DataRepublican (small r)

@DataRepublican

8h

Grumpy Tech Bro

@GrumpyTechBro

8h

32 insurrection-adjacent folks saying “transpartisan.”

Secret password for the Kewl Kommie Klub.

Making “fetch” happen.

h/t: @DataRepublican and @SKDoubleDub33 for the data and the word.

LOL

Danielle knows a lot

@Daniell64334313

14h

Dr Gila Jedwab DMD

@GilaAwakening

14h

Why did they all flip?
Because they are central casting!

JENNI JERREAD

@jenni_jerread

4h

Mila Joy

@Milajoy

11h

🚨 A senior Army nuclear scientist has reportedly been placed on leave by Sec. Hegseth after a James O'Keefe undercover video appeared to show him talking about nuclear missile locations and launch procedures.

If true, this is a massive national security breach.

Hegseth didn't wait around.

That's what accountability looks like. x.com/MidnightLeaksH…

EMGt@E_Mc_Grath

Oct 25

Wake Up NJ 🇺🇸 New Jersey

@wakeupnj

Oct 23

Cory Booker left New Jersey, showed up in Ohio, and told a room of Somali Americans “we got to get out and vote” while they held Sherrod Brown signs

Doesn't seem like he is fighting for NJ folks campaigning in another state, vote for @JerseyJustinUSA

Leah Hoopes

@hoopes_leah

5h

Leah Hoopes

@hoopes_leah

9h

🚨 ANOTHER ONE? THREE WEBSITES NOW RETURNING 404 ERRORS.

First, GHI International.

Then ThrivePoint Behavioral Health.

Now Beacon Behavioral Health.

On October 21, I published my investigation documenting ThrivePoint's website, its advertised location at 392 Avon Road, and the connection to the property acquired by Rivora LLC.

FOUR DAYS LATER? 404.

And now Beacon's website is also inaccessible—the same Beacon whose advertised leadership and clinical credentials I questioned in my investigation.

Coincidence? Maybe. But THREE websites returning 404 errors while I'm digging through business registrations, healthcare records, Medicaid, and property transactions?

Here's the part some people don't understand: I SAVE EVERYTHING.

Screenshots. Dates. Names. Addresses. Corporate filings. Property records.

A 404 doesn't prove why a website disappeared, but it certainly doesn't erase what was publicly advertised.

You can take down a website. You can't take back the receipts.

And I'm nowhere near finished. 🔎
delcopatriot2020.substack.com/p/public-offic…

@WHFraudTF @ScottBradyPA @DOJFraudDiv I submitted my report 2 days ago..please touch base with me

All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿

@skillz17q

6h

All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿

@skillz17q

May 15

Pay attention we should be up in arms how dare they fool the people all these years

ATTORNEY LICENSING IS A FRAUD!
There is no such thing as an Attorney License to practice law. The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT held a long time ago that The practice of Law CANNOT be licensed by any state/State. This was so stated in a case named Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) and is located for all to read at the following pages in volume 353 U.S. pgs.238, 239 of the United States Reports. Here is a quote from that case:

"A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection [353 U.S. 232, 239] Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 5 Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 . Cf. Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U.S. 551 ; Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 . And see Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9, 13. A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar, but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law. Douglas v. Noble, 261 U.S. 165 ; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 319-320. Cf. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 . Obviously an applicant could not be excluded merely because he was a Republican or a Negro or a member of a particular church. Even in applying permissible standards, officers of a State cannot exclude an applicant when there is no basis for their finding that he fails to meet these standards, or when their action is invidiously discriminatory. Cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 ."
[Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957), emphasis added]

Another case which bore this out was PDF Sims v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 (1925). In this case the opinion of the court was that

"The practice of Law is an occupation of common right."

Where some confusion may start is when one doesn’t understand that a state supreme court only issues a CERTIFICATE, and that is not a license. All a certificate does is authorize one of those dirt-bags to practice Law "IN COURTS" as a member of the state judicial branch of government. [Please see NOTE 1 below to see that there is no judicial branch of government as we have been led to believe all our lives] A plain truth of fact is that Attorneys are ‘foreign agents’, the same as Federal Agents from the bowels of hell known as WASHINGTON, DC, and can only represent wards of the court; infants and persons of unsound mind. [The reader would be surprised to find out that according to them, we’re all of unsound mind that is; we’re considered incompetent to handle our own affairs.] [Please see NOTE 2 below for a reference in a law dictionary which explains this concept

Further, as a CERTIFICATE IS NOT A LICENSE then it also gives no power to anyone to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM.

The state bar association is not a government entity. The state bar ass…is "PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION" and their "STATE BAR" CARD IS NOT A LICENSE either. All that card is – is a "UNION DUES CARD" like the Actors Union, Painters Union, Electricians union etc. Did the reader know that there is no other association, not even DOCTORS, who issue their own license. All other licenses are issued by the state or local municipal corporations . Any one can ask their state Attorney General if the members of the BAR are licensed by the state or any other governmental agency. The reader will find out in short order that the state doesn’t issue licenses for Attorney’s and that said attorneys are NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION.

DataRepublican (small r)

@DataRepublican

Oct 24

Wade Miller

@WadeMiller

Oct 23

I've been going through the Democracy Files leaks @DataRepublican has been releasing, and whether or not any of this ultimately meets the legal bar for seditious conspiracy. The plan these organizers are discussing doesn't hold together unless you assume their "non-violence" language is masking their true intentions from public consumption.

Their red line is the Insurrection Act as a potential triggering action, there may be others, but all of the potential triggering acts that have been hinted at are lawful actions. Nobody invokes the Insurrection Act over people walking down the street with signs. It doesn't happen. The Guard deployments in LA and Portland last year to counteract violent protestors weren't even the Insurrection Act. The only scenario where it actually gets invoked is one where there is sustained violence that local authorities can't or won't control.

So if your entire plan is built around what happens after the Insurrection Act is invoked, you are building a plan around mass violence happening. You can say "non-violence" as many times as you want. The plan doesn't work without the violence. That's a wink and a nod tactic to cya legally.

But understand the logic flow of what comes next. In the transcripts published by The Post Millennial and WECU, the talk is about governors becoming "the leading governing authority," about how to "wall off these illegitimate individuals," and about moving "into an extra-constitutional process." In other words, the federal response has been labeled illegitimate before anything has even happened.

That's where this starts to matter legally. The seditious conspiracy statute covers conspiring to oppose by force the authority of the United States, or to prevent, hinder or delay by force the execution of any law. The Supreme Court said back in 1887 that if federal officers carrying out the law are forcibly opposed by people who conspired for that purpose, that is exactly what the statute was written for.

If violence breaks out, and the federal government steps in to protect communities, and these same organizers then use ongoing violent protests to tell governors and the public that the federal government is no longer legitimate, that bleeds out of activism and into something far more serious.

Advocating an idea isn't a crime necessarily and the courts have been clear about that. But there is a big difference between teaching an abstract idea and lining up the lawyers, the bail money and the governing plan for the day after.

Maria Stephan, who co-leads the Horizons Project, the group that co-wrote the toolkit for these organizers, wrote in 2020 that calling the George Floyd protests violent riots "is simply untrue" and that the looting and vandalism were "a minute portion" of it, "largely committed by opportunists." Erica Chenoweth, whose 3.5% rule keeps coming up in these circles, co-wrote that claims the protests were overtaken by rioting "are false." Paul Zeitz wrote last year that troops had been "deployed against peaceful protestors" in LA. So they are obviously hiding behind legalese to cover their tracks while having a background of defining violent protests as non-violent.

All of this tells you exactly how they'll describe the violence when it comes. “It isn't really violence, it's a tiny percentage, it's opportunists, and the real threat is the federal response.”

They're being evasive and misleading, intentionally.

The question now is what the full archive shows. If anyone on these calls is planning to physically resist federal law enforcement once it shows up, or keeps backing these movements after they've clearly turned violent, that's not politics anymore. And it’s worth repeating this last point. If the organizers of this say “peaceful protest” now, but advocate for advancing their plan to delegitimize the authority of the United States government after violent protests break out, they will be exposed to more obvious legal scrutiny.

Dsleuth@Dsleuth_

10h

MaQaveli 🇺🇸🌎

@MQaveli

17h

Our Constitution has been hoodwinked. The 16th Amendment was never ratified LEGALLY. The BAR Association DOES NOT make you a Lawyer or Attorney in the US. All TRUTH!