Habeas Corpus Resource Center: Fill & Download for Free

To add to Colin Johnson’s excellent answer, let’s add some more meat on the bones of the answer. Since this IS Quora, there will undoubtedly be others who will provide more meat, both opinions and facts.EDIT ONE DAY AFTER: after reflection, I realized I should apologize up front to Quorans who might read this, because it IS a long read. As I started to answer the question based on the proposed scenario, my short answer just kept getting longer and longer as I added material, new links, learned new things, and began to synthesize some disparate threads that all seemed germane. So, forewarned is forearmed: it’s a long one! But hopefully useful.Let me add just a few more comments up front:SHORT ANSWER: Yes, the US military will restore order, but it will be split, i.e., not every member of the US military who owed allegiance to the Constitution at the beginning of “The Troubles” will still be there at the end. That’s just inevitable with human nature, loyalties, family, and other obligations both physical and of the conscience.The United States is more than just the Federal Government. It is a combined, overlapping, and interrelated federal republic, governed by the U.S. Constitution, containing:fifty states and a federal district;16 territories,500+ tribal areas,3000+ counties/boroughs/parishes,36,000+ cities/towns; andclose to 40,000 more more special districts, e.g., various governmental subdivisions performing specialized functions such as water districts, utilities, port authorities, parks, libraries, highways, mass transit authorities, cemeteries, and hospitals, among others.Federalism provides that jurisdiction and authority “begins at home,” i.e., at the lowest level. Thus, civil unrest and disorder that is severe enough to cause the imminent collapse of Federal governmental structures and authority, will most certainly have already been felt — more or less — at lower political subdivisions in the spectrum. The community and government leaders at these levels, from the levee district, port authority, small towns and great cities, counties, tribal areas, and states, would ALREADY HAVE BEEN FULLY INVOLVED AND AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS…and working together through both formal and informal Mutual Assistance Compacts and other arrangements, and when those begin to fail, calling for assistance from State(s) and the Federal Government.Most people think they know what “the US military” is. But the answer, as the following will show, is far, far more complex. Even military professionals with several decades of service often do not know the full extent: because it is just so complicated!the Armed Forces, including their respective Reserve Components and the National Guard of the United States (NGUS) —Army + Army Reserve + Army National Guard of the US (ARNGUS),Navy + Navy Reserve,Marines + Marine Reserve,Air Force + Air Force Reserve + Air Force National Guard of the US (AFNGUS),Coast Guard (c. 40,000) + Coast Guard Reserve (+ Coast Guard Auxiliary, if mobilized in time of war or national emergency as the “Temporary Coast Guard Reserve”).All of the nearly 500,000 National Guardsmen, both Army and Air Force, hold dual commissions/enlistments: as State AND Federal organized militia. When not “Federalized” pursuant to a Presidential or Congressionally-declared national emergency, or during war, the National Guard serves specifically as the organized militia forces available to each State Governor and the Governors of the 4 Territories with organized National Guard forces (District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands).the Uniformed Services, which include all of the above Armed Forces, PLUS —Public Health Service (6,700 commissioned officers) (+ PHS Reserve, authorized by Public Law 111–148, AKA “Obamacare,” on 23 March 2010, but as of late November 2016 has not been implemented),NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (379 commissioned officers).The Commissioned Corps of both the PHS and NOAA, as uniformed services, may be militarized and considered a branch of the armed forces by an act of Congress, or by executive order by the President of the United States, not only in time of war, but in "an emergency involving the national defense proclaimed by the President." Major militarization of these agencies occurred during World War II and another later during the Korean War.In addition to the Armed Forces and Uniformed Services, which together are immediately available for military service in a national emergency or during time of war, there are “other” entities that have military roles:the US Maritime Service, AKA Maritime Administration (MARAD), an agency under the Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the DoD US Transportation Command, provides the following to national defense:The Voluntary Intermodal Shipping Agreement (VISA):The VISA program creates a partnership between the U.S. Government and the maritime industry to provide commercial sealift and intermodal shipping services and systems necessary to meet mobilization requirements.Through the VISA program, transportation solutions are developed in peacetime to anticipate emergency/wartime DoD requirements. The program provides for a seamless, time-phased transition from peacetime to wartime operations, while maintaining ongoing commercial arrangements during contingencies.The VISA program can be activated in three stages as determined by DoD, with each stage representing a higher level of capacity commitment. In Stage III, participants must commit at least 50 percent of their capacity. Dry cargo vessels enrolled in the MSP must commit 100 percent during Stage III. VISA participants get priority preference when bidding on DoD peacetime cargo.There is a clear link between VISA and the MSP (see following): more than 90% of the “militarily useful vessels” in the U.S.-flag merchant fleet are committed to the VISA program and over 75% of that capacity comes from MSP vessels.The Maritime Security Program (MSP):Participating MSP operators are required to make their ships and commercial transportation resources available upon request by the Secretary of Defense during times of war or national emergency.The MSP maintains a modern US-flag fleet providing military access to vessels and vessel capacity, as well as a total global, intermodal transportation network: vessels, logistics management services, infrastructure, terminals facilities and US-citizen merchant mariners to crew the government owned/controlled and commercial fleets.MSP ship crews are a major source of manpower for DoD surge maritime requirements. The MSP contributes approximately 2,400 US-citizen, qualified mariners to the US deepwater seafarer base.The MSP maintains a core fleet of 60 US-flag, privately-owned ships operating in international commerce which are also available under agreement to provide capacity needed to meet Department of Defense (DOD) requirements during war and national emergencies.“Without the VISA and MSP fleet, the United States would have assured access to very few U.S.-flag commercial vessels to support DoD operations.”US Merchant Marine Fleet - a combination of Government and civilian-owned US-flagged vessels that, in times of war, can be an auxiliary to the United States Navy, and can be called upon to deliver military personnel and materiel for the military.Merchant Marine Officers may also be designated as Military Officers by the Department of Defense. This is commonly achieved by commissioning unlimited tonnage Merchant Marine Officers as Strategic Sealift Officers in the Naval Reserves.the majority of the midshipmen graduated from the 7 USMS-approved training academies, including the US Merchant Marine Academy, accept commissions in the US Navy or US Coast Guard, or their reserve components, and serve aboard USN or USCG warships or US-flagged merchant vessels. The MARAD also maintains a large number of vessels, and as needed either personnel and/or vessels can be brought on-line to directly contribute to any national emergency or war.the State Defense Forces (c. 16,000): maintained by 15 States, although not dual State/Federal entities like the National Guard of the United States, these forces are components of the State militias like the individual state National Guards.State Militia/State Guard - generally organized similar to Army National Guard units, although there is considerable variation from State to State, authorized by 32 USC 109.Naval Militia - a few States maintain an active Naval Militia, which is different from a maritime component of the SDF, in that Naval Militia maintain a distinct Federal link; but in practice there is virtually no distinguishing between Naval Militia and maritime SDF in those States that maintain either.Both forms of SDF are usually folded under the command and operational control of the State Adjutant General (senior NGUS officer within each State, usually a one or two star general officer). Often specialized with emergency management, search and rescue, and other homeland defense and security training and equipment. Some SDF are permitted by State laws to be armed and/or trained with weapons.The SDF usually serve without any pay, typically in a manner similar to the National Guard, for two days a month and occasionally for longer periods of time for training and deployments.SDF are NOT eligible for mobilization under any DoD authority, as they are solely the resources of the State that created, organized, trained, and equipped them. States may call them up for duty under State laws collectively known as “State Active Duty,” where they fall under the disciplinary authority of State law, and generally earn pay and allowances similar or exactly the same as their NGAUS counterparts, although except in rare instances they will not accrue retirement credits and are covered by their State’s Workmen’s Compensation laws rather than traditional military medical coverage.Individual members of the SDF are often, but not always, prior service or retired military members of the Federal or NGUS military.While SDF organizations may not be mobilized under traditional Title 10 authorities as other NGUS and Federal Reserve forces, e.g., Navy Reserve, as INDIVIDUALS they may be subject to either recall by their parent military services (if they are retired, or have remaining obligated military service on their 8-year contracts), OR through either induction by the Selective Service in the event the draft was reinstated OR in the event the President or Congress calls forth the Militia under the Insurrection Act. (See below for more on the Militia and the Insurrection Act.)Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): the agency's primary purpose is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the United States and that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities. The governor of the state or territory in which the disaster occurs must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the president that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster.FEMA (14,844 employees across the country – at headquarters, the ten regional offices, the National Emergency Training Center, Center for Domestic Preparedness/Noble Training Center and other locations),FEMA Reserve - The Reservist Program was established 1 October 2012, to build and sustain a robust, well-trained, deployable, and available corps of employees to support the needs of disaster survivors and their communities. Reservists are temporary intermittent employees who are hired into one of 21 incident workforce cadres to perform a specific job/function within a cadre. Reservists possess valuable skills, training, and experience, which assist FEMA in performing its survivor-centric duties to its fullest capability.FEMA National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) - a multiagency center located at FEMA HQ that coordinates the overall Federal support for major disasters and emergencies, including catastrophic incidents in support of operations at the regional-level.National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) - teams that provide medical and allied care to disaster victims, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc., typically sponsored by hospitals, public safety agencies, or private organizations.Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMAT) - provide medical care at disasters and are typically made up of doctors and paramedics: National Nursing Response Teams (NNRT), National Pharmacy Response Teams (NPRT), Veterinary Medical Assistance Teams (VMAT), Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Teams (DMORT), and National Medical Response Teams (NMRT) equipped to decontaminate victims of chemical and biological agents.Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces - perform rescue of victims from structural collapses, confined spaces, and other disasters, for example mine collapses and earthquakes.Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS) - these teams provide communications support to local public safety. For instance, they may operate a truck with satellite uplink, computers, telephone and power generation at a staging area near a disaster so that the responders can communicate with the outside world.FEMA vehicle provides communications support after a major hurricane.These teams provide communications support to local public safety. For instance, they may operate a truck with satellite uplink, computers, telephone and power generation at a staging area near a disaster so that the responders can communicate with the outside world.And here begins the LONG ANSWER, for those Quorans who want to know more, maybe even way more…Let’s start with some fundamental truths:Every single person who is currently serving in the US Government, all branches and agencies, AND all State and local governments, have sworn an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. For those who hold office or otherwise work in any capacity for a governmental organization at the State or lower, they have ALSO sworn an oath to their respective State, City, County, etc.Those Oaths are loyalty oaths to the concept of a republican (little “r,” not the political party big “R”) form of government, laid out and executed for the common benefit of all Americans as prescribed in the wording (and subsequent US Supreme Court precedents that help implement obscure passages here and there) of the actual Constitution. The Oath of Office is not given to a piece of paper…and it’s not to be taken with any “mental reservations or purpose of evasion.”The Oaths of officers and employees of subordinate layers of government, say local city police officers or the local water district employees, will also require loyalty to their own jurisdictions, in addition to the U.S. Constitution.We know from the aftermath of our last civil war that States, while “sovereign” entities inside the republic, cannot simply secede. And we also know that the principle of federalism includes a provision that the Federal Government’s actions, when performed under the authorities provided in the U.S. Constitution, trump (not chosen as a pun, but a verb…) State and local authorities.The Constitution gives the President one fundamental responsibility: the preservation of the nation. It also gives the President the authority to “call forth” the militia of the “several states,” etc.Over the years since our Constitution was born and ratified, the Congress has assisted the President in defining just “how” the President could use the authority to call forth military forces to assist in preserving the nation. These laws have included variations of the “Militia Act” and the Insurrection Act, the “Selective Service Act,” the “Posse Comitatus Act,” even the “War Powers Act.”Here is the most relevant wording of the Insurrection Act; notice that the President may use the authority both to suppress insurrection against a State’s authority, OR anywhere that the authority of the United States (i.e., “Federal law”) is usurped or in danger:§ 331. Federal aid for State governmentsWhenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authorityWhenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.Further, Section 333 permits the President to use the armed forces to suppress any “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” if law enforcement is hindered within a state, and local law enforcement is unable to protect individuals, or if the unlawful action “obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” This section was enacted to implement the Fourteenth Amendment and does not require the request or even the permission of the governor of the affected state. See: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22266.pdf8. Here is a good companion aid to the Posse Comitatus Act, aka “PCA.” Specifically, the PCA statutorily prevents the Army and the Air Force from engaging in law enforcement, even Federal laws (other than in the context of military discipline and in the execution of basing and military functions). The DoD has issued a regulation that applies the PCA to the USMC and the US Navy, as well, but theoretically the Secretary of Defense could void that regulation with a single word…and thus the USMC and USN could participate in any type of law enforcement as required (indeed, as they did when the USMC protected the mail trains in the 1920’s due to a rash of robberies). As noted below, the PCA does NOT apply to military operations taken pursuant to the Insurrection Act, nor does the PCA apply to the US Coast Guard at all, at any time or place, or to the National Guard when acting solely under State authority and command (i.e., not Federalized).9. The entire text of the Posse Comitatus Act, as amended in 1956, is as follows:18 U.S.C. § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both".Accordingly, actions taken under the Insurrection Act, as an "Act of Congress", have always been exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.10. “The Constitution provides little guidance for the meaning of martial law, as it contains only one provision on point” (see page 50 of the paper), found at Article I, § 9, Clause 2:The Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause states that, "[t]e privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."11. So, to combine the two above threads regarding the loyalty of those who serve the nation in a governmental capacity, and the authorities to preserve public order:Every Government employee, from top to bottom of every layer of Government in the country, has sworn a loyalty oath to an idea: the United States of America. This idea is manifested firstly in a piece of paper signed by a bunch of dead old men, whom we generally refer to as the “Founders” or the “Fathers” of our country. The piece of paper is titled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”The DoD has the authority to designate any DoD civilian employee, voluntarily or involuntarily, as “emergency-essential” and deploy them in support of various military contingency operations, or in time of declared war. See: 10 U.S. Code Chapter 81 - CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES. In the event civilians working with the DoD, even inside the US, commit offenses against the military Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), they may be subject to military courts-martial or nonjudicial punishments. If habeas corpus has been suspended, and martial law instated, then there is by definition no civilian authority to otherwise hold them accountable…if there is sufficient civil authority remaining then they must be remanded to either local authorities (if a local crime), or the US Dept of Justice (otherwise).Even in retirement, those who swore an oath may continue to hold their office (military and law enforcement especially)…this manifests most relevantly here in the various authorities that the President (and Congress, and the “sovereign States”) can use to recall and/or mobilize (the wording can vary, but the idea is the same…) retirees to “support and defend” the Constitution.In the event of a threat to the national security, from within, as in the scenario proposed with this question, the President and the 50 State governors and Territories have Constitutional authority to “call forth” the militia, i.e., any and all required military force and the resources required to support, sustain, reinforce, and maintain those military forces.The Constitutional authority is such that any amount of force that is required, or other actions that may be deemed necessary, to put down the Insurrection can be used…i.e., similar to the “continuum of force” taught to all police officers where any resistance to a lawful command or action can be met by a greater force to ensure compliance, so that at the end of the scenario the police officer is in control. The amount of force that can be used will be enough greater to ensure control, so a failure to accept verbal control may be countered and raised to “hands-on” control, and a threat of a knife can be met with a gun, etc.12. The scenario proposes that the insurrection has already begun…or is well underway. I won’t try to modify the underlying premise of the question and “stop” the insurrection before it begins, but the question specifically asks:“Would the U.S. military restore order or would it also be split. (sic)”? 13. In any group of people, even the 5 or so million military personnel, and several million more Federal/State/Local government employees, i.e., “civil servants” including the roughly 1 million law enforcement officers in the US, of course some will be susceptible to the types of pressures listed in this scenario, and may choose to forsake their oaths of loyalty for whatever they believe to be a greater individual or societal “good.”14. Would enough of those 4–5+ million military personnel, up to 20 million military veterans, some 1 million law enforcement personnel, and a couple million more “non-sworn” civil servants, stay loyal to the concept that is the United States of America that when the President “calls forth” the militia and the full force of the Federal AND all the sovereign States through the Insurrection Act, and other associated war powers such as the Selective Service draft, that the US military could restore order…or would it be split?15. I submit that it WOULD BE SPLIT, to a degree. Precisely because there are always going to be those people who want something different…right or wrong, good, bad, or indifferent.16. BUT, I also submit that there would be sufficient cohesion and loyalty to the Nation, in the person of the Commander in Chief and President, that the combined resources and organizational expertise of several million military members, and their assisting police and civil servants, would restore order.17. Too many people have sworn the oath of office or enlistment, have bled and sweated and cried for our nation, and know many, many others who have paid the ultimate price for their loyalty, to strike out in violence, or even disobedience, to prevent a coherent and thoughtful response to any insurrection that threatened to tear the Nation apart.18. There are of course plans and strategies already in existence to address various forms of domestic insurrection, just as there are to address various foreign threats to national security.19. For two good examples, consider the way the various levels of government responded to the disorder caused during the Rodney King riots in LA in 1992, and Hurricane Katrina (interestingly, also in “LA” = Louisiana) in 2005.Under the federal system of government, sovereignty is vested at the lowest level of governmental organization, and then rises.Any threat to public order is first to be evaluated, and if possible, prevented, contained, or resolved, by the lowest governmental organization. This is usually a City or County (a la City and County of Los Angeles and surrounding areas, or City and Parish of New Orleans and surrounding smaller cities and parishes). When the local government is overwhelmed, they are to call upon higher authorities, so that County, State, regional, or Federal resources can be employed.In the LA riots, the local authorities quickly decided they would not be able to handle the threat to public order, and called upon the State of California, which immediately directed various National Guard (under State authority, not Federalized) units and other public safety employees (police, fire, emergency, utilities, etc., from other California jurisdictions outside the immediate danger zone) to the scene in what was actually quite a swift and fairly organized response. In the event, those assets were also overwhelmed and the Governor then called upon the President for assistance, and the Insurrection Act was called forth.The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, as mentioned above, is the formal suspension of civil authority over an area. In the absence of civil authority, there can be only two remaining choices:Chaos, orMartial law.In effect, if not explicitly by its very definition, invoking the Insurrection Act is the imposition of martial law, because the local authorities cannot provide basic security and functioning of the police, courts, and other fundamental tasks of a government, at a minimum in a limited area and for a limited period of time. There is no statutory minimum “geographic area” or “time period” that is required, either that which is affected and requires assistance, or limitations upon the Act itself. President Bush the Elder declared the Insurrection Act only because the totality of California’s resources were declared insufficient to handle the crisis internally to the sovereign state of California.In the case of Hurricane Katrina, the local authorities, up to and including the State Governor, as well as FEMA, dilly-dallied and generally appeared incoherent as to their responsibilities under the various laws in their own jurisdictions, and essentially the US Government stepped in and seized control over the New Orleans area, with a US Army commander, Lieutenant General Honore, effectively assuming the role of a unified commander, under the Federal Response Plan then in effect in 2005. As soon as civil authority could be restored in various stricken areas (some areas of the greater New Orleans area were much more damaged than others, like the 9th Ward and the downtown area), and the civilian courts and law enforcement resumed functioning at even a minimal level (considering that the NOLA city jail and much of the court documents were flooded), military forces began fading into the background and departing the area. Of course arguments can, and were, and will continue to be in the future, be made that either or both the State and Federal Governments should have acted sooner, differently, with more organization and boots on the ground (whether State National Guard and law enforcement, Federalized National Guard, or Federal law enforcement and military Quora answer is that a response DID happen, martial law was de facto in at least some areas of New Orleans, and the “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States…” was relatively quickly resolved and handed back to the State and local authorities. This is what Federalism, the Insurrection Act, Habeas Corpus, the PCA, and the Federal Response Plan all require, indeed demand, under our federal republic.20. If you are still with me at the end of this rather lengthy monograph, let’s review again the original Quora question:“How would the US military function in the event of a 2nd American Civil War?”Scenario: Growing resentment at the economic, social and political disparity amongst rural, urban and ethnic populations leads to insurrection; causing the federal government’s collapse. Would the U.S. military restore order or would it also be split. *Read my comment for further info about scenario*The question assumes the federal government’s collapse, and asks whether the US military would restore order or “be split.”Answer: Yes. The US military would be split, but would still restore order, given time…if…if, the entire mechanisms of the federal government have collapsed, meaning civil authority and the courts no longer function, then of course there would be significant degradation of military command and control, desertions, questions about who is REALLY in control, where is the “nuclear football,” etc.But, at this point, the President (or whomever has lawfully succeeded through the Presidential Succession Act, and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, as amended by multiple Executive Orders through late December 2016) should have declared an “Insurrection” if for no other reason than Federal laws and authority such as Equal Rights, taxation, safety, transportation, air traffic control, and commerce are no longer able to be enforced. I.e., if a “tipping point” of inability of the Federal and local law enforcement and court systems to function is reached, then an “Insurrection” has occurred.Of course, depending on how fast the US Federal Government has “collapsed,” the military response probably would be somewhat uncoordinated (at least at first), but once empowered to act by suspension of Habeas Corpus and released from the Constitutional shackles imposed by the Posse Comitatus Act to perform domestic law enforcement, the US military would operate in a “Homeland Defense” mode where the military takes charge, and is “supported” by all other agencies of the remaining US, State, Local, etc., governmental structures and corporate/business interests functioning as part of the “Total Force,” as defined most cogently under Joint Publication 4–05, Joint Mobilization Planning. (You could also, cynically, name the Total Force the “Military-Industrial-Complex” — as defined by President Obama’s Executive Order 13603 on NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS under the Defense Production Act of 1950.)See: Joint Publication 3–27, Homeland Defense, at https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=742874:The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) prohibits the use of military personnel from performing various functions within the homeland. However, when directed by the President, the use of military operations for HD is a constitutional exception to the PCA. When performing HD operations, Title 10, United States Code, forces are not subject to the restriction of the PCA.Homeland Defense kicks in when there is an existential threat to the Republic, and this scenario clearly posits an existential threat. The military would shift from a supporting role, i.e., “Homeland Security,” where all military actions are in support of civil authority — to “Homeland Defense” where military actions supersede (although are still going to be coordinated with, when possible) civil authority through enacting USNORTHCOM Concept Plan (CONPLAN) 2502. The name for this is “unified action,” as defined in JP 3–27:Unified action synchronizes, coordinates, and/or integrates joint, single-Service, and multinational operations with the activities of other interagency partners, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and the private sector to achieve unity of effort.Except it wouldn’t be a “Concept Plan” any longer…the US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) must coordinate with the US Pacific Command (USPACOM), NORAD, and their various subordinate elements located around the nation to make the necessary changes to the “off the shelf” concept planning previously done, and begin executing Operational Plan 2502 by issuing various orders and commands in pursuit of Homeland Defense in the face of an existential crisis about to wipe out the United States as we know it.Page II-10 of JP 3–27 defines the US PACOM AOR, which is more than just Hawaii and Alaska, it includes the “Compact of Free Association” as well as various US territories and islands in the Pacific Ocean:USNORTHCOM covers all of the Continental US (CONUS), and the approaches thereto, so NORTHCOM must coordinate with PACOM (for all Pacific dependencies and HI/AK and the western approaches to CONUS by air/land/sea/etc.), SOUTHCOM for the approaches from the Caribbean and Latin America, CYBERCOM for information/cyber domain approaches and actions, TRANSCOM for military-grade heavy-lift transportation assets, STRATCOM (Strategic Command) for various warfighting functions including air assets and nuke stuff, and MORE!How confusing! But NORTHCOM will most likely be the “supported” command for any event happening in CONUS, the other Commands will be “supporting,” meaning they will be helping in any way they can as required by NORTHCOM.Additionally, we have a long-standing mutual defense treaty (since the 1940’s) with Canada which is personified in the bi-national NORAD command, where Canadian military officers are integrated into the Command structure providing air and space defenses over both the US and Canada. This mutual defense treaty goes further: it allows deployment of Canadian military assets into the US to assist the US military, if needed. This includes air, space, sea, and land assets of the Canadian military and government. See: The Canada-U.S. Defence RelationshipPermanent Joint Board on Defence (PJBD) – established in 1940 to discuss and advise on defence policy issues related to continental defence and security. Since, 2001 the Board’s membership has expanded to include representatives from Public Safety Canada and the Department of Homeland Security. The Canadian and U.S. co-chairs report the bi-annual discussions directly to the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States.Military Cooperation Committee – established in 1946 and meets bi-annually as the primary strategic link between Canadian and U.S. joint military staffs.North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) – established in 1958 and based at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado, NORAD is a Canadian and U.S. bi-national organization tasked with aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning for North America. Traditionally, the Deputy Commander of NORAD has been a senior Canadian Armed Forces officer.The Combined Defence Plan – synchronizes military efforts from both countries into one coherent bilateral military defence plan.Tri-Command Framework – signed September 2009, outlines how NORAD, U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), and the Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) operate and cooperate.The Canada-U.S. Civil Assistance Plan – signed February 2008, and renewed in January 2012, to facilitate the support of military members from one nation to the armed forces of the other nation in support of civilian authorities during an emergency such as a natural disaster.So, any scenario where the US Government has effectively collapsed will of course involve significant considerations by, at a minimum, these Governments (of which the first 8 are included in mutual defense treaties):Canada,NATO (United States, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom),Australia,New Zealand,Philippines,Thailand,Republic of Korea (South Korea),and the RIO Treaty (United States, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela),Plus Mexico, although the US has no formal mutual defense treaty, obviously anything that affects the US will affect Mexico!And…the United Nations…which surely will not sit by and idly let the world’s remaining superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons and over 300 million people and by far the largest economy go to ruin…easily imagine both General Assembly resolutions and Security Council diktats attempting to prevent the world’s nuclear mistakes, and the devastation of the world’s economy.By invoking Article 5 of NATO, we are also essentially calling out to the UN that at a minimum Chapter VI peacekeeping measures are needed, i.e., additional support, or Chapter VII peace enforcement, or even Chapter VIII regional measures whereby the Security Council has determined that the breach to international security and peace and order is so great as to require voluntary or involuntary introduction of UN resources, whether that is just food and housing, or military assets that would operate under a regional coalition simultaneously holding UN authority to act AND US (i.e., “regional”) Command, since it is difficult to envision that even in veritable death throes the remaining US authorities would permit “non-invited” UN military forces to the US…but as part of an overarching Chapter VIII Regional United Nations solution, in conjunction with the invocation of Article 5 of NATO collective self-defense, it IS conceivable to have a “coalition of the willing” comprised of many Nations helping to get the US back on its feet: the US and Canada form the core, adding NATO, and then remaining requirements brought to bear through Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter…At the point where the US Govt is collapsing, the remaining Presidential authority will be used to not only call forth the national militia through the Insurrection Act, empower the US Armed Forces and the entire Total Force to support it through Homeland Defense operations, augment remaining Federal/State/Local authority through Defense Support to Civil Authorities operations (which is a simultaneous Homeland Security action occurring while Homeland Defense actions occur), AND invoke the Combined Defense Plan and Canada-US Civil Assistance Plans with Canada, AND invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which would bring the resources of the entire NATO to support the remaining US Govt authorities and reinstate Federal controls. After all, what are our NATO friends for?!The actual “how” is far too complicated to explain here…massive and complex inter-organizational coordination (see Figure below), command structures, operations throughout the operational domains (land, sea, air, undersea, space, information/cyber, see Figure below), using the instruments of national power (diplomacy, information, military, economic), within and to protect the Homeland (and its approaches to continue to defend against anyone else trying to take advantage of our momentary weakness by flooding drugs, weapons, terrorism, etc., across our borders or against our interests and allies abroad).See Figure II-1 of JP 3–27:See figure I-3 of JP 3–27:

The State is not obviously ignoring the law. This took me five minutes to find on my own:Docket (Register of Actions)BRIGGS v. BROWN (CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT END, THE DEATH PENALTY)Case Number S238309Date 11/09/2016Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition with request for stay filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn11/09/2016Retained for consideration (mandate/prohibition)11/16/2016Received:Amended proof of service for petition for writ of mandate. Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel11/16/2016Received:Original verification for petition for writ of mandate. Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel11/16/2016Order filedBecause the petition for extraordinary relief in Briggs and Van de Kamp v. Brown et al. (S238309), filed on November 9, 2016, names the Judicial Council of California as a party, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, as Chair of the Judicial Council, and Associate Justice Ming Chin, as Vice-Chair of the Judicial Council, are disqualified from participating in the matter under Canon 3E(5)(e)(i) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, and are hereby recused.11/17/2016Application for stay deniedThe court is in receipt of the petition for extraordinary relief and request for immediate stay or injunctive relief filed by petitioners Ron Briggs and John Van de Kamp on November 9, 2016. To the extent petitioners seek to stay any action by the Secretary of State to certify the election results with respect to Proposition 66 on the November 8, 2016 ballot, that stay request is denied. The request for a stay of enforcement of Proposition 66 before the election results are certified (Elec. Code § 15501, subd. (b)), is denied as unnecessary. Petitioners may renew their motion for a stay or other relief if and when the certified results establish that Proposition 66 has been approved by the voters. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., and Chin, J., were recused and did not participate.11/17/2016Note:12/19/2016Motion filedMotion for Leave to File Amended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief and [Proposed] Amended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief, Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injunctive Relief. Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel12/19/2016Received:Amended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief, Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injunctive Relief. Immediate Stay or Injunctive Relief Requested Preventing Enforcement of Proposition 66 Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel12/19/2016Exhibit(s) lodgedPetitioners' Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Amended and Renewed Petition for Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Stay or Injunctive Relief.12/19/2016Received:Petitioner's Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate. Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel12/20/2016Stay order filedPetitioners' "Motion for Leave to File Amended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief, " filed on December 19, 2016, is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the "Amended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief, " and "Petitioner's Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate, " received on December 19, 2016. In order to provide time for further consideration of the amended petition for writ of mandate and to permit the filing and consideration of papers in opposition to the petition, the implementation of all provisions of Proposition 66, approved by the voters on November 8, 2016, as certified by the Secretary of State on December 16, 2016, is hereby stayed. Respondents must serve and file their preliminary oppositions to the petition no later than January 9, 2017. Petitioners may serve and file a reply to the oppositions no later than January 23, 2017. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., and Chin, J., were recused and did not participate.12/20/2016Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition with request for stay filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnAmended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief, Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injunctive Relief. Immediate Stay or Injunctive Relief Requested Preventing Enforcement of Proposition 6612/20/2016Request for judicial notice filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner's Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate12/20/2016Note:12/20/2016 order faxed to all parties01/09/2017Motion filedMotion to Intervene in Opposition to Petitioners' Petition Seeking Relief to Prevent Enforcement of Proposition 66. Declarations of Charles H. Bell, Kermit Alexander, McGregor W. Scott in Support of Motion to Intervene. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel.01/09/2017Received:Complaint in Intervention in Opposition to the Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Mandate. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel.01/09/2017Order filedGood cause appearing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.68, the time in which to respond to the "Motion to Intervene in Opposition, " filed by Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66 on January 9, 2017, is shortened. Oppositions to the motion, if any, must be served and filed no later than 10 a.m. on January 13, 2017. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J. and Chin, J., were recused and did not participate.01/09/2017Note:Jan. 9, 2017 order faxed to all parties.01/09/2017Preliminary opposition to writ petition filedRespondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Attorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-ZepedaRespondent: Kathleen A. KenealyAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda01/09/2017Preliminary opposition to writ petition filedRespondent: Judicial Council of CaliforniaAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda01/09/2017Received:Application for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief and (Proposed) Brief of Amicus Curiae in Opposition to Petition for Extraordinary Relief. By: David P. Mastagni, counsel for amicus curiae Peace Officers Research Association of California.01/09/2017Received:Application for Permission to File Amicus Curiae Brief (And Brief) in Support of Respondents Jerry Brown, Governor of California, Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California, California's Judicial Council, and Does I-XX. By: Michele Hanisee, counsel for amicus curiae Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, and Nine Other Associations Representing Deputy District Attorneys.01/10/2017Received:Preliminary Opposition of Intervenor Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No On Prop. 62, Yes on Prop.66 to the Petition for Extraordinary Relief. By: Kent S. Scheidegger, Counsel01/10/2017Received:Intervenor's Motion for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate. By: Kent S. Scheidegger, counsel for Intervenors Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66.01/12/2017Opposition filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn(Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene)01/17/2017Received:Intervener's Reply to Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Supplemental Declaration of Charles H. Bell, Jr. in Support of Proposed Intervener's Reply. Intervener's Exhibits in Support of Charles H. Bell, Jr.'s Declaration. NOTE: (Court awaiting Application for Leave to File Reply to Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene)01/18/2017Application filedFor leave to File Reply to Petitioner's Opposition to Motion to InterveneCalifornians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Terry J. Martin, Retained counsel.01/23/2017Reply to preliminary opposition filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn02/01/2017Order to show cause issuedThe court on its own motion substitutes Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney General, as respondent in place of Kamala Harris, in her official capacity as former Attorney General. The "Application for Leave to File Reply to Petitioner's Opposition to Motion to Intervene Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 387(a), " filed on January 18, 2017, is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the reply, the supplemental declaration of Charles H. Bell, and the appendix of exhibits, all received on January 17, 2017. The "Motion to Intervene in Opposition to Petitioner's Petition Seeking Relief to Prevent Enforcement of Proposition 66, " filed by Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66 on January 9, 2017, is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the declarations in support of the motion and the "Complaint in Intervention in Opposition to the Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Mandate, " all received on January 9, 2017, and the "Preliminary Opposition of Intervenor Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66 to the Petition for Extraordinary Relief, " and "Intervenor's Motion for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate, " both received on January 10, 2017. Petitioners' "Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate, " filed on December 20, 2016, is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the "Petitioner's Appendix of Exhibits, " received on December 20, 2016. Intervenor's "Motion for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate, " filed on January 13, 2017, is granted. Jerry Brown, Governor of the State of California, Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, and the Judicial Council of California are ordered to show cause before this court, when the matter is called on calendar, why the relief sought by petitioners should not be granted. The implementation of all provisions of Proposition 66 is hereby stayed pending the court's decision in this matter. (People ex rel. S.F. Bay etc. Com. v. Town of Emeryville (1968) 69 Cal.2d 533, 537.) Respondents' and Intervenor's returns must be served and filed on or before February 27, 2017. Petitioners may serve and file a reply to the returns on or before March 20, 2017. Any application to file an amicus curiae brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, must be served and filed on or before March 30, 2017. Any reply to an amicus brief must be served and filed on or before April 6, 2017. The court does not anticipate granting any extensions of time regarding the due dates set forth above. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., and Chin , J., were recused and did not participate. Votes: Corrigan, A.C.J., Werdegar, Liu, Cuéllar and Kruger, JJ.02/01/2017Filed:Intervener's Reply to Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Terry J. Martin, Retained counsel. (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order)02/01/2017Filed:Supplemental Declaration of Charles H. Bell, Jr. in Support of the Proposed intervener's Reply to Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Terry J. Martin, Retained counsel. (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order)02/01/2017Filed:Interveners' Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Charles H. Bell, Jr.'s Declaration in Support of the Proposed Intervener's Reply to Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Terry J. Martin, Retained counsel. (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order)02/01/2017Filed:Complaint in Intervention in Opposition to the Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Mandate. Declaration of Charles H. Bell, Jr. in Support of Motion to Intervene. Declaration of Kermit Alexander in Support of Motion to Intervene. Declaration of McGregor W. Scott in Support of Motion to Intervene. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel. (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order.)02/01/2017Filed:Preliminary Opposition of Intervenor Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty-No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66 to the Petition for Extraordinary Relief. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel. (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order.)02/01/2017Request for judicial notice filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Kent S. Scheidegger(Intervenor's Motion for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate.) (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order.)02/02/2017Order filedThe order filed on February 1, 2017, is hereby amended in part as follows. Paragraph Four is amended to read in its entirety: Petitioners' "Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate, " filed on December 20, 2016, is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the "Petitioner's Appendix of Exhibits, " lodged on December 19, 2016. Paragraph Five is amended to read in its entirety: Intervenor's "Motion for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate" is granted. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., and Chin, J., are recused and did not participate.02/27/2017Written return filedRespondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Attorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-ZepedaRespondent: Xavier BecerraAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda02/27/2017Written return filedRespondent: Judicial Council of CaliforniaAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda03/01/2017Received:Intervenor's Return to Order to Show Cause Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Intervener Charles H. Bell, Retained counsel (Untimely; to court for permission to file.)03/01/2017Written return filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Charles H. Bell(Filed With Permission)03/20/2017Request for extension of time filedTo File Replies to Amicus BriefsCalifornians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Intervener Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel03/20/2017Traverse filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn"Further Reply in Support of Petition for Extraordinary Relief."03/20/2017Received:Motion for Judicial Notice John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel (Missing Proof of Service)03/21/2017Received:Proof of Service for Petitioner's Motion for Judicial Notice03/21/2017Request for judicial notice filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn03/22/2017Extension of time deniedThe application of interveners filed on March 20, 2017, for an extension of time to file replies to amicus briefs, is denied. Please be advised that the provisions of rule 8.25(b)(3) of California Rules of Court do not apply. (See California Rules of Court, rule 8.25(b)(4).)03/27/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed1) By Michelle Hribar, counsel for amicus curiae Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association, in support of respondents. (Application contained within brief)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed2) By Justin Dela Cruz, counsel for amicus curiae California Correctional Peace Officers Association, in support of respondents. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed3) By Mark Zahner, counsel for amicus curiae California District Attorneys Association, in support of respondents. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed4) By Theano Evangelis, counsel for Constitutional Law, in support of petitioners. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed5) By Brett J. Williamson, counsel for amici curiae The Innocence Network, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, and American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, in support of petitioners. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed6) By Michael Hersek, counsel for amicus curiae Habeas Corpus Resource Center, in support of petitioners. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Filed:Letter, dated March 24, 2017, from Ms. Von der Ahe Rayburn, counsel for petitioners, informing the court of the death of petitioner John Van de Kamp.03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed7) By Robert Sanger, counsel for amicus curiae California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and Thomas Speedy Rice for amicus curiae Death Penalty Focus, in support petitioners. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed8) By Nina Besselman, counsel for amicus curiae Crime Victims United of California, in support of respondents. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed9) Offices of the Federal Public Defenders for the Central and Eastern Districts of California, in support of petitioners. (Brief under separate cover.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed10) Orange County District Attorney, in support of respondents and intervener. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed11) By Michele Hanisee, counsel for Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, and Nine Other Associations, in support of respondents. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and Death Penalty Focus for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: California Attorneys for Criminal JusticeAttorney: Robert M. SangerAmicus curiae: Death Penalty Focus03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers AssociationAttorney: Dennis J. Hayes03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Crime Victims United of California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Crime Victims United of CaliforniaAttorney: Nina S. Ashford03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of California Correctional Peace Officers Association for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Offices of the Federal Public Defenders for the Central and Eastern Districts of California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Offices of the Federal Public Defenders for the Central and Eastern Districts of CaliforniaAttorney: Hilary Lee Potashner03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Constitutional Law for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Constitutional LawAttorney: Theano Diana Kapur Evangelis03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of The Innocence Network, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, and American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Innocence NetworkAttorney: Brett Johnston WilliamsonAmicus curiae: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern CaliforniaAmicus curiae: American Civil Liberties Union of Southern CaliforniaAmicus curiae: American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Habeas Corpus Resource Center for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Habeas Corpus Resource CenterAttorney: Michael J. Hersek03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: California Correctional Peace Officers AssociationAttorney: Justin Christopher Delacruz03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, and Nine Other Associations Representing Deputy District Attorneys for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, and Nine Other AssociationsAttorney: Michele A. Hanisee03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of California District Attorneys Association for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: California District Attorneys AssociationAttorney: Mark Louis Zahner03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Orange County District Attorney for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents and intervener is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Orange County District AttorneyAttorney: Holly Marie Woesner04/03/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filedBy Patrick J. Whalen, counsel for amicus curiae California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Offices in State Employment (CASE), in support of neither party. (Application contained within brief) (Filed pursuant to CRC 8.25(b))04/03/2017Order filedThe above entitled matter is retitled as follows: RON BRIGGS, Petitioner, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Governor, etc. et al., Respondents; CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT TO END THE DEATH PENALTY, etc., Intervener.04/03/2017Received:Letter received, dated March 24, 2017 from Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn, counsel for Petitioners informing the Court that Petitioner John Van de Kamp has passed away; March 14, 2017.(Duplicate. Refer to line 730)04/06/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE) for permission to file an amicus curiae brief is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)04/06/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE)Attorney: Patrick J. Whalen04/06/2017Response to amicus curiae brief filedRespondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Attorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-ZepedaRespondent: Xavier BecerraAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda04/06/2017Response to amicus curiae brief filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn04/06/2017Response to amicus curiae brief filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Kent S. Scheidegger04/13/2017Justice pro tempore assignedHon. Raymond J. Ikola Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three04/13/2017Justice pro tempore assignedHon. Andrea L. Hoch Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District05/08/2017Oral argument letter sentDear Counsel: Please be advised that the court could set this case for argument within the next few months. Schedules showing the court's oral argument dates and locations for the next twelve months can be found at Supreme Court - supreme_court by clicking on "calendars, " and then accessing the "Oral Argument Calendar Dates" documents. Any counsel who believes good cause exists to avoid scheduling oral argument for a particular date (including counsel who, before receiving this letter, have previously asked to avoid certain dates) should inform the court within 7 calendar days of receiving this letter with a detailed explanation for such cause. Thereafter, counsel must immediately update the court on an ongoing basis as additional conflicts constituting good cause may arise. Examples of conflicts previously found to constitute good cause to avoid scheduling argument on any particular date include significant health-related issues; prepaid and nonrefundable travel arrangements booked in advance of the court's notification regarding oral argument; and significant family events such as marriage. Examples of conflicts previously found not to constitute good cause include scheduled trial and hearing dates in lower courts; conflicting professional seminars, meetings, or conventions; and planned significant family events that do not conflict with the actual dates on which argument might be held. Once the court files an order setting this case for oral argument, that date will not be changed absent exceptional cause, such as a medical emergency. Immediately upon filing of the calendar setting this case for argument, the court will send counsel an email communication with (1) a copy of that document; (2) an appearance sheet, upon which counsel must provide the names of the attorney or attorneys who will present argument, along with further instructions governing any request to divide argument time; and (3) a general notice regarding appearance for oral argument before the court. If a party wishes to bring to the court's attention new authorities, new legislation, or other matters that were not available in time to be included in the party's brief on the merits, the party must comply with California Rules of Court, rules 8.630(d) and 8.520(d).05/17/2017Case ordered on calendarTo be argued on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in Los Angeles.05/18/2017Case ordered on calendarTo be argued on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in Los Angeles. ** First amended calendar issued this date. Please note that People v. Page (Timothy Wayne), S230793 is to be called and continued to the September 2017 calendar.05/22/2017Application filedLetter, dated May 19, 2017, from Isaac Stevens, counsel for Amicus Curiae Peace Officers Research Association of California, requesting Court to consider PORAC's application for leave to file amicus brief and proposed amicus brief submitted January 9, 2017.05/23/2017Application filedApplication to divide oral argument time. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Intervener, Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Respondent Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda, AG staff Xavier Becerra, Respondent Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda, AG staff Kathleen A. Kenealy, Respondent Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda, AG staff Judicial Council of California, Respondent Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda, AG staff05/24/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Peace Officers Research Association of California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)05/24/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Peace Officers Research Association of CaliforniaAttorney: Isaac Sean Stevens05/24/2017Order filedThe request of counsel for respondents in the above-referenced cause to allow two counsel to argue on behalf of respondents at oral argument is hereby granted. The request of respondents to allocate to Jose A. Zelidon-Zepeda 20 minutes and Kent S. Scheidegger 10 minutes of respondents' 30-minute allotted time for oral argument is granted.06/01/2017Filed:"Petitioner's Corrected Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Further Reply in Support of Petition for Extraordinary Relief" Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel06/01/2017Request for judicial notice grantedThe request for judicial notice, filed on March 21, 2017, is granted.06/06/2017Cause argued and submitted06/09/2017Supplemental briefing orderedThe court requests that the parties serve and file supplemental letter briefs addressing the following question: Whether the authorization of an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of a superior court on an initial capital habeas corpus petition (Pen. Code, § 1509.1, subd. (a)) conflicts with the grant of appellate jurisdiction to this court "when judgment of death has been pronounced" (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); see id., § 12, subd. (d)). Amici curiae that have filed briefs in this matter may also file supplemental briefs addressing the above question if they so choose. All initial briefs addressing the above question must be served and filed simultaneously on or before June 19, 2017. Any reply to the supplemental briefs must be served and filed on or before June 29, 2017. Counsel shall submit all supplemental briefs by e-mail to [email protected], attaching the document as a PDF, followed by service and filing of hard copies. No extensions will be granted. The cause remains submitted as of June 7, 2017. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., and Chin, J., were recused and did not participate.06/12/2017Order filedThe order filed on June 9, 2017, ordering supplemental briefing is amended in part as follows. Paragraph Two is amended as to the last sentence to read: The cause remains submitted as of June 6, 2017.06/14/2017Supplemental brief filedAmicus curiae: Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers AssociationAttorney: Dennis J. HayesAttorney: Michelle Christina HribarBy Amicus Curiae Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association.06/16/2017Note: Mail returned and re-sentSupplemental briefing order to Stephen Kerr Dunkle, Counsel for Death Penalty Focus, Amicus curiae06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Kent S. Scheidegger06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedAmicus curiae: California Attorneys for Criminal JusticeAttorney: Robert M. SangerAmicus curiae: Death Penalty FocusAttorney: Robert M. Sanger06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedAmicus curiae: Constitutional LawAttorney: Theano Diana Kapur Evangelis06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedRespondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Attorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-ZepedaRespondent: Xavier BecerraAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedAmicus curiae: Peace Officers Research Association of CaliforniaAttorney: David P. Mastagni06/20/2017Change of contact information filed for:Stephen Dunkle from 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite 102 to 125 East De La Guerra,06/29/2017Reply to supplemental brief filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Kent S. Scheidegger06/29/2017Received:Supplemental Letter Brief of Amicus Curiae Habeas Corpus Resource Center.06/29/2017Reply to supplemental brief filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn06/29/2017Reply to supplemental brief filedAmicus curiae: Peace Officers Research Association of CaliforniaAttorney: David P. Mastagni06/29/2017Reply to supplemental brief filedRespondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Attorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-ZepedaRespondent: Xavier BecerraAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda08/23/2017Notice of forthcoming opinion postedTo be filed on Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.08/23/2017Order filedThe order filed on April 3, 2017 amending the order title is corrected as follows: RON BRIGGS, Petitioner, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Governor, etc. et al., Respondents; CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT END, THE DEATH PENALTY, etc., Intervener.08/24/2017Opinion filedWe discharge the order to show cause, and deny the amended and renewed petition for a writ of mandate and injunctive relief. Majority Opinion by Corrigan, A. C. J. -- joined by Werdegar, Liu, Kruger, and Hoch*, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Liu, J. -- joined by Werdegar, Kruger, and Hoch*, JJ. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Cuéllar, J. -- joined by Ikola**, J. * Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. ** Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.09/08/2017Rehearing petition filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn09/11/2017Time extended to consider modification or rehearingThe time for granting or denying rehearing in the above-entitled case is hereby extended to and including November 22, 2017, or the date upon which rehearing is either granted or denied, whichever occurs first.09/18/2017Motion filedCalifornians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Intervener Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel09/18/2017Answer to rehearing petition filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Kent S. Scheidegger10/25/2017Rehearing denied; opinion modifiedORDER MODIFYING OPINION, DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING, AND DENYING AS MOOT THE MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY STAY FILED BY INTERVENER CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT END, THE DEATH PENALTY THE COURT: The opinion in this matter filed August 24, 2017, and appearing at 3 Cal.5th 808, is modified as follows: On page 826 of the opinion, the sentence reading, "Physicians and other licensed health care professionals are protected against disciplinary proceedings for any actions authorized by statute" is modified to read, "Physicians and other licensed health care professionals are protected against disciplinary proceedings for any actions authorized by section 3604.3." On page 829 of the opinion, the phrase that reads "which provided for (1) postindictment preliminary hearings" is modified to read "which provided for (1) abolition of the right to postindictment preliminary hearings." These modifications do not affect the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied. Pursuant to this court's order of September 11, 2017, extending the time for granting or denying rehearing, the decision in this matter is now final. The Motion to Vacate or Modify Stay filed by intervener Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty is denied as moot.10/25/2017Letter sent to counsel: opinion now final

·Constituent Assembly·Bhima Koregaon·Hampi·Savitribai Phule·Satyashodhank Samaj·Nankana Sahib·Saint Thyagaraja·Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose·Binay Badal Binesh·Aurobindo Ghosh·Deshbandhu Chitranjan Das·Ramakrishna Mission·Sri Ramakrishna·Swami Vivekananda·Chattrapati Shivaji·Savitribai Phule·Fatima Sheikh·Muslim League·Pathalgarhi Movement·Indian Council Act·GoI 1909·GoI 1919·Simon Commission·Communal Award·Separate Electorate·Lucknow Pact·Mahatma Gandhi·Nehru·Subhas Chandra Bose·Musical Instrument –Percussion·Civil Disobedience Movement·Non Cooperation Movement·Quit India Movement·Gandhiji in South AfricaFebruary·Brahadeeshwara Temple·Pathalgadi Movement·Agama Principle·Thevaram·Rajaraja I·Chola Sculptures·Nathuram Godse·Mahatma Gandhi·INA·Hindu Maha Sabha·Indus Valley Civilization: Lothal maritime Museum·Harrapan Seals·Hampi·Vijaynagar Empire·Sabarmati ashram·Dwarkanath S. Kotnis·Cabinet Mission Plan·Shivaji·Indus valley Civilization food habits·Harappa Civilsation·Simon Commission·Salt Satyagraha·Narayan Guru·Hieun Tsang’s account·Fa Hsien·Taj Mahal·Mridangam·Mayur folk dance·Rai folk dancePolityJanuary·Parliamentary Privilege·Breach of Privilege·Rajya Sabha·SEC·10th Schedule·Privilege committee·NHRC·Article 131·State reorganization Act 1956·Basic Structure Doctrine·Preamble and its Values·Delhi legislative Assembly·Chief Election Commissioner·Article 30·Eighth Schedule·Dual Citizenship·Curative Petition·Review Petition·Akali Dal·Overseas Citizen of India·SC Writs·Fundamental Rights·clause 6 of Assam Accord·Consolidated Fund of India (CFI)·Joint Sitting of the Parliament·State Human Rights Commission·Governors·NPR·Habeas Corpus Petition·Advocate General·Speaker of Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies·Directive Principle of State Policy·Legislative Council·Quasi-Judicial body·Model Code of Conduct·Sec 123 of RPA·RTE·Role of Legislative Councils·Abolition of Legislative Councils·Budget Session of parliament·February·NRI·Citizenship Rules,2003·Finance Commission·Joint Session of Parliament·Motion of Thanks·Speaker·10th Schedule·13th Amendment to the constitution·CAG·SC/ST Act·Mandamus·Lokpal and lokayukta act·Against ministers·Rules of origin·UCC·RS·Governors mercy powers·Art 226·Central Vigilance Commission·Central information Commission·7th schedule·CVC appointment·Independence of judiciary·Leader of Opposition·Curative Petition·Fundamental Duties·42nd CAA·RS Election·Solicitor General·Sunset Legislation·Subordinate Legislation·Committee on subordinate legislation·Transfer of judges·CollegiumGeographyJanuary·Strip mining·Goldilock Zone·International Seabed Authority·Indian Ocean Dipole·GI Tag·Monsoon·Withdrawal Of Monsoon·El Nino and La Nina·Blue Flag Beaches·CRZ·Rabi crops·Agriculture Census-2011·Periyar·GEAC·National Start Up Council·Kole LandsFebruary·Ozone·Stratospheric ozone·Troposphere ozone·Urban Heat Island·Rabi Crop·Smog·EarthquakeEconomicsJanuary·17 SDGs·Demographic Dividend·Balance of Payment·Current Account Deficit·External Commercial Borrowing·Fiscal Deficit·Capital Expenditure·Countervailing Duty·TRAI·National Infrastructure Pipeline·Competition Act 2002·Competition Commission of India·National Investment and Infrastructure Fund·Fiscal stimulus·Savings rate·SEBI·Social Capital·National housing Bank·Gender Dividend·Prompt Corrective Action·Open Market operation·Operation twist·National pension·Fiscal consolidation·Revenue foregone·Monetary Policy Committee·Global economic Prospects·NBFC·Gross Domestic Product·National Statistical Organisation·OPEC·GSTN·High spenders·Shadow Banking·Disguised unemployment·Enforcement Directorate·Prevention of Money Laundering Act·Index of industrial production·National Statistical Office·Primary Good·Capital Good·Zero Budget Natural Farming·Resource Use Efficiency·RBI·Index of Industrial Production (IIP)·GST·Inverted Duty Structure·Department of Revenue·Input Tax credit·Anti-trust·WPI vs CPI·capital account convertibility·Minimum Support Price·Issue Price·Stagflation·Inflation·Repo rate·WPI·Headline and Core inflation·“off-budget” items.·Public Account·Eco Tourism·Lender of last resort·Inflation targeting·Run on Bank·Shadow Bank·Core inflation·Most Favored nation Status·Make in India·Electoral bonds·GDP Calculation·National Sample Survey Office·National Statistics Office·National Statistical Commission·Revenue Deficit·Inflation targeting target 4+-2%·FATF grey and black list·NABARD·Rural Infrastructure Development Fund·Non defence capital expenditure·Consumption expenditure·CRR·SLR·Corruption Perception Index·Total Fertility Rate·E-NAM·ITAT·Direct Tax·Ease of doing business·Human Capital formation·MNREGA·IRDAIFebruary·Surcharges·Inflation·Current Account Deficit·Forex Exchange reserve·Alternate Investment Fund·Cooperative banks·Banking Regulation Act·Dividend Distribution tax·REITs·InvITs·Fiscal Stimulus·Operation twist·Incremental Capital output ratio·Gross Fixed capital Formation·IGST·Non tax receipts·No Tax Revenue·Monetary easing·FRBM Escape Clause·15th FC Criteria·Sec 4 of FRBM Act·EEZ·Dumping of goods·Federal reserves·NPCI·Cess·CSO·Countervailing Duties·WTO Subsidies and Countervailing measures.·Non-Tariff measures and Barriers·Generalized System of Preference·NSDC·Fiscal Deficit inflationary impact·LPG·FATF grey list and black list·Fiscal Space·CSO·Green Box subsidy·Monetary Stimulus·Dedicated Freight Corridor·Profit shifting and Base Erosion·Financial Secrecy Index·Open-ended procurement·Belt and Road Initiative·Foreign Portfolio Investor·Tax Holiday·Central Consumer Protection Authority·Consumer Protection Act 2019·Bureau Of Indian Standard·SEZ·Intended Nationally Determined Contributions·Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act·Capital formation·Gross Domestic Product·National Statistical OfficeScience and TechnologyJanuary·Micro Plastics·Gaganyaan·Chandrayaan·GSLV Mark III·Small Satellite Launch Vehicle·NAVIC·Patent·Sec 3(d) of IP Act·Ever greening of Patent·Indian Science Congress·Saras Aircraft·Tulu·Indian Data Relay Satellite System·Low earth Orbit Satellite·Digital Locker·Lysosomal storage Disorder·ICAR·Polymetallic nodules·Augmented reality·Polio: Vaccine derived polio virus.·Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Center·Black Box·Genome Sequencing·Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action·Nuclear Enrichment·Superbugs·GSAT·Antibiotic Resistance·Corona Virus·Central Drug Standard Control Organization·Endemic Species·Decennial Census·Thirty Metre Telescope·GM Crops·HtBt·T Cell·Vyommitra·Forensic audit·Gene editing·CRISPR/Cas9·Gene Modification·Zoonotic Disease·Yellow Rust·DARK Web·Biotechnology Agriculture application·Bt CottonFebruary·Facial Recognition technology·Bats and antibodies of Ebola Virus·Locust Attack·BIS·Reverse Osmosis·Total dissolved water·Intellectual Property Appellate Board·Virtual Private Networks·Dark net·National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority·Drugs Price Control Order·Reverse Osmosis·Bureau Of Indian Standards·Nipah Virus·COVID-19·Zoonotic Disease·Integrated Disease Surveillance Program·Lorcaserin·Sec 3d of Indian patent Act·Drug Price Control Order·National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority·Diclofenac·Aditya Mission of ISRO·Coronal mass Ejection·National Mission on quantum Technologies and applications·Seed fund for start up·Biochar·European General Data Protection Regulation·data localization·H1N1 Virus·Pandemic·Blue Dot Network·Biochemical Oxygen Demand·Dissolved Oxygen·Alternative Medicine System·NSAP·IRAN-NUCLEAR DEAL-BUSHEHR REACTOR·LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESALINATION·FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE·DICLOFENAC·Quantum computers·Current AffairsJanuary·Jallikattu·Community Resources·Bharat Ratna·Integrated Disease Surveillance Program·Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS)·Choke Points·MERS SARS·Nagoba jatra·Al Shabab·Defence Ministry : Department of Military Affairs·NTCA·Quds Force·Hezbollah in Lebanon·Houthis in Yemen·Crime and Criminal Tracking Networks and System (CCTNS) database.·Strategic Oil Reserves·Digital India·National List of essential medicine·National pharmaceutical Pricing Authority·TESS·TOI700d·Khelo India·Document identification System·PFRDA·Atal Pension Yojna·National Pension Scheme·Nuclear Command Control·Department of Defence·Baba Kalyani Committee·State Energy Efficiency Index·BEE·Standard and Labelling·Energy Conservation and Building Code·Perform Achieve and Trade·Bihu·Airspace·NCRB·Fire temple·NIA·Telecommunication Consumers Education and protection Fund·Global Innovation Index·Green Climate Fund·Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB)·Raisina Dialogue·Ballistic Missile K4·National Commission for Minorities·Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty·INDCs·Paris Agreement·Sarva Siksha Abhiyan·Interpol·Blue corner Notice·Indi Grid·Farmers Producer Organization·FCRA·DGCAFebruary·Bodo language·Oxfam·Bru-Reand tribe·Thirukkural·550th Anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev·H5N1·Decennial Census·National Film Archives of India·16 POINT Mega Action Plan for Agriculture·SAGAR·FAO·Horn of Africa·Sammakka Sarakka jatara·Sreni·Kula·Puga·Rohingya·Principle of No-Refoulement·1951 Refugee Convention·String of pearls·DICGC·NCPCR·HoHo·IREDA·Bharat Net·USTR·AGR·CCI·Department of Military Affairs·Asur tribe·UNESCO Interactive Atlas of world languages·Jalan Panel·Operation vanilla·Electrical Vehicle Policy·FAME Scheme·Swatch Bharat Mission·Locus·National Clean Air Campaign·Kambala·Jallikattu·State of India’s bird report·Operation flood·CDSC0Government schemesJanuary·Swachh Survekshan League·FAME I , FAME II·KUSUM·AMRUT·e Nikshay Poshan Yojana·Pradhna Manti Kaushal Vikas Yojna·Deen Dayal Upadhyaya-Grameen Kaushal Yojna·UMANG·E-Taal·E-Hastakshar·Meghraj·National Knowledge Network·Vikashpedia·PRAGATI·DARPAN·Pradhan Mantri Kisan Sampada Yojana·Rashtriya Aarogya Nidhi·National E- Mobility Mission Plan 2020·District Mental Health Programme·Ujjwala·PM-KISAN scheme·AYUSHFebruary·Dhanyalakshmi·Krishi Udaan·One District One Product·PMKUSUM·Krishi Udaan·Krishi Rail·Jal Jeevan Mission·AYUSH·Vivad Se Vishwash·PMJAY·Jan Aushadhi Scheme·National technical textile Mission·POSHAN Abhiyan·Bhartiya Poshan Krishi Kosh·Soil Health card·Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi or PM-KISAN scheme·InSight·Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Pariyojna·PM KIsan SAmman Nidhi (an income support programme)·Fasal Bima Yojana (for crop insurance)·PM Annadaata Aay SanraksHan Abhiyan PM AASHA (assured price·support).EnvironmentJanuary·Carbon footprint·National Green Tribunal·Keeladi·Osmanabadi goat·Insitu and Ex Situ Biosphere Conservation·Carbon Capture·Steppe Eagle·Irrawaddy Dolphin·Brus·India’s renewable energy targets: 175 GW·Convention on Biodiversity·Cartagena Protocol·Biodiversity·Ecosystem Services·The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)·Wetlands·Ramsar SitesFebruary·Wetlands·Ramsar Convention·World Wetland Day·IPBES·Ramsar Sites in India·Great Indian Bustard·Endangered Wolf·Keystone Species·CPCB·Power Plant emission(Particulate matter, Sulphur dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide)·Threatened status: Lion, Great Indian Bustard, Bengal Florican ,Dudong and Manipur brow –antlered, cheetah·National Tiger Conservation Authority·Conservation of Migratory Species·Species: Snow leopard, Amur Falcon, Bar headed geese, Blacknecked Crane, Marine Turtles, Dugongs and Humped backed Whales.·Project Elephant·Secondary Pollutants·Major Ports·Green Ports·Integrated Development and Management of Fisheries and Fisheries andAquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund·IUCN·Red List·Endemic species·Carbon Footprint·Carbon Neutral·Florican·Coursers·Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animal·Karbi·Biodiversity : Meaning and Types·Namami Gange·Paris Agreement on Climate Change·DGCA·Cheetah Introduction·Cheetah Conservation FundInternational BodiesJanuary·African Union·Global Innovation and Technology Alliance (GITA)·Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI)·UNCOIS·WTO·WTO Appellate Body·WHO Health for All festival·United nation Declaration of Human Rights·International Labour Organization·Office of High Commissioner of human Rights (OHCHR)·WHO·UN Charter·UNSC·The UN Food and Agricultural Organization·Shanghai Cooperation Organization·Bilateral Trade and Investment Treaty·European Union·World economic Outlook of IMF·WEF·Transparency International·WTO –Marrakesh treaty·FPI·International Court of Justice·SAARCFebruary·International Maritime Oraganisation·International Criminal Justice·UNEP·Common Wealth·West Asia Peace Plan·World Customs Union·Convention on Rights of Child·WTO developing status·SAARC·BIMSTECMapJanuary·Strait of Hormuz·AuschwitzFebruary·Kozhikode·Thanjavur·Vadhavan·Chabahar Port·Bandar Abbas·Kokrajhar·Kunopalpur·Rakhine State·Cauvery river·Siachen Glacier·Cauvery·Pulse Growing India·Maldives·Palestine·Hubei province·Rakhigarhi·Hastinapur·Shivsagar·Dholavira·Adichanallur·Lothal·Major Ports in India·DR Congo·Mandya·Shola Forest·Madagascar·Vanilla Islands·Indian Ocean·Kokrajhar·Prayagraj·Perumba river·Namdhapa Tiger Reserve·M M Wildlife Sanctuary·Biligiri Rangatha Temple Tiger Reserve·Bandipur Tiger Reserve·Mauritius·South China Sea Resolution·Mekedatu Dam·Chabahar Port·Ganga·Cities on Ganga Kanpur·Eastern Ghats·Papikonda National Park·Namibia