Category Archives: I Shall Come Out Like Shiny GOLD

My Divine Mission is Promoting and Advertising the “CLEANING-UP” starting with the MEDIA MANIPULATION OF THE VOTERS & CONCEALMENT OF INFORMATION TO THE VOTERS. Stop the Chicago Style Politics By Television Media

Addie M. Miller’s  Divine Mission is Promoting and Advertising the “CLEANING-UP” starting with the MEDIA MANIPULATION OF THE VOTERS & CONCEALMENT OF INFORMATION TO THE VOTERS.

Former Los Angeles Councilman Nate Holden, stated during council meeting, the election process in the City of Los Angeles is reminiscent of Chicago style politics, further we don’t want Chicago style politics in the City of Los Angeles, Quoted by former Nate Holden and Councilman Rudy Svorinich, Jr.

In my opinion the 2013 primary election was Chicago style politics by the television Media here in the City of Los Angeles.

 

LA_Times_4-9-97.jpg

Los_Angeles_City_Council_minutes.jpg

 

Advertisements

A Supreme Court Justice Of The United States Must Recuse From Case When Justice(s) Has Financial Interest In Case

The Above Photo Are The 9 Supreme Court Justices to whom my CASE #13-9007 went before 7/21/2014 . 

My Case as the petitioner #13-9007 was Distributed For Conference in the Supreme Court Of The United States 4/23/2014 and was denied 7/21/2014.   

I personally telephoned the Supreme Court to ask that there were many, many cases schedules for Conference that day and did the Justices take time to review my CASE #13-9007. 

I have a question “Did the Justices take there time to actually review?”  After reading PBS.Org, I believe there is a conflict of interest with the Justice(s) and the Respondent as far as having stock in the Respondent’s corporation, then I believe the Justice should have recuse themselves from my case  #13-9007. 

In my opinion unfairness towards my case #13-9007 during the 7/21/2014 Justices Supreme Court Of The United States Conference.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=%2Fdocketfiles%2F13-9007.htm  A Justice(s) of the Supreme Court of the United States must recuse themselves from a case when the Justice(s) has financial interest a party. In my opinion when my case went before the Supreme Court their was a financial interest with the party I was suing. I also believe there was more than one justice and that is why my case was never heard.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people……- Abraham Lincoln

The Supreme Court Of The United States should not just be for the Rich Corporations.   Such a Great INJUSTICE.

The 9 Supreme Court Of The United States in the years 2013 , 2014 and 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/scotus-roundup-2013/?noredirect=on

The Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 term made history by striking down key elements of the Voting Rights Act and the Defense of Marriage Act, both in 5 to 4 decisions. The percentage of 5-to-4 split cases this session was the court’s highest since 2008, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy most frequently voting with the majority. In the three major cases that ended the court’s term — affirmative action in higher education, the Voting Rights Act and the Defense of Marriage Act —Kennedy was the only justice in the majority each time.

Read related article.

“JUSTICES” OF SUPREME COURT OF THE UNTIED STATES, MUST OBEY THE CONSTITUTION AND “NOT THEIR PERSONAL FRIENDS AND BUSINESS ACQUAINTANCES”, CONCERNING ANY CASE THAT COME BEFORE THE S.C.O.T.U.S.

https://www.myenglishpages.com/site…/random-idiom.php…
JUSTICE IS BLIND. “-This expression means that justice is impartial and objective. There is an allusion here to the Greek statue for justice, wearing a blindfold so as “not to treat friends differently from strangers”, or “rich people better than the poor ones.”

No automatic alt text available.

FACEBOOK ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDIE M. MILLER’S EDUCATIONAL WRITINGS

FACEBOOK ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDIE M. MILLER’S EDUCATIONAL WRITINGS

15 Clear Signs Your Phone Was Hacked VITAL INFORMATION

Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S. Code § 2510 – Definitions,

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 119 › § 2510

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2510

https://cyber.harvard.edu/privacy/18usc2510-2521.htm

https://it.ojp.gov/PrivacyLiberty/authorities/statutes/1285

(a) Every person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail, by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

 

(b) For purposes of this section, “electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cell phones, computers, Internet Web pages or sites, Internet phones, hybrid cellular/Internet/wireless devices, personal digital assistants (PDAs), video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term is defined in; 

Section 2510(12) of Title 18 of the United States Code 

(c) For purposes of this section, the following terms apply:

(1) “Harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that a reasonable person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting, or seriously terrorizing the person and that serves no legitimate purpose.

(2) “Of a harassing nature” means of a nature that a reasonable person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting, or seriously terrorizing of the person and that serves no legitimate purpose.

HUD Secretary Ben Carson stated, He is not going to send the $31,000 Table back. Secretary Ben Carson, intentions are To Eliminate Programs for the Poor, Elderly and the Disabled