Join us Tuesday 4 September 1438 @ 9:30pm for MHHS Eyes Wide Open live broadcast:
Principals of Nationality in Action:
In conjunction with the final call series:
Let’s take a look at this thing called ‘Administrative Law’.
Much of what is currently being used against the People is not law but administrative procedures having /nothing to do with law, the American Constitution, or the peoples private lives.
This process is used simply to generate income for companies because they do not have a product or service, and is in fact english policies and procedures.
Join us as we investigate.
We must activate our voice with law and speak with our Writs!!!
Listen via the internet at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mhhs-eyeswideopen, or to listen via telephone, call 425-569-5201 / 347-945-5899, Press ‘1’ to speak to the Host.
Remember to check us out on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/MHHSEyesWideOpen, and please select like. Also we are also on Twitter:http://www.twitter.com/MHHSEyesWideOpn
Please also send us an email @ email@example.com so we can compile an email list for blitzing and also send us emails with the appellation, Corporate State and/or county along with ransom amount for any Moor who has been kidnapped and is currently being held hostage.
Thank you, this is greatly appreciated. We here at Moor Heritage and History School Eyes Wide Open thank you for coming together so that we may together be uplifted.
Moors Heritage & History School in association with RVBey Publications, Moorish Nation Public Records, Moorish News, Mantis Views 29
Articles discussed in this broadcast are below along with the link to the original source.
“When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statues do not act judicially, but merely ministerially” Thompson v Smith 154 SE 583
” A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentations, or rational.”ASIS v US 568 F2d, 284
Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercises such powers are necessarily nullities.
Burns v Sup Ct. SF, 140 Cal 1.
Cops ask Google to remove police tracking from app
By Associated Press
January 28, 2015 | 4:31pm
WASHINGTON — A law enforcement campaign to compel Google Inc. to disable a feature in its popular Waze traffic app that lets drivers warn others about nearby police activity shifted Wednesday when a sheriffs’ organization openly complained that the app not only puts officers’ lives at risk, it also interferes with the ability to write speeding tickets.
The National Sheriffs’ Association, which had focused its complaints about Waze on police safety after the fatal shootings of two New York City police officers in December, expanded its campaign in a new statement criticizing Google’s software as hampering the use of speed traps.
The trade association said radar guns and other speed enforcement techniques have reduced highways deaths.
“This app will hamper those activities by locating law enforcement officers and puts the public at risk,” the group said.
In the Waze app, which operates like a free GPS navigation tool, users can tag the locations of parked police vehicles, accidents, congestion, traffic cameras, potholes and more, so that other drivers using Waze are warned as they approach the same location.
In a twist, the newly expressed concern about speeding is also Google’s own defense of its software.
“Most users tend to drive more carefully when they believe law enforcement is nearby,” Waze spokeswoman Julie Mossler said.
Waze actually gained popularity in the last week since the Associated Press first disclosed law enforcement’s concerns, climbing four positions to No. 8 on Apple’s ranking of the top free mobile apps.
The Los Angeles Police Department chief and the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police have echoed the sheriffs’ concerns about police safety but have not said anything about it interfering with catching speeders.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who in 2011 raised issues with mobile apps that identified drunken driving checkpoints, is concerned about the Waze app police-reporting feature, according to his office.
Other major police trade groups had not yet formally joined the sheriffs’ campaign. Some police departments near San Francisco, where Google is headquartered, did not share the same concerns.
Heather Randol, a spokeswoman for the San Jose Police Department, said the department does not have much information about the software’s impact.
“However, part of our police model includes a highly visible police presence to reduce crime,” Randol said.
Waze users mark locations of police vehicles — which are generally stopped in public spaces — on maps without much distinction other than “visible” or “hidden.”
Users driving nearby see a police icon, but it’s not immediately clear whether police are there for a speed trap, a sobriety check or a lunch break.
Police objections to Waze add new complexity to the debate about technology and privacy. Some Waze supporters lashed out at outspoken sheriffs on social media, pointing to the irony of police concerns about being watched amid sensational disclosures about police and government surveillance of citizens.
Sheriff Mike Brown of Bedford County, Virginia, said states might pass laws to prevent people from revealing the locations of parked police cruisers. Privacy advocates, however, said First Amendment protections will stand in the way.
“Waze represents person-to-person information in the public square,” said Nuala O’Connor, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington civil liberties group, who said she uses the software. “And that’s long been a US right under the Constitution.”
There are no known connections between any violent attack on police and the Waze software. But Brown and others believe it is only a matter of time.
Holding Google liable for any future crime against law enforcement in which Waze was used to locate police would be a stretch, said Michael Krauss, a professor at George Mason University Law School in Virginia.
“Notifying people where police are, or where government officials happen to be located, has never been seen as negligent or as committing any kind of intentional tort,” Krauss said.
The fact that someone would misuse Waze in order to harm police is no more relevant than if someone misused a kitchen knife to stab someone, he said.
Federal Judge Declares ‘Policing for Profit’ Unconstitutional
By Steven Robert Allen , Director of Public Policy, ACLU of New Mexico
August 6, 2018 | 5:00 PM
Anybody who has watched at least one episode of Law & Order knows that in America, anyone accused of a crime is considered “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s the way it should be, at least. When a person is accused of a crime, the burden of proof belongs to the accuser.
But what most people don’t realize is that police routinely use a constitutionally dubious form of legal jiu-jitsu called “civil asset forfeiture” to flip this basic principle of fairness on its head. With civil asset forfeiture, police literally accuse your stuff of a crime, and you as the owner have to prove that your stuff is innocent.
Here’s an example: In 2010 Stephen Skinner and his son Jonathan, both African-American, were on a road trip to Las Vegas, Nevada, for a vacation when they were pulled over by New Mexico State Police for going 5 mph over the speed limit. The trooper searched their rental car and found several thousand dollars in cash and coins in their luggage that the two men had set aside for gaming at the casinos. The trooper called Skinner, then in his late 50s, “boy” and released him with a warning that “it’s not over.”
And sure enough, it wasn’t.
As they passed through Albuquerque, police and federal agents pulled them over on a pretext once again, went straight to their luggage, and confiscated their cash with no justification other than the racist assumption that two black men traveling with a big wad of cash must have come by it illegally. Neither Stephen or Jonathan were ever actually accused of a crime, much less convicted. Yet now the cops had their vacation money, and this money grab was perfectly legal.
Most people who have property seized in this manner give it up as lost. The cost of hiring an attorney to argue before a judge that your property is “innocent” or, in other words, was not criminally acquired or used in the commission of a crime, often exceeds the value of the property. This is big business for police departments across the United States, who rely on these seized assets to pad their budgets. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, estimates that in 2014 alone the Department of Justice took in $4.5 billion in forfeited assets. The assets taken in annually by local and state police departments are doubtless even higher.
Fortunately, Stephen and Jonathan reached out to the ACLU of New Mexico, and with our help, they fought in court to force the government to return their property. The lawsuit made headlines throughout New Mexico, causing a groundswell of outrage at the fundamental unfairness of the practice.
In 2015, the ACLU of New Mexico, in collaboration with the Institute for Justice, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the Rio Grande Foundation, helped pass a bill that abolished civil asset forfeiture, requiring police to obtain a criminal conviction in court before they can take a person’s property. The bill also requires that any forfeited assets must go into a state general fund to reduce the profit motive inherent in this law enforcement practice. The bill passed unanimously, and New Mexico now has the strongest protections against civil asset forfeiture in the nation.
But several New Mexico police departments were too addicted to the easy money. The Albuquerque Police Department, among others, refused to fully comply with the new state law claiming that it didn’t apply to their DWI vehicle seizure program. Albuquerque police continued to seize thousands of vehicles pre-conviction and demand thousands of dollars in “fees” to secure their return. If people couldn’t pay the ransom, the department kept the vehicle.
Arlene Harjo, whose son was pulled over for suspected drunken driving, was one of many whose vehicle was taken under the city ordinance. Even though she wasn’t in the car at the time, Albuquerque police seized Harjo’s vehicle and demanded $4,000 dollars for its return. But Harjo refused to comply with the scam. She filed a lawsuit against the department with the help of the Institute for Justice, and, last week, she won. A federal judge handed down a landmark ruling that Albuquerque’s vehicle seizure program violates residents’ constitutional rights by taking their property before they’ve been convicted of a crime.
This is a major moment in the fight against the unjust practice of civil asset forfeiture. Not only will New Mexico law enforcement agencies be forced to comply with our state prohibition against the practice, but this victory establishes an important legal precedent that victims of civil asset forfeiture can use to fight back nationwide.
And indeed, the problem is not just in New Mexico. In 2015, the ACLU sued an Arizona county attorney and county sheriff challenging that state’s civil asset forfeiture laws, which create perverse and unconstitutional incentives for law enforcement to build multimillion-dollar slush funds that they get to control.
More than anything, this ruling out of New Mexico is a powerful reminder that brave individuals can still take a stand against systems of injustice, crack their foundations, and bring them tumbling to the ground.
All it takes is a few people like Stephen Skinner and Arlene Harjo who say, “Enough. Not today. No more.”