Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
2017
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.




Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.





Saturday, February 27, 2016

Front Sight Institute: Responsible Firearms Ownership And Training





Of an attempted robbery in Brazil in August of 2015.







The Four Universal Firearms Safety Rules







Cop in Brazil shoots himself before shooting criminals mugging him inside a Convenience Store  in March of 2014.







In 2013, Canadian Media warn those in the United States that Firearms Registration leads to confiscation.  In that environment, when terrorists firebomb you and throw fire-bomb after  fire-bomb at you, you are supposed to just give up and die and not shoot these would be murderers down as they actively try to take your life.  Just another reason we need to keep standing up for the Constitution and our Second Amendment rights, and to NEVER give them up or give in.







And in respect to the National Rifle Association

a very worthy organization that for many decades has defended so vigorously our Second

Amendment rights in lobbying Congress and in being active in Court as well

....although this speech dates back a while now,

yet it needs repeat with only that of  new names of opposition added:




"Every time our country stands in the path of danger, an instinct seems to summon her finest first — those who truly understand her.

When freedom shivers in the cold shadow of true peril, it's always the patriots who first hear the call.

When loss of liberty is looming, as it is now, the siren sounds first in the hearts of freedom's vanguard. 

The smoke in the air of our Concord bridges and Pearl Harbors is always smelled first by the farmers, who come from their simple homes to find the fire, and fight, because they know that sacred stuff resides in that wooden stock and blued steel -- something that gives the most common man the most uncommon of freedoms.

When ordinary hands can possess such an extraordinary instrument, that symbolizes the full measure of human dignity and liberty.

 That's why those five words issue an irresistible call to us all, and we muster. So -- so, as, ah, we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, 

I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed -- and especially for you, Mr. Gore: 

From my cold dead hands!"


Charlton Heston 




Thursday, February 25, 2016

Justice Scalia, Redressed After An Illuminati Ritual Over His Dead Body?













"We discovered the judge 
in bed, a pillow over his head. 

His bed clothes were unwrinkled," 
said Poindexter.

Scalia died, and it appears that to examine the likelihood that Poindexter apparently stood around with the other guests in a death robe cult over Justice Scalia's freshly dead body, perhaps even humming and chanting to receive satanic powers from the departing soul,  in which Scalia was apparently the sacrificial victim...now it is quite apparent, that is NOT to be excluded as a very good likelihood in a Justice Scalia murder investigation.  And if illuminati societies hold to their pattern, most all of the men who did not leave, would perhaps engaged in sodomy to celebrate their sacrifice because they are an all male club whose root origin is a group President Nixon once referred to on the Nixon tapes, if I remember correctly,  as "a bunch of faggots" he absolutely wanted nothing to do with.

Further, it appears that according to the Washington Post  there may be a direct connection between Washington lawyer C. Allen Foster --

(who all too conveniently brought or accompanied Scalia on the pretext that they were just non-violent animal lovers, {removing any bestiality connotation here})  


-- and that of  Ranch owner John Poindexter.   
     Separately, Poindexter was once a silent partner in a 5,000 acre ranch in Costa Rica which helped aid and comfort (and allegedly supply material assistance) to the Contras in the 1980s, according to Larry Nichols on March 24, 2016, while interviewed on the Alex Jones Show.  Nichols, is cited as a confirmed ex-Green Beret who trained and also at times led around one of these Contra bands in escape and evasion assistance in the 1980s for the Central Intelligence Agency (as I understand it), before Nichols was then recruited later by Governor Bill Clinton to work for him.   

So between Poindexter's relationship with Obama and a perhaps somewhat tenuous but very real connection with C.I.A. head John Brennan, did Obama and Brennan sanction a hit on Justice Scalia, and (just asking) can anyone vet that on the night of February 12, 2016, John Brennan himself was not one of the Cibolo Creek Ranch guests in attendance that night?  Not one guest has been interviewed by the U.S. marshals, by any Law Enforcement Agency, and Poindexter appears to be the only one who ever called a cause of death.  Since there was no examination of the body, and every law enforcement agent on scene presumed only that information Poindexter himself first relayed and had repeated verbatim without any examination but from across the room by other law enforcement, of a body that was killed and redressed and set out in perfectly neat unwrinkled clothes perhaps from another location within or without the building, it is time to demand accountability and truthful answers as to what really happened at this Bohemian Grove 
offshoot society gathering ranch.   

Most all in the Federal Government who participate in Illuminati ritualism must engage in sodomy with other men as part of the acceptance ritual.  A former illuminati wife, Kay Griggs, goes in detail how that this was what she learned through her marriage to an illuminati member in Military Intelligence. 






 Meanwhile, 







A Before  The Fact Donald Trump Is In Danger Connection?

The public might also  want to be cognizant that in regard to Scalia and Trump, the danger of the crazy Nihilist Socialists in power that want to re-live a 1960s anarchy peppered social experience, demanding that they have the right to transition from their now illegal Authoritarian to absolute criminal Totalitarian powers, is that first in their minds now is that back then, agents of the U.S. Government killed Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968 and then they killed Bobby Kennedy on June 6, 1968.

In a sense, and this is the purpose in using this comparative, both Martin Luther King Jr. and Justice Scalia were purists of a sort in their pursuits.

Bobby Kennedy was and Donald Trump still is, considered as the populist choice of the people wanting to effect change and restore sense and rid corruption in the Washington, D.C. Government.


The danger of it possibly being put into duplication considering who runs CIA (now a domestic operations agency since July 2013), DHS, and the DOJ taking orders from a foreign usurper as POTUS has probably got to be above the 70% level, possibly as high as 90% or more. Prayerfully it will never happen, and we will know exactly which 4 people to specifically blame if it does. 



Some  Initial Scalia Death Reference Articles
             (Before This Scandal Really Busts Wide Open)



February 14, 2016 articles







http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scalia-ranch-20160214-story.html



February 15, 2016 articles









February 16, 2016 articles







February 17, 2016 articles

















Legal Reference – Texas State Law:





Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Historical Guest Pamphlet: A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES - by David Ramsay 1789


                                                        

                                                    
A
DISSERTATION
ON THE
MANNER OF ACQUIRING
THE
CHARACTER AND PRIVILEGES
OF A
CITIZEN
OF THE
UNITED STATES



PRINTED IN THE YEAR MDCCLXXXIX

[1789]

                                                       [By David Ramsay] 









                                                        [3] 


                                                          A
                                         DISSERTATION, Etc.

The United States are a new nation, or political society,  formed at first by the declaration of independence, out of those British Subjects in America,  who were thrown out of royal protection by act of parliament, passed in December 1775.   

      A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation.  The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.

       The difference is immense.  Subject is derived from the latin words,  Sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.

     Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others.   Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another.  In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen.  Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure: but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.

      There is also a great difference between citizens, and inhabitants or residents.

      Any person living within a country or state, is an inhabitant of it, or resident in it. 

       Negroes are inhabitants, but not citizens.  Citizenship confers a right of voting at elections, and many other privileges not enjoyed by those who are no more than inhabitants.






                                                           [4]

     The precise difference may be thus stated:  The citizen of a free state is so united to it as to possess an individual's proportion of the common sovereignty; but he who is no more than an inhabitant, or resident has no farther connection with the state in which he resides, than such as gives him security for his person and his property, agreeably to fixed laws, without any participation in its government. 

      Republics, both ancient and modern, have been jealous of the rights of citizenship.  The new constitution carries this matter so far, as to require not only present citizenship in federal representatives and senators, but antecedent citizenship for the term of seven and nine years.  The time and manner of acquiring the high character of a citizen of the United States, is therefore well worthy of public discussion.

     The following appear to be the only modes of acquiring this distinguishing privilege.

      1st.    By being parties to the original compact, the declaration of independence. 
      2d.    By taking an oath of fidelity to some one of the United States, agreeably to law.
      3d.     By tacit consent and acquiescence.
      4th.    By birth or inheritance.
      5th.     By adoption.    Of each of these in their order.


     1st.      By the declaration of independence congress proclaimed to the world, that their constituents, "the people of the united colonies, were absolved from all allegiance to the crown of England," and that the late colonies were "free and independent states".   For the support of this bold measure, they confederated together, by pledging to each other "their lives, fortunes, and sacred honour."   By this eventful declaration, "nation was born in a day."   Nearly three million people who had been subjects, became citizens.    Their former political connection with George the third was done away, and a new one was formed, not with another king, but among themselves, by which they became coequal citizens, and, collectively, assumed all the rights of sovereignty.   As this was done by the repre-






                                                           [5]

sentatives of the people of this country, and in their name, and on their behalf, all who had concurred in investing congress with power, acquired citizenship, by being parties to this solemn act.   These original citizens were the founders of the United States.   Citizenship could not be acquired in this way by absentees from America, for two reasons:  1st.  Such were not thrown out of British protection by the restraining act of parliament, and therefore continued British Subjects, under the obligations, and in quiet possession of their British allegiance:   And, secondly, Such could not be parties to the constitution of congress.  The members of that body were not their deputies, or agents, and therefore could not bind them, or act for them.

      2d. To cement the people of America more firmly together, oaths of fidelity to the states were respectively administered soon after the declaration of independence, to all above a certain age.   By these oaths, a compact was established between the state and the individuals; and those who took them acquired or confirmed their citizenship by their own personal act.  By swearing to do the duty of citizens, they, by law, acquired a right to the privileges and protection of citizens.   Those who refused, were ordered to depart, as being persons unfriendly to the revolution. 

     3d.  As the war drew near a close, the administration of oaths being less necessary, was less frequent.   Citizenship was then, and now is, daily acquired by tacit consent or acquiescence.  Minors who were not old enough to be parties to the declaration of independence, or to take oaths of fidelity to the states at the time they were imposed, became citizens in consequence of their continuing to reside in the United States after they had arrived to mature age, especially if at the same time they claimed the protection, and performed the duties of citizens.

       At twenty-one years of age, every freeman is at liberty to chuse his country, his religion, and his allegiance.  Those who continue after that age in the allegiance under which they have been educated, become, by their tacit consent, either subjects or citizens, as the case may be.  In this manner, young men are now daily acquiring citizenship, without the intervention of an oath.







                                                          [6]

     It is to be observed, that in order that such persons may acquire citizenship in this way, their residence subsequent to the revolution is indispensably necessary, previous to the commencement of their citizenship :  for no man can be said so far to acquiesce in, or consent to a government, before he has lived under it, as to become a citizen thereof by tacit consent. 

      Citizenship, when acquired in this way by an absentee at the time of the declaration of independence, can therefore only be dated from the time in which the claimant of that high privilege became a resident under the independent government of the state of which he claims to be a citizen.

      4th.   None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason:  no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth.   Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution :  but this is confined exclusively to children of those who were themselves citizens.   Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed.  If hey had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress.  Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British Subjects, but not of American citizens.


     5th.  Persons born in any country may have acquired citizenship by adoption, or naturalization, agreeably to law.

      The citizenship of such must be dated from the time of their adoption.

      From these observations, the following inferences result.

      Citizenship is an adventitious character to every adult in the United States ;  and there was a certain period in the lives of such persons, when they ceased to be subjects, and began to be citizens.

       The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.              







                                                         [7]

     This accounts for the use of the word resident in that paragraph of the new constitution, which describes the qualifications of the president of the United States.   The senators must be citizens nine years, and the representatives seven years ;   but it is not said, that the president must be a citizen for fourteen years.   The thing was impossible, for independence was then not quite twelve years declared; therefore the word resident was introduced in order to comprehend time before the declaration of independence. 

     By the same paragraph, the distinction between a citizen and a resident is constitutionally recognized ;  for tho' it is necessary, that the president must have been "fourteen years a resident,:  it is sufficient for him to have become a citizen  "at the time of the adoption of the constitution."  By this it is acknowledged, that one may be much longer a resident within the United States, than a citizen of the same.  The precision of this paragraph, in respect to language, is worthy of observation.  It is not said, that the president must have been a resident in, or an inhabitant of the United States,  for fourteen years.  The word used is within, as explained by Doctor Johnson, means, "in the compass of," -----"the inclosure of."  The sentence, therefore, when analysed, means nothing more than that the president must have been a resident with the limits of the United States for fourteen years. 

      Though the states have not existed as states for fourteen years ;  yet, their geographical boundaries, or limits, have existed from the first settlement of America.  But to proceed with inferences.  From the premise already established, it may be farther inferred, that citizenship, by inheritance, belongs to none but the children of those Americans,  who,  having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring.  The children of those who died before the revolution, who are now citizens, must have acquired  that privilege in their own right, and by their own personal act; that is, by joining their country at or since the revolution.

      Citizenship, acquired by tacit consent, is exclusively confined to the cases of persons who have resided within the 

                             






                                                        [8]

United States since the declaration of independence, and could not have commenced prior to their actual residence under their new and independent governments. 

      From the whole it is plain, that no private individual, tho' a native, who was absent from this country at the time independence was declared, could have acquired citizenship with the United States,  prior to his returning and actually joining his countrymen subsequent to the revolution. 

     Dangerous consequences would follow from admitting that birth and residence, before the declaration of independence in the country now called the United States, were sufficient to confer the rights of citizenship on persons who were absent during the late war, before they returned to their native country. 

     If this should be established, many persons, hostile to our liberties and independence, might put in their claim to be citizens.  All the children born in the interval between the peace of Paris, 1763, and the declaration of Independence in 1776, within the British posts on our north-western frontier, now wrongfully held from us, would be citizens.  Our East-India trade would be laid open to many adventurers, who have contributed nothing towards the establishment of our liberties:  for the natives of this country, born before the revolution, who are now dispersed over the world, might, on that principle, fit out ships, make voyages to India, come here and sell their goods, under the character of citizens, from the circumstance of their having been born among us thirty or forty years ago, and return with the net proceeds of their cargoes, to their present residence in foreign countries.  These, and many other consequences, injurious to the liberties and commerce of these states, would result from admitting the dangerous position, that birth and residence in this country, before the revolution, conferred citizenship on absentees, antecedent to their return after that event had taken place.



                                                      FINIS.




[Note:  Because I have not seen an internet copy of this public domain historical work in a typed format that I can readily copy and paste while discussing or debating, today I typed up the above historical pamphlet, so that it can easily be referred to and utilized in discussions by those who wish to use a certain popular means to copy, and paste, onto a more ready format for internet discussion, or to read a transliteration of a small "s" that looks much like an "f" that they might otherwise get hung up upon, or what have you.  Any comment or addendum of mine is in green.  The spacing and word spread has been given modern parameters for readability in an Internet and page typed format.  -- Brianroy]












                                                       

Friday, February 19, 2016

Guest Blog: Justice Scalia Addressed First Newman Society Conference, Defended Faithful Catholic Education - The Cardinal Newman Society with Adam Cassandra

Justice Scalia Addressed First Newman Society Conference, Defended Faithful Catholic Education

Almost 20 years after headlining The Cardinal Newman Society’s first national conference in Washington, D.C., the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is being remembered as a devout Catholic and a great public defender of faithful Catholic education.
At the Newman Society conference in October 1997, Scalia urged Catholic colleges to retain their religious identity and boldly challenge the relativism and secularism of modern society.
“The American landscape is strewn with colleges and universities, many of them the finest academically in the land, that were once denominational, but in principle or practice no longer are,” he said. “With foolish sectarian pride I thought that could never happen to Catholic institutions. Of course I was wrong. We started later, but we are on the same road.”
Nevertheless, Scalia said that especially in a society drifting towards secularism, there is a particular need for the Catholic university:
…because of the moral environment in which its work is conducted — an environment that sternly disapproves what the Church teaches, and in most cases what traditional Christianity has always taught, to be sinful.
Part of the task of a Catholic university, at least at the undergraduate level, must be precisely moral formation. Catholic universities cannot avoid that task, and indeed betray the expectations of tuition-paying, Catholic parents if they shirk it.
Patrick Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society, gratefully recalls how important Justice Scalia was to the Society, just four years after its founding in 1993.
“In his characteristically frank and insightful manner, Justice Scalia said precisely what has been a bedrock principle of the Newman Society — that the heart of a faithful Catholic education is formation and not secular prestige,” Reilly said. “It was notable that such an eminent justice would so publicly challenge Catholic college leaders, and it was a great encouragement and motivation to those of us who were committed to the renewal of Catholic education.”
“We mourn his loss in this world but pray that he finds much deserved love and peace in the arms of Christ,” Reilly said.
Scalia said in a May 2014 interview with The Remnant that he became “a serious Catholic” at Xavier High School, a Jesuit high school in New York City, influenced by the “thoroughly religious atmosphere of the school” and the many young Jesuit priests who were his teachers. He even seriously considered entering the priesthood, but being an only child with no cousins on his father’s side, he thought the disappearance of the family name would greatly upset his parents.
So Scalia considered another profession and decided to go into the practice of law while studying at the Georgetown University, the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university. He would later lament the loss of Georgetown’s Catholic identity.
During a speech at Duquesne University School of Law’s Centennial Celebration in Pittsburgh in September 2011, almost 14 years after addressing the Newman Society, Scalia again asserted that Catholic universities have a duty to morally form students.
“Our educational establishment these days, while so tolerant of and even insistent on diversity in all other aspects of life, seems bent on eliminating the diversity of moral judgment, particularly moral judgment based on religious views,” he said. “I hope this place will not yield, as some Catholic institutions have, to this politically correct insistence upon suppressing moral judgment, to this distorted view of what diversity in America means.”
Scalia told the audience that moral formation “has nothing to do with making students better lawyers, but everything to do with making them better men and women. … Moral formation is a respectable goal for any educational institution, even a law school.”
“Religious educational institutions from universities down to local schools are not strangers to the American scene. They are as Americanas apple pie,” he continued. “A Catholic law school should be a place where it is clear, though perhaps unspoken, that the here-and-now is less important, when all is said and done, than the hereafter.”
Scalia openly offered his criticisms of those universities he thought were failing in their Catholic mission, including his alma mater Georgetown. In the May 2014 interview with The Remnant, as the Newman Society reported, Scalia bluntly stated that Georgetown “is not Catholic anymore,” adding that when he attended “they rolled you out of bed to attend Mass. Not anymore.”
It wasn’t the first time he criticized the lack of Catholicity at Georgetown. During an October 2013 appearance at University of Virginia, Scalia said, “When I was at Georgetown, it was a very Catholic place. It’s not anymore — and that’s too bad.” He posed the question to the crowd, “What has happened to Catholic universities, that they would lose their reason for being?”
Scalia added that many other Catholic universities have drifted away from the faith, and remarked that while many in the educated and intellectual class view religious people as foolish or naïve, it’s important for Christians to be proud of their faith.
“You’ve always got to be open to discussing your faith. Be eager to discuss it,” he said. Scalia told the crowd that too many Catholics have shown an unwillingness to spread their faith, and because of that “the Church has been in trouble for a while.”
In addition to his public statements, Scalia’s votes on the Supreme Court supported Catholic education, said University of Notre Dame Law School Professor Richard Garnett in an interview with The Cardinal Newman Society.
“Certainly, Justice Scalia participated in several important decisions that were helpful to Catholic schools. For example, in the series of cases having to do with scholarships and other forms of aid to students attending Catholic schools, he consistently voted in favor of the idea that evenhanded, neutral forms of aid — vouchers, tax credits, etc. — are permitted by the Constitution,” Garnett said. “This development has been very important in helping Catholic schools stay open and do their good work.”
Garnett also pointed to the Court’s 2012 decision in the Hosanna-Tabor as “also very important to the mission and character of Catholic schools.” The Court ruled in the case that religious organizations, including schools, should be free from government interference when they choose to hire or fire ministerial employees “if the schools believe hiring or retaining those teachers are not consistent with the school’s religious teachings, commitments and mission,” said Garnett.
“It was a 9-0 ruling and so, obviously, Justice Scalia was not alone,” he said. “In the coming years, we will see an increasing number of employment-discrimination cases involving religious schools, and this decision by the Court will be important.”  
Catholic Education Daily is an online publication of The Cardinal Newman Society. Click here for email updates and free online membership with The Cardinal Newman Society.

-------------------------------------------


I am adding Two Bonus Videos to this guest blog.  -- Brianroy


Anthony Scalia with The Hoover Institute's "Uncommon Knowledge" Program in October 2012







Anthony Scalia For Perhaps The First and Only Time Speaks From The Pulpit And Asks The Question:  "Is Capitalism or Socialism More Conducive to Christian Virtue?"





Thursday, February 18, 2016

Suspicious Circumstances, The Inspector Clouseau Incompetence Of All In Refusal To Investigate The Death Of Antonin Scalia Or A Murder Conspiracy?



Here's Why Scalia Didn't Get An Autopsy


35 Guests plus a 30,000 acre elitist Democrat ranch owner have fled the scene where Antonin / Anthony Scalia died, and the Ranch owner and local police and an unknown Federal Marshall that came on scene after the fact (the judge's Marshall's being pulled from protective duty hours before the likely MURDER) and the local judge and the Federal Government intentionally botched and covered up the cause of death.  

My San Antonio reported Houston businessman John Poindexter who owns the 30,000 acre ranch stated that:
"He was seated near me and I had a chance to observe him. He was very entertaining. But about 9 p.m. he said, 'it's been a long day and a long week, I want to get some sleep". 

"When Poindexter tried to awaken Scalia about 8:30 the next morning, the judge's door was locked and he did not answer.


 Three hours later..
."We discovered the judge in bed,


a pillow over his head.


 His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter."


The Washington Post Reported:
"Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body — which is permissible under Texas law — and without ordering an autopsy.

...Guevara acknowledged that she pronounced Scalia dead by phone, without seeing his body. 


Instead, she spoke to law enforcement officials at the scene — who assured her “there were no signs of foul play”

...Guevara also rebutted a report by a Dallas TV station that quoted her as saying that Scalia had died of “myocardial infarction.” In an interview with The Washington Post, she said she meant only that his heart had stopped.

...the U.S. Marshals Service, which provides security for Supreme Court justices, said that Scalia had declined a security detail while at the ranch, so marshals were not present when he died.

...“Everything was in perfect order.





The Washington Post Reported: 
"Two days after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in remote West Texas, a former D.C. homicide commander is raising questions about how the death was handled by local and federal authorities.

“As a former homicide commander, I am stunned that no autopsy was

 ordered for  Justice Scalia,” William O. Ritchie, former head of criminal 

investigations for D.C. police....

On Sunday, the U.S. Marshals Service, which provides security for Supreme Court justices, said that Scalia had declined a security detail while at the ranch, so marshals were not present when he died. When the marshals were notified, deputy marshals from the Western District of Texas went to the scene, the service said in a statement."








 The New York Post Reported:

 “It’s not unreasonable to ask for an autopsy in this case, particularly knowing who he is,” retired Brooklyn homicide Detective Patricia Tufo told The Post.
“He’s not at home. There are no witnesses to his death, and there was no reported explanation for why a pillow is over his head,” Tufo said. “So I think under the circumstances it’s not unreasonable to request an autopsy. Despite the fact that he has pre-existing ailments and the fact that he’s almost 80 years old, you want to be sure that it’s not something other than natural causes.”
Bill Ritchie, a retired deputy chief and former head of criminal investigations for the DC police, said he was dumbstruck when he learned that no autopsy would be performed.

“I took a look at the report and I almost fell out of my chair,” Ritchie told The Post from his home in Maryland.

“I used to be an instructor in the homicide school. Every death investigation you are handling, you consider it a homicide until the investigation proves otherwise,” Ritchie said.

“How do you know that person wasn’t smothered? How do you know it’s not a homicide until you conduct an investigation? You have to do your job. Once you go through that process, you can conclude that this is a naturally occurring death.”


"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ... attended St. Catherine of Siena Church in Great Falls, Virginia, "because it was one of the few Catholic parishes in the Washington, D.C., area that still offered a Latin mass."



 See also:






Let me run down a list of summary problems with the refusal to investigate the very likely foul play MURDER of Anthony Scalia.  

1) There were NO PHYSICIANS in attendance.

2) No paramedics called.

3)  No fire department with medical training in lieu of paramedics called.

4) There were no coroners present to examine the body.

5) There was no judge present to examine the body to verify the state of the body was as was reported by law enforcement as was the practice in Texas in rural areas.



  


 Presidio Co. Justice of the Peace, Juanita Bishop, stated
“It’s for our own good because we need to know the cause of death [for] a death certificate,” she said in an interview with Infowars. “If they’re not under medical supervision or medical care, we usually do request an autopsy because we don’t know why they died.”
“…When I’m called out, I do go see [the body],” she later added. “That’s what my job is: to go.”



6)  There were  no photos of the deceased in the state of where he lay as he was found.

7)  There was  no examination of the eyes or nose or mouth or carotid arteries or anywhere of close examination for signs of unusual bruising or trauma or pin pricks or anything to rule the death natural causes and no sign of foul play. 

8)  There was a call made to 2 judges who weren't interested to drive a few extra miles and examine the body of an important top Federal Official for themselves, shirking their duties of office.

9)    A corrupt and incompetent Sheriff was called, but even his own ex-employees note that his department guidelines are effectually something to the effect of : 
 "the rules and the law are whatever I say they are".  Which means lawlessness and open corruption, not just incompetence.  






 10)    There was a jackass female who shouldn't even be on the bench who got a call and felt that a 45 minute drive was too inconvenient even though it was the middle of the day and clear and fair weather.  

11)   We are not provided the name or rank of the agent or his assignment and relevance to the case.  Merely that it was a Marshall assigned somewhere in the West Texas Area who showed up, and for all we know, was already a guest or the potential murderer himself.  There was no vetting on who he is or if he has an alibi as legitimate and above suspicion.  

12)    The Federal Bureau of Investigation was NOT called in to examine the body and make out a report substantiating anything.

13)    A Supreme Court Justice had died, and everyone was absolving themselves of all responsibility. 

14) The Foreign Usurper pretending he can do anything and has responsibility when it suits him, and no responsibility when it suits him,  Obama was notified within 2 hours of the discovery of the body, and his attitude was , "Who gives a sh*t."  If it was Al Sharpton or Kayne West, Obama would have been jumping out of his vibrator up his backside and demanding a full investigation with no expense spared, including an autopsy. 

15)  Texas law calls for the State of Texas to require an autopsy and the Law of the State of Texas was tossed aside as if there were no law.


16)  By law in Texas, a justice of the Peace was required to conduct an inquest at the place of inquest or at a reasonable alternative place.  The jackass female judge decided that conducting an inquest by phone is reasonable?  Uh huh.  Let me get this right, so in Presidio County,  if she ever shoots and kills  
any one she is at odds with,  or any family member of hers, and the local law enforcement officer reports the crime to her for a ruling of death, she can just rule it a suicide or death by natural causes, and "poof" end of inquest, because a "by phone only inquest" is reasonable?  








CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 49. INQUESTS UPON DEAD BODIES

SUBCHAPTER  A. DUTIES PERFORMED BY JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Art. 49.01. DEFINITIONS.  In this article:
(1) "Autopsy" means a post mortem examination of the body of a person, including X-rays and an examination of the internal organs and structures after dissection, to determine the cause of death or the nature of any pathological changes that may have contributed to the death.
(2) "Inquest" means an investigation into the cause and circumstances of the death of a person, and a determination, made with or without a formal court hearing, as to whether the death was caused by an unlawful act or omission.
(3) "Inquest hearing" means a formal court hearing held to determine whether the death of a person was caused by an unlawful act or omission and, if the death was caused by an unlawful act or omission, to obtain evidence to form the basis of a criminal prosecution.
(4) "Institution" means any place where health care services are rendered, including a hospital, clinic, health facility, nursing home, extended-care facility, out-patient facility, foster-care facility, and retirement home.
(5) "Physician" means a practicing doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathic medicine who is licensed by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners under Subtitle B, Title 3, Occupations Code.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 529, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987;  Subsec. (5) amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 72, Sec. 1, eff. May 9, 1989;  Subsec. (5) amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 14.737, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.


Art. 49.02. APPLICABILITY.  This subchapter applies to the inquest into a death occurring in a county that does not have a medical examiner's office or that is not part of a medical examiner's district.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 529, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.


Art. 49.03. POWERS AND DUTIES.  The powers granted and duties imposed on a justice of the peace under this article are independent of the powers and duties of a law enforcement agency investigating a death.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 529, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.


Art. 49.04. DEATHS REQUIRING AN INQUEST.  (a)  A justice of the peace shall conduct an inquest into the death of a person who dies in the county served by the justice if:
(1) the person dies in prison under circumstances other than those described by Section 501.055(b), Government Code, or in jail;
(2) the person dies an unnatural death from a cause other than a legal execution;
(3) the body or a body part of a person is found, the cause or circumstances of death are unknown, and:
(A) the person is identified;  or
(B) the person is unidentified;
(4) the circumstances of the death indicate that the death may have been caused by unlawful means;
(5) the person commits suicide or the circumstances of the death indicate that the death may have been caused by suicide;
(6) the person dies without having been attended by a physician;
(7) the person dies while attended by a physician who is unable to certify the cause of death and who requests the justice of the peace to conduct an inquest;  or
(8) the person is a child younger than six years of age and an inquest is required by Chapter 264, Family Code.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section, a physician who attends the death of a person and who is unable to certify the cause of death shall report the death to the justice of the peace of the precinct where the death occurred and request that the justice conduct an inquest.
(c) If a person dies in a hospital or other institution and an attending physician is unable to certify the cause of death, the superintendent or general manager of the hospital or institution shall report the death to the justice of the peace of the precinct where the hospital or institution is located.
(d) A justice of the peace investigating a death described by Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall report the death to the missing children and missing persons information clearinghouse of the Department of Public Safety and the national crime information center not later than the 10th working day after the date the investigation began.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 529, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987;  Subsec. (a) amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 255, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;  amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 321, Sec. 1.105, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;  amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 878, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;  Subsec. (a) amended by and Subsec. (d) added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 656, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997;  Subsec. (a) amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 785, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;  Subsec. (a) amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 826, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003 and Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1295, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.


Art. 49.041. REOPENING AN INQUEST.  A justice of the peace may reopen an inquest if, based on information provided by a credible person or facts within the knowledge of the justice of the peace, the justice of the peace determines that reopening the inquest may reveal a different cause or different circumstances of death.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 897, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


Art. 49.05. TIME AND PLACE OF INQUEST;  REMOVAL OF PROPERTY AND BODY FROM PLACE OF DEATH.  (a)  A justice of the peace shall conduct an inquest immediately or as soon as practicable after the justice receives notification of the death.
(b) A justice of the peace may conduct an inquest:
(1) at the place where the death occurred;
(2) where the body was found;  or
(3) at any other place determined to be reasonable by the justice.
(c) A justice of the peace may direct the removal of a body from the scene of death or move any part of the physical surroundings of a body only after a law enforcement agency is notified of the death and a peace officer has conducted an investigation or, if a law enforcement agency has not begun an investigation, a reasonable time has elapsed from the time the law enforcement agency was notified.
(d) A law enforcement agency that is notified of a death requiring an inquest under Article 49.04 of this code shall begin its investigation immediately or as soon as practicable after the law enforcement agency receives notification of the death.
(e) Except in emergency circumstances, a peace officer or other person conducting a death investigation for a law enforcement agency may not move the body or any part of the physical surroundings of the place of death without authorization from a justice of the peace.
(f) A person not authorized by law to move the body of a decedent or any part of the physical surroundings of the body commits an offense if the person tampers with a body that is subject to an inquest under Article 49.04 of this code or any part of the physical surroundings of the body.  An offense under this section is punishable by a fine in an amount not to exceed $500.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 529, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.


Art. 49.06. HINDERING AN INQUEST.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly hinders the entrance of a justice of the peace to a premises where a death occurred or a body is found.
(b) An offense under this article is a Class B misdemeanor.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 529, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.


Art. 49.07. NOTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATING OFFICIAL.  (a)  A physician or other person who has possession of a body or body part of a person whose death requires an inquest under Article 49.04 of this code shall immediately notify the justice of the peace who serves the precinct in which the body or body part was found.
(b) A peace officer who has been notified of the death of a person whose death requires an inquest under Article 49.04 of this code shall immediately notify the justice of the peace who serves the precinct in which the body or body part was found.
(c)(1) If the justice of the peace who serves the precinct in which the body or body part was found is not available to conduct an inquest, a person required to give notice under this article shall notify the nearest available justice of the peace serving the county in which the body or body part was found, and that justice of the peace shall conduct the inquest.
(2) If no justice of the peace serving the county in which the body or body part was found is available to conduct an inquest, a person required to give notice under this article shall notify the county judge, and the county judge shall initiate the inquest.  The county judge may exercise any power and perform any duty otherwise granted to or imposed under this subchapter on the justice of the peace serving the county in which the body or body part was found, except that not later than the fifth day after the day on which the inquest is initiated, the county judge shall transfer all information obtained by the judge to the justice of the peace in whose precinct the body or body part was found for final disposition of the matter.
(d) A person commits an offense if the person is required by this article to give notice and intentionally or knowingly fails to give the notice.  An offense under this subsection is a Class C misdemeanor .

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 529, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987;  Subsec. (d) amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 656, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997;  Subsec. (c) amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 229, Sec. 1, eff. May 22, 2001;  Subsecs. (a) to (c) amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 826, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003;  Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1295, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.





17)  There was an airport by which the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Marshall Service could have flown in on the 30,000 acre ranch.  3 Gulf Streams were on it, and allegedly but unconfirmed as yet)  one owned  by former Vice-President Dick Cheney.  

18) The Ranch owner, a former C.I.A. sheep-dipped Green Beret from Vietnam who operates as a likely Intelligence Front at the Corporate level, and a devout Obama supporter who received an out of the way newly created medal for him
 -- Obama should have given him the Afghanistan chicken shit medal he ordered created for those who run away from Islamic enemies while in battle.


19) Ranch owner Poindexter insists that his guest list of 35 others who should be suspects until ruled otherwise, that list he insists should be kept back as private, as if it were an issue of National Security, as if the death of a Swing to Majority Vote Conservative Supreme Court Justice were not some kind of National Security issue. 

20)  Justice Scalia was at a facility using GUNS, near the fully open and unguarded  U.S. Mexico border where  any foreign hostile could have penetrated security there and at the ranch  and no U.S. Marshal or personal security was  assigned to protect him?  Not even by the owner at his own expense?  

21)  Justice Scalia was transported to a select Funeral home in El Paso, denied a non-invasive official examination and fluid withdrawal by medical professionals for a toxicology examination and for signs of foul play.  No, instead, the man is shuffled to a funeral home that drains his bodily fluids straight down the drain into the local sewer without fear of improperly disposing of biological material hospitals would be fined for, and fulfill a service of aiding in the cover up of the condition of the body by embalming and cosmetically altering the physical bruising and blemishes of Justice Scalia, refusing to take pictures or report in any way on anything they have seen in regard to the body.  

22) Justice Scalia we are told, with no substantiation or proof,  is stated by the mainstream media that  he had a will saying he wanted to be cremated contrary to the State Burial that would be provided him at no cost were he to die in office by Government protocol?  

23)    Obama, hating Scalia's guts, uninterested in any inquiry into who killed Justice Scalia or how he was killed, refuses to attend Justice Scalia's funeral because he disrespects both the man and the office of who and what a Supreme Court Justice is if they are not a treasonous rewrite the Constitution from a Sovietized communist anti-American view traitor like himself, as Sotomayor, as Kagan, as Ginsburg are.  



 Conclusion: 
Like the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas in November 1963;   and like the  September 2012 set-up for murder and ordered stand down to ensure the death of United States Ambassador Stevens and what proved to be 3 other U.S. Citizens with him;  and now with the death of Antonin Scalia on the night of Friday February 12, 2016,  being killed and laid out pristinely in "UNWRINKLED  bed clothes", pillow over his eyes or face or what have you,   those who are guilty demand to fully get away for their participation in the act.   

As Hillary Clinton laughing jokes about killing (not just Qaddafi).
"We came.  We saw.  He died!  Ha ha ha ha."  










[ Update:    February 19, 2016         
http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_02-16-16_3


"The funeral Mass for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia will be celebrated on Saturday, February 20, at 11 a.m. at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, 400 Michigan Avenue, NE. The Mass will be open to friends and family members. 

There will be a private burial."  

This appears to indicate that initial Media reports that Justice Scalia would be cremated were either inaccurate or that the family accepted a free full burial with honors at Federal expense as I pointed out in point 22 was the more likely wish Justice Scalia would have had. 


-----------------------------------------
Timeline discrepency in favor of White House Interference in calling Democrat to rule by phone without viewing the body.




February 18th, 2016

"It was at 11:15am when Poindexter entered into Scalia’s room with a friend of Scalia’s from Washington and found Scalia “completely reposed” in bed.

Poindexter said that “no doubt,” Scalia died from “natural causes.”

According to Chief Deputy Joel Nuñez, the Sheriff’s Department double-checked their logs and the only call they received from Cibolo was from Pointdexter requesting the phone number for the US Marshal’s Service."

[In other words, it is Poindexter who really called it "natural causes", not the Sheriff or the Marshals nor the Border Patrol] 

...Poindexter couldn’t reach marshals after calling offices in Alpine, San Antonio, El Paso, and Washington, DC, because those offices are normally closed on weekends. He then called Sheriff Danny Dominguez to request his help. Dominguez contacted the Marshals directly and then headed to the ranch. He was the first responder to arrive and saw Scalia in bed. It looked to him that there was no foul play, according to Dominguez.

A few U.S. Marshals later arrived, as did two Border Patrol agents.

...Dominguez then called Guevara, who pronounced Scalia’s time of death at 1:52pm by telephone."


It was reported that Obama was notified TWO HOURS after the body was found.  

Did the White House call Guevara and coax that Democrat to do a over the phone?   1:15 p.m. is 2 hours. 

Did the just "look at the body from a distance" become the only means by which death was declared at the scene,  as Poindexter and Sheriff Danny Dominguez claim?

How did Poindexter have all these Marshal phone numbers "in Alpine, San Antonio, El Paso, and Washington, DC" at his finger tips rather than a card that Judge Scalia would have kept on him or a 24/7 number of contact if Judge Scalia had to sign any kind of medical waiver just to attend Poindexter's Ranch and been REQUIRED to provide as a live pick-up emergency cell number to contact in case of emergency regarding Judge Scalia?

  Did the few U.S. marshals who arrived later along with two Border Patrol agents also stand down and merely take Poindexter's word for it without examining the body or the scene and once again repeat the "look at the body from a distance away, nothing to see here" scenario by presumption that a proper check of the body was ever done?

  And exactly when will their logs say THEY arrived?  Hmmn?


End of Update]