NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that No One is Talking About

I would also take the time to watch this short video from one of the co-counsels on the case as to exactly what the government is arguing in court. Not a word from the mainstream media on the most important court case in American history. One that will decide the fate of a law that will effectively dismantle at least a third of The Bill of Rights.

Video:  CO-Counsel speaks after #NDAA hearing

NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that No One is Talking About

Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA. In case you don’t remember, section 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law on December 31 of last year, allows the government to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial. At the time of signing, Obama penned a pathetic letter to many of his outraged supporters where he basically said he signed it but he won’t use it. Thanks pal!

In any event, the Administration is showing its true colors by appealing an injunction that judge Katherine Forrest issued against it in May. The injunction was in response to the lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and others. While the NDAA clearly vaporizes the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution, I believe the real target is the 1st Amendment. By having a law on the books that allows the government to arbitrarily lock anyone up and throw away the key, the government is actually trying to instill enough fear in people that they self-censor speech and become too afraid to criticize the criminal political and economic ruling and elite oligarchy… both here in the United States (Progressive politicians and media) and globally including members of groups like  the CFR, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateralists, International Bankers, etc.

Tangerine Bolen is one the lead plaintiffs in the suit against the government and she penned a powerful piece for the UK’s Guardian. Here are some key quotes:

I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.

In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.

Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an “associated force”, and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.

This past week’s hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama’s attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest’s injunction.

Full article here.

Please share this with everyone that cares about Liberty and The Republic.

Related:

Doug Hagmann: Obama Re-election Insurrection Imminent – Updated – A Must Read

Judge Strikes Down NDAA, Rules Obama Must Obey Constitution

HR 347 Just Passed Without Notice – US "Trespass Bill" will make protest illegal

OWS and the planned “endgame” for the U.S.

Video: NDAA Floor Speech Jan 18 2012

Obama’s Possible October Surprise: Will He Use the Military To Sway the Electorate?

Technorati Tags: NDAA,NDAA lawsuit,unconstitutional,detention,unlawful detention,National Defense Authorization Act,wake-up America,Bill of Rights,Dismantling the Constitution,First Amendment,martial law,ruling elites,watch the other hand

Which One Is Your Neighbor?

Map Of FEMA Camps: Find The One Nearest You!

Which one is your neighbor? Do you consider FEMA Camps an undesirable neighbor? How many are in your neighborhood?

Preparing for What is Coming as Government is Activating Fema Camps Across U.S.

-->  Single state defies Obama detention plan <--

How about your state?

Related:

Homeland Security Moves to Man FEMA Camps

How Homeland Security Monitors Its US Journalists

NDAA – Wake-up America

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention – Updated

Silent Running – Targeting of Americans

Martial Law Attempt in Louisiana Echoes Ron Paul’s Warning

Nazification of America

Stratfor Security Breach Was Not For Credit Card Data According to Hackers

SOPA and PIPA Sponsors Caving In to Opposition  -  These are designed work along with NDAA

A request to the American People- Nationwide Protest against NDAA- ACTION ALERT -  Seems the Occupy Protestors are joining the Tea Party and other conservative groups in this endeavor.

New Nationwide FEMA Camps Should Raise Eyebrows… And Some Reasons Why

Of all the rumors flying around on the internet, one just refuses to die, and it concerns America's FEMA camps.

In a nutshell, there seems to be a solicitation of bids occurring for the staffing of FEMA camps within 72 hours of implementation by an order from either Homeland Security or the president. This situation begs to be investigated, with special consideration paid to the motives of the present administration.

I went to the source, the FedBizOpps.gov, and searched for the solicitation number HSFEHQ-10-R-0027, titled National Responder Support Camp.

A search of the history of the amendments to this Solicitation for Contract showed that it had been modified several times, with the last modification -- number 0008, with an original date of letting out to bid with a synopsis of May 13, 2011 -- occurring on December 16, 2011. This last modification rescinded the solicitation, with said modification's purpose noted as follows:

1. Cancel Solicitation HSFEHQ-10-R-0027.

2. A new draft solicitation will be issued on January 2012 for industry comment.

3. A Pre-Solicitation Conference will be held approximately two week post draft solicitation.

Okay...score one for the internet and the vigilant citizens who perform an invaluable service to our nation by monitoring the actions of our government and its various agencies.

I began the laborious task of reading the Invitation to Bid -- this tome is 116, pages with many canned and boilerplate requirements for doing business with Uncle Sam duly enshrined amongst the pages. The Task Order Request (TOPR) under Scenario I & II under Section J of the Appendix made for another 42 pages. The required size of the camps was fluid, though they had the required capacity of 301 to two thousand, including security and camp cadre.

The staffing requirements or cadre for FEMA personnel for these camps -- which are identified as being located in five (5) distinct regions throughout and within the borders of the USA, with camps located in each and every state -- was three to fifteen each. The size of these camps will vary around 5 acres per 1,000 inhabitants, though they will never be less than 3 acres for populations of 500 or fewer inhabitants within the camps' boundaries.

This requirement also had a minimum square footage for each inhabitant: either the camp's cadre and first responders of 63 square feet, or approximately 8 feet on each side. This is slightly less than current Federal Court(s) requirements for housing prisoners, which is approximately 72 square feet. Perimeter fencing or barricades is required to be six feet high, enclosing the camp, with all traffic in or out to be recorded on a daily log and with security restricting all traffic and access. The contractor shall also provide fencing and barricades around areas which are "off limits" to occupants. ID Badges are required and are either blue or red, depending on the carrier is temporary or considered an occupant of the camp.

The first of several anomalies in the solicitation for bid was in the contractor staffing requirements, which puzzlingly required staff to be fully operational within 72 hours. Furthermore, "[w]henever practical, displaced citizens will be given the first opportunities for employment within the camp, assuming skills and capabilities are pertinent for the open positions."

This led me to question the stated purpose of these camps, considering that the successful contractor would need to have personnel ready to go on such short notice, with notification from FEMA, Homeland Security, or the president within 72 hours. So the question arises: how could the camp utilize "displaced citizens" in the initial staffing unless the contractor knew where and when a disaster, man-made or otherwise would occur beforehand?

Another anomaly was the requirement that the "off limits" area was to be enclosed before anything else:

The contractor shall also provide fencing and barricades around areas which are "off limits" to occupants. Fencing and barricades are required within 36 hours for "phased" setup timeframes, and 72 hours for the rest of the initial setup timeframe.

Next question: just what is this "off limits" area to be used for, since the bid proposal specified only two (2) classes of occupants of the camp -- temporary or occupant as first responder? Furthermore, it indicates that there may be a camp within the camp, or an area that is to be utilized by another group that is not revealed in the bid solicitation...your guess is as good as mine. Most Americans would not like the ambiguity of this area's function!

Another question arose on the Term of the Contract (F.3), which reads as follows:

The contract shall be effective as of the execution date of the base contract, and shall continue up to five years if all four one-year options are exercised, except that delivery orders placed prior to the expiration date shall remain in full force and effect until deliveries have been completed and payments, therefore, have been made. The final delivery order shall not exceed two years.

The nature of the duration seems to belie a long-term use for these camps, which is also not fitting the transitory nature of natural disasters, with most communities being habitable again after a relatively short period of time. We're talking months, not years.

Under the Principal Place of Performance (F.4), this solicitation implies that all of the areas outlined below must be staffed:

The effort required under this contract shall be performed in the United States. Task Orders will designate the exact locations where services will be provided. The five (5) areas of coverage are broken down as follows:

Area 1: Includes the states of CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, PA, VT, NY, WV, VA, RI

Area 2: Includes the states of KY, TN, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, FL

Area 3: Includes the states of CO, IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, OH, SD, UT, WI, WY

Area 4: Includes the states of AR, LA, NM, OK, TX

Area 5: Includes the states of AZ, CA, ID, NV, OR, WA

The language is specific in that all requirements are performed in the United States. However, the language does not specify that it would be a phased approach or even a localized area that experiences a natural disaster -- simply the entire nation.

In the Task Order Proposal Request, there is a specific requirement for large vehicle parking:

Special Requirements:

- Outsized Vehicle Parking within Security Area (> 2.5 ton vehicles): Estimate required space and add to acreage requirement.

- Outsized vehicle parking outside security area (> 2.5 ton vehicles): Estimate required space and add to acreage requirement.

- Mission Support Work Area(s): Minimum square footage, Accessibility

These requirements suggest that the type of vehicle(s) will be either solely high-occupancy (i.e., buses) or large trucks or heavy equipment combined with buses. The interesting point about this section is that the authors allude to a "Security Area" and an "Unsecured Area" with no specific requirements coming forth.

To sum up: the solicitation to bid for the staffing of FEMA camps within 72 hours is a curious proposition, since it appears to predict a calamity that will affect the entire nation simultaneously --completely unlike a location-specific natural disaster.

This may be nothing more than a preparedness exercise by Homeland Security to see if anyone besides the military would be able to meet these stringent requirements for rapid deployment. However, what I found most striking was the "off limits" areas within each camp and staffing with "displaced persons" and the "Mission Support Work Area(s)," all undefined. As citizens, we need to know the exact purpose of these camps, given President Obama's propensity to bend our constitutional republic to his own purposes!

(All documents can be found at this website for the GSA Federal Business Opportunities.)

Source:  American Thinker

H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act

Breathe a sigh of relief! They weren't telling us lies after all. The NDAA won't allow for indefinite detention of American citizens...no no no, you silly little Americans.

You will no longer be a Citizen!!!

H.R. 3166
Seems to me they are closing any loopholes they might have missed in the NDAA.

This bill is one to watch, and we will be.

Arctic Patriot has a good post on this with some information of the sponsors of this bill, folks that could use a little verbal wake up calls from us.

Sealing the Deal

Text of S. 1698:   Enemy Expatriation Act Introduced in Senate

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

Sponsor: Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA15]

Status: This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Explanation: Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Dec 9, 2011 6:17AM]

Source: and for additional information

Related:

 Silent Running 

 As Government is Activating FEMA Camps Across U.S.

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention – Updated

Martial Law Attempt in Louisiana Echoes Ron Paul’s Warning

Preparedness and Survival

Throw Them All Out