Comment by PureTrust

Entered on: 11/21/2012 3:23:33 AM

Consider not accepting emails that are not encrypted with PGP (Pretty Good Privacy).

http://www.pgpi.org/

And remember to get the folks you email to, to start using encryption, as well. One additional advantage is, it's a little bit of a hassle, so it will cut down on the amount of emails you are getting.
   

Comment by PureTrust

Entered on: 11/21/2012 3:17:21 AM

I was looking at the Freedom's Phoenix page http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Discussion-Page.htm?EdNo=001&Info=122768&View=Hide.

On this page, I noticed all the comments commending John C. Stuart. So I went to his website http://www.showmetheloan.net/.

On John's website, page http://www.showmetheloan.net/b/media.html, there is a PDF link called Why use an "Action to Quiet Title" to save your home?

Inside that PDF is a little part that reads:

VI. WHY DO QT
Because it’s your home, it’s your country, it’s your family, it’s your spouse. The banksters are stealing EVERYTHING and they are doing it in that order. Fight like you have a spine, stand up like a man, put down the remote, quit your whining, and grow up; or bend down and the lick the boots of your new owners so they will give you enough crumbs to survive long enough to dig the graves for children and clean the stalls in your wives new lover’s stables.

Perhaps it is time that we start taking these words literally. Perhaps we need to do a Quiet Title on ourselves, and on everything we own, including our family, with complete court records, (including photographs), just to prove that law enforcement is stealing from us. At least we might stand a chance at getting it returned after they steal it.
   

Comment by Ross Wolf

Entered on: 11/20/2012 3:38:29 PM

Revised Senate bill lets feds read your e-mail Without Warrants

Sen. Patrick Leahy’s has reworked his privacy bill H.R. 2471 touted to protect Americans' e-mail privacy (into a surveillance bill) that will allow the FBI, police and more than 22 federal agencies without probable cause or warrant to access Americans’ private email and other communications –-using only a subpoena. Alleged seized evidence may be introduced in court against Americans in U.S. Civil; Criminal and Administrative prosecutions. Police and federal agencies can take out of context any innocent—hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws/violations that can subject property to Government forfeiture that require only a civil preponderance of evidence.

Some idiot might send you an email that appears to include you as a participant in a crime or conspiracy: the Feds can without a warrant introduce that email as evidence in court against you or your business. A Senate vote on Sen. Patrick Leahy’s warrant-less access bill is scheduled before November 30, 2012.

A corrupt U.S. Government Administration or agency may without a warrant or probable cause search the email of any American or corporation politically at odds with the U.S. Government. Hitler used his Gestapo to target for blackmail, arrest and asset forfeiture, German Citizens and Corporations that opposed the Nazi party.

The U.S. “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” (effectively eliminated) the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) government or a police agency allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic surveillance be allowed; police will relentlessly sift through business and Citizens’ (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover possible criminal or civil violations.

Under U.S. federal civil asset forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may (involuntarily waive) a defendant’s right to assert in their defense—the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow U.S. Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceedings to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason: many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Annually U.S. Government seizes Billions in assets without filing criminal charges. Increasingly local police are turning their criminal investigations over to Federal Agencies to receive an 80% rebate of forfeited assets. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to forfeit property.

Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States.

N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html

Can Canadians Hold Out Against Their Government's Forceful Efforts to Wiretap Their Lives?

It was recently reported: the Canadian Government intends to resurrect (Commons Bill C-30) that Canadians earlier this year rejected. Canadians discovered that (Commons Bill C-30) touted to protect children on the Internet—would also give any Canadian police officer—without a warrant—the power to request Internet service providers turn over customers’ information (see section 17 of C-30); allow Canadian police to seek into Canadians’ private computers. C-30 was strongly opposed by Canadians in April 2012. Canadians further discovered Canada had signed with the United States an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) for Canada to share Canadian and Americans’ assets civilly or criminally confiscated using Asset Forfeiture laws that result from U.S. and Canada sharing information gleaned from electronic surveillance of Canadian / American Citizens’ communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet actively, phone records.