Traitors perform the stalking, microwaving, torture and killing of Targeted Individuals. We have many traitors at work in the FISA courts, FBI, NSA, HS, Fusion centers and law enforcement willing to take your Constitutional rights away. You can become a Terrorist instantly with no rights.
“A nation cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, are heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor. He speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly, and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” –– Marcus Tullius Cicero
Judge Napolitano:
The FBI is abusing your Constitutional rights
Oct. 10, 2019 The surveillance the government is performing on U.S. citizens has now been officially revealed – and it's unconstitutional.
Judge Napolitano's Chambers:
​
Welcome to my chambers. Earlier this week, a federal court released an opinion that it wrote a year ago critical of the FBI for abusing the constitutional rights of Americans, specifically the right to privacy under the 4th Amendment.
Hello, we’ve been warning about this a long time. We’ve been warning about it because Congress, in 1978, created the secret FISA court, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. That court is authorized to issue search warrants lesser than what the Constitution requires.
The Constitution says that if the government wants to invade your privacy it has to show proof of probable cause of crime in the area the government wants to invade – your home, your bank account, your business records as an example.
The FISA law says that federal agents can examine your paperwork, read your emails and listen to your phone calls and invade your privacy on a standard lesser than probable cause but only if they do so for intelligence purposes.
The ruling that was revealed earlier this week told us in that the FBI has been using the FISA court, the lower easier standard to invade the privacy of people as to whom it is conducting criminal investigations. That is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
This is a window of what really happens in the government. It writes laws to help itself violate the Constitution and invade your privacy. Its about time we knew about it.
Election to the Watchlist
Someone in authority, such as law enforcement, the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security or the DOJ "elects" you to the extermination matrix or Watchlist.
Election to the Watchlist sends you to the FISA court where the government holds a secret hearing and declares you an enemy of the state and issues a warrant to invade your privacy and declares you a terrorist. This does not allow a person to even know they have been elected, why they are being labeled a terrorist or a chance to challenge the warrant or stop the process. You have a right to defend yourself.
​
This is an illegal trial which declares you guilty without ever having been indicted, charged or found guilty of a crime. This is a violation of your rights under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.
​
The process is being used for political purposes, to exact revenge on personal enemies, and harass whistleblowers, economic or political rivals, artists, musicians, attorneys and anyone else who challenges the New World agenda without even knowing it.
US Court Rules Terror Watchlist Unconstitutional Sep 4, 2019
​
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States created a terrorism screening database (TSDB) that collected the names of suspected and known terrorists, so they could be kept from entering the country.
What is the FISA Court?
E. Barrett Prettyman US Courthouse, Washington, DC
The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Such requests are made most often by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Congress created FISA and its court as a result of the recommendations by the U.S. Senate's Church Committee.[1]
FISA warrants
Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is made before an individual judge of the court. The court may allow third parties to submit briefs as amici curiae.
When the U.S. Attorney General determines that an emergency exists, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISC, if the Attorney General or their designee notifies a judge of the court at the time of authorization and applies for a warrant as soon as practicable but not more than seven days after authorization of such surveillance, as required by 50 U.S.C. § 1805.
​
It is rare for FISA warrant requests to be turned down.
A Declassified Court Ruling Shows How the FBI Abused NSA Mass Surveillance Data
October 10 2019, 7:00 a.m.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found that the FBI may have violated the rights of potentially millions of Americans — including its own agents and informants — by improperly searching through information obtained by the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance program.
U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg, who serves in the
District of Columbia and the FISA court, made his sweeping and
condemnatory assessment in October 2018 in a 138-page ruling,
which was declassified by the U.S. government this week.
​
“These opinions reveal devastating problems with the FBI’s
backdoor searches, which often resembled fishing expeditions
through Americans’ personal emails and online messages.”
​
To longtime critics of the government’s mass surveillance program, the FBI’s abuses are confirmation that federal law enforcement agents are combing through the communications of Americans without warrants, in violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
“These opinions reveal devastating problems with the FBI’s backdoor searches, which often resembled fishing expeditions through Americans’ personal emails and online messages,” said Patrick Toomey, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “But the court did not go nearly far enough to fix those abuses. The Constitution requires FBI agents to get a warrant before they go combing through our sensitive communications.”
The ruling concerns the FBI’s ability to access communications obtained through the NSA’s mass surveillance program, the existence of which was revealed in documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Critics of Snowden’s decision to leak classified NSA documents noted at the time that safeguards existed to prevent Americans’ communications from being searched improperly. The declassified FISA court ruling, however, shows that few safeguards existed at all.
The NSA’s mass surveillance program operates as a series of technologies and authorities that allow the government to intercept communications while in transit over the internet, as well as obtain communications directly from at least eight large technology companies without the need for warrants. These authorities, created in 2008 and renewed in 2018 with some minor reforms, are the result of the expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The law created the secret FISA court to oversees its application.
Former FBI official on terrorism watch lists
It’s About Time a Federal Judge Declared the ‘Terrorist Watchlist’ Unconstitutional
​
A landmark ruling this week may finally limit the government’s arbitrary and capricious tracking system.
-
Andrew Cohen, September 6, 2019
There actually are several lists. There is the broader Terrorist Screening Database, which casts a wide net across federal law enforcement agencies. As of June 2017 the list reportedly had at least 1.2 million names on it, including some 4,600 American citizens and legal
residents.
There’s also the narrower No Fly List,
which was deemed constitutionally
flawed five years ago in a ruling by a
federal judge in Oregon
(Anna J. Brown).
Judge Anthony J. Trenga ruled that the government's terrorism screening database (TSDB) is unconstitutional because:
​
-
People on the list are not given an adequate opportunity to contest their inclusion and
-
There is no independent review of a person's placement on the TSDB by a neutral decisionmaker and
-
Individuals are not told whether or not they were or remain on the TSDB watchlist and
-
Individuals are also not told the factual basis or criteria for their inclusion. If he is on the list, he doesn't have any way to find out why he is on the list or to provide the government with information to clear his name and
-
Violates the Administrative Procedures Act.
The Constitution guarantees due process before someone can be deprived of his rights—including the right to travel. The current system "does not provide to a United States citizen a constitutionally adequate remedy under the Due Process Clause.
​
Anthony John Trenga is currently a District Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, located in Alexandria, Virginia, known as the “Rocket Docket” for its expeditious disposition of cases. He is a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Virginia Law School.
​
​
Redress your Watchlisting
The Terrorist Screening Center and Redress
The Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP) provides the public with a single point of contact for individuals who have inquiries or seek resolution regarding difficulties they experience during travel screening at transportation hubs, such as being incorrectly delayed, denied boarding, identified for additional screening, or any other difficulties while traveling or seeking entry into the country. Since there are many reasons why a traveler may seek redress, DHS TRIP works with the TSC, as appropriate, when an inquiry appears to be related to the watchlist.
The TSC does not accept redress inquiries directly from the public. Instead, members of the public should contact the relevant screening agency with their questions or concerns about screening. The screening agency is in the best position to identify and resolve issues related to that agency’s screening process. Information on how to contact screening agencies is listed below:
-
For more information, or to file a redress request related to travel, please see the DHS TRIP website.
-
The State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs website provides information on how to seek redress for the denial of a visa. Individuals who are overseas should contact the U.S. embassy or consular office abroad regarding visa issues.
Since the Terrorist Screening Database is derived from classified intelligence and/or sensitive law enforcement information, the Terrorist Screening Center cannot confirm or deny whether any individual may be included in the watchlist. Disclosure of such information would significantly impair the government's ability to investigate and mitigate terrorism, and expose sensitive national security information.
Requesting FBI Records
FBI records can be requested through both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. Please read this page carefully to ensure you are making the correct request.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request
The Freedom of Information Act allows any person—except fugitives, federal agencies, and foreign intelligence agencies—to request information about organizations, businesses, investigations, historical events, incidents, groups, or deceased persons.
​
To submit a Freedom of Information Act request, use one of the following options:
​
Option 1: Submit your request using the eFOIPA portal.
Note: If you have any questions about this process before submitting your eFOIPA request, please view the eFOIPA frequently asked questions page or e-mail foipaquestions@fbi.gov.
​
Option 2: Submit your request using the Sample FOIA Request Letter. The form includes instructions.
​
Note: Please use the U.S. Department of Justice Certification of Identity Form DOJ-361. If you have any questions about this process before submitting your FOIA request, please e-mail foipaquestions@fbi.gov.
Mail or fax your submission to:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Attn: FOI/PA Request
Record/Information Dissemination Section
170 Marcel Drive
Winchester, VA 22602-4843
Fax: (540) 868-4391/4997
The fact is that once placed on a Watchlist, there is no legal redress with the agencies who are watchlisting you. They won't even address the issue. They won't tell you if you are on it or not. The watchlisting practices are illegal, but serve the NWO agenda of eliminating their "unwanted" from society.
The punishments on TI's go far beyond restrictions on travel. They are blacklisted in all life activities. They are implanted and electronically harassed. They are kidnapped for mental health watch. They are victims of a total life takeover which destroys not only their privacy but their entire lives and there is no redress for anything. This is prime injustice.
We have a double injustice system. Double indemnity is prohibited by the Constitution. You cannot be tried twice.
Former La Mesa pastor sues DHS after being placed on secret watchlist
US Terrorist Watch List Grows to One Million Entries
Jeremy Scahill: Leaked U.S. Terrorist Watchlist Rulebook Reveals "Global Stop and Frisk Program"
A Former FBI Agent Explains the Terrorist Watch List
Terrorism Watch Lists Under Fire
Watchlist Reality
Watchlist is shared with other countries but not the Targeted person, what could be wrong about that?
Parallel secret legal system with two sources of punishment. That is unconstitutional.
Different standards of proof. If a crime has been committed, then criminal law standards apply.
State secret's Act justification. No proof required and none given, no transparency, no justice.
What is Reasonable Suspicion?
​
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that applies in different criminal-law contexts, most often where searches and seizures are involved. It requires that officers have an objectively reasonable basis for suspecting criminal activity before detaining someone. In addition, before conducting a pat-down, officers must reasonably suspect that a subject is armed and dangerous. Officers can, however, ask people to stop and answer questions without reasonable suspicion. (See What’s the difference between an arrest and a detention or “stop and frisk”?)
​
Reasonable suspicion is a standard lower than probable cause, and it doesn’t require anywhere near 50% certainty that the detainee has done something illegal.
NO EVIDENCE IS NEEDED- JUST INVOKE STATE SECRET power and you have a secret everything, suspending the Constitution and a person's individual rights. So a person has no opportunity to know how or why they have become a "Terrorist" which can be wrongly assigned to innocent people with no recourse, no rights, no privacy, nothing. This is absolutely foul of the Constitution.
​
The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security.[1][2][3][4][5][6] United States v. Reynolds,[7] which involved military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.
​
Following a claim of "state secrets privilege", the court rarely conducts an in camera examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[1] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[3][5] - Wikipedia
​
Watchlisting People for the Disposition Matrix
The Disposition Matrix, informally known as a kill list, is a database of information for tracking, capturing, "rendering", or killing suspected enemies of the United States.[1] Developed by the Obama administration beginning in 2010, it goes beyond existing kill lists and is intended to become a permanent fixture of U.S. policy.[1] The process determining criteria for killing is not public and was heavily shaped by National Counterterrorism Director and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John O. Brennan.[2]
​
Though White House, National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and CIA spokespeople have declined to comment on the database, officials have stated privately that kill lists will expand "for at least another decade", if not indefinitely. One official stated "it's a necessary part of what we do".[1] Paul R. Pillar, the former deputy director of the CIA's counterterrorism center, has stated, "We are looking at something that is potentially indefinite".[1]
​
The database's existence was revealed in a three-part series published by The Washington Post newspaper.
Obama not only claimed the power to order US citizens killed with no transparency, but that even the documents explaining the legal rationale for this power are to be concealed. He's maintaining secret law on the most extremist power he can assert.
Alternate Use of the Watchlist
Identifying the true terrorist is not the problem.
The concept umbrella has given agencies the framework to abuse an entire section of the population in a way which isn't even in the Watchlisting concept.
The No-Fly List is a piece of cake when compared with what happens to Targeted Individuals. The TI program is more like what happened to the Jews in 1945 - a total removal from society - no jobs, no ownership of property, no eating out, no pets, total alienation and electronic harassment and stalking until death. This is Targeted Killing.
The core freedom most under attack by the War on Terror is the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. It provides that "no person shall be . . . deprived of life . . . without due process of law". Like putting people in cages for life on island prisons with no trial, claiming that the president has the right to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield without any charges or trial is the supreme evisceration of this right.
Assassination
The president's partisan lawyers purport to vest him with the most extreme power a political leader can seize
Obama has a Disposition Matrix HIT LIST!
When the New York Times back in April, 2010 first confirmed the existence of Obama's hit list, it made clear just what an extremist power this is, noting: "It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing."
Stephen Colbert perfectly mocked this theory. Holder actually said: "due process and judicial process are not one and the same." Colbert interpreted that claim as follows:
​
"Trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper scissors, who cares? Due process just means that there is a process that you do. The current process is apparently, first the president meets with his advisers and decides who he can kill. Then he kills them."
Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
by Glenn Greenwald, February 5, 2013
The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen. Since then, senior Obama officials including Attorney General Eric Holder and John Brennan, Obama's top terrorism adviser and his current nominee to lead the CIA, have explicitly argued that the president is and should be vested with this power. Meanwhile, a Washington Post article from October reported that the administration is formally institutionalizing this president's power to decide who dies under the Orwellian title "Disposition Matrix".
https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/23/world/meast/anwar-al-awlaki-fast-facts/index.html