The FISA laws enacted by U S Government to prevent All governments from Lawsuits in U S Courts giving power to governments to conduct without consequence…
SAN FRANCISCO, CA, UNITED STATES, July 11, 2017 /EINPresswire.com/ — San Francisco, July 11, 2017 – The Miskitu Government in exile, represented by their Matriarch Rev. Josephenie E. Robertson, M.T.T. and Ercell Hendy Tawaska Fleurima; appeared in the San Francisco United States District Court before Presiding Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 22nd, 2017. San Francisco, the complaint has been restricted in pertinent part by the U.S. District Court in Northern California that has applied the Political Question Doctrine to portions of her complaint.
The FISA laws were enacted by the United States Government to prevent All governments from Lawsuits in the United States Courts, in effect restricted individuals and foreign governments from obtaining jurisdiction in a U.S. court thus preventing lawsuits and giving power to foreign governments to conduct their business as they see fit. However, this is in violation of all military laws and rules of engagement, Including the Geneva Convention as was proved in the Nuremberg trials where war criminals were brought to trial and held responsible for decisions issued from their Command and government hierarchy until very recently last two years there was no way around this barrier.
Since a US court has now created an exception to the rule under 7d with respect to human rights violations, genocide, terrorism, mass murder under the Alien Torts Act including the taking of property from a national without compensation, leaves the door open to jurisdiction in the U.S. courts.
At this time there are over 800 cases now pending in US courts from 9/11 and there are now some very serious questions about the Constitution and FISA applications under American law.
Although Judge Jon Tigar is a good judge trying to do the right thing he failed to address which portion of the complaint falls under the “Political Question Doctrine” versus the portion of the complaint that is scheduled to move forward. His comments about the political problems did not provide a nexus with respect to the last 200 years of persecution and have nothing to do with FISA and the current Miskitu lawsuit.
This case is about what is currently taking place on a regular basis defined under terrorism and genocide property tort where he oversteps that fact thus convoluting the issues. His complicity seems to be falling in line with the United Nations and misapplying the Political. Question Doctrine. This “doctrine” refers to the idea that an issue is so politically charged that federal courts, which are typically viewed as the political branch of government, should not hear the issue. The doctrine is also referred to as the justiciability doctrine or the non-justiciability doctrine.
One of the earliest examples of applying this doctrine can be found In Oetjen v. Central Leather Co.(1918) when the United States Supreme Court applied the political question doctrine, the Court found that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch. As such, the Court found that cases which challenge the way in which the Executive uses that power present political questions. Thus, the Court held that it cannot preside over these issues.
The Court’s order added confusion to the issues before his Court, by refusing the appoint of counsel with respect to the issues he is allowing to go forward, that also affect the class action portion of the lawsuit that he states requires the plaintiffs to have counsel to proceed on the class action argument of the case.
This judicial bias by not affording the appointment of counsel results in a case that is now with divided issues requiring the plaintiffs to find a lawyer that will represent their cause within 30 days under the liability that the Court has ruled to dismiss some of the complaint based upon the “political question doctrine” that has resulted in the plaintiffs having a hard time to find a willing attorney who would find themselves with problems requiring them to amend the complaint to cure the vague deficiencies cited by the court.
It is interesting to note as a natural conclusion covering this case, is that when a citizen files a complaint with the Court as a means of protection, they lose their rights and then the law says just go to court and settle the matter. This was not the perception and way of thinking of our Forefathers.
It is time for the American people to start breathing life into our Constitution in order save our freedoms from the tyrants and scoundrels that would kill this great experiment called Democracy because they are not publicly confronted.
If you would like more information about this topic, please contact Ercell Fleurima at email@example.com or email at Rev. Josephenie firstname.lastname@example.org or Gary Mitchell email at email@example.com 1-530-313-3118
Ercell or Gary
email us here
Brief History on treaties that caused the downfall of Miskitu Nation by Matriach Revered. Josephenie
Source: EIN Presswire