LibertyFight Blog

Fight for liberty

Archive for July 2009

Santa Monica and Red Cross Promote ‘Free’ [Cancer-Causing] RFID Chips In Pets

leave a comment »

Santa Monica and Red Cross Promote ‘Free’ [Cancer-Causing] RFID Chips In Pets

The city of Santa Monica, CA issued a press release about an event they are holding this weekend:

The American Red Cross of Santa Monica and the City of Santa Monica present:

Santa Monica Pet Preparedness Fair & Chip-a-thon

on Saturday, August 1st from 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. at Clover Park in Santa Monica.

Admission is free and children and pets are welcome!
Fun, food, contests, giveaways, cat and dog adoptions and more!

  • FREE microchips and registration while supplies last!*
  • Low cost vaccinations
  • Learn about the I’ve Got 7 campaign and how you and your pet can be prepared for an emergency through:
  • Dog training demonstrations
  • Pet first aid classes and disaster preparedness tips

Animal experts and celebrities including:
Karen “Doc” Halligan, DVM

Law and Order’s Elisabeth Rohm

Children’s character Hip-Hop Harry

Visit more than 20 exhibitor booths for free samples and info about products and services.

* Microchip Information

In conjunction with AVID, Found Animals will be providing FREE microchips and microchip registration while supplies last.

All dogs must leashed and other pets such as cats or rabbits must be in a proper pet carrier.

Want to Volunteer?

If you are interested in volunteering at the event, please contact the City of Santa Monica at Paul.Weinberg@SMGOV.NET.

Clover Park is located at 2600 Ocean Park Blvd. in Santa Monica, CA 90405.

For more information visit

Although their press release mentions the acronym “AVID”, nothing is revealed about what AVID is, not even their name, although a quick search revealed it stands for “American Veterinary Identification Devices”.
Their website claims they are the “Worldwide leader in RFID microchip permanent identification technology”.

The Red Cross, whose reputation has been sullied ater reports of misappropriation of funds , also had to ‘pay a $4.2 million fine for violating blood-safety laws’, as reported by

Nearly two years ago in September 2007, mainstream media across the world reported that RFID
‘Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors’. The coverage also outlined the potential negative consequences to manufacturers; [See ‘Possible RFID-Cancer Link Rattles Market’]. The press credited Dr. Katherine Albrecht with unearthing this link between cancer and RFID chips.
Albrecht has been a tireless advocate of freedom and educating the public on the privacy and health risks of RFID.

Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre wrote the best-seller
SPYCHIPS: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track
Your Every Purchase and Watch Your Every Move
and has a daily radio show on GCN Live.

This “free” promotion of an increasingly unpopular big brother technology by Santa Monica and the Red Cross is nothing more than a propaganda push to promote this unhealthy and unnecessary
RFID chip.
In August 2007, California passed a law blocking mandatory RFID implants in workers [See L.A. Times article here. Let’s hope the public resists the idea of RFID and opposes both voluntary and mandatory pet chipping.


Written by libertyfight

July 31, 2009 at 3:20 pm

Posted in Traffic tickets

Collin Peterson Discusses his 9/11 Remark and Conspiracists Who “Hijack public forums”

with one comment

Politico pubished an article titled GOP headache: The birther issue in which 9/11 ‘conspiracy theories’ were discounted by elected reps and GOP pundits.
The article is about Obama’s birth certificate, or lack thereof, but noteworthy in the article is the establishment’s (both republican and democrat’s) admitted fear of real unmoderated discourse as well as their fear of potentially mass internet communication and videocameras.

Out-party politicians have long had to deal with conspiracy theorists on their side — the people who think that the Clintons killed Vince Foster or that the Bush administration helped orchestrate the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Twenty-five percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down,” said Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat who represents a conservative Republican district in Minnesota. “That’s why I don’t do town meetings.” But the birther phenomenon may present a bigger challenge — a potent blend of race and politics, fueled by conservative TV and radio pundits, and played out in a day when all that stands between a town hall meeting and Web omnipresence is a $100 flip cam.

Republican pollster Whit Ayers says that a member confronted with birther questions should immediately pivot the conversation back to big issues.
“You simply indicate that in a country where our fiscal policy is driving us toward bankruptcy, where we are wrestling with major issues of health care reform and fighting two wars for our safety, you don’t have time to deal with wild conspiracy theories,” he says.

Collin Peterson later apologized for his 9/11 remark;
[See Rep. Peterson in hot water over 9/11 crack], stating

“I certainly wasn’t trying to make fun of anyone,” he said in a release. “What I was talking about was simply that there are the people in Minnesota’s Seventh District who have called me and talked to me about this question. The other point I was trying to make is that there are people in the Seventh District who freely identify themselves as outside the mainstream — on the left and on the right — who try to hijack public forums like town hall meetings.”

Peterson may be reached here:

Also interesting to note that politico misspelled the name of government apologist and Republican pollster Whit Ayres, who is profiled on their own site here.

Politico lists Sen. Lyndsey Graham among Ayres ‘political clients’.
Graham said in this short clip that
“we are not going to build this (GOP) party around libertarian ideas”, and also tried to disparage Ron Paul.

A letter Ayres recently wrote and posted on his website gives insight to his attempted derision of 9/11 truth: “while harsh interrogation techniques of detainees should be used only rarely, they may be necessary in exceptional situations to protect the country. Those techniques are justified when they are the only way to stop the murder of another 3000 innocent Americans in another 9/11.”

Written by libertyfight

July 28, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Posted in Traffic tickets

Laws Regarding Private Militias

with 21 comments

My friend at passed this info along regarding the laws ‘outlawing’ paramilitary training across the united states. I looked up the CA law that was referenced, and it is pasted below. The key here seems to be if a person trains with the intent to cause a ‘civil disorder’ then they can be prosecuted under this law. Original post in it’s entirety is below.
11460. (a) Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary
organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year
or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
both that fine and imprisonment.
As used in this subdivision, “paramilitary organization” means an
organization which is not an agency of the United States government
or of the State of California, or which is not a private school
meeting the requirements set forth in Section 48222 of the Education
Code, but which engages in instruction or training in guerrilla
warfare or sabotage, or which, as an organization, engages in rioting
or the violent disruption of, or the violent interference with,
school activities.
(b) (1) Any person who teaches or demonstrates to any other person
the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or
destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death
to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that these
objects or techniques will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in
the furtherance of a civil disorder, or any person who assembles with
one or more other persons for the purpose of training with,
practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm,
explosive, or destructive device, or technique capable of causing
injury or death to persons, with the intent to cause or further a
civil disorder, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Nothing in this subdivision shall make unlawful any act of any
peace officer or a member of the military forces of this state or of
the United States, performed in the lawful course of his or her
official duties.
(2) As used in this section:
(A) “Civil disorder” means any disturbance involving acts of
violence which cause an immediate danger of or results in damage or
injury to the property or person of any other individual.
(B) “Destructive device” has the same meaning as in Section 12301.

(C) “Explosive” has the same meaning as in Section 12000 of the
Health and Safety Code.
(D) “Firearm” means any device designed to be used as a weapon, or
which may readily be converted to a weapon, from which is expelled a
projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of
combustion, or the frame or receiver of this weapon.
(E) “Peace officer” means any peace officer or other officer
having the powers of arrest of a peace officer, specified in Chapter
4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2.

Laws Regarding Private Militias

Federal law prohibits paramilitary training and the manufacture or transport of weapons with the knowledge or intent that they will be used to create a civil disturbance. Ref 10 Federal law differs from most state laws prohibiting paramilitary training in that it applies only to the trainers, not the trainees. Under most state laws governing paramilitary training, participation as a trainee is also illegal.

Laws are on the books in 41 states to ban either the militias themselves or paramilitary training or both. Ref 11

The two types of laws operate differently. Anti-paramilitary training laws ban groups whose members know or intend that a civil disorder will result from their activities. Anti-militia laws ban all unauthorized militias, regardless of whether the participants have any specific criminal intent or knowledge. Anti-militia laws generally require evidence that a group of people are associated together in a formal military-type organization. Anti-paramilitary training statutes, by contrast, can be used against groups as small as two or three people. Both types of laws generally exempt organizations like hunting clubs.

These laws are seldom enforced, but they are relevant to an adjudicative determination that an individual is engaging in either lawful or unlawful militia activities.

The state laws and the legal citations for them are as follows:

Alabama. Anti-militia. Ala. Code § 31-2-125

Arizona. Anti-militia. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 26-123.

Arkansas. Anti-paramilitary training. Ark. Code § 5-71-301 to -303.

California. Anti-paramilitary training. Cal. Penal Code § 11460.

Colorado. Anti-paramilitary training. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-120.

Connecticut. Anti-paramilitary training. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-206b.

Florida. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Fla. Stat. Ann. ch. 870.06, 790.29.

Georgia. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Ga. Code Ann. §§ 38-2-277, 16-11-150 to -152.

Idaho. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Idaho Code §§ 46-802, 18-8101 to -8105.

Iowa. Anti-militia. Iowa Code § 29A.31

Illinois. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 1805, para 94-95.

Kansas. Anti-militia. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 48-203.

Kentucky. Anti-militia. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38.440.

Louisiana. Anti-paramilitary training. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 117.1.

Maine. Anti-militia. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. ***. 37-B, § 342.2.

Maryland. Anti-militia. Md. Code Ann. art. 65, § 35.

Massachusetts. Anti-militia. Mass. Gen. L. ch. 33 § 129-132.

Michigan. Anti-paramilitary training. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.528a.

Minnesota. Anti-militia. Minn. Stat. § 624.61.

Mississippi. Anti-militia. Miss. Code Ann. § 33-1-31.

Missouri. Anti-paramilitary training. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 574.070.

Nebraska. Anti-paramilitary training. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1480 to -1482.

Nevada. Anti-militia. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 203.080.

New Hampshire. Anti-militia. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 111:15.

New Jersey. Anti-paramilitary training. N.J. Rev. Stat. § 2C:39-14.

New Mexico. Anti-paramilitary training. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-20A-1 to -4.

New York. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. N.Y. Mil. Law § 240.

North Carolina. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 127A-151, 14-288.20.

North Dakota. Anti-militia. N.D. Cent. Code § 37-01-21.

Oklahoma. Anti-paramilitary training. Okla. Stat. Ann. ***. 21, § 1321.10.

Oregon. Anti-paramilitary training. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.660.

Pennsylvania. Anti-paramilitary training. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5515.

Rhode Island. anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 30-12-7, 11-55-1 to -3.

South Carolina. Anti-paramilitary training. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-8-10 to -30.

Tennessee. Anti-paramilitary training. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-314.

Texas. Anti-militia. Tex. Govt. Code; Ann. § 431.010.

Virginia. Anti-paramilitary training. Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-433.1 to -433.3.

Washington. Anti-militia. Wash. Rev. Code § 38.40.120.

West Virginia. Anti-militia. W.Va. Code § 15-1F-7.

Wyoming. Anti-militia. Wyo. Stat. § 19-1-106.

States with Anti-Militia Laws Only (17)

Alabama. ALA. CODE s 31-2-125.
Arizona. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. s 26-123.
Iowa. IOWA CODE s 29A.31.
Kansas. KAN. STAT. ANN. s 48-203.
Kentucky. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. s 38.440.
Maine. ME. REV. STAT. ANN. ***. 37-B, s 342.2.
Maryland. MD. CODE ANN. art. 65, s 35.
Massachusetts. MASS. GEN. L. ch. 33, s 129-132.
Minnesota. MINN. STAT. s 624.61.
Mississippi. MISS. CODE ANN. $ 33-1-31.
Nevada. NEV. REV. STAT. s 203-080.
New Hampshire. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. s 111:15.
North Dakota. N.D. CENT. CODE s 37-01-21.
Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. s 431.010.
Washington. WASH. REV. CODE s 38.40.120.
West Virginia. W. VA. CODE s 15-1F-7.
Wyoming. WYO. STAT. s 19-1-106.

States with Anti-Paramilitary Training Laws Only (17)

Arkansas. ARK. CODE s 5-71-301 to -303.
California. CAL. PENAL CODE s 11460.
Colorado. COLO. REV. STAT. s 18-9-120.
Connecticut. CONN. GEN. STAT. s 53-206b.
Louisiana. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. s 117.1.
Michigan. MICH. COMP. LAWS s 750.528a.
Missouri. MO. REV. STAT. s 574.070.
Montana. MONT. CODE ANN. s 45-8-109.
Nebraska. NEB. REV. STAT. s 28-1480 to -1482.
New Jersey. N.J. REV. STAT. s 2C:39-14.
New Mexico. N.M. STAT. ANN. s 30-20A-1 to -4.
Oklahoma. OKLA. STAT. ANN. ***. 21, s 1321.10.
Oregon. OR. REV. STAT. s 166.660.
Pennsylvania. 18 PA. CONS. STAT. s 5515.
South Carolina. S.C. CODE ANN. s 16-8-10 to -30.
Tennessee. TENN. CODE ANN. s 39-17-314.
Virginia. VA. CODE ANN. s 18.2-433.1 to -433.3.

States with Both Anti-Militia and Anti-Paramilitary Training Laws (7)

Florida. FLA. STAT. ANN. ch. 870.06, 790.29.
Georgia. GA. CODE ANN. ss 38-2-277, 16-11-150 to -152.
Idaho. IDAHO CODE ss 46-802, 18-8101 to -8105.
Illinois. ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 1805, para. 94-95.
New York. N.Y. MIL. LAW s 240.
North Carolina. N.C. GEN. STAT. ss 127A-151, 14-288.20.
Rhode Island. R.I. GEN. LAWS ss 30-12-7, 11-55-1 to -3.

Written by libertyfight

July 28, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Posted in Traffic tickets

Federal Govt Seeks To Lift Ban On HIV Infected Immigrants

leave a comment »

Federal Govt Seeks To Lift Ban On HIV Infected Immigrants

Most people in the freedom movement know about the dangers of the HPV vaccine. Gardasil, which is known to cause spontaneous abortions, massive wart outbreaks, seizures, paralysis and death, faced great opposition when Texas governor Rick Perry tried to require girls to get the shot.
Inadequate attention, though, has been given to the
government’s recent mandate that immigrants recieve the controversial vaccine.

U.S. Customs Immigration Service, (formerly known as “INS”) which operates as part of “Homeland Security”, enacted new requirements starting in July 2008 for those wishing to immigrate to the U.S. See their official statement here:

USCIS Changes Vaccination Requirements To Adjust Status To Legal Permanent Resident

This is nothing more than another eugenics program just like occulitist George H.W. Bush put into place, when he called for global population control as a Congressman in the 1960’s. The government targets people who are in a vulnerable position, who want to become residents, thus very unlikely to ’cause a stir’ by objecting to or refusing the shot.

American citizens have the liberty of telling their servant government no to these dangerous and poison vaccines.
Soldiers have been refusing vaccines for various reasons
including the case of a Catholic soldier who refused the Hepatitis-A vaccine because it is made using aborted fetal cell lines.
In 2004 single mother Jessica Horjus got a dishonorable discharge from the air force after refusing the anthrax vaccine.
[See How To Legally Say ‘NO’ To All Vaccines for more info.]

With all the available documented information on Gardasil, it’s a wonder no one has sued the government for this barbaric and unconscionable USCIS dictate.

Here are just a few of the excerpts regarding Gardasil, from HealthFreedomUSA:
Science For Sale: HPV Vaccines Safe (For Vaccine Makers, Anyway) Once Liability Has Been Removed

JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, not an anti vaccine venue, put it this way Results from our community-based study [of the benefits of Gardasil vaccination] provide strong evidence that there is little, if any, therapeutic benefit from the vaccine

Gardasil Adverse Events Include Deaths, Seizures, Judicial Watch Says

There have been 3,461 reports of adverse events, including a maximum of 11 deaths, in patients receiving Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil, public interest group Judicial Watch said.

Since May, the group has found documents detailing 1,824 reports of adverse reactions to Gardasil, including eight deaths. Before May, Judicial Watch had obtained 1,637 adverse event reports. The group received the data from the FDA through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Of the 1,824 adverse events reported between May 10 and Sept. 7, 347 were serious reactions including paralysis, Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome and seizures, according to the group.

Thirty-three out of 77 pregnant women who received the vaccine experienced side effects, including spontaneous abortion and fetal abnormalities, Judicial Watch added.

[Entire report here.]

…In its report to the FDA, Merck noted that “it is not known whether Gardasil can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.” It reported that 27% of pregnant women experienced an adverse reaction upon receiving the vaccine, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) contains 45 cases of spontaneous abortion following Gardasil.”

[See Judicial Watch Uncovers New FDA Records Detailing Ten New Deaths & 140 “Serious” Adverse Events Related to Gardasil ].

Judicial Watch reports on the Gardasil public health experiment

Linked from the USCIS site are a number of pages with additional details regarding the purported Gardasil ‘mandate’ for all female immigrants aged 11-26. Meanwhile, fedgov Inc. is planning on allowing people with HIV to immigrate to the U.S. Note that they justify this change in policy by arguing that HIV is not spread through casual contact, but rather through sexual contact. With that line of logic, they should not require the HPV vaccine, since it does not prevent a communicable disease. The government has not issued a final decision on the HIV rule for potential immigrants. The public may weigh in on this matter by emailing the Centers for Disease Control at Or,
you can submit comments by visiting This page. You can also read the public comments here.

The CDC lists three “Proposed key revisions” to the long-standing HIV rule:
HIV infection would no longer be included on the list of “communicable disease of public health significance”.

2. Testing for HIV infection would no longer be required as part of the U.S. Immigration medical screening process.
HIV infection would no longer require a waiver for entry into the United States.

Below are additional excerpts and links regarding the HPV requirement and change in HIV rules.

  • 2008 Technical Instructions for Vaccination for Civil Surgeons

  • Memorandum: Vaccination Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons

    Date: May 8, 2008

    To: Civil Surgeons

    From: Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ)

    Subject: Revised Vaccination Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons

    This memorandum announces the release of the revised Vaccination Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons. These instructions supersede all previous vaccination-related “Technical Instructions,” “Updates to the Technical Instructions,” memoranda and letters to civil surgeons.

    The revised Vaccination Technical Instructions are effective beginning July 1, 2008.

    Any person who seeks admission to the United States as an immigrant or who seeks adjustment of visa status to that of permanent resident is required to show documentation of having received vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases, as recommended by the U.S. Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP). Because of new ACIP vaccine recommendations, significant changes in the Vaccination Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons have been made, as follows:

    Rotavirus vaccine should be given orally to children 6 through 32 weeks of age.
    Hepatitis A vaccine should be given to children 12 through 23 months of age.
    Tetravalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine should be given to persons 11 through 18 years of age. Tetravalent meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine is an acceptable alternative.
    Human papillomavirus vaccine should be given to girls and women 11 through 26 years of age.
    Zoster vaccine should be given to persons 60 years of age or older.
    Hepatitis B vaccine should be given to all applicants from birth through 18 years of age.
    Influenza vaccine should be given annually to children 6 through 59 months of age; it continues to be required for adults 50 years of age or older.
    Acellular pertussis-containing vaccines are available for use in persons at least 10 years of age.

    The revised Vaccination Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons are available at CDC/DGMQ’s website at

  • Frequently Asked Questions: Vaccination Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons

  • Adjustment Of Status For U.S. Permanent Residence Requirements: Technical Instructions for Vaccination 2008


    On September 30, 1996, the U.S. Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by adding to the health-related grounds of inadmissibility a new subsection, “Proof of Vaccination Requirements for Immigrants.” This new subsection requires any person who seeks an immigrant visa or adjustment of status for permanent residence to show proof of having received vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases, as recommended by the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The ACIP is an advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that makes general recommendations on immunizations, including safe and effective vaccination schedules. Updated ACIP recommendations are available at CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) website:

    The instructions in this document supersede all previous vaccination-related “Technical Instructions,” “Updates to the Technical Instructions” and memoranda and letters to civil surgeons. These instructions are to be followed for vaccination requirements for all persons applying for adjustment of status for permanent U.S. residence. If in the future, there are changes or updates in ACIP recommendations, those recommendations available in the CDC/NCIRD website should be followed.

    CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ) staff is available for consultation on issues related to vaccination requirements for immigration and can be reached at 404-498-1600.

    Significant Changes in the Vaccination Requirements

    Rotavirus vaccine, hepatitis A vaccine, meningococcal vaccine, human papillomavirus vaccine, and zoster vaccine have been added as age-appropriate to the vaccination requirements.

HIV No Longer A Barrier

Federal Register Notices

Revision of 42 CFR Part 34 (Medical Examination of Aliens) Removal of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) from Definition of Communicable Disease of Public Health Significance – Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)

Public comment open until August 17, 2009

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are proposing the removal of HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) from the list of diseases that keep people who are not U.S. citizens from entering the United States.

Proposed Removal of HIV Entry Ban
Revision of 42 CFR Part 34 (Medical Examination of Aliens) Removal of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) from Definition of “Communicable Disease of Public Health Significance” – Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)

Why does CDC want to remove HIV from the list and screening process now?

When the regulation was created in 1987, far less was known about how HIV is spread and what put people at risk for HIV. Health experts now know that HIV is not spread through casual contact like hugging or shaking hands, through the air, food or water. In the United States, HIV infection is passed between adults almost exclusively by unprotected sex with someone who has HIV or by sharing needles or syringes contaminated with HIV. CDC’s proposal to remove HIV infection from the list of illnesses that prevent entry to the United States is based on this improved understanding of the risks.

Will the proposed rule change increase the risk that average Americans will contract HIV?

Allowing non U.S. citizens with HIV infection into the United States will not pose a risk to the public’s health because HIV infection is preventable and is not spread through casual contact or day-to-day activities. It is mainly spread through behaviors which involve exchange of bodily fluids during sex or through sharing HIV-contaminated needles.

It’s important to remember that any risk posed by people with HIV is not a result of their nationality but is based on whether the person engages in specific behaviors that increase the risk of getting HIV, such as unprotected sex or sharing HIV-contaminated needles. HIV is not a new virus in the United States. Currently, it’s estimated that more than 1 million Americans are living with HIV.

Why are HHS and CDC removing only HIV infection when other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are still on the list of diseases that prevent entry?

Legislation passed in July 2008 removed language from the Immigration and Nationality Act which had previously mandated that HIV be on the list of diseases that can keep people from coming to the United States. This legislative change allowed HHS and CDC to reassess whether HIV infection should be removed from our regulations. CDC constantly reviews the list of diseases in the regulations. If CDC seeks to remove additional STDs in the future, it will do so through changes in these regulations.

What is the process for removing HIV from the list and when would the change take effect?

HHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on July 2, 2009, explaining the proposed changes in the Federal Register and seeking public comment on those changes. HHS and CDC will carefully review all public comments it receives and decide whether to make any changes based upon those comments. HHS and CDC will then publish a final rule in the Federal Register containing the final changes. Any change would become effective at the time described in the final rule.

Submit Comments about this Notice of Proposed Rule Making

Written by libertyfight

July 25, 2009 at 9:55 am

Posted in Traffic tickets

CALIFORNIA DREAMING: Police have no obligation to protect any individual from harm

with 3 comments

God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it”. -Daniel Webster

Note: [Many thanks to the great website OUTLAW’S LEGAL, which sadly now appears to be defunct. I saved this information from them several years ago.]

CALIFORNIA DREAMING: Police have no obligation to protect any individual from harm

“Do you believe that law enforcement officers have a duty to protect you from harm?” Ask yourself that question, and, your answer is . . . . ?

That is a question I have frequently asked. The overwhelming majority of answers have been affirmative; ranging from “Yes.” to “That’s what they are paid to do!” The next logical question is “How can we be certain we know the correct answer?”

The correct answer is found in appellate court decisions. The following summaries of a few appellate court decisions will provide some insight into this area of the law. These example cases are from California – but understand that the police are not responsible for your individual safety in any state.

The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity. Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5

A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a “special relationship” between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant’s conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer’s prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer’s surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer’s inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct. Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252

The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist’s wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable. Westbrooks v. State (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674

In an action against police officers and city for personal injuries sustained by Kathryne Ne Casek when she was knocked down on a sidewalk by two suspects who had been arrested by the officers, the Court of Appeal held the amount of force or method used by a police officer in attempting to keep an arrested person or persons in custody is a discretionary act for purpose of application of doctrine of immunity of government officials from civil liability for their discretionary acts, and therefore Ms. Ne Casek who was injured by two escaped suspects who had been handcuffed together could not maintain an action against the arresting officers based on the officer’s alleged negligence in using insufficient force to keep the prisoners in custody. Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294

An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the Watts ‘Riots’ of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs. Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240

A silent burglar alarm installed on the premises of the store operated by the plaintiff was, during the course of a robbery by two armed men, activated at 3:32 p.m. and the alert message was relayed to the police department. The dispatch message to the units in the field was at 3:43 p.m., and a police unit arrived at the scene of the robbery at 3:44 p.m. The delay in the transmission of the dispatch enabled the robbers to complete the robbery and escape with jewelry and merchandise in the amount of $49,000. The Court of Appeal held that Govt. Code section 846 provides for immunity if no police protection is provided; or, if police protection is provided, but that protection is not sufficient.. “The statutory scheme makes it clear that failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law. The statutory scheme shows legislative intent to immunize the police function from tort liability from the inception of its exercise to the point of arrest, regardless of whether the action be labeled ‘discretionary’ or ‘ministerial.'” Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332

I believe that an accurate statement of the law regarding whether or not law enforcement officers have a duty to protect an individual from harm is: Law enforcement officers do not have a duty to protect an individual from harm, unless a special relationship exists between the law enforcement agency and the individual. Most of the cases in which a special relationship was found to exist involved a person suffering an injury while in custody; or, shortly after being released from custody by officers who knew, or should have known, that the person was unable to exercise ordinary care. If a law enforcement officer, or other public employee, does go to the aid of a person in jeopardy or distress, they are performing an act outside the scope of their official duties, and they assume the duty of using reasonable care.

The six cases listed above are only a few of the California cases dealing with this subject. Those cases were chosen as examples because of the differences in the fact patterns on which each case was based. Anyone can go to a law library and ask a librarian to assist them in locating the published opinions of these cases. Each opinion will include citations to the cases and statutes relied upon by the appellate court justices in their reasoning process which was the basis for reaching their opinion.

If you are not already familiar with the way law book publishers print the appellate court opinions, ask the librarian to show you the case summary, and the “head notes”, all of which are added by the publisher, and where the court’s opinion that was written by the court begins. Only the language in the court’s opinion is “official”, the case summary and the “head notes” are not. Not all opinions of the courts are unanimous decisions, and some opinions include dissenting opinions.

California is not the only jurisdiction following that general rule of law. Here are some citations to appellate court decisions from other jurisdictions, but the list is by no means complete. Your law librarian can assist you in locating these cases, and the cases and statutes cited in them.

Its hard to believe – but there are numerous court cases, all of which show that ” the Police have no obligation to protect any individual person from harm”

Here are some examples:

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989) 489 US 189
Bower v. DeVito (1982) 686 F.2d 616
Calgorides v. Mobile (1985) 475 So.2d 560
Warren v. District of Columbia (1983) 444 A.2d 1
Morgan v. District of Columbia (1983) 469 A.2d 1306
Sapp v. Tallahassee (1977) 348 So.2d 363, cert.denied 354 So.2d 985
Keane v. Chicago (1968) 98 Ill.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321
Jamison v. Chicago (1977) 48 Ill.3d 567
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville 272 N.E. 2d 871
Silver v. Minneapolis (1969)) 170 N.W.2d 206
Wuetrich v. Delia (1978) 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929
Chapman v. Philadelphia (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 753
Morris v. Musser, (1984) 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937
Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority (1982) 55 N.Y.2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141
Who does have a duty to protect a person from harm? Parents have a duty to protect their children, but other than that, the short answer is no one has that duty.

The ultimate responsibility for your protection is self protection, and you should take care to undertake that responsibility if you value your life and that of your loved ones.

Is there any legal authority to justify exercising the right of self protection in California? Please consider the following: Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of California clearly states that you have that right:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing safety, happiness, and privacy.

(The present language was adopted November 5, 1974, and changed the original version, which was adopted in 1849, by substituting the word “people” in place of “men”, and by adding the word “privacy” at the end of the sentence.)

California Civil Code, section 50 provides:

Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself, or of a wife, husband, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one’s family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest. (Enacted in 1872. Amended by Code Am. 1873-74, extending the right to use force to protect a relative without reference to degree, a member of one’s family, and a guest.)

California Penal Code, section 692 provides:

Lawful resistance to the commission of a public offense may be made: 1. By the party about to be injured; 2. By other parties. (Enacted in 1872.)

California Penal Code, section 693 provides:

Resistance to prevent the offense may be made by the party about to be injured: 1. To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or some member thereof. 2. To prevent an illegal attempt by force to take or injure property in his lawful possession. (Enacted in 1872.)

California Penal Code, section 694 provides:

Any other person, in aid or defense of the person about to be injured, may make resistance sufficient to prevent that offense. (Enacted in 1872.)

Civil Code section 50, and Penal Code sections 692, 693 and 694 as quoted above are still in effect. I find those code sections, enacted in the early 1870’s, to be straight forward and easy to understand. They recognize the realities of life. Not all people are law abiding; and, law abiding people have the right to protect themselves and their property, and to come to the aid of others in need of assistance and protection from individuals committing the public offenses.

Today, unfortunately, that is not the current state of the law. Thousands of laws have been enacted since 1872 that have effectively denied any truly effective means of exercising the “inalienable rights” recognized in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of California, outside of the persons home, with only a few exceptions. The identified “need” for those laws has been “crime control”, but we have a much larger percentage of our population in jails and prisons now than ever before. A vastly larger percentage than in 1872, which is evidence that as government makes it more difficult for the law abiding individuals to protect themselves, they become victims of crime.

There are some people who are unwilling to accept the responsibility for protecting themselves from harm or injury, and advocate the philosophy of pacifism. However. pacifism has never been shown to deter crime. Exercise of your inalienable rights in Article I, Section 1, is not mandatory. You may refuse to defend yourself and exercise your right to be a victim.

I believe the correct answer to my original question is: Law enforcement officers do not have a duty to protect an individual from harm. That raises more questions that should be considered.

Why is the public so misinformed about such a fundamental issue involving public safety? What can be done to educate the public to the true facts on this issue to enable them to make informed decisions about their personal protection?

OUTLAWS LEGAL SERVICE invites ideas regarding solving this problem.

Well…, LEO’s are only an Auxiliary General Deterrent…,
“It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent. ”

…,and serve the Public in General and are under NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION/DUTY to serve you as an individual Per the Supreme Court, and therefore does not feel OBLIGATED to be NICE. Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone URL?]

New York Times
WASHINGTON, June 27 – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday, overturning a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado… police dO not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm…The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed….

“Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”[4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.[5] ” “The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services[6]”

Per ALL these and MANY, MANY articles agrees with that LEO’s does NOT have to play nice and ALL your $$$ goes to Expensive Donuts.

Written by libertyfight

July 24, 2009 at 2:49 pm

Posted in Traffic tickets

Sheriff Mack of Oathkeepers To Appear In L.A. August 2

leave a comment »

I recieved this courtesy of a Ron Paul meetup group. Note that the sheriff will be on the radio in L.A. today, Friday at 2PM.


Subject: [ronpaul-506] New Meetup: Meet Sheriff Mack
When: August 2, 2009 5:00 PM

Granada Forum
5657 Lindley Avenue St. Innocent’s Church
Tarzana, CA 91356

$10 donation at the door

From a member patriot:

The Sheriff is the highest authority in the land and his power supersedes federal authority because he is directly elected by We The People.

Sheriff Mack set this precedent when he sued the U.S.federal government and the verdict from the Supreme Court was that the Sheriff supersedes all federal authority and agencies within his jurisdiction.

You can attend his live speaking engagement in Los Angeles on Sunday August 2, 2009! This is important information for anyone who loves liberty.

This event is brought to you by Oath Keepers: . The emphasis will be on Peace Officers’ and Military’s Oath to the Constitution and how our community can support them.

Also, local radio show host, Sherry Beall, from Healthy Planet, Healthy Me, will be interviewing Sheriff Mack about martial law and mandatory vaccines. You can tune into her show Friday at 2:00 pm:

Friday, July 24, 2009, from 2-3 pm, PST
KPFK 90.7 fm, Los Angeles and San Diego
KPFK 98.7 fm Santa Barbara
Streaming worldwide at

For more information on Sheriff Mack, check out this video: (45 min)
also on YouTube:

Written by libertyfight

July 24, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Posted in Traffic tickets

Newport Beach, CA Bans Styrofoam At Schoolkids Suggestion

leave a comment »

Newport Beach, CA Bans Styrofoam At Schoolkids Suggestion
Homer L. Bludau, City Manager of Newport Beach, CA released a newsletter on November 17, 2008 outlining how the city has banned ‘expanded polystyrene’. The new law took effect April 26 ’09. The original notice read:

Council Action to Eliminate Polystyrene Use in the City
Thanks to a determined group of local students from Mariners Elementary School and Newport Harbor High School, the City Council recently passed an ordinance that bans the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) disposable food service ware in the city. A common brand name for EPS is Styrofoam�. EPS is not biodegradable and it easily breaks down into small pieces that often end up in storm drains, the bay, ocean and beaches, threatening wildlife that ingest the materials. The students first brought their concerns to the Council’s attention last spring, and then to the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC), which also recommended that the City adopt a ban on use of these products. The Council directed staff to conduct some research, work with local restaurants and return with a recommendation. With support from the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, the new ordinance becomes effective on April 26, 2009, at which time Newport Beach restaurants and all City facilities and events will be required to serve prepared food in containers made from something other than EPS.

No indication is given for the law’s odd effective date of Sunday April 26th, which coincidentally fell four days after Earth Day 2009. Orange County, CA is known for being more “conservative republican” territory than it is for being an environmentalist ‘earth worshipper’ haven. The Orange County Register, the region’s main newspaper, reportedly has the 4th largest readership in California and according to “BallotPedia”

‘The Register is notable for its generally conservative/libertarian-leaning editorial page. It often supports Republican politicians and positions, but it is also the largest newspaper in the country to have opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and opposes laws regulating issues such as prostitution and drug use.’

Steven Greenhut of the Register’s editorial board rejected the Republicans some time ago and wrote an appropriate ‘Declarations on Independence’ for July 4th, decrying government intrusion into most aspects of our lives.
Given the city’s reputation, it’s a bit odd that the city council would pass a law merely at the urging of public (government) schoolkids who are probably inundated with
‘global warming’ propaganda and Al Gore literature.I hate to divert the topic of this article, but I can’t resist, since the following has annoyed me for some time. If the City of Newport Beach is actually concerned with the well being of the environment and hopefully the people in it, they might take this opportunity to pass a law dictating that the city provide soap in the dozens of bathrooms along their beaches. The bathrooms have toilets, urinals and sinks, and usually carry toilet paper, but almost none of them have any soap dispensers. How could this be?

The Centers For Disease Control And Prevention warns us, “Keeping hands clean is one of the most important steps we can take to avoid getting sick and spreading germs to others”. Since they seem to be more socialist oriented, maybe the city council could peruse this info from our neighbors to the north, at the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety:

Is it important to wash your hands?Simply put, yes. Hand washing is the single most effective way to prevent the spread of infections. You can spread certain “germs” (a general term for microbes like viruses and bacteria) casually by touching another person. You can also catch germs when you touch contaminated objects or surfaces and then you touch your face (mouth, eyes, and nose). “Good” hand washing techniques include using an adequate amount of soap, rubbing the hands together to create friction, and rinsing under running water. The use of gloves is not a substitute for hand washing.

Also, covers a variety of Diseases From Not Washing Hands:

If you don’t wash your hands, especially after using the bathroom or handling food, you are at risk of developing a slew of illnesses, some very serious. It is recommended that you wash your hands with soap or use hand sanitizer, especially before eating, before and after handling food and after using the bathroom … Diseases that can be contracted from not washing your hands range from the common cold and flu to parasitic diseases like E.coli, Giardia and Salmonella.

Need I go on? How barbaric that a supposed affluent beach community such as Newport does not see fit to provide the most basic sanitary necessity of SOAP in their restrooms for the hundreeds of thousands, if not millions, of visitors that they get to their beaches and parks each year. Eegads.Just imagine the implications of thousands of people visiting the beach, using parking meters, getting fast food, renting bikes, in Newport without the benefit of soap after using the toilet. I am sure that some of the parking tickets and traffic fines that the city generates could go a long way to buy some soap.

Maybe some concerned government schoolkids can send the following link to the Newport city council. If necessary, I can establish a “National Prevention of Communicable Disease/ Civilized Hand Washing Day” to get them inspired to action.


Hand Washing with soap and water


Written by libertyfight

July 17, 2009 at 1:27 am

Posted in Traffic tickets