New York State Sets Up Gun Snitch Line With $500 Award

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 12:34 PM

 

 

New York State is now offering $500 to people who snitch on gun owners.
Menrec has the story.
And, The Troy Record also has news on the tip line on their Facebook page – It is real. There is actually someone there to take your tips… So that state officials can come take your guns.

NY State has established a toll-free tip line – 1-855-GUNSNYS (1-855- 486-7697) to encourage residents to report illegal firearm possession. The tip line also allows for information to be submitted via text – individuals can text GUNTIP and their message to CRIMES (274637). The New York State Police staff the tip line 24 hours a day. Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip then contact the appropriate police agency with the lead to initiate an investigation. If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the “tipster” will be awarded $500.

This is like something you’d read about in China or Cuba, not America.
Pat Bailey from CBS6 has more on the snitch line.

A program aimed at rewarding people who blow the whistle on illegal gun owners has yet to show significant results, says three police agencies in the New York.
In February of 2012, 11 months before the passage of the NY SAFE Act, Governor Cuomo’s office announced a four pronged initiative to curb gun violence. One of the programs was a cash reward for citizens who lead police to the arrest and confiscation of illegal fire arms.
Known as the “Gun Tip Line”, New Yorkers can call a toll free hotline to alert police if they believe someone they know has an illegal gun. The call would be picked up by state police and local law enforcement would be notified if the tip seemed reliable.
If there was an arrest the tipster would receive as much as $500.

Biden Smears Americans Worried About Gun Rights As “Black Helicopter Crowd”… March 20, 2013 Vice President Joe Biden says requiring Americans to register guns would “cross a cultural line” that would incite conservatives and conspiracy theorists. “The idea that you register your guns – it may make logical sense to say this, but there isn’t a constitutional right to own an automobile. There is a Second Amendment Constitutional right to own a weapon: the right to have and bear arms,” he said in an interview with NPR’s “All Things Considered.” “When you go to registration, it raises all the black-helicopter-crowd notion that what this is all about is identifying who has a gun so that one day the government can get up and go to the house and arrest everyone who has a gun, and they’ll cite Nazi Germany and all that.” Continue reading via Politico...

Biden Smears Americans Worried About Gun Rights As “Black Helicopter Crowd”…

March 20, 2013

Vice President Joe Biden says requiring Americans to register guns would “cross a cultural line” that would incite conservatives and conspiracy theorists.
“The idea that you register your guns – it may make logical sense to say this, but there isn’t a constitutional right to own an automobile. There is a Second Amendment Constitutional right to own a weapon: the right to have and bear arms,” he said in an interview with NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
“When you go to registration, it raises all the black-helicopter-crowd notion that what this is all about is identifying who has a gun so that one day the government can get up and go to the house and arrest everyone who has a gun, and they’ll cite Nazi Germany and all that.” Continue reading via Politico...

People of Cyprus stood up to the banking mafia and won. We have to stand up to the US banking mafia and their puppets in Congress, who seek cheap labor and are pushing for amnesty of millions of illegals, which will rob our children of jobs and our elderly and poor of benefits, as the Social Security will be completely broke. Tell every congressman: you scoundrel vote for this amnesty, we’ll throw you out! Demand they start immediate impeachment and removal of the foreign criminal with forged and stolen IDs from the WH, or we will try them for high treason! Posted on | March 20, 2013 | 3 Comments Irish Times See realtime coverage Cyprus hopes Russia will provide ‘some support’ after bailout is rejectet Irish Times - ‎16 minutes ago‎ The Cypriot finance minister spoke today to Russia about help to avert a financial meltdown after the island’s parliament rejected the terms of a European bailout, raising the spectre of a looming default and bank crash. Related Cyprus » Bank » Eurozone » Eurozone crisis live: Cyprus scrambles to secure new bailoutThe Guardian Russia Stocks Rise First Time in 4 Days as VTB Gains on CyprusBusinessweek Opinion:Public can’t be bluffedHerald Sun In Depth:Cyprus is euro zone’s very own Lehman momentMarketWatch Wikipedia:2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis See all 3,003 sources » Related Cyprus » Bank » Eurozone »

People of Cyprus stood up to the banking mafia and won. We have to stand up to the US banking mafia and their puppets in Congress, who seek cheap labor and are pushing for amnesty of millions of illegals, which will rob our children of jobs and our elderly and poor of benefits, as the Social Security will be completely broke. Tell every congressman: you scoundrel vote for this amnesty, we’ll throw you out! Demand they start immediate impeachment and removal of the foreign criminal with forged and stolen IDs from the WH, or we will try them for high treason!

Posted on | March 20, 2013 | 3 Comments

Irish Times See realtime coverage

Cyprus hopes Russia will provide ‘some support’ after bailout is rejectet Irish Times - ‎16 minutes ago‎ The Cypriot finance minister spoke today to Russia about help to avert a financial meltdown after the island’s parliament rejected the terms of a European bailout, raising the spectre of a looming default and bank crash. Related Cyprus » Bank » Eurozone » Eurozone crisis live: Cyprus scrambles to secure new bailoutThe Guardian Russia Stocks Rise First Time in 4 Days as VTB Gains on CyprusBusinessweek Opinion:Public can’t be bluffedHerald Sun In Depth:Cyprus is euro zone’s very own Lehman momentMarketWatch Wikipedia:2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis See all 3,003 sources » Related Cyprus » Bank » Eurozone »

A word to rioting Muslims

http://dotsub.com/view/72457cbc-fe18-4053-ae3f-6c7639cf4e79

<iframe src="http://dotsub.com/media/72457cbc-fe18-4053-ae3f-6c7639cf4e79/embed/" frameborder="0" width="560" height="315"></iframe>

Social Security Official Presents Plan B: Raid The Retirement Fund

Stephan Goss, the chief actuary for Social Security (SS) provided a detailed report on the status of the SS Disability Fund (DI) to the House of Representitives. The short story is that DI is going bust in a few years. The options to fix this problem were spelled out in the report. The extremes of the required “fix” range from an immediate cut in DI benefits of 16%, or an increase in DI payroll taxes of 20%.
Nothing new there. But, there is a “Plan B” for the DI Fund. The solution is to raid the SS Retirement Fund for the deficits at DI:

A simple tax-rate reallocation between OASI and DI, as was done in 1994, could equalize the financial prospects of the trust funds avoiding reserve depletion until 2033.

Note: “Simple tax-rate reallocation” means $40+b a year….

Bingo! The raid on the retirement fund results in no cuts in benefits, and no new taxes. What’s not to like about that result? The gutless wimps in D.C. would love to kick the can down the road a decade, therefore the Raid solution is an obvious choice. (The consequence of the Raid would be to reduce the expected life of the Retirement Trust Fund by as much as five years.)
This is not the first time this has come up. The Congressional Budget Office, in its 2/5/13 report on the SS Trust Funds had these words in a footnote:

CBO’s baseline assumes that the Commissioner will pay DI benefits in full even after the trust fund is exhausted.

Note: For a discussion of the CBO report, see my article from 2/10/13 (Link).

Okay, we now have two legs of the government who have (functionally) suggested that a raid on the OASI fund is a possible fix for DI. Lightening does not strike twice in the same place very often, especially in Washington. The idea of raiding one fund to preserve another, has just gotten another big supporter. If the folks at AARP understood what was being proposed – they would flip their wigs!

++

The True Cost of the Disability Program

I have a list, (it’s pretty short) of the folks who I think are “doing the right thing” in Washington. Stephen Goss was on that list. I’m disappointed with him and his presentation of the “Facts” about the DI program.
Mr. Goss’s report to the House ran nineteen pages;  there are 14 charts. (Link) Everything a Congressman (or the public) could ever want to know about the DI program is spelled out in detail.
But, Goss completely left out the most critical cost of DI. The Chief Actuary failed to identify a cost directly related to DI. The numbers are big – $80b in 2012. The estimate is for more than a trillion of over the coming decade. If you look beyond that time horizon, the costs that Goss failed to identify are in the mega-trillions.
Goss failed to provide the full picture when he did not disclose the DI costs to Medicare. Every individual who gets DI benefits ALSO gets Medicare.
In a report dated 3/14/2013 (Link), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) accurately described the real costs of DI:

Total government spending on DI beneficiaries is substantially higher than DI expenditures alone.

Disabled beneficiaries receive coverage under Medicare, regardless of their age.

The cost of Medicare benefits received by DI beneficiaries was about $80 billion in 2012; CBO expects that it will be $130 billion in 2023.

I give Stephen Goss an “F” for failing to provide all of the information needed to evaluate the DI program. How do you sweep a trillion dollars under the carpet?

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ss-actuary-raid-the-retirement-fund-2013-3#ixzz2O8Psm0PL

Letter to Judge Guilford seeking a leave to file antiSLAPP

Posted on | March 20, 2013 | 3 Comments

Letter to Judge Guilford seeking a leave to file antiSLAPP
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
03.19.2013

Hon Judge Guilford,

Defendants “Defend Our Freedoms Foundation”, Law offices of Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, inc are  respectfully requesting a leave of court to file a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under the antiSLAPP statute. 425.16
Previously this court denied the motion to dismiss the original complaint in antiSLAPP and refused to give defendants a leave of court to file an antiSLAPP motion to dismiss the Amended complaint. The 9th Circuit has reversed and stricken the ruling by this court denying the motion to dismiss the original complaint in antiSLAPP  and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings. This court requires a leave of court prior to filing any motions, therefore a request for a leave of court is being filed herein.  This court has already granted Orly Taitz, as an individual, a leave of court to file an antiSLAPP motion to dismiss (strike) the FAC and currently DOFF,   Orly Taitz, inc and Law Offices of Orly Taitz are seeking a similar leave to file an antiSLAPP motion.   ”Motion to strike a state law claim under California ‘s anti–SLAPP statute may be brought in federal court.Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.USA, 3L1 F. 3d 7091 , 1109 (9th cir. 2003). The antiSLAPP statute was enacted to allow for early dismissal- “of meritless first amendment cases aimed at chilling expression through costly, time consuming litigation.” Batzel v Smith, 3331 F. 3d 1018, IO24 (9th cir. 2003). The statute should be construed broadly, ” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 5425.16 (a) interpreted “in a manner favorable to the exercise of freedom of speech, not its curtailment, ” Briggs v Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity, 19 Cal 4th 1106-1119 (1999).
For antiSLAPP motion to succeed following requirements need to be met:
1. SLAPP law suit was filed to limit public participation in free speech
2.Plaintiffs cannot meet the burden of probability of prevailing on the merits
1. Speech in question represented posting by Taitz, providing supporters with truthful information that her old website was taken over by former volunteer webmaster Lisa Ostella, who is currently working with another attorney Berg, who in turn uses as his legal assistant Lisa Liberi, who was recently convicted of 10 felony counts of grand theft and forgery. This was a protected speech and had a great public value, alerting the donors and supporters. The law suit at hand was filed based on fraud, where Plaintiffs attempted to defraud the public and this court and create an impression that Liberi was a different person, not a convicted forger and thief, that  posting of a criminal record defamed her and Berg. The law suit was filed with an intent to intimidate Taitz into silence. Additional intent was Berg’s desire to keep Liberi’s criminal record under wraps, intimidate Taitz not to talk about it, as Berge was being sued by the Disciplinary Board of Pennsylvania and Liberi was his witness and alibi. (The board has already ruled that Berg should be suspended from practice of law and Berg is appealing this decision. Recently a motion was filed for the Supreme Court of PA to render its’ decision.
2. The Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of prevailing  as this court has already dismissed this complaint against most other defendants, finding that Liberi was indeed convicted and all the information came from public records and was entered into public records by Liberi, herself, therefore there was no defamation and no invasion of private information. Additionally the case cannot succeed as the 12b(1) motion has not been adjudicated on the merits yet, the case was filed on May 4, 2009 based on diversity of state citizenship. Prior judge, Judge Robreno, ordered Liberi and Berg to file with the court Liberi’s drivers license to prove diversity of state citizenship and for four years Liberi and Berg have been in contempt of court and never filed Liberi’s license and never proved diversity. For that reason alone the Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of succeeding, and the case has to be dismissed, and Plaintiffs have to be severely sanctioned for 4 years of contempt of court. Additionally, this case cannot succeed on the merits against Orly Taitz, inc, as Orly Taitz inc is a Dental office of Dr. Orly Taitz, who is both a dentist and an attorney and there is no connection between the dental office of Dr. Taitz and the dispute at hand. Additionally, Law office of Orly Taitz is not a legal entity. There is no corporation or LLC or any other entity by the name Law Offices of Orly Taitz. one has zero probability of succeeding against the legal entity, which does not even succeed.
For all of the above reasons the leave to file the antiSLAPP should be granted.
Respectfully
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
cc Philip Berg (via e-mail)
cc Mark Colen (via e-mail)

how obama useing gay marrage

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act

WASHINGTON – The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:

 

In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court.   Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment.   While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.  

 

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated.   In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

 

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.   The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.   Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.   I fully concur with the President’s determination.

 

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit.   We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.   I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option.   The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.  

 

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ’ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3. 

 

The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense.   At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because – as here – the Department does not consider every such argument to be a “reasonable” one.   Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.  

 

Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA.   The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional.   Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.   Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional.   Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law.   But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.