Mediaboss Marketing

If Biden is as serious about the truth as he claims to be, he should stop pursuing espionage charges against publisher and journalist Julian Assange. Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks, an organization that publishes documents leaked by corporate and government whistleblowers all around the globe. The Biden DOJ announced that it will continue to pursue the extradition of Assange from the UK to the US. Were Assange to be extradited and charged in the US for obtaining and publishing classified information, it would pose an unspeakably grave threat to freedom of the press and the FirstAmendment.

WikiLeaks initially garnered attention in 2010 when they released the Afghan War Diary; these files revealed war crimes on the part of the United States and coalition forces stationed in Afghanistan. Another well-known release is a video titled Collateral Murder that shows a US Army helicopter firing on an unarmed crowd in Baghdad. Two Reuters journalists were among those killed in the attack, as were several people who came in vans to pick up and assist the wounded a glaring example of a war crime.

WikiLeaks format allows them, in their words, to report the vast range of small tragedies that are almost never reported by the press but which account for the overwhelming majority of deaths and injuries [in war] they can bypass a corporate media that acts as a filter through which governments manage public perception in democratic societies. At this time, WikiLeaks was an immensely popular organization among liberals in the West, as evidenced by the standing ovation Assange received at a 2010 TedTalk in London.

Since then, there has been a concerted defamation campaign against WikiLeaks, and in particular, Assange including rape allegations we now know to have been fabricated by Swedish police;now-discredited claims of meetings with Paul Manafort and Russian spies to hack the DNC; and baseless claims that he smeared feces on the walls of the Ecuadorian embassy in which he was confined for seven years. Furthermore, Assange was secretly and illegally surveilled 24/7 by the CIA during those seven years of political asylum in the embassy.

There is, however, extensive evidence that the US has been conducting an all-out war against Assange, his family and WikiLeaks for about a decade. In fact, Wikileaks itself obtained leaked emails from American private intelligence firm Stratfor (longtime US federal government partners) that show an intention to move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years [and] seize everything he and his family own.

Assange was yanked out of the Embassy by British police in 2019 and, on a decade-old bail violation, was thrown in solitary in what has been called Britains Guantanamo Bay. UN official Nils Melzer visited him there, accompanied by two expert doctors who both independently concluded that Assange showed signs of prolonged psychological torture.

In this case, the UK and US governments message to dissidents is clear: those who expose crimes will be considered criminals, while those who commit them at the highest levels can do so with impunity. If we can convince the public that Assange is a sexually-violent sociopath, and if we can keep him arbitrarily imprisoned and psychologically tortured for years, the same or worse can happen to you so keep your mouth shut.

We in the West cannot allow our governments to treat dissidents in this way. If we do, we might be no better than China or Saudi Arabia. If the US wants to market itself on the world stage as a defender of a free press and of human rights, it must stop pursuing espionage charges against Julian Assange for conducting journalism. The importance of this case cannot be understated, for what is at stake here is our very right to live in a free society and our right to know what our governments are doing.

Originally posted here:
If Biden is committed to the First Amendment, he must stop the persecution of Julian Assange - Whitman Pioneer

In the past 22 years, by working together with our thousands of heroic supporters, weve qualified 17 statewide initiatives for a public vote. They all limited the governments power over us and have saved taxpayers $46.9 billion (please make $46.9 billion a hyperlink to: https://permanentoffense.com/about-us/). And our four 2/3-vote-to-raise-taxes initiatives have saved taxpayers billions more by stopping and deterring tax increases.

While other initiatives spend $1.2 million to qualify, we averaged $672K because we run a tight ship and I often risked my own money. (please make the words I often risked my own money a hyperlink to https://permanentoffense.com/follow-up-report-while-on-the-stand-i-was-asked-why-i-loan-my-own-money-to-my-political-committees/)

After two decades of effort, vehicle tabs and property tax increases are dramatically lower than they used to be (liberal judges vetod those initiatives, but the publics overwhelming vote pushed politicians to adopt them anyway), government affirmative action is prohibited, the state auditor conducts performance audits of state and local governments, the King County Council was reduced from 13 politicians to nine, red-light ticketing cameras were banned in numerous cities, and tax advisory votes allow voters to vote each November on tax increases imposed by the Legislature and inform voters which taxes were increased, their costs, and how legislators voted on them.

These amazing accomplishments (please make the words amazing accomplishments a hyperlink to: https://permanentoffense.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Summary-of-accomplishments-2021-1.pdf) happened despite fierce opposition from liberals controlling the Legislature, Governor, judges, and media.

Because I led those efforts and constantly kick the hornets nest of big government, politicians and the press have been gunning for me.

So in 2012, when a reporting complaint was filed against me by a disgruntled former vendor, I knew what was coming: a witch hunt. And because the government had unlimited resources and I didnt, I knew Id never survive it without assistance.

So I asked for help.

As my attorney (former supreme court justice) Richard Sanders said (please make the words Richard Sanders said a hyperlink to this: https://permanentoffense.com/biggest-lie-about-me-that-richard-sanders-exposed/): Thousands of people voluntarily chose to help Mr. Eyman and his family there is nothing unlawful about that. People and businesses entered into voluntary business relationships with Mr. Eyman all of them were legal. Mr. Eyman never took money from anyone he wasnt a signer on anyones bank account except his own. In every instance, the money he received came from people who chose to voluntarily give it to him. And he consulted with professionals why wouldnt he? to ensure he was following state and federal laws.

Democrat AG Bob Ferguson spent nearly $2 million of taxpayer money going after me, my family, friends, and supporters. Thats more than all other reporting cases in the last 8 years combined!

Generous people responded to my pleas for help, recognized this injustice and abuse of power and helped me fight back. Their checks were made payable to Tim Eyman Legal Defense Fund, Tim Eyman & Family, and Tim Eyman Watchdog for Taxpayers LLC none were campaign donations. Their voluntary assistance, plus our own savings, went toward paying the lawyers and financially surviving this brutal 8-year onslaught.

A year ago, Richard Sanders wrote: During the recent mediation conference, the AG made clear their priority: the lifetime ban. They dont care about the money, they want to shut you down. When you told the mediator it was blackmail, you were exactly right. This whole thing is about breaking you so you give up and agree to the ban. But you refused. Good for you! After hundreds of hours of examining the facts and researching the AGs case against you, its clear to me you didnt violate any laws. You were never the committees treasurer professional CPA Stan Long was your committees treasurer and he did not believe these transactions needed to be reported. He was right, the AG is wrong. Tim, in all my years on the court, Ive never seen such a miscarriage of justice. Seven years of investigation? Harassment of your wife? Frankly, Im astounded youre still functioning. Anyone else wouldve given up a long time ago. I admire your commitment.

As predicted, a Gregoire-appointed judge in Thurston Countys kangaroo court rubberstamped the AG, ignoring the law and the Constitution (please make the words rubberstamped the AG a hyperlink to this: https://permanentoffense.com/as-predicted-the-judge-rubberstamped-the-ag-on-to-the-apeal/). Go to tinyurl.com/FergusonHypocrisy (please print that tinyurl and make it a hyperlink) to learn how the AGs bizarre claims are fundamentally flawed and reek of hypocrisy (How Much Has Democrat Bob Ferguson personally profited from politics? Over $2.8 million!). please print that headline and make it a hyperlink to this: https://permanentoffense.com/how-much-has-democrat-bob-ferguson-personally-profited-from-politics-over-2-8-million/

Im committed to appealing these ridiculously unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment (please make the words ridiculously unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment a hyperlink to this: https://permanentoffense.com/completely-crazy-ag-wants-7-8m-fine-lifetime-ban-on-all-my-future-political-activity/) because if they get away with it with me, you could be next (to help with the appeal: TimDefense.com). Please make TimDefense.com a hyperlink.

While it gets appealed, despite the risks, I will continue fighting for taxpayers because our efforts are needed now more than ever. Politicians have an insatiable tax appetite and are hell-bent to impose income taxes, carbon taxes, and other taxes this session. Were committed to stopping them (to help us fight back: PermanentOffense.com). Please make PermanentOffense.com a hyperlink

Fergusons fascist 8-year jihad has cost me everything I have. But Im not going to let him slow me down. Because like President Trump said: Theyre not after me, theyre after you, Im just in the way.

Tim Eyman is a longtime political activist, born & raised Yakima, WSU graduate, who now lives in Bellevue (425-590-9363, [emailprotected]).

Read the rest here:
Appealing to restrictions on the First Amendment - The Ritzville Adams County Journal - Ritzville Adams County Journal

On Dec.16, 2020, in Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego, the San Diego Superior Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of two COVID-19-related California public health restrictions as applied to two adult entertainment businesses and all other San Diego County businesses with restaurant service.

The California Court of Appeal did not take long to weigh in.

On Jan. 22, in the first published court of appeal opinion regarding the constitutionality of California's COVID-19 public health restrictions as applied to businesses, the Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal reversed.[1]

The court of appeal's opinion illustrates the steep and narrow path to challenging California's COVID-19-related public health restrictions, even in connection with activities protected by the First Amendment, albeit in its outer ambit.[2]

The Trial Court's Opinion

Pacers and Cheetahs two San Diego adult entertainment businesses with restaurant service alleged that enforcement of California's regional stay at home order[3] and Blueprint for a Safer Economy infringed their First Amendment right to expressive conduct. The plaintiffs had been barred from staging live performances for most of the pandemic and attempts to restart performances had been met with cease-and-desist orders from local authorities.

The trial court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims and issued a preliminary injunction. It noted that nude dancing constitutes expressive conduct warranting First Amendment protection.

Moreover, citing a statement by a San Diego County public health official that "penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong," the court determined that the county had offered no evidence that San Diego restaurants present any health risk.

The court also questioned whether any rational nexus existed between restaurants offering live entertainment and hospital capacity in the Southern California region the metric that triggered more stringent restrictions under the regional stay at home order.

Finally, although the plaintiffs had focused on the First Amendment protection applicable to nude dancing, the trial court extended the injunction to all San Diego County businesses with restaurant service.

The Court of Appeal's Reversal

The court of appeal reversed on three principal grounds.

First, the court of appeal found that extending the injunction to all San Diego County businesses with restaurant service violated due process. The plaintiffs had only challenged the public health restrictions with regard to live entertainment, and the government defendants had been given no notice that the broader restaurant service restrictions were being challenged.

Second, the court of appeal determined that neither of the public health restrictions ran afoul of the First Amendment.[4] In fact, the court held that the regional stay at home order, which prohibited restaurant service beyond takeout and delivery, did not even implicate the First Amendment.

Applying theU.S. Supreme Court's 1986 opinion, Arcara v. Cloud Books Inc.,[5] the court concluded that the First Amendment applies only when "it was conduct with a significant expressive element that drew the legal remedy in the first place," or "where a statute based on a nonexpressive activity has the inevitable effect of singling out those engaged in expressive activity."

The Fourth District concluded that it was the threat of COVID-19 that prompted the regulations; there was no showing that conduct with a significant expressive element drew the restrictions. The court further found that the breadth of the regional stay at home order was inconsistent with any singling out of expressive activity.

Exceptions for religious and political gathering did not demonstrate discrimination against live adult entertainment because the restrictions on entertainment were triggered by the plaintiffs' restaurant service not by the expressive conduct and applied equally to all restaurants.

Because the First Amendment was inapplicable, the court of appeal held that only rational basis review applied to the regional stay at home order. Although it did not determine whether that standard had been met it had not been argued in the trial court the court confirmed that rational basis is an "exceedingly low standard."

A statutory classification survives rational basis review if "there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification."[6]

The court of appeal determined that the First Amendment did apply to the Blueprint for a Safer Economy order, likely because the blueprint expressly regulated live entertainment at restaurants. Nonetheless, the court found that the blueprint met First Amendment requirements.

Because the state's purpose in regulating live entertainment through the blueprint was unrelated to the suppression of expression, the court applied the U.S. Supreme Court's less stringent four-part test from U.S. v. O'Brien,[7] decided in 1968, rather than the more demanding standards that apply if the government's interest related to expression.

Under O'Brien, courts inquire whether: (1) the regulation is within the government's power; (2) the regulation "furthers an important or substantial government interest"; (3) "the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression"; and (4) "the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest."

The Fourth District determined that the blueprint met this test. The plaintiffs had conceded the first and second factors in the trial court. The court noted that the government's interest was in preventing the spread of disease not in the suppression of expression.

The court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision Ward v. Rock Against Racism[8] to elaborate on what sorts of restrictions on First Amendment freedoms are no greater than essential: "So long as the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government's interest ... the regulation will not be invalid simply because a court concludes that the government's interest could be adequately served by some less-speech-restrictive alternative."

The blueprint's restrictions on live entertainment at restaurants met this standard because the state and county parties had shown that public gatherings create a high risk of COVID-19 transmission and the restrictions only limited live entertainment to the same extent they limited restaurant service.

The lack of COVID-19 cases traced to the establishments was not dispositive: "It is the risk of COVID-19 transmission that prompted the restrictions on the adult entertainment businesses. The state and county need not wait until an outbreak has actually occurred at a specific business location."[9]

Third, the court of appeal found that the trial court's preliminary injunction order was overly vague. The injunction purported to allow restaurants to continue operation "subject to protocols that are no greater than is essential to further Defendants' response to control the spread of COVID."

Because the trial court's order did not provide guidance regarding which COVID-19 protocols are essential, it did not provide sufficient guidance to either businesses or the government.

Takeaways

While the court of appeal's opinion in Midway reflects the unique injunction at issue, it also illustrates the narrow grounds upon which businesses might challenge public health restrictions designed to combat the spread of COVID-19.

Even businesses plausibly engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment will face significant challenges. It is not enough that no COVID-19 cases have been traced to the business, nor is it enough that the government did not use the least restrictive means possible to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Instead, the public health restrictions related to COVID-19 that have been overturned on First Amendment grounds have singled out protected First Amended activity. For example in November 2020, in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo,[10] the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated New York state public health restrictions on religious services because "they single[d] out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment."[11]

Other California businesses have challenged California public health restrictions on a variety of other grounds, including under the U.S. Constitution's equal protection, takings and due process clauses, and the California Constitution's right to liberty clause. Success has been elusive.

For example, in May 2020, theU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Californiain Best Supplement Guide LLC v. Newsom[12] recognized "neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has ever held that the right to pursue work is a fundamental right, entitled to heightened constitutional scrutiny."[13]

While the court of appeal in Midway did not consider these alternative grounds, courts in these cases have made it clear that the path to a successful challenge on non-First Amendment grounds is also narrow. Time will tell whether courts are more receptive to constitutional challenges to California's COVID-19-related public health restrictions as the public health crisis dissipates.

[1]Midway Venture LLC v. Cty. of San Diego, 60 Cal. App. 5th 58 (2021).

[2]Krontz v. City of San Diego, 136 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1132 (2006).

[3] The Regional Stay at Home Order was so called because it broke the state into regions and set restrictions based on the hospital bed capacity in a given region.

[4] The opinion does not address whether the result would differ under the California Constitution's free speech protections, but past cases analyzing restrictions on nude dancing rejected "arguments [that] the California Constitution grants broader protection." Krontz, 136 Cal. App. 4th at 1140.

[5]Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986).

[6]F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993).

[7]U.S. v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

[8]Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989).

[9] Midway at 59.

[10]Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, __ U.S. __, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020).

[11] On February 5, the U.S. Supreme Court also enjoined enforcement of the Blueprint's ban on indoor religious services in the counties most affected by COVID-19 while the Court considers hearing the case. S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 20A136, 2021 WL 406258 (U.S. Feb. 5, 2021). The Court allowed capacity restrictions and bans on singing and chanting to stay in place. Id.

[12] Best Supplement Guide LLC v. Newsom, No. 2:20-CV-00965-JAM-CKD, 2020 WL 2615022 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2020).

[13] 2020 WL 2615022 at *6 (quoting Sagana v. Tenorio, 384 F.3d 731, 743 (9th Cir. 2004)) (rejecting constitutional challenges by a gym to state public health restrictions).

The rest is here:
Pandemic Restriction Challenges Face Uphill Battle in California - JD Supra

SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV)

Rep. Chris Stewart reintroduced the Fairness for All Act (FFA) on Friday and is getting support from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Stewart's legislation "harmonizes religious freedom and LGBT rights by amending the Civil Rights Act, protecting religious freedom in the workplace, protecting the rights of LGBT individuals, and preserving 1st amendment rights."

On Thursday, Feb. 25, 2021, the House of Representatives in the United States passed H.R.5, also known as the Equality Act. The bill would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill is heavily supported by Democrats but opposed by most Republicans, who have raised concerns over the impact the bill would have on biological women as well as religious freedom.

Amid the legislation, Church Spokesperson Doug Anderson released a statement on Saturday:

Stewart originally introduced the FFA in December 2019 to require fairness in housing and the hiring of gay and transgender Americans. He said in a prepared statement:

MORE ABOUT FAIRNESS FOR ALL

FFA is the largest expansion of religious freedom and LGBT civil rights under federal law in a generation. It continues what began in Utah and builds upon existing protections for both religious and LGBT Americans in federal, state, and local law.

No American should lose their home or job simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. All religious persons should be free to live, work or serve their community in ways that are consistent with their faith.

FFA preserves the Religious Freedom Restoration Act so it can continue to protect the First Amendment right of all persons to freely exercise their religion.

FFA protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment and housing. It also prohibits LGBT discrimination in a place of public accommodation and significantly expands the definition of public accommodation under federal law.

This bill protects the tax-exempt status of religious organizations and religious colleges and universities. It also protects the right of religious colleges and universitieslike Brigham Young University, Bethel University, and Catholic Universityto uphold their religious standards without jeopardizing the ability of their students to get Pell Grants or of their professors to compete for federal research contracts.

FFA protects the owners of small businesses whose religious and moral principles prevent them from participating in activities that are contrary to their conscience and beliefs.

It protects LGBT Americans from discrimination in jury selection, credit, and federally assisted programs.

Lastly, this legislation protects religious adoption and foster care agencies so they can continue to serve vulnerable children and willing couples, while at the same time ensuring the ability of LGBT persons to adopt and foster children too. Putting the interests of needy children first, the FFA Act expands adoption and foster care by including all qualified potential parents.

Alliance for Lasting Liberty Coalition: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, American Unity Fund, Center for Public Justice, 1st Amendment Partnership, The Seventh-day Adventist Church, Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, and others.

Cosponsors: Rep. Fred Upton (MI-06), Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY-21), Rep. John Curtis (UT-03), Rep. Mark Amodei (NV-02), Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01), Rep. Adam Kinzinger (IL-16), Rep. Andrew Garbarino (NY-02), Rep. Blake Moore (UT-01), Rep. Burgess Owens (UT-04), Rep. Carlos Gimenez (FL-26), Rep. Chris Jacobs (NY-27), Rep. Claudia Tenney (NY-22), Rep. Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02), Rep. Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon (R-PR), Rep. Maria Salazar (FL-27), Rep. Mario Diaz Balart (FL-25), Rep. Mike Simpson (ID-02), Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11), Rep. Steve Stivers (OH-15), and Rep. Tom Reed (NY-23).

Click here to read the original press release and statements of support.

See the article here:
LDS Church supports Fairness For All Act reintroduced by Rep. Stewart that protects LGBT - KJZZ

In the past 22 years, by working together with our thousands of heroic supporters, weve qualified 17 statewide initiatives for a public vote. They all limited the governments power over us and have saved taxpayers $46.9 billion. And our four two-thirds-vote-to-raise-taxes initiatives have saved taxpayers billions more by stopping and deterring tax increases.

After two decades of effort, vehicle tabs and property tax increases are dramatically lower than they used to be (liberal judges vetoed those initiatives, but the publics overwhelming vote pushed politicians to adopt them anyway), government affirmative action is prohibited, the state auditor conducts performance audits of state and local governments, the King County Council was reduced from 13 politicians to nine, red-light ticketing cameras were banned in numerous cities, and tax advisory votes allow voters to vote each November on tax increases imposed by the Legislature and inform voters which taxes were increased, their costs, and how legislators voted on them.

These amazing accomplishments happened despite fierce opposition from liberals controlling the Legislature, governor, judges and media.

Because I led those efforts and constantly kick the hornets nest of big government, politicians and the press has been gunning for me.

So in 2012, when a reporting complaint was filed against me by a disgruntled former vendor, I knew what was coming: a witch hunt. And because the government had unlimited resources and I didnt, I knew Id never survive it without assistance.

As my attorney (former state Supreme Court Justice) Richard Sanders said: Thousands of people voluntarily chose to help Mr. Eyman and his family there is nothing unlawful about that. People and businesses entered into voluntary business relationships with Mr. Eyman all of them were legal. Mr. Eyman never took money from anyone he wasnt a signer on anyones bank account except his own. In every instance, the money he received came from people who chose to voluntarily give it to him. And he consulted with professionals why wouldnt he? to ensure he was following state and federal laws.

Democrat state Attorney General Bob Ferguson spent nearly $2 million of taxpayer money going after me, my family, friends and supporters. Thats more than all other reporting cases in the last eight years combined!

Generous people responded to my pleas for help, recognized this injustice and abuse of power and helped me fight back. None were campaign donations. Their voluntary assistance, plus our own savings, went toward paying the lawyers and financially surviving this brutal eight-year onslaught.

A year ago, Richard Sanders wrote: During the recent mediation conference, the AG made clear their priority: the lifetime ban. They dont care about the money, they want to shut you down. When you told the mediator it was blackmail, you were exactly right. This whole thing is about breaking you so you give up and agree to the ban. But you refused. Good for you! After hundreds of hours of examining the facts and researching the AGs case against you, its clear to me you didnt violate any laws. You were never the committees treasurer professional CPA Stan Long was your committees treasurer and he did not believe these transactions needed to be reported. He was right, the AG is wrong. Tim, in all my years on the court, Ive never seen such a miscarriage of justice. Seven years of investigation? Harassment of your wife? Frankly, Im astounded youre still functioning. Anyone else wouldve given up a long time ago. I admire your commitment.

As predicted, a Gregoire-appointed judge in Thurston Countys court rubberstamped the AG, ignoring the law and the Constitution. Go to tinyurl.com/FergusonHypocrisy to learn how the AGs bizarre claims are fundamentally flawed and reek of hypocrisy. (How Much Has Democrat Bob Ferguson personally profited from politics? Over $2.8 million!)

While it gets appealed, despite the risks, I will continue fighting for taxpayers because our efforts are needed now more than ever. Politicians have an insatiable tax appetite and are hell-bent to impose income taxes, carbon taxes, and other taxes this session.

Fergusons eight-year jihad has cost me everything I have. But Im not going to let him slow me down. Because like President Trump said: Theyre not after me, theyre after you, Im just in the way.

Tim Eyman is a longtime political activist, born and raised Yakima, WSU graduate, who now lives in Bellevue tim.eyman@gmail.com 425-590-9363

Link:
Eyman committed to appealing unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin