Monsanto Class Action Lawsuits

Staff Writer, Nicole Meyer-Greene

Roundup / Legal
_________________________________________

Ever wonder if Roundup and Monsanto are so bad why isn't anyone suing them? Well, there are lawsuits, but the mainstream media will not cover this current topic.

Really think we have freedom of the press when the press cannot expose politicians, corporations, or the United Nations? 

Here is a summary of the legal argument against Roundup: 

Roundup’s active ingredient is glyphosate The enzyme it targets, to stop weeds in mid-growth and kill them, is EPSP synthase. Phillips’s lawsuit argues that EPSP synthase is found in the gut bacteria of both humans and animals. Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that science links Roundup’s active ingredient to all manner of health issues, ranging from mild (indigestion) to serious (ulcers) to life-threatening (celiac disease, liver disease and cancer).

If you would like more information or to join in, please visit the following websites:

• For more information: Visit the Monsanto Class Action website.
• To join the Monsanto class action lawsuit: contact T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. (Calif. State Bar No. 165833) via email at tmatthewphillips @ aol.com, or at (323) 314-6996.
• To donate: If you’d like to help, visit Monsanto Class Action’s GoFundMe page.
• Not from California?: For now, Phillips’ Monsanto class action lawsuit only includes California residents (though that could change). But Phillips encourages other attorneys and activists to use his clearly-worded, not-overly-legalese-ish lawsuit filing as a template.
• The Schmidt Firm, PLLC — a leading personal injury litigation firm — is also accepting cases involving Roundup. Call 1-866-920-0753 for a free consultation, or visit their website.

Source: Reverb Press

AZ Wants to Label GMO's; HB 2462

Staff Writer, Nicole Meyer-Greene

Food / Law
_____________________________________

HB 2462

LABELING OF FOOD

PRODUCED WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Consumer" means any person who purchases, leases, contracts for or otherwise agrees to pay consideration for goods or services not for resale in the ordinary course of the person's trade or business for one of the following purposes:

(a) The person's use or benefit.

(b) The use or benefit of the person's household or a member of the person's household.

(c) In connection with the operation of a farm whether or not the farm is conducted as a trade or business.

(d) The use or benefit of a person's business or in connection with the operation of the person's business.

2. "Enzyme" means a protein that catalyzes chemical reactions of other substances without itself being destroyed or altered on completion of the reactions.

3. "Food" means food intended for human consumption.

4. "Genetic engineering" means a process by which a food is produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of one of the following:

(a) In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant DNA techniques and the direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles.

(b) The fusion of cells, including protoplast fusion, or hybridization techniques that overcome natural physiological, reproductive or recombination barriers, in which the donor cells or protoplasts do not fall within the same taxonomic group and in a way that does not occur by natural multiplication or natural recombination.

5. "In vitro nucleic acid techniques" means techniques, including recombinant DNA or ribonucleic acid techniques, that use vector systems and techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of hereditary materials prepared outside the organisms such as micro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, micro-encapsulation and liposome fusion.

6. "Manufacturer" means a person who does any of the following:

(a) Produces a processed food or raw agricultural commodity under its own brand or label for sale in or into this state.

(b) Sells in or into this state under its own brand or label a processed food or raw agricultural commodity produced by another supplier.

(c) Owns a brand that it licenses or licensed to another person for use on a processed food or raw commodity sold in or into this state.

(d) Sells in, sells into or distributes in this state a processed food or raw agricultural commodity that it packaged under a brand or label owned by another person.

(e) Imports into the United States for sale in or into this state a processed food or raw agricultural commodity produced by a person without a presence in the United States.

(f) Produces a processed food or raw agricultural commodity for sale in or into this state without affixing a brand name.

7. "Organism" means any biological entity that is capable of replication, reproduction or transferring of genetic material.

8. "Processed food" means any food other than a raw agricultural commodity and includes any food produced from a raw agricultural commodity that has been subjected to processing, including canning, smoking, pressing, cooking, freezing, dehydration, fermentation or milling.

9. "Processing aid" means a substance that is any of the following:

(a) Added to a food during the processing of the food but that is removed in some manner from the food before the food is packaged in a finished form.

(b) Added to a food during processing, is converted into constituents normally present in the food and does not significantly increase the amount of the constituents naturally found in the food.

(c) Added to a food for its technical or functional effect in the processing but is present in the finished food at levels that do not have any technical or functional effect in that finished food.

10. "Raw agricultural commodity" means any food in its raw or natural state, including any fruit or vegetable that is washed, colored or otherwise treated in its unpeeled natural form before marketing.

41-2072. Labeling of food produced with genetic engineering; requirements

A. Except as set forth in section 41‑2073, food that is offered for sale by a retailer shall be labeled as produced entirely or in part from genetic engineering if it is a product that is offered for retail sale in this state and is entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering.

B. If a food is required to be labeled pursuant to subsection A of this section, it shall be labeled as follows:

1. In the case of a packaged raw agricultural commodity, the manufacturer shall label the package offered for retail sale with the clear and conspicuous words "produced with genetic engineering".

2. In the case of any raw agricultural commodity that is not separately packaged, the retailer shall post a label appearing on the retail store shelf or bin in which the commodity is displayed for sale with the clear and conspicuous words "produced with genetic engineering".

3. In the case of any processed food that contains a product or products of genetic engineering, the manufacturer shall label the package in which the processed food is offered for sale with one of the following phrases:

(a) "Partially produced with genetic engineering".

(b) "May be produced with genetic engineering".

(c) "Produced with genetic engineering".

C. Unless exempt under section 41‑2073, a manufacturer of a food produced entirely or in part from genetic engineering shall not label the product on the package, in signage or in advertising as "natural", "naturally made", "naturally grown", "all natural" or any words of similar import that would have a tendency to mislead a consumer.

D. This section and the requirements of this article do not require:

1. The listing or identification of any ingredient that is genetically engineered.

2. The placement of the term "genetically engineered" immediately preceding any common name or primary product descriptor of a food.

41-2073. Exemptions from food labeling requirements

The following foods are not subject to the labeling requirements of section 41‑2072, subsection A:

1. Food consisting entirely of or derived entirely from an animal that has not itself been produced with genetic engineering, regardless of whether the animal has been fed or injected with any food, drug or other substance produced with genetic engineering.

2. A raw agricultural commodity or processed food derived from a raw agricultural commodity that has been grown, raised or produced without the knowing or intentional use of food or seed produced with genetic engineering. Food is deemed to comply with this paragraph only if the person otherwise responsible for complying with the requirements of section 41-2072, subsection A with respect to a raw agricultural commodity or processed food obtains, from the person that sold the raw agricultural commodity or processed food to that person, a sworn statement that the raw agricultural commodity or processed food has not been knowingly or intentionally produced with genetic engineering and has been segregated from and has not been knowingly or intentionally commingled with food that may have been produced with genetic engineering at any time. In providing the sworn statement, a person may rely on a sworn statement from the person's own supplier that contains the affirmation set forth in this paragraph.

3. Any processed food that would be subject to section 41‑2072, subsection A solely because it includes one or more processing aids or enzymes produced with genetic engineering.

4. Any beverage that is subject to title 4.

5. Any processed food that would be subject to section 41‑2072, subsection A solely because it includes one or more materials that have been produced with genetic engineering if the genetically engineered materials in the aggregate do not account for more than 0.9 percent of the total weight of the processed food.

6. Food that an independent organization verifies has not been knowingly or intentionally produced from or commingled with food or seed produced with genetic engineering. The department of weights and measures, after consultation with the department of health services, shall approve the independent organizations from which verification is acceptable under this paragraph.

7. Food that is not packaged for retail sale and that is either:

(a) A processed food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption.

(b) Served, sold or otherwise provided in any restaurant or other retail food establishment that is primarily engaged in the sale of food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption.

8. Medical food as defined in 21 United States Code section 360ee (b)(3).

41-2074. Retailers; immunity

A. A retailer is not liable for the failure to label a processed food as required by section 41‑2072 unless the retailer is the producer or manufacturer of the processed food.

B. A retailer is not liable for failure to label a raw agricultural commodity as required by section 41‑2072 if the retailer within thirty days after any proposed enforcement action or notice of violation obtains a sworn statement in accordance with section 41‑2073, paragraph 2.

41-2075. False sworn statement; penalties; unlawful practice; enforcement

A. It is a violation of this article for a person knowingly to provide a false sworn statement under section 41-2073, paragraph 2 that a raw agricultural commodity or processed food derived from a raw agricultural commodity has not been knowingly or intentionally produced with genetic engineering and has been segregated from and has not been knowingly or intentionally commingled with food that may have been produced with genetic engineering at any time.

B. A person that violates the requirements of this article is liable for a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars per day per product. The calculation of the civil penalty may not be made or multiplied by the number of individual packages of the same product displayed or offered for retail sale. Civil penalties assessed under this section shall accrue and be assessed per each uniquely named, designated or marketed product.

C. The director shall conduct investigations and bring enforcement actions to enforce this article.

D. An act or practice in violation of this article is an unlawful practice under section 44‑1522 and is subject to enforcement through private action and prosecution by the attorney general. The attorney general may investigate and take appropriate action as prescribed by title 44, chapter 10, article 7.

41-2076. Genetically engineered food labeling fund

A. The genetically engineered food labeling fund is established in the department to pay the costs and liabilities incurred by the department in implementing and administering this article. The department shall administer the fund. Monies in the fund are subject to legislative appropriation. The fund shall consist of legislative appropriations of settlement monies received by the attorney general's office.

B. The director may accept and spend federal monies and private grants, gifts, contributions and devises to assist in carrying out the purposes of this article. These monies do not revert to the state general fund at the end of a fiscal year.

Sec. 2. Rulemaking

The director of the department of weights and measures may adopt by rule requirements for the implementation title 41, chapter 15, article 2.1, Arizona Revised Statutes, including both of the following:

1. A requirement that the label required for food produced from genetic engineering include a disclaimer that the United States food and drug administration does not consider foods produced from genetic engineering to be materially different from other foods.

2. Notwithstanding section 41-2072, subsection B, Arizona Revised Statutes, a requirement that a label required under title 41, chapter 15, article 2.1, Arizona Revised Statutes, identify food produced entirely or in part from genetic engineering in a manner consistent with requirements in other jurisdictions for the labeling of food, including the labeling of food produced with genetic engineering.

Sec. 3. Effective date

This act is effective from and after June 30, 2016.

Sec. 4. Severability

If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

Source: AZ State Legislature

The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation!

Staff Writer, R. Patrick Chapman

Constitution / Government
_________________________________

US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions (archived here)

(15) "United States" means —
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States

So what governance are we living under? 

In the essay: The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation!, Lisa Guliani discusses how the Republic of these united States was turned into the corporate delusion called the UNITED STATES. 

Here is an excerpt:

...The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.

What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let's look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.

The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

"The Constitution for the united states of America".

The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not..

Source: Serendipity, Cornell Law,

Movie Night: Law & Getting Back Our Sovereignty Part5: Foreclosures

Staff Writer, DB Holmes

Banking / Law 
_____________________________________

Law & Getting Back Our Sovereignty Part5: Foreclosures

This show details the sheer fraud and the collusion between the courts and the banks, from people who have done their homework to expose the fraud, and to expose how the people themselves are the CREDIT for the loans that they are being double-charged. This is an obligation of the United States Government that has been stolen by the Agencies. They charge us to cover up their embezzlement. This is an astonishing charge, until you follow the money trail and understand that that is exactly what is happening in the courtrooms across America - and across the world.

Dr Christina Winsey, from Sarasota, FL, has been fighting a Foreclosure for her family home since 2010. Her lawyer quit in October, 2013, and she had to take over her own case. What she has learned since that has made her become an expert in the Foreclosure Fraud Machine. She has learned that the Judges are in collusion with the Banks against the homeowner. Yet, she has prevailed, bringing in an Expert Witness who has helped her take her appeal where her evidence will have to be heard by the Court. She has created an amazing support network that she shares with others in similar circumstance.

[8:29:34 PM] Rebecca Cope: Jennifer Pippin, of Pippin Home Designs, has recently been named a FELLOW of the AIBD, her professional organizatio. She is only one of two women named in the 64-year history of the organization. She and husband Wes remodeled the home that has been in foreclosure since the banking crisis was deliberately created by the "Too Big to Fail" Banks. She has prevailed, and has a truck-load of paperwork to show how diligently she has dug in her heels to protect the lovely home she shares with so many. Jennifer freely shares her techniques with others, and encourages them to prevail. It is a mindset, and you CAN prevail.

For information, contact rebecca@humanitad.org, christina.winsey@verizon.net, or jenny@pippinhomedesigns.com. There is a large antiforeclosurenetwork available to help. http://AFNetwork.org.

The BBS Show features Rod Class and his brother Dwight Class, both Private Attorney Generals and Bounty Hunters with a Congressional Mandate to hold Public Officials accountable to the Rule of Law. DJ Harvey, who is the Co-host of the AIB Radio Show, joins us to share the historical significance of the learning that has taken place over the years. Lamont, who was over knowledgeable Videographer for the PAG Conference, also joins in to give his special perspective. Lamont works with Public TV with the Paula Gloria Show.

Source: New Earth Nation

Exhibits that Show How Courts Railroad Americans: Case title: USA v. CLASS

Staff Writer, R. Patrick Chapman
Courts / Law / Constitution 
__________________________________

Case title: USA v. CLASS

Source: Karen Hudes

Class vs North Carolina, CASE #11 CV 00 1559

Staff Writer, R.Patrick Chapman
Law / Government
_____________________________________

Class Vs North Carolina, CASE #11 CV 00 1559

3. Public Law 1, 48 stat. 1, refers to H.R 1491 to which the U.S. GOVT. and the
State are the Trustees of the Trust created under this Public Law 1 which placed
all property of the People into the U.S. GOVT and State, and that these
possessions are a “trust “ to be used as a credit line

4. Public Law 10, Chapter 48, 48 stat 112. Refers to H.J.R.192 which removed all
the lawful gold and silver from the State to pay its employees, and for the People
the means to receive pay for sweat equity and pay debt. In 1933 – President
Roosevelt passed HJR 192, June 5, 1933 – and since the government had taken
the gold, and the People had no money, the government would pay the ‘debts’ for
the People, thereby giving them unlimited credit. Whoever has the gold pays the
bills. This legislation states that one cannot demand from you a certain form of
currency, since any form, and all forms of currency are your credit. If they do,
they are in breach of Public Policy, PL 73-10. Not only does this insurance policy
(law) protect the legislators from conviction for fraud and treason, but also it
protects the People from damages caused by the Federal & State governments

5. Under the law of the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, I declare that I am a living
flesh and blood being, and NOT dead, and hold the position of Beneficiary on any
document filed into the Department of Commerce in Washington D.C. on my live
birth for the use of this credit under Public Law 1, 48 stat 1 in reference to H.R
1491.

6. The Court Judge, Defendants and both Attorneys, being educated in the Law of
Commerce, Statute Merchant, and the Laws have knowledge of the Statute at
Large Vol 48 of 1933-1934, pages 1-112, and Title 12 U.S.C., Sec. 95 b and its
reference to Public Law 91, 40 stat 411 of Oct 6 1917 referring to H.R 4960,
Trading With The Enemy Act. They also understand that they are under the title of
Foreign Agent as listed in Title 22, Chapter 11, Sections 611 and 612, and are
unregistered and unlicensed, and are required to be registered as debt collectors to
sell or transfer any unregistered securities.

7. North Carolina Securities Act & Investment Advisors Act, N.C.G.S. 78A and 18
U.S.C., § 1956 US Code - Section 1956: Laundering of monetary instruments
(a)(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction
represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to
conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of
specified unlawful activity -

(A)(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or
(ii) with intent to engage in conduct constituting a violation of section 7201 or
7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part -
(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the
control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the
property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not
more than twenty years, or both.

8. This Court of Record, the Defendants and both Attorneys, are Public Trustees
and “Debtors in possession” by Oaths of Office under Chapter 11 Reorganization,
and are acting as Trustees to the Bankrupt Estate(s) under P.L. 73-10 , 48 stat 31
of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The Bankruptcy Act of 1826 placed
the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Comptroller of Currency & the Department of
Agricultural in charge of the 1933 Public Law 10, Chapter 48, 48 stat 112 and
Public Law 1, 48 stat 1, and all property is registered and Titled to the STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA, and the State is required to pay all taxes and all upkeep,
and discharge this debt for the People.

9. The Courts, the Defendants and their Attorneys are using unlawful Tax
Warrants of Attorney as puts and calls to purchase Equity Securities and to steal
this Beneficiary Money using GSA FORMS SF 24 BID BOND, SF 25
PERFORMANCE BOND, and SF 25A PAYMENT BOND and MILLER
REINSURANCE AGREEMENTS 273, 274 and 275.

10. The Courts, the Defendants and both Attorneys are required by the U.S.
PATRIOT ACT to reveal the source of their funds by filing Currency
Transaction Reports, Currency and Monetary Instrument Transportation Forms
(CMIR’s) under §§ 5311 et seq. of 31 U.S.C. of THE BANK SECRECY ACT,
and 31 CFR § 103.11 regulations et seq., under the U.S. PATRIOT ACT and
SEC Rule 17a-8, which applies to all broker-dealers, and incorporates the
requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act to file reports and maintain records
showing the source of the funds.

Source: RayServer

The Rod Class Case

Staff Writer, R. Patrick Chapman

Government / Law
____________________________________

The Rod Class Case

An interview between Sacha Stone and Rod Class, recorded two days before Rod was abducted by police. For more information please follow the links below:
http://www.newearth.media/press-relea... 

and

Find out what you can do by watching A Call-to-Action:
http://youtu.be/CW4JIJ-SJ1c

For more information, please visit: Adventures in Sovereignty.

VDP Gazette articles:

• Learn How to Hold Corrupt Courts Accountable to the Rule of Law! 
• PRESS RELEASE: War Crimes Drama in Washington, DC Courtroom

Source: New Earth Nation

21st Century Witch Trials Begin: Religious Persecution Affirmed by SCOTUS

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Religion / Constitution

______________________________

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”

- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791)

The Supreme Court displayed its ineptitude this past week as it sided with a corporation on its religious beliefs. That's right, folks, corporations are people too. They have religious rights over their employees. 

Sound to idiotic to be true? We only wish.

"What this ruling does is it moves in the direction this court has been moving already, which is talking about corporate personhood -- really treating corporations like people, saying that the corporation has a religion itself and that should be imposed on its employees," said Emily Tisch Sussman of the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Still do not believe we are enslaved by the corporate governmental structure? Here's the breakdown:

Monday's 5-4 high court ruling allowed some family-owned or other closely held businesses to opt out of a federal requirement to pay for contraceptives in health coverage for their workers.

What this decision amounts to is the Witch Trials. Contraception is the witchcraft and women are the witches. When are people going to grow the hell up? Your religion does not dictate other people's rights or freedoms. Sharia Law, uber-conservative Christian style has been established in the United States by the Supreme Court. 

In America, if you are a woman: you pay double for your health insurance and now birth control, get paid 30% less for the same amount of work, and are expected to mindlessly follow edicts that some old guys make up just because, even if you do not subscribe to that religion. 

Welcome to the 21st Century Witch Trials, where brains are optional.

“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.”

- Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779)

Exactly, Mr. Jefferson, but who is listening? Apparently not the Supreme Court who should know better. When religion and politics mix, people get burned at the stake.

Maybe it's time women went the way of Lysistrata but with a positive outcome instead of catering to men's needs in the end like SCOTUS just did with Hobby Lobby. The battle of the sexes is a long one because religion and society are male dominated concoctions. So why comply?  

If you haven't gotten the clues yet, the Founding Fathers of our nation as well as other thinkers of the time were dead set against religious glorification in law.

"Christian establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."

- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr. (1774)

And, of course:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

- James Madison, General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (1785)

But what do I know? I'm just a woman.

Source: Daily KOS, CNN Politics, Project Gutenberg,

A Brief History of Mother's Day

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Mother's Day / Commericalization
____________________________________

Is Mother's Day a day of celebration for the sacrifices of mothers or a cheap, commericalized holiday? If you said both: you're right. 

Mother's Day in one incarnation or another is celebrated the world over. In the United States, Mother's Day is celebrated with dinners, flowers, and cards. Most of which the founding mother of Mother's Day found repugnant. Anna Jarvis lobbied for the holiday after her mother died in 1905. By 1915, Woodrow Wilson was signing the day into law:

Following the success of her first Mother’s Day, Jarvis—who remained unmarried and childless her whole life—resolved to see her holiday added to the national calendar. Arguing that American holidays were biased toward male achievements, she started a massive letter writing campaign to newspapers and prominent politicians urging the adoption of a special day honoring motherhood.

As soon as her holiday for motherhood was official, the holiday became one of money and greed. Jarvis was soon disenchanted by her own achievement because others had ruined it with commercialism. 

While Jarvis had initially worked with the floral industry to help raise Mother’s Day’s profile, by 1920 she had become disgusted with how the holiday had been commercialized. She outwardly denounced the transformation and urged people to stop buying Mother’s Day flowers, cards and candies. Jarvis eventually resorted to an open campaign against Mother’s Day profiteers, speaking out against confectioners, florists and even charities. She also launched countless lawsuits against groups that had used the name “Mother’s Day,” eventually spending most of her personal wealth in legal fees. By the time of her death in 1948 Jarvis had disowned the holiday altogether, and even actively lobbied the government to see it removed from the American calendar.

As you spend your Mother's Day remember: it's the thought that counts, not the cards, the gifts, or the pies. Those materialistic things are not what the holiday is about and never was to the founder Anna Jarvis. 

It's about celebrating family.

Source: History Channel 

The Law & You: U.S. Code Outline

Staff Writer, R. Patrick Chapman

US Code / Statutory Law

________________________________

Wonder why the United States legal system is incomprehensible? After 1871, laws were repealed and re-enacted under Maritime Law, thus the United States has a uniform international code of laws instead of our own.

Here is a brief summation of the UCC.

United States Code: Historical Outline and Explanatory Notes
Prepared by Richard J. McKinney, Assistant Law Librarian, Federal Reserve Board, for Law Librarians' Society Program, November 9, 2004
Last Revised in June 2011

A. Background and History to the Codification of U.S. Laws and the United States Code

1) Revised Statutes of 1873 first codification of U.S. law - 70 titles. Many errors corrected in act of Feb. 18, 1875 (ch. 80, 18 Stat. 316, pt. 3) and act of Feb. 27, 1877 (ch. 69, 19 Stat. 240).
2) Revised Statues of 1878 - new corrected and updated edition of Revised Statutes, legal (but not conclusive) evidence of law, also said to be prima facie evidence (act of Mar. 2, 1877, ch. 82, 19 Stat. 268 as amended by act of Mar. 9, 1878, ch. 26, 20 Stat. 27; s.a.7 Cong. Rec. 1137, 1376-77).
3) Supplements to Revised Statutes by Judge Richardson (Res. of Jun. 7, 1880; 21 Stat. 308 and act of Apr. 9, 1890, ch. 73, 26 Stat. 50). Other supplements authorized.
4) Commission established to revise and codify criminal and judicial laws of U.S. (act of June 4, 1897, ch. 2, 30 Stat. 58 and act of Mar. 3, 1899, ch. 424, 30 Stat. 1116). From this process a Criminal Code (act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, 35 Stat. 1088-1159) and a Judicial Code (act of Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, 36 Stat. 1087-1169) were eventually enacted, repealing related prior law.
5) As time went on commercial publishers tried to fill gap in providing an up to date codification - U.S. Compiled Statues Annotated by West Publishing Co., Federal Statutes Annotated by Edward Thompson Co., Barnes Federal Code by Uriah Barnes via Virginia Law Book/Bobbs-Merrill Co's These works were useful in the preparation of the U.S. Code (60 Cong. Rec. 4735, Dec. 20, 1920).
6) In 1919, Col. E. C. Little, Chairman of the House Committee on the Revision of Laws began the work to codify U.S. law, appointing Prof. William Burdick of Kansas as Reviser. Others aided.
7) The completed work was introduced as H.R. 9389 (60 titles) in the 66th Congress and passed the House on Dec. 20, 1920 (60 Cong. Rec. 571-574). Bill died in Senate. (s.a. H. Rept. 781, 2 pts.).
8) Bill reintroduced with corrections in the 67th Congress as H.R. 12 and it passed the House unanimously on May 16, 1921 (61 Cong. Rec. 1479), but again it died in the Senate after being debated in the House and Senate (64 Cong. Rec. 2084, 2090, 2846, 3137, 5019, 5087-5102; H. Rep. 68).
9) The bill, with an updated supplement, was reintroduced in the 68th Congress as H.R. 12 and unanimously passed the House on January 7, 1924 (65 Cong. Rec. 643, H. Rept. 2). It was referred to the Senate Committee on the Revision of the Laws where it was reported unfavorably on the grounds that it contained some 600 errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. Instead the Committee reported S.J. Res. 141 (S. Rept. 722), to establish a commission to revise laws. It passed the Senate (66 Cong. Rec. 3800) and was reported from House Committee (H. Rept. 1573) w amdts.
10) The two revision committees then employed staff members at West Publishing Co. and Edward Thompson Co. to do the work of codification using Little's work (60 titles) as a basis and checking with experts in law and government departments (see 67 Cong. Rec. 7787; H. Rept. 69-900).
11) In the 69th Congress, the new Code (laws in force as of Dec. 7, 1925) introduced as H.R. 10000 (50 titles), reported by the Committee (H. Rept. 900), debated and passed the House on Apr. 19, 1926 (67 Cong. Rec. 7787-7793) to be prima facie law until July 1, 1927. The Senate Committee reported it (S. Rept. 832). It was debated, amended and passed by the Senate (67 Cong. Rec. 9737, 10403, 10478, 10480, 11799, 11963, 11971) as prima facie evidence only. House concurred (67 Cong. Rec. 12076) and was signed by President on June 30, 1926 (44 Stat. pt. 1, Public No. 440).
12) The Code enacted no new law (not really), repealed no prior law and in cases of inconsistency the statutes were to prevail. However, like the Revised Statutes, which was enacted into positive law, the Code is to encompass the general and permanent laws authored by Congress (not private and local matters, nor annual appropriations). Some 537 errors were later found; 88 of them errors of substance. See H. Rept. 70-1706 to accompany H.R. 13622, a bill to provide Supplement I volume to Code (act of May 29, 1928, ch. 911, 45 Stat. 1008).
13) In the 70th Congress, the act of May 29, 1928 (ch. 910, 45 Stat. 1007), amended by act of Mar. 2, 1929 (ch. 586, 45 Stat.1540), provided that cumulative supplements to the Code, under the supervision of the House Committee on Revision of the Laws, be compiled and published at the end of each congressional session and that a new edition of the Code be prepared and published not oftener than once every five years (practice became every six years). There have now been 13 new editions (1934, 1940, 1946, 1952, 1958, 1964, 1970, 1976, 1982, 1988, 1994, 2000 & 2006).
14) In 1939 the Internal Revenue Code was enacted (53 Stat. 1) and was recodified by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (63A Stat. 3) and renamed as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by Tax Reform Act of 1986. As Title 26 USC exactly mirrors the IRC, Title 26 is in essence positive law.
15) The impulse to enact the Code into positive law did not bear fruit until 1947 in the 80th Congress when six titles of the U.S. Code (titles 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, & 17) were prepared, codified and enacted into positive law. This was followed in 1948 with the enactment of titles 18 and 28. Bills to codify titles 1, 4, 6 and 9 had passed the House as early as 1942 and 1944 in the 77th and 78th Congresses (88 Cong. Rec. 5223-39, 90 Cong. Rec. 2752-58), but did not receive attention in the Senate. The preparation was lead by the House Committee on the Revision of Laws, which, after the Reorganization Act of 1946, was made a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Assistance also came from West Publishing Co. & Edward Thompson Co. (88 Cong. Rec. 5224).
16) As expertise became available from various executive departments, other titles were enacted including titles 14 (1949), 35 (1952), 13 (1954), 10 & 32 (1956), 23 (1958), 38 (1958), 39 (1960 & 1970), 37 (1962), 5 (1966), 44 (1968), 17 (1976 rev.), 11 (1978), 49 Subtitle IV (1978), 31 (1982), 49 Subtitle I (1983), 46 (1983 in part, also 1986 & 1988), and 49 Subtitles II, III, V-X (1994). See a related document placed in LLSDC's Legislative Source Book - United States Code: A List of Positive Law Titles with Enacting Cites and Location to Revision Notes.
17) In 1975 Office of Law Revision Counsel was established as an independent office under the Speaker of the House (see H. Res. 988, P.L. 93-554, 88 Stat. 1777, 2 USC 285-285g). Before that time, Law Revision Counsel had been officer in the House Judiciary Committee. Currently about 18 attorneys in the Office are responsible for preparing supplements and new editions to the U.S. Code, for assigning Code cites to new statutes, and for preparing and revising other unenacted titles of the Code for introduction, with reviser’s notes. Edward F. Willet, Jr. held the title of Law Revision Counsel from 1975-1996, John R. Miller from 1997-2004, Peter Lefevre 2004-2011, Ralph V. Seep 2011 to Present.

B. Prima Facie Evidence and Positive Law Evidence of the Law - How the Courts Interpret

1) Titles of the U.S. Code that have not been enacted are only prima facie or rebuttable evidence of the law and if construction is necessary, recourse must be had to the original statutes. See Kessler v. Mercur Corp. (1936, 83 F2d 178, cert denied 299 US 576); Stephan v. U.S. (1943, 319 U.S. 423); Murrel v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1947, 160 F2d 787); U.S. v. Welden (1964, 377 U.S. 95); Preston v. Heckler (1984, 734 F2d 1359); U.S. v. Zuger (1984, 602 F. Supp 889); and U.S. National Bank or Oregon v. Independent Insurance Agents of America (1993, 508 US 439). Statutes prevail also over U.S. Code errors of inclusion, exclusion, and word substitutions like "chapter" for "Act". See Olson v. Mellon (1933, 4 F Supp 947); Ruff v. Gay (1933, 3 F Supp 264); American Bank & Trust v. Dallas County (1983, 463 US 855). See notes to 1 USCS/USCA 204.
2) Titles of the U.S. Code that have been enacted as positive law, the court may neither permit nor require proof of underlying original statutes. However, it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating laws, intended to change their effect unless such intention is clearly expressed (in the reviser notes). See U.S. v. Neifert-White Co. (1968, 390 US 228); U.S. v. Zuger (1984, 602 F. Supp 889); Goldstein v. Cox (1970, 396 US 471). See notes to 1 USCS/USCA 204. Statutory provisions that have been omitted as unnecessary, but not repealed, are still valid law. See Gaddis v U.S. (381 F3d 444), U.S. v Boettcher (780 F2d 435), Chandler (398 US 74), et. al.
3) Only recent positive law titles of the U.S. Code were enacted with the phrase "without substantive change" in the enacting clause, to make clear that titles enacted into positive law are not intended to substantially change the law. However, those positive law titles without this clause still have reviser notes to support or not support a change in the law. Notes should clearly express such changes. See Goldstein v. Cox (1970, 396 US 471). As an example of a reviser's note making substantive change in U.S. patent law (following the courts and past practice) see 35 USC §102. C. Code Hierarchy, Citing, and Assignments Of New Laws to Code Sections
1) U.S. Code Hierarchy - Titles, Subtitles, Chapters, Subchapters, Parts, Sections. Some titles have fewer levels with no subtitles, subchapters or parts. Subsection hierarchy sample “b) 3) A) II) iii)”. Subsections, instead of paragraphs, gradually became more widely used during/after the 1930’s.
2) Cites are generally to sections - as in Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 13-13b, 21a (2000) or the Voting Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 445 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973 to 1973bb-1 (2000). See The Blue Book.
3) In assigning new Code cites, the Law Revision Counsel tries to insert the law into appropriate related titles and subject manner by perhaps making a new section 2a, 301r-1 or 77kkk or sometimes a whole new chapter or subchapter, which normally follows the last one assigned so that the most recent chapters are at the end of a title. Sometimes a provision closely related to an existing section is inserted as a note to that section, but it is still just as valid as law. What is important is the validity of the underlying statute not where it is placed in the Code. The Office will generally begin its U.S. Code assignments during the enrollment process. A slip law can not be published until all Code assignments for a law have been assigned. Careful attention is paid as to whether a provision in an appropriation measure is to be considered general and permanent.

 D. Notes to U.S. Code Sections

1) A parenthetical note directly follows each section of the U.S. Code and contains the source citations to each section’s statutory derivation including the original statute and any subsequent amendatory statutes. The original statute to a section of a Code title that has been enacted into positive law is usually the enactment making the title positive law, not prior laws to it. A  statute citation before 1957 will not have its public law number, but it will have the date of enactment, the statute's congressional session chapter number, pertinent statutory section, and the Statutes At Large volume and page number. Citations to statutes after 1956 will include its public law number, pertinent statutory section and Statutes At Large volume and page number.
2) Historical and reviser notes follow the parenthetical note for most all titles that have been enacted into positive law (except early enacted titles 1, 3, 4 & 9) explaining which statute parts and which sections from the old non-positive law Code the revised section came from and how it may have been clarified or harmonized by added and replaced words and phrases or deletions.
3) Amendment notes explaining how each amendatory statute changed a section or when certain subsections were added to it or subtracted from it. The notes are organized by year in reverse chronological order. The explanations will not be present for statutes before 1926 (when the Code was enacted) or for prior statutes to sections of a title of the Code that has been enacted as positive law. Base statute for those sections is usually the enactment making the title positive law.
4) Other notes may explain references in the text to statute titles and sections that are assigned to different chapters & sections in Code. For instance, they may have been repealed.
5) Section referred to in other sections notes are no longer being applied after the 2000 edition. See instead cross reference search template at http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml.
6) There are notes to effective dates, notes on short titles given to statutes, and notes on required studies/reports to congress or reports that have been sunsetted. But, after PL 108-203 (2004), one time statutorily mandated studies are no longer being placed in the notes area of sections.
7) There are even notes of permanent and general law that may affect a section, especially a section that has been enacted into positive law, but the statute in the note has not been. These notes are still as valid as those assigned to sections.
8) Finally most executive orders are placed in the notes area of related sections. Table IV of the U.S. Code (Table 3 in the USCA) lists and tells you where each executive order can be found in related sectional notes of the U.S. Code and/or whether it has been revised or repealed.
9) The United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.) by Thomson West and the United States Code Service (U.S.C.S.) by LexisNexis provide many additional notes such as cross references to sections in the Code of Federal Regulations and related library references to American Law Reports (LexisNexis) and law journal articles or encyclopedia sections. However, the U.S.C.A. and U.S.C.S. editions of the Code are most noted for their copious notes (with USCA usually having a little more) on court decisions that have interpreted the related section or one of its parts.

 E. Indexes and Tables to the United States Code

1) Voluminous subject index - sometimes too much info, sometimes still unable to locate a specific section. Same index for USCA and USCS – not online.
2) Popular name table for acts of Congress – great resource. U.S.C.A. & U.S.C.S. have added other popular names that may not be in the USC. Includes original statute citation and corresponding sections in the U.S. Code. U.S.C.A. and U.S.C.S. have more detailed corresponding cites to the U.S. Code. They also have added cites to all amendatory acts with corresponding Code cites. Remember, most laws, especially early laws, do not have short titles, but they frequently amend laws that do or are often referred to by a popular name. Various online versions are available – Westlaw, Lexis, Cornell (not up to date), Findlaw (not up to date). In the Law Revision Counsel edition – search Code as in “Jones Act” AND “Popular Names”.
4) Table of revised titles of the U.S. Code (Table I) for those titles that have been enacted (including Title 26). This table is not included in the U.S.C.A., but you can find them at the beginning of each title that has been enacted into positive law in the U.S.C.A., the U.S.C.S. and the U.S.C.
5) Table showing where sections of the Revised Statutes of 1878 can be found in the U.S. Code.
6) Table of Statutes At Large, organized chronologically, shows where sections of each statute can be found in the Code or whether those sections have been repealed or eliminated. Excellent resource for finding a section in the Code when all you have is the section of the statute.
7) Table of executive orders is arranged chronologically with references to section notes in the U.S. Code where it can be found or whether it has been revised or repealed. The USC table has been scanned into PDF and made available on LLSDC’s Legislative Sourcebook.
8) A brief Table of Presidential Proclamations (selected) and a Table of Reorganization Plans showing which section notes they can be found in is also set out.
9) Sample search - Find and cite section 221 of the Social Security Act. First look up the Act in the Popular Name Index. The original Act is given as Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 46. With this info use the Statutes table to find that section 221 has been assigned as 42 USC 421. Cite as Social Security Act § 221, 42 U.S.C. § 421 (2000). Don't really need "as added by act of Sept. 1, 1954."

 G. Comparing the U.S. Code, the U.S. Code Annotated, and the U.S. Code Service

1) Unlike the U.S.C. and the U.S.C.A., the U.S. Code Service does not replace statutory terminology for that used in the Code or for terminology that has been replaced en bloc by another statute. For instance, certain statutory reference terms in non-positive law titles like "this Act", "this title" or "this section" may be changed in the USC and USCA with the chapters or sections reflected in the Code. The USCS does not change the statutory words given but may put these other references in brackets beside the term. If another statute has changed the name of an agency the USC and USCA will make that change throughout the Code, but the USCS will retain the old name and put the new name in parentheses. Thus USC and USCA notes explaining "references in text" or "change of name" will also read differently in the USCS.
2) The headings and arrangement of the notes in the U.S. Code differ from that used in the USCA and the USCS. In a positive law title in the U.S. Code the first note after the parenthetical source statutes to a section is normally its "Historical and Revision Notes" which come from the committee report accompanying the legislation to revise, codify and enact a title. This is usually followed by "References in Text", "Amendments", "Effective Dates" and other notes. Titles that have not been enacted as positive may start out with "References in Text" or "Amendments."
3) The U.S.CA. places all the USC notes for both positive and non-positive law titles under a heading called "Historical and Statutory Notes" that will generally lead off with a subheading termed "Revision Notes and Legislative Reports". This will include the historical and revision notes of positive law material found in the USC, but it will also include information on related legislative reports found in West's U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News (which sometimes has nothing to say about the related section but only relates to the larger law the section was in). Unlike the USC, "Historical and Revision Notes as well as the subheading "Revision Notes and Legislative Reports" follow most every section, even in those titles not enacted into positive law. Other USCA general headings not included in the USC include "American Law Reports" cites, "Library References" (related cites to the C.F.R. (some), West key numbers and Corpus Juris Secundum enclyclopeda), "Westlaw Electronic Research" and "Notes of Decisions" (usually fairly exhaustive annotations of section treatment in court decisions).
4) The U.S.C.S. notes, after the parenthetical cite to statutory sources, begins its notes under the heading "History; Ancillary Laws and Directives" with the first subheading being "Prior Law and Revision" which would contain the USC information on historical and revision notes for sections of titles that have been enacted into positive law. Other notes from the USC are also placed in this general heading with the whole section being indented. Non-USC notes, which are not indented, follow under such general headings of "Code of Federal Regulations" (fairly exhaustive), "Cross References", "Research Guide" (Am Jur, Forms, ALR cites, etc.) and "Interpretive Notes and Decisions" (extensive treatment of section in court cases; usually not as many annotations as USCA, but sometimes has more annotations).
5) The U.S.C.A. and the U.S.C.S. have placed certain parts of the full text of the Code of Federal Regulations after certain note sections. These parts include 12 C.F.R. Part 263 - Rules of Practice for Hearings before the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (note after 12 USCA 248); 12 C.F.R. Part 226 - Reg. Z, Truth in Lending regulations of the Federal Reserve Board (note after 15 USCA 1693r); and 12 C.F.R. Parts 202, 213, and 226 - Consumer Credit Protection regulations of the Federal Reserve Board (after 15 USCS 1693r).
6) The U.S.C.S., at the end of its series, provides numerous extra texts and annotations including Rules of Procedures for various U.S. courts. These rules of court and procedure are included as appendices to various titles of the U.S.C. and U.S.C.A. The U.S.C.S. also provides Administrative Rules of Procedure for various U.S. departments and agencies. The U.SC.S. provides the Index and Finding Aids to the Code of Federal Regulations. The U.S.C.S. provides annotations to repealed sections of the 70 titles of the Revised Statutes and annotations to statutes concerning American Indians. The U.S.C.S. has annotations to Indian Treaties and Treaties with Specific Countries. The U.S.C.S. has annotations to Proclamations of the President and to Resolutions of the Congress. Finally the U.S.C.S. provides the text and index to some 21 International Agreements and Conventions.
7) Both the U.S.C.A. and U.S.C.S. provide soft copy supplements of newly enacted laws during the year and cumulative supplements that place these newly enacted laws in the U.S. Code.
8) Accuracy v. Currency in the U.S.C., U.S.C.A. and U.S.C.S. The U.S.C. is published by GPO from the documents prepared by the Office of Law Revision Counsel, which is the official body charged with preparing it. Thomson West and LexisNexis prepare supplements and updates to the USCA/USCS before the U.S. Code is published and before the Office of Law Revision Counsel completes its work. Sometimes discrepancies ensue, especially in regard to references, such as Westlaw and West's USCA not noting until the Spring 2004 (after the author informed West) that some 250 required reports to Congress (out of about 500) had been sunsetted effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995. However, these two commercial publishers are generally very responsive when errors are pointed out. Some even argue that the U.S.C.S. is, at times, more accurate than the U.S.C. as it does not change terminology or omit disputed sections without guidance. For instance, the USC and the USCA, but not the USCS, had omitted 12 USC §92 for decades (came from the act of Sept. 7, 1916). Congress even amended the section in 1982. In 1993 the Supreme Court clarified that despite the faulty placement of a quotation mark in the original act, the section was still valid law (see U.S. National Bank of Oregon v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, 508 U.S. 439).

 F. Electronic Sources for the U.S. Code.

1) GPO Acces (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/) has 2006, 2000, 1994 editions
2) Law Revision Counsel (http://uscode.house.gov/) has downloadable chapters (2001 to near cur.) USC Tables, Classification Tables (public law section to USC section; 1995 to current)
3) Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) has U.S. Code as of Jan. 6, 2003 (Titles 1-25) or as of Jan. 22, 2002 (Titles 26-50) (regardless of release date). Also has direct linking and a table of popular names to laws as of Jan. 2, 2001 with links to THOMAS.
4) Findlaw (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/) has U.S. Code as of Jan. 6, 2003 (Titles 1-21 or as of Jan. 22, 2002 (Titles 22-50). Also has direct linking and a limited popular name table with somewhat dated information with selected links to U.S. Code sections and notes.
5) Westlaw has an “updated” USCA and back years from 1990 (see files USCA90, USCA94, etc. and a new effective date sevice). Also has a popular name index (file USCA-POP) from 1789 with breakdown links to USCA cites and public law number of recent laws. Updates take a few weeks.
6) LexisNexis has an “updated” USCS and back years from 1992 (US1992, US1994, etc.). Also has a popular name table (file GENFED;USNAME) from 1789 with cites to amendments and links to Code cites those amendments concern. Updates may take a few weeks.
7) Current U.S. Code also available on LoisLaw.com, TheLaw.net, and VersusLaw.com.

H. Bibliography and Source Material on the United States Code and U.S. Statutes

• Dwan, Ralph H. and Ernest R. Feidler. "The Federal Statutes - Their History and Use, " Minnesota Law Review, v. 22, pp. 1008-1029 (1938).
• Lee, Frederic P. and Middleton Beaman. "Legal Status of the New Federal Code," ABA Journal, v. 12, pp. 833-838 (1926).
• Lynch, Michael. "The U.S. Code, the Statutes at Large, and Some Peculiarities of Codification," Legal Reference Services Quarterly, v. 16, pp. 69-75 (1997).
• Surrency, Erin C. "The Publication of Federal Laws: A Short History," Law Library Journal, v. 79, pp. 469-483 (1987).
• United States Code. GPO; U.S. Code Annotated. Thomson Reuters; U.S. Code Service. LexisNexis
• United States Statutes at Large. Little, Brown & Company (1845-1873), Government Printing Office0 (1874 +). Includes Revised Statutes (1873 & 1878) and Code of Laws of the U.S.A. (1926).
• Whisner, Mary. “The United States Code: Prima Facie Evidence and Positive Law.” Law Library Journal, v. 101, pp.545-556 (2009).
• Tress, Will. “Lost Laws: What We Can’t Find in the United States Code.” Golden Gate University Law Review, v. 40, pp. 129-164 (2010).
• Zinn, Charles S. "Revision of the United States Code" in July 2, 1958 AALL general session published in Law Library Journal, v. 51, pp. 388-395 (1958).

FBI Priorities, Class Action Clampdown + Millionaire Congress

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
News / Government
______________________________

In this news episode of Buzzsaw, FBI Priorities, Class Action Clampdown + Millionaire Congress.

Government corruption and the latest in independent media truth digging here on the Buzzsaw news, where we look at protesters in the Ukraine holding mirrors up to police riot squads, John McCain asking for a closer look to be paid to the NSA, US Government connections to sweatshops abroad, and the millionaire majority currently sitting in congress. Tyrel Ventura and producer Tabetha Wallace steer you through the stormy seas in this episode of Buzzsaw.

Source: Buzzsaw

Constitution? What Constitution?

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Government / Education

___________________________________

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution, an article in the New York Times Op-ed section, by Louis Michael Seidman, who is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University and he stated: 

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. 

 Read the sign:

If you do not like how the country is run you need to either go live in North Korea and let us know how that turns out or start holding politicians accountable. 

No more laws for us and laws for them. No more insider trading or becoming a multimillionaire in office on an approximately $200K salary. No more spending money on campaigns for a political position that can never pay it all back. No more taking money from corporations. No more stealing money from Americans through the illegal use of the Internal Revenue Service. Just NO MORE.

If you do not adhere to the Constitution, then you get recalled or voted out of office. No more putting up with globalism or international laws that supersede our national sovereignty.

Also, if you had not noticed: our failed policies, politics, and laws are not about our Constitution or system of government. It is about the Hegelian dialectic. Problem-reaction-solution.

Someone toils in the night. Problems arise. The public is angry: Fix it! The government responds: We have the solution! But the government never tells the people that they caused the problem in the first place. The problem was created in order to affect social change. Change that would not have happened in the natural ebb and flow of the human experience.

This scenario is played day in and day out especially on the national news. Our immigration system is broken! People demonstrate in the streets. The government wants to reform the immigration laws of the nation... Problem is there was no problem to begin with. Only a certain amount of people want to change the laws to their favor for breaking the laws that now subject them to deportation.

It is not difficult to deduce. Someone wants to change society to fit their agenda and not within the confines of law. So a fictitious problem is created and anyone who sees through the scheme is vilified.

Which is where higher education institutions come into play. University instructors should be debating these issues but instead of teaching our heritage as positive solutions to current and made up problems, professors are screaming: The government is broken! The Constitution is evil! We must change our system! 

Change it to what? A rule under technocratic elitists who run corporations and the United Nations so then we no longer have guaranteed rights but now must live under the system of a one world government in which people have "privileges" instead? 

Obviously someone must be friends with a crack pipe and he is not alone. A professor at Texas' A&M believes the Constitution is not for anyone either as noted in an article on PrisonPlanet: 

Mary Margaret Penrose also admitted that she teaches students in her Constitutional law courses that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are obsolete. “Why do we keep such an allegiance to a Constitution that was driven by 18th Century concerns?” she asked.

This feigned argument begins here and there. From the disputed GW Bush rant that the "Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper" to politicians who act like the Constitution is not there to direct their activities and now constitutional law professors hating on our national document for problems not derived from the living testimony on how we as Americans should conduct ourselves and our government, these behaviors are a national embarrassment. 

It is a ruse to get Americans to doubt the veracity, hope, and fortitude of the founding documents of the United States. So that Americans will believe there is a problem where there is none. The manipulation is to make the American people leave the confines of their freedoms and rights for a more structured, surveillance state known as a one world government. For that, charges of sedition should be levied as well as tenures pulled for these professors, and perhaps charges for politicians as well.

If someone does not like the Constitution, there is the door. No one is keeping you here. These professors are way out of line and their respective institutions need to reign them in. These so-called professors should be fired from their positions, forthwith!

It appears that these university teachers do not know or understand how societies change over a long period of time, not just in 237 years, but longer. Educators need to comprehend the complex economic, political, and social engineering crises caused by a few despots who wish to accelerate human society and use some brainwashed mass lecturer who will decide to vomit libel sedition from his or her pulpit for the task. Hence the conclusion that educated people do not always mean smart.

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence are not documents headed for the shredder. People who will not abide by their oaths of office are the problem. These government servants will not control corporations, banks, Wall Street, or industries that fill their political coffers. 

That is not the Constitution's fault. It is the fault of men. Men who believe greed is above the law. It is the fault of Americans who allow this behavior to continue. 

In essence, professors, the problems of the United States are your fault for not standing up against a government who walks on the very words you are supposed to hold so dear.

Source: The Western Center for Journalism, Amerikan Expose, About, Encyclopedia Brittanica

Business Decides $3500 Fine plus for Bad Review

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Consumer Report

________________________________________

When a customer orders and pays for a product they never receive, cannot get in touch with the company's customer service, and goes through Paypal for a transaction reimbursement, a customer is going to complain.

KlearGear.com in it's 2013 website agreement, which the original clause was later removed, wrote as part of the customer's rules states:

"In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts kleargear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees."

Three and half years later, the company is going after a customer for doing the right thing and complaining on RipoffReport.com. The fine for telling the truth is $3500 and the company also turned the couple into all three Credit Bureaus for non-payment for items they never received.

This situation is clearly one of vengeance and blackmail especially grandfathering a customer in over three years later, but the Credit Bureaus aren't seeing the circumstances that way and have ruined the customer's credit.  

Moral of the story: we need better regulations and oversight of the credit agencies and their information as well as to read the user agreement and not to buy from anyone who contracts you into give up your Rights.

I hope the customer gets a lawyer... and sues the pants off everyone involved.

Source: Yahoo!