by Matt Agorist, The Free Thought Project: Entirely healthy children have been banned from school and treated like modern day lepers because they are unvaccinated. Despite being entirely healthy, a federal judge handed down a decision this week that denied healthy children entry into school based on the sole factor of being unvaccinated. The judge […]
The post Federal Judge Bans Healthy Children from School for Being Unvaccinated appeared first on SGT Report.
 |
(Natural News) In New York, a federal judge has ruled against the parents of non-vaccinated kids, denying their children their right to attend school. U.S. District Court Judge Vincent Briccetti denied a temporary injunction request that would have permitted 44 unvaccinated kids to return to school. This will keep the students out of the Green… |
In this video, we give you the latest breaking news on Acosta and how one of the worst deals in history was made in Miami, hopefully now it will be rectified
Visit our MAIN SITE for more breaking news https://wearechange.org/
https://teespring.com/stores/wearechange
SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/wearech…
FACEBOOK: https://facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange
FACEBOOK: https://facebook.com/WeAreChangee
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange
INSTAGRAM: http://instagram.com/lukewearechange
STEEMIT: https://steemit.com/@lukewearechange
MINDS: https://www.minds.com/wearechange
OH YEAH since we are not corporate or government owned help us out https://wearechange.org/donate
We take Crypto Coins
Bitcoin – 143d3ec4GFe75zNEiUA2sbU9b6YP9L6c48
Dash – XiZebHViTKxjngJ8U8Gekbz34XDcMjKe29
ETH – 0x9124589c4eAD555F04a7214214c86EA80E129abB
Bittube – bxdigY3LEr3hL2cScYqTJaiafeDxhpt9bK9FcxXbkuFeDyc9sZfF97iAmqSPR6NyfQ8wp34d7PeAU95gsZYQBpib1YEKz5aY4
Transcript
This week really has been absolutely incredible with the amount of people that have been going down that are in the public eye I mean we have Jesse Smollett we have R Kelly we have Robert Kraft a billionaire we have Jeffrey Epstein another billionaire leading many people to question what is happening here because powerful people don’t usually go down and don’t go down as fast as they are because usually the rich and Powerful protect.
And serve the rich and powerful and are under a separate justice system and that’s been the case for a lot of these individuals for a very long time up until now I mean look at this new story that just broke today just today we’re finding out that Cardinals admitted that the Vatican summer.
But the Catholic Church destroyed of files about all the abuse that they were committing in Germany’s the police conveniently lost all the evidence against two predators that severely attacked over 30 children at least a.
X all that completely lost which is absolutely terrifying which we’re going to kind of allude to and talked about in this larger case of Jeffrey Epstein Jeffrey Epstein very powerful protected individual not only friends with Kevin Spacey Bill Clinton Harvey Weinstein David Horowitz but Trump himself and also of course from labor secretary.
Of course is Peyton facing a lot of scrutiny and a lot of pressure today and a lot of people make the clam and I think it’s pretty relevant and it’s pretty clear that a lot of the people like R.Kelly like Jeffrey Epstein especially Jeff.
They’re able to get away with a lot of the horrible Deeds that they commit because they again are protecting other rich and famous people that they partied with they are quote too big to fail in the political justice system up until finally we are seeing some kind of recourse in this recourse happen this Thursday with Jeffrey Epstein as we’re finding out that a federal judge ruled that the federal prosecutors broke the law in his case that’s specific Federal prosecutor of course being now labor secretary Acosta who is facing a lot of scrutiny and people calling for his resignation because of the plea deal that he gave to this known criminal Jeffrey Epstein that is protected by both the Democrats and the Republicans another important side note about this case is that this case and this specific plea deal that a federal judge just ruled to be unlawful pretty much what.
Not only signed by a constant but also signed by the justice department and Robert Mueller as well so this was agreed upon that of course Donald Trump is facing a lot of scrutiny and we have seen Donald Trump even politicize and weaponized Jeffrey Epstein during his political campaign to be president in this clip in CPAC when he was talking to Sean Hannity can you play that clip Jason bring it right up.
All right guys here you go this isn’t CPAC in it for Trump to come out and say he doesn’t know much about the situation let’s find out how much you might know.
Bill Clinton nice guy got a lot of problems coming up in my opinion with the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein.
So that was a bullet and it’s just really quick lube but I mean he seemed to know not only about Epstein but Clinton and the aisle.
This is a big inside information that again Donald Trump has claimed not to know much about this case right now and then people are calling a lies about that and he’s only digging himself a bigger hole with you no comments like that he also made a comment in 2002 when talking specifically about Jeffrey gifts and he said quote he’s a lot of fun to be with.
It’s even if it’s even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do and many of them are on the younger side this is a public statement about a known pedophile he’s pictured with them throughout the years and we have to understand there are some connections you’re as even Steve Bannon recently met with Jeffrey Epstein According to some new sources coming from of course the information that Rodger Stone provided now we’re getting of course a lot of media attention around this specifically Sumter done attacking Donald Trump honest or even seeing a tweet here saying that there’s testimony.
From Jeffrey Epstein saying during the deposition that yes he’s socialize with Donald Trump but of course quote I when he was pressured and asked if he socialized with Trump with the presence of females under the age of 18 He quote plead the fifth now this is a very damning comment very damning disposition but people have to understand Jeffrey Epstein pretty much plead the fifth on that question a number of individuals not just Donald Trump and the fact that the lawyer in the Jeffrey Epstein case who was going after Jeffrey Epstein publicly stated not so long ago that it was actually Donald Trump’s that responded to him that was in Jeffrey Epstein’s black book and cooperated the most out of everyone else listed in that black book and helping him with his case that’s another important elements that you need to understand here that contradicts the bigger mainstream media narrative that is being pushed on people and we have to understand here Donald Trump did hire at a point Alexander. Acosta Acosta this person who gave him a plea deal we do have to understand Fox news about really talkin about this larger case as much as all the other media outlets and at the same time they are having Alan dershowitz on the man who pretty much created this plead you and with this case finally coming into white it’s important to understand here Donald Trump facing a lot of scrutiny but so should Bill Clinton that took a number of flights after ditching his secret service on the Lolita Express and then we’re going to cover this case honestly we need to cover the fact that this is a well-protected Republican and Democratic person.
Who doesn’t care about politics but only cares about power which is our current political system because even with this news coming out and this pressure being put on tree.
Pressure should be put on all the party’s here who are involved here by the way not just one-sided hear the case here is also very detailed where the judge actually stopped just short of getting rid and overturning the sweet plea deal he didn’t do.
And he’s actually giving prosecutors now 15 days to confirm with the victims that were notified of this settlement that happened because what we’re looking at here is a deal of a lifetime when Jeffrey Epstein was facing a life in prison sentence he was given ultimately a half a day in jail per day for just one year when he should have been in jail for the rest of his life with the charges that he was being prosecuted against this was again.
A very very very important case that shows just how the powerful protect each other and now the only possibility of Justice happening on a larger scale here is of course if other us attorneys in other districts if they will take on this case and bring up criminal charges against mr. Epstein this has opened up the possibility for this will it happen.
Sure hope so but it will happen when more pressure and more knowledge and more information is brought towards this person this person needs to face Justice we’re seeing some cracks finally be made here will it be enough well I don’t know but seen the mainstream media only jump on this to attack Trump is disingenuous the people involved here need to be.
Dealt with the people involved in this larger case do need to face the repercussions of the horrible crimes that have allowed this man to go free.
Absolutely insane story Racine the cracks will it be enough.
We don’t know we’re going to be following closely that entire situation and of course this YouTube channel people have to understand that this has been evolving this case has been evolving okay so the case he lost just this year just a few months ago Epstein had to admit that he had smeared the lawyer that he had lied and that the lawyer representing dozens of these women was telling the truth.
So now you can go back and see what the.
I was being accused of by these women and Epstein has now said yes that’s true in not so many word he did so on the morning that jury selection was set to begin on this trial after it being pushed back.
Almost a decade almost a deck.
This guy wins money and undisclosed amount as this is all trending because we never thought it would Trend again.
The victims were.
Doesn’t.
2 over a hundred to now hundreds of them a lot of this information has been hidden from the media and the major complaint by this federal judge right now is that the details of this plea deal this deal of a lifetime was hidden away from the victim sorry go ahead Jason to know absolutely Luke and when we talked about the little black book and their names by the way there was a searchable database of just that black book but when the lawyer and props to Derrick Rose of the conscience resistance cuz he actually interview the lawyer asked questions the mainstream did not.
When the lawyer talked to Derek he said there were several of these books.
It wasn’t just the island that there were different location.
I remember this information was actually smuggled out by one of the servants that Epstein had one of his Butler.
That Butler is no longer alive and he actually served more prison time than Epstein himself for leaking that black book that’s how effed up our system is.
211.
Is sad that the mainstream media is now making this solely about Trump is Trump playing stupid you bet he is.
Can you hurdle in you about the island he knew about Clinton he was using it as a political weapon with the Sean Hannity stand right next to.
Alexander Acosta.
Did a huge huge disservice.
Everybody.
Except for the elite when he made that deal in floor.
Beyond that we don’t know what the terms were we don’t know who visited him in the night we don’t know what phone calls he got Oz we can go buy folks is the excellent book by James Patterson called Filthy Rich where you can see a cost to go in really hard Luke in the begin.
Trying to get apps..
By the time it was all said and done.
He made a secret deal behind the backs of all those victims and essentially cut the throat.
Yep and essentially What’s Happening Here is Jeffrey up Sun I think it’s very apparent for a lot of people most likely is protecting identity of other rich and famous people who he partied with and that’s why he is too big to.
Parsec.
Finally seemed some cracks or seen from an issue manipulation around it but this is bringing out the bigger truth and that’s why it’s important to share these messages and share the bigger details surrounding this case so we could get to the truth and to the bottom of it and not just a bigger smear not just a bit bigger political weapon and hopefully there is some Brave prosecutor in Florida or cross the country that does take up the case we can only hope.
Hopefully there could be some form of Justice in this wide case that again.
Kept underground for so long and it’s only coming out just now.
Crazy absolutely crazy Jake’s close it out and I’m going to hit a super chat or two and then get into another huge story that we kind of alluded to in the begin.
You look at this guy.
And the amount of wealthy people the fact that the lawyer said the lawyer for the lawyer that one said that people like Harvey Weinstein.
Slither in the same circles as Epstein.
And you talking about other powerful people involved while there is a lot of speculation out there this was a true Honey Trap type operation and a true Honey Trap is not only going to warn somebody and getting them but getting them through sexual activities.
The post Just How Connected Is Trump To This Really Bad Guy??? appeared first on We Are Change.
(Chris Megerian, Los Angeles Times) A furious federal judge issued a tighter gag order on Roger Stone, the former political adviser to President Donald Trump, after he posted an image on social media showing what appeared to be the crosshairs of a gunsight next to her head.
“I want to be clear today. I gave you a second chance. But this is not baseball. There will not be a third chance,” U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson told Stone, saying that further transgressions could bring jail time.
Stone, who is facing seven criminal charges in the investigation into Russia’s 2016 election meddling, posted the offending photo of Jackson on Monday along with a comment calling the court proceedings against him a “show trial” and suggesting that the judge was biased against him.
Roger Stone now directly attacking the federal judge presiding over his case and posting a pic of her head beside c… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
Jon Swaine (@jonswaine) February 18, 2019
He later deleted the post, then uploaded it again after removing the crosshairs symbol, and then deleted that too.
Stone denied that he intended to threaten a judge, which is a felony, and apologized in a court filing.
He asked forgiveness on Thursday when, in a dramatic and risky gambit, he took the witness stand to admit that he had abused the judge’s trust.
“I am kicking myself over my own stupidity,” he said. “but not more than my wife is kicking me.”
“Perhaps I talk too much,” Stone said, a surprising admission for a man who has become infamous for incendiary, nonstop commentary.
Stone’s decision to answer questions under oath, however, revealed that the skills of spin and obfuscation _ developed over decades as a campaign consultant _ have not translated well to the legal quagmire he now faces. At times he looked deflated in his double-breasted suit, and the corners of his lips were anchored in a deep frown.
Jackson’s anger flared when she addressed Stone.
“How hard was it to come up with a photograph that didn’t have crosshairs in the corner?” she demanded.
Stone said he didn’t notice the symbol when he posted the photo, which he said was found by a volunteer. But he couldn’t identify the volunteer, or even the names of all the helpers who cycle through the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., home that he said functions as his “headquarters.”
Prosecutors also noted that even though Stone has apologized for his Instagram post, he has repeated similar criticisms to several media outlets, including Infowars, a far-right, conspiracy-themed website.
Jonathan Kravis, a prosecutor with the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, said Stone has “shown a desire to manipulate media coverage” that could taint the jury pool for his trial, which has not yet been scheduled.
Stone asked for leniency because he makes a living as a commentator and writer on politics. But he also admitted that he’s not being paid to talk specifically about the Russia investigation, meaning a gag order wouldn’t necessarily slash his income.
Jackson said Stone’s work in politics and media only made him more responsible for the content of his Instagram post.
“Roger Stone fully understands the power of words and the power of symbols,” she said. “There’s nothing ambiguous about crosshairs.”
Although she did not say whether she interpreted the post as a personal threat, she said such commentary runs the “very real risk” of inciting violence.
Jackson had originally issued a partial gag order last Friday, barring lawyers and prosecutors from speaking publicly about the case, but barring Stone only from commenting on the courthouse premises. Stone responded by promising to be “judicious” in his public remarks about the case.
But because he “promptly abused” that leeway, Jackson said, Stone will only be allowed to ask for donations for his legal defense fund or succinctly proclaim his innocence. No other comments about the case will be allowed.
Stone has pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements to Congress and witness tampering in the Russia investigation.
He was released on $250,000 bond and repeatedly lashed out at special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is leading the Russia investigation, to raise money for his legal defense fund.
Prosecutors accuse him of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his conversations involving WikiLeaks and hacked Democratic Party emails during the 2016 presidential campaign.
According to the indictment, Stone tried to conceal the fact that he reached out to WikiLeaks, which received the emails from Russian military intelligence, and that he discussed the organization with Trump campaign officials.
Stone has denied any wrongdoing.
“I will prove in court that any failure of memory on my part was without intent and would be immaterial,” he told ABC News after he was arrested Jan. 25. “I am human and I did make some errors, but they’re errors that would be inconsequential within the scope of this investigation.”
(c)2019 Los Angeles Times. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
February 21, 2019
By Dan Whitcomb
(Reuters) – Jeffrey Skilling, the onetime chief of Enron Corp who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for his conviction on charges stemming from the company’s spectacular collapse, has been released from federal custody, the Houston Chronicle reported on Thursday.
A spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons confirmed to Reuters that Thursday was the date scheduled for Skilling’s release but declined to provide further details, citing privacy issues.
Skilling, 65, was moved in August 2018 from an Alabama prison camp to a residential re-entry facility in Houston, where Enron was based before crumbling into bankruptcy in 2001 amid revelations of widespread accounting fraud and corruption.
The energy company’s disintegration threw thousands out of people out of work, sparked federal probes and prompted Congress to crack down on corporate accounting abuses.
Skilling, who abruptly resigned as chief executive officer of Enron in August of 2001, just months before it filed for bankruptcy, was arrested in 2004 along with the company’s founder, Ken Lay.
A Houston-based jury in May 2006 convicted Skilling of 19 counts of conspiracy, securities fraud, insider trading and lying to auditors. In his role as CEO he maintained a facade of success as Enron’s energy business imploded.
In 2013, a federal judge reduced his 24-year prison term to 14 years, accepting an agreement between prosecutors and Skilling’s lawyers to end years of appeals.
Under the deal, more than $40 million of Skilling’s fortune, which had been frozen since his conviction was to be distributed to victims of the scheme.
Lay was also was found guilty of multiple counts of conspiracy and fraud but died of heart failure six weeks after the trial ended, at the age of 64, prompting a federal judge to throw out his conviction.
(Reporting by Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Tom Brown)
February 16, 2019
By Sarah N. Lynch and Nathan Layne
(Reuters) – Prosecutors for Special Counsel Robert Mueller urged a federal judge in Virginia on Friday to impose a strict prison sentence for President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, after a jury last year convicted him on eight counts of bank and tax fraud.
In their sentencing memo filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, prosecutors said Manafort, who is 69, deserves between 19.6 and 24.4 years in prison and a fine of between $50,000 and $24 million.
“While some of these offenses are commonly prosecuted, there was nothing ordinary about the millions of dollars involved in the defendant’s crimes, the duration of his criminal conduct or the sophistication of his schemes,” prosecutors said in the memo.
“Manafort did not commit these crimes out of necessity or hardship,” they said. “He was well-educated, professionally successful and financially well off. He nonetheless cheated the United States Treasury and the public out of more than $6 million in taxes at a time when he had substantial resources.”
Friday’s court filing in Virginia came just days after a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that Manafort had breached his plea agreement in a parallel case by lying to investigators despite a pledge to cooperate.
That finding earlier this week by Judge Amy Berman Jackson in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia could have a direct impact on how Manafort is sentenced in the Virginia case.
Judge T.S. Ellis in Alexandria, Virginia, had planned to sentence Manafort on Feb. 8, but he later postponed that until after Jackson’s ruling, saying it “may have some effect on the sentencing decision in this case.”
Manafort was one of the first people in Trump’s orbit to face criminal charges as part of Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to tilt the 2016 presidential election in his favor.
Trump has denied colluding and called the probe a witch hunt, while Russia has denied meddling in the election.
None of the charges Manafort faced related directly to Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.
In the Virginia case, prosecutors accused Manafort of hiding from U.S. tax authorities $16 million he earned as a political consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine, money he used to fund an opulent lifestyle.
Later, when his lobbying work started to dry up following the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, prosecutors said Manafort began lying to banks to secure $20 million in loans to keep his lifestyle afloat.
After almost four days of deliberations, a 12-member jury found Manafort guilty on two counts of bank fraud, five counts of tax fraud and one charge of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts.
In September, Manafort pleaded guilty in a parallel case in Washington to attempted witness tapering and conspiring against the United States, a charge that covers conduct including money laundering and unregistered lobbying.
As part of that deal, he pledged to cooperate with the Justice Department. However, prosecutors later said they had caught Manafort in several lies and wanted to tear up the agreement in a move that could cause him to face a much stiffer prison sentence.
Earlier this week, Jackson ruled there was a “preponderance” of evidence that Manafort lied on three different topics, including his communications with his former business partner Konstantin Kilimnik, who prosecutors say has ties to Russian intelligence and helped Manafort try to obstruct justice. Kilimnik has denied such ties.
Specifically, Jackson found that Manafort lied about his interactions with Kilimnik including about the sharing of polling data on the Trump campaign and their discussions over a “Ukrainian peace plan,” a proposal that envisioned ending U.S. sanctions on Russia – long an important objective of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government.
Prosecutors have said these lies are “at the heart” of their investigation into potential collusion, according to a transcript released last week.
(Reporting by Sarah Lynch and Nathan Layne in Washington; Editing by David Alexander and Leslie Adler)
February 13, 2019
By Sarah N. Lynch
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort breached his plea agreement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office by intentionally lying to prosecutors, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found there was a “preponderance” of evidence that Manafort lied on three different topics, including his communications with his former business partner Konstantin Kilimnik, but she cleared Manafort of allegations that he intentionally lied on two other subjects.
(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Eric Beech; Editing by Tom Brown)
February 4, 2019
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort will be sentenced on March 13 for attempted witness tampering and conspiring against the United States, according to a court filing on Monday.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson, the federal judge presiding over Manafort’s case in Washington, had previously tentatively scheduled the sentencing hearing for March 5. She did not give a reason for the delay.
Manafort pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy against the United States and began cooperating with prosecutors working on U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
Both Moscow and Trump deny any wrongdoing.
In November, prosecutors accused Manafort of breaching his plea deal by lying to federal investigators. Lawyers for Manafort have said he was truthful with the investigators.
A closed hearing was held on Monday to hash out whether Manafort violated his plea deal.
In a separate case connected to the Mueller investigation, a jury in Virginia convicted Manafort of bank and tax fraud in August. No sentencing date has been set in that case.
(Reporting by Makini Brice; Editing by Eric Beech and James Dalgleish)
Judge Leonie Brinkema has denied an application from the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press to unseal the U.S. government’s complaint against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. By Joe Lauria Special to Consortium News A U.S. federal judge has ruled…
In a stunning upset for liberals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned a federal judge’s decision that blocked the policy, claiming it may have violated the constitutional rights of transgender recruits and service members.
The three-panel court ruled that Clinton-appointed Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was wrong.
“President Donald Trump announced in March that he would endorse a plan by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to restrict the military service of transgender people who experience a condition called gender dysphoria.”
A number of medical experts explain that the condition is incompatible with military service and Obama’s arbitrary move to allow those few individuals to serve was both dangerous and wrong.
The appeals court victory is limited, but is a major blow to the trans-culture-police who demand taxpayers foot the bill for their ‘feelings.’
The administration already has asked the Supreme Court to rule on the issue, and it will decide whether or not to hear the appeals on January 11.
The various court injunctions allowed the handful of transgender troops to join the ranks as of Jan. 1, 2018.
“Today’s ruling is a devastating slap in the face to transgender service members who have proved their fitness to serve and their dedication to this country,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
The three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. said Kollar-Kotelly was ‘wrong to conclude that the new restrictions were essentially the same as the original ban, which she had also blocked.’
“It was clear error to say there was no significant change,” the judges wrote.
The new plan “appears to permit some transgender individuals to serve in the military consistent with established military mental health, physical health, and sex-based standards,” the court stated.
The American Psychiatric Association defines gender dysphoria as a “clinically significant distress” due to a conflict between a person’s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth.
And, many people recognize that a person’s opinions about ‘who they are’ are not the responsibilities of others, nor should other people be forced to go along with their delusions.
The ruling gives many people hope that the country is taking back some of its standards and culture that has been attacked under the guise of politically correct attitudes.
January 2, 2019
By Anthony Boadle
BRASILIA (Reuters) – President Jair Bolsonaro’s far-right government launched a barrage of measures on its first day in office on Wednesday to crack down on crime and shrink the size of the state, sending Brazilian markets higher.
Former army captain Bolsonaro, whose election in October marked a sharp swing away from three decades of center-left governments in Brazil, took office on Tuesday saying he would free Latin America’s largest nation from “socialism and political correctness.”
Taking the helm of their ministries on Wednesday, Bolsonaro’s cabinet unveiled sweeping plans to step up privatizations, toughen prison sentencing guidelines and hand control over indigenous land claims to the powerful Agriculture Ministry.
Brazil’s real currency strengthened 2.4 percent and the Sao Paulo Bovespa stock index rose 3.6 percent as investors cheered pledges by Economy Minister Paulo Guedes – a former investment banker – to reduce taxes and overhaul Brazil’s costly social security system.
“If we have solid pension reform, we will get 10 years of growth,” said Guedes, who heads a team of orthodox economists already being likened to the ‘Chicago boys’ who radically overhauled Chile’s economy in the 1970s and 1980s.
Guedes said he planned to cut Brazil’s tax burden to 20 percent of gross domestic product from 36 percent, free the credit market from overcrowding by state banks, and reduce protectionism.
Bolsonaro’s government – Brazil’s first far-right administration since a military dictatorship gave way to civilian rule in 1985 – has stirred concerns it could jeopardize human rights with a promised crackdown on crime and destabilize the sensitive Amazon biome through commercial exploitation.
Fulfilling a campaign promise to his staunch supporters in the farm sector, one of Bolsonaro’s first moves in office was to decree that indigenous land claims, a source of bloody clashes on Brazil’s agricultural frontier, would be decided by the Agriculture Ministry.
The gift to the powerful agribusiness sector enraged environmentalists already worried by Bolsonaro’s plans to loosen protections of the Amazon rainforest.
Brazil’s military has long been concerned with national sovereignty over the Amazon and its riches. Foreign non-governmental organizations were alarmed by a decree to monitor their activity, a task assigned to a retired general in the new cabinet.
The new president was elected on a platform to clean up Brazilian politics, and has put Brazil’s top anti-corruption campaigner, Sergio Moro, in charge of a Justice Ministry beefed up to fight graft and battle organized crime.
Moro, a former federal judge who spearheaded the “Car Wash” corruption trials that put former leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and other high-profile politicians in jail, said on Wednesday he would help usher in a new era of law-and-order.
“The top mission given to me by the president was clear: end impunity for corruption cases and combat organized crime to reduce violent crimes,” Moro said after being sworn in. He said he plans an ambitious anti-crime bill that would stiffen prison sentences.
ALIGNING WITH TRUMP
An outspoken admirer of U.S. President Donald Trump, Bolsonaro has pledged to strengthen relations with Washington while pursuing a nationalist agenda that downplays multilateral bodies and regional trade blocs.
His inauguration was attended by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said the United States and Brazil will jointly defend democratic values in the region.
“We have an opportunity to work alongside each other against authoritarian regimes,” Pompeo said on Wednesday after discussing Venezuela with Brazil’s new Foreign Minister Ernesto Araujo, who was picked by Bolsonaro for his admiration of Trump’s conservative nationalism.
Bolsonaro’s rise to power culminates a swing to conservative rule in Latin America that has isolated leftist governments such as Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.
While Bolsonaro surprised Brazil’s political establishment by surging to victory over a leftist coalition led by Lula’s Workers Party, he takes office with the lowest approval rating of any new Brazilian president, according to a Datafolha poll Tuesday.
He has also yet to build a base in Congress, where he has eschewed the political horse-trading that traditionally helped Brazilian presidents govern.
As a result, he may have an uphill battle to enact his agenda, which includes austerity measures to bring down an unsustainable budget deficit of about 180 billion reais ($47.3 billion).
Many investors, however, remain optimistic that Bolsonaro’s economic team will succeed in passing reforms needed to reduce the deficit and restore confidence and growth to a slow-moving economy.
One of Bolsonaro’s first steps was to decree a less-than-expected increase to the minimum wage, to 998 reais ($260) a month from 954 reais.
Preferred shares in the country’s largest utility Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA jumped 14.5 percent after new Energy & Mines Minister Bento Albuquerque said the company would be partially privatized.
Doing even better was gun manufacturer Forjas Taurus SA, whose shares rose 47.6 percent on Bolsonaro’s plan to ease gun controls, which he has argued will help Brazilians arm themselves in self defense against crime.
(Reporting by Ricardo Brito, Lisandra Paraguassú, Mary Milliken, Gabriel Stargardter, Brad Brooks and Carolina Mandl; Writing by Anthony Boadle; Editing by Frances Kerry, Daniel Flynn and Rosalba O’Brien)
Former USWGO Alternative News reporter Brian D. Hill, has appeared on Infowars Network political talk shows for two consecutive times in September, 2017, to talk about his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit and about his wrongful conviction.
Source: PRLOG Press Release distribution // Stanley Bolten
DANVILLE, Va. – Sept. 27, 2017 – PRLog — Brian D. Hill, the former news reporter for USWGO Alternative News, has appeared on the Infowars political talk show network, for two times on the month of September, 2017, to make statements on his Federal lawsuit concerning the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and about his opinions on that he believes his criminal conviction was a wrongful conviction that was caused by malicious prosecution. He has stated many times in his case that he is intending to prove his actual innocence before filing a sec. 2255 motion to vacate or set aside his setence and overturn his conviction on the ground of actual innocence.
On April 25, 2017, Brian filed a complaint in the Federal Court for the Western District of Virginia, in Roanoke, and was assigned to the U.S. Courthouse in the city of Danville. It had been assigned to the Federal Judge named Jackson L. Kiser. Cheryl T. Sloan, is representing the Government defendants’ in this case. What he had request in his original FOIA request, as stated in all evidence in the complaint, was his entire discovery packet of evidence from his criminal case from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, case # 1:13-cr-435-
On September 13, 2017, Brian appeared for the first hour on “The War Room” with host Owen Shroyer, of Infowars. He introduced Brian as being “attacked by the left” and stated that he himself wasn’t going to tell Brian’s story but thought that Brian should call in to tell his story on the show. So Brian told his story briefly for a few minutes without going into much detail.
Brian had received a correspondence from the Defendant Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) of the U.S. Department of Justice (US DOJ), a day later, according to the filed Document #40, that was filed in his case for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, in Danville, civil case # 4:17-cv-00027. Brian had stated his opinion concerning whether or not the EOUSA had sent that letter as a reaction to Brian’s appearance on “the War Room”.
Brian made yet another unannounced appearance on “the War Room” again, this time around September 27, 2017. Brian appeared for the third hour on on “The War Room”. This time it was hosted by Rob Dew, the video producer of Infowars production staff, Free Speech Systems, LLC. There were two co-hosts and one of them was the beautiful model-like anchor named Lee Ann McAdoo, and another co-host. Brian talked about how he had given the Nullify-NDAA petition to town of Mayodan municipal Attorney named Philip Edward Berger Senior (the Senator of the North Carolina General Assembly as well, and president pro tempore that I add as well), then he did nothing about the petition and kept things quiet, then Brian asked a hardball question to that same Attorney, then he was threatened by the Chief of Police in the town of Mayodan, then the police harassed his mother, then eight days later, around the time he claimed that his Laptop was hacked according to Affidavits filed with the Federal Court, illegal files were downloading to his Laptop. What was odd was that illegal files had continued to had downloaded on his “Black Toshiba Laptop Computer” all the way up until July 28, 2013, while that very same Laptop was reported to have been seized on August 28, 2012.
Is the U.S. Attorney Ripley Rand, along with Anand Prakash Ramaswamy, and Cheryl Thorton Sloan, and possibly others involved in covering up evidence that may exonerate the wrongfully convicted Plaintiff (criminal Defendant) Brian David Hill of USWGO Alternative News?
Why is Brian even having to file a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when Brian already has a right, as a criminal Defendant, to cross examination and gain access to discovery, as well as to inspect, and make photocopies of the discovery evidence to prevent a trial by ambush? Why is the U.S. Attorney Office for the Middle District of North Carolina so concerned about Brian proving his actual innocence?
WAR ROOM SHOW (1st HOUR) Wednesday 9/13/17: News & More – YouTube (Brian appears 33 minutes into the first hour):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDRjOR66yXU&t=1980s
WAR ROOM (3rd HOUR) Wed – 9/27/17 • Alex Jones Infowars • Lee Ann McAdoo – YouTube (Brian appears 25 minutes and 40 seconds into the third hour):
https://www.youtube.com/
The Clinton-appointed federal judge that ruled New York’s stop-and-frisk program amounts to “indirect racial profiling” got yanked off the case by an appellate court that found the jurist “ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.”
It was a painful spanking that one of the city’s newspapers said “generated legal and political shockwaves.” Indeed this sort of public admonition of a federal judge is rare, which may lead some to conclude that this one, Shira Scheindlin, really screwed up. In removing Scheindlin the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that her appearance of impartiality had been “compromised.”
The case involves the New York Police Department’s successful anti-crime initiative directing officers to stop and search people suspected of criminal activity. Leftist organizations claim it violates civil rights because it disproportionately affects blacks and Hispanics and a group of minorities sued the city to get rid of the measure. In mid-August, after a 10-week trial, Judge Scheindlin determined that stop-and-frisk amounted to racial profiling and resulted in the “disproportionate and discriminatory” stopping of millions of black and Hispanic men.
Judge Scheindlin also imposed a federal monitor on the city’s police department, a highly unusual move following a civil trial. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent, credits stop-and-frisk for a record-low dip in crimes. The judge’s decision could reverse those crime reductions and make the city a “more dangerous place,” he told a mainstream newspaper following the ruling.
Besides extracting her from the case last week, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Scheindlin’s order requiring changes to the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices. The judge received the embarrassing reprimand for creating an “appearance of impropriety” by, among other things, granting a “series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.” In public interviews Scheindlin appeared to openly encourage lawyers to challenge the city in court, according to the appellate ruling.
Though they are lifetime appointees, this is behavior unbecoming of a federal judge. Here’s the zinger in the appellate court ruling: “Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 2 (“A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”); see also Canon 3(C)(1) (“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . . .”), and that the appearance of partiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s “related case rule,” see Transfer of Related Cases, S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y. Local Rule 13(a), and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.”
