't freely talk about the alleged victim...but you know, corrupt is as corrupt does.

Here are some links to "Marsy's Law", to show why it is only a "law" in 6 states, and why there are real problems with it.  Let's start with what Marsy's Law IS:

"On January 24, 2018, a proposal to repeal Marsy's Law in South Dakota was introduced in the state legislature as House Joint Resolution 1004 (HJR 1004). After a compromise with proponents of this initiative, HJR 1004 was changed from a proposal repealing Marsy's Law to a proposal making certain changes to it. The proposal requires approval by a majority of members in both the state House and the state Senate and approval by the voters. HJR 1004 was sponsored by 41 representatives—58.6 of the 70 members—and 16 senators—45.7 percent of the 35 members. Sponsors included House Speaker Mark Mickelson and House Majority Leader Lee Qualm. The sponsors in both the House and the Senate included one Democrat each: House Minority Leader Spencer Hawley and Sen. Craig Kennedy.[1]

On February 21, 2018, the state House unanimously approved HJR 1004, sending it to the state Senate.[2]

This would be the first effort to ask voters to repeal or change one of the six Marsy's Laws that had been approved. As of January 2018, a Marsy's Law amendment had never lost at the ballot. Montana's 2016 Marsy's Law was overturned by the Montana Supreme Court on November 1, 2017. The ruling was based on the state's separate vote requirement for constitutional amendments on the ballot rather than the substantive content of the amendment. South Dakota does not have a single-subject rule or separate vote requirement for initiatives.

Before a compromise with Marsy's Law for All was proposed, South Dakota House Speaker Mark Mickelson said that the legislature would pass bills adding rights to the state's statutes regarding crime victims before putting a proposal to repeal Amendment S before voters. Mickelson said, "We’re going to strengthen South Dakota victims’ rights. Part of that is removing the unintended consequences of Marsy’s Law from the constitution.”[3]

Gail Gitcho, a representative of Marsy's Law for All, responded to the introduction of HJR 1004 and to Mickelson, saying, “If it goes back into statute, then those rights are spineless. They have no teeth. It looks like the speaker wants to take away rights from people that were already guaranteed to them by the constitution.”[3]

Implementation of Marsy's Law

The implementation of Marsy's Law resulted in some changes to procedures by various law enforcement or criminal justice system departments. One such change was that the South Dakota Department of Public Safety began holding accident reports for at least three days in order to allow the victims of crimes to claim their rights under Amendments S, where previously the department had processed and released reports more quickly. Tony Mangan, a spokesman for the department said in mid-November 2017, that victims had claimed rights under Marsy's Law in 10 instances out of a total of about 16,000 accident reports since the enactment of the law. The office of Attorney General Marty Jackley also printed out lists of the rights granted by Amendment S for police officers to give to victims in order to fulfill the requirement in Amendment S that police officers inform victims of the Marsy's Law rights. Many of the amendment's victim notification requirements are fulfilled through an automated notification system that sends updates on court dates, hearings, and releases through text, email, or phone calls.[4]

One instance that drew national media attention involved a police officer of the Bismark police department who, after being involved in a shooting on October 15, 2017, opted in to the rights granted by Amendment S. The police department, which usually releases information about police-involved shootings—such as the officer's identity—after the investigation into the incident is concluded. Citing the list of rights within Amendment S and the fact that the officer invoked these rights, however, the department withheld the officer's name in this instance. The man who was shot was charged with assaulting a peace officer and robbery.[5]"

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/south-dakota-could-be-the-first-state-to-tweak-marsys-law

https://www.ksfy.com/content/news/Marsys-Law-implementation-has-made-it-harder-for-victims-to-access-services-483278121.html

Let's now go over why this stupid law is a real problem for real victims of crooked officials, like I am:

#1, AND PROBABLY THE MOST GLARING PROBLEM IS, I HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (allegedly) TO FREE SPEECH.  What happened to that???

#2, I can't show you the libel-filled police reports that show this was a setup, and a conspiracy against the same right.

#3, what I was "disseminating" as that truth didn't even have the "victim's" name on it, let alone any other information about him.

#4, What I can't show you is hearsay, according to the courts...and cannot be used as evidence that I can show to the jury...but the same HEARSAY was used to have me arrested for this unlawful "crime."

#5, If what the "victim" said happened is hearsay, and more importantly, IF IT'S ALL LIES, and can be used to have me arrested, shouldn't it be allowed to be evidence in order to help prove I'm innocent????

#6, if I'm not allowed to show you anything about the victim, and not tell you who he is, or be arrested, then why can't the news be arrested, when they present you with pretty much all the same information?

#7, until the jury says so at trial, this unidentified and alleged VICTIM, is just that....an ALLEGED victim; no different than my label of alleged "perp", until I prove my innocence...so why is he already being protected?  Why don't I receive any consideration??  I'll let YOU figure that one out.  Besides, this man is NO victim...he's a liar, and a slanderer.  I just haven't had my shot at proving that yet...but you can best believe that when I do?  He's FINISHED.  The only reason he's a "victim" in ANY sense of the word, is because he made his call to report this FIRST...well, that, and he has buddies in and is in control of the SFPD...that might also be a factor.  Had I gone down with the same evidence he used and filed those same reports against him?  They would have looked at me like I was a mental case.  More so, do you believe for even a single minute that they would have arrested HIM based on MY hearsay?  Not a chance, and you know it.

#8, Aren't criminal cases supposed to be public record?  As to protecting the alleged "victim" and calling everything in the case "confidential" to do so; who exactly are we protecting him from besides me?  Isn't that what the No Contact Order is for?  So why are these things "confidential?"  Are we somehow afraid that someone else is going to see the alleged victim as an easy target, and attack him as well?  C'mon guys...this is a no-brainer.  The only thing we're doing is protecting crooked elected officials here.

WHAT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND:  Whatever this law or ANY law, for that matter, might have began as and for whatever good it may have been enacted for initially, the Government and Law Enforcement will ALWAYS find a way to twist it into something that protects THEM...AS THEY HAVE ALREADY; IN THIS CASE, and in countless others too.  These people are the real criminals here, and I am the true victim...but I can't show you that, thanks to Marsy, and thanks to those who twisted the law to suit themselves.

Now that that crap is done with; let's begin with the only person that will stand up and swear that what the alleged "victim" is saying (I always called this HEARSAY) is the truth, nothing but the truth, so help him somebody....'cause it sure ain't GOD.

SIOUX FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT SERGEANT SEAN KOOISTRA

This PERSON, the REAL stalker here, is the 2nd person listed in a federal lawsuit I filed against him, and the unmentionable "victim", and both conspired to have me arrested just 2 hours after I sent "The Victim" a copy of this lawsuit.

Prior to June 6th, 2019 (my arrest), I had only talked to this guy once, and had never met him in person.

Between the dates of 11/19/2018 and today, however, this guy knows what I look like, knew my name, my wife's name, knew my phone number, my wife's phone number, knew where we lived, knows where my wife works, has "investigated" me on Facebook continuously, has called me twice, left me voicemails, left my wife voicemails, knows my email address, read my emails sent to better than half of this city's government, has read all my emails going in and out while I was in jail, has listened to all of my personal phone calls to my wife, has reviewed all of my visits with my wife, and filed 3 more police reports on me AFTER my arrest while I was in jail; has attended each and every one of my court hearings; and has had several open cases on me since November of 2018.  All one could possibly ask after knowing what this man knows about ME, is "WHO'S THE REAL STALKER HERE???"

I can't show you the paper containing what he said about me, evidently (or risk getting arrested again), but I can tell you what he said in those things I can't show you.  It only states that I can't show you the report and the affidavit ITSELF....and that I can't mention the victim's name...although you already know who that is....but I can, technically, show you what's said IN the reports and the affidavits, sans the victim's name....I don't believe that's part of this stupid law.

But hey, I don't even really have to do that.  I only have to tell you two things, neither of which are said anywhere in this case or any of these affidavits and police reports:  They say I first met with the victim on November 2, 2018...but there are 3 police reports that were filed against me up to 3 days before this meeting ever occurred...except that this WASN'T the date that I met with him.  That meeting happened almost a full month before this.  We'll be calling the "Secretary" of the "victim" to the stand to testify 'bout that, trust me.

2nd, the good sergeant...and I use this term very loosely...was trying to arrest me for stalking before the crime even happened, according to the statute's OWN LANGUAGE, and according to a police report he filed on 11/20/19.  There are 2 occasions being referenced in this alleged crime...November 16th and 7 months later on June 5th (this is stalking now?)...so how is it that the report says that I was already stalking 7 months before "stalking" had even occurred?  Because it says that I was violating this statute then - in the report that I'm not allowed to show you or the jury...'magine that.

More on all of this soon.

AARON MCGOWAN, STATE'S ATTORNEY

You should know that I was arrested for stalking, and convicted for it once before....IN IOWA...and that those responsible for this legal travesty are ALL (32 Iowa elected officials) defending against me for these actions in the 8th Circuit federal court at the moment.  I'll give you 2 links where you can read about this...first, in the 64 page Federal Complaint I filed against them, that can be found right here:

https://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-fed-funny-farm-take-2annnnddd-action.html

Damn straight I've "clashed" with elected officials before...and they had to CHEAT to get me convicted of Stalking there, trust me.  Not only did they literally destroy my entire defense 2 days before trial, they had to run a libelous article in the local paper to influence the jury to find me guilty.  At no time did these "reporters" ever ask me a single question or check a single fact.  The judge out and out denied me a mistrial based on that.  Yeah...they cheated to get me put away for a year for this...and I even got the felony charge dropped, regardless....mainly, because I didn't do what they accused me of.  They tried to give me 9 years.  They got one...even though they cheated.  I only wish that was all there was to it, but you know where to go to get the FACTS, now, at least.

You can read what the paper said here:

https://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2016/04/christopher-bruce-domestic-terrorist.html

The reason I bring all of this up is two fold.

#1, the state's attorney in THIS matter is ALSO calling me a "sovereign citizen"....as a matter of fact, the term was used over 20 times during my initial bond hearing.  This is a new term, dreamed up by the FBI and the judicial system, created for the sole purpose of demonizing those people who recognize the fraud of Government and the judiciary; who have, if you'll excuse the term "Seen through the bullshit."  This term was first applied to me in Iowa, and was picked up on and used often by this State's attorney as well...though I have NEVER associated myself in this way, using this term.  It's a lot like "Conspiracy Theorists" (MORE people that have seen through the bullshit) being associated with the term "Tin-foil hat lunatics"...what better way to get the attention off of the people trying to lie to you about what's REALLY going on, eh?

#2 - when this "crime" was charged on me initially, I was charged with MISDEMEANOR stalking.  Since then, it's been upgraded to a felony, due to my IOWA Staking conviction....there's only one problem.  Let's see if you can figure it out, just by reading the last paragraph in the SDCL statute; Statute 22-19A-1:

"A violation of this section constitutes the crime of stalking. Stalking is a Class 1 misdemeanor. However, any second or subsequent conviction (not CHARGE) occurring within ten years of a prior conviction under this section is a Class 6 felony."

I'm sorry, but I have yet to be arrested, charged OR CONVICTED of Stalking in South Dakota, UNDER THIS SECTION of SDCL LAW...so how is this able to be made a felony again???

Remember too, this man chose to handle this matter PERSONALLY, in the first 3 bond hearings...and is up for re-election this year, too.  All great reasons to be seen handling his victim buddy's matter, huh?

Two more things, and we can just wrap this up, OK?

First, I have uploaded for you 4 videos on youtube that you are more than welcome to view, of the 4 sheriffs that BUSTED DOWN MY DOOR..for a misdemeanor.

Also worth knowing, FOR ANY OF YOU FROM SIOUX FALLS, SD, I am going to offer a $125 PER SHERIFF reward for anyone who will give me the names of these 4 criminals (since the sheriff's detective refused to identify these men for me)...and they ARE criminals, by the way...since not a one of these people identified themselves or showed me a warrant.  Oh, and I'll up that reward by $50 ea. if you can give me the address for these criminals, so I can serve them their summons at their homes; since I plan to file a federal lawsuit on them for $10,000 ea, plus the cost of my door in federal court. Here's why I believe I'll win.  This is posted on every door in my house:

 You can send that information to me at my email address  at:  cbstraighteight@gmail.com, and we can discuss how you can pick that up.

Here are the links to those videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e8gyQENcIs&t=18s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epshydyMXCE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMlS_SefQgM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiaOfAbF1sE&t=19s

Second, Here is the story I had PLANNED to "disseminate;" and, after only handing it out to one news station (KELO, who IMMEDIATELY called the State's attorney's office to let them know I was handing it out; who then called me and threatened me with re-arrest if I handed out any more copies of it.); I was immediately told I could not speak freely.  The names have been blacked out to protect the guilty; namely, the criminal "Victim":


"MAYOR TEN HAKEN AND THE CITY COUNCIL

On June 6th this year, a man was arrested for "Stalking" the Mayor of Sioux Falls, Paul Tenhaken...on what started out as a misdemeanor.  That man was Christopher William Bruce, The Living Man; and in case you haven't guessed, that man was me.

In October of 2018, I passed out over 1500 15-page information packets on 5G, the new cell phone network, and it told the citizens of this city how this was not only an unnecessary upgrade, but that it was very dangerous as well.  If you did not receive this packet, you can find it at:

http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-end-of-life-as-we-live-it-part-i-5g.html

The Mayor, who is all for 5G, didn't really appreciate this.  After eliminating his not being very smart, or that he didn't care about the health of his family, his children, himself or the city's residents, the only possible remaining reason for his insane position to install this here would either be that he was paid off, or that he has a large amount of Verizon stock (they got the contract to install this here.)

Thanks to some occasional tramplings on my right to speak freely on this subject (I did this at 9 city council meetings in a year's time; by passing out this information to a majority of you and with a couple of emails to his and the council's publicly posted email addresses), and just after I had spoken at a council meeting on June 4th (2 days prior to my arrest,)  I decided I would file  a federal lawsuit against Mr. Tenhaken, and also named in it a rogue Sioux Falls Police sergeant, Sean Kooistra, on June 6.  Two hours later, I sent a copy of the suit to the Mayor, select council members and some of my friends, for my protection.  2 hours later, 4 sheriffs broke down my door, guns drawn, and arrested me for stalking.  They drove up in an unmarked vehicle, refused to identify themselves, and wouldn't show me a warrant.  I have provided you with a video disk of this arrest, which I recorded.  I have also included a copy of a case sheet, filed by Mr. Kooistra, showing that they had been planning to arrest me for this way back in November of 2018, long before the statute was allegedly violated.  Later, these 2 men claimed I had threatened the mayor on 2 occasions...November 16th, 2018 and June 5th, 2019.  The arrest didn't happen on the 5th, though.  It happened 2 hours after I sent a copy of the lawsuit to the Mayor.

After sitting in jail on a $50,000 cash only bond, I was finally released on my own recognizance.  Trial for this will be in the week of October 15th, this year.  The charge was upgraded to a felony, by the way...also for no reason, and in total defiance of the language of this statute.  There is also a protection order for the mayor, his council, and his family (in Minnesota)...though the only person complaining is still the Mayor, all by himself.

If this sounds a little suspicious and conspiratorial to you, it's probably because it is.  The point here, folks, is this:  If I can be arrested for speaking out against the Mayor and the City Council, though I have every right to per our Constitution...so can you.  This Mayor and Sergeant Kooistra need to be impeached and ousted.

By the way, are you aware of the fact that South Dakota is said to be the 2nd most corrupt state in the United States?  Is this really what you want to be known for, as a citizen of this State?  Is this what you want for your children and grandchildren?  Together, we can fight this corruption, beginning with the Mayor, his council, the State's attorney and the SFPD.  Who's with me?

Thanks for listening, Christopher, the Living Man."

I will, more than likely, be arrested again ANYWAY, even though at this point I am breaking no law relating this to the world...which is fine by me.  When I get to trial and beat this case...with my hands TIED BEHIND MY BACK, GAGGED, AND DEPRIVED OF WITNESSES AND ALL EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MY INNOCENCE, ON MY KNEES...I will then put these people out of office, and have THEM arrested and put in my place.

Last, but certainly not least, is this...if I'm SOOOOOO dangerous, and everyone is SOOOOOOO afraid of me...then why did they let me free before trial????  Here's a question you should all be asking "all" of the alleged "victims"....don'tcha think?  :D

The Fed Funny Farm, Take 2, Part X - THE FRAUD EXPOSED!!!! ("The Facts", Page 2, Fact 5)

And now?  The moment you have all been waiting for...the decision of the 8th Circuit Court on my Federal appeal with the jerk criminals in power in Iowa.

"We find that the District Court made all the right decisions".  YUP.  That's it folks.  All that work I did, all that crap I went through, 5 years of absolute and utter corruption...all shook down into a single corrupt sentence.

Here is the paperwork from this major weighty injustice.  I have asked for a re-hearing, en banc...OF COURSE.

STAY TUNED....you KNOW I ain't done with these bastards, not by a long shot.  :D 

Reprint, THE CABLE (FP), Obama Re-Legalizes Propaganda again ("The Facts," Page 4, Fact #6)

For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?

Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It’s viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran, self-immolation in Tibet, human trafficking across Asia, and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.

The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."

Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric: American taxpayers shouldn’t be funding propaganda for American audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public’s last defense against domestic propaganda?

BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA "present fair and accurate news."

"They don’t shy away from stories that don’t shed the best light on the United States," she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: "Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate."

A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. "Somalis have three options for news," the source said, "word of mouth, al-Shabab, or VOA Somalia."

This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul, Minnesota’s significant Somali expat community. "Those people can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn’t get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia," the source said. "It was silly."

Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. "Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars — greater transparency is a win-win for all involved," she said. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.

But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, the Washington Post exposed a counter-propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing al-Shabab. "Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership," reported the Post.

But for BBG officials, the references to Pentagon propaganda efforts are nauseating, particularly because the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January.

One example included a report by the late BuzzFeed reporter Michael Hastings, who suggested that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act would open the door to Pentagon propaganda of U.S. audiences. In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the "R" bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)

But the news circulated regardless, much to the displeasure of Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), a sponsor of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. "To me, it’s a fascinating case study in how one blogger was pretty sloppy, not understanding the issue and then it got picked up by Politico‘s Playbook, and you had one level of sloppiness on top of another," Thornberry told The Cable last May. "And once something sensational gets out there, it just spreads like wildfire."

That of course doesn’t leave the BBG off the hook if its content smacks of agitprop. But now that its materials are allowed to be broadcast by local radio stations and TV networks, they won’t be a complete mystery to Americans. "Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff," the former U.S. official told The Cable. "Now we’ll have a better sense: Gee some of this stuff is really good. Or gee some of this stuff is really bad. At least we’ll know now."