Category Archives: Civil rights

Julian Assange extradition to US, President Trump AG Barr: Get info on Hillary and Seth Rich, Free him,Pin medal on him

Julian Assange extradition to US, President Trump AG Barr: Get info on Hillary and Seth Rich, Free him,Pin medal on him

“Mr. Trump, tear down that wall. That wall between false narrative and truth. Let Julian Assange speak and listen.”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

Julian Assange was arrested and apparently is to be extradited to US.

If he is extradited, President Trump and Attorney General Barr, unless you too are corrupt and/or are damned fools, work with Assange to find out what he knows and has on Hillary Clinton and Seth Rich.

Assange is a hero not a criminal.

He has been trying to expose criminals.

From Zero Hedge.

“Julian Assange Arrested In London On US Extradition Warrant

Update (7:20 am ET): Assange’s lawyer has just confirmed that he was arrested not solely on charges stemming from skipping bail in the UK…but in connection with an extradition request from the US.

Jen Robinson@suigenerisjen

Just confirmed: has been arrested not just for breach of bail conditions but also in relation to a US extradition request. @wikileaks @khrafnsson

2,027 people are talking about this

Jen Robinson@suigenerisjen

From : The US warrant was issued in December 2017 and is for conspiracy with Chelsea Manning @xychelsea in early 2010.

721 people are talking about this

The US warrant was delivered in December 2017, showing that the US prosecutors were behind his arrest.

* * *

Press reports suggested that Assange was arrested at around 10 am London Time (5 am New York) in what appeared to be a “planned operation.” Though his first battle will be with the British legal system over charges of skipping bail when he sought asylum in 2012, analysts expect that he will eventually face extradition to the US, after a sealed indictment against him were accidentally revealed last year. Wikileaks accused Ecuador of illegally terminating Assange’s asylum, adding that the Ecuadorian ambassador invited police inside the embassy to take Assange into custody.”

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-11/julian-assange-arrested-london

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Advertisements

Mandated arbitration has no place in insurance policies for individuals, NAIC reviewing, McCarran- Ferguson Act allows states to regulate arbitration in insurance over Federal Arbitration Act FAA

Mandated arbitration has no place in insurance policies for individuals, NAIC reviewing, McCarran- Ferguson Act allows states to regulate arbitration in insurance over Federal Arbitration Act FAA

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“Our organization was founded to help Lutherans care for and support one another in time of need, guided by the principles of the Christian faith.”…Thrivent Code of Conduct

 

From Insurance Business Magazine.

Clicking “accept” on a company’s terms and conditions – something we do daily to use and pay for products and services – usually subjects us to lengthy contractual agreements, many of which contain mandatory arbitration clauses. Proponents of arbitration might think it’s the greatest thing since whole wheat artisanal sliced bread, but mandating arbitration in consumer contracts is troublesome, and it has no place in insurance policies for individuals and small businesses.

Over the last 10 to 15 years, the practice of requiring individuals to agree to arbitrate rather than litigate any future disputes (or forgo the product, service or employment altogether) has been heavily criticized by government agencies, the media, academics and consumer groups. Arbitration, it turns out, is not always faster and cheaper (the two major benefits claimed), and it can suppress the number of consumers pursuing legal remedies, the likelihood of success and the amount of damages.”

“However, placing mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance policies restructures this crucial aspect of the insurer-insured relationship. Companies presumably employ pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions because they believe arbitration generally benefits them – and a growing amount of research suggests they are right. In addition, arbitration proceedings are usually confidential, not subject to judicial or regulatory review (absent fraud), and may contractually limit remedies and damages policyholders would otherwise have under their state law. Manipulating the dispute resolution process in this manner in insurance is in conflict with the duties insurers owe their policyholders and is not holding their policyholders’ interests “at least equal to their own.”

These concerns are why NAIC consumer representatives have requested the NAIC amend the Model Unfair Trade Practices Act to prohibit mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses in insurance policies sold to individuals, and ideally small businesses. An NAIC working group is now considering this action.”

“Thanks to the strong presumption favoring state insurance regulation in the McCarran- Ferguson Act, states can regulate arbitration in insurance despite the Federal Arbitration Act [FAA], which otherwise pre-empts most state laws restricting arbitration. Every court considering the application of McCarran Ferguson to the FAA has acknowledged that states can ban or restrict arbitration clauses in insurance contracts as long as the state prohibition “regulates the business of insurance” and the proposed arbitration provision would prejudice that law’s purpose.”

Read more:

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/opinion/arbitration-no-thanks-105347.aspx

From the NAIC, The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016.

“Why arbitration clauses should be banned”

“Insurers that would insist on mandatory arbitration of policyholder disputes have selected the forum that they believe will be more favorable to them than to their policyholders, if not on each individual claim then in the aggregate. However, manipulating the dispute resolution process in this manner conflicts with the duties insurers owe their policyholders and is not holding their policyholders’ interests “at least equal to their own.”

If arbitration was truly a neutral forum rather than one favoring insurers, then there would be no need for an insurer to insist on its use before a dispute has even arisen. Insurers should utilize arbitration only when the policyholder has consented to do so after an actual dispute occurs (which is what the suggested amendment to the Model Unfair Trade Practices Act should accomplish), rather than requiring it in boilerplate language that the policyholder is very
unlikely to read, could not bargain over the provision even if she did, and could not make an informed decision at the point of sale on the merits. True freedom of contract, combined with the fundamental right to a trial, requires a knowing relinquishment of that right, which can only occur voluntarily once a specific dispute has materialized.”

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/07/16/naic-banning-arbitration-clauses-in-insurance-policies-why-arbitration-clauses-should-be-banned-companies-that-include-pre-dispute-mandatory-arbitration-clauses-do-so-because-it/

From the NAIC 2018 Adopted Committee Charges.

“8. The Pre-Dispute Mandatory Arbitration Clauses (D) Working Group will:
A. Consider the use of: 1) pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses; and 2) choice-of-law and choice-of-venue clauses and, if appropriate, prohibit their use in any individual or commercial insurance policies by amending the Unfair Trade Practices Model Act (#880), developing a new model act or developing other guidance regarding their usage.”

https://www.naic.org/documents/index_committees_2018_committee_charges.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent Financial vs Perez Department of Labor Acosta DOL, Status of lawsuits, Defense of alternative dispute resolution with mandated arbitration

Thrivent Financial vs Perez Department of Labor Acosta DOL, Status of lawsuits, Defense of alternative dispute resolution with mandated arbitration

“The MDRP is the sole means for presenting and resolving grievances, complaints, or disputes between Members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries and Thrivent or Thrivent’s directors, officers, agents and employees. The MDRP reflects Thrivent’s Christian belief system and strives to preserve Members’ fraternal relationship.”…Thrivent v. Perez Sept. 29, 2016

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

 

From Bloomberg  Sept. 29, 2016.

“Thrivent Financial for Lutherans is accusing the Department of Labor of exceeding its statutory authority by attempting, with its new fiduciary rule, to force all disputes into federal court rather than allowing for alternative dispute resolution methods (Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Perez, D. Minn., 0:16-cv-03289, complaint filed 9/29/16).

Thrivent’s lawsuit, filed Sept. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, takes aim at the rule’s “best interest contract” (BIC) exemption”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/thrivent-financial-joins-fray-in-challenging-dols-fiduciary-rule?context=article-related

From the lawsuit.

“Thrivent’s Member Dispute Resolution Program
42. Thrivent’s MDRP is incorporated into all of Thrivent’s fraternal insurance contracts through the open contract provision by which Thrivent’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws are incorporated into all Thrivent insurance contracts, as required under state law. The MDRP Bylaw was adopted by Thrivent’s Member-elected Board of Directors as a part of Thrivent’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws in 1999 (at which time Thrivent was known as AAL). In so doing, Thrivent’s Board of Directors determined that the MDRP is in the best interests of Thrivent’s Membership.

43. The MDRP Bylaw, which is Section 11 of Thrivent’s Bylaws, requires binding, mandatory arbitration for any Member disputes with Thrivent. Section 11 “applies to all past, current and future benefit certificates, members, insureds, certificate owners, beneficiaries and the Society. It applies to all claims, actions, disputes and grievances of any kind or nature whatsoever. It includes, but is not limited to, claims based on breach of benefit contract[.]” Bylaws, § 11(b). “No lawsuits or any other actions may be brought for any claims or disputes covered by” Section 11. Id. § 11(c).

44. The MDRP is the sole means for presenting and resolving grievances, complaints, or disputes between Members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries and Thrivent or Thrivent’s directors, officers, agents and employees. The MDRP reflects Thrivent’s Christian belief system and strives to preserve Members’ fraternal relationship.”

“47. A key benefit of the MDRP is that it preserves the fraternal relationship between Thrivent and its Members by avoiding adversarial litigation that could threaten to undermine the organization’s core mission. Thrivent’s Bylaws provide that no lawsuits or other actions are permitted for claims or disputes covered by the MDRP. Thrivent’s MDRP provides for resolution of disputes on an individual basis, involving Thrivent and the Members. Representative or class actions are not permitted under the MDRP Bylaw, which provides that “no disputes may be brought forward in a representative group or on behalf of or against any ‘class’ of persons, and the disputes of multiple members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries (other than immediate family) may not be joined together for purposes of these procedures.” See Bylaws, § 11(e).
48. The MDRP is consistent with Thrivent’s fraternal nature, consistent with the Christian belief system of its Members, and reflects the careful balancing between Thrivent’s and its Members’ desire for a prompt, fair and efficient resolution of disputes, on the one hand, and the protection of the interests of all Members on the other. As such, the MDRP is an integral part of Thrivent’s governance structure. Experience has shown that the MDRP not only provides a fair and efficient process for dispute resolution, but is also in the best interest of Members.”

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Thrivent_Financial_for_Lutherans_v_Perez_et_al_Docket_No_016cv032?1552582945

DOL temporarily stopped enforcing anti-arbitration provision.

“Thrivent Financial for Lutherans convinced a federal judge in Minnesota to temporarily stop the Labor Department from enforcing the fiduciary rule’s anti-arbitration provision against the nonprofit financial entity.

Thrivent showed the threat of irreparable harm to its business model, both now and in the future, was sufficient to have its request for a preliminary injunction granted, Judge Susan Richard Nelson held Nov. 3 (Thrivent Fin. for Lutherans v. Acosta, 2017 BL 396118, D. Minn., No. 0:16-cv-03289-SRN-DTS, order granting preliminary injunction 11/3/17″

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/thrivent-financial-wins-battle-over-labor-dept-arbitration-ban?context=article-related

Status report January 2, 2018.

“While the administrative process continues forward, it is not yet complete. On November 29, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a final rule extending the transition period and delay of applicability dates for the relevant prohibited transaction exemptions from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019. See 82 Fed. Reg. 56545 (Nov. 29, 2017). The Department believes that this administrative delay will provide the Department time to complete its review of the underlying Fiduciary Rule and related exemptions and its intended proposal of “a new streamlined class exemption.” Id. at 56548. The Department believes that both its review and any proposed changes can be implemented before July 1, 2019. See id. at 56552 (explaining the Department’s belief that the additional time “is sufficient to complete review of the new information in the record and to implement changes to the Fiduciary Rule and/or PTEs, if any, including opportunity for notice and comment and coordination with other regulatory agencies”) ”

https://www.dolfiduciaryrule.com/portalresource/ThriventvPerez2018-01-02ECF112JointStatusReport.pdf

Status report July 2, 2018.

“Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 3, 2017, the parties submit this joint status report to address whether a continued stay of proceedings is necessary. The parties agree that a continued stay of proceedings is appropriate and anticipate providing a subsequent report to the Court on September 4, 2018.

In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the “implementation and enforcement of the BIC Exemption’s anti-arbitration condition against Thrivent . . . until the conclusion of this litigation or such time as the Court so orders.” ECF No. 111 at 19. The Court also stayed the case, concluding that “[s]taying this matter will allow the administrative process to fully develop, possibly resolving this dispute, and thereby promoting judicial economy.””

https://www.napa-net.org/sites/napa-net.org/files/uploads/thrivent-dol-status-report.pdf

A status report for September 2018 has not been located.

However, the following suggests the Department of Labor is continuing to work on the “Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions.”

RIN Data

DOL/EBSA RIN: 1210-AB82 Publication ID: Fall 2018
Title: Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions
Abstract:The Department of Labor in 1975 issued a regulation defining who is “fiduciary” under section 3(21)(A)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) as a result of giving investment advice for a fee or other compensation.  On April 8, 2016, the Department replaced the 1975 regulation with a new regulatory definition.  The new regulatory definition was vacated in toto in Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018).  The Department is considering regulatory options in light of the Fifth Circuit opinion.
Agency: Department of Labor(DOL) Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
EO 13771 Designation: Deregulatory
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined     (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.)
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1002 (ERISA sec. 3(21))    29 U.S.C. 1108 (ERISA sec. 408)
Legal Deadline:  None
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
Request for Information (RFI) 07/06/2017 82 FR 31278
RFI Comment Period End 08/08/2017
Final Rule 09/00/2019

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201810&RIN=1210-AB82

How will this play out? Who knows.

The NAIC in 2016 stated: “pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”

Hopefully justice will prevail.

***  Update Mar 15, 2019  ***

According to a USDOJ attorney who worked on the lawsuit, it has ended.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent new employee dispute resolution mandate?, Effective January 1, 2019?, Citizen Wells breaking news?, Teresa Rasmussen new Thrivent CEO October 2018

Thrivent new employee dispute resolution mandate?, Effective January 1, 2019?, Citizen Wells breaking news?, Teresa Rasmussen new Thrivent CEO October 2018

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“Companies don’t want to go to court because it puts them on a level playing field. Courts are ruled by law, legal precedent, and legal discovery, which allows litigants to obtain information and evidence from their opponents or from third parties. Discovery is a privilege in arbitration, but not a right. Arbitrators can’t enforce subpoenas, meaning you have to file a lawsuit just to get a third party or a piece of information into the hearing. In open court, you don’t have to jump through nearly as many hoops. Further, judgments in court are often more favorable to the consumer, both in the rate of success and the dollar amount of judgments.”…North Carolina Consumers Council

 

 

Has Thrivent Financial implemented a new employee dispute resolution mandate similar to their MDRP dispute resolution mandated for members since 1999?

If so, why is there no news of this until now on the internet or Thrivent’s website?

Was this supposed to be kept secret?

Did someone inadvertently place this on their website where it got on the internet and was subsequently “rectified”, scrubbed?

A lot of questions have been raised.

Teresa Rasmussen, formerly general counsel and a president at Thrivent became CEO in October.

Is this tied to her?

Did this evolve from Thrivent’s lawsuits against the Department of Labor?

Was this lawsuit a catalyst?

“Executive sues Thrivent, saying he was fired because he is black”

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/05/26/thrivent-executive-fired-gregory-m-smith-lawsuit-says-he-was-fired-because-he-is-black-represented-by-attorney-clayton-halunen-we-are-going-to-get-rid-of-that-black-piece-of-shit/

The following link was scrubbed.

https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/files/Employee-Dispute-Resolution-Program.pdf

WE CAN’T FIND YOUR PAGE

You may have used an out-of-date link, bookmarked a page that has moved or typed the address (URL) incorrectly.

To find the information you are looking for, use the site navigation, visit our homepage, or use the site search.

Nothing was found by searching on their website or the internet.

However, this was found in cache:

This is Google’s cache of https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/dispute-resolution-program.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Nov 12, 2018 11:25:51 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ESWyoGuIC10J:https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/dispute-resolution-program.html+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The following was found under the FAQ section:

  • Why is Thrivent introducing the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program?
    • • Thrivent has had a successful Member Dispute Resolution Program in place for 19 years, and now we are providing our workforce with a similar dispute resolution program that is:
      • Neutral.
      • Timely.
      • Cost-effective.
    • Introducing this program puts us in line with many Fortune 500 companies. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 55% of U.S. employees have agreed to arbitration agreements.
  • When does the program take effect?

    Current employees and field sales members must sign their agreements via DocuSign by December 31, 2018, and the program takes effect on January 1, 2019.

  • Am I obligated to use the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program instead of filing a lawsuit?

    Yes. Thrivent provides the Dispute Resolution Program as the exclusive means to resolve workplace disputes. By contracting with, or accepting and continuing employment with Thrivent, you agree to resolve all work-related disputes within the rules of the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program. This agreement is binding on Thrivent, its employees and independent field sales members. Workplace disputes not resolved through Workforce Relations, Code of Conduct, the initial appeal or mediation must be arbitrated under the rules of the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program.

What if I don’t sign the agreement?

Because agreeing to a Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program is a condition of employment for employees and condition of contract for field sales members, employment/contracts will not be continued for anyone who does not agree to the terms of the program. Employees and field sales members who choose not to sign the agreement will not be eligible for any type of severance or transitional pay.

These agreements are binding on both Thrivent, its employees and field sales members. Workplace disputes not resolved by mutual agreement must be arbitrated under the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program.

Why is there no mention of this dramatic change in Thrivent news or the internet?

Did  they change their minds?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent new CEO Attorney Teresa J. Rasmussen, Formerly president and general counsel, More “Core Christian Values” or adversarial positions?

Thrivent new CEO Attorney Teresa J. Rasmussen, Formerly president and general counsel, More “Core Christian Values” or adversarial positions?

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal”…1 Corinthians 13

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

 

I have believed and experienced for years that Thrivent was controlled by attorneys.

Now Thrivent is being run by new CEO Teresa J. Rasmussen, another attorney.

Will she bring more Thrivent touted “Core Christian Values” or attorney driven adversarial positions?

I sent Ms. Rasmussen a heads up email about my case about a week ago.

To her credit, she passed the email on to another in house attorney, the same one who took part in my “mediation” session.

I received an email from him 4 days ago and responded.

From Finance & Commerce October 16, 2018.

“Teresa Rasmussen is Thrivent’s new CEO

Teresa J. Rasmussen, currently president of Minneapolis-based Thrivent Financial, will take over as CEO by the end of the month. She replaces Bradford Hewitt, who is retiring after eight years of leading the financial services organization.

Rasmussen joined Thrivent in 2005 and has served as general counsel, secretary and senior vice president. She previously worked for American Express and Ameriprise Financial and began her career as a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice.

She is the first woman in the CEO position, Thrivent said.

In a press release, Thrivent board chair Bonnie Raquet praised both Hewitt and Rasmussen for the work at the organization.

“Terry has distinguished herself as a strong leader with extraordinary business and legal acumen, as well as a deep understanding of Thrivent’s charter as a fraternal benefit society,” Raquet said. “What’s more, she has deep-seated values and a practical approach to aligning our workforce to serve our members and drive growth.””

Read more:

https://finance-commerce.com/2018/10/teresa-rasmussen-is-thrivents-new-ceo/

Without revealing too much of this exchange at this time (I waited 4 days without a response to write this) I would like to clear up the following statement made by the in house attorney:

” I would very much encourage you to seek the advice of counsel before setting forth on your threat to defame Thrivent.  Thrivent is proud of its trusted reputation and will take necessary steps to protect itself from your misrepresentations and false accusations.  For the past 7 years the Ethisphere Institute has recognized Thrivent as one of the top 100 most ethical organizations in the world.  Again, we will take necessary steps to protect our valued reputation.”

First:

Thrivent’s  “Code of Conduct”

“How might my behavior be perceived if it appeared in social media feeds, on the news or in tomorrow’s headlines?”

Second:

I diligently endeavor to write the truth, the facts. I conveyed this to the first Thrivent outside attorney to contact me and cautioned him on trampling on my First Amendment Rights. I also advised him to have Thrivent contact me with any corrections to inaccurate reporting.

I placed the following in an article dated July 30, 2018 addressed to former CEO Brad Hewitt:

“I recently told the outside attorney who relayed this message that I endeavor to be accurate and do not lie.

I stated that if Thrivent finds any errors or wishes to respond with a rebuttal, I will accomodate them.”

So far I have received no corrections from Thrivent, just threats.

Third:

Apparently there is enough evidence to draw the conclusion that the Ethisphere Institute award is one of the best ethics awards that money can buy.

Last:

If Thrivent wishes to protect its “valued reputation” it should immediately issue an apology to me and set in motion efforts for reparations.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Compare Google patents to Data Mine your home and kids’ bedroom to passages from 1984, Big Brother is watching you

Compare Google patents to Data Mine your home and kids’ bedroom to passages from 1984, Big Brother is watching you

“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!””…George Orwell, “1984”

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Zero Hedge November 22, 2018.

“Google Wants To Data Mine Your Home And Kids’ Bedroom

New patents show Google is quietly developing a smart-home automated system that will routinely eavesdrop on your daily life.

The patents describe how cameras and sensors will be mounted in almost every room of the house, scanning and analyzing every movement a human makes.

According to the patent description, the smart cameras could recognize Will Smith’s face on a T-shirt. After cross-referencing this data against the human’s browser history, the smart-home might announce or send them a message, “You seem to like Will Smith. His new movie is playing in a theater near you.”

By blending that with an in-depth analysis of other electronic devices in the home, and audio signatures to determine gender, Google will have enough data to create a corporate profile on the human and even their family. 

The system will then calculate “fashion tastes” by scanning the human’s outfit, and could even determine their income or social class based on any “expensive mechanical and/or electronic devices” it detects.

Even creepier, the smart-home will track audio signatures too, could be used to identify users, but also determine gender and age.”

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-20/google-wants-data-mine-your-home-and-kids-bedroom

From “1984” by George Orwell.

“A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in bed, he can be inspected without warning and without knowing that he is being inspected. Nothing that he does is indifferent. His friendships, his relaxations, his behaviour towards his wife and children, the expression of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters in sleep, even the characteristic movements of his body, are all jealously scrutinized. Not only any actual misdemeanour, but any eccentricity, however small, any change of habits, any nervous mannerism that could possibly be the symptom of an inner struggle, is certain to be detected. He has no freedom of choice in any direction whatever. On the other hand his actions are not regulated by law or by any clearly formulated code of behaviour. In Oceania there is no law. Thoughts and actions which, when detected, mean certain death are not formally forbidden, and the endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations are not inflicted as punishment for crimes which have actually been committed, but are merely the wiping-out of persons who might perhaps commit a crime at some time in the future.”

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship, Trump right Ryan and other Democrats wrong, Alien parent(s) must be domiciled in US legally, Misquoted and misused to protect Obama and agenda

Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship, Trump right Ryan and other Democrats wrong, Alien parent(s) must be domiciled in US legally, Misquoted and misused to protect Obama and agenda

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”…Marbury V Madison

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

Attorney Mario Apuzzo has done an oustanding job for years of clarifying the US Constitution and statutes in regard to US citizenship and Natural Born Citizen.

The following addresses the citizen birthright bestowed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

“In Article II, the Constitution demands the status of “natural born.” In the Fourteenth Amendment, it demands “born” in the United States and “subject to its jurisdiction” at the time of birth. Only a child born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to citizen parents can be an Article II “natural born” “Citizen of the United States.” Minor v. Happersett (1875). In contradistinction, a child born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to one or two alien parents can under the Fourteenth Amendment be a “born” “citizen of the United States.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1989).  It should be noted that Wong Kim Ark also added in its holding that the alien parents of the U.S.-born child were domiciled in the United States.  The Court felt that the fact of domicile gave the United States sufficient jurisdiction over the parents which at birth spilled over to the child.”

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/search?q=fourteenth

There is a huge difference between visiting the US illegally and being legally domiciled here.

Legal definition: “Domicile is a person’s permanent place of dwelling. It is a legal relationship between a person and a locality. ”

state of domicile.: “The state in which a person has his/her permanent residence or intends to make his/her residence, as compared to where the person is living temporarily.”

Case closed!

Next subject.

Once again, Trump is right and the Democrats and spineless RINOs are wrong.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/