Josh Wolf is an independent video journalist who is in federal prison for refusing to turn over unpublished materials to the FBI. On February 6th 2007 he became the longest-jailed journalist in U.S. history.
fuck u bitch!!Josh Wolf is my cousin!!and hes got more balls to do what hes doin than u will ever have!!!n' GG?i live in GARDEN GROVE, what do u know about the GG?shut your mouth!!!!
the fascist regime is taking over and they are starting with seemingly small fries but they must know that Josh Wolf is gonna ef some sheet up, go like hell Josh!!!!
Yes and they could have argued that since the school in question received Federal grants that the school had thereby ceded juridiction or as you said "sovereignty," to the grounds federal funds helped pay to build and maintain--but although schools and police departments execute state policy in education and law enforcement they don't represent the STATE or its people do they? Transfering your tax funds over to Washington affects commerce no more than taking a grant or tax credit does.
Lopez was an example of the state warping the Interstate Commerce clause in a way to project its authority, when such was impossible; eg: Stating that since violence hurts economic activity, they have a right to regulate it everywhere.
The thing is if the flawed 9th circuit logic wasn't corrected by the supreme court then any incident involving anyone who gets a school loan or grant as well as anyone who pays income or gas taxes is subject to federal jurisdiction--the whole idea is ABSURD. IF you like case citations check out my video on this very subject. It has a bunch of interesting cases mentioned.
What is ironic is that the FBI is supposed to be there to protect our rights and investigate "color of law" violations by cops of citizens' civil liberties. In this case they the FBI conspired with two SFPD detectives, and it turns out a prosecutor and federal judge to commit fraud in order to essentially KIDNAP someone and deny him his constitutional right to liberty. It is patriotic to not comply with an unlawful order by a despotic and corrupt government.
It was one of the biggest cases of all time in the supreme court. For the first time in 60 years they did their job and curbed the unconstitutional lying and stretching the feds have done in regards to what substantially effects interstate commerce. Unlike the 9th circuit, the supreme court must have READ the constitution where it limits federal jurisdiction strictly to enforcing treaties and regulating interstate commerce. The supreme court case was United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
It was one of the biggest cases of all time in the supreme court. For the first time in 60 years they did their job and curbed the unconstitutional lying and stretching the feds have done in regards to what substantially effects interstate commerce. Unlike the 9th circuit, the supreme court must have READ the constitution where it limits federal jurisdiction strictly to enforcing treaties and regulating interstate commerce. The supreme court case was United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
Unless you have a specific case to cite, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with your assessment. One of the drawbacks of accepting federal funding is a loss of sovereignty in the appropriate areas.
fuck u bitch!!Josh Wolf is my cousin!!and hes got more balls to do what hes doin than u will ever have!!!n' GG?i live in GARDEN GROVE, what do u know about the GG?shut your mouth!!!!
agnosticpunk 2 years ago
the fascist regime is taking over and they are starting with seemingly small fries but they must know that Josh Wolf is gonna ef some sheet up, go like hell Josh!!!!
stick0fdoom 4 years ago
have fun in jail schmuck! GG!
rat509 4 years ago
Yes and they could have argued that since the school in question received Federal grants that the school had thereby ceded juridiction or as you said "sovereignty," to the grounds federal funds helped pay to build and maintain--but although schools and police departments execute state policy in education and law enforcement they don't represent the STATE or its people do they? Transfering your tax funds over to Washington affects commerce no more than taking a grant or tax credit does.
blahinhawaii 4 years ago
Lopez was an example of the state warping the Interstate Commerce clause in a way to project its authority, when such was impossible; eg: Stating that since violence hurts economic activity, they have a right to regulate it everywhere.
ZetaXenimus 4 years ago
The thing is if the flawed 9th circuit logic wasn't corrected by the supreme court then any incident involving anyone who gets a school loan or grant as well as anyone who pays income or gas taxes is subject to federal jurisdiction--the whole idea is ABSURD. IF you like case citations check out my video on this very subject. It has a bunch of interesting cases mentioned.
blahinhawaii 4 years ago
What is ironic is that the FBI is supposed to be there to protect our rights and investigate "color of law" violations by cops of citizens' civil liberties. In this case they the FBI conspired with two SFPD detectives, and it turns out a prosecutor and federal judge to commit fraud in order to essentially KIDNAP someone and deny him his constitutional right to liberty. It is patriotic to not comply with an unlawful order by a despotic and corrupt government.
blahinhawaii 4 years ago
It was one of the biggest cases of all time in the supreme court. For the first time in 60 years they did their job and curbed the unconstitutional lying and stretching the feds have done in regards to what substantially effects interstate commerce. Unlike the 9th circuit, the supreme court must have READ the constitution where it limits federal jurisdiction strictly to enforcing treaties and regulating interstate commerce. The supreme court case was United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
blahinhawaii 4 years ago
It was one of the biggest cases of all time in the supreme court. For the first time in 60 years they did their job and curbed the unconstitutional lying and stretching the feds have done in regards to what substantially effects interstate commerce. Unlike the 9th circuit, the supreme court must have READ the constitution where it limits federal jurisdiction strictly to enforcing treaties and regulating interstate commerce. The supreme court case was United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
blahinhawaii 4 years ago
Unless you have a specific case to cite, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with your assessment. One of the drawbacks of accepting federal funding is a loss of sovereignty in the appropriate areas.
ZetaXenimus 4 years ago