Powell



"WHEN THE GUARDIANS OF JUSTICE BECOME THE PERPETRATORS OF INJUSTICE - Licensed to Lie is the story of the strong-arm, illegal, and unethical tactics used by headline-grabbing federal prosecutors in their narcissistic pursuit of power."



Author, Sidney Powell, served in the Department of Justice for ten years in Texas and Virginia and has devoted her private practice to federal appeals for the past twenty years. In Licensed to Lie, Powell leads readers through the disturbing missteps, cover-ups, malfeasance, and corruption of justice that have caused her to question the system she has been committed to for over thirty years.



“This book should serve as the beginning of a serious conversation about whether our criminal justice system continues to live up to its vaunted reputation. As citizens of a free society, we all have an important stake in making sure that it does.” - From the Foreword by Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in his personal capacity.



Some Motions Filed By Daniel Smith



Over the last two years, Daniel has argued several of his motions before the judge. Each time, under the tutelage of those more experienced, Daniel's level of confidence and presentation improved. Seasoned attorneys commented that Daniel argued better than 90% of all other attorneys they'd seen. Others agreed, Daniel had outargued the prosecution hands down. Nevertheless, the judge's rulings always ended with the word: "DENIED".



Where the prosecution faltered, the judge covered for the government. Where the prosecution failed to argue, the judge argued for the government. Where the prosecution filed false pleadings, the judge swept them under the rug. When Daniel's argument could not be easily overcome, it was omitted or liberally misconstrued to clear the way for a ruling in favor of the government. This is the state of our federal district courts in America. The doctrine of Separation of Powers is an ideal that lost its way when the courts became embroiled in bonding - and thus monetizing -every case that it hears.



In summary, every attempt made by Daniel to obtain a just ruling was met with a clear and unmistakable demonstration of judicial bias.



Following one such denial, Karis wrote the following tender note to Daniel:



"I'm sorry the judge is so adversarial to you, specifically. It's not fair ... and I believe in my heart that you have the ability to see through it to a solution that really changes things for everyone."



"You have become a warrior through all of this, and that is admirable, but remember that David had smooth stones and a soft heart. Remember that your greatest gift in this world is your sweet heart."



"I know this can't be any help or comfort right now, but I suppose I'm just committed to reminding you of this over and over. Who you are is not an angry, defiant, warring victim to the government.



"You are creative, visionary, generous, tender and loving. Those are your five smooth stones." ~ Karis



Five Smooth Stones



Daniel's Case Severed on Spurious Grounds : Co-Defendants "Plead Out"



On November 7, 2014, with trial less than 30 days out, and after learning Daniel's co-defendants had refused the government's "plea offers", the judge severed the case into two separate trials - one for Daniel and one for the remaining co-defendants - setting Daniel's trial off by three months. This effectively forced Daniel's co-defendants into either pleading guilty to lesser charges, or risk going to trial in less than 30 days without Daniel - the only one preparing for trial.



The judge justified the ruling by falsely branding Daniel a "sovereign citizen" (the top domestic terrorist threat in America according to the Department of Homeland Security), asserting that Daniel's co-defendants would be "prejudiced" if they had to go to trial with him.



Watching their attorneys do little-to-nothing for almost two years and the judge deny every one of Daniel's motions in favor of the government, Daniel's co-defendants were effectively forced into pleading guilty to lesser charges in order to avoid having to go to trial virtually alone, where the stakes were high and there were no guarantees of a fair trial. They were told by their attorneys their pleas would likely mean no jail time.



As Harvard Law professor, Alan M. Dershowitz pointed out, defendants in similar situations eventually "plead" not because they believe they have done anything wrong, but because the government effectively extorts from them a "lesser" conviction by threatening a heavy prison sentence and never seeing their families again.



As the prosecutor in Daniel's case admitted to one co-defendant's attorney at the very beginning of this case, "It's really Mr. Smith we're after."



Daniel's Trial Currently Set for March 3, 2015



Daniel's trial is now set for March, 3, 2015 - less than 90 days away. The government has access to unlimited resources. Daniel requires financial assistance to retain highly experienced assistance of counsel and to pay for other legal expenses, including expert witnesses and transportation of witnesses from various locations around the world.



Experts say that Daniel's case is winnable for several reasons which cannot be discussed in open forum. Dr. Mary J. Ruwart wrote something about Daniel's legal challenges in a 2010 article entitled, The FDA Wants Jurisdiction Over Your Kitchen!



What if Daniel Loses?



If Daniel loses this case, he could spend up to 37 years in federal prison. In turn, the FDA will use its victory as a precedent to launch a campaign against resellers of sodium chlorite solution worldwide. PGL was selectively targeted by the FDA to set an example.



MMS and sodium chlorite are still available today on Ebay, Amazon, and from scores of distributors throughout the the world; but not for long if the FDA gets their conviction.



Daniel is standing not only for his family but for all of us in the health freedom movement. With the right legal team, the right experts, and a well-prepared defense, we can all win. Without these, we all lose and Daniel goes to jail. Any one of us could be next.



This is your opportunity to make a difference.



As the 1992 Libertarian Party Vice-Presidential Candidate, Attorney Nancy Lord, M.D., said on June 6, 1994 in closing argument in the famous case of FDA v. Roger Sless:



"Tell the FDA that you want them to leave Dr. Priestley and all of her colleagues in the supplement industry alone. Tell the FDA to go back to Rockville, Maryland. Tell them to take their guns and their badges with them. Tell them that the only thing in this trial that isn't safe and effective is the FDA. Remember what Dr. Priestley said. Those guns are loaded. Somebody could get hurt..."

Tweet Share Donate

Source: Gift of Speech



A Letter from Daniel to Supporters



"Dear friends, words cannot express our family's gratitude for all your prayers and support in the last seven years - particularly in the last three.



In 2012, many of you gave to a fund collected by Genesis II and/or the U.S. Observer, and many of you have continued to send support personally since. Thank you.



Thousands of you, from all over the world, sent sworn declarations, some directly to the grand jury foreman, care of the prosecutor who, as it turns out, deliberately withheld them from the jury - though the government admits receiving them in a recent filing. Nonetheless, thank you.



While the government's allegations have tested our strength and resolve, it has been your continued and often unsolicited support that has reminded us we are not alone.



I realize I have been off-radar for a considerable amount of time. This has, in part, been due to sheer exhaustion. When the government has marshaled considerable resources against you, it can be hard to get out of bed some mornings.



Its also been difficult because the prosecutor dragged my friends and family into harms way so I have felt compelled to keep a low profile so the government did not retaliate against them.



I am reminded as I type this email, I am wearing a government issued monitoring device, which has been married to my ankle for the last two years (a form of house arrest - a condition of my pre-trial release).



I'm attaching a photo of this clever device, which assures the government I am safe and sound in my home every night between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. In the beginning, it insured that I never left home at all - not even to the grocery. Other than keeping me from going swimming with the kids, I hardly notice its there anymore. This device communicates with an alien-looking GPS-device that sits on top of our piano.





A lot has changed in the MMS universe since 2011, but the challenges we face in the health freedom movement are not limited to MMS.



There are some who would say that, since its inception, the FDA has abused legal process to limit the availability of all manner of safe, effective, and affordable alternatives to allopathic medicine. Never has the "business of cancer", for example, been so well documented as in the case of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D.

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Trailer)





Attorney Nancy Lord, M.D. once argued in her closing of the famous Roger Sless trial:



[Start quote.] "The idea of government control of medicine occurred to two people -- Benjamin Rush, George Washington's personal doctor and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and Thomas Jefferson.



"Benjamin Rush warned: 'Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship... To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic... The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom.'



"The Founders guaranteed that we would remain free of government interference in our choice of religion. When the founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they knew that government would try to dictate religion, because it always had.



"But in spite of Dr. Rush's prophetic warning, the right to freedom in our choice of health care is not part of the Bill of Rights. The founders never imagined that a trial such as this would ever take place in America. Because they never thought the federal government would even attempt to control what we keep in our medicine cabinets and kitchen cabinets. There was no such thing as the FDA until 1906, when the Pure Food and Drugs Act permitted the government to seize dangerous substances. Then in 1938 they required that safety data be submitted for evaluation. In 1962, all of those products and any new ones had to submit data on effectiveness and wait until the FDA approved the drug before it could be marketed." [End quote.]



Friends, 2015 will be a decisive year for all of us. Ultimately, our success depends upon our ability to gain support in this eleventh hour. We have reached the end of our own resources, but have so much more to accomplish in the next 90 days. Although we are on the homestretch, we still need substantial funding to see this through.



Many of you have helped us before, and this has made it possible for us to fight the battle up to now. If you've ever thought of contributing more to help preserve our right to health freedom, now is the time.



The results of this campaign will determine not only my own family's future but the future of MMS, and help establish an important trajectory in the health freedom movement. Please stand with us in solidarity at this critical time.



I hope to write more of the journey soon, and to give those who remain interested, a glimpse into the countless miracles that have sustained us - no doubt, because of all your prayers and support.



Thank you for everything.



Daniel Smith

c/o: 1314 S. Grand Blvd. Ste 2-128

Spokane, Washington 99202

+001 (509) 590-2188

Skype: shuzammy Tweet Share Donate



One Prayer Warrior's Vision





More About Daniel and Karis



Daniel and Karis founded Project GreenLife in 2007, a vision that began in 2004 when Daniel's biological mother suddenly passed after being poorly diagnosed - left to starve on a hospital bed in the advance stages of cancer.



When Daniel inquired regarding the hospital's inattentiveness to his mother's nutritional requirements, her doctor replied, "I eat Twinkies and drink Coca Cola. I'm a medical doctor. I know nothing about nutrition." Daniel would later learn that many practicing MD's never receive more than an hour of nutritional education during medical training. This launched Daniel on a course that eventually led to Project GreenLife.



Daniel and Karis have four children, two girls, two boys (ages 10-22), and one grandson. Karis is a natural healer, versed in various modalities including Massage, Directed Breath and Matrix Energetics. Daniel and Karis home-schooled all three of their children for their early years.



Daniel's first love has always been music. You can hear him perform one of his songs here: Peace Be Still



Today I Woke Up - Daniel Smith-Votino

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XzKDou7FCU

Politics of Sodium Chlorite (continued from above)





The absurdity of this proposition should be almost immediately obvious, for this suggests the agency may convert, for example, a standard household toilet into a "medical device", for the purposes of regulating, or Vitamin C for the treatment of scurvy into a "drug", water for the treatment of dehydration the same and, invariably, water purification drops such as MMS into a "drug", because these all "prevent disease" in one way or another.



In turn, the law declares that any interstate transfer of such a device or substance (or any component thereof) absent a near half billion dollar right-of-passage fee to the agency (i.e., a "drug application fee") to be an "infamous crime" - that is, if the agency should find a technical error in the labeling such to declare the article "misbranded".



Not surprisingly, it was the pharmaceutical companies that first lobbied Congress for such high barriers to entry - the purpose of which to keep "the little guy" from entering the market with products that could take billions from publicly traded companies. This is the lifeblood of the FDA and the trillion dollar sickness industry that props a failing world economy.



In short, it is the "public policy" of the FDA to protect "public health", which really means protecting publicly traded companies from potential losses. In this sense, the FDA is fulfilling its prime directive perfectly when it suppresses affordable alternatives, but it does so at the expense of your personal health and freedom.



The archaic laws and overbroad policies of the FDA allow it to arbitrarily declare less novel (and thus less patentable) substances "drugs" whenever the agency decides the "intended use" of the substance is to "mitigate, treat, cure, or prevent disease".The absurdity of this proposition should be almost immediately obvious, for this suggests the agency may convert, for example, a standard household toilet into a "medical device", for the purposes of regulating, or Vitamin C for the treatment of scurvy into a "drug", water for the treatment of dehydration the same and, invariably, water purification drops such as MMS into a "drug", because these all "prevent disease" in one way or another.In turn, the law declares that any interstate transfer of such a device or substance (or any component thereof) absent a near half billion dollar right-of-passage fee to the agency (i.e., a "drug application fee") to be an "infamous crime" - that is, if the agency should find a technical error in the labeling such to declare the article "misbranded".Not surprisingly, it was the pharmaceutical companies that first lobbied Congress for such high barriers to entry - the purpose of which to keep "the little guy" from entering the market with products that could take billions from publicly traded companies. This is the lifeblood of the FDA and the trillion dollar sickness industry that props a failing world economy.In short, it is the "public policy" of the FDA to protect "public health", which really means protecting publicly traded companies from potential losses. In this sense, the FDA is fulfilling its prime directive perfectly when it suppresses affordable alternatives, but it does so at the expense of your personal health and freedom.