Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/ Independent streaming video TV station on the Big Island of Hawaii. en Tue, 07 Sep 2010 02:28:36 GMT vBulletin 1440 http://hawaiian-tv.com/images/misc/rss.jpg Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/ Sharron Angle hit with R-J copyright infringement lawsuit http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1469&goto=newpost Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:36:42 GMT By Steve Green (http://www.hawaiian-tv.com/staff/steve-green/) (contact (http://www.hawaiian-tv.com/staff/steve-green/contact/)) Friday, Sept. 3,...]]> Sharron Angle hit with R-J copyright infringement lawsuit


By Steve Green (contact)
Friday, Sept. 3, 2010 | 7:50 p.m.

Sharron Angle

Sun archives




The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s copyright infringement lawsuit partner on Friday sued U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle over R-J material posted on her website, allegedly without authorization.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas by Righthaven LLC, seeks damages of $150,000 against Angle personally and forfeiture of her website domain name sharronangle.com.
The Democratic Party of Nevada, which has also been sued by Righthaven, charged in an Aug. 23 press release that the Review-Journal had a double standard to “hold Angle harmless while suing the Democratic Party and progressive organizations.”
Steve Friess, a Las Vegas freelancer writer and columnist for Las Vegas Weekly, a sister newspaper to the Las Vegas Sun, has been supportive of Righthaven because Friess has seen material owned by him and other freelancers infringed on.
In a blog post last month, Friess said Righthaven had to sue Angle. Friess posted several screenshots of R-J stories on Angle’s website and wrote that “thousands of readers have seen these stories on SharronAngle.Com and not ReviewJournal.Com; that’s a clear loss of the eyeballs that translate into advertising revenue.”
“Righthaven must sue. It took effort to find the cat blogger (a notorious Righthaven case), but this one was on a major candidate’s site, there in plain sight. If they don’t sue Angle, they provide dozens of infringers with a clear example of the company’s inconsistency in defending its copyright. And there goes the whole enterprise, right there,” Friess wrote at his blog site.
In its suit, Righthaven charged, “Ms. Angle did not seek permission, in any manner, to reproduce, display, or otherwise exploit the Works (stories)...Ms. Angle was not granted permission, in any manner, to reproduce, display, or otherwise exploit the works.”
In most of its suits, Righthaven detects the infringement, then obtains a copyright and sues the infringer on a retroactive basis. The suits usually seek damages of $75,000 for a single copyright.
The Angle suit, however, included two copyrights for material published on July 21 and Aug. 3. Righthaven didn’t indicate why it sued over two copyrights and is seeking double the usual amount in damages.
A request for comment was left with the Angle campaign.
Records filed with the lawsuit show the Review-Journal received full credit for a July 21 editorial posted on Angle’s site, “It’s the jobs, stupid,” which was critical of Angle’s election opponent, Sen. Harry Reid; and for an Aug. 3 story displayed on Angle’s site headlined “Angle: Reid’s clout misguided.”
Righthaven, which has now filed at least 117 lawsuits, has sued both liberal and conservative sites around the country ranging from the Democratic Party of Nevada, the Democratic Underground and the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (liberal) to the Free Republic (conservative).
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Obama/Righthaven : Blitzkrieg War on Internet Speech
What do you call a thousand lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
But let's begin with just three lawyers:
Barak Obama, Michelle Obama and Steve Gibson.
All three worked for Chicago Law firm Sidley Austin LLP, where both
Gibson and Michelle Obama specialized in "intellectual property" law
for the firm. You know..... copyright law and such.
Now, in a totally coincidental move, Steve Gibson, via his Righthaven
firm, has launched a salvo of legal suits demanding a payoff of $75,000
from internet websites, for alleged copyright law infringements incurred
when the sites posted extracts from major media news articles.
The tactic is designed to severely damage internet free speech; and to
bolster the declining fortunes of major media --while also raking in the
RICO dollars for Mr. Gibson. When I say 'RICO,' I mean: as in racket....
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewto...?p=66122#66122

]]> Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1469 Overdue honor for veteran http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1468&goto=newpost Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:27:40 GMT
Click Photo to Enlarge Hilo resident Masayuki Kai, 86, is congratulated Wednesday after receiving the Bronze Star from U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, right. The ceremony took place in the courtroom of Kai's daughter, District Judge Barbara Takase, pictured left rear, with her husband, Lt. Col. Gerald Takase. - William Ing/Tribune-Herald


Overdue honor for veteran

by John Burnett
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer


Published: Thursday, September 2, 2010 10:06 AM HST


It was an indelible moment a lifetime in the making.

Masayuki Kai of Hilo, an 86-year-old Ka'u Sugar retiree and World War II veteran of Co. H, 442nd Infantry Regiment, received the Bronze Star on Wednesday -- almost 65 years after his honorable discharge from the Army.

U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and his wife, Irene Hirano, presented Kai with the U.S. Armed Forces' fourth-highest combat award in Hilo District Court -- where Kai's daughter, Barbara Takase, is a judge.

"Masayuki and I served in the same battalion," Inouye said during the presentation. "I was in Easy Company and he was in How. He was in the great weapons company. Without them, we would have lost the war."

Turning to Kai, Inouye said: "It is my great pleasure and honor to present this long-delayed medal, with the hope you will forgive us."

"Thank you, Dan," Kai replied, beaming.

Numerous family members witnessed the historic and -heartwarming event, including Kai's wife of 63 years, Hiroko, Takase and husband Gerald, daughters Priscilla Shimamoto and Lorraine Nagata, son Russell Kai and several grandchildren. Son Steven, who lives on Kauai, was unable to attend.

"The whole family's very proud of him," Takase said. "He doesn't say much about what happened, but obviously, it was quite a trying time for them, so we're glad that after all this time, he's finally been recognized."

Kai, a private first class, "distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service to the United States," his citation reads. He served from March 27, 1943 to Dec. 23, 1945, and saw combat in Italy, France and Germany, participating in the Rome-Arno, North Appenines, Po Valley and Rhineland campaigns.

Takase said her father wasn't wounded, but suffered permanent hearing loss due to his specialty as a mortar operator.

"He would tell us stories about how he and his friend, this guy that they called 'Papoose' Sadanaga, were both mortar carriers and they would have to carry it around," the judge said. Sadanaga, she noted, died sometime back.

"It weighed about 100 pounds," added Gerald Takase, a deputy county corporation counsel and National Guard lieutenant colonel who attended the ceremony in uniform.

Afterwards, Kai said it was a "great honor to be remembered."

"I am grateful because I was fortunate enough to come back, but many of my friends in the same outfit, in H Company, didn't come back," he said.

The surviving members of the original "Go For Broke" 442nd Regimental Combat Team -- since renamed the 442nd Infantry Regiment -- are in their mid-80s and older.

"When we have our annual reunion, I try to go back and meet up with them, and it's very heartbreaking to see one missing, another one gone. It's hard," Kai said. "But maybe that's life; you have to accept that.

"I remember a lot of things, but it's hard to relate now. You only see the bad things, your buddies passing away, getting hit. These are the things, I think, many of the veterans feel that they don't want to talk about. ... We have 442nd reunions, but when we get there, we don't talk about it, our past experience. We just say hello and have a few bottles of beer.

"When you think back on the old days, you think of the snow and everything else. You remember the bad days, but you also remember the good days when they give you a few letters and they give you something to eat. Those things are very cherishable and these are the memories that we keep."

Gerald Takase read in the Army News that recipients of the Combat Infantryman Badge were being upgraded to the Bronze Star, so he applied for his father-in-law.

"I'm really happy he got it," he said.

The 442nd, comprised mostly of American-born sons of Japanese immigrants, is the most decorated regiment in the history of the U.S. Armed Forces, with 21 Medal of Honor recipients, including Inouye. They fought with uncommon valor against Nazi forces while confronting the racial prejudice of their countrymen on the home front. Many served with distinction while their families languished in internment camps.

"I don't think people today recognize what these World War II veterans did for us," Gerald Takase said. "If they had not won the war, I think things would be very different in our world, even much more than with the wars we are fighting today.

"I think it's an honor that should be bestowed on every World War II veteran."

E-mail John Burnett at -jburnett@hawaiitribune--herald.com. ]]> Hawaii News Forum John Tyler http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1468 John Tyler Repeals House Joint Resolution-192 http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1467&goto=newpost Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:20:09 GMT Repealed by John Tyler 1V September 3, 2010 House Joint Resolution-192 On June 5, 1933, Congress enacted HJR-192 (http://educationcenter2000.com/legal/HJR_192_73rdCongress.html) to suspend the gold standard and to abrogate the gold clause. This... Repealed by John Tyler 1V September 3, 2010

House Joint Resolution-192

On June 5, 1933, Congress enacted HJR-192 to suspend the gold standard and to abrogate the gold clause. This resolution declared that "Whereas the holding or dealing in gold affect the public interest, and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency. . . are inconsistent with the declared policy of congress. . . in the payment of debts.


This resolution declared that any obligation requiring "payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money policy; and . . . Every obligation heretofore or hereafter incurred, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts."

A farm control bill around the same time period had attached to it a clause making Federal Reserve notes legal tender. In 1937, the Supreme Court struck down the Farm Control Act, thus carrying with it the legal tender status of Federal Reserve notes. Prior to 1933, Federal Reserve notes were used for inter-bank transfers. Around 1945, Congress passed a bill which called for the withdrawl of Federal Reserve notes from public circulation; but, they are still with us. . . *NOTE that the words do not talk about "payment" of debt, but clearly states that "Every Obligation . . . Shall be discharged."

In the case of Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 H.W. 784, the court explained the legal distinction between the words "payment" and "discharge": "There is a distinction between a `debt discharged' and a `debt paid.' When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment."

Thus, it is clear that, as a result of HJR 192 and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one has been able to pay a debt. The only thing they can do is tender in transfer of debts, and the debt is perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our Common Law to operate on, and created a void, as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a "Public National Credit" system where debt is money (The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt") over which the only jurisdiction at is Admiralty and Maritime.

HJR-192 was implemented immediately. The day after President Roosevelt signed the resolution the treasury offered the public new government securities, minus the traditional "payable in gold" clause. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, proscribes the States making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt -- but, this Article does not contain an absolute prohibition against the States making something else a tender in transfer of debt.

HJR-192 prohibits payment of debt and substitutes, in its place, a discharge of an obligation -- thereby not only subverting, but totally bypassing the "absolute prohibition" so carefully engineered into the Constitution. There is, now, nothing for this Article to operate on, just as there is nothing for Common Law to operate on. Perpetual debt, bills, notes, cheques and credits fall within a totally different jurisdiction than contemplated by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 -- and that jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the Law of Admiralty and Maritime. Now, it is easy to see how "bills" as plenty as oak leaves, "polluted the laws after the War For Independence, as described by Peletiah Webster". This is how we lost access to substantive Common Law -- the very law the Minute Men fought to regain.

HJR-192 places every person who deals in the public national credit in the legal position of a merchant, and the only jurisdiction over any controversy involving this subject matter is Admiralty and Maritime. Obviously, if we cannot pay our debts at law, we are also benefiting from limited liability under the Limited Liability Act when we use this credit-- and, that is marine insurance!

The definitions of "liability" and "insure" will help convince us of this fact -- in analyzing these definitions, keep in mind the distinction between "payment" and "discharge". Liability: The word is a broad term. Ithas been defined to mean: all character of debts and obligations. . . any kind of debt or liability, either absolute or contingent, express or implied . . . condition which creates a duty to perform an act immediately or in the future . . . duty to pay money or to perform some other service . . . the state of being bound or obligated in law or justice to do, pay, or make good something. "Insure: "To engage to indemnify a person against pecuniary loss from specified perils or possible liability".

QUESTION #1: Who do you suppose took possession of the treasury of the State of Pa. on June 5, 1933, -- the moment HJR-192 made it impossible for the State of Pennsylvania to pay its debts?

QUESTION #2: Land titles being allodial in Pennsylvania, what was the State Assembly's authority and jurisdiction to pledge these allodiums to the Federal Reserve as security for loan contracts from the Federal Government?

QUESTION #3: If the individual citizens of Pennsylvania were indeed "sovereign" under the Common Law -- What was the authority and jurisdiction of the State Assembly to pledge their labor to the Federal Reserve pool?

Clearly, the alleged authority and jurisdiction is the so-called public policy declared by Congress. We will return to this subject later on.

If all the assets of the United States have been hypothecated to the Federal Reserve "pool" as security for the maritime loan and insurance underwriting policy, then that raises a couple of questions: QUESTION #1: If the United States "dies" (or is merged) under a One World government, who gets the pool? QUESTION #2: If the Federal Reserve "dies" by way of getting its charter rescinded, who gets the pool?

The answers can be found in the Federal Reserve Act itself: "Should a Federal Reserve bank be dissolved or go into liquidation, any surplus remaining, after the payment of all debts, dividend requirements as hereinbefore provided, and the par value of the stock, shall be paid to and become the property of the United States and shall be similarly applied".

31 USC 315B provided that: "No gold shall after January 30, 1934, be coined, and no gold coin shall after January 30, 1934, be paid out or delivered by the United States; provided however, that coinage may continue to be executed by the mints of the United States for foreign countries". This exception was necessary because foreign countries, being recognized or sovereign, could not be held to the internal public policy of the United States. HJR-192 was binding only upon those individuals who were beneficiaries of public policy; that being the privilege of limited liability for payment of debt arising out of participation in the Federal Reserve Public Credit System.

HJR-192 automatically extended the privilege to renege on debts to every person using the Federal Reserve banking system; however, never forget that when you operate on a privilege, you have to respect the ruler of the giver of that privilege. Furthermore, in the case of Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, the court said: "The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits."

Thus, if you avail yourself of any benefits of the public credit system you waive the right to challenge the validity of any statute pertaining to, and conferring "benefits" of this system on the basis of constitutionality.House Joint Resolution
]]> John Tyler For President John Tyler http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1467 <![CDATA[Trafficant's Bankrupsty Speech]]> http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1466&goto=newpost Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:03:01 GMT April 24, 2009 Below you will find the last paragraph of a statement made by a great patriot. It was read into the congressional record on the date indicated. He was imprisoned on trumped up charges for exposing the evil empire of which he found... April 24, 2009
Below you will find the last paragraph of a statement made by a great patriot. It was read into the congressional record on the date indicated.

He was imprisoned on trumped up charges for exposing the evil empire of which he found himself a part. If you love liberty and justice please make this known to your e mail contacts.


I pray there may someday be justice for him as he has indeed suffered much.

"America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country.

Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303


Look up the full text of his speech............ for which he was persecuted, it will make you cry. [SEE BELOW]
Think what you will about the colorfully controversial James Traficant. The reason he's served eight years behind bars is because he's an intelligent comedian like George Carlin or Bill Hicks. Honesty and federal politics are as compatible as Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz. The above link explains why the USA (and the rest of the world) is in deep do-do: bankruptcy. America's been bankrupt since 9 March 1933 thanks to FDR's HR 192.

Why is today's dollar worth two cents compared to a 1913 dollar? Why did FDR steal Americans' gold in 1934? Why do Americans each owe $330,000 to the Federal Reserve today? Why are more and more Americans declaring bankruptcy today? Why is America becoming increasingly tyrannical? Why is the left-right dialectic fake? Why are foreclosures plaguing the country today? Why is privacy becoming non-existent? Why is America, as well as the rest of the world, a collectivist socialistic dictatorship?


The answers to these questions and more lie in James Traficant's speech to the House on 17 March 1993. This one speech is all you need to understand the deep doo doo the world is in.

The problem is the Feds have taken over the country on behalf of the Federal Reserve. Thomas Jefferson warned about the dangers of allowing private banks, like the Fed, from making the nation's money supply, yet that is what happens today. You can't pay for something with debt, but that is the scam in place now. With fractional reserve lending, the monetizing of debt and charging interest, the debt will never be paid off. That being the case, America has been bankrupt officially since 1933. Each American is collateral against the unpayable debt. DC is ripping up the Bill of Rights because individual freedom has no place in the New World Order. You must pay the debt you cannot pay and you will be a happy slave.

William Call
saber8@cableone.net



**************************
James Traficant's U.S. Bankruptcy Speech

The Bankruptcy of The United States United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303
Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.
It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States."
Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be "money" in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or "currency." Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not "money." A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not "money." The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, gold and silver coin.
It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any "money." Most Americans have not been paid any "money" for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are "bankrupt," along with the rest of the country?
Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). when ever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.
Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) - a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.
There is a fundamental difference between "paying" and "discharging" a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of "good & valuable consideration." Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.
Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.
The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a "Canon Law Trust" as their model, adding stock and naming it a "Joint Stock Trust." The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal "person" to duplicate a "Joint Stock Trust" in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]
The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.
Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.
Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)
"Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.
In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.
This has been going on for over eighty years without the "informed knowledge" of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.
Why don’t more people own their properties outright?
Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?
We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.
America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country." [emphasis added]
http://www.afn.org/~govern/bankruptcy.html


]]> Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1466 Soldier demands Obama to show birth certificate http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1465&goto=newpost Sat, 04 Sep 2010 00:27:37 GMT BORN IN THE USA?
Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez
Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace
Posted: July 14, 2009
9:53 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Dr. Orly Taitz
A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.
The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order will be held Thursday.
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation here.
Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."
He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him that "something is amiss."
"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.
"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.

He said he is scheduled to report for duty one day before his hearing, on July 15, and while other details are not public, he knows he is scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama's plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.
He told WND he is prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.
"What I want to do is deploy to Afghanistan, do my job as an Army officer, engineer. I do not want to subject myself to the possibility that I might be violating the [Uniform Code of Military Justice]," he said.
Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."
According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general."
The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."
"Others may cynically ridicule this plaintiff when, as an officer responsible not only to obey those above him but to protect those under his command, he comes to this court asking for the right to establish the legality of orders received not only for his own protection, but for the protection of all enlisted men and women who depend on HIS judgment that the orders he follows are legal. Above all, when Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook submits and contends that he files and will prosecute this lawsuit and seeks an injunction or temporary restraining order against the enforcement of potentially illegal orders for the benefit of all servicemen and women and for the benefit of all officers in all branches of the U.S. military, he knows that those in power illegitimately may seek to injure his career. He knows that he risks all and he does so in the conscientious belief that he does so for not merely his own, but the general good,:" according to the court filing.
"Plaintiff files this suit to clarify how he can both obey all lawful orders and avoid dereliction of his duties so as to escape court-martial under the UCMJ if he does NOT question the legality of the orders he has received. Plaintiff seeks to avoid not only court-martial in this country, but also treatment as a war-criminal or terrorist, not eligible even for protection under the Geneva Convention, if he were found to be a merely mercenary soldier in a private army of slaves, 'owned' or controlled by an unconstitutional and therefore illegal commander, if he does not ask the question: 'is this order legal?'" the case pleading states.
"Is an officer entitled to refuse orders on grounds of conscientious objection to the legitimate constitutional authority of the current de fact Commander-in-Chief?" is the question that must be answered, the case contends.
"In the alternative, is an officer entitled to a judicial stay of the enforcement of facially valid military orders where that officer can show evidence that the chain-of-command from the commander-in-chief is tainted by illegal activity?
"The issue or question raised by this suit is uniquely federal and properly (and in fact necessarily) subject to the exercise of federal power: the question whether the constitutional legitimacy of the chain of command under a constitutionally legitimate commander-in-chief pursuant to Article II, §§1-2 of the Constitution is essential to the maintenance of balance of powers and separation of powers under the constitution, and cannot be lightly dismissed in light of the plaintiff's evidence that the de facto president of the United States is not only constitutionally unqualified, but procured his election by fraudulent and illegitimate means which may constitute a pattern of racketeering utilizing the apparatus of corrupt organizations in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq," it alleges.
Among the officer's arguments:
  • "The evidence contained in Exhibit B shows that Barack Hussein Obama might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of president."
  • "Exhibit C, the expert affidavit of renowned forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, states that the certification of live birth posted by Mr. Obama as verification of his legitimacy cannot be verified as genuine and should be presumed fraudulent. "
  • "Hawaiian statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates, that those birth certificates can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital; that 'late birth certificates' (i.e. non-contemporaneously, post-facto, in two words 'potentially fabricated') can lawfully, under this statute, be obtained at any time later in life.
  • "Barack Hussein Obama’s original birth certificate was never provided by the state of Hawaii, but only a statement that there is an original 'long birth certificate' document on file. The statement repeatedly provided by Hawaiian officials is quite simply incomplete, evasive, and without explanation of critical details: namely, whether it is a foreign birth certification or one obtained based on a statement of one relative only, or a late certification or amended one, obtained upon adoption by his stepfather."
"In other words, plaintiff asks this court to rule, declare, and adjudge, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(a), that an officer of the Army of the United States (all officers)!) must have the right to question apparently illegitimate authority in the courts or else in the course of his employment as an officer directly within the army chain of command or in both capacities and by both manners.
"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the 'long-form' birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.
Taitz has filed multiple legal actions around the country alleging Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office. One of her cases, filed against Obama as an individual for actions before he took office, is scheduled for a hearing in a California court Monday.
The hearing is on a request by Taitz for a default judgment, since she explains she notified the president of the action weeks ago, and his lawyers failed to respond.
Taitz has told WND if her motion is granted, she will immediately request access to Obama's birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in the state's court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.
Now a pleading has been submitted by Thomas P. O'Brein, Leon Weidman, Roger West and David DeJute, U.S. attorneys or assistants, claiming the federal government has an interest in the claim made against Obama's actions before he took office.
The lawyers claim it is "indisputable" that the government has an interest in actions Obama took prior to his inauguration, and, therefore, the government must be served with proper notice of the action. The attorneys claim that wasn't done.
In still another case, Taitz had submitted a request to the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. military to consider military justice code complaints filed by individual members of the military challenging Obama's eligibility.
In response, J.W. Crawford III, legal counsel for the chiefs, confirmed that he had forwarded her concerns and information to the "office of General Counsel, Litigation Counsel" for further review.
Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.
The question over Obama's eligibility now also is being raised on billboards nationwide.

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania

The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
The billboards are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
  • New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
  • Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama case alleging he wasn't qualified even to be U.S. senator and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
  • Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
  • Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
  • Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
  • Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  • Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
  • In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  • Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
  • In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
  • In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
  • California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.
  • In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  • In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  • In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  • In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
  • In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
  • In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  • In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  • In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  • In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records. ]]> Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1465 Muslim takes Hostages http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1462&goto=newpost Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:22:39 GMT *Police: Discovery Channel hostages planned escape* Image: http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/p/ap_logo_106.png (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/brand/SIG=11f589428/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ap.org%2Ftermsandconditions) ... Police: Discovery Channel hostages planned escape


AP – In this image released by the Montgomery County Police, James J. Lee is seen is a booking mugshot from …


















By SARAH BRUMFIELD and KATHLEEN MILLER, Associated Press Writers Sarah Brumfield And Kathleen Miller, Associated Press Writers – Thu Sep 2, 9:45 pm ET
SILVER SPRING, Md. – Police had been negotiating with James Jae Lee for several hours and intended to keep him talking for as long as it took to safely resolve the standoff at the Discovery Channel's headquarters. Inside the lobby, Lee's three hostages had no intention of waiting.
As the two Discovery employees and a security guard got ready to make a break for it, officers moving in on Lee heard him shout and then a "pop" that they thought might have been gunfire or a homemade bomb detonating. So they stepped out from behind a wall and shot him dead, ending the drama that unfolded Wednesday at the cable network's complex just north of Washington.
It turned out that Lee was armed with starter pistols, police said Thursday as they revealed new details about the culmination of Lee's yearslong crusade against the Discovery networks, which he faulted in fanatical Web posts for offering programming that promoted overpopulation.
But Lee, 43, was also carrying homemade pipe bombs, one of which went off when he was shot. Capt. Paul Starks of the [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Montgomery [COLOR=#366388 ! important]County[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] Police department described the devices as canisters of propane with pipes around them. He said inside the pipes were shotgun shells or pellets.
Authorities found and detonated four more devices Thursday at a home about 3 miles north of the Discovery building. The owner of the house called police and said Lee had stayed there, according to Montgomery County Police Lt. Robert Bolesta.
Investigators were trying to determine whether Lee had a car or a truck.
Authorities had been negotiating for roughly four hours Wednesday afternoon when the tactical team opened fire.
"For most of the time, the hostages were laying on the ground, and he didn't engage them much other than saying on the phone, 'I don't care about these people,'" Montgomery County Police Chief [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Thomas [COLOR=#366388 ! important]Manger[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] said Thursday. "I believe he was not intending to come out of there alive. ... He told us many times over the course of hours that he was ready to die." ]]> Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1462 <![CDATA[Newspaper Chain's New Business Plan: Copyright Suits]]> http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1461&goto=newpost Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:27:25 GMT By David Kravets (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/author/davidkravets/) Image:...]]> Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits
Steve Gibson has a plan to save the media world’s financial crisis — and it’s not the iPad.
Borrowing a page from patent trolls, the CEO of fledgling Las Vegas-based Righthaven has begun buying out the copyrights to newspaper content for the sole purpose of suing blogs and websites that re-post those articles without permission. And he says he’s making money.
“We believe it’s the best solution out there,” Gibson says. “Media companies’ assets are very much their copyrights. These companies need to understand and appreciate that those assets have value more than merely the present advertising revenues.”
Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson is embarking on a copyright trolling litigation campaign

Gibson’s vision is to monetize news content on the backend, by scouring the internet for infringing copies of his client’s articles, then suing and relying on the harsh penalties in the Copyright Act — up to $150,000 for a single infringement — to compel quick settlements. Since Righthaven’s formation in March, the company has filed at least 80 federal lawsuits against website operators and individual bloggers who’ve re-posted articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, his first client.
Now he’s talking expansion. The Review-Journal’s publisher, Stephens Media in Las Vegas, runs over 70 other newspapers in nine states, and Gibson says he already has an agreement to expand his practice to cover those properties. (Stephens Media declined comment, and referred inquiries to Gibson.) Hundreds of lawsuits, he says, are already in the works by year’s end. “We perceive there to be millions, if not billions, of infringements out there,” he says.
Righthaven’s lawsuits come on the heels of similar campaigns targeting music and movie infringers. The Recording Industry Association of America sued about 20,000 thousand file sharers over five years, before recently winding down its campaign. And a coalition of independent film producers called the U.S. Copyright Group was formed this year, already unleashing as many as 20,000 federal lawsuits against BitTorrent users accused of unlawfully sharing movies.

The RIAA’s lawsuits weren’t a money maker, though — the record labels spent $64 million in legal costs, and recovered only $1.3 million in damages and settlements. The independent film producers say they nonetheless expect to turn a profit from their lawsuits.
“People are settling with us,” says Thomas Dunlap, the head lawyer of the Copyright Group’s litigation. The out-of-court settlements, the number of which he declined to divulge, are ranging in value from $1,500 to $3,500 — about the price it would cost defendants to retain a lawyer. The RIAA’s settlements, which it collected in nearly every case, were for roughly the same amounts.
But experts say that settling the Righthaven cases, many of which target bloggers or aggregation sites, might not be as easy. The RIAA lawsuits often accused peer-to-peer users of sharing dozens of music files, meaning the risk of going to trial was financially huge for the defendants.
The same is true of the BitTorrent lawsuits. The movie file sharers are accused of leeching and seeding bits of movie files, contributing to the widespread and unauthorized distribution of independent movies such as Hurt Locker, Cry of the Wolf and others.
But each of the Righthaven suits charge one, or a handful, of infringements. Defendants might be less willing to settle a lawsuit stemming from their posting of a single news article, despite the Copyright Act’s whopping damages. “You’d have to go after a lot of people for a relatively small amount of money,” says Jonathan Band, a Washington, D.C. copyright lawyer. “That is a riskier proposition.”
Gibson claims Righthaven has already settled several lawsuits, the bulk of which are being chronicled by the Las Vegas Sun, for undisclosed sums.
One defendant who is ready to settle is Fred Bouzek, a Virginia man who runs bikernews.net, a user-generated site about hardcore biker news. He was sued last week on allegations the site ran a Las Vegas Review-Journal story about police going under cover with the Hell’s Angels.
Even if he had grounds to fight the case, he says it would be cheaper to settle. “The only choice I have is to try to raise money and offer a settlement,” he says.
Bill Irvine of Phoenix says he is fighting infringement allegations targeting AboveTopSecret.com, the site he controls under The Above Network. The site is accused of infringing a Review-Journal article on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The site is a user-generated discussion on “conspiracies, UFO’s, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics” and gets about 5 million hits monthly, Irvine says.
Righthaven, he says, should have sent him a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, because the article was posted by a user, not the site itself.
“In this case, we feel this suit does not have merit,” he says. “We are confident we will have success challenging it.”
Gibson says he’s just getting started. Righthaven has other media clients that he won’t name until the lawsuits start rolling out, he says.
“Frankly, I think we’re having tremendous success at a number of levels,” Gibson says. “We file new complaints every day.”

See Also:Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...#ixzz0yQRBYaaX

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/143700
__________________________________________________ _________________-
On the Media: Las Vegas Review-Journal bares its claws

The newspaper has filed lawsuits against more than 30 websites and blogs it says used its works without permission. So what is fair use?

June 09, 2010|James Rainey
The newspaper people had me pretty much in their corner until they went after the cat people.
Allegra and Emerson Wong have a website called City Felines Blog. A few months back, the cat people posted a story about the suffering of a bunch of birds that died in a fire at a wildlife sanctuary.





That created a problem, not because cat people shouldn't write about birds, but because the story had been reported, edited and published originally not by the cat people but by the newspaper people, otherwise known as the staff of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Now the Wongs are facing a federal copyright infringement lawsuit, and possible damages, for duplicating the Vegas paper's work without permission. They are not alone — roughly three dozen other websites and blogs face litigation for using Review-Journal stories without permission.
The confrontation has the blogosphere whirring and sputtering. Much of the commentary drips disdain — just another establishment media company picking on a bunch of poor little upstarts. But others cheer the newspaper for standing up to the new-media freeloaders, whose best work is taking other people's best work.
It's not cats, but dogma, that dominate this debate. Newspaper people believe their cash-starved profession might be saved if only they could corral and get paid for all the content they create. Internet people believe the Web is a giant free-form party that boundaries and rules just might kill.
A certain generosity of spirit seldom gets traction in these new media/old media grudge matches. Still, I wonder if we can't find a bit of middle ground. Can't we acknowledge that copyright law has a righteous purpose, to protect original content and encourage creators to create even more? Can't we also admit that a little creative reuse, far from thievery, can drive new attention to good work?
The rub has been where to draw the line to determine what, exactly, constitutes "fair use." Stacks of court cases suggest many factors must be weighed — the amount of material reused, the purpose of the reuse (commentary and criticism get wide latitude) and, especially, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, the economic effect on the copyright holder.
Media law expert Rex Heinke gave me a crash course on the rules Tuesday, explaining that the courts have drawn no bright lines. The amount of Internet traffic driven to the originating publisher by the reuser has never been deemed a definitive factor in the judgments.

June 09, 2010|James Rainey
(Page 2 of 3)
That leaves me — and a bunch of other journalists and Web masters — with about as much definition as Justice Potter Stewart once offered on another ill-defined subject. "I know it," the old jurist wrote of obscenity, "when I see it."
"Fair use" on the Internet would seem to be a use that probes and ponders the original, possibly repackaging or rewriting it, without subsuming it. A fair use calls attention to an interesting story or news flash, perhaps elaborates on it or disputes it, but doesn't replace it.



Two Web journalists who Twittered me on Tuesday independently offered the same rule of thumb —- don't republish more than three paragraphs. Always name your source. Always link to the original.
Reporters and editors get understandably peeved when they see paragraph after paragraph of their work reprinted by competitors — regurgitation so extensive that there's no reason for the reader to seek out the original, even when a link is provided.
Websites worry that such filching costs them substantial traffic and the ads they can sell with it.
But estimates about the extent of the economic damage are just that, estimates. One company trying to track unauthorized republication estimates that publishers lose $250 million a year to competitors, especially automated "splogs" that rake and republish information from mainstream sources.
Blogger and new media guru Jeff Jarvis believes splogs lift content, but he bristles at "the bogus meme that news stories are being copied wholesale everywhere by copyright thieves." Jarvis said researchers at City University of New York, where he teaches journalism, intend to study the "link economy" to learn how much republishing of information actually benefits content originators by driving Web traffic their way.
In Las Vegas, the Review-Journal isn't waiting for any research. Publisher Sherman Frederick wrote a blog post saying the newspaper had seen enough. It hired an upstart local firm, Righthaven LLC, that's taking an aggressive approach with those who reproduce its content.
Righthaven was founded by an intellectual property attorney funded in part by a company connected to Stephens Media, which owns the Review-Journal.
Righthaven has filed roughly 40 lawsuits in recent weeks against all manner of publishers, including the cat blog (allegrawong.com) and sites that follow motorcycle racing, emergency medicine, advertising and sports betting.

June 09, 2010|James Rainey
(Page 3 of 3)
Righthaven Chief Executive Steve Gibson, who declined to discuss how his firm is paid, said most of the targeted websites reused Review-Journal stories in their entirety or reproduced huge chunks, beyond what anyone could credibly argue as "fair use." Some of the sites, but not all, linked back to the R-J, as the paper is known.
"It took some blood, sweat and tears to get this material," said Mark Hinueber, general counsel for Stephens Media. "It's just wrong to then have some guy in his basement taking this stuff wholesale, selling ads around it and making money."


Pilfered material dilutes the value of what the R-J posts and makes it harder for the paper, in these difficult times for newsrooms, to make enough money to maintain its news staff of 120, Hinueber argued.
Several of the lawsuits reportedly have been settled. The terms of just one agreement, a $2,185 payment by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, have become public, according to the Las Vegas Sun..
I could not track down the cat people, whose lair is reputedly somewhere in the Boston area.
But I suggested to the Vegas crew that their blog — a homey little site, bereft of advertising — appeared to be less than a menacing opponent. Lawyer Gibson told me that my point was not relevant. "Whether it's a commercial or non-commercial site," he said, "is not defining of whether it's an infringement."
The paper's in-house counsel, Hinueber, seemed to have a sense that his paper effectively had blasted a small tabby with a howitzer. He didn't promise to drop the suit, but offered: "I just learned about the filing on the cat thing. I'm going to talk to [Righthaven] about that."
In the meantime, a mortgage broker from Toronto, who happened on my query about fair use, may have had the wisest advice of all: "Don't use more of their story than you would want them to use of yours," wrote Russ Skinner ( Twitter handle: @russskinner). "And link, always." ]]> Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1461 Noquisi- Ama Blossom missing from Maui http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1448&goto=newpost Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:33:07 GMT *Photo* *Description* Image:...]]>
Photo
Description






Missing Since 10/18/95		Name: Noquisi-Ama Blossom
Age: 15 year old at time of disappearance
Height: 5'2"
Weight: 115 lbs
Hair: Brown
Eyes: Green
Race / Sex: Caucasian Female
]]> Missing Persons Forum Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1448 Violence and Threats of Violence in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1447&goto=newpost Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:26:38 GMT Submitted by Ken Conklin on Mon, 08/23/2010 - 21:53 Home
Violence and Threats of Violence in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

Submitted by Ken Conklin on Mon, 08/23/2010 - 21:53
Halekoa — Iolani Barracks. Completed in 1871. Click for modern-day, larger view.
A scholarly lecture in Hilo on Sunday August 22 was disrupted by Hawaiian sovereignty activists. Ironically, the lecture focused on Islamist violence and raised the question whether Hawaiian sovereignty activists might become radicalized in the same way as the Islamists. The Hawaiian activists didn't like the topic or the facts being reported. Sovereignty activists have behaved in similar ways at other public events as documented later; including threats of bodily harm to schoolchildren and to adults at an attempted Statehood Day celebration.
Despite modern efforts to portray Queen Liliuokalani as a non-violent resister comparable to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, the fact is that she instigated actual violence, resulting in numerous deaths, in 1889 and 1895. In 1893 she also vindictively insisted she would execute (reportedly by beheading) the leaders of the revolution of 1893 even though the U.S. representative who wanted to negotiate with President Dole to reinstate her monarchy told her very clearly that such insistence on bloodthirsty vengeance would mean he could not continue to support her reinstatement.
Dr. Thomas A. Curtis is Professor of Sociology and Chairman of the Social Sciences Division at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. On Sunday he gave the monthly lecture to the Conservative Forum for Hawaii in a meeting announced well ahead of time and open to the public. The speech, entitled "Home-Grown Terrorism," was a report on recent findings in his long-term research on violence and terrorism in politics.
Dr. Curtis' described in detail how Islamist terrorism in America and Spain has been perpetrated by ordinary local citizens of those countries who became radicalized as teenagers or young adults. He specifically discussed the issue whether Hawaiian sovereignty activists are likely to become radicalized through the same psychological mechanisms and social peer pressure as the Islamists, and whether the Hawaiian activists might use violence to achieve their political goal of sovereignty. He said his research includes "1-on-1 surveys of members of the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement, in which his research showed 94% were non-violent. That left 6% who could be."
Hostile comments interrupted him during his presentation. Increasingly angry disruptions during the followup discussion period forced a premature end to the event. An understandably intimidated Dr. Curtis later said he will continue his research but will no longer give public presentations about his findings. Interruptions during a scholarly speech, and constant angry harassment and shouting during a discussion period, are threats of violence whose effect is to intimidate the speaker and silence freedom of expression. When threats of violence force actual changes of behavior including premature ending of the discussion and self-censorship of future speaking engagements, the threats are, in fact, actual violence. It's ironic that what happened at Dr. Curtis' lecture was illustrative of his subject matter.
The Big Island Chronicle of August 23, 2010 has a 1200-word news report describing what happened, written by Dr. Ed Gutteling, an orthopedic surgeon who is Vice President of the Conservative Forum For Hawaii and an eyewitness to what happened. Dr. Gutteling writes that during the discussion period "a series of apparent Hawaiian Sovereignty supporters dominated the discourse very loudly, with growing audible anger. One asked why he did not include several western figures from Hawaiian history as terrorists. Another stood and rubbed an American flag on display, and shouted “this is terrorism,” indicating the US flag. Another [former OHA trustee and current independence activist Moanikeala Akaka] ranted for several minutes how she had spent 40 years working for Hawaiian Sovereignty and never come across any supporter advocating violence. She claimed only peaceful civil disobedience as her methods, in the spirit of Ghandi and with aloha, and accused Dr. Curtis of being an Agent Provocateur ..." For the full report in Big Island Chronicle see
http://tinyurl.com/3axgwqf
A less detailed news report about the event was published in the Hilo Herald-Tribune of August 23. See
http://tinyurl.com/2usowzw
The Hawaiian islands were formed millions of years ago in the fiery violence of volcanic eruptions, still ongoing in limited form on Hawaii Island. The sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii was also established through extraordinary violence which included centuries of warfare and religious/political human sacrifice. The violence reached its peak with Kamehameha The Great's use of modern weapons of mass destruction (guns and cannon) against enemies armed with clubs and spears.
Even after the Kingdom was firmly established there were occasional periods of sovereignty-related deadly violence, most notably in 1819 (Battle of Kuamo'o), and 1874 (rioting after Kalakaua's election as King)
Queen Liliuokalani, today's poster girl for non-violence in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, is put forward on a pedestal alongside Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi because she gave up without a fight in 1893. But she actually was a conspirator in two bloody political revolts using guns and bombs in which men died, in 1889 (Wilcox attempt to overthrow Kalakaua) and 1895 (Wilcox attempt to overthrow the Republic). Her bloodthirsty demands for revenge by beheading following the revolution of 1893 caused a U.S. diplomat acting as would-be mediator to back away from efforts to restore her to the throne. The Wilcox attempted counter-revolution of 1895 included a cache of guns and bombs which Liliuokalani had allowed to be hidden in the flower bed of her private home (Washington Place), even as she signed commissions appointing the cabinet ministers for the new government she planned to form. She was tried and convicted of that crime, and spent several months "imprisoned" in a huge room in 'Iolani Palace (with full-time maidservant and plenty of hobby supplies for composing music and sewing a political quilt).
A major webpage is entitled "Violence and threats of violence to push demands for Hawaiian sovereignty -- past, present, and future". See
http://tinyurl.com/2su9pa
That webpage includes detailed, well documented subpages including Liliuokalani's actual instigation of violence; threats of violence against schoolchildren and adults at an attempted Statehood Day celebration in 2006; threats of violence against an anti-sovereignty course at UH in 2002 that caused the course to be cancelled; threats of violence if the Akaka bill does not pass made by "Reverend" Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell and by Rod Ferreira (leader in three major ethnic Hawaiian institutions); actual anti-haole violence in school resulting in a federal consent decree and reported, along with other incidents, by the Southern Poverty Law Center in an article excusing anti-haole violence because of historical grievances; and many others.
Some anti-haole violence is merely "normal" racism; but some of it is motivated by real or imagined historical grievances regarding sovereignty which are constantly trumpeted in the schools, the media, and the political activism in pushing the Akaka bill. A recently published book displays how historical falsehoods are used to poison the minds and hearts of schoolchildren, thus building racial hatred and perhaps eventual violence: The book is "Ka Puuwai Hamama -- Volunteer Spirit" by Kim Hunter, and a detailed review of it refuting the falsehoods is at
http://tinyurl.com/2d9brvf
For discussion of the "big picture" see the book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa ]]> Hawaii News Forum Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1447 Video on South Africa http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1456&goto=newpost Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:39:04 GMT YouTube - Why whites don't want to appologize for apartheid
Why whites don't feel they have appolgize for apartheid. ... There is some dark stuff that White South Africans DO need to apologise for, but against the .... This video has been removed from your Favorites. You dislike this video. ...
YouTube- Why whites don't want to appologize for apartheid... ]]> Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1456 <![CDATA[Human Trafficking: Hawaii a standout on "Dirty Dozen" list]]> http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1444&goto=newpost Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:13:27 GMT Monday, August 23, 2010 Web Site Search Front PageSearch ArticlesAbout HFP Current Articles | Archives | Search Wednesday, August 18, 2010 Human Trafficking: Hawaii a standout on “Dirty Dozen” list By News Release :: 174 Views :: Hawaii State... Monday, August 23, 2010 Web Site Search
Front PageSearch ArticlesAbout HFP
Current Articles | Archives | Search

Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Human Trafficking: Hawaii a standout on “Dirty Dozen” list
By News Release :: 174 Views :: Hawaii State News, Hawaii State Politics, National News, National Politics




Polaris Project Releases the Dirty Dozen: State Ratings on Human Trafficking Laws and Policy

Washington, D.C., August 18, 2010 – Today Polaris Project released its 2010 human trafficking state ratings, featuring the “Dirty Dozen” – twelve states that have failed to enact basic human trafficking provisions or have provisions that fail to adequately address the growing crime. The ratings indicate how equipped states are to respond to human trafficking and serve as a resource for lawmakers on what specific provisions should be enacted to improve each state’s comprehensive approach to combating the issue.

Human trafficking, not to be confused with smuggling, is a $32 billion a year industry worldwide, and the United States is an active and profitable venue for both sex trafficking and labor trafficking. Human traffickers target the most vulnerable populations, which include an estimated 100,000 American children exploited in the commercial sex industry annually. Although a federal law exists, the hidden nature of human trafficking requires eyes and ears on the ground, and that calls for complementary state laws.

“Human trafficking is more prevalent than people realize, and the federal government alone cannot eradicate it,” stated Bradley Myles, Executive Director and CEO of Polaris Project. “Human traffickers constantly look for places where they can make high profits and where they feel like there is little chance of getting caught. States that fail to provide critical deterrents - strong penalties, asset forfeiture laws, or trained law enforcement - are at heightened risk.”

Standing out in the ratings are the “Dirty Dozen,” which include states that have not addressed the crime of human trafficking at all (Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming). The remaining states (Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Ohio, South Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia) criminalize only sex trafficking or labor trafficking but not both, only include human trafficking as a mere sentencing enhancement, or have laws that are too weak or so narrowly drafted that investigations and prosecutions of human trafficking cannot proceed. Conversely, states that have taken the most action to combat human trafficking in a comprehensive way include Connecticut, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington, among others.

Polaris Project is a leading organization in the United States combating all forms of human trafficking and serving both U.S. citizens and foreign national victims, including men, women, and children. For more information, visit www.PolarisProject.org .

###

http://www.polarisproject.org/

Be sure to ignore these stories:

Green hypocrites: Case & Omidyar's Maui Land & Pine tied to human trafficking
Waihee, Cayetano, organic progressives speak up for leniency at slavery sentencing
@ Wednesday, August 18, 2010 8:34 PM ]]> Hawaii News Forum Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1444 Muslim Invasion http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1442&goto=newpost Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:38:37 GMT The underwear bomber didn't even have ID or a passport and was able to catch flights from Sudan to Detroit. It is obvious that Barry Soetoro is...]]> The underwear bomber didn't even need a passport
The underwear bomber didn't even have ID or a passport and was able to catch flights from Sudan to Detroit. It is obvious that Barry Soetoro is importing muslims from all over into the U.S. This Jihad movement is being funded with our taxdollars and we are giving college scholarships to ragheads and they are stealing billions of our taxdollars. This tryanny is being led in the guise of religious tolerance. The mosk at ground zero is nothing but a muslim stronghold being erected right in Manhattan and Bary Soetoro our unlawfull. unConstitutional President is their leader. The Saudis are funding this muslim fortress with money that he got from previous and present administrations seeing that they have already gotten way over $100,000,000.00 from the U.S. ]]> Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1442 Rush Limbaugh implies that Timothy Mc Vey was Michigan Militia http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1440&goto=newpost Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:43:58 GMT In a deceptive attempt to link Timothy Mc Veigh to the Michigan Militia, Rush Limbaugh said in a comaprison to the muslim mosk that it would be like having the Michigan Militia build a Timothy Mc Veigh memorial across the street from the Oklahoma City... In a deceptive attempt to link Timothy Mc Veigh to the Michigan Militia, Rush Limbaugh said in a comaprison to the muslim mosk that it would be like having the Michigan Militia build a Timothy Mc Veigh memorial across the street from the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

Firsst of all there has been no link of conspiracy with the Michigan Militia to Timothy Mcveigh plotting and bombing with at least one other person. There was also an Arab descent male who was said on a Coast to Coast show who later became a bag handler in the Boston airport.

Timothy Mcveigh was immediately put into isolation and executed sooner than even those who aided and plotted 9/11. His links to secret government operations are factual and nothing seems to be said for that.

The damage to the Oklahoma City Federal Building was said to have been the result of imbedded bombs just like at the twin Towers.

The complete and truthfull disclosures from independant investigators should be everyone's goal.

To renew our Constitutional Militia's the threat of invasion thru illegal immigration or of ground water and air attack. The threat is even greater when the powers that be have our troops employed all over the globe.

What is not being expoused thru the media is the fact that we already are being invaded from both our North and South borders.

I John Tyler advocate the imediate and organized Militia Network be reinstated as according to Our Constitution. Even though Obama won their Corporate New World Order ballot I John Tyler won the only Lawfull nonsecret, Constitutional ballot in the country.

I don't feel worthy to actually become Commander and Chief of Our Military, and will govern under a complete and assessment of any situation. This is also why I chose Carl Tibbets Vietnam Vetran as my Vice President.

Just toss this message of real change and Hope that Our Constitutional Republic san shurk the reigns of World Orders and economic tyrants from their International Banks who rob us of everything including our freedom.

John Tyler ]]> Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1440 State Department funding Imam trip to Saudi Arabia http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1439&goto=newpost Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:40:29 GMT State Department funding Imam trip to Saudi Arabia According to the New York Post: The imam behind a plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero is set to depart on a multi-country jaunt to the Middle East funded by the State Department -- raising concerns... State Department funding Imam trip to Saudi Arabia
According to the New York Post:
The imam behind a plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero is set to depart on a multi-country jaunt to the Middle East funded by the State Department -- raising concerns that taxpayers may be helping him with the controversial project's $100 million fund-raising goal.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is taking the publicly funded trip to foster "greater understanding" about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States, the State Department confirmed yesterday.
Can someone tell me why it is an unconstitutional violation of separation of church and state to have the Ten Commandments posted in a court house, but it is not an unconstitutional violation of separation of church and state for the U.S. government to spend public tax dollars to fund a trip by a Muslim Imam specifically designed to promote Islam.

And how do you promote greater understanding about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States by sending this Imam to Saudi Arabia? This is the guy who wants to spit in the faces of 911 victims by building his monumental mosque next to the 911 site! Is that the image of American Muslims the Obama administration wants to present to Saudi Arabia?

And by the way, in case you don't think building a gigantic Mosque next to the 911 site is to spit in the face of 911 victims and all Americans, just imagine if someone were to propose building an "American Patriotic Center" in Hiroshima. How do you think that would be perceived in Japan?

Or how do you think Muslims would feel if England wanted to build a memorial to the crusades near the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem!

Since we're talking about greater understanding, why don't we fund leaders of Jewish and Christian communities in America to go to Saudi Arabia to promote greater understanding. Certainly the people of Saudi Arabia could benefit more from understanding Christians and Jews than they could from greater understanding Islam in America. After all, everyone is Saudi Arabia already understands Islam quite well.

Oh, that's right, Saudi Arabia would NEVER allow a prominent Christian or Jew on a tour of Saudi Arabia to promote greater interfaith understanding!

Those in the Obama administration are either out of their minds, or they have a very definite pro-Muslim, anti-Jew, anti-Christian (and anti-American) agenda. And the latter is very definitely unconstitutional!
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
You can bet that another mission in this American taxpayer funded trip is to invite muslims to move to New York to help fill this temple to the moon god who has the child molester prophet Mohammed. They must be dancing in the streets of New York to celebrate their victory mosk, just like they did after 9/11. Obama, oh I mean Barry Soetoro, show us your full vault birth certificate, and proof of your American citizenship. Also find out who executed the three gay members of Rev Wright's church, and why.
]]> Hawaiian-TV http://hawaiian-tv.com/showthread.php?t=1439