Fund AOC
Donation protected
Help fund AOC (Activism of Care). My name is Aoc and I'm a watchdog journalist YouTuber from Texas. I've recently been diagnosed with cancer. People have been donating to me through GoFundMe because I'm an online social justice humanitarian and motivational YouTuber who has supported, educated, and helped out the community to prevent narcissistic abuse, bullying, mobbing, discrimination, hate crimes, hostile work environments, school to prison pipeline, gang stalking, cyber-stalking, dark web crime, deprivation of rights under color of law (TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242), parallel construction, evidence laundering, conspiracy against rights 18 U.S.C. 241, and civil rights violations for several years. I have addressed matters of public concern related to community well-being, personality disorders, abnormal psychology, forensic criminology, bully culture, corruption, cults, the constitution, safety, government, and ethics for years with fair comment privilege based watchdog journalism and social commentary.
I promote due care, equal opportunity, and the equal protection clause for all races, genders, ages, and orientations of people. I appreciate generous help and love from the community as well. Now is the time to donate and post true testimonials. Donations will automatically be withdrawn online and directly deposited to me. Donations will be used for my continued grassroots social justice dedicated to researching personality disorders, constitutional equality, and doing online social commentary regarding matters of public concern. Funding will help with my internet bill, grocery bill, gas for car, social sciences books, documentaries, and improving my current living conditions. This fund campaign will be open and ongoing. Funding is needed immediately.
Thank you for your ongoing compassion, empathy, and generosity towards me. With every donation you are contributing to social equality, online civic engagement, and to improving my life as a humanitarian dedicated to helping targeted individuals. As you help me you inspire more love and compassion in my life. Bring as many dignified people together to donate to this highly honorable cause.
Government sanctioned community harassment and entrapment known as gang stalking is a violation of the 8th amendment. The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal, state, and local governments of the United States, or any other government, or any corporation, private enterprise, group, or individual, from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments, in any part of the US, on US property (i.e. a US embassy), or against any US citizen, or any resident of the US.
Matters of public concern addressed by Activism of Care are: overcoming bullying, bullycide, narcissistic abuse, harassment, entrapment, gaslighting, micro-aggressions, micro-inequities, triangulation, trauma bonding, toxic parents, passive aggression, love bombing, future faking, hostile work environments, workplace mobbing, constructive discharge, counseling malpractice, school to prison pipeline, student mobbing, discrimination, institutional oppression, classism, gang stalking, conspiracy against rights 18 U.S.C. 241, deprivation of rights under color of law, cult mind control, internalized oppression, and inequality. AOC routinely addresses life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, personality disorders, the social sciences, civil rights, men's rights, civics, legal abuse, individualism, watchdog journalism, citizen journalism, consumer justice, and trends of various other forms of abuse and civil rights violations.
Book list:
Dangerous Personalities: An FBI Profiler Shows You How to Identify and Protect Yourself from Harmful People by Joe Navarro. Published 2018.
Disrupt, Discredit, and Divide: How the New FBI Damages Democracy by Former FBI Agent Mike German. Published 2019.
A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State by John W. Whitehead. Published 2013.
Battlefield America: The War On The American People by John W. Whitehead. Published 2015.
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander. Published 2012.
Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice by Sidney Powell. Published 2014.
Gaslighting: Recognize Manipulative and Emotionally Abusive People--and Break Free by Dr. Stephanie Moulton Sarkis. Published 2018.
Freeing Yourself from the Narcissist in Your Life: At Home. At Work. With Friends by Dr. Linda Martinez Lewi. Published 2013.
The Sociopath Next Door by Dr. Martha Stout. Published 2006.
Surviving Bullies, Queen Bees & Psychopaths in the Workplace by Judge Patricia G. Barnes. Published 2013.
Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace by Noa Davenport, Ruth D. Schwartz, and Gail Pursell Elliott. Published 1999.
Personality Disorders: Toward the DSM-V by William T. O'Donohue, Katherine A. Fowler, and Scott O. Lilienfeld. Published 2007.
Borderline Personality Disorder Demystified, Revised Edition: An Essential Guide for Understanding and Living with BPD by Robert O. Friedel, Linda F. Cox, and Karin Friedel. Published 2018.
Emotional Vampires: Dealing with People Who Drain You Dry, Revised and Expanded 2nd Edition by Albert J. Bernstein. Published 2012.
Trapped in the Mirror: Adult Children of Narcissists in their Struggle for Self by Elan Golomb. Published 1995.
Puzzling People: The Labyrinth of the Psychopath by Thomas Sheridan. Published 2012.
With Justice for None: Destroying an American Myth by Gerry Spence. Published 1990.
Give Me Liberty: Freeing Ourselves in the Twenty-First Century by Gerry Spence. Published 1999.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silverglate. Published 2011.
State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind by Bryant Welch. Published 2018.
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China by Dr. Robert Jay Lifton. Published 1989.
Tyrannical Minds: Psychological Profiling, Narcissism, and Dictatorship by Dean A. Haycock. Published 2019.
The Psychopathy of Everyday Life: How Anti-Social Personality Disorder Affects All of Us by Dr. Martin Kantor. Published 2006.
Anti-Social Behavior: Personality Disorders from Hostility to Homicide by Benjamin Wolman. Published 1999.
Citizen Spies: The Long Rise of America's Surveillance Society by Joshua Reeves. Published 2017.
Last Man Standing: The Tragedy and Triumph of Geronimo Pratt by Jack Olsen. Published 2000.
Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders by Dr. Anna C. Salter. Published 2003.
Hates Crimes in Cyberspace by Danielle Keats Citron. Published 2014.
The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing by Dr. Joost A. M. Meerloo. Published 2011.
Reference for civics, social justice, and educational purposes:
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). (Right To Suppress Illegally Collected Evidence Based on Violation of the 4th.)
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940). (Right To Strike Coerced Confession.)
Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143 (1944) Ware, a black man, claimed that he confessed because he feared mob violence. Ashcraft - who had been questioned for more than 36 hours, with only one 5-minute break - claimed he was threatened and abused. The United States Supreme Court reversed both convictions.
Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6-2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mob-dominated trials were a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts were furthermore duty-bound to review habeas corpus petitions that raised claims of discrimination in state trials, and to order the release of unfairly convicted defendants if the alleged violations were found to be true.
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960). (Right To Suppress Illegally Collected Evidence Based on violation of the 4th and the exclusionary rule. Prohibits Silver Platter Doctrine.)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Individuals have an implied cause of action against federal government officials who have violated their constitutional rights 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights.)
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920). (Right to Suppress illegally copied tainted cumulative evidence. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine). The term fruit of the poisonous tree was first used in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 307 (1939). In reversing Nardone's convictions, the Court stated that once a defendant has established that evidence was illegally seized, the trial court "must give opportunity, however closely confined, to the accused to prove that a substantial portion of the case against him was a fruit of the poisonous tree." The Nardone opinion established that evidence obtained in violation of a statute was subject to exclusion if it was obtained in violation of a statutory right.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). (4th Right To Privacy) The Court extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals with a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961). (4th Right To Privacy) A federal officer may not, without warrant, physically entrench into a person's office or home to secretly observe or listen and relate at the man's subsequent criminal trial what was seen or heard.
United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). (4th Right To Privacy) Government officials are obligated to obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even when domestic security issues are involved. The "inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept" and the potential for abusing it to quell political dissent make the Fourth Amendment protections especially important when the government engaged in spying on its own citizens.
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999). (4th Right To Privacy) Held that the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizures prohibited the police from bringing members of the news media into private homes while executing search warrants.
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952). (The use at trial of evidence obtained by conduct that "shocks the conscience" violates due process).
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), is a Supreme Court case in which the justices unanimously recognized the entrapment defense. Entrapment is a valid defense; the prosecution must show the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime if it is raised.
Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case on the issue of entrapment. Unanimously, the Court overturned the conviction of a recovering New York drug addict who had been repeatedly solicited for drug sales by a fellow former addict who was working with federal agents.
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992)The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was predisposed to commit a crime prior to any contact with government agents in order to overcome entrapment defense; defendant's prior commission of acts later prohibited that were legal at the time did not establish evidence of predisposition sufficient to overcome entrapment defense where no evidence existed of commission of crimes independent of solicitation to do so by agents.
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with defendants' rights to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement. The court held that where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant (exculpatory evidence) to the defense.[1]:4 The prosecution failed to do so for Brady and he was convicted. Brady challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment."
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) held in a 5–4 decision that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.
Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402, 585 U.S. ____ (2018) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cellphone location records.[1] The Court held, in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by accessing historical records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). (Punishing a person for a medical condition is a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). (Right to Suppress the presentation of verbal evidence and recovered narcotics where they were both fruits of an illegal entry are inadmissible in court.)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects.
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987). (Right To Criticize Law Enforcement.)
Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987). (Right To Criticize The President.)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). (Freedom of the Press when reporting government corruption.)
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violating of free speech under the First Amendment. The government's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol did not outweigh the individual right to disparage that symbol through expressive conduct.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) the Supreme Court struck down a city ordinance that made it a crime to place a burning cross or swastika anywhere “in an attempt to arouse anger or alarm on the basis of race, color, creed, or religion.” The Court’s decision, citing violation of the First Amendment, overturned a cross-burning conviction.
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). (The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining constitutional questions; no person, not even the president of the United States, is completely above the law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial).
Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972). (Right To Protest. Protection from viewpoint and content discrimination)
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965). It held that a state government cannot employ "breach of the peace" statutes against protesters engaging in peaceable demonstrations that may potentially incite violence.
Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966). States may only regulate the use of public facilities in a "reasonably nondiscriminatory manner, equally applicable to all." Maintaining separate library facilities clearly violated this principle. It held that protesters have a First and Fourteenth Amendment right to engage in a peaceful sit-in at a public library.
Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197 (1972). (Freedom to distribute pamphlets).
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977). (Disproportionate and excessive punishment and so is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment.)
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964). The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a movie theater manager from being prosecuted for possessing and showing a film that was not obscene.
Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229 (1972). Sensual poem and photos are entitled to freedom of the press protection as incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court case involving the First Amendment that reaffirmed and clarified the imminent lawless action test first articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Hess is still cited by courts to protect speech threatening future lawless action.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants by the Executive Branch have a right to challenge their detainment under the Due Process Clause. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the Commerce Clause gave the U.S. Congress power to force private businesses to abide by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) freedom to associate with organizations dedicated to the "advancement of beliefs and ideas" is an inseparable part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida Ruling 8-1, the Court vacated and remanded, holding that the existence of probable cause for Lozman’s arrest for disrupting a city council meeting did not bar his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under the circumstances of this case.
Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. was joined by six justices who reversed a trial-court conviction. They decided that Anthony Douglas Elonis had been improperly convicted of transmitting threats through postings on Facebook. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the conviction of an individual who had posted rap lyrics appearing to contain threats against his ex-wife, an FBI agent, and even a kindergarten class on the basis that the government had not established that he had the requisite criminal intent.
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), the Supreme Court held, without the benefit of oral argument, that the First Amendment does not protect true threats. The Court also explained that political hyperbole does not qualify as such a threat. Watts' statement was "political hyperbole". The Court noted, "The language of the political arena is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact." Thus, considering the "context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners," the Court ruled that Watts' statement against the President was not a true threat. The Court agreed with Watts’s counsel’s characterization of Watts’s speech as “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” that did not qualify as a true threat. “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,” the majority wrote.
The Supreme Court in Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380 (1957) unanimously held that a Michigan law violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The law made it illegal to sell printed material thought to be obscene because of its potentially harmful influence on youths.Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 1 L. Ed. 2d 412, 77 S. Ct. 524 (1957) "is to burn the house to roast the pig." American Booksellers Assoc., Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985) (Easterbrook, J.), aff'd., 475 U.S. 1001, 106 S.Ct. 1172, 89 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986). Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) (found that prior restraints on publication violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment). Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Cincinnati v. Contemporary Arts Center 57 Ohio Misc. 2d 9 (Ohio Misc. 1990). Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966). Leidholdt v. L.F.P. Inc., 860 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1988). Jewell v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 23 F. Supp.2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting, 97 Cal. App. 4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53 (U.S. 1988).
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of public concern in a public place, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".
Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of peremptory challenges to remove black jurors during a series of Mississippi criminal trials.
Mayfield v. United States, 504 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (D. Or. 2007) FBI internal review later acknowledged serious errors in their investigation involving wrong fingerprints. Ensuing lawsuits have resulted in a formal apology from the U.S. government and a $2 million settlement.
Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2007). Police officer not entitled to qualified immunity for "swinging a handcuffed man into a wall head-first multiple times and then punching him in the face while he lay face-down on the ground, and breaking his neck as a result."
Elhady v. Kable 2019 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the federal government’s watchlist which includes known or suspected terrorists violates the constitutional rights of American citizens included on it.
U.S. v Weaver and Harris Idaho Fed. District Ct Ruby Ridge. In an out-of-court settlement in August 1995, the federal government awarded Randy Weaver $100,000 and his three daughters $1 million each. Harris was awarded a $380,000 settlement from the government.
Nader v. General Motors Corp. (25 N.Y. 2d 560, 1970). (Set precedent against corporate stalking invasion of privacy).
Lennon v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 561 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).
United States v. Warshak Government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when they compelled his ISP to produce the content of his emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.
The Frank Church Committee was a U.S. Senate select committee in 1975 that investigated abuses by the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service. Regarding COINTELPRO counterintelligence program conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation : "Unsavory, harmful and vicious tactics have been employed—including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths".
McMartin preschool trial (Mass-hysteria involving false allegations of Satanic ritual abuse after six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990.)
Dahne v. Richey (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holding that a Washington state inmate had a First Amendment-based right to use disrespectful language in a prison grievance and that a prison official violated the inmate’s freedom of petition rights when he refused to submit the prisoner’s grievance.
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law, in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled that in a case involving a consent search, knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor in determining whether a grant of consent to a search was voluntary, the state does not need to prove that the person who granted consent to search knew of the right to refuse consent under the Fourth Amendment .
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937) the Supreme Court struck down a Georgia Supreme Court decision that had upheld a conviction under a state criminal syndicalism statute penalizing attempts to incite insurrection or inducing others to do so. The Court held that the state had violated First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that anti-indecency provisionsof the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) State governments must protect First Amendment rights through the Fourteenth Amendment
Talley v. California (1960), McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999), and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton (2002) set precedent on the right to remain anonymous.
The compelled speech doctrine West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), Wooley v. Maynard (1977), and Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006), sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expression. Thus, the First Amendment not only limits the government from punishing a person for his speech, it also prevents the government from punishing a person for refusing to articulate, advocate, or adhere to the government’s approved messages.
The EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co., No. 1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015). They settled for $12.26 million. The EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation against racial minorities nationwide.
Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education investigates violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.2000d et seq.
You may also contact the United States Attorney’s Office in your district or send a written complaint to: Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530
855-856-1247 or (202) [phone redacted].
(202) [phone redacted]. [email redacted]
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Investigations Division
ATTN: OIG Hotline
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Phone: (800) [phone redacted]
Phone: (202) [phone redacted]
Fax: (202) [phone redacted]
Victims’ Rights Ombudsman
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Department of Justice
RFK Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Room 2261
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Toll-Free: (877) [phone redacted]
Phone: (202) [phone redacted]
Fax: (202) [phone redacted]
Email: [email redacted]
Crime Victims Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Equal Justice Initiative
Innocence Project
John W. Whitehead's The Rutherford Institute
Freedom of Mind Resource Center's BITE Model of Cult Mind Control:
I. Behavior Control
II.Information Control
III.Thought Control
IV. Emotional Control
iCivics: Free Lesson Plans and Games for Learning Civics
Avvo
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal, state, and local governments of the United States, or any other government, or any corporation, private enterprise, group, or individual, from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments, in any part of the US, on US property (i.e. a US embassy), or against any US citizen, or any resident of the US.
Exclusionary Rule 403 The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
I promote due care, equal opportunity, and the equal protection clause for all races, genders, ages, and orientations of people. I appreciate generous help and love from the community as well. Now is the time to donate and post true testimonials. Donations will automatically be withdrawn online and directly deposited to me. Donations will be used for my continued grassroots social justice dedicated to researching personality disorders, constitutional equality, and doing online social commentary regarding matters of public concern. Funding will help with my internet bill, grocery bill, gas for car, social sciences books, documentaries, and improving my current living conditions. This fund campaign will be open and ongoing. Funding is needed immediately.
Thank you for your ongoing compassion, empathy, and generosity towards me. With every donation you are contributing to social equality, online civic engagement, and to improving my life as a humanitarian dedicated to helping targeted individuals. As you help me you inspire more love and compassion in my life. Bring as many dignified people together to donate to this highly honorable cause.
Government sanctioned community harassment and entrapment known as gang stalking is a violation of the 8th amendment. The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal, state, and local governments of the United States, or any other government, or any corporation, private enterprise, group, or individual, from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments, in any part of the US, on US property (i.e. a US embassy), or against any US citizen, or any resident of the US.
Matters of public concern addressed by Activism of Care are: overcoming bullying, bullycide, narcissistic abuse, harassment, entrapment, gaslighting, micro-aggressions, micro-inequities, triangulation, trauma bonding, toxic parents, passive aggression, love bombing, future faking, hostile work environments, workplace mobbing, constructive discharge, counseling malpractice, school to prison pipeline, student mobbing, discrimination, institutional oppression, classism, gang stalking, conspiracy against rights 18 U.S.C. 241, deprivation of rights under color of law, cult mind control, internalized oppression, and inequality. AOC routinely addresses life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, personality disorders, the social sciences, civil rights, men's rights, civics, legal abuse, individualism, watchdog journalism, citizen journalism, consumer justice, and trends of various other forms of abuse and civil rights violations.
Book list:
Dangerous Personalities: An FBI Profiler Shows You How to Identify and Protect Yourself from Harmful People by Joe Navarro. Published 2018.
Disrupt, Discredit, and Divide: How the New FBI Damages Democracy by Former FBI Agent Mike German. Published 2019.
A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State by John W. Whitehead. Published 2013.
Battlefield America: The War On The American People by John W. Whitehead. Published 2015.
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander. Published 2012.
Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice by Sidney Powell. Published 2014.
Gaslighting: Recognize Manipulative and Emotionally Abusive People--and Break Free by Dr. Stephanie Moulton Sarkis. Published 2018.
Freeing Yourself from the Narcissist in Your Life: At Home. At Work. With Friends by Dr. Linda Martinez Lewi. Published 2013.
The Sociopath Next Door by Dr. Martha Stout. Published 2006.
Surviving Bullies, Queen Bees & Psychopaths in the Workplace by Judge Patricia G. Barnes. Published 2013.
Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace by Noa Davenport, Ruth D. Schwartz, and Gail Pursell Elliott. Published 1999.
Personality Disorders: Toward the DSM-V by William T. O'Donohue, Katherine A. Fowler, and Scott O. Lilienfeld. Published 2007.
Borderline Personality Disorder Demystified, Revised Edition: An Essential Guide for Understanding and Living with BPD by Robert O. Friedel, Linda F. Cox, and Karin Friedel. Published 2018.
Emotional Vampires: Dealing with People Who Drain You Dry, Revised and Expanded 2nd Edition by Albert J. Bernstein. Published 2012.
Trapped in the Mirror: Adult Children of Narcissists in their Struggle for Self by Elan Golomb. Published 1995.
Puzzling People: The Labyrinth of the Psychopath by Thomas Sheridan. Published 2012.
With Justice for None: Destroying an American Myth by Gerry Spence. Published 1990.
Give Me Liberty: Freeing Ourselves in the Twenty-First Century by Gerry Spence. Published 1999.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silverglate. Published 2011.
State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind by Bryant Welch. Published 2018.
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China by Dr. Robert Jay Lifton. Published 1989.
Tyrannical Minds: Psychological Profiling, Narcissism, and Dictatorship by Dean A. Haycock. Published 2019.
The Psychopathy of Everyday Life: How Anti-Social Personality Disorder Affects All of Us by Dr. Martin Kantor. Published 2006.
Anti-Social Behavior: Personality Disorders from Hostility to Homicide by Benjamin Wolman. Published 1999.
Citizen Spies: The Long Rise of America's Surveillance Society by Joshua Reeves. Published 2017.
Last Man Standing: The Tragedy and Triumph of Geronimo Pratt by Jack Olsen. Published 2000.
Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders by Dr. Anna C. Salter. Published 2003.
Hates Crimes in Cyberspace by Danielle Keats Citron. Published 2014.
The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing by Dr. Joost A. M. Meerloo. Published 2011.
Reference for civics, social justice, and educational purposes:
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). (Right To Suppress Illegally Collected Evidence Based on Violation of the 4th.)
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940). (Right To Strike Coerced Confession.)
Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143 (1944) Ware, a black man, claimed that he confessed because he feared mob violence. Ashcraft - who had been questioned for more than 36 hours, with only one 5-minute break - claimed he was threatened and abused. The United States Supreme Court reversed both convictions.
Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6-2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mob-dominated trials were a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts were furthermore duty-bound to review habeas corpus petitions that raised claims of discrimination in state trials, and to order the release of unfairly convicted defendants if the alleged violations were found to be true.
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960). (Right To Suppress Illegally Collected Evidence Based on violation of the 4th and the exclusionary rule. Prohibits Silver Platter Doctrine.)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Individuals have an implied cause of action against federal government officials who have violated their constitutional rights 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights.)
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920). (Right to Suppress illegally copied tainted cumulative evidence. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine). The term fruit of the poisonous tree was first used in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 307 (1939). In reversing Nardone's convictions, the Court stated that once a defendant has established that evidence was illegally seized, the trial court "must give opportunity, however closely confined, to the accused to prove that a substantial portion of the case against him was a fruit of the poisonous tree." The Nardone opinion established that evidence obtained in violation of a statute was subject to exclusion if it was obtained in violation of a statutory right.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). (4th Right To Privacy) The Court extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals with a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961). (4th Right To Privacy) A federal officer may not, without warrant, physically entrench into a person's office or home to secretly observe or listen and relate at the man's subsequent criminal trial what was seen or heard.
United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). (4th Right To Privacy) Government officials are obligated to obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even when domestic security issues are involved. The "inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept" and the potential for abusing it to quell political dissent make the Fourth Amendment protections especially important when the government engaged in spying on its own citizens.
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999). (4th Right To Privacy) Held that the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizures prohibited the police from bringing members of the news media into private homes while executing search warrants.
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952). (The use at trial of evidence obtained by conduct that "shocks the conscience" violates due process).
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), is a Supreme Court case in which the justices unanimously recognized the entrapment defense. Entrapment is a valid defense; the prosecution must show the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime if it is raised.
Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case on the issue of entrapment. Unanimously, the Court overturned the conviction of a recovering New York drug addict who had been repeatedly solicited for drug sales by a fellow former addict who was working with federal agents.
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992)The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was predisposed to commit a crime prior to any contact with government agents in order to overcome entrapment defense; defendant's prior commission of acts later prohibited that were legal at the time did not establish evidence of predisposition sufficient to overcome entrapment defense where no evidence existed of commission of crimes independent of solicitation to do so by agents.
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with defendants' rights to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement. The court held that where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant (exculpatory evidence) to the defense.[1]:4 The prosecution failed to do so for Brady and he was convicted. Brady challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment."
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) held in a 5–4 decision that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.
Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402, 585 U.S. ____ (2018) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cellphone location records.[1] The Court held, in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by accessing historical records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). (Punishing a person for a medical condition is a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). (Right to Suppress the presentation of verbal evidence and recovered narcotics where they were both fruits of an illegal entry are inadmissible in court.)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects.
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987). (Right To Criticize Law Enforcement.)
Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987). (Right To Criticize The President.)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). (Freedom of the Press when reporting government corruption.)
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violating of free speech under the First Amendment. The government's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol did not outweigh the individual right to disparage that symbol through expressive conduct.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) the Supreme Court struck down a city ordinance that made it a crime to place a burning cross or swastika anywhere “in an attempt to arouse anger or alarm on the basis of race, color, creed, or religion.” The Court’s decision, citing violation of the First Amendment, overturned a cross-burning conviction.
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). (The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining constitutional questions; no person, not even the president of the United States, is completely above the law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial).
Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972). (Right To Protest. Protection from viewpoint and content discrimination)
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965). It held that a state government cannot employ "breach of the peace" statutes against protesters engaging in peaceable demonstrations that may potentially incite violence.
Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966). States may only regulate the use of public facilities in a "reasonably nondiscriminatory manner, equally applicable to all." Maintaining separate library facilities clearly violated this principle. It held that protesters have a First and Fourteenth Amendment right to engage in a peaceful sit-in at a public library.
Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197 (1972). (Freedom to distribute pamphlets).
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977). (Disproportionate and excessive punishment and so is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment.)
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964). The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a movie theater manager from being prosecuted for possessing and showing a film that was not obscene.
Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229 (1972). Sensual poem and photos are entitled to freedom of the press protection as incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court case involving the First Amendment that reaffirmed and clarified the imminent lawless action test first articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Hess is still cited by courts to protect speech threatening future lawless action.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants by the Executive Branch have a right to challenge their detainment under the Due Process Clause. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the Commerce Clause gave the U.S. Congress power to force private businesses to abide by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) freedom to associate with organizations dedicated to the "advancement of beliefs and ideas" is an inseparable part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida Ruling 8-1, the Court vacated and remanded, holding that the existence of probable cause for Lozman’s arrest for disrupting a city council meeting did not bar his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under the circumstances of this case.
Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. was joined by six justices who reversed a trial-court conviction. They decided that Anthony Douglas Elonis had been improperly convicted of transmitting threats through postings on Facebook. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the conviction of an individual who had posted rap lyrics appearing to contain threats against his ex-wife, an FBI agent, and even a kindergarten class on the basis that the government had not established that he had the requisite criminal intent.
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), the Supreme Court held, without the benefit of oral argument, that the First Amendment does not protect true threats. The Court also explained that political hyperbole does not qualify as such a threat. Watts' statement was "political hyperbole". The Court noted, "The language of the political arena is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact." Thus, considering the "context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners," the Court ruled that Watts' statement against the President was not a true threat. The Court agreed with Watts’s counsel’s characterization of Watts’s speech as “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” that did not qualify as a true threat. “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,” the majority wrote.
The Supreme Court in Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380 (1957) unanimously held that a Michigan law violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The law made it illegal to sell printed material thought to be obscene because of its potentially harmful influence on youths.Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 1 L. Ed. 2d 412, 77 S. Ct. 524 (1957) "is to burn the house to roast the pig." American Booksellers Assoc., Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985) (Easterbrook, J.), aff'd., 475 U.S. 1001, 106 S.Ct. 1172, 89 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986). Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) (found that prior restraints on publication violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment). Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Cincinnati v. Contemporary Arts Center 57 Ohio Misc. 2d 9 (Ohio Misc. 1990). Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966). Leidholdt v. L.F.P. Inc., 860 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1988). Jewell v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 23 F. Supp.2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting, 97 Cal. App. 4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53 (U.S. 1988).
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of public concern in a public place, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".
Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of peremptory challenges to remove black jurors during a series of Mississippi criminal trials.
Mayfield v. United States, 504 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (D. Or. 2007) FBI internal review later acknowledged serious errors in their investigation involving wrong fingerprints. Ensuing lawsuits have resulted in a formal apology from the U.S. government and a $2 million settlement.
Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2007). Police officer not entitled to qualified immunity for "swinging a handcuffed man into a wall head-first multiple times and then punching him in the face while he lay face-down on the ground, and breaking his neck as a result."
Elhady v. Kable 2019 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the federal government’s watchlist which includes known or suspected terrorists violates the constitutional rights of American citizens included on it.
U.S. v Weaver and Harris Idaho Fed. District Ct Ruby Ridge. In an out-of-court settlement in August 1995, the federal government awarded Randy Weaver $100,000 and his three daughters $1 million each. Harris was awarded a $380,000 settlement from the government.
Nader v. General Motors Corp. (25 N.Y. 2d 560, 1970). (Set precedent against corporate stalking invasion of privacy).
Lennon v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 561 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).
United States v. Warshak Government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when they compelled his ISP to produce the content of his emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.
The Frank Church Committee was a U.S. Senate select committee in 1975 that investigated abuses by the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service. Regarding COINTELPRO counterintelligence program conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation : "Unsavory, harmful and vicious tactics have been employed—including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths".
McMartin preschool trial (Mass-hysteria involving false allegations of Satanic ritual abuse after six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990.)
Dahne v. Richey (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holding that a Washington state inmate had a First Amendment-based right to use disrespectful language in a prison grievance and that a prison official violated the inmate’s freedom of petition rights when he refused to submit the prisoner’s grievance.
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law, in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled that in a case involving a consent search, knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor in determining whether a grant of consent to a search was voluntary, the state does not need to prove that the person who granted consent to search knew of the right to refuse consent under the Fourth Amendment .
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937) the Supreme Court struck down a Georgia Supreme Court decision that had upheld a conviction under a state criminal syndicalism statute penalizing attempts to incite insurrection or inducing others to do so. The Court held that the state had violated First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that anti-indecency provisionsof the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) State governments must protect First Amendment rights through the Fourteenth Amendment
Talley v. California (1960), McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999), and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton (2002) set precedent on the right to remain anonymous.
The compelled speech doctrine West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), Wooley v. Maynard (1977), and Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006), sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expression. Thus, the First Amendment not only limits the government from punishing a person for his speech, it also prevents the government from punishing a person for refusing to articulate, advocate, or adhere to the government’s approved messages.
The EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co., No. 1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015). They settled for $12.26 million. The EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation against racial minorities nationwide.
Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education investigates violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.2000d et seq.
You may also contact the United States Attorney’s Office in your district or send a written complaint to: Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530
855-856-1247 or (202) [phone redacted].
(202) [phone redacted]. [email redacted]
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Investigations Division
ATTN: OIG Hotline
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Phone: (800) [phone redacted]
Phone: (202) [phone redacted]
Fax: (202) [phone redacted]
Victims’ Rights Ombudsman
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Department of Justice
RFK Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Room 2261
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Toll-Free: (877) [phone redacted]
Phone: (202) [phone redacted]
Fax: (202) [phone redacted]
Email: [email redacted]
Crime Victims Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Equal Justice Initiative
Innocence Project
John W. Whitehead's The Rutherford Institute
Freedom of Mind Resource Center's BITE Model of Cult Mind Control:
I. Behavior Control
II.Information Control
III.Thought Control
IV. Emotional Control
iCivics: Free Lesson Plans and Games for Learning Civics
Avvo
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal, state, and local governments of the United States, or any other government, or any corporation, private enterprise, group, or individual, from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments, in any part of the US, on US property (i.e. a US embassy), or against any US citizen, or any resident of the US.
Exclusionary Rule 403 The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Organizer
FUND AOC
Organizer
Kermit, TX