FBI — Sovereign Citizens - Press Room -DOMESTIC TERRORISM
The Sovereign Citizen Movement
04/13/10
Some examples of illegal license plates used by so-called sovereign citizens.
Domestic terrorism—Americans attacking Americans because of U.S.-based extremist ideologies—comes in many forms in our post 9/11 world.
To help educate the public, we’ve previously outlined two separate domestic terror threats—eco-terrorists/animal rights extremists and lone offenders.
Today, we look at a third threat—the “sovereign citizen” extremist movement. Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.
This causes all kinds of problems—and crimes. For example, many sovereign citizens don’t pay their taxes. They hold illegal courts that issue warrants for judges and police officers. They clog up the court system with frivolous lawsuits and liens against public officials to harass them. And they use fake money orders, personal checks, and the like at government agencies, banks, and businesses.
That’s just the beginning. Not every action taken in the name of the sovereign citizen ideology is a crime, but the list of illegal actions committed by these groups, cells, and individuals is extensive (and puts them squarely on our radar). In addition to the above, sovereign citizens:
Commit murder and physical assault;
Threaten judges, law enforcement professionals, and government personnel;
Impersonate police officers and diplomats;
Use fake currency, passports, license plates, and driver’s licenses; and
Engineer various white-collar scams, including mortgage fraud and so-called “redemption” schemes.
Sovereign citizens are often confused with extremists from the militia movement. But while sovereign citizens sometimes use or buy illegal weapons, guns are secondary to their anti-government, anti-tax beliefs. On the other hand, guns and paramilitary training are paramount to militia groups.
During the past year, we’ve had a number of investigative successes involving sovereign citizens. A few recent cases:
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
BYE BYE internet as we know it
Broadband providers can restrict access, add fees, court tells FCC
Wednesday, April 7, 2010 3:42 AM
By Edward Wyatt
The New York Times
THE HOT ISSUE
WASHINGTON— A federal appeals court dealt a sharp blow yesterday to the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to set the rules of the road for the Internet, ruling that the agency lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressed the efforts of Comcast, the nation's largest cable-television provider, to slow customers' access to a service called BitTorrent, which consumers use to exchange large video files, most often pirated copies of movies.
After Comcast's blocking was exposed, the FCC told the company to stop discriminating against BitTorrent traffic. In 2008, the FCC issued broader rules for the industry regarding "net neutrality," the principle that all Internet content should be treated equally by network providers.
Comcast challenged the FCC's authority to issue such rules and argued that its throttling of BitTorrent was necessary to ensure that a few customers did not unfairly hog the capacity of its network, slowing Internet access for all Comcast customers.
But yesterday's ruling has far larger implications than in the Comcast case. It would allow Comcast and other Internet-service providers to restrict consumers' ability to access certain kinds of Internet content - for example, video sites such as Hulu.com or Google's YouTube service - or charge certain heavy users of the providers' networks more money for access.
Google, Microsoft and other big producers of Web content have argued that such controls or pricing policies would thwart innovation and customer choice.
Consumer advocates said the ruling, which is one of several that have challenged the FCC's regulatory reach, also could undermine all the agency's efforts to regulate Internet-service providers and establish its authority over the Internet, including its recently released national broadband expansion plan.
"This decision destroys the FCC's authority to build broadband policy on the legal theory established by the Bush administration," said Ben Scott, the policy director for Free Press, a nonprofit organization that advocates broad media ownership and access.
The decision could reinvigorate dormant efforts in Congress to pass a federal law specifically governing net neutrality, a principle generally supported by the Obama administration.
Although the decision is a victory for Comcast, it also has the potential to affect the company's pending acquisition of a majority stake in NBC Universal.
Members of Congress have expressed concern that the acquisition could give Comcast the power to favor the content of its cable and broadcast channels over those of competitors, something that Comcast has said it does not intend to do.
Now, members of Congress might fret that Comcast also will block or slow customers' access to the Web sites of competing television and telecommunications companies.
In a statement, the FCC said it remains "firmly committed to promoting an open Internet."
Although the court decision invalidated its current approach to that goal, the agency said, "the court in no way disagreed with the importance of providing a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."
Wednesday, April 7, 2010 3:42 AM
By Edward Wyatt
The New York Times
THE HOT ISSUE
WASHINGTON— A federal appeals court dealt a sharp blow yesterday to the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to set the rules of the road for the Internet, ruling that the agency lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressed the efforts of Comcast, the nation's largest cable-television provider, to slow customers' access to a service called BitTorrent, which consumers use to exchange large video files, most often pirated copies of movies.
After Comcast's blocking was exposed, the FCC told the company to stop discriminating against BitTorrent traffic. In 2008, the FCC issued broader rules for the industry regarding "net neutrality," the principle that all Internet content should be treated equally by network providers.
Comcast challenged the FCC's authority to issue such rules and argued that its throttling of BitTorrent was necessary to ensure that a few customers did not unfairly hog the capacity of its network, slowing Internet access for all Comcast customers.
But yesterday's ruling has far larger implications than in the Comcast case. It would allow Comcast and other Internet-service providers to restrict consumers' ability to access certain kinds of Internet content - for example, video sites such as Hulu.com or Google's YouTube service - or charge certain heavy users of the providers' networks more money for access.
Google, Microsoft and other big producers of Web content have argued that such controls or pricing policies would thwart innovation and customer choice.
Consumer advocates said the ruling, which is one of several that have challenged the FCC's regulatory reach, also could undermine all the agency's efforts to regulate Internet-service providers and establish its authority over the Internet, including its recently released national broadband expansion plan.
"This decision destroys the FCC's authority to build broadband policy on the legal theory established by the Bush administration," said Ben Scott, the policy director for Free Press, a nonprofit organization that advocates broad media ownership and access.
The decision could reinvigorate dormant efforts in Congress to pass a federal law specifically governing net neutrality, a principle generally supported by the Obama administration.
Although the decision is a victory for Comcast, it also has the potential to affect the company's pending acquisition of a majority stake in NBC Universal.
Members of Congress have expressed concern that the acquisition could give Comcast the power to favor the content of its cable and broadcast channels over those of competitors, something that Comcast has said it does not intend to do.
Now, members of Congress might fret that Comcast also will block or slow customers' access to the Web sites of competing television and telecommunications companies.
In a statement, the FCC said it remains "firmly committed to promoting an open Internet."
Although the court decision invalidated its current approach to that goal, the agency said, "the court in no way disagreed with the importance of providing a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."
OOOOHHHH MY GOSH!! HEALTH CARE CRAP
April 6, 2010
Required RFID implanted chip
Sec. 2521, Pg. 1000 – The government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. What does a National Medical Device Registry mean?
National Medical Device Registry from H.R. 3200 [Healthcare Bill], pages 1001-1008:
(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that— ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; ‘‘(B)and is— ‘‘(i) a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.”
Then on page 1004 it describes what the term “data” means in paragraph 1,
section B:
‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to information respecting a device described in paragraph (1), including claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary”
What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is an “implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”
See it for yourself: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072191.pdf
This new law – when fully implemented – provides the framework for making the United States the first nation in the world to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country.
Don’t believe it? Look it up yourself. Healthcare Bill H.R. 3200: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
Pages 1001-1008 “National Medical Device Registry” section.
Page 1006 “to be enacted within 36 months upon passage”
Page 503 “… medical device surveillance”
Why would the government use the word “surveillance” when referring to citizens? The definition of “surveillance” is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people and often in a secret manner. The root of the word [French] means to “watch over.”
In theory, the intent to streamline healthcare and to eliminate fraud via “health chips” seems right. But, to have the world’s lone superpower (America, for now) mandate (page 1006) a device to be IMPLANTED is scary!
Microchiping included in Healthcare Bill?
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/105079
Coverage under Obamacare will require an implantable microchip?
http://current.com/items/90842279_coverage-under-obamacare-will-require-an-implantable-microchip.htm
Required RFID implanted chip
Sec. 2521, Pg. 1000 – The government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. What does a National Medical Device Registry mean?
National Medical Device Registry from H.R. 3200 [Healthcare Bill], pages 1001-1008:
(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that— ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; ‘‘(B)and is— ‘‘(i) a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.”
Then on page 1004 it describes what the term “data” means in paragraph 1,
section B:
‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to information respecting a device described in paragraph (1), including claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary”
What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is an “implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”
See it for yourself: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072191.pdf
This new law – when fully implemented – provides the framework for making the United States the first nation in the world to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country.
Don’t believe it? Look it up yourself. Healthcare Bill H.R. 3200: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
Pages 1001-1008 “National Medical Device Registry” section.
Page 1006 “to be enacted within 36 months upon passage”
Page 503 “… medical device surveillance”
Why would the government use the word “surveillance” when referring to citizens? The definition of “surveillance” is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people and often in a secret manner. The root of the word [French] means to “watch over.”
In theory, the intent to streamline healthcare and to eliminate fraud via “health chips” seems right. But, to have the world’s lone superpower (America, for now) mandate (page 1006) a device to be IMPLANTED is scary!
Microchiping included in Healthcare Bill?
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/105079
Coverage under Obamacare will require an implantable microchip?
http://current.com/items/90842279_coverage-under-obamacare-will-require-an-implantable-microchip.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
