Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- US Foreign Aid & Material Support to State Sponsors of Terrorism

In this episode we are going to talk about material support for terrorism, and US Foreign Aid as a means to provide financial (aka material) support to terrorism. Specifically, I am going to present ongoing US foreign aid in billions of dollars sent to a nation recognized as a State sponsor of terrorism, and with that pose the following question: shouldn’t those in our government who sanction and grant billions of your tax dollars to a state that sponsors terrorism be held criminally liable?

Listen to the full audio version here (BFP Subscribers Only):

Show Notes

Let It Cut Both Ways: US Foreign Aid & State Sponsored Terrorism

Leon Panetta: U.S. "reaching the limits of our patience" with Pakistan terror safe havens

Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, Chris Alexander says

Nicolas Sarkozy launches attack on Pakistan over terrorist safe havens

Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism

US Aid to Pakistan

America Gives Aid to Pakistan, Pakistan Gives Terrorism To The World

Providing Material Support to Terrorists

FACT SHEET: The United States and Pakistan – a Strong and Enduring Relationship

 

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING.

Comments

  1. The Last Interview of Syed Saleem Shahzad..!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTM6gyHxbo
    Why..?
    Should Syed Saleem Shahzad..
    Not be here, in this forum…!
    Alive.
    Best Regards
    Jens and Bornholm.

  2. I guess I don’t need to ask what happens when you go to the lawyer next door with a proposal to sue.

  3. Meet Drew Sullivan – journalist, co-founder of The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
    https://slavyangrad.org/2016/04/13/the-panama-papers-stand-up-routine/

  4. Ribbit-Mark says:

    Excellent succinct analysis Sibel of this in-your-face evil double standard on the part of the U.S. government.

  5. James Fordham says:

    Sibel, this is a question related to s slightly different topic. I followed the occupation of the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge from afar with great interest. To tell the truth, I take an adverse view of the occupiers and their cause.I view them as a bunch of privledged and greedy people trying to privatize the commons. Although I now reside in central Pennsylvania, I have lived most of my life in the West, and have spent a lot of time in those federally managed lands, and I consider those lands to be mine. Further more, if there is one group that should have prime consideration if the ownership of these lands were to change, it is the Native American peoples, from whom these lands were siezed through wars of genocide. Since you have some familiarity with the Malhuer protesters, could you speak to what their aims are,, what are their objections to federal land use contracts and management practices. Clearly, the Hammonds were too greatly punished because of our extremely stupid three strikes laws. I’d like your opinion. I don’t want to have these people all wrong.
    Thanks, Jim

  6. A Name says:

    Youtube… I just typed that to get this moderated.

    I wanted to ask Sibel about color of law issues. Below is a rough draft of something I have been trying to do, but it is becoming more and more apparent to me that two Judges, Epis and Oths, officer Jones, and probably the porsecutor too, have violated the law, and that this is a color of law case. I am thinking of going to the FBI with but I am somewhat afraid to do so. What do you advise? It may seem like nothing to you, but for me, as I don’t own a car, it is my life, freedom, and safety at stake. Plus this is a judicial corruption issue….

    Read the below to get an idea of what I am talking about…

    BRIEF/APPEAL TO JUDGEMENT AND AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
    There are rights issues, due process issues and color of law issues to be resolved. I do not believe Judge Dale read my original complaint thoroughly (or at all really) or carefully considered the implications of it. I have decided to use this chance for appeal to amend my original complaint and focus on the things that I can currently solve legally. When I wrote the original complaint I did not have the understanding of the law I currently do. Judge Dale’s dismissal was helpful in furthering my understanding of the law. And this problem does still need to be resolved.
    The following sections of the original complaint are no longer relevant: The “IMPRESSION ARGUMENT” starting on page 98, and the “DEFENDANTS” argument on page 39. And while almost the entire rest of the original complaint is still HIGHLY IMPORTANT TO READ, it is perhaps even more important to read the EXHIBIT VIDEO section starting on page 129 of the original complaint.
    All other sections likely carry some relevance but the following seem most relevant to me: The Video Section starting on page 129. Videos 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 are important. The ones in bold inverted black and white are VERY IMPORTANT.
    A right whose practice requires excess money be spent to engage in freely, safely, and without deterrent, is not a right. It is a privilege. Considering this, and other reasons, including that it is my religion to use a bicycle to transport myself to prevent weakness and therefore dependency on motor powered transportation, and that the bicycle is cheaper to maintain and use than any other useful form of transportation for my needs and wants which also makes travel by bicycle be in line with my religion, and that the bicycle is the most convenient to use mode of transportation for me in the vast majority of situations, and that the bicycle is the only useful means within my finances, it is my right to engage in intrastate travel, to wherever is commonly able to be traveled, via bicycle in as safe a manner as possible.
    Previous cases involving airplane security checks, licensing, and access to special areas are not relevant. This situation involves a bicycle, which is a mode of mammalian powered transportation in line with the founders and framers original vision of transportation around at the time of the founding of this country and the framing of the constitution. This was a time when the right to travel was seen as so obvious as to not need inclusion in the constitution per 5] EXHIBIT CONSTITUTION 8 page 1, 5] EXHIBIT CONSTITUTION 3 page, all of it.This case does not involve a licensing issue. I already have a license. And this case does not involve access to special areas, such as a beach. This case involves travel to areas normally able to be traveled.
    Free, safe, undeterred intrastate travel to all places normally able to be traveled is necessary for the practice of all rights. Without a right to intrastate travel one cannot go to the grocery store, go to church (even just visiting out of curiosity is a right as curiosity leads to practice), go to work, go to court, go to the bank, go to the stores one needs to (I really need to go to the T-mobile store and other stores in Twin Falls), talk to the cashier at the grocery store, talk to someone while using diagrams drawn on the spot with gestures, etc… or engage in a meaningful practice of life and liberty at all.
    Therefore free, undeterred, and safe intrastate travel to all places normally able to be travelled is a prime right, to which all other rights are dependent.
    The Constitution must be applied evenly. Any practice that interferes with equal access to rights creates an unequal application of the Constitution. The practice of 49-717 that I have thus far experienced, and the high speed limits of highway 86, interfere with my ability to be reasonably safe when traveling in a manner within my means to maintain, and within my religion.
    Being coerced into dangerous situations by enforcement of law, or some other reason, is a deterrent to my travel, and therefore a violation of my rights.
    This case does not involve issues of access to special areas, or licensure, or airplane security checks. It involves travel by the cheapest to maintain and use useful means I have available to places which are normally accessible. Previous cases such as Daly v. Harris, special areas, Miller v. Reed, which involved licensure, and Gilmore v. Gonzales, which involved an airplane security check, do not apply as the situations presented within are not significantly similar as they do not involve potential for complete impedance of rights, including the right to practice religion. In Daly v. Harris the issue was access to a special area, not impedance of travel to all normally accessible areas. And Miller v. Reed only involved licensure, which would not have prevented him from travel in and of itself, or simply just getting a license. And in Gilmore v. Gonzales there was always the option to travel by motor vehicle. In these latter two cases both methods of travel were not religious in nature and did not involve interference with travel by cheaper means.
    A cost threshold may not be induced for free and unimpeded access to rights. Especially when the threshold is so high as the cost of fast motor vehicle ownership. See 06] EXHIBIT COST. Such a threshold would turn a right into a privilege.
    As the bicycle is the method of travel most within my means to maintain and use, and the only useful method within my means to maintain and use, and the only method within the bounds of my religion 90%+ of the time, I have a right to travel safely by bicycle and to take measures to ensure my safety, including cycling 4 feet off a curb to prevent curb contact and being squeezed into the curb by passing traffic.
    My conviction was done under Idaho code 49-717. I was ticketed, by Officer Ryan Jones who thought I should stay 1 to 2 feet off the curb, for riding my bicycle 4 feet off a curb to prevent curb contact risk in the event that I wobbled for some reason (such as looking in my rearview mirror, or being startled by honking, or wind, etc… there are many issues that can cause wobble) and as a preventative for curb squeezing and obstacle and other issues per EXHIBIT VIDEOS noted at the begining of this brief, by preventing lane sharing per EXHIBIT VIDEOS 22 and 42, and probably dooring issues as well when I was closer to the Albertsons and YMCA area as I recall parked cars being there. See EXHIBIT VIDEO for examples of dooring issues from parked cars. The lane was narrower there and that was the area in which I was near the middle of the lane. I was ticketed farther down where the lane was wider. I was riding on State street which was not only the fastest way to get to my destination at the time, and I was in a hurry, it was also the only way I knew at the time. I would have had to wander all over the place to not have used it. I was out running errands at the time.
    Per Daly v. Harris “Impracticability of joinder ” does not mean impossibility, but only the difficulty or inconvenience”. I figure the same concept of practicability should be used here. And therefore the concept of practicability used when interpreting 49-717 must not be interpreted as simply being possible, but also safe and reasonable.
    The bottom of page 5-8 of the Idaho drivers manual states plainly that it is recommended to stay AT LEAST 3 feet from the edge of the pavement, particularly in case one must make an emergency maneuver. Therefore, I argue, in the case of a curb, railing, deep ditch, cliff, falling rocks or some other obstacle, it is reasonable and wise to stay at least 4 feet off the curb, if not farther, as there is no soft, safe, shallow ditch to bail into.
    Furthermore, as the needs of a cyclist are quite similar to the needs of a motorcyclist, the only difference between the two being weight and usually speed, the recommendations on page 5-3 of the Idaho Drivers Manual should also be taken into consideration. Two wheeled modes of transportation cannot safely share the lane with other vehicles. Therefore any coercion, even by ticketing and conviction, lain against a cyclist in an attempt to make them ride farther to the side so that other vehicles may share the lane, even partially, is arbitrary and unreasonable. And as the concept of practicability held within 49-717 must include safety and reasonability, such ticketing and conviction are done under color of law.
    Also keep in mind that I may wobble while traveling. Also keep in mind that I am not coordinate enough to maintain that distance (this is the truth but I do not have to prove it due to the danger to me required to prove.). Curb hugging also poses a danger should I wobble for any reason such as wind, distraction such as a horn honking, or any other reason, plus per exhibit videos it does invite life threatening lane sharing and dooring.
    Furthermore, I have heard the argument from one cop, I do not recall which, that cycling close to the curb permits vehicles to safely pass cyclists without noticing the cyclist. This is false. For one, my handle bars are two feet wide. Say a car is 5-6 feet wide, a reasonable estimation for many cars, although not accurate for large semi’s and trucks which would be wider. That means my bicycle and a car will take up a minimum of 7 feet of a normal 12 foot lane. Given that the car would likely be anywhere between 3 feet from the edges of the lanes, as cars do not travel in perfectly straight lines, nor do cyclists, any attempt to make this occur would likely lead to either direct collision, or a crash as I tried to instinctively move out of the way of the car, which would then be impossible due to excessively close proximity to an obstacle, in this case a curb.
    Also keep in mind that I do now have a Design Shine DS-500 mark 4, which is a tail light capable of over 800 lumens output, which should put it in the low range of an automobile high beam as far as lumen ratings go, and perhaps past the brightness of an automobile high beam as far as lux ratings go. It is an EXTREMELY bright daytime capable tail light that few people own. Only several hundred are made per year. Any arguments made on how visible and noticeable I am using evidence from situations using cyclists which are in the more normal range of visibility and noticeability will therefore be inaccurate… starting in June when I may finally be able to afford the battery for it. It is very expensive.
    Furthermore, it would not be safe or reasonable for a car driver or motorcyclist to be coerced into maintaining a 1 to 2 foot distance from a curb, as officer Jones demanded of me when cycling. Therefore why would it be safe or reasonable for a cyclist? It wouldn’t. As cyclists and cars do not travel in perfectly straight lines, requiring them to maintain a 1 to 2 foot distance from a curb gives them no reasonable and safe amount of space for the errors and obstacles which normally prevent perfectly straight lines of travel.
    Furthermore, per DRIVER’S MANUAL argument (starts page 75 of the original complaint), the argument under EXHIBIT VIDEO 23 (starting on page 149 of the original complaint) and maybe the text under EXHIBIT VIDEOS 34 and 35 (starting on page 157 of the original complaint), and under 1) starting on page 178 of the original complaint, and maybe other areas of the original complaint, cycling close to a curb prevents predictable lines of travel and leads to dangerous situations per the EXHIBIT VIDEOS and the arguments under them mentioned at the beginning of this brief.
    Therefore any demands that I stay closer than 4 feet, or even 6 feet, from a curb, are unreasonable and arbitrary. Any ticketing and conviction based on such demands are therefore also unreasonable and arbitrary and therefore done under color of law.
    If I have been ticketed and convicted with the prosecution, judges, and cop using arbitrary and unreasonable excuses to ticket and convict me for riding 4 feet from a curb, what is to prevent further ticketing, conviction, and therefore determent from engagement of rights wherever else I may cycle? Nothing. The precedent has been set and Officer Jones and Judges Epis and Oths, and the prosecutor are responsible for setting this precedent. They are responsible for removing this precedent.
    Keep in mind that it was not my duty to prevent the ticketing or to ensure my defense was adequate. It was the duty of the officials to not ticket and convict me in an unlawful manner. Due the nature of the concept of practicability, this entire ticketing and conviction were done under color of law.
    While Wilder p does give power to reasonable and non arbitrary police authority, 49-717 as it has been practiced against me, and high speed limits on highway 86, do constitute unreasonable and arbitrary usage of such authority. As the travel environment is supposed to be in favor of upholding the right to travel as much as possible, and as lowering the speed limit of highway 86 to 55mph to uphold this is not unreasonable as it was once quite a common speed limit for highways, and as my proposed alterations to the actual practiced effect of 49-717 are not unreasonable (while cyclist should have the full lane, and full lane changes should be required when passing, as this would prevent lane sharing and increase safety, per my argument noted under DRIVER’S MANUAL argument (starts pages 75 or the original complaint), particularly the part about page 5-3, cyclist should be allowed to stay at least 4 feet from obstacle such as curbs and cliffs… etc… as there is no room to dodge these obstacles during an emergency maneuver or a wobble other than the distance one gives oneeself before the incident happens… just imagine if motorcyclists were required to share the lane with other traffic. It is danger for them, why isn’t considered dangerous and unacceptable for cyclists to share the lane with constantly passing traffic? Bigotry is the only accurate answer.), it is obvious that 49-717, as practiced, and high speed limits are arbitrary and not in the spirit of upholding rights, but in the spirit of segregating cyclists and other slow moving vehicle users from free access to their rights by giving faster motorists priority to the detriment of safety. When possible a method of transportation should not be given priority as requiring its use, even by making it the only reasonably safe method of travel, such as is the case with motor vehicles, 49-717, and high speed limits in cases with no immediately available alternative road which allows access to all areas accessible by car, is unreasonable and excessive interference with rights, as it is needlessly done. We do not NEED 49-717 as practiced by Officer Jones, Judges Epis and Oths and the prosecutor. We do not NEED high speed limits. I do NEED to be able to access all areas normally accessible to citizens of the United States, via bicycle, safely, to practice my rights, including my religion, and giving into my demands does far less to impede motorist travel than the current paradigm does to impede my travel. As the law which includes the constitution may not be applied unevenly, favoring the rights of one group over another, and an unsafe and unreasonable travel environment does favor the rights of motorists over the rights of people who cannot or will not (especially when regarding religion and finances) use faster motor vehicles (such as is the case with me and my bicycle usage), the dangers of the current travel environment, made apparent in this suit, are arbitrary, and do actually deter my travel, and do violate my rights including my right to practice my religion and are therefore illegal. As the issues have occurred and the threat these issues pose is ongoing, I therefore seek the following remedies from the following parties responsible in accordance with ex parte Young…
    They had nothing showing that cycling closer than 4 feet to a curb is safe. And contrary to the claims of judge Epis the concept of practicability must include reasonability and safety. Therefore they had no way to convict me without reasonable doubt. Considering that this was a case which could effect my rights and my safety, due process was something I had a right to. And as the Idaho Drivers Manual is something that the Judges Epis and Oths and Officer Jones should be familiar with given that it is their duty as traffic enforcement officials to know what they are doing, it is obvious that their behavior in this case, ticketing and convicting me for riding a bicycle 4 feet off a curb, was malicious and arbitrary.
    Ticketing and conviction are designed to be pervasive and ongoing deterrents to any more behavior which originally caused the initial ticketing.
    The more I have studied this case the more apparent it becomes that the judges and officer and prosecutor did know what they were doing and therefore I do now believe they were malicious in their actions, especially Jones and Epis. The judges, prosecutor and officer should have known all the issues surrounding close cycling toward the curb. They have no ignorance or incompetence excuse. It is their job to know when they are enforcing a law in an unconstitutional manner or using color of law, and it is their job to know when their interpretations and endangering (which I think they did know).
    Cycling with my front wheel 4 feet off the curb, especially with my handle bars being 2 feet wide, would have put me within the recommendation of page 5-8 of the Idaho driver’s manual. At the 10:57 mark of EXHIBIT VIDEO 34 RCourt Recording part 1 officer Jones testimony backs my view that cars stay farther from me when I am away from the curb.
    Please keep in mind that these parties are responsible, even if they only did what they did due to negligence and not willful ignorance, or malice (although I do believe there was malice and willful ignorance involved in the case of the judges, cop, and prosecutor) and their positions do carry professional responsibilities.
    All parties involved in my ticketing and conviction used color of law to ticket and convict me.
    “49-717. POSITION ON HIGHWAY. (1) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable* to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations: (a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. (b) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (c) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. (2) Any person operating a bicycle upon a one-way roadway with two (2) or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway as practicable*.” “* Practicable per the dictionary means capable of being put into practice or of being done or accomplished; feasible.”
    Keep in mind when reading this that page 5-7 of the Idaho drivers manual states “Bicyclists are legally allowed to ride on all Idaho roadways, have the same rights as motorists, and are required to ride with the flow of traffic. They must ride as close to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway as safety allows, except when passing, turning left, avoiding an obstacle, or when the roadway does not allow a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side.” Per officer Jones’ own testimony at the 11:13 mark of RCourt Recording part , the lane I was ticketed in was a standard 12 foot lane, and per “PASSING DISTANCE” on page 5-8 of the Idaho Drivers Manual a normal 12 foot lane is not safe to share with other vehicles. Therefore legally there was no requirement that I ride to the side at all. I do legally have the right to the full lane in lanes too narrow to share per page 5-7 of the Idaho driver’s manual.
    1) Officer Ryan Jones: This is especially notable with Officer Jones and his comments at the 10:16 mark of RCourt Recording part 1 (to paraphrase “if you hadn’t noticed, the lanes are there for vehicles”.), and the 10:05 mark of RCourt Recording part where he dodges my question on what is the safe distance to cycle from the curb. Jones states at about the 10:30 mark of RCourt Recording part 1 that in MOST cases the motorists give the cyclist room, and therefore he knew that sometimes motorists get too close. Officer Ryan Jones of the Boise police department ticketed me for cycling 4 feet from a curb. I was about 4 feet off the curb the entire time. This would have put me closer to the middle of the lane in the area near the YMCA on State street, as the lanes are narrower there, and right on the left edge of the right 3rd the lane further down where I was ticketed. He did write the ticket even though the he knew the reason behind my riding to the left was based on safety and its effect of causing cars to give me large clearance by fully changing lanes when passing (note the approximately 8:20 and 10:57 marks of RCourt Recording part 1), and this was acknowledged by the officer as what drew his attention to me in the first place (starting around the 3:50 mark, confirmed at about the 10:57 mark or RCourt Recording part 1). It is also noted in the Idaho driver’s manual that sharing lanes (standard width lanes, and the lane was standard width where I was pulled over, per officer Jones’ own testimony at around the 13:24 mark of RCourt Recording part 1 and possibly other places as well) with automobiles is dangerous and that it is recommended that cyclists cycle AT LEAST 3 feet off the edge of pavement. See page 5-8 of EXHIBIT DRIVERS MANUAL. Note at the 11:13 mark of RCourt Recording part 1 how officer Jones acknowledges that the lane is a standard 12 foot lane. He knew it was to prevent curb squeezing issues per EXHIBIT VIDEO 34 RCourt Recording part 1 at the 8:25 and 10:57 mark. Note that at about the 10:05 mark of RCourt Recording part 1 officer Jones states that “a bicyclist is supposed to ride as far to the right as possible”. This is how “practicable” is interpreted by officer Jones. Note that he said this in an attempt to dodge my question on how far to the right was safe.This shows the arbitrary nature of his ticket writing. He displayed callous disregard for my concerns as seen in EXHIBIT VIDEO RCourt Recording part 1 at the 8:15 to 8:38 mark of RCourt Recording part 1 “can’t do that”. As seen at the 10:05 mark of RCourt Recording part 1 he dodged my question as to what is the safe distance to cycle from the curb, indicating that he knew his demands were not safe or reasonable while at the same time claiming that’s where he would cycle if he were cycling on that road. Keep in mind that he may have said that just to back his view point, and that just because he is dumb enough to cycle within an unsafe proximity to the curb doesn’t mean I should be. His motive seen at the 10:15 mark of RCourt Recording part 1 was malicious and inspired by his view, paraphrased, “believe it or not, the lanes that are on the road are there for vehicles”. Given that it would be his duty to avoid color of law violations, it would be his duty to both know the law and the Idaho Drivers Manual. Also, he is a traffic enforcement officer and does ride a motorcycle. The likely-hood of him not knowing what is on pages 5-8 and 5-3 of the Idaho Drivers Manual is slim.
    Furthermore, per the testimony at around the 13:34 mark of RCourt Recording part 1 officer Jones knew that cycling far to the side could allow cars to share the lane with cyclists. Lane sharing is dangerous per page 5-3 of the Idaho drivers manual (a cyclist sharing a lane with passing traffic is at least as dangerous as a motorcyclist sharing a lane with another vehicle. See the DRIVER’S MANUAL ARGUMENT of page 75 of the original complaint for more detail.) Officer Jones starts to note that cyclists and motorist can share the same lane at that 13:34 mark of RCourt Recording part 1. Per page 5-8 of the Idaho drivers manual, and per good sense, and per the EXHIBIT VIDEOS referenced at the beginning of this brief, sharing lanes is dangerous (motorcycles and bicycles are only dissimilar in weight, power, and usually speed).
    Arbitrary reasoning (remember, practicability must include reasonability and therefore safety), and therefore color of law, was used by officer Jones to ticket me. Further arbitrary reasoning might be evident in the original traffic recording as I recall him saying there were so many laws he could not keep up with them all. If my memory is correct, he did not have proper authority to ticket me (per the reasonability of practicability) and the fact that he didn’t actually know the law when he ticketed me shows that he did not have the ability to lawfully reason when he ticketed me. Both of these issues make his ticketing self motivated and unlawful. (This is why I motioned for the original recording of the traffic stop to be provided and its authenticity verified.)
    This aided in setting the precedence that cycling a safe distance from a curb is a ticketable offense, using arbitrary and unreasonable logic, and therefore color of law, and this precedent continues to deter me from travel, and therefore deters my access to my rights. Officer Jones is responsible for setting this precedent. Therefore he is responsible for removing this precedent and I demand he dismantle this precedent.
    2) Judge Epis: I believe Judge Epis purposely ignored the law and evidence in the form of the Idaho Drivers Manual to contrive my conviction is spite of the law and evidence. Judge Epis at the end of RCourt Recording part 2 stated that the law did not have a safe or reasonable standard. As the concept of practicability does include a concept of reasonability, and therefore safety, his logic was arbitrary and unreasonable. My conviction was therefore done under color of law. It cannot be practicable if it is not safe or reasonable as it would be to deterring to engage in an activity devoid of concern for safety or reasonability, or devoid of safe and reasonable behavior. And as a lack of safety and reasonability could lead to death or injury in this case, the greater the risk taken the less practicable it becomes, notably when the asymptote of danger is hit and the death or injury occurs. Therefore the concept of practicability must include the concept of reasonability and safety.
    Per Daly v. Harris “Impracticability of joinder ” does not mean impossibility, but only the difficulty or inconvenience”. I figure the same basic concept of practicability should be used here.
    I had thought the law 49-717, itself was unreasonable, but Judge Dale has said in the dismissal that it is not. Therefore I must go from the logic that 49-717 is a reasonable law and the Judges Epis and Oths, Officer Jones, and the prosecutor acted of their own accord in defiance of the law and the constitution. This is an ex parte Young case.
    Given that I am not experienced in the law or court practice it would have been unreasonable for me to be denied the ability to show evidence because I had not followed some specific procedure. Such requirements, especially as I had not been given a lawyer, would deny my right to due process especially since this is a situation that involves jeopardy of my rights.
    Note at past the 17:10 mark of RCourt Recording part 1 the dialogue between me and judge Epis over my ability to include the Idaho driver’s manual in my defense. Epis denied my ability to show evidence in the form of a digital copy of the drivers manual, even though he could have (per his own admission at RCourt Recording part) allowed it, and even though using the website would have prevented any risk of forgery on my part, by using the bogus reason that he ” felt” it was inappropriate per the mark of RCourt Recording part. This denial of my ability to show this critical evidence was arbitrary and unreasonable. Any claim that he simply did not know of the unsafeness and unreasonableness of his judgement is false. He denied my ability to show appropriate evidence to back the fact that it is unsafe and unreasonable to be closer than 4 feet to a curb, evidence being the Idaho Drivers Manual which would have been known to Epis, Oths, Jones, and the prosecutor, and he then went on to claim the law 49-717 did not include provisions for safety or reasonability in defiance of the concept of practicability to counter any potential argument based on safety and reasonability while claiming he had to because that is the way the law is written at Rcourt Recording part 2 mark. Any claim that it is my job simply to not cycle due the danger posed by cycling in a fashion in line with judge Epis’ unsafe and unreasonable interpretation of 49-717 is also false, as cycling is the only useful means of transportation within my financial capacity to maintain and within the practice of my religion.
    Furthermore, given that 49-717 has the capacity inhibit my freedom, Epis was responsible for not giving me legal counsel and thereby violating my right to due process. He admitted there were constitutional issues at mark … Of RCourt Recording part 2.
    Furthermore, enforcement of a law may not be done arbitrarily, Chicago vs. Morales. As Judge Epis did not allow the presentation of evidence, supposedly because he felt it was inappropriate with no explanation given (per RCourt Recording part… mark…) and stated clearly that the standard of 49-717 was not a safe standard or reasonable standard, (RCourt Recording part 2), he did substitute an arbitrary and unreasonable standard for 49-717 by his claims of 49-717 not having a reasonable or safe standard per RCourt Recording part 2, and convicted me using these claims made under color of law. All parties involved in my ticketing and conviction used color of law to ticket and convict me.
    The ruling of Judge Epis was arbitrary, out line with the law and therefore done under color of law, and unreasonable and not safe. Judge Epis set the precedent of convicting me using arbitrary and unreasonable judgement, and therefore color of law, to deter my access to my rights by deterring my safe behavior while traveling by bicycle. I demand Judge Epis dismantle this precedent which continues to deter my travel.
    3) Judge Oths: By dismissing my appeal, Judge Oths backed up the conviction against me which used arbitrary and unreasonable logic, and therefore color of law, noted above. He is responsible for continuing determent of my travel by maintaining the illegal precedent. A precedent which he is responsible for dismantling. I demand he dismantle this precedent.
    4) The prosecutor could have dropped prosecution or motioned to have it vacated at any time (or so I think). He aided in setting the precedent for ticketing, convicting and fining me for riding 4 feet off a curb using unreasonable and arbitrary logic, and therefore color of law. A precedent which I demand he dismantle. This precedent continues to deter my travel and thereby does deter my access to my rights.

  7. Lawrence Shea says:

    “The greatest purveyor of violence on earth is my own government.”

    Martin Luther King Junior

    I don’t know about you, but I am not going to hold my breath until the prosecutions start happening. The Imperium does whatever it darn pleases. Worldwide thermonuclear war is a very real possibility, and it is getting more real by the moment, so, I am not really worried about the same old, same old, ho-hum, Saudi-financed Pakistani Salafi terrorists. Fundamentalist Islam in that area is older than the British Raj. It’s just some more great fun and great games against the Russians and the Chinese. No big whoop Enjoy yourself, it’s later than you think!

  8. Ribbit-Mark says:

    I don’t know about you, but I am not going to hold my breath until the prosecutions start happening. The Imperium does whatever it darn pleases.

    I agree Lawrence.
    Here’s the thing. Not too long ago, historically-speaking, we were still able to effect change in de facto leadership/power.

    Somehow a mutation occurred in our leadership/power. It now ‘has us by the balls’.
    Is this mutation permanent or not?
    If not, what could cause it to undo itself or mutate again for our betterment?

    Let’s be as realistic as possible in our thoughts.

  9. Lawrence Shea says:

    The fault lies not in the stars, dear Ribbit-Mark, but in our captive corporate media.

    This, my friend, is the whole point of Newsbud, in the first place. Unless a sincere and serious effort is made to discover, to investigate, to comprehend, and to publicize the news of what is truly happening in our own country and around the world, then all bets are off. Newsbud has the potential to become a portal for honest journalism and reportage, with our support. It can bring us the TRUTH!

    The mainstream media (MSM) is by-and-large a safe haven for presstitutes (print media) and techno-whores, those silly parrots and parakeets who are constantly regurgitating whatever BS-bird-food that our crafty government minders feed them. The techno-whores are the bird-brains that we see on TV, listen to on NPR (so-called Public Radio), and bypass on the Internet. These ho’s all have their corporate and government minders, and so, they put on their cognitive blinders, when they regurgitate the news, that they are forced to let someone else choose.

    Their defense is,” Hey, buddy, it’s a job, and it pays the bills. I can’t be held responsible for simply following my boss’s orders (just like a junky!). Besides, everyone in the MSM knows full well that the real honest-to-god truth is a only another conspiracy theory – we learned that, as cute little lapdogs in media-obedience school. Anyways, rocking the boat makes me seasick, and I already have an esophageal issue from regurgitating so much forced-fed, BS-media bird food. So, please, don’t judge me!”

    Thus continually and steadily the beat drones on, and on, and on… Oswald was a lone assassin, Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy, James Earl shot Martin Luther King Jr., 911 happened just exactly the way that the government said it did, there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (yeah, ISIS has them), white is the new black – no white is black (at least, for now), etc., etc., etc., and anybody who believes otherwise is just a gosh-darn conspiracy theorist and a tin-foil wearing, terrorist wing nut.

    If our politicians and leaders can act like that bastert, Dennis Hastert, or as Bill Clinton and Monica did in the White House and basically get away with it, then what kind of leadership are we going to attract to govern our country? Satan, the Anti-Christ, Mussolini, Hitler, Hillary, or Trump?

    As Hillary Clinton’s husband once said, “There’s a government within the government, and I don’t control it.” he was talking about the secret government and its policy makers, who rule this country and are determined to rule the world. Presidents and members of congress come and go, while the secret government remains and become more entrenched and more powerful every day. They answer only to Wall St. and the City of London, because whoever controls a nations money supply, controls that nation, and whatever country has the majority control of the world’s reserve currency, which is the dollar, virtually controls the world!

    if you want to have a better understanding of how things got to be in the sorry state that they are in today in America and in the world, then I suggest that you obtain a copy of “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and the Rise of America’s Secret Government”, which was written by, David Talbot. There is some great historical background in this book. The state-sponsored assassinations of JFK, and of MLK & RFK were the significant turning points in our country’s history – for the worst. It has been all down hill ever since the coup d’état of November 22, 1963. WE WANT THE TRUTH!

    • Ribbit-Mark says:

      By coincidence I am reading ‘The Devil’s Chessboard’ right now.
      It is a good book that reveals all the sordid machinations of Allen Dulles
      and his cohorts.

      I only wish that Talbot was a better writer as reading it is a bit torturous.

      The fault lies not in the stars, dear Ribbit-Mark, but in our captive corporate media.

      You make it sound like the MSM is a completely independent entity from the deep state, blaming them and not their controllers.

      You later go on however to explain why the MSM is unable to change the status quo.

      But I will once again ask my parting question from my previous post:

      “If not, what could cause it to undo itself or mutate again for our betterment?
      Let’s be as realistic as possible in our thoughts.”

      While I am a full backer of Newsbud and its potential for getting the truth out to the masses, do you think the deep state would allow it to flourish and grow exponentially?

      Do you think this is the magic bullet that will undermine the deep state?
      Or perhaps might it be a seminal seed that triggers other sites to get on board with the real truth?

Speak Your Mind