Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Petition to Supreme Court of Alaska to Block NDAA Indefinite Detention Provides Model For All

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 26, 2012, 6:57 a.m. EST by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

PETITION TO SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA TO BLOCK NDAA INDEFINITE DETENTION PROVIDES MODEL FOR CITIZENS OF ALL STATES

While the mainstream media blackout keeps millions of Americans clueless about the consequences of NDAA 2012 and Constitutional Rights groups do little more than milk the issue, in Alaska one bold patriot is taking action.


A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed with the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska on 20 December 2011 and accepted by the Clerk of Appellate Courts on 10 January 2012 in response to the "indefinite detention without trial of American citizens" provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2012) by Ms. Anna M. Riezinger-von Reitz and other unnamed Petitioners:

http://alaskapatriotnews.ning.com/profile/AnnavonReitz

Assigned case number S14542, the Petition with its accompanying Addendum cites 16 specific grounds and calls upon the Court to issue the protective preemptive Writ and to refer over twenty named criminal charges including Seditious Conspiracy against the members of Congress who voted in favor of the USA Patriot Act and NDAA 2012. Ground 16 of the Petition exposes a long and well-documented history of federal government fraud and notes that America has been kept in a constant "state of emergency" for almost 80 years. Copies of the Petition and Addendum, an accompanying Notice of Dereliction of Duty filed with state officers, and a concise summary of the grounds for petition are available here:

Petition filed with the court:

http://tinyurl.com/7958p6o

Addendum filed with the court:

http://tinyurl.com/85vy9wu

Notice of Dereliction of Duty filed simultaneously with state officers:

http://tinyurl.com/78hrxk5

Grounds summary:

http://tinyurl.com/7aejm2a

Alaskan petitioner and freedom fighter Anna von Reiz now calls for at least 49 more patriots to step up and file similar petitions for Hawaii and the Lower 48 states. She researched, drafted and filed her petition without the assistance of a lawyer, and encourages attorneys as well as other concerned citizens across America [ ESPECIALLY THE OCCUPY WALL STREET MOVEMENT AND "KOCH FREE" TEA PARTY GROUPS ] to build on her work and follow her lead. To facilitate that action, she has provided this fill-in-the-blank template for use as a model:

http://tinyurl.com/6ntbtjv

Americans willing to take action to defeat NDAA 2012 and restore their Bill of Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution that have questions about the petition preparation and filing process can submit them to Anna von Reitz via email to VVV Public Relations at "vvvpr@vvvpr.com". They can also join the nationwide NDAA protests scheduled for Friday, 3 February:

http://tinyurl.com/ndaa-protests

Anna von Reitz via VVV PR ( http://vvvpr.com | @vvvpr )


Img: http://veritasvirtualvengeance.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/ndaa_obama_patriot_act_bush_same_fascism.jpg

Vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFaGz8blpPI

Tag: #ndaa, #patriotact, #fascism, #ows, #worldwarweb, #vvvpr

Key: ndaa, national defense authorization act, ndaa 2012, national defense authorization act of 2012, patriot act, usa patriot act, seditious conspiracy, bush, obama, fascism, corporate fascism, ows, occupy wall street, world war web, vvv pr

52 Comments

52 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Great Post! Thanks.

[-] 2 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

UPDATE

Anyone wishing to check the status of this case can do so by submitting case number S14542 here:

http://www.appellate.courts.state.ak.us/main.asp

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

thanks

[-] 2 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 2 years ago

~Great Post~ Good news indeed.

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Would you be willing to do the same thing in your state? If so, please contact us.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

DieNachthexen wrote:

"Enraging in personal attacks rather than answering the questions, I see."

I don't know if that was accidental or intentional, but I like it either way. I hate to see people 'enraging' in personal attacks.

(I couldn't comment under the post because we reached the end of the tier)

[-] 1 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Certainly ironboltbruce is enraged someone is replying on facts instead of the hyperbole him and his so-called guerrilla marketing vvpr site are engaging in. ;)

totally unintentional btw

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

You have posted nothing but false and baseless claims here, and you attack a firm that posts nothing but the Truth:

http://veritasvirtualvengeance.com

Sell it down the street, Sister...

[-] 1 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Oh, now I get it-you're the Alex Jones of OWS. Right.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Which part of "nothing but the Truth" did you not understand, Sweetheart?

http://veritasvirtualvengeance.com/white-hat-consumer-activism/

[-] 0 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Don't call me "Sweetheart". Take your male privilege and your shitty public relations website elsewhere, asshole.

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Try to appreciate our agenda, which we make no secret. Male or female, if you have a problem with our agenda, then we have a problem with YOU:

http://veritasvirtualvengeance.com/occupy-wall-street/

[-] 0 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Regardless, you're a privileged, misogynist asshole using this site to drum up business.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Privileged = Disowned by working class parents at 16, I have supported myself for almost half a century - raising and educating my progeny along the way.

Misogynist = A clear indication that you have no idea who I am.

Asshole = According to my ex-wife, YES.

Using this site to drum up business = If you mean to make a difference, YES. If you mean to make money, NO. Perhaps YOU should retain me: I really don't see how I could create a public image worse than what you create for yourself.

[-] 1 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Even the poorest white man benefits from privilege. You have absolutely no idea what privilege means, do you?

and

LOL bringing up an ex-wife.

You proven everything I posted, ie, that you are a privileged, misogynist asshole.

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

You need help, lady.

[-] 1 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Proving my point again. Why do you find it necessary to single me out by gender? Because that somehow marginalizes and belittles me? You're a misogynist creep and this movement doesn't need privileged pricks like you so GTFO

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Like I said, you need help lady.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

this will go nowhere in the courts

a habeas corpus writ is filed by or on behalf of someone who has been imprisoned and/or detained

afaik no one has been detained under the provisions of NDAA thus you have no standing

also, clerks take these petitions as a matter of procedure, they don't decide the merits or validity of the actual filing itself, a judge makes that call

btw as a publicity stunt its also fail

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

You obviously have not read the filing documents. But even if you had, we will not argue the legal points in this forum. That is reserved for the court. As to the "publicity" potential of the case, well we'll all see, won't we?

[-] 3 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

the issue of standing is the first matter a judge will rule on-if you have none, your writ will get tossed out and lol @ "we will not argue the legal points in this forum" why not? no one who has received a law degree and/or is a practicing attorney will take this seriously-much less a judge

[-] -2 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

This case is being taken seriously not only in Anchorage but by the powers at risk in Washington DC. For more details in that regard, follow the case as we will not be posting them here for bystander speculation.

[-] 1 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You're confusing AN ISSUE WORTH BEING TAKING SERIOUSLY (which the NDAA is) and the concept of LEGAL STANDING in US law.

This Habeas Corpus writ was, according to this post, filed with the clerk for the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, a STATE COURT which reviews and decide appeals from decisions made by STATE TRIAL COURTS. The Alaska Supreme Court is the highest level of state court in Alaska and it rules on appeals from LOWER STATE COURTS (ALK court system facts : http://courts.alaska.gov/ctinfo.htm).

Has this issue been adjudicated in a lower state court? If not, it isn't even in the proper venue, because the NDAA apply only to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND FEDERAL COURTS and a state court would have no jurisdiction in a Federal action-that's what FEDERAL COURTS are for (Protip: for ALK residents the Ninth FEDERAL Court of Appeals is in San Francisco should you want do this the right way, once you discover what the legal concept standing means)

And again: LOL@ YOU for making a petulant post : "...we will not be posting them here for bystander speculation".

THIS IS AN OWS PUBLIC FORUM, BY ITS VERY NATURE COMPRISED OF "BYSTANDERS". Why the hell would you post this here and then make such a ridiculous statement? You have just now convinced me that this is just a publicity stunt (AKA BULLSHIT), kthnxbai

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

If this case had no legal standing, then the DOJ would not have bothered to assign a United States Attorney to represent the federal government and the Alaska Congressional delegation in the proceedings.

[-] -2 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Hopefully we can at last count on you to stop contributing your "I know just enough about the law to be dangerous" expertise to this thread.

[-] 2 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I see you've been spamming this garbage all over the internet by posting it to any site even remotely connected to OWS

Wait, I get it! When "Freedom fighter Anna von Reiz " (Anna von Reiz LOL! Mad that Dita von Teese was taken? Next time come up with a better fake name) gets laughed out of court for this crap, we will then see the indignant posts ranting against how the"system" is stacked against her and rallying everyone to her cause and (wait for it)...a Freedom fighter Anna von Reiz-Alex Jones clone website will magically appear, which will be loaded with ads. Which, incidentally, she will profusely apologize for but rationalize as needing to make $$$ for "FREEDOM" or some other bullshit cause.

YOU (and for all I know you're Anna's sock since only YOU are running around the web posting this shit) ARE DANGEROUS.

YOU DISCREDIT THIS MOVEMENT FOR PERSONAL GAIN and in fact, are more than likely a government agent provocateur, in a deliberate attempt to mislead and co-opt those unfamiliar with our legal system and derail OWS by splintering it apart, playing on the genuine concerns and patriotism of OWS.

GTFO and don't come back.

[-] 1 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

oh lord I went to all the "sites" ironboltbruce is on as well as your wordpress site and yep, you're either crazy, a paid provocateur or both.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Thank you for your commentary on whatever of our several sites you are commenting on. We really have better things to do than comment on yours, wherever and whatever they are, if in fact they (and you) even exist.

Oh... One more thing: Find a factual error in anything we have ever posted anywhere that is attributable to us, and we will issue a retraction and give you the credit for the correction. Understand though, that you will need to provide links to authoritative sources to support your claims, just as we do to support everything we represent as fact.

In short, poser, put up or shut up.

[-] 2 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Filing a habeas corpus writ re NDAA (a Federal act) not on behalf of anyone who is detained under NDAA in a state court.

That is fact, according to you and yours. It is, under US law, precedent and procedure, a huge error.

Done.

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Again ... if this case had no legal standing then the DOJ would not have bothered to assign a United States Attorney to represent the federal government and the Alaska Congressional delegation in the proceedings.

You are making an unsupported claim regarding Anna von Reiz's Petition which you do not understand and which we did not write anyway, so no cigar. Please stop wasting our time and everyone else's.

[-] 3 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Assigning an attorney does not indicate any merit to your lawsuit. They still need an attorney to file a motion to dismiss your claim.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 2 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

THIS sentence:

"if this case had no legal standing then the DOJ would not have bothered to assign a United States Attorney to represent the federal government and the Alaska Congressional delegation in the proceedings"

is a prime example of a fallacy (ie, irrelevant conclusion-attempting to deflect attention from a fact in dispute instead of directly addressing the issue). Then again, the entire subject at hand is a non sequitur.

This action by DOJ (if , in fact, it is true, which we have no way of confirming), especially in the absence of a court order and/or written opinion by a judge is irrelevant because it does not establish standing. You lose, again.

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

I lose nothing. You trying to play Perry Mason here in this forum is an irritating but otherwise irrelevant distraction from the actual case, which will be adjudicated in the AK Supreme Court and not here. And you have yet to identify a single error of fact in anything WE have written and posted - which does NOT include any of Anna's legal documents - nor have you posted a link to a single substantial authority to backup any of your false claims. Unsubstantiated commentary from an anonymous poster like you is a far, far cry from being "substantial authoritative evidence". Take your BS elsewhere.

[-] 2 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Seeing her other silly actions against the "United States of America, United States of America, Inc., aka/dba “US Corp” and “US Corporation" have been summarily tossed out, its guaranteed this nonsense will go the same way.

BTW the concept of standing is hardly unsubstantiated, it has a long history. I'm not the one who came here to post bullshit, you did. And by the use of "we", are you finally admitting that you are the moving party in this action? Because you're unusually defensive when its pointed out you have very little understanding of the US legal system, case law and procedure.

Goodbye "Anna". What will you do when you're declared a vexatious litigant and ordered to pay court costs? Ask for donations? Quelle surprise!

[-] 2 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Enraging in personal attacks rather than answering the questions, I see.

[-] -2 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

I will not respond to your insane blatherings, but I will remind you - again - that the parties to Anna's filing are a matter of public record and verifiable online.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

(1) If Anna M. Riezinger-von Reitz lied to us about her name, then she also lied on all the documents she filed with the Supreme Court. Not likely.

(2) As far as we know, Ms. Reiz has no website other than the blog referenced in our original posting.

(3) As far as we know, none of the parties associated with this initiative have received any "personal gain" from it. Quite the contrary. Anna paid her own filing fees, and as usual we're working for free.

[-] 2 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Which one is it? Anna M. Riezinger or Anna von Reitz?

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Can't you read? It's "Anna M. Riezinger-von Reitz" or "Anna von Reiz" for short.

[-] 2 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yeah, those two names are not quite the same thing. The "von" preposition is a German naming convention so Anna M. Riezinger-von Reitz and Anna von Reiz are not exactly the same surname.

We are in the USA, why is she using a prefix that was discarded in Germany ages ago?

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Ask her. I told you how to reach her.

[-] 2 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No page views for you

I'm asking you, her white knight and BFF.

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Ask her. I told you how to reach her.

[-] 2 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

(1) "Not likely" But possible.

(2) "As far as we know" One can infer from this statement you may not have all the information at hand so again, quite possible.

(3) "As far as we know" Again, you admit may not have all the information at hand so yes, it is quite possible this person is seeking to enrich herself and/or others.

I love how you are quite fond of the "As far as I know" qualifier, just like the all Washington bureaucrats, Watergate burglars, Oliver North and Wall Street bankers when questioned. You're giving yourself away.

Give a direct link to any pictures of this Anna von whats-her-name. She is in litigation with the US government so she shouldn't be camera shy.

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

We are in regular contact with Anna via telephone, but we will not post her phone number here. Her case filing is a matter of public record and verifiable online. If you wish to ask her for a photo or fingerprints or DNA samples or other proof that she is who she says she is, you can post your insane requests in the form of a comment on her blog:

http://alaskapatriotnews.ning.com/profile/AnnavonReitz

[-] 1 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No one (certainly not I) want her number or DNA but she now has two names (Anna M. Riezinger or Anna von Reitz?). Usually people who do these very public stunts have had an online presence beforehand but nowhere on the many, many sites this nonsense has been spammed (by you mostly) does even a thumbnail of an image exist of her.

So Anna M. Riezinger or Anna von Reitz comes out of nowhere and starts filing frivolous and pointless actions against the US government and we're suppose to her seriously? It's more like she's looking to be the Orly Taitz of OWS but even Orly showed her face.

I'm not the one claiming my frivolous action has merit and no, I'm not giving her (or you) any page views. YOU posted this here, remember?

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

We are in regular contact with Anna via telephone, but we will not post her phone number here. Her case filing is a matter of public record and verifiable online. If you wish to ask her for a photo or fingerprints or DNA samples or other proof that she is who she says she is, you can post your insane requests in the form of a comment on her blog:

http://alaskapatriotnews.ning.com/profile/AnnavonReitz

[-] 1 points by timeout66 (0) 2 years ago

have to go to work but let's talk later ok?

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Great! Send us an email at vvvpr@vvvpr.com and we'll go from there!

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I am not surprised by this. Alaskans are a hearty lot, and do not like any law or anyone encroaching on their civil liberties. Many people who move up there are willing to endure those brutal winters rather than to put up with all the crap in the lower forty-eight.....and get very pissed when all th BS follows them up there. I know because I am the father of one of them. [2 kids there, only 1 who moved and stayed there for close to those reasons]

[Removed]