Alaska Power Of Attorney: Fill & Download for Free

This is the definition of treason in the United States Constitution:“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”So as Barr said, as a matter of law, it is not surprising that Barr does not think Obama officials committed treason, so-called President Trump’s slanderous, outrageous and ironic accusations notwithstanding. Why ironic? Because the Mueller report demonstrated at least 140 instances of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians, and because of Trump’s own clear obsequious prostrations before Vladimir Putin and his obvious attempts to curry favor with the Kremlin by undermining the entire postwar, American-led security and economic systems.But for true irony, nothing here beats Barr himself:"’Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they're doing is in the higher interest and better good,’" he said during an exclusive interview in Alaska on Thursday. "’They don't realize that what they're doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have.’"This from a man who auditioned for the role of Attorney General by writing an unsolicited memo to the Justice Department claiming the Mueller probe was unconstitutional, then who lied about its findings before it was released to control the political narrative, then continued to lie about it in the face of Mueller’s own contradictions of that narrative. And then, to his lasting shame and disgrace, Barr embraced the paranoid delusions of a deranged reality-TV president and went full-blown fascist, instituting an investigation into the origins of the investigation based on no evidence of wrongdoing by anyone — just a hunch.The power of the Attorney General’s office is immense, and Barr is now using it for pure political partisan advantage. After all, he is accusing not just the FBI of concocting a reason to investigate the campaign, in spite of the unanimous conclusions of the entire intelligence community that Russia interfered with the election in order to benefit Trump — a conclusion, by the way, that has been maintained since this ignoble administration was sworn into office by the very same people, with the exception of Barr, who Trump himself appointed to run these agencies: Christopher Wray at FBI, Dan Coats as DNI, Mike Rogers at NSA, Gina Haspel at CIA, etc.Rather, he is accusing, by implication, all these people of going along with it, in spite of the fact that they are Trump appointees.And less we forget, it was Trump’s own Deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed and oversaw the Mueller investigation, based on FISA warrants that Rosenberg himself continued to approve.How pathetic is this? What kind of country has the United States become, when millions of people can simply ignore the reality of this investigation and this presidency because a motley collection of “entertainers” on Fox News gives credence to the ravings of a criminal president, and the entire Republican Party goes along for the price of a tax cut and the appointment of some judges?This, ladies and gentlemen, is fascism. Seriously. This is when the power of the government is used purely for partisan advantage in complete disregard for the law, couched in faux humility and sensitivity, while protecting an inept crime family who has been using the office of the presidency in the service of a hostile foreign power and to enrich itself — while the head of that government screams, “TREASON” at anyone who dares question the motivations behind the administration, or dares to point out how truly corrupt or incompetent, or simply inhumane and racist, it is.With this quote, Barr has turned this whole dismal episode in the history of the Republic into Greek tragedy. He will find nothing to support these baseless charges, unless he allows his minions to make them up — and obviously, he will. No judge will support the warrants necessary to arrest these people, unless they are judges appointed by Trump who have, like the Attorney General and the entire Republican elite with the exception of Justin Amash, sold out the nation to protect their own privilege and to unethically preserve the party’s political domination.But when they bring this disgraceful investigation into the investigators to its likely conclusion, they better make sure that they are prepared to follow through with the logic of all fascist regimes — that they completely and utterly destroy America’s democracy to protect themselves and remain in power, regardless of the will of the majority of the voters. Because if they don’t, the next election may very well see an administration in power that is prepared to take the rule of law and its obligations to enforce the law seriously. That means taking the Mueller report to its obvious conclusions regarding the now ex-president, and going after anyone who abused their power while in the administration to harm honest civil servants and law enforcement professionals who were just doing their job.At that point, ex-AG Bill Barr might find himself arguing, through his own lawyer, that, “Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they're doing is in the higher interest and better good. They don't realize that what they're doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have.”Maybe if he’s lucky, the judge will consider that as a mitigating claim at his sentencing.

The gun sanctuary movement, better known as the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, is essentially a resistance movement opposed to new gun control laws.Essentially what happens is that a city or county adopts a resolution that says it won’t expend any resources to enforce gun laws that are deemed unconstitutional.While the resolutions have little legal impact for the most part, they can actually be effective in action. In some cases, they do have some legitimacy. For example, the voters in eight Oregon counties have approved measures that prohibit the county from using county personnel, funds, or other assets to enforce state gun laws.None of these sanctuaries can stop federal or state agencies from enforcing the new laws. However, federal and state agencies rely heavily on local resources and without those, the job becomes more difficult.It is based on the immigration sanctuary movement and it can place supporters of those in an uncomfortable position. Both are forms of civil disobedience; if it’s okay for there to be one, it must be okay for the other to exist, as well. Law enforcement isn’t like a buffet; you don’t get to pick and choose the laws you get to enforce. One either enforces all the laws or one doesn’t.The chart below shows the spread of Second Amendment Sanctuaries as of February 10, 2020. I have to update the map on a weekly basis because new counties continue to be added.The second map is something new. Legislation was filed recently in the Mississippi House. The idea is that nine states will join together in a Second Amendment Sanctuary compact, creating Second Amendment Sanctuary states.The proposed compact would pit state sovereignty against the federal government. Things like weapon bans, restrictions on magazine capacities or ammunition purchases, or registration requirements enacted at the Federal level would not only be ignored, the attorneys general of the various states would be empowered to seek injunctions against federal efforts to enforce those laws.In addition, the compact rejects federal laws governing the production of firearms within the member states. A gun produced entirely in the state and not offered for sale outside of the state would be exempt from federal restrictions because it would not enter interstate commerce. This is a rebuke of possibly unconstitutional expansions on the powers of Congress to regulate commerce between the states which has been extended to commerce within the states, something over which Congress has no constitutional power.Alaska became the first Second Amendment Sanctuary state in 2010 when Governor Sean Parnell signed the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act.Legal experts have said such laws have no impact because of the supremacy of federal law but they overlook the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled in multiple cases that the federal government cannot compel a state, or any officials of that state, to enforce a federal law. Nor can the federal government withhold allocated funds to compel compliance.Due to the way in which the various states allocate powers, the situation isn’t as clear-cut at the state level. This is one of the reasons that the spotlight is currently on Virginia. Right now, the Virginia legislature is fast-tracking gun control bills and Governor Ralph Northam is making threats to the overwhelming majority of Virginia counties that have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries.The map below shows the current divisions in Virginia.Basically, Second Amendment Sanctuaries are what happens when enough people just say ‘No’.

I have a rule#1 against that kind of action. But it has happened a few times:While making home calls for presentations, I did have several proposals from women. Some of them wanted me to come closer while fiddling with their computer or device I was selling etc. This can happen often.One of the times, an older woman with her husband in his hobby room came right out and told me, “my husband doesn’t do this anymore” then led me to her bedroom. I refrained from it all the time knowing I would feel overly guilty about it anytime I faced my wife so I never did do anything. But my wife knew how girls were, around me, and how they eyed me behind my back, and I got used to all of that, but still I refrained from doing anything. My wife is very good to me.In a past company back in the 1970’s I was a general contractor which did home improvements, and we did estimates in homes. Once in a while there would be an early morning estimate and a nice looking girl (a wife) would answer the door in her bedroom clothing and let me inside to get her a written estimate. One of them told me that her husband was a fisherman in Alaska and that she had Power of Attorney to make signature decisions. But this is against our business ethics. So I always refused to do that without the husband present. It’s usually code for divorce:Usually, if a husband is not there, they want pricing for anything expensive because having Power of Attorney is code for “I am divorcing my husband and I want all his money in the house before I take the house from him” and I don’t want any part of that. So our rule#1 is to refuse an estimate and get the wife and husband together in the home for the pricing and if possible get both signatures before we have a solid contract.That is still my rule#1. And it should be everybody’s unless you want to sued for all the money you ever put into your business.