Visit their website: https://stopmedicaldiscrimination.org/
They have a lot of information, and a Petition to sign to stop forced Experimental Vaccines, and to stop vaccine passports.
“Targeted”: Insider Narrative Shows Flynn “Entrapment” Was Same As “Frame”
The insider narrative explains what happened to General Michael Flynn in detail, and how he was tricked and set-up by Obama administration officials in an entrapment scheme that was the “tip of the spear” against President Trump.
Everything about the pressure used against him and the interview itself scream miscarriage of justice.
General Michael Flynn has gotten a raw deal, many people argue. He pled guilty for ‘lying’ to the FBI, during an interview that was “tantamount” to a frame up, according to an insider narrative that was just filed in federal court.
Mueller’s prosecutors threatened to go after Flynn’s son and his business partner in order to get the cooperation for a ‘guilty’ plea, knowing full well that the case against him was feeble and based on entrapment.
The Washington Times reported on Sidney Powell’s outlining of the events, prior to the sentencing hearing that is scheduled for December:
Sidney Powell wrote this story in a letter to Attorney General William P. Barr in June as she was taking over as defense counsel for the former White House national security adviser.
She immediately accused the government of withholding exculpatory evidence that would show prosecutors violated U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order. Her motions essentially have been attacks on special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russia election trespassing, though Flynn was convicted of lying to FBI agents on another matter.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandon L. Van Grack responded this month with an attack on Ms. Powell’s tactics. He said the government owns no such exculpatory, or “Brady,” material and accused her of advocating “conspiracy theories.”
The drama is set to play out at a hearing next month and sentencing in December. Meantime, Ms. Powell won the judge’s permission to reply to Mr. Van Grack with an extended brief that has been filed but not redacted for public viewing.
In his reply, Mr. Van Grack, a veteran of the Mueller team and thus a Powell target, chose to include an attachment: the June 6 Powell letter to Mr. Barr.
In it, she asked Mr. Barr for an internal case review leading to dismissal. She made seven specific requests, such as removing Mr. Van Grack, who remains in place four months later.
Mr. Mueller’s final report said he failed to establish an election conspiracy between the Kremlin and Trump campaign.
“We believe there will be ample justification for the [Justice] Department to follow the precedent of the Ted Stevens case and move to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn in the interest of justice,” Ms. Powell said.
Judge Sullivan in 2009 threw out the conviction of the former senator from Alaska after discovering the Justice Department had withheld evidence favorable to his defense.
In her letter labeled “confidential,” Ms. Powell made some frank comments about Judge Sullivan, referring to the court hearing that led to a delay in sentencing.
“At the hearing, however, Judge Sullivan launched a tirade, effectively accusing Flynn of working for a foreign power while he was in the White House and committing treason,” Ms. Powell wrote. “Judge Sullivan made clear he intends to send him to prison. Judge Sullivan was completely wrong on the facts of the case, and his rant seems to have come straight from MSNBC comments of the previous night. After a short break in the court proceedings, the Judge returned to the bench and made something of a retraction of his most egregious choice of words. However, severe damage was done. The press ran wild with the treason suggestion unabated for an hour.”
Ms. Powell tried to make the case that the Obama administration targeted Flynn for his running criticisms on the fight against the Islamic State group, the Iran nuclear deal and Hillary Clinton’s handling of Benghazi as secretary of state.
“As more evidence has come to light, it is increasingly apparent that General Flynn was targeted and taken out of the Trump administration for concocted and political purposes,” she said. “We believe there is specific evidence of that fact. He was the tip of the spear aimed at President Trump.”
Flynn’s downfall was abrupt. He conducted several telephone calls with the Russian ambassador during the transition. He urged Russia not to overreact to Obama-imposed sanctions, a response to Moscow’s election interference.
Obama Justice Department officials, briefed on the intercepted calls, began talking up the idea that Flynn violated the never-prosecuted Logan Act of 1799, which forbids private citizens from meddling in foreign affairs.
By the time President Trump took office, the FBI had been investigating his aides for six months to see whether they colluded with the Kremlin. Agent Peter Strzok, who led the probe and expressed a deep dislike of Mr. Trump, went to the White House to interview Flynn. Flynn denied discussing sanctions, setting up his guilty plea to lying.
He pledged to cooperate with the Mueller team. He provided no evidence of a conspiracy despite rampant news media speculation that he had proof against Mr. Trump.
Flynn’s call was leaked to The Washington Post, triggering what would become a battle cry among conservatives: Obama-Clinton loyalists inside a “deep state” were sabotaging the new administration.
Former FBI Director James B. Comey later bragged in public about how he was able to send two agents to the White House without going through the counsel’s office.
“The FBI interview was worse than ‘entrapment,’” Ms. Powell told Mr. Barr. “He was led to believe he was having a casual conversation with friends about a training exercise from a day or two before, when in truth, it was a set-up-tantamount to a ‘frame.’”
Ms. Powell described Flynn’s early back-and-forth in 2017 with the Mueller team.
“The General was forced to sell his home two years ago to fund his legal defense and still needs a legal defense fund,” she said of the 33-year Army officer, who rose to the pinnacle of his military specialty as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
With Flynn under pressure, Mr. Strzok’s biased Trump texts to FBI counsel Lisa Page were about to emerge. Ms. Powell suggested that the Justice Department leaked the news only after it secured Flynn’s guilty plea in December 2017.
“Suddenly, SCO was making extreme threats and placing enormous pressure on General Flynn to enter a guilty plea,” she said. “Sometime after Mueller was notified by the IG of the extremely biased Strzok-Page text messages, Mueller went to [then-Deputy Attorney General Rod] Rosenstein to get authority to target Michael Flynn, Jr. Flynn, Jr., who had a 4-month-old baby, was required to produce his phones and computers. Suddenly, General Flynn was threatened with the public arrest, search of his home, the indictment of his son.”
She said Mr. Van Grack and other Mueller prosecutors “sought every means to put the utmost pressure on him to compel a guilty plea to the point of using threats against his son and manipulated the press to hide the truth in the process.”
Mr. Van Grack told Judge Sullivan this month that none of Ms. Powell’s “Brady” requests had anything to do with Flynn’s lying to FBI agents.
“The defendant predicates much of his request on conspiracy theories, demanding that the government engage in a fishing expedition for documents that could offer support for those theories,” he said. “Irrespective of whether such documents exist, a fact that the government does not concede here, the defendant fails to establish that such information is relevant — let alone favorable and material — in this criminal case.”
Ms. Powell told the judge she wants a letter the British Embassy supposedly delivered to the Obama White House questioning the veracity of Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele is the former British intelligence officer who wrote the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier.
Mr. Van Grack responded: “Not relevant. The government is not aware of information that Christopher Steele provided that is relevant to the defendant’s false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI‘) on January 24, 2017, or to his punishment.”
To another Brady request, he said: “Already provided. The government has already provided any information that could reasonably be construed as favorable and material to sentencing.”
Flynn has fulfilled his cooperation agreement with the Mueller team.
In the end, his case didn’t touch on Russian election interference and he did not implicate any Trump person or the president. He lied in his Jan. 24, 2017, FBI White House interview. He made false statements on his Foreign Agent Registration Act form with the Justice Department concerning work for the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The prosecution has recommended no jail time.
Flynn’s onetime partner Bijan Kian was convicted on lobbying charges by a jury in July in Alexandria, Virginia. But U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga took the unusual step last month of overturning the verdict, citing insufficient evidence.
Ga. Appellate Practice § 12:4Georgia Appellate Practice With Forms
November 2016 Update
Christopher J. McFaddena0, Charles R. Shepparda1, Charles M. Cork IIIa2, George W. K. Snyder, Jr.a3, David A. Webstera4, Kelly A. Jenkinsa5
Chapter 12. Overview of the Appellate Process§ 12:4. Selecting the proper court—Particular types of cases
Before the Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act of 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over 10 categories of cases specified in the Georgia Constitution,(fn1) and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the rest. The limits of each category were interpreted in numerous decisions, many of which are discussed in the remainder of this section, and many of which are obscure or debatable. The Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act will change that allocation of appellate jurisdiction significantly, by shifting several categories of cases over to the Court of Appeals. This transfer will take effect for notices of appeal or applications to appeal that are filed on or after January 1, 2017. (fn2)
The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases calling for the construction of the Georgia Constitution (fn3) and cases in which the constitutionality of a law has been drawn in question. (fn4) This jurisdiction, which the Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act does not alter, expressly extends to cases involving the constitutionality of ordinances. (fn5) Administrative regulations, however, are not laws within the meaning of the Constitution, and thus, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to resolve whether a particular regulation is constitutional.(fn6) In order to invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction a constitutional question must be distinctly raised and ruled on by the trial court,(fn7) but an oral ruling is sufficient. (fn8) The question must also be timely raised; the Supreme Court will transfer cases involving constitutional questions that are untimely raised even if the trial court rules upon them.(fn9) The ruling must address the merits of the constitutional challenge; a ruling that the constitutional challenge was untimely does not confer jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court.(fn10) However, if the trial court also rules on the merits of the challenge as an alternative basis for its judgment, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. (fn11) If a constitutional question is raised and ruled upon below, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction on appeal even if, upon consideration of the entire case, the Supreme Court determines that the case can be properly resolved without deciding the constitutional issue and declines to decide the constitutional issue.(fn12) The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over an appeal raising such constitutional questions even if appellate jurisdiction is based on a non-constitutional ruling, so long as the constitutional question is within the scope of pendent appellate jurisdiction under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(d). (fn13)
Mere mention of a constitutional principle will not bring a case within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. “The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide questions of law that involve the application, in a general sense, of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution.” (fn14) After one challenge to the constitutionality of a statute has been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court, subsequent challenges on the same point are relegated to the Court of Appeals. (fn15) Different constitutional challenges to the same statute will be within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction if the other criteria discussed above are met. (fn16)
The Supreme Court has overruled a line of cases that had interpreted transfers of cases to the Court of Appeals as implied holdings that there is no meritorious constitutional issue in the case.(fn17) For instance, the Court of Appeals may consider whether the evidence in the case should lead to a result different from the case in which the Supreme Court decided the constitutional point. (fn18)
The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases of election contest. (fn19) This jurisdiction, which the Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act does not alter, extends to challenges to candidates for and results of elections. (fn20) It does not extend to other election-related issues, such as the qualifications of a voter.
Title to land.
After January 1, 2017, the Court of Appeals will have jurisdiction over appeals involving title to land. (fn21) Until then, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over these cases. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over cases involving title to land has been described as limited to actions “such as ejectment and statutory substitutes, in which the plaintiff asserts a presently enforceable legal title against the possession of the defendant for the purpose of recovering the land.” (fn22) Other cases have conceived that jurisdiction more broadly so as to include actions to remove encumbrances from title. (fn23) These two understandings of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over cases involving title to land have yet to be reconciled. (fn24) Cases in which the right of possession and not title to land are in dispute are for the Court of Appeals. (fn25) Cases in which the issue on appeal does not involve a dispute over title, though the underlying case is entirely about title, belong in the Court of Appeals. (fn26)
A suit to cancel a deed or to declare it void for lack of valid consideration is not within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. (fn27) Likewise, a suit seeking to set aside a conveyance on grounds of fraud is not within the Supreme Court’s “title to land” jurisdiction. (fn28) A suit for specific performance of a real estate contract is not a suit concerning “title to land.” (fn29) A suit for reformation of a deed is not a case involving title to land. (fn30) An appeal calling for the court to construe a deed belongs in the Court of Appeals if the present title to the property does not turn on that construction. (fn31) Because easements do not affect title to property, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of cases concerning them. (fn32) Boundary-line cases are likewise within the province of the Court of Appeals, notwithstanding that such cases usually involve incidental issues relating to equitable relief. (fn33) In cases involving lis pendens, where the underlying issue is a legal question which does not involve title to land and which can be resolved without resort to equity, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction. (fn34) Appeals involving foreclosure proceedings do not involve title to land. (fn35) The Supreme Court has transferred to the Court of Appeals an appeal of an action seeking to set aside a tax sale. (fn36) Likewise, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over appeals in suits seeking to set aside fraudulent conveyances. (fn37) The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over condemnation cases in which “a recovery of land is not being sought” and the only issue “for determination is the amount of just and adequate compensation that must be paid for that condemned property.” (fn38)
However, partitioning does involve title to land, and appellate jurisdiction in such cases rests in the Supreme Court.(fn39) Appeals on the merits of suits seeking to remove clouds on title belong in the Supreme Court. (fn40) A suit to establish priority among the liens on property, though, lies within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. (fn41)
After January 1, 2017, the Court of Appeals will have jurisdiction over appeals in all equity cases “except those cases concerning proceedings in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed and those cases concerning the execution of a sentence of death.” (fn42) Until then, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over these cases. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction where the issue on appeal involves the legality or propriety of equitable relief. (fn43) If the appeal raises questions about the scope of equitable relief granted below or how the superior court molded the relief, the appeal is within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. (fn44) It has jurisdiction over an injunction that is entered upon the application of equitable principles (fn45) and an action to obtain the equitable relief of virtual adoption. (fn46)
The Supreme Court has drawn a “distinction between an equity case and a case wherein equitable relief was sought.” (fn47) An appeal is not an “equity case” for purposes of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction if the award of injunctive or other equitable relief is or would be merely ancillary to the determination of legal rights, and the only substantive contentions relate to issues of law; in such cases, appellate jurisdiction belongs in the Court of Appeals.(fn48) Similarly, a trial court’s ruling on an equitable issue does not bring a case within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction unless the equitable ruling is appealed.)fn49) Raising an equitable defense in a case otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals does not bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.(fn50) Thus, a claim that the superior court should have exercised equitable discretion not to grant equitable relief that would otherwise follow upon resolution of the underlying legal issue belongs in the Court of Appeals. (fn51)
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has transferred to the Court of Appeals actions for declaratory judgments,(fn52) boundary-line cases,(fn53) actions to enforce non-compete provisions in employment agreements,(fn54) actions by homeowners to enforce restrictive covenants, (fn55) actions to impose an implied or constructive trust on real or personal property,(fn56) actions calling for an interpretation of trust terms,(fn57) actions seeking to enforce equitable subrogation,(fn58) actions to reform deeds or contracts,(fn59) actions to set aside or cancel deeds,(fn60) and actions for specific performance of a real estate contract.(fn61) By a 4-3 vote, the Supreme Court transferred to the Court of Appeals a “dispute involving the imposition of a constructive trust on certain real property” in which it appeared to the Court of Appeals “that all the issues here are equitable in nature.” (fn62) In dissent, three justices have expressed doubt whether any cases at all remain within the Supreme Court’s equity jurisdiction.(fn63)
Cases involving wills.
After January 1, 2017, the Court of Appeals will have jurisdiction over appeals involving wills. (fn64) Until then, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over these cases. The Supreme Court has narrowly construed the constitutional provision assigning it jurisdiction of “all cases involving wills.” (fn65) That provision refers only to “those cases in which the will’s validity or meaning is in question.” (fn66) An appeal from the dismissal of a caveat to a will on grounds that it was untimely does not come within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. (fn67) Cases involving the appointment of an executor belong in the Court of Appeals. (fn68) The Supreme Court has transferred a case to the Court of Appeals involving the characterization of assets of the estate as coming within the meaning of a term of the will, even though that characterization would necessarily involve deciding the meaning of the term as an ancillary matter. (fn69)
After January 1, 2017, the Court of Appeals will have jurisdiction over appeals in all cases involving extraordinary remedies “except those cases concerning proceedings in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed and those cases concerning the execution of a sentence of death.” (fn70) Until then, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over these cases. Cases involving the grant or denial of writs of mandamus or prohibition differ from other topics under the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisdiction in that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over such cases without regard to the underlying subject matter or the legal issues raised. (fn71) However, where the plaintiff has sought relief in addition to mandamus relief, and the appeal relates only to the non-mandamus relief, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the appeal. (fn72) If the extraordinary remedy sought is not an appropriate remedy in the case, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction on that basis. (fn73) If the ruling alleged to be a denial of mandamus relief is more properly characterized as a denial of a motion in a criminal case, jurisdiction lies in the Court of Appeals.)fn74)
Divorce and alimony cases.
After January 1, 2017, the Court of Appeals will have jurisdiction over appeals involving divorce and alimony cases. (fn75) Until then, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over these cases. The provision assigning “all divorce and alimony cases” to the Supreme Court (fn76) uses different, narrower language than the provision that subjects all “domestic relations cases” to the discretionary appeal procedure. (fn77) The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over all domestic relations cases other than “divorce and alimony” cases. (fn78) Most notably, appeals involving child custody are to the Court of Appeals unless the appeal also involves a judgment for divorce and alimony. (fn79) The same is true of child support appeals: they belong in the Supreme Court if they arise in the context of a divorce or alimony case, but the appeal goes to the Court of Appeals otherwise. (fn80) Appeals in modification cases will go to the Supreme Court if the original award was a “divorce or alimony” case. (fn81) Suits to domesticate a foreign divorce decree or to enforce child support provisions in foreign divorce decrees, even by contempt, are deemed suits on foreign judgments, not divorce or alimony cases within the meaning of the Constitution, and jurisdiction of such appeals is in the Court of Appeals. (fn82) Jurisdiction over appeals from orders under the Family Violence Act lies in the Court of Appeals. (fn83)
In cases where a complaint for divorce is combined with a tort, contract or other claim, if an interlocutory appeal “involves only a contract or tort claim or any matter other than divorce or alimony, then the appeal does not constitute a divorce or alimony case within the meaning of our state constitution” and appellate jurisdiction is in the Court of Appeals. (fn84) Contempt actions that are ancillary to the underlying divorce action and that involve issues other than custody fall within the divorce and alimony jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (fn85) Resolution of property disputes between divorced spouses that were unresolved in an earlier divorce suit is not within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. (fn86)
Where murder and other charges are brought in a single indictment, but severed for trial, they remain severed on appeal. In such a case, jurisdiction over convictions on the murder charge is in the Supreme Court, and jurisdiction over convictions on the other charges is in the Court of Appeals.(fn87) On the other hand, where murder and other charges are to be tried together jurisdiction over a pre-conviction appeal is in the Supreme Court. (fn88) Where murder and other charges have been tried together an appeal relating only to the non-murder charges will be in the Supreme Court if the murder count remains pending in the court below. (fn89)
a0Judge, Georgia Court of Appeals. Member of the Atlanta and DeKalb Bars.
a1Member of the Augusta Bar.
a2Member of the Macon Bar Association.
a3Judicial Staff Attorney. Member of the DeKalb Bar.
a4Member, State Bar of Georgia.
a5Assistant District Attorney, Middle Judicial District.
1 Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, § VI, ¶¶II, III.
2 Williford v. Brown, 299 Ga. 15, 785 S.E.2d 864 (2016).
3 State Dept. of Corrections v. Developers Sur. and Indemn. Co., 295 Ga. 741, 763 S.E.2d 868 (2014).
4 Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, § VI, ¶II.
5 Willis v. City of Atlanta, 285 Ga. 775, 684 S.E.2d 271 (2009).
6 Georgia Dept. of Community Health v. Northside Hosp., Inc., 324 Ga. App. 326, 750 S.E.2d 401 (2013), judgment rev’d on other grounds, 295 Ga. 446, 761 S.E.2d 74 (2014). Contrast State v. International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc., 788 S.E.2d 455 (Ga. 2016) (Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to denial of a permit for roadway sign under agency regulations).
7 Jones v. State, 292 Ga. 656, 740 S.E.2d 590 (2013); Kendrick v. State, 335 Ga. App. 766, 782 S.E.2d 842 (2016); Dailey v. Abdul-Samed, 319 Ga. App. 380, 736 S.E.2d 142 (2012).
8 Jenkins v. State, 284 Ga. 642 (1), 670 S.E.2d 425 (2008).
9 Brinkley v. State, 291 Ga. 195, 728 S.E.2d 598 (2012); Barrow v. Mikell, 331 Ga. App. 547, 771 S.E.2d 211 (2015), rev’d on other grounds, 298 Ga. 429, 782 S.E.2d 439 (2016).
10 Rooney v. State, 287 Ga. 1, 690 S.E.2d 804 (2010).
11 Rooney v. State, 287 Ga. 1, 690 S.E.2d 804 (2010).
12 Harrison v. Wigington, 269 Ga. 388, 497 S.E.2d 568 (1998).
13 Malloy v. State, 293 Ga. 350, 744 S.E.2d 778 (2013).
14 Pollard v. State, 229 Ga. 698, 194 S.E.2d 107 (1972); Kroupa v. Cobb County, 262 Ga. 451, 421 S.E.2d 283 (1992).For a case in which the Supreme Court held that Court of Appeals overstepped that authority, see City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, 284 Ga. 434, 668 S.E.2d 247 (2008). For a commentary criticizing both the substance and the tone of City of Decatur see Kenneth A. Hindman, Supreme Court Muddles Rules for Exclusive Constitutional Jurisdiction: A Comment on City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, The Appellate Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, Winter 2008, available at http://www.gabar.org/sections/section_web_pages/appellate_practice_section/section_newsletters/.
15 Williams v. State, 273 Ga. 848, 546 S.E.2d 522 (2001). Although the transfer of an appeal by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals is not a rejection on the merits of a constitutional question, it is often “a final determination that no constitutional question was in fact properly raised.” Nahid v. State, 276 Ga. App. 687, 624 S.E.2d 264 (2005); Hughes v. State, 266 Ga. App. 652, 598 S.E.2d 43 (2004); Schmidt v. Feldman, 230 Ga. App. 500, 497 S.E.2d 23 (1998).
16 Zarate-Martinez v. Echemendia, 788 S.E.2d 405 (Ga. 2016).
17 Atlanta Independent School System v. Lane, 266 Ga. 657, 469 S.E.2d 22, 108 Ed. Law Rep. 1297 (1996). But see Braden v. Bell, 222 Ga. App. 144, 473 S.E.2d 523 (1996), as to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over constitutional questions and as to the practical effect of the Atlanta Independent ruling. Notwithstanding the Atlanta Independent ruling, the net effect of these transfers is very often that the only written appellate opinion as to a constitutional issue is from a court whose only authority is to reject the argument. See Braden v. Bell, 222 Ga. App. 144, 473 S.E.2d 523 (1996) (Beasley, C.J., concurring).
18 Head v. State, 303 Ga. App. 475, 693 S.E.2d 845 (2010).
19 Ga. Const. Art. VI, § VI, ¶II.
20 Cook v. Board of Registrars of Randolph County, 291 Ga. 67, 727 S.E.2d 478 (2012).
21 O.C.G.A. § 15-3-3.1(a)(1).
22 Graham v. Tallent, 235 Ga. 47, 218 S.E.2d 799 (1975) (surveying cases excluded and included within the “title to land” provision and providing the focus on ejectment-like actions); Navy Federal Credit Union v. McCrea, 337 Ga. App. 103, 786 S.E.2d 707 (2016); Cole v. Cole, 205 Ga. App. 332, 422 S.E.2d 230 (1992).
23 Hunstein v. Fiksman, 279 Ga. 559, 615 S.E.2d 526 (2005) (action to invalidate liens on property); Tharp v. Harpagon Co., 278 Ga. 654, 604 S.E.2d 156 (2004) (action to remove cloud from title).
24 In Stearns Bank, N.A. v. Dozetos, 328 Ga. App. 106, 761 S.E.2d 520 (2014), the Supreme Court transferred to the Court of Appeals the appeal of a case in which the plaintiff sought to invalidate an encumbrance on land, pursuant to the standard established Graham v. Tallent, 235 Ga. 47, 218 S.E.2d 799 (1975), but not apparently addressing its own rulings in Hunstein v. Fiksman, 279 Ga. 559, 615 S.E.2d 526 (2005), and Tharp v. Harpagon Co., 278 Ga. 654, 604 S.E.2d 156 (2004).
25 Jordan v. Atlanta Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc., 251 Ga. 37, 302 S.E.2d 568 (1983) (appeal of a dispossessory proceeding filed after a foreclosure under a deed to secure to debt); Hall v. Hall, 303 Ga. App. 434, 693 S.E.2d 624 (2010) (distinguishing ejectment actions and dispossessories).
26 Boyd v. JohnGalt Holdings, LLC, 290 Ga. 658, 724 S.E.2d 395 (2012) (appeal from an order dismissing an appeal of title-related claims is not an appeal in which title is in dispute); DOCO Credit Union v. Chambers, 330 Ga. App. 633, 768 S.E.2d 808 (2015) (appeal deciding whether a quiet title action should be abated or dismissed for failure to state a claim, rather than title to land itself, belongs in the Court of Appeals).
27 Slaick v. Arnold, 307 Ga. App. 410, 705 S.E.2d 206 (2010); McCall v. Williams, 326 Ga. App. 99, 756 S.E.2d 217 (2014).
28 Holloway v. U.S. Bank Trust Nat. Ass’n, 317 Ga. App. 452, 731 S.E.2d 763 (2012).
29 Decision One Mortg. Co., LLC v. Victor Warren Properties, Inc., 304 Ga. App. 423, 696 S.E.2d 145 (2010).
30 Kim v. First Intercontinental Bank, 326 Ga. App. 424, 756 S.E.2d 655 (2014).
31 Wilkes v. Fraser, 324 Ga. App. 642, 751 S.E.2d 455 (2013).
32 Lovell v. Rea, 278 Ga. App. 740, 629 S.E.2d 459 (2006); Krystal Co. v. Carter, 256 Ga. 43, 343 S.E.2d 490 (1986); Roberts v. Roberts, 206 Ga. App. 423, 425 S.E.2d 414 (1992); Davis v. Foreman, 311 Ga. App. 775, 717 S.E.2d 295 (2011); Sermons v. Agasarkisian, 323 Ga. App. 642, 746 S.E.2d 596 (2013).
33 Beauchamp v. Knight, 261 Ga. 608, 409 S.E.2d 208 (1991); Hall v. Christian Church of Georgia, Inc., 280 Ga. App. 721, 634 S.E.2d 793 (2006); Fendley v. Weaver, 121 Ga. App. 526, 174 S.E.2d 369 (1970).
34 Everchanged, Inc. v. Young, 273 Ga. 474, 542 S.E.2d 505 (2001).
35 Graham v. Tallent, 235 Ga. 47, 218 S.E.2d 799 (1975); Arrington v. Reynolds, 274 Ga. 114, 549 S.E.2d 401 (2001).
36 Edwards v. Heartwood 11, Inc., 264 Ga. App. 354, 355, 590 S.E.2d 734, 736 (2003).
37 Kent v. White, 279 Ga. App. 563, 631 S.E.2d 782 (2006).
38 Georgia Dept. of Transp. v. Meadow Trace, Inc., 278 Ga. 423, 424, 603 S.E.2d 257, 258 (2004).
39 Wallace v. Wallace, 260 Ga. 400, 396 S.E.2d 208 (1990).This applies to both statutory and equitable partition actions. Ononye v. Ezeofor, 287 Ga. 201, 695 S.E.2d 234 (2010); Contrast Davis v. Davis, 287 Ga. 897, 700 S.E.2d 404 (2010) (appeal of partitioning of personal property is not within the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction).
40 Hunstein v. Fiksman, 279 Ga. 559, 615 S.E.2d 526 (2005); Tharp v. Harpagon Co., 278 Ga. 654, 604 S.E.2d 156 (2004). But see Stearns Bank, N.A. v. Dozetos, 328 Ga. App. 106, 761 S.E.2d 520 (2014), in which the Supreme Court transferred such a case to the Court of Appeals, taking a narrower view of its jurisdiction over title to land.
41 915 Indian Trail, LLC v. State Bank and Trust Co., 328 Ga. App. 524, 759 S.E.2d 654 (2014).
42 O.C.G.A. § 15-3-3.1(a)(2).
43 Williford v. Brown, 299 Ga. 15, 785 S.E.2d 864 (2016) (availability of novel equitable relief); Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless, Inc. v. Ichthus Community Trust, 298 Ga. 221, 780 S.E.2d 311 (2015) (lifting stay against dispossessory action); Abel & Sons Concrete, LLC v. Juhnke, 295 Ga. 150, 757 S.E.2d 869 (2014) (appeal of injunctive relief based on procedural impropriety in granting it without notice); Alstep, Inc. v. State Bank and Trust Co., 293 Ga. 311, 745 S.E.2d 613 (2013) (challenge to propriety of appointing a receiver); Kemp v. Neal, 288 Ga. 324, 704 S.E.2d 175 (2010); Lamar County v. E.T. Carlyle Co., 277 Ga. 690, 594 S.E.2d 335 (2004).
44 Danforth v. Apple Inc., 294 Ga. 890, 757 S.E.2d 96 (2014); Kemp v. Neal, 288 Ga. 324, 704 S.E.2d 175 (2010).
45 Tunison v. Harper, 286 Ga. 687, 690 S.E.2d 819 (2010).
46 Morgan v. Howard, 285 Ga. 512, 678 S.E.2d 882 (2009).
47 Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis and Medical Clinic, Inc., 267 Ga. 177, 179, 476 S.E.2d 587 (1996). The purpose of the distinction is to narrow the Supreme Court’s equitable jurisdiction without narrowing the range of cases directly appealable pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(a)(4). See §§ 12:6 to 12:7 infra.
48 Kemp v. Neal, 288 Ga. 324, 704 S.E.2d 175 (2010), finding jurisdiction in the Supreme Court—by a vote of 4-to-3, over vigorous dissent – because determination of “precisely how the trial court should have molded the equitable relief … does not flow directly or automatically from the legal conclusion that [Appellants were entitled to relief]. Review of that equitable issue would require examination of the trial court’s exercise of discretion and depends upon equitable considerations.” See also Sentinel Offender SVCS., LLC v. Glover, 296 Ga. 315, 766 S.E.2d 456 (2014) (finding jurisdiction when permanent injunction “was not a ‘matter of routine once the underlying issues of law were resolved’”); Durham v. Durham, 291 Ga. 231, 728 S.E.2d 627 (2012); Trotman v. Velociteach Project Management, LLC, 311 Ga. App. 208, 715 S.E.2d 449 (2011); Reeves v. Newman, 287 Ga. 317, 695 S.E.2d 626 (2010); Pittman v. Harbin Clinic Professional Ass’n, 263 Ga. 66, 428 S.E.2d 328 (1993); Krystal Co. v. Carter, 256 Ga. 43, 343 S.E.2d 490 (1986); Beauchamp v. Knight, 261 Ga. 608, 409 S.E.2d 208 (1991). Cf. Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Heinemann, 268 Ga. 755, 493 S.E.2d 132 (1997) (acknowledging “that the meaning of equity jurisdiction remains subject to confusion and frustration”). See further Johns v. Morgan, 281 Ga. 51, 635 S.E.2d 753 (2006). But see Sparks v. Jackson, 289 Ga. App. 840, 658 S.E.2d 456 (2008) (arguing that transfer from the Supreme Court eliminated issue of whether proceeds were divided equitably).
49 Clay v. Department of Transp., 198 Ga. App. 155, 400 S.E.2d 684 (1990). See also Strickland v. McElreath, 308 Ga. App. 627, 708 S.E.2d 580 (2011) (Smith, J., concurring) (observing seeming inconsistency in Supreme Court’s transfer of case to the Court of Appeals where the issue on appeal required characterizing the case as equitable for purposes of special venue provision).
50 Capitol Fish Co. v. Tanner, 192 Ga. App. 251, 384 S.E.2d 394 (1989).
51 Decision One Mortg. Co., LLC v. Victor Warren Props., Inc., 304 Ga. App. 423, 696 S.E.2d 145 (2010).
52 Wilkes v. Fraser, 324 Ga. App. 642, 751 S.E.2d 455 (2013).
53 Beauchamp v. Knight, 261 Ga. 608, 409 S.E.2d 208 (1991).
54 Pittman v. Harbin Clinic Professional Ass’n, 263 Ga. 66, 428 S.E.2d 328 (1993); Drawdy CPA Services, P.C. v. North GA CPA Services, P.C., 320 Ga. App. 759, 740 S.E.2d 712 (2013).
55 Redfearn v. Huntcliff Homes Ass’n, Inc., 271 Ga. 745, 524 S.E.2d 464 (1999).
56 Davis v. Davis, 287 Ga. 897, 700 S.E.2d 404 (2010); Reeves v. Newman, 287 Ga. 317, 695 S.E.2d 626 (2010).
57 Durham v. Durham, 291 Ga. 231, 728 S.E.2d 627 (2012); Rose v. Waldrip, 316 Ga. App. 812, 730 S.E.2d 529 (2012).
58 Kim v. First Intercontinental Bank, 326 Ga. App. 424, 756 S.E.2d 655 (2014).
59 Kim v. First Intercontinental Bank, 326 Ga. App. 424, 756 S.E.2d 655 (2014); First Chatham Bank v. Liberty Capital, LLC, 325 Ga. App. 821, 755 S.E.2d 219 (2014).
60 McCall v. Williams, 326 Ga. App. 99, 756 S.E.2d 217 (2014).
61 Decision One Mortg. Co., LLC v. Victor Warren Properties, Inc., 304 Ga. App. 423, 696 S.E.2d 145 (2010); Lee v. Green Land Co., Inc., 272 Ga. 107, 527 S.E.2d 204 (2000).
62 Troutman v. Troutman, 297 Ga. App. 62, n.1, 676 S.E.2d 787 (2009).
63 Lee v. Green Land Co., Inc., 272 Ga. 107, 527 S.E.2d 204 (2000) (Carley, J., dissenting, joined by Hunstein J.; Thompson, J., dissenting, joined by Hunstein, J.); Redfearn v. Huntcliff Homes Ass’n, Inc., 271 Ga. 745, 524 S.E.2d 464 (1999) (Carley, J., dissenting, joined by Hunstein, J.). But see Agan v. State, 272 Ga. 540, 533 S.E.2d 60 (2000), in which the majority did not address jurisdiction but appears to have exercised equitable jurisdiction and two justices dissented on the basis that jurisdiction was properly in the Court of Appeals.
64 O.C.G.A. § 15-3-3.1(a)(3).
65 Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, § VI, ¶III(3).
66 In re Estate of Lott, 251 Ga. 461, 306 S.E.2d 920 (1983).
67 In re Estate of Loyd, 328 Ga. App. 287, 761 S.E.2d 833 (2014).
68 In re Estate of Farkas, 325 Ga. App. 477, 753 S.E.2d 137 (2013).
69 Simmons v. England, 323 Ga. App. 251, 746 S.E.2d 862 (2013), judgment aff’d, 295 Ga. 1, 757 S.E.2d 111 (2014).
70 O.C.G.A. § 15-3-3.1(a)(4).
71 Goddard v. City of Albany, 285 Ga. 882, 684 S.E.2d 635 (2009); Mid Georgia Environmental Management Group, L.L.L.P. v. Meriwether County, 277 Ga. 670, 594 S.E.2d 344 (2004); Griffin v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 604 S.E.2d 155 (2004); Bynum v. State, 289 Ga. App. 636, 658 S.E.2d 196 (2008).But see more recent cases holding that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction when the claim for an extraordinary remedy is disposed of without reaching the merits. Liberty County School Dist. v. Halliburton, 328 Ga. App. 422, 762 S.E.2d 138, 307 Ed. Law Rep. 1135 (2014) (claim dismissed because of immunity, without the grant or denial of mandamus); City of Stockbridge v. Stuart, 329 Ga. App. 323, 765 S.E.2d 16 (2014) (denial of mandamus as moot).
72 City of Tybee Island, Georgia v. Live Oak Group, LLC, 324 Ga. App. 476, 751 S.E.2d 123 (2013).
73 Richardson v. Phillips, 285 Ga. 385, 386, 677 S.E.2d 117, 118 (2009) (action seeking the remedy of quo warranto).
74 MacBeth v. State, 304 Ga. App. 466, 696 S.E.2d 435 (2010).
75 O.C.G.A. § 15-3-3.1(a)(5).
76 Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, § VI, ¶III(6).
77 O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(a)(2).
78 Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 263 Ga. 498, 499, 435 S.E.2d 914 (1993).
79 Ashburn v. Baker, 256 Ga. 507, 350 S.E.2d 437 (1986); Higdon v. Higdon, 321 Ga. App. 260, 739 S.E.2d 498 (2013). At one time, jurisdiction of child custody cases was in the Supreme Court pursuant to its jurisdiction of habeas corpus cases; the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction over child custody cases, as such, because child custody cases can no longer be brought as habeas cases. Munday v. Munday, 243 Ga. 863, 257 S.E.2d 282 (1979).
80 Parker v. Parker, 293 Ga. 300, 745 S.E.2d 605 (2013).
81 Spurlock v. Department of Human Resources, 286 Ga. 512, 690 S.E.2d 378 (2010); Williamson v. Williamson, 293 Ga. 721, 748 S.E.2d 679 (2013).
82 Davis v. Davis, 287 Ga. 897, 700 S.E.2d 404 (2010); Lewis v. Robinson, 254 Ga. 378, 329 S.E.2d 498 (1985).
83 Schmidt v. Schmidt, 270 Ga. 461, 510 S.E.2d 810 (1999).
84 Walker v. Estate of Mays, 279 Ga. 652, 619 S.E.2d 679 (2005) (action by former wife and children against estate for decedent’s failure to maintain life insurance policy as required by divorce decree, held to be a “domestic relations case [ ]” and therefore subject to the discretionary appeal procedure, but not a “divorce or alimony case” and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, rather than the Supreme Court); Gates v. Gates, 277 Ga. 175, 176, 587 S.E.2d 32, 33–34 (2003) (appeal involving immunity from tort claim); Rutter v. Rutter, 316 Ga. App. 894, 730 S.E.2d 626 (2012), rev’d on other grounds, 294 Ga. 1 (2013); (appeal involving suppression of evidence); Lacy v. Lacy, 320 Ga. App. 739, 740 S.E.2d 695 (2013) (appeal involving rulings on custody and recusal); Stearns Bank, N.A. v. Mullins, 333 Ga. App. 369, 776 S.E.2d 485 (2015) (setting aside a security deed, regardless of contempt of divorce decree); Robertson v. Robertson, 333 Ga. App. 864, 778 S.E.2d 6 (2015) (setting aside a transfer pursuant to a divorce).
85 Horn v. Shepherd, 292 Ga. 14, 732 S.E.2d 427 (2012); Morris v. Surges, 284 Ga. 748, 750, 670 S.E.2d 84, 86 (2008); Griffin v. Griffin, 243 Ga. 149, 253 S.E.2d 80 (1979).
86 Davis v. Davis, 287 Ga. 897, 700 S.E.2d 404 (2010).
87 Cain v. State, 277 Ga. 309, 588 S.E.2d 707 (2003).
88 Sanders v. State, 280 Ga. 780, 631 S.E.2d 344, 345 (2006).89Langlands v. State, 280 Ga. 799, 633 S.E.2d 537 (2006) (The trial court had granted a new trial as to the murder charges, but not the other charges).
§ 12:4.Selecting the proper court—Particular types of cases, Ga. Appellate Practice § 12:4
(NaturalNews) Obama’s war on humanity just took another great leap toward totalitarian despotism with last week’s DEA decision to deny petitions seeking to reclassify medical marijuana as a non-schedule I drug. This decision means that any person possessing natural CBD (cannabidiol) compounds derived from hemp leaves, including CBG, CBN, CBD-A and other similar molecules from cannabis, can technically be charged with felony possession of a schedule I drug.
The CBD industry vehemently disagrees with the DEA’s current stance on both CBD and medical marijuana, and so far the DEA’s efforts have focused on CBD manufacturers, not end users who possess the natural substance. CBD is also reportedly exempt from the DEA’s criminalization scope if it is derived from hemp seeds or mature stalks rather than leaves. This is a key point to understand, as you’ll see here.
It’s also key to understand that the DEA’s assertion that CBD is a Schedule I Controlled Substance has already been successfully challenged at least once. Via New Cannabis Ventures:
[T]he DEA has taken the position that CBD is a Schedule I Controlled Substance as defined under the CSA. Without an express provision under the CSA, it is questionable whether the DEA has any sort of authority to take this position. But more importantly, in the case of Hemp Indus. Ass’n v. DEA, 333 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2003), the DEA attempted to initiate rules and interpretations concerning certain cannabinoid constituents of marijuana that were not expressly set forth under the CSA or the DEA’s own regulations (at the time), and the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals struck down its efforts, stating that: “[t]he petition requesting that we declare the rule to be invalid and unenforceable is GRANTED.” Hemp Indus. Ass’n v. DEA, 333 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). In short, an agency – such as the DEA – is not permitted to change a legislative rule retroactively through the process of disingenuous interpretation of the rule to mean something other than its original meaning.
This does not mean, however, that the DEA won’t assert imagined authority to attempt to criminalize makers of CBD products which are derived from cannabis.
The DEA’s decision to maintain the Schedule I listing of medical marijuana (and its constituents) is rooted in a combination of sheer scientific lunacy and a totalitarian police state Obama regime that doesn’t want people to have access to natural medicinal substances which work better than Big Pharma’s toxic drugs.
The logic used to justify the denial of the petitions is just mind boggling. If you care to wade through the ridiculous, contorted reasoning of the criminal government cartel that’s protecting Big Pharma’s interests, click here for the federal register reply.
It states, among other absurd reasons, that medical marijuana cannot be accepted as therapeutic because:
• It has no therapeutic use whatsoever. (A ridiculous lie.)
• Its chemical constituents are never quite the same. (Because it’s from a plant, not a synthetic chemical factory.)
• All the “experts” don’t accept it as a useful drug… because all the “experts” are Big Pharma whores, of course. By definition, the FDA only considers people to be “experts” when they are owned by Big Pharma. From the federal register document: “The HHS indicated that medical practitioners who are not experts in evaluating drugs cannot be considered qualified experts…” In other words, all holistic medicine experts and naturopathic doctors are disqualified from rendering expert opinions on medical cannabis.
• All the clinical evidence of marijuana’s efficacy doesn’t count, according to HHS and the FDA, because they don’t like the way the studies were structured. From the federal register document, “FDA and HHS concluded that these studies do not ‘currently prove efficacy of marijuana’ for any therapeutic indication due to limitations in the study designs.” This dismissal of studies is how the FDA rigs everything. It simply rejects all the science it doesn’t like by claiming the studies are flawed.
• State laws that validate medical marijuana’s efficacy in treating many health conditions are all rejected by the corrupt federal government cartel which claims: “HHS pointed out that state-level ‘medical marijuana; laws do not provide evidence of such a consensus among qualified experts. ”
• Cannabis can’t even be studied for any effectiveness in treating disease, according to government. “The HHS concluded that the currently available data and information on marijuana is not sufficient to allow scientific scrutiny of the chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and effectiveness.”
In other words, THE GAME IS RIGGED!
As is now obvious to everyone, the federal government is a criminal cartel. It’s run by criminals, enforced at gunpoint and structured to protect the interests of Big Business while crushing liberty, knowledge and freedom of the People. (As a bonus, Obama also deliberately incites race wars across America’s inner cities to spark chaos and hatred that’s exploited by opportunistic politicians.)
Marijuana poses an enormous threat to Big Pharma precisely because it is therapeutic against so many health conditions. Not only can medical marijuana help treat certain symptoms related to cancer, but its extracts such as CBD are extremely useful for treating epilepsy, seizures and various neurological disorders. The evidence is not only clear on this point, it is overwhelming!
Yet the DEA continues to ridiculously define CBD as a Schedule I Controlled Substance, even though CBD has no psychoactive components and cannot be “abused” like recreational drugs. The DEA’s refusal to reschedule CBD to a non-controlled substance is nothing short of a quack science racket to protect a criminal cartel that’s run by the government itself.
The DEA, in other words, is the gunpoint enforcement branch of Big Pharma.
What’s the solution? Congress needs to act. “The perhaps-legitimate confusion and concern expressed by these federal and state agencies about CBD can largely be cured by an act of Congress,” writes New Cannabis Ventures. “And the solution is the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2015, which amends the CSA to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of ‘marihuana.'” (http://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/134)
The DEA’s current statement that “Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” is a deliberate catch-22. The kicker here is the “currently accepted” qualifier on the claim. Accepted by whom? By the government itself, of course, which automatically disqualifies all evidence of the therapeutic benefits of medical marijuana (and its constituents) precisely because the so-called “experts” are all Big Pharma monopolists.
Under this government regime, there will never be any accepted therapeutic use of medical marijuana because the gatekeepers who decide on such matters are all on the payroll of the drug companies. Like everything else in government today, the racket to deny access to medical marijuana is nothing but a monopolistic criminal cartel that enforces its pharma monopolies at gunpoint, threatening, arresting and incarcerating anyone who attempts to bring natural medicine to the world.
As a striking example of the kind of medical tyranny now being brought upon those who try to sell therapeutic CBD oil, the DEA conducted armed raids on a California CBD manufacturer in June. Via MedicalJane.com:
While federal agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration looked on, police officers in Santa Rosa, California coordinated raids on a half-dozen properties associated with a local cannabis oil producer on Wednesday morning, prompting an immediate outcry from the cannabis community statewide…
One of the organization’s founding patient members was arrested and charged with felony for manufacturing a controlled substance by chemical extraction (a law created for meth labs); and is being held on a $5-million-dollar bond in Sonoma County jail.
The obvious upshot of all this is that the DEA, FDA and HHS are all branches of a massive criminal cartel that has occupied the federal government at the highest levels. This criminal cartel protects the monopolies of corporate giants who bribe lawmakers and politicians on a routine basis. And now, one of the worst criminals in U.S. history is being heavily promoted by democrats to attain the White House: Hillary Clinton. If you believe in decriminalizing medical marijuana, don’t vote for Clinton! She’s the most treasonous criminal corporate sellout ever to seek the office of the presidency.
In order to maintain this criminal racket, every branch of government criminalizes natural medicine in order to incarcerate those who attempt to commercialize and distribute it. The bigger goal in all this is to keep people sick, financially destitute and dependent on a failed health care system that generates hundreds of billions of dollars each year for pharmaceutical interests while destroying liberty, natural medicine and public health.
Plus, the cancer industry is a multi-billion-dollar medical scam that would be economically gutted if medical marijuana were widely available for cancer patients.
Ponder that last statement for a minute and realize that in order to protect the financial interests of Big Pharma, this corrupt government regime known as the Obama administration (and the Bush regime before that) is willing to criminalize natural medicine, imprison medical marijuana manufacturers and deprive millions of Americans access to real, therapeutic relief from serious medical conditions and symptoms. This is all being deliberately done to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical drug cartels that function as medical monopolies thanks to FDA gunpoint enforcement.
All you people who are “anti-gun” should seriously rethink your position, by the way. If anybody needs to be stripped of the right to own guns, it’s government regulators. Yet gun control laws seek to concentrate all guns in the hands of the government… the very group now using guns to intimidate and terrorize natural medicine producers across America. The whole point of so-called “gun control” is to disarm the public and grant the government a firearms monopoly, after which absolute tyranny would immediately ensue.
You are living in a medical police state, dear readers. And the federal government as it operates today is absolutely no different from a Mexican drug cartel… complete with all the medical kidnappings, gunpoint enforcement, imprisoning of political enemies and all the rest. Wake up and smell the bulls–t being fed to you by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and CNN.
This entire war on hemp emerges from the fact that medical marijuana is so powerful and effective that is poses a very real threat to the long-term profits of the pharmaceutical industry.
If marijuana didn’t work — as HHS and DEA ridiculously claim — it would be no threat at all, and there would be no concerted effort to block its commercialization and legalization.
The very fact that the feds are pushing so hard to criminalize this substance is all the proof you need that IT REALLY WORKS.
Remember: The federal government lies about everything. Unemployment statistics are a lie. Campaign promises are a lie. The fiat currency money supply is a lie. Obama’s ransom payment to Iran is being covered up with lies. The FDA’s “approval” of pharmaceuticals is all based on medical lies and scientific quackery. The CDC’s vaccine “science” is a lie. The EPA’s climate change narrative is a massive lie. There isn’t anything the federal government says that isn’t either an outright lie or a deception of some sort.
The only way to counter all this is to end the federal government regime that now imprisons us all and denies us the freedom to access natural medicine. Our best shot at this right now is to elect Donald Trump and hope they don’t execute him before he can gut the regime. (He’s gonna need our help, however. Get ready, “Second Amendment people” as Trump jokes…) In the long run, however, the only real pathway to freedom for humanity is going to be the global collapse of criminal government cartels, to be replaced by some other system altogether.
“As it stands, the only hope for a less restrictive national marijuana policy is for the DEA and FDA to come to terms on whether cannabis is medicine or for Congressional leaders and the President of the United States to stop pussyfooting around and pass legislation that liberates the leaf once and for all,” reports High Times.
Sources for this article include:
THE LARGEST MASS SHOOTING IN US HISTORY HAPPENED December 29, 1890. When 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota were murdered by federal agents & members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
The Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.
History just keeps repeating and repeating itself!!!
Recent mass shootings, and of course, with perfect timing with Democrats wanting to take away our arms. We should learn from our history.
Live to Learn – Learn to Live
About the author: Scott Bernstein is the CEO of Global Security International LLC headquartered in NYC. He has extensive experience as an Counter terrorist Consultant, International Apprehension Operative, Human & Sex Trafficking Expert and a Military and Law Enforcement Trainer. He is available as a Consultant and as a Speaker. In addition to his LinkedIn profile, you can also interact with Scott on his LinkedIn group http://bit.ly/1LMp2hj.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The Trumpster is right: Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s ‘mind is shot’ because she was brain damaged by chemotherapy in 2009… (and hasn’t been able to think straight since)
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
(NaturalNews) Three days ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg went on a discombobulated verbal rampage against Donald Trump, calling him a “faker” and claiming that if he were elected president, “then everything is up for grabs.”
She then went on to declare that everybody should “move to New Zealand” where, apparently, they can all wear their liberal tin foil hats together while America finally builds a wall to keep them all out.
But what almost nobody seems to remember about all this is that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was brain damaged by chemotherapy in 2009. As this NY Daily News story explains, she underwent chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer that year.
Chemotherapy is a systemic poison that damages the brains, kidneys and hearts of those who undergo the procedure. As oncologists well know, chemotherapy causes “chemo brain” — a form of chemically induced brain damage that severely impairs cognitive ability by damaging brain cells. It’s far worse than the brain damage you’d suffer from sniffing glue or consuming meth, by the way.
Chemo brain is a medically recognized side effect of chemotherapy, and even the Mayo Clinic describes chemo brain side effects as including:
Does this sound exactly like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? You bet it does!
America’s highest court populated by a brain-damaged liberal
All this explains why Ginsberg’s Supreme Court decisions have been so cognitively impaired for the last seven years. It’s also why she recently committed a huge error by uttering all those insanely stupid words against Donald Trump, earning her a retort from Trump who correctly says her “mind is shot.”
The Trumpster is now calling for Ginsberg to resign in shame, and even the New York Times now agrees that Trump is right: Ginsberg has totally lost her mind. Why hasn’t she resigned yet? Because she’s too cognitively impaired to realize she needs to resign.
It’s frightening to think that the very future of America hinges in part on the decisions of a brain-damaged U.S. Supreme Court Justice who has lost the ability to think or speak with clarity. Yet in another way, it’s also not so surprising: She’s the perfect poster girl for the total insanity that now exists in Washington D.C. … a dangerous departure from sanity that’s now endemic across the entire federal government. In fact, if you think about it, why shouldn’t an insanely stupid, incompetent and corrupt federal government be incessantly granted unconstitutional powers by a brain-damaged Supreme Court justice who can’t control her own mouth?
This is all the more reason to elect Donald Trump, by the way. If we are to have any real hope of saving America, we have to replace all the insane, incompetent and brain damaged government officials with intelligent, capable, patriotic Americans who can get things done while protecting individual liberty. Read more at Trump.news.
Monsanto Wins 1st Senate Vote on Roberts-Stabenow DARK Act!
On June 29, Monsanto scored a preliminary victory, winning a Senate “test vote” on a bill known as the DARK Act that Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced to Deny Americans the Right to Know about GMOs.
TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators at 888-897-0174 to tell them what you think of their votes! Calls are the fastest, and most effective way to get your message through to Congress.
Scroll down for the vote count. There were 68 “yeas” and 29 “nays”. We’ve also included the amount of money each Senator has received from agribusiness. The average agribusiness contribution for “yes” voters ($867,518) is two-and-a-half times more than the average for “no” voters ($350,877).
Thank your Senators who voted “No”. “Spank” your Senators who voted “Yes”. Call 888-897-0174.
Here are some talking points you can use when you call:
“The Roberts-Stabenow GMO labeling bill would kill the Vermont law that labels GMO foods as “produced with genetic engineering.” Vermont’s law is working. GMOs are being labeled. Food prices are staying the same. The labels are being used nationwide. The Roberts-Stabenow bill wouldn’t require words on the package. It exempts nearly all GMOs from labeling. It would take at least 2 years to take effect. And, it’s essentially voluntary because there would be no enforcement for non-compliance.”
Total: $10,175,439 Average: $350,877
Blumenthal D-CT NO $43,033
Booker D-NJ NO $215,250
Boxer D-CA NO $517,498
Cantwell D-WA NO $273,246
Cardin D-MD NO $230,103
Gillibrand D-NY NO $627,514
Heinrich D-NM NO $128,927
Hirono D-HI NO $108,150
Kaine D-VA NO $140,825
Leahy D-VT NO $356,995
Markey D-MA NO $118,144
Menendez D-NJ NO $647,774
Merkley D-OR NO $222,442
Mikulski D-MD NO $255,439
Murkowski R-AK NO $463,144
Murphy D-CT NO $132,650
Murray D-WA NO $667,307
Paul R-KY NO $416,761
Reed D-RI NO $110,550
Reid D-NV NO $691,398
Sanders I-VT NO $750,242
Schatz D-HI NO $88,750
Schumer D-NY NO $814,930
Sullivan R-AK NO $157,541
Tester D-MT NO $476,153
Udall D-NM NO $338,055
Warren D-MA NO $91,243
Whitehouse D-RI NO $98,408
Wyden D-OR NO $992,967
TOTAL: $10,175,439 AVERAGE: $350,877
Total: $58,991,192 Average: $867,518
Alexander R-TN YES $980,283
Ayotte R-NH YES $235,956
Baldwin D-WI YES $160,709
Barrasso R-WY YES $207,250
Bennet D-CO YES $473,397
Blunt R-MO YES $2,069,365
Boozman R-AR YES $646,471
Brown D-OH YES $379,952
Burr R-NC YES $1,933,705
Capito R-WV YES $456,720
Carper D-DE YES $203,662
Casey D-PA YES $405,550
Cassidy R-LA YES $504,933
Coats R-IN YES $527,927
Cochran R-MS YES $2,333,394
Collins R-ME YES $596,291
Coons D-DE YES $86,858
Corker R-TN YES $664,527
Cornyn R-TX YES $1,688,149
Cotton R-AR YES $508,940
Crapo R-ID YES $1,170,466
Cruz R-TX YES $1,647,662
Daines R-MT YES $596,781
Donnelly D-IN YES $363,199
Enzi R-WY YES $350,502
Ernst R-IA YES $256,998
Feinstein D-CA YES $1,645,599
Fischer R-NE YES $536,262
Flake R-AZ YES $535,102
Franken D-MN YES $286,547
Gardner R-CO YES $946,349
Graham R-SC YES $1,131,590
Grassley R-IA YES $1,929,489
Hatch R-UT YES $725,633
Heitkamp D-ND YES $236,975
Heller R-NV YES $258,140
Hoeven R-ND YES $405,020
Inhofe R-OK YES $938,853
Isakson R-GA YES $1,227,649
Johnson R-WI YES $489,435
King I-ME YES $74,515
Kirk R-IL YES $718,270
Klobuchar D-MN YES $720,592
Lankford R-OK YES $226,040
Lee R-UT YES $77,950
McCain R-AZ YES $4,496,004
McCaskill D-MO YES $383,024
McConnell R-KY YES $3,373,204
Moran R-KS YES $2,284,551
Nelson D-FL YES $873,540
Perdue R-GA YES $489,830
Peters D-MI YES $238,147
Portman R-OH YES $1,011,940
Risch R-ID YES $367,154
Roberts R-KS YES $2,808,111
Rounds R-SD YES $258,600
Rubio R-FL YES $1,141,265
Sasse R-NE YES $329,935
Scott R-SC YES $403,300
Shaheen D-NH YES $167,474
Sessions R-AL YES $927,652
Shelby R-AL YES $843,957
Stabenow D-MI YES $1,565,978
Thune R-SD YES $1,900,160
Tillis R-NC YES $437,750
Toomey R-PA YES $682,904
Vitter R-LA YES $657,365
Wicker R-MS YES $789,690
TOTAL YES:$58,991,192 AVERAGE YES: $867,518
Not Voting $951,130
Manchin D-WV Not Voting $196,850
Warner D-VA Not Voting $518,317
TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators at 888-897-0174 to tell them what you think of their votes!
-Alexis for the OCA team
BREAKING: Robert De Niro was clearly threatened by the vaccine establishment to censor the VAXXED documentary from Tribeca… new details emerge
Sunday, March 27, 2016
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: Robert De Niro, VAXXED documentary, censorship threats
Robert De Niro
(NaturalNews) There has never been an assault against a documentary film in the history of America like the one we’ve just witnessed over the last 48 hours. The entire mainstream media waged a coordinated, simultaneous attack against the Tribeca Film Festival to censor a film none of them had even seen.
That film, of course, is called VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, and it documents the admission of the CDC’s Dr. William Thompson, who admitted taking part in a massive scientific fraud to conceal the truth about vaccines causing autism.
This is the first time in the history of film and media that the totality of the media establishment has condemned a film that none of them have ever viewed, desperately trying to make sure no American ever witnesses the hour and a half of film footage that is now “forbidden” to be viewed in a nation founded on free speech.
A statement has been posted on the VAXXED documentary website:
It is our understanding that persons from an organization affiliated with the festival have made unspecified allegations against the film – claims that we were given no opportunity to challenge or redress. We were denied due process.
We have just witnessed yet another example of the power of corporate interests censoring free speech, art, and truth.
Tribeca’s action will not succeed in denying the world access to the truth behind the film Vaxxed.
Robert De Niro was on a phone call before all this happened
Natural News can now report that Robert De Niro and his wife spoke directly with U.S. Congressman Bill Posey for approximately one hour on Friday, during which De Niro was given numerous assurances by Congressman Posey that the CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, really did confess to taking part in massive scientific fraud to conceal the links between vaccines and autism. It was based in part on this assurance that De Niro originally backed the film’s screening at Tribeca.
But hours later, somebody got to De Niro. Somebody powerful and connected whom we believe threatened Robert De Niro into silence. This mysterious conversation has not been revealed. De Niro has not released the names of those from the “scientific community” who threatened him, nor have the VAXXED filmmakers been offered any ability to respond to whatever accusations may have been falsely leveled against the film.
Total secrecy: Who got to De Niro, and what threats were made against him?
The silencing of VAXXED, in other words, was carried out with the same secrecy under which the entire vaccine industry operates. There is zero transparency, no due process, no discussion and no debate. Robert De Niro may have even been death threated by the vaccine establishment — an industry already steeped in the maiming and murdering of children worldwide. To silence this powerful film, they would stop at nothing… not even threatening Robert De Niro with destroying his professional career or possibly his life or family.
This is the vaccine mafia at work: Threatening people into silence, censoring a powerful documentary, leveling secret accusations in secret meetings, all while ridiculously claiming they alone have a monopoly on scientific truth which can never be challenged, debated or even questioned by anyone.
The mainstream media just committed credibility suicide… everybody knows they’re covering up the truth about vaccines
In the coverage of all this, we just witnessed the mainstream media committing CREDIBILITY SUICIDE. The entire media just followed in the footsteps of North Korea or Communist China, ordering a film festival to censor a documentary that’s so powerful, it threatens the cascade of lies propping up the fraudulent vaccine industry and all its hidden truths (that are about to be exposed).
The same Tribeca Film Festival that happily previewed films like “37 USES FOR A DEAD SHEEP” and “TICKED-OFF TRANNIES WITH KNIVES” has decided that the VAXXED documentary is too dangerous for the public to be allowed to view. But this was not a decision reached with rationality and truth: It was arrived at via the process of media totalitarianism — intimidation and threats aimed at Robert De Niro to force him to silence this film and withdraw it from the festival.
And so for daring to support freedom of expression on this monumental issue the vaccine-pimping media has desperately tried to conceal, De Niro finds himself in a firestorm of accusations and condemnation by the very same media that also blackballed every single story about CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson.
What’s so dangerous in this film that no citizen shall be allowed to view it?
Meanwhile, every thinking American has now come to the realization that the vaccine industry is run like a MAFIA and is wholly incapable of withstanding even a single low-budget documentary that, frankly, few people would have ever heard about if not for this outrageous censorship effort. Now, the American people are asking the commonsense question: “What’s so dangerous in this VAXXED film that we aren’t allowed to see it?”
Does the film show people being beheaded by terrorists in bloody machete scenes? Nope, for that you have to watch CNN and other mainstream media outlets.
Does the film feature lunatic quacks spouting total nonsense and gobbledygook? Nope, because if it did, the vaccine industry would want EVERYONE to watch it!
Does the film fabricate total lies and present them as truth? Nope, to see that, you have to watch all the leftist Hollywood revisionist history films like “TRUTH” (which is full of lies, paradoxically).
VAXXED, it turns out, is dangerous because it is credible. It is being attacked and censored precisely because it threatens to crumble the great scientific Berlin Wall of the vaccine industry… an industry built almost entirely on lies, cover-ups, censorship and systematic intimidation.
In fact, all this is on full display right now as you watch this story unfold. The media obediently attacks De Niro while vaccine totalitarians demand absolute censorship of a film they’ve never even seen. They can’t name in particular statement in the film that’s dangerous or false; they are attacking the entire film by essentially demanding that no questions ever be allowed to be asked about vaccine safety. Just the mere existence of the film is, all by itself, a serious threat to the entire vaccine industry.
All this, of course, is nothing short of “scientific intolerance” and cognitive bigotry on parade. For the vaccine industry to even claim that its products are backed by “science” is wholly laughable. Real science, as everyone knows, is unafraid of scrutiny and debate. Real science welcomes debate because real science can defend itself. Any industry claiming to have “science” on its side which is simultaneously terrified of a scientific discussion isn’t based on science at all.
We are now living in a scientific dictatorship run by the very same corporations that are systematically poisoning our children
If you ever needed a reason to see the VAXXED documentary, you now have the best reason of all: This is the film that you’re never supposed to be allowed to witness with your own eyes.
In a film industry filled with wanton violence, on-screen rapings, beheadings, bloody war scenes and scenes of torture, the single most dangerous film you’re not allowed to see is one that presents an idea.
That idea is based on a simple scientific truth about vaccine dangers, and it’s considered so dangerous to the vaccine establishment that it must be banned at all costs, even if it means threatening Robert De Niro with being destroyed or perhaps even physically harmed.
When the vaccine industry resorts to outright censorship and intimidation tactics against film organizers, you know they have something extremely damning to hide. It’s so damning that the mere utterance of a few words in the film apparently threatens to destroy the entire cesspool of lies upon which the vaccine industry was built. Words of truth are so dangerous to the vaccine industry that all such words must never be uttered on film, lest people wake up to the reality that their own children are being systematically poisoned, maimed and killed — knowingly! — by the vaccine industry and its toxic interventions.
Remember: If they can get to Robert De Niro, formerly a champion of free speech and freedom of expression, they will go after anyone and attempt anything that it takes. If they have to call in bomb threats against theaters to have them evacuated, that’s exactly what the vaccine industry will do. If they have to threaten film festival producers with murder — or threaten their families with bodily harm — they’ll do that, too. There is no tactic outside the bounds of an industry that already engages in the widespread maiming and murder of children. If they will kill your child with their vaccines, in other words, they’ll think nothing of threatening a guy like Robert De Niro to get him to participate in their cover-up.
Follow Natural News for breaking news update on all this. I am in direct touch with the film producers, and I am being kept informed of next steps in this epic battle for free speech and scientific truth.
Learn more about VAXXED and vaccines at the following links:
The official VAXXED documentary website (and trailer)
The official VAXXED documentary Facebook page:
I was working on something today, and saw that I needed to add some references (footnotes) to support what I was saying. It had to do with JPMorgan Chase Bank, and the fines for violations concerning robo-signing, lying, cheating, stealing homes, and the like. All related to foreclosures of course.
When I began adding the references for my allegations, I almost fell off my chair. I could not believe the fines and the violations, and yet, they continue on, to this very day. The only thing that Chase has learned from all the fines for violations, is that they make enough money, that the fines don’t matter. If anything else had come of it, as in, it hurt them financially, they would have quit with all the violations.
As it turns out, attorneys for these banks have gotten worse. It is ruining the legal profession. If the courts would stand up and make those that should be held accountable, accountable, the foreclosures would have ended. So, it has also ruined the court system for their failure to the citizens of the states and country.
http://s25.postimg.org/ze1twuhu7/is_CDBx_Oy_Hkyno_GSsgx_Oz_TCmykgo7_D_Dsbu_N6nx_ELu_AK48_h.jpgForeclosure hell has only taught the people that have lost their homes. And what pray tell did those people learn other than they will never be able to purchase another home? That you cannot trust attorneys, you cannot trust the courts, and by God you had better never trust the lender. In other words, the world around you is corrupt as hell, and no one, except you, the borrower is accountable for anything.
Just a sampling of fines levied against JPMorgan Chase Bank:
2008: Unpacking the JPMorgan Chase scandals; $30 billion in fines and counting — and this monster bank still got off lightly!: http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/articles/unpacking-jpmorgan-chase-scandals
June 2011: Misleading CDO Investments: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/;
July 7, 2011: Conduct in Municipal Bonds $228 Million: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/;
February 9, 2012: Foreclosure Abuses and “Robo-Signing” $5.29 Billion: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/;
November 16, 2012: $269.9 Million: More Mortgage Misrepresentations: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/;
January 2013: $1.8 Billion: Improper Foreclosures: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/;
October 25, 2013: $5.1 Billion: Fannie and Freddie Fines: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/;
Nov. 2013: JPMorgan agrees $13 billion settlement with U.S. over bad mortgages; http://www.reuters.com/article/us-jpmorgan-settlement-idUSBRE9AI0OA20131120;
November 15, 2013: $4.5 Billion: Mortgage Securities: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/;
January 2014: JPMorgan Chase Fines Exceed $2 Billion: http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/chase-a-6356;
January 06, 2014: Madoff Scandal: $1.7 Billion: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/;
November 11, 2014: Currency Manipulation (stock price): $1.34 Billion: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/;
March 2015: Chase has paid $38 Billion in 22 settlements from 2009 through March of 2015: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2015/07/16/fine-despite-fines.html;
July 2015: JPMorgan Chase fined $136M over how it collects debts: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/08/421277881/jpmorgan-chase-fined-136m-over-how-it-collects-debt;
July 8, 2015: Chase fined $216M over debt collection: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/credit-cards/chase-fined-216m-over-debt-collection/;
December 2015: JPMorgan Admits It Didn’t Tell Clients About Conflicts $300M: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-18/jpmorgan-pays-267-million-to-settle-conflict-of-interest-claims;
January 2016: JPMorgan Chase Fined $48Million for Failing to Comply With Robosigning Settlement: https://consumerist.com/2016/01/05/jpmorgan-chase-fined-48-million-for-failing-to-comply-with-robosigning-settlement/;
And it goes on. There are many that I missed, in my hurry to get this done.
And in the end, the buck stops with the Courts, U.S. Attorneys and District Attorneys for not throwing the lot of their asses in the clink!
Google CEO Sundar Pichai told thousands of developers last week his vision for a future in which his company, once known just as a way to search the Internet, extends its reach into nearly every aspect of its users’ lives.
He envisions people telling a voice-activated device called Google Home to turn on lights or play music. And when people chat with friends on Google’s new messaging app, Allo, they won’t have to leave the app to make a restaurant reservation. Allo will actually suggest where they should dine based on the context of the conversation.
“We are pushing ourselves really hard so Google is evolving and staying a step ahead of our users,” Pichai said to a crowd of more than 7,000 people at the Google I/O conference at Mountain View’s Shoreline Amphitheatre.
Google Home will directly compete with the $180 Amazon Echo. While Amazon has a head start, Google is betting that its dominance of the Internet search market will give consumers a reason to buy Home instead. The device, which will hit the market this year, can play music, answer questions such as “How much fat is in an avocado?” and operate Web-connected “smart home” appliances.
“Google Home could be a major force and could also dramatically decrease the sales potential of Amazon Echo,” said Patrick Moorhead, president of Moor Insights & Strategy. “The biggest sales determinant could be the quality of the (artificial intelligence) experience, and in the end, Google will likely win over Amazon.”
Google did not reveal the price of the small device, which will have a white top. Customers will choose their own color for the bottom to blend in with their home.
Many Google users are already using voice commands to search the Internet. In the United States, about 20 percent of the queries in Google’s mobile app are voice queries, according to the company.
The device will be a cornerstone of a concept that Pichai on Wednesday described as “Google assistant,” an ongoing dialogue between the company and users.
Google already helps them in many facets of their daily lives, from turning on a thermostat to translating words and searching for selfies in their digital photo collections. And Google’s expanding universe of products and services can learn their users’ preferences over time.
“The Google assistant not only knows about the world, it will also stand apart with how well it gets to know you over time, with your permission of course,” said Mario Queiroz, a Google vice president of product management.
Even though few people own smart-home devices, like Google’s Nest thermostat, some analysts are bullish that this will become a major tech market in the future. Just 19 percent of U.S. broadband households have smart-home devices, according to a report this year by research firm Parks Associates.
“Adoption of the connected lifestyle continues to expand as the supporting technologies mature and the value propositions of smart, connected devices and streaming services are better understood by consumers,” said analyst Brad Russell with Parks Associates.
Google also unveiled video chat app Duo and messaging app Allo, available on Android and Apple devices this summer.
Allo has similar features to Facebook Messenger, where users can chat with friends and add stickers. But it also has an option to have an “incognito” chat that is encrypted. While users are chatting on Allo, they can call on Google to suggest restaurants and book reservations through OpenTable without leaving the app.
Google also renewed its commitment to virtual reality, announcing a platform that will bring the budding medium to smartphones, headsets and apps.
The company has worked with phone manufacturers such as Samsung and Huawei to produce phones that will meet the specifications of Google’s new virtual reality platform. Google also said it has made a prototype design for a virtual reality headset and controller that will work with the Android operating system and shared that design with Android manufacturers. The headset would work with a smartphone.
“There are so many things you need to get just right,” said Clay Bavor, a Google vice president overseeing virtual reality, regarding the headset. “It has to be comfortable.”
More information on Google’s virtual reality plans will be revealed on Thursday, company representatives said.
Gene Munster, an analyst with Piper Jaffray, argues that VR devices could replace smartphones in the future, adding that he believes the ability to do computing hands-free and through eye movement is better than typing or tapping on a screen.
“This is the equivalent of talking about smartphones in 1995,” Munster said.