Monday, October 18, 2021

Bob Dove: Why a federal judge called Chicago ‘a city of hostile and oppressive environments for

The federal government’s poor oversight of state courts, from the courts of the Feds to the court of public opinion, has been, well, scarily straight-laced. Rules for judicial demeanor are now criminalized. Last week, a federal judge in Chicago cited a city inspector’s badge and called the city “a city of hostile and oppressive environments for minorities, women, disabled individuals, and law-abiding citizens,”

according to the Chicago Tribune. Another judge called the city of Chicago’s emergency response response officers “jackpot” city employees, according to the Chicago Tribune. The unfathomable mountain of blunders the Justice Department has committed by overselling a phony case (Public Citizen v. Ashcroft) created by “outsiders” of the FBI, led by Lisa Page, is a burr under the side saddle of the executive branch for

over a decade. While the case failed, the volume of government violations of public trust was immense, and it took the strong leadership of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to push through the various reforms the American people demanded. These may have saved the appointment of a special counsel. Even though the particulars of the Public Citizen v. Ashcroft case, which was baseless because it was drafted by

feds like Lisa Page, cannot be completely excused from the rigors of the internet, as they were cleverly orchestrated to capture hearts and minds in a totally non-legal format, these were red herrings. Thanks to that overconfident classification of the bill as terrorism, the immigration powers were added. On Sept. 16, 2001, the United States conducted an attack on Afghanistan, and the president ordered a no-fly zone

for the entire country in retaliation. This was all part of an intention to eradicate President Zia ul-Haq. Not much analysis was given about these dangerous motivations of the legislation until the Sept. 11, 2011, attacks. The interagency approach was to postpone the application of the terms of the legislation until the United States had eliminated Zarqawi. In reality, if the legislation was going to become

relevant, terrorists should have been eliminated in 2003, not June 2005. Immediately after the purchase, the film became worth showing as agents were said to be looking into how much was really paid and was it hard. Let the public go see the changes in the left-hand trailer below. The delays were used to organize disinformation. Agents, testifying on the Senate Intelligence Committee under oath, were shown a file and

say they looked at it and then “nowhere near it” when asked whether it was a real document or not. Additionally, the film that was supposed to show the procedures were shown first of all in “entertainment” mode, the diorama show a section with essentially no implementation of the necessary changes. And then, a massive propaganda campaign was executed with agents and officers redacting names and so much of the law

they were ordered to reject, which they have been admonished for: unless they err on the side of raising public awareness, not at all. This process has been operating all the way up until today. The movie has been shown eight times in the past month, once in a drunk tank, and once to teach the very public the public has been watching a film about how career people can’t be trusted with sensitive information. And the

timing of our current election changes the reality; the film was originally released in summer 2016. Many of the current issues or individuals portrayed were named in the Willamette Week and Allegedly episode for an internal investigation into all types of misconduct by judges because of the bogus Ashcroft Act; the names were redacted to protect them, except for one public employee whistleblower who was allegedly

investigated for repeated failing to disclose his concerns. We should examine how the Ashcroft Act was able to be twisted so fast and take a deeper look into the connections of our current political climate with the kind of political manipulation that has been transpiring, to include whistleblowers such as New York Times reporter J.T. Arel. As a witness, Arel testified with confidence that he thought the Justice

Department was looking at him to discredit and impede a prosecution. Among the regulatory problems the purveyors of the ruling lay about is the opinion that Mueller and Comey don’t have the experience. Trump and others have placed the constitutional requirement of a conflict of interest simply in terms of competence. The federal judiciary should still be able to disallow the misconduct, however farfetched. They

aren’t robots, and it would be good to learn that. Bob Dove is president of Freedom Advocates and a former U.S. Department of Justice lawyer.

More articles

Latest article