Task Force - PPTF

Now is the time for all good men to help thy neighbors. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law

Ukraine Bans Bitcoin Purchases With National Currency Amid Martial Law https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/ukraine-bans-bitcoin-purchases-national-currency-amid-martial-law

Attn: Attorney Lin Wood I also sent a sworn affidavit, and what I believe to be a trove of evidence, a packet to Lin Wood by certified mail, delivered 1/20/2022 to the Tomotley Plantation as well! #FightBack #SaveTheKids ...Crickets. I asked for help and believe that the information I sent would help in Timothy Charles Holmseth's case, as it shows, that there is a long history of kidnapping and rape regarding another friend of the Clinton's, Obamas and Bidens. The rape of twin girls at age three, the crime was covered up, in a small town in the southwest, where I believe more evidence can be found regarding rape of other children as well. I am one of those twins, my twin is dead, having never received justice! No response...at ALL!

This is running backwards...https://www.usdebtclock.org/

What did Attorney Lin Wood think about this receipt that I sent him? The man that filed these federal documents was murdered in his home and then all the files vanished from the court system. Christopher Hallett was the CEO of E-Clause LLC, a Florida corporation that did loss prevention for the United States government under consent of Congress to identify emoluments violations. Hallett was revealing the methods being used by an international crime syndicate to accomplish nearly any crime conceivable through diabolical “defective practices” within the corporate legal system, which is actually a human trafficking system.

We're monitoring the release of the still frames to see who tries to deceive the public by saying its fake. Then - we will release video and audio. Why won't Lin Wood tell people the name of his "trusted friend" who sent him the Timothy Charles Holmseth MEMO that he led his tweet storm with? It's not looking so good for the guy who branded himself a devoted follower of Jesus who always speaks truth.

OH.. BOY... Had to borrow this one...

TIMOTHY CHARLES HOLMSETH AT TOMOTLEY (LIN WOOD'S ESTATE) - WHY IS ATTORNEY LIN WOOD DECEIVING THE PUBLIC ABOUT TIMOTHY CHARLES HOLMSETH?

LIN SHOULD KNOW THE PERSON IN THE TRUCK.. and HE SHOULD HAVE THIS ON HIS OWN CAMERA'S...

Tucson Station USBP agents responded to a vehicle encountered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife near #Sasabe, AZ. Upon arrival, agents determined the U.S. Citizen driver was smuggling seven Mexican citizens. The smuggler faces criminal charges. #BORDERWARSAZ

The Court today concludes that respondents’ foreign affiliates “do not have a First Amendment right to disregard the Policy Requirement.” Ante, at 9. Respondents have never argued otherwise. Rather, throughout this litigation they have asserted their own First Amendment right tospeak their mind, rather than the Government’s message.Here, respondents claim First Amendment protection when they speak through foreign affiliates to address audiencesabroad. By denying respondents that protection, I fear the Court’s decision will seriously impede the countless American speakers who communicate overseas in a similar way. That weakens the marketplace of ideas at a time when the value of that marketplace for Americans, and for others, reaches well beyond our shores.

It excludes viewpoints such as communism and anarchism, stating thatthose engaged in government work must swear an oath to support our Constitution’s republican form of government. See Art. VI, cl. 3. Moreover, the mere conditioning of funds on “‘the affirmation of a belief’” tied to the purpose of a government program involves “no compulsion at all.” AOSI I, 570 U. S., at 226 (Scalia, J., joined by THOMAS, J., dissenting). Such a condition is “the reasonable price of admission to a limited government-spending program that each organization remains free to accept or reject.” Ibid. Just as respondentsare not compelled to associate with their foreign affiliates, see ante, at 6–8, they are not compelled to participate in the Leadership Act program.

Stated simply, in the prior decision, the Court did not facially invalidate the Act’s condition on funding. The Court did not hold or suggest that the First Amendment requiresthe Government to exempt plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates or other foreign organizations from the Policy Requirement.And the Court did not purport to override the longstanding constitutional law principle that foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess constitutional rights, or theelementary corporate law principle that each corporation is a separate legal unit.

That conclusion corresponds to historical practice regarding American foreign aid. The United States supplies more foreign aid than any other nation in the world. Cong. Research Serv., Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U. S. Programs and Policy (2020) (Summary). Acting with thePresident in the legislative process, Congress sometimes imposes conditions on foreign aid. See 22 U. S. C. §§2271, 2272, 2371, 7110(g)(2). Congress may condition funding on a foreign organization’s ideological commitments—for example, pro-democracy, pro-women’s rights, anti-terrorism, pro-religious freedom, anti-sex trafficking, or the like. Doing so helps ensure that U. S. foreign aid serves U. S. interests. By contrast, plaintiffs’ approach would throw a constitutional wrench into American foreign policy. In particular, plaintiffs’ approach would put Congress in the untenable position of either cutting off certain funding programs altogether, or instead funding foreign organizations that may not align with U. S. values. We see no constitutional justification for the Federal Judiciary to interfere in that fashion with American foreign policy and American aid to foreign organizations.

Plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates were incorporated in other countries and are legally separate from plaintiffs’ Americanorganizations. Even though the foreign organizations haveaffiliated with the American organizations, the foreign organizations remain legally distinct from the American organizations. Plaintiffs do not ask this Court to pierce the corporate veil, nor do they invoke any other relevant exception to that fundamental corporate law principle. Tr. of Oral Arg. 54. Those two bedrock principles of American constitutional law and American corporate law together lead to a simpleconclusion: As foreign organizations operating abroad, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates possess no rights under the First Amendment.

To be sure, Congress may seek to enact laws that afford foreign citizens abroad statutory rights or causes of action against miscon- duct by U. S. Government officials, or laws that otherwise regulate the conduct of U. S. officials abroad.

But the Court has not allowed foreign citizens outside the United States or such U. S. territory to assert rights under the U. S. Constitution. If the rule were otherwise, actions by American military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel against foreign organizations or foreign citizens in foreign countries would be constrained by the foreign citizens’ purported rights under the U. S. Constitution. That has never been the law.

As the Court has recognized, foreign citizens in the United States may enjoy certain constitutional rights—to take just one example, the right to due process in a criminaltrial.

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. Judge Straub dissented. He described as “startling” the proposition that the First Amendment could extend to foreign organizations operating abroad.