Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Obama Admin Nailed With Official Charges – Navy Sailor Says ‘I Won’t Be Silenced’

‘It will be unjust and unfair’

Published

on

If it is indeed true that “justice delayed is justice denied” then former Navy sailor Kristian Saucier has indeed been denied justice in every sense. Saucier was pardoned by President Donald Trump earlier this year in March 2018 after completing his sentence.

The former Navy sailor pleaded guilty in 2016 to mishandling classified information for taking six cellphone photos of a classified engine room aboard the USS Alexandria in 2009 while it was stationed in Groton, Connecticut. He then served 12 months in federal prison. The ex-sailor has now filed a lawsuit alleging that he was subject to unequal protection of the law, citing former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barrack Obama and their unwillingness to prosecute former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

According to Fox News, Saucier’s lawsuit names as defendants former President Barack Obama, former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who led the inquiry into Clinton’s email account.

It seems Saucier is now attempting to get at least a portion of that justice previously denied to him stating the United States government was “overzealous” in prosecuting him for “mishandling classified information” while refusing to prosecute Clinton for a significantly more serious violation of the same law.

Trending: Rapper ‘50 Cent’ Had Enough Of Joy Behar’s Race-Baiting And Dismantles Her On Live TV

As the recent testimony in the hearings before the House Oversight Committee demonstrated, significant bias was shown to Clinton with regards to her handling of classified information. Saucier’s legal team raised the defense at trial that “most recently, Democratic Presidential Candidate and former Secretary of State Hilary [sic] Clinton … has come under scrutiny for engaging in acts similar to Mr. Saucier.”

The FBI was merely critical of Clinton’s “homebrew” setup, as attorney Derrick Hogan noted, “however, the FBI recently recommended Mrs. Clinton not be brought up on any charges as she lacked ‘intent.’”

Hogan argued on Saucier’s behalf at his trial, stating – “It will be unjust and unfair for Mr. Saucier to receive any sentence other than probation for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid.”

Except Clinton is still free, and Saucier paid with a year of his life. A year that his daughter was without a father, his wife without her husband, his mother without her son. Saucier acknowledged that he was aware that the pictures he took were classified. Saucier states he realizes he had erred in taking the photos of the submarine, which he said he wanted to show only to his family so that they could see where he worked. He also points out photos were also taken by two co-workers inside the sub who were not prosecuted at all.

Meanwhile, Clinton even to this day continues to maintain ignorance stating she did not believe any of the information she received via email ought to have been protected, despite being the wife of a former governor and former President, as well as serving as a Senator and Secretary of State in her own right.

Despite the ignorance Clinton still feigns regarding how to handle classified information, it was revealed through Peter Strzok’s testimony that every single one of her emails, all 30,000, save four, were being sent to an address believed to belong to a foreign entity unrelated to Russia.

It is important to note, the photos Saucier took with his phone were deemed to be “confidential” which is considered the lowest level of classification. By contrast, Clinton was storing “Special Access Program” (SAP) documents on her unsecured private server. It is important to note that SAP documents are classified above top secret. This means documents with this classification are subject to exceptionally stringent safeguards – including non-electronic copies which require physical access some cases.

Executive Order 13526, signed by Obama in 2009 details the proper handling and protection protocols that must be observed to protect classified national-security information, intelligence is allocated to a special-access program when “the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional.

Intelligence Community Inspector Gen. I. Charles McCullough III wrote in a January 2016 letter – “To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels.”

Saucier spoke of his newly filed lawsuit, stating: “I could have just taken the pardon by President Trump and gone on with my life. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that all citizens are born with inalienable rights to be free from persecution by the government. My conviction and subsequent sentence for a minor military infraction compared to the treatment of politically connected individuals is a glaring example of a violation of the rights of all Americans to have equal protection under the law.”

Saucier adds that he feels a significant obligation to get to the truth of what he sees as a double standard that let Clinton get off scot-free. As H.L. Menchen wrote – “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”  What you allow will continue.

And it seems Saucier will have an uphill battle as the state of New York is fighting back, now forcing Saucier to act as his own attorney. This comes after the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court New York filed sanctions against his attorney, Ronald Daigle, barring him practicing law for one year. This came just as Daigle was helping Saucier to file the lawsuit.

Daigle is an Iraq War veteran with the U.S. Navy and the former police chief of his town of Granville, N.Y. and came out of retirement in 2016 in an effort to assist Saucier to win a pardon from President Trump.

According to Fox News – “The appellate court determined Daigle, an Iraq War veteran with the U.S. Navy and the former police chief of his town of Granville, N.Y., had taken $23,000 from the estate of a deceased person without a retainer or authorization to take the funds. Relatives and a primary beneficiary of the deceased person had hired Daigle in 2011 to handle the estate.

Saucier told Fox News Daigle’s suspension blindsided both of them. He said he will proceed with his lawsuit even if he must represent himself. Saucier said he cannot afford an attorney.

But Saucier believes there is more to the suspension than meets the eye, and wonders if it’s driven by an effort to hamper his plans to sue Obama administration officials.

“Out of the blue the court decided to come after Ron for his license for a year, the window I have for my lawsuit, and they announced it after we announced my case,” Saucier said. “It’s a liberal court system … trying to dismember my legal defense. It’s a shame, it’s retribution. They’ve backed us into a corner so that I won’t be able to file the lawsuit.”

“They’re trying to silence us,” Saucier said. “Ron doesn’t deserve this. I won’t be silenced. If I have to go to court and represent myself, act as my own lawyer, I will. I’m not going to be strong-armed.”

I guess the only time most people think about injustice is when it happens to them.

Saucier’s mother, Kathleen Saucier, has stood strong by her son’s side through this fight, taking to every media outlet available to her in an effort to make her voice heard, speaking for her son while he was unable to speak for himself. She started a Facebook page documenting Saucier’s fight for equal justice under the law called “American Patriots Against Double Standards.”

In the pinned post on her page, she sums up why we as Americans must continue to fight against tyranny and fight for justice:

“Many of you have asked “who is behind American Patriots Against Double Standards?” Good afternoon Patriots 🇺🇸 I started this page in 2016 after I resigned my federal position during the election and my experience with #cleardoublestandards at the hands of our federal government. I was inspired to use my voice because of the adversity I faced with my family- the abuse of power by our federal government and the clear difference between how average American citizens were treated compared to elites and politicians. Over the past year and a half I have had the opportunity to speak up and use my voice for others who could not. I have ridden on the roller coaster of media, politics and people who were there just for the story. What I will always remember are the people who were there along the way who stood with me, BRAVE PATRIOTS WARRIORS, the numbers are many close to 22,000 strong now on this page! You have liked, shared, written to your media, your congressman and even reached out personally to let me know I was never alone, most of all you prayed. You prayed for strength, courage and the ability to get back up and go forward as an American. God Bless America and God Bless each and every one of you who has supported this page- Thank you. Kathleen Saucier”

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Colorado Christian Cake Shop Owner Exonerated By Supreme Court Just Got Really Bad News

This is outrageous!

Published

on

Here we go again. I’m sure you are familiar with the Colorado Christian cake shop owner who just won a huge case in front of the Supreme Court this last June. Jack Phillips is the Christian baker who made history by prevailing in front of the High Court after he refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs. Most of America celebrated with Phillips when he won the case and it provided a glimmer of hope for religious freedom once again here in the United States.

At the time of Phillips case, the Supreme Court admonished the state’s attorney who was standing against the baker for religious intolerance. He allegedly made a number of comments that gave the court pause on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court issued a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. They were right to think that and it has been proven even more to be true this week as this baker just got really bad news. Phillips just filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. From what I am seeing he is being set up to be taken down in a different legalistic move… this time it involves gender issues.

Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom contend that the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June’s High Court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. It’s like deja vu all over again.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, who is an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney that represents Phillips. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him — something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

The person allegedly behind all of this is an attorney named Autumn Scardina. She reportedly called Phillips’ shop the day the decision in his favor was rendered and asked him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. The caller asked that the cake be blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Over several months after that, Phillips received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, s******y explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. He’s convinced that Scardina was the one who made all of the requests to set him up for legal action.

From PJ Media:

“To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“‘We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

“Especially since the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had treated Phillips unfairly on the basis of his religion, thus violating his right to free exercise, this follow-up round seems particularly noxious. “It seems like another round of targeting him and putting him through this very difficult process simply because he wants to be faithful in his business in what he creates through his art,” Tedesco said.

“The commission could have decided not to pursue this second case against Phillips. The ADF lawyer explained that, when a Colorado citizen thinks he or she has been discriminated against, they file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division, which then conducts an investigation and determines probable cause.

“When Autumn Scardina filed this complaint, Tedesco would have expected the civil rights commission to reject it. “After Masterpiece came down from the Supreme Court, we expected Colorado to take that into account and realize that it was a bad decision to keep targeting Jack for his religious convictions,” the lawyer explained. “Instead, they found probable cause.”

“‘He’s going to be fully investigated again, there will be hearings from an administrative law judge,” Tedesco said. “It’s restarting the entire scenario.”

“‘It’s appalling,” the lawyer declared. “It’s unconscionable that they would go after him again right on the heels of losing a case because they were openly hostile to his religious beliefs.'”

Scardina has now filed a complaint with the civil rights commission. She is alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The complaint was held aside while the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ other case. Just three weeks after Phillips won his case, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination. This sure looks as though it was all planned out this way. “Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor,” Phillips’ lawsuit states. “This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips.”

The freedom of religion is sacrosanct in this nation as a First Amendment right. Weaponizing lawfare to take it apart is not only unconstitutional but unconscionable. I sincerely hope that Phillips prevails once more and that a more solid ruling by the Supreme Court puts an end to this form of religious bigotry.

Continue Reading

News

Judge Who Let Compound Muslims Walk Free Before Trial Exposed For What Else She Did

She supported Obama of course!

Published

on

The New Mexico judge who on Monday set a ridiculous $20,000 bail for five defendants arrested at a remote New Mexico compound where authorities say children were being trained to conduct school shootings seems to have a history of issuing low bail to violent offenders, especially when it comes to crimes against children.

Judge Sarah Backus (let’s remember the name), who is an elected Democrat is the judge who ordered the two men and three women to wear ankle monitors, have weekly contact with their attorneys and not consume alcohol or own firearms while on bail, after paying the 20k. And what’s possibly the worst part of all this is she actually said that although she was concerned by the “troubling facts” in this case, prosecutors failed to make the case for any specific threats to the community. What????

Here is more on this case via NBC News:

“A 3-year-old boy died — allegedly during a religious ritual. Children said they were being trained to commit mass shootings. A large weapons cache was found, with practice targets.

On Monday, prosecutors detailed horrifying allegations against five adults who were found with 11 starving children in a makeshift compound in Taos County, New Mexico — but the judge said they weren’t backed by enough evidence to keep the defendants behind bars as they await their trial.

“The state alleges that there was a big plan afoot,” state District Judge Sarah Backus said in court. “But the state hasn’t shown to my satisfaction, in clear and convincing evidence, what that plan was.”

The decision stunned many, and prompted threats against Backus. But experts say the move is the result of a series of recent changes to how the state treats defendants before their trials, with “clear and convincing evidence” of being a danger to the community a legal requirement for pre-trial detention with no bail.

“These people have been charged. They have not been convicted,” said Leo Romero, a law professor emeritus at the University of New Mexico and the chairman of a committee that made recommendations on reforming cash bail in the state, which were adopted by the state Supreme Court in 2017.

“So you’re balancing individual rights versus safety of the community, and the judge is weighing that when she is determining the evidence presented by the prosecutor,” he said.

New Mexico is part of a wave of a states that, in recent years, have re-examined how they handle bail and pretrial detention.

In 2014, the state Supreme Court, in New Mexico vs. Walter Ernest Brown, deemed that even if someone is charged with a serious offense, a judge has to make an individual determination on whether to detain the defendant before trial.

“Just because someone is charged with first-degree m****r or first-degree sexual assault, that by itself is insufficient,” Romero said. “The court’s got to consider other evidence of whether the person might be a danger or a flight risk, such as the nature and circumstances, which is different than the charge itself.”

Authorities have “no excuse,” said Jason Badger, who reported seeing missing boy months ago.
And in 2016, an overwhelming number of voters agreed to a constitutional amendment that moved the state away from the traditional money-based bail system to an evidence-of-risk-based system of release and detention, in an effort to bring more fairness. The new system took effect last year.

Backus would not comment on the case because it is still pending. Barry Massey, a spokesman for the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts, said that “what she said in court yesterday is as much explanation for her decisions as she can provide.”

“Prosecutors have to file a motion, and then they have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no other conditions of release will reasonably protect the public’s safety,” he said. “What the judge said yesterday is that they didn’t meet that burden.”

While Backus agreed to release the defendants from jail to house arrest, she required them to wear GPS ankle monitors and to check in weekly with their attorneys, plus cooperate with the New Mexico Children Youth and Families Division.

The decision not to hold the defendants spurred a backlash on social media, with some calling for Backus to resign. The New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts said the judge had also received threatening phone calls and emails.

State Rep. Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, a former law enforcement officer, said he felt Backus had not been tough enough.

“There’s the remains of a young child found here,” he said. “Someone should be charged with some kind of homicide or m****r. Whoever did that clearly is a violent person, and so they should be detained.”

Bail was set at $20,000 for each defendant, but Backus said she would allow the defendants to walk out on what’s called a signature bond — in which case they don’t have to post any cash.

The case has yet another twist: While the five were released to house arrest, because they were living on a makeshift compound on someone else’s property, they don’t technically have a house to go to.

Massey said that had been solved by offers from residents in Taos County to let them stay with them.

Marie Legrand Miller, a public defender for one of the defendants, Hujrah Wahhaj, confirmed her client had received such offers, but would not say from whom, other than to say the residents didn’t have any criminal problems and were in good standing.

“My client would like to obviously get out of jail and she has no desire to go back to the compound property,” Legrand Miller said. “The judge has ordered that they not return there, and she has no desire to return there.”

Fox News has reported that this isn’t the first time judge Backus has pulled a stunt like this. Just last month, she set a $10,000 bond for 24-year-old Rafael Orozco from Taos who was accused of beating his girlfriend, his newborn child and even a healthcare worker at Holy Cross Hospital in September 2016. He then prompted a lockdown at Holy Cross Hospital after allegedly attacking those 3 individuals.

Police later confirmed that Orozco prompted the lockdown at the hospital after punching his girlfriend as she breastfed their newborn in front of a male doctor, grabbing the mother by the throat and slapping the baby. Orozco then fled the hospital and was arrested in Rio Arriba County a few months later.

During his time in prison, Orozco was accused of other crimes, including obtaining Suboxone, an opioid medication, and pulling a fire alarm. A year later, he and his brother, Cristian Orozco, were charged with assaulting and threatening a guard. In September, Backus approved an order to incarcerate Orozco at the Lea County Correctional Facility until his trial.

Orozco’s defense attorney recently filed a motion arguing for his release and last month, Backus ruled in his favor.

Of course, with a little research, we here at RWN found that Judge Backus apparently gave money to Barack Obama for his 2008 campaign for president.

Figures.

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend