Peter John
Share

Peter John's Discussions

PIN

Started this discussion. Last reply by Peter John Apr 24. 1 Reply

 All filers must redact: Social Security or taxpayer-identification numbers; dates of birth; names of minor children; financial account numbers; and, in criminal cases, home addresses, in compliance…Continue

SHTF

Started Apr 19 0 Replies

WebHelp Keep Independent Media Alive, Become A Patron for All News PipeLine At…Continue

The Jukubowski Manifesto

Started this discussion. Last reply by Peter John Apr 14. 3 Replies

Full Reprint of Manifesto Allegedly mailed to Trumpby…Continue

False Flag Ops

Started Mar 8 0 Replies

Painting by…Continue

Gifts Received

Gift

Peter John has not received any gifts yet

Give a Gift

 

Peter John's Page

Latest Activity

Peter John replied to Keith Broaders's discussion Faith of Our Founding Fathers
"On June 21, 1788, the states voted into law the United States Constitution, according to This Day in History. General authorities from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have often spoken about the inspired document, seeking solace from…"
17 hours ago
Peter John replied to Keith Broaders's discussion Milton Friedman on Economics
"By Catherine J. Frompovich What you will read probably will not sit well with you and many professions, especially the legal. The law has become a ‘bastardized’ and ‘owned’ commodity for those who either have legal friends,…"
18 hours ago
Peter John replied to Keith Broaders's discussion The United States is an Oligarchy
"we r BEing BEtrayed by the robes n they act w/o the Consent of the governed, best read ur STATE Kort decisions as the robes r stacking all in favor of the STATE to lying cops or by DA's refusing to disclose discovery material or the rules to…"
Jun 14
Peter John replied to Keith Broaders's discussion Only Open If You Love Liberty
"Image – MRSA Bacteria – Wikipedia – lic. under CC 2.0 Scientists have reported that what has been predicted for some years is now a reality: New bacterial strains have now been found that have evolved to be completely…"
Jun 11
Peter John replied to Keith Broaders's discussion The United States is an Oligarchy
"now whats with this captcha crap-hard nuff to enter n BE sure not oer 140"
Jun 10
Peter John replied to Keith Broaders's discussion The United States is an Oligarchy
"European royals killing naked children for fun at human hunting parties?   http://childabuserecovery.com/european-royals-killing-naked-children-for-fun-at-human-hunting-parties/"
Jun 10
Peter John replied to Thomas Mick's discussion Separating Ourselves from Evil
"Jonny Liberty · 10 hrs ·checkmarkcaution-solid Make IT virtual, ASAP, FTG Putin Hints JFK Was Murdered By The 'Deep State' Which Is Now After Trump and Russia In Megyn Kelly’s much anticipated interview…"
Jun 6
Peter John replied to Thomas Mick's discussion Separating Ourselves from Evil
"President Duterte Reveals Vital Information Exposing Vatican Pedophile Ring Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte has caused a massive upset within the Catholic church by exposing the Vatican as a Pedophile ring. Just days after Duterte…"
Jun 6
Peter John replied to Keith Broaders's discussion Constitutional Studies
"yo Fraud Tax is Theft  BREAKING NEWS: The U.S. Fifth Circuit admits the systematic misapplication of the income tax! Posted on May 11, 2017 by David Robinson THE FIFTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS has issued a stunning ruling admitting…"
May 11
Peter John replied to Keith Broaders's discussion The House is in the Hands of the Enemy
"See my page, there is NO law requiring You to pay n the Civil Rights Act 1866 protects You from foreign entities, esp the foreign owned none fereal bank of NO reserves. It is a requirement that any contract You sign Shall BE entered by ur Free Will,…"
Apr 26
Peter John replied to Peter John's discussion PIN
"There is a civil penalty to $500,000 for release of your social security numbers & I will nail the  law firm & the Grrl that signed the affidavit of service, then there is federal mail fraud & reporting this as white collar crime to…"
Apr 24
Peter John posted a discussion

PIN

 All filers must redact: Social Security or taxpayer-identification numbers; dates of birth; names of minor children; financial account numbers; and, in criminal cases, home addresses, in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1. This requirement applies to all documents, including attachments. See Social Security privacy act to 42 USC 408 I have a whole law Firm by the Balls, Firmly by the Balls, so I Shall Squeeze ;<{DSee More
Apr 24
Peter John posted a discussion
Apr 19
Peter John replied to Peter John's discussion The Jukubowski Manifesto
Apr 14
Peter John replied to Peter John's discussion The Jukubowski Manifesto
Apr 14
Peter John replied to Peter John's discussion The Jukubowski Manifesto
Apr 14

 
"Since the day the ink dried on the Bill of Rights, "[t]he right of an American citizen to criticize public officials and policies . . . is 'the central meaning of the First Amendment.'" Glasson v. City of Louisville, 518 F.2d 899, 904 (6th Cir. 1975) (quoting New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 273 (1964)). There can be no doubt that the freedom to express disagreement with state action, without fear of reprisal based on the _expression, is unequivocally among the protections provided by the First Amendment. See id.; Bloch, 156 F.3d at 682; see also Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246, 264 (6th Cir. 1997) ("[T]he First Amendment right to criticize public officials is well-established and supported by ample case law. Furthermore, it is well-established that a public official's retaliation against an individual exercising his or her First Amendment rights is a violation of § 1983."); Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372, 1378 (9th Cir. 1990) ("[G]overnment officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely, anyone who takes an oath of office knows - or should know - that much.")."by TruePatriot
McCurdy v Montgomery County, Ohio, 240 F3d 512 (6th Cir. 2001)      Pete Inc
“We first consider whether “the facts alleged show the [defendants’] conduct violated a constitutional right.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). Next, we determine whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Id. Applying this inquiry while viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the district court erred in granting summary judgment on this claim.
Plaintiffs’ Right Against Retaliation
“As a threshold matter, we must determine whether, when “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, . . . the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. We evaluate claims that state actors retaliated against a claimant in response to his exercise of free speech under the framework generally set forth in Mount Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). Under MountHealthy and its progeny, a plaintiff must show that (1) he was participating in a constitutionally protected activity; (2) defendant’s action injured plaintiff in a way “likely [to] chill a person of ordinary firmness from” further participation in that activity; and (3) in part, plaintiff’s constitutionally protected activity motivated defendant’s adverse action. Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673, 678 (6th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted); see also Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Once a plaintiff raises an inference that the defendant’s conduct was motivated in part by plaintiff’s protected activity, the burden shifts and defendant “can demonstrate that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the protected activity.” Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552, 560- 61 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 399). The inquiry of “whether activity is ‘protected’ or an action is ‘adverse’” is context-specific. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 388.
“The First Amendment generally protects Plaintiffs’ right to display signs communicating their views on abortion, and “[t]he fact that the messages conveyed by those communications may be offensive to their recipients does not deprive them of constitutional protection.” Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 714-15 (2000); see also Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) (“Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects . . . . That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, . . . is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment.”). The district court correctly found that Plaintiffs had “engaged in protected activity,” (J.A. at 116), and Defendants do not argue otherwise. We next consider whether the adverse action “would chill or silence a ‘person of ordinary firmness’ from future First Amendment activities.” Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 397 (citation omitted) (noting the “standard is amenable to all retaliation claims”). Here, Plaintiffs need not show they were actually deterred from exercising their right to free speech, but rather must show the actions were “capable of deterring a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her right[s].” Id. At 398. A chilling effect sufficient under this prong is not born of de minimis threats or “inconsequential actions,” but neither does the requisite showing permit “solely egregious retaliatory acts . . . to proceed past summary judgment.” Id.
“Deprivation of one’s liberty of movement can hardly be classed “inconsequential;” indeed, the Founders endeavored scrupulously to protect this liberty in the Constitution. See U.S. const. amend. IV; U.S. const. amend. XIV. A two and one-half hour detention absent probable cause, accompanied by a search of both their vehicles and personal belongings, conducted in view of an ever-growing crowd of on-lookers, would undoubtedly deter an average law-abiding citizen from similarly expressing controversial views on the streets of the greater Dayton area. See McCurdy v. Montgomery County, 240 F.3d 512, 520 (6th Cir. 2001) (impliedly acknowledging an arrest without probable cause constitutes adverse action of sufficient consequence); cf. Lucas v. Monroe County, 203 F.3d 964, 974 (6th Cir. 2000) (loss of business after being removed from a police station’s rotating call list sufficient to “deter the average wrecker service operator” from similarly criticizing defendant sheriff).
1st Amend

Freedom of assembly

freedom of speech


Peter John's Photos

Loading…
  • Add Photos
  • View All

Peter John's Blog

Another zio judge

Posted on April 29, 2016 at 8:28pm 0 Comments

The decision was written by ginsBERG…

Continue

Black Robe Terrorism-Treason

Posted on April 29, 2016 at 7:01pm 3 Comments





 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)  "... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all…
Continue

If Americans Knew

Posted on April 29, 2016 at 6:56pm 0 Comments

 
$40,000,000,000 divided by 10 yrs is $109,000,000  zionISISreal + $10.9 million per F'n day…
Continue

Input

Posted on September 18, 2015 at 10:13am 2 Comments

Subscribe here

The Mission of…

Continue

Comment Wall (6 comments)

You need to be a member of Constitution Club to add comments!

Join Constitution Club

At 7:54am on December 19, 2015, Peter John said…

these  r diff articles onb the same subject

At 7:38am on December 19, 2015, Keith Broaders said…

It appears that you have posted the same discussion 5 times. I suspect that your most recent post is an edited version of the  first. Please delete the first four versions and I will approve of your most recent discussion.

At 9:22am on July 11, 2015, Peter John said…

We post on everything-US, Health, news the MSM refuses to adress

At 12:00pm on June 4, 2015, Peter John said…

I talked with Her Sunday, there was a phone meet on Monday but there was no telephone # listed to call in. Ppl ask for court watchers but leave no contact info. I accepted ND Director

At 9:21am on June 4, 2015, Keith Broaders said…

Do you know Stephanie Strong?

At 9:20am on June 4, 2015, Keith Broaders said…

Peter please call Keith Broaders at 951-282-3271

 
 
 

© 2017   Created by Keith Broaders.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service