Supreme Court abolishes 1st Amendment Rights of Protestors

1 Legal

1 Legal is a Division of 1 Media

1 Legal - 1 Lawyers - 1 Attorneys

 
Need Legal Clients  - Need a Lawyer
 
 

Opinion by the Hon. Dr. Rabbi Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni

Chief Judge  The Supreme Counsel of the Temple of Hayah

Chief Judge Supreme Court of the Nation of ONE.

The US Supreme Court has torn up the rights of protestors to have an equal voice in matters concerning the US President.

In Wood v. Moss the US Supreme Court agreed that US Secret Service Agents could not be sued in a Bivens Action due to Qualified Immunity, the government’s way of doing what they want to trample upon clear rights of citizens afforded by the US Constitution.

In this case PROTESTORS were moved blocks away from George W. Bush by US Secret Service Agents while his vocal supporters were allowed to stay up close to the then President.

So a Bush Policy of moving away vocal protestors and favoring supporters was followed under the guise of protecting the US President.

So now Protestors do not have EQUAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH and can be bullied by government agencies in this dangerous precedent setting action.

While safety concerns are of course the concern of any politician since Julius Caesar uttered Et Tu Brutus, to allow the US Government to segregate US Citizens over political views is outrageous, both groups should have been moved away from the US President instead of letting a government EMPLOYEE favor one group over choice of political views.

This democracy was founded upon A REVOLUTION, not an agreement and as Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”.

Allowing supporters of a US President better position to express their views for the ‘cameras‘ is effectively a block upon the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press rights of the protestors, so the protestors were discriminated upon due to one thing THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS, which in a democracy based upon EQUAL RIGHTS is a gross abortion of their equal rights protection.

Sure the SS has a job to do, PROTECT THE US PRESIDENT and if they could not properly secure the area then ALL PERSONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MOVED not just a vocal group of protestors. Shielding the SS under Qualified Immunity from a Bivens Action destroys the heart of the Bivens Act.

If the SS had moved the protestors based upon the color of their skin or their religious beliefs, perhaps there would be outrage in the media that usually pounces upon such egregious trampling upon civil rights by the High Court. However, the major media has remained silent upon this decision, since everyone wants to protect the US President.

Well the right of the US Citizen to have an EQUAL RIGHT to assemble and protest, use the media and gather in a peaceful movement is MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIFE OF ONE MAN.

That basic EQUAL RIGHTS of ALL MEN, even though to the founding founders it meant literally white men who were WASPS and land owners, is the heart and soul of what has become and is US Democracy.
The US Supreme Court had a chance to rule that EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RIGHTS whether they agree or disagree with any US President, so IF security was the issue, TREAT ALL CITIZENS EQUALLY do not discriminate against those that have a different opinion of the President.

If the President wants to surround himself with faux supporters, the type that usually PAY to have access to dinner with a US President, fine. But to spread a protective bubble around a PUBLIC AREA where those wearing I love the President buttons are given more rights to a public street is wrong. It is the job of the SS to PROTECT a sitting President, not to decide if some citizens that wish to protest are more dangerous than those that don’t.

A perfect cover for a would be assassin would to be in the group expressing admiration for a President so such a stupid decision by SS agents may play to their favor. The SS should treat every citizen equally as a potential threat to the President in a PUBLIC area, by making an in-field decision to allow supporters to remain where an assassin may have made an attempt on the Presidents life was defacto DISCRIMINATION against the protestors right to assemble and PROTEST.

Such are the perils of a democracy, that a ‘leader’ may occasionally be assassinated, this phenomena dates back Millennia, and to allow any government agency to treat any class of US Citizens differently based upon their political beliefs, religious beliefs or the color of their race or their sex is WRONG and against what the principles of a US democracy is understood to mean today around the world.
While Thomas Jefferson clearly espoused what he meant in the ONE BOOK HE WROTE in his life titled NOTES ON VIRGINIA, and to Jefferson ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL meant as he stated in his book, WHITE MEN and PROTESTANTS and LAND OWNERS since he stated WOMEN ARE NOT MEN, people of color are beasts and anyone not a protestant is a heathen especially Catholics and Muslims.

BIven Actions were intended to protect US Citizens from discriminatory actions of any government agency, while the agents themselves may have implied qualified immunity from an action, the agency represents the US Government and as such the Secret Service AGENCY should not be exempt from performing class discrimination which the agency admits they commited in this instance.

The Hon. Dr. Rabbi Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni

Temple Hayah

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-115_gdil.pdf

 

1 Legal

1 Legal is a Division of 1 Media

1 Legal - 1 Lawyers - 1 Attorneys

 
Need Legal Clients  - Need a Lawyer