PROPOSED POLICY FOR UNITED STATES TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

FEDERAL WIRETAP LAW UPDATE

Redress Grievance proposes sweeping new federal wiretap law protections for All Americans. Every sexually active adult in the Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States of America would benefit from the following proposed legislation to update United States Wiretap Law. Congress needs to mandate advance voluntary consent to recording any nudity or sexual activity as a sweeping Federal protection.

Notorious websites like Ashley Madison have published extortion and revenge porn of involuntary participants, which is most commonly generally defined as a nude photograph or video publicly shared online for the purpose of spiteful humiliation or illegal blackmail. This is non-consensual sexual footage, and to Redress Grievance, in the current legal environment, a state sanctioned sexual abuse to allow.

Redress Grievance believes each and every instance of recording, visually or audio-visually, of nudity requires knowing advance consent of the subject or subjects to be legal. Thus, it would be impossible for Redress Grievance to ever again be recorded during a sex act that he doesn’t voluntarily consent to in advance of being on camera, also knowing in advance who may legally receive or keep a copy of the still or video footage he knowingly consents to in advance of being recorded nude.

Under Pennsylvania Law, Redress Grievance has at least once been recorded audio-visually without his advance knowing consent by a cell-phone camera produced against his will in the midst of sexual activity. This is involuntary consent, which would be per se criminal under the instantly proposed protection. It currently is not per se illegal under Pennsylvania Law to record Redress Grievance without his advance knowing consent provided the person recording complies with Federal and State wiretap laws regarding publishing and divulging (display) of the involuntary footage. Currently, Redress Grievance, even pursuant to Pennsylvania’s strictly construed Wiretap law, has not even a legal claim to demand a copy of the video or photo or photos taken of him while he’s nude that someone else holds, even though he’s in it with his face and nude body.

Federal Law needs updated as soon as possible to protect this from ever happening to Redress Grievance and All Other Sexually Active American Persons ever again. Minors are further protected by Laws against Pedophilia.

Redress Grievance proposes any recording, to include still, audio, or audiovisual, of any nudity or sexual activity require advance knowing consent of all parties exhibited or a civil penalty of USD $50,000 statutory damage per recording would incur with a one time punitive damage per discrete event, as well as any proceeds from the crime or a resulting crime be exhausted, and a criminal penalty of up to 10 years in Prison and up to a $50,000 fine for a Federal Felony per discrete event of criminal recording. This would encourage lawyers to write a one page demand letter to offenders or those suspected of violating the Law upon reasonable belief involuntary recordings exist for a 40% contingency at a real potential profit, and protect the rights of all American persons privately in coordination with the accused's 6th Amendment right to counsel.

Redress Grievance would define satisfaction for this New Offense to estop criminal liability for the accused where upon demand of him/her the accused may state an affidavit under both Penalty of Perjury and any applicable state law of unsworn falsifications that any and all copy or copies of involuntary recordings known or believed by him/her to exist of the non-consensual recording, wherever they may be, have been destroyed or demanded destroyed and the location of any disclosure known or believed by him/her also reported in the affidavit to the state or federal investigators, elsewise the accused would be investigated, charged, and convicted. This would include the identity and contact information of any person the footage has been shared with, to the best of the accused's knowledge, belief, and information. Elsewise, the accused would be investigated, charged, and convicted.

Actual prompt data destruction of any copy of involuntary footage as defined above existent anywhere would deny the civil and criminal penalty at Law, except Attorney's Fees. The reply affidavit or investigation of the initial demand letter or reply affidavit itself would prove the penalty, or non-existence of a civil or criminal penalty, and if the right to remain silent is Asserted after a demand letter, opportunity for the prosecution to proceed with a private criminal and/or civil complaint.

Redress Grievance would demand data destruction within 14 business days from the date of receipt of the letter, or criminal and civil penalties would apply.

The Prosecution would also seek destruction of any discoverable backups presumed to exist in cloud storage such as Google Drive or Microsoft OneDrive (which would be statutorily defined as any internal data storage not under the accused’s control) because Cloud Storage Company's are known to regularly backup their users' files on internal only records. Redress Grievance would apply the civil penalty to telecom companies like Google and Microsoft, too, who by proof of a preponderance have defied a legal demand to destroy it within 60 days.

Upon investigation of this affidavit, if there is any proof of perjury against the rights of the involuntarily recorded created by this new protection, the Federal Felony would be prosecuted along with perjury and state unsworn falsifications crimes with the intent to doubly punish Lies and vindicate the Victim or Victims' Rights, in both civil and criminal court, by convicting the affiant and branding him an incompetent and convict which also estops his civil law defense.

If the Right to Remain Silent is asserted to a demand letter, such as per se with no answer within 60 days of confirmed delivery, the prosecution may bring an enforceable state law charge against the accused and the victim or victims may testify at criminal and/or civil trial. The opportunity to satisfy would be mandatory and estop criminal conviction of the accused by supported affidavit denying liability, and civil damages facilitated with assistance of counsel with successful criminal prosecution. Redress Grievance would stipulate the affidavit denying the accused's liability may be produced at any time during this process. For ex-post-facto application of this update to violations occurring before it's signed into Law, a demand letter and prompt response exact to the above would estop all civil and criminal prosecutions and any Affidavit may only be investigated for a criminal prosecution of the accused pursuant to Perjury and Unsworn Falsifications. Ex-post-facto accusations under the Law would have 14 business days from presumed receipt of the Data Destruction Demand to comply else face criminal and civil charges.

Redress Grievance needs this done now. It is his opinion there should be no right for anyone to keep, display, disseminate, or publish any private home videos or stills of him nude involuntarily recorded.

People would be presumed to have at least some contact information, such as a last known address, or phone number of the accused in order to transmit a demand letter, and presumed receipt by text message or other electronic or internet transfer would suffice as demand in place of or in lieu of reliable means of mail.

Respectfully yours,

James A. Blatt

October 9, 2021

Involuntary ESP Angle of Blatt at 28yo (cropped)

ON THE DEATH PENALTY

The death penalty across the United States is broken in our postmodernity. Botched executions are the norm for the condemned, when death row finally dies. A known guilty party suffers what Redress Grievance considers a per se cruel and unusual punishment by default in our America, by placing them in a hospital gown on a gurney pending a 3 part medical procedure to lethally inject them culminating in death.

Redress Grievance considers all current lethal injections degrading and subject to failure, and actually any other method of state sanctioned execution known to him not scientifically foolproof or absolutely failsafe. Society has moved away from a mathematically certain instant death to a scientific proof for the body in an execution to a system of degradation and physical or mental torment enforced by state and federal laws governing executions.

In his past, Redress Grievance has theorized about the most humane ways to execute the condemned and only knows of 3 mathematically certain instant deaths to a scientific proof for the body in an execution. Any other, in the opinion of him and the coffeeshop he discussed it in, were decried as not instantly failsafe.

The following 3 methods of state sanctioned execution are the only known failsafe instant deaths to human history that we knew of:

1.) Death by platform hanging with a ≥ 10 foot drop before swaying freely above the ground as a corpse is historically a common military execution, which was mercifully applied with phenomenal success publicly to Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg. In death by platform hanging, the condemned is led atop a tall platform and has a strong noose of solid rope fixed around his neck atop a trap door that when opened allows his body at least a 10 foot freefall before snagging instantly taut which effects a known instant death by snapping the neck after falling through the sudden platform opening of the gallows. The human neck is known to snap at or beyond the 10 foot mark upon snagging instantly taut for ≥ 100lb body weights which effects positive proof of instant death to a mathematical certainty to a scientific proof for the body which completes with audio-visual proof when the body stops swaying freely, never touching the ground during the process until the corpse is cut down.

2.) The guillotine has actually been asserted to Redress Grievance by a trained United States Marine Corp assassin who is also a Medical Doctor as the fastest instantaneous death one can suffer he’s ever researched. In this method of execution, a heavily weighted (≥ 100lb) sharp blade free falls at least 15 feet to instantly completely behead the body as fast as possible. Historically, as in our America today, the body of the condemned is cremated altogether anyway. Redress Grievance finds a known certain merciful decapitation by guillotine to be a usual pain of punishment attendant to this mathematically certain instant death to a scientific proof for the body. My advising cohort swore he’d suffer no other, nor inflict no other, if he were the Congress, than a mathematically certain instant death to a scientific proof for the body, personally preferring the guillotine for its known instantaneous lethality if forced to an option.

3.) A known lethal overdose of heroin (diacetylmorphine) sufficient to eliminate a 2,000lb man by intravenous injection. Lethal heroin overdoses by intravenous injection are known to Redress Grievance anecdotally and scientifically to instantly effect a pain free unconsciousness and instantly proximate death of any person at this lethal level. Redress Grievance knows there is plenty of pure heroin available, or which could be made available by the Executive Branch or the Congress, for purposes of certain death by state execution at this lethal level. Redress Grievance, and another ex-drug abuser in the public coffeeshop, certainly prefer this one in a prison uniform inflicted by a phlebotomist to in what they believe is a degrading gown on the gurney before a slow 3 part cocktail.

Redress Grievance and his cohorts knew of no other mathematically certain instant deaths to a scientific proof for the body for state sanctioned executions he or they would ever find legal for public execution.

Historically, positive proof of death would be witnessed, and today could be audio-visually recorded for the state’s archive with some opportunity for the condemned to say some final words for the record before irreversible instant execution.

Redress Grievance would allow the condemned a final meal with moderate beverage and to choose his method of execution. In the absence of a voluntary choice before the timely scheduled date Redress Grievance would legislate the state default to death by platform hanging. Redress Grievance would audio-visually record positive proof of death, allow any legal witnesses, and retain all records of the case until any applicable statute of limitations terminates against a permissive constitutional challenge. Redress Grievance would only apply the death penalty to defendant's 18 and up.

Redress Grievance finds these methods, now as then, to be neither cruel nor unusual, and personally to Redress Grievance and his coffeeshop cohort none other than a mathematically certain instant death to a scientific proof for the body would be acceptable if they ever applied to us. We reasoned any other to be clearly cruel and unusual or failure prone.

Redress Grievance proposes Congress legislate consistent top-down reform for the death penalty for the country as soon as possible and deny ex-post-facto liability.

Sincerely,

James A. Blatt & Barack Obama

October 2, 2021

The Full Text of the United States Constitution

COMPREHENSIVE CRIME CONTROL!

An open letter to the United States Congress,

Redress Grievance proposes the following House Resolution,

“Congressional Findings

1.) Congress finds any conviction 10 years or older, excluding periods of imprisonment, from the date of filing new charges is always irrelevant to aggravating any new imposition of sentence and will thus not be used for that purpose federally, in any of the Several States, or territories.

2.) Congress finds any conviction data to include any offense punishable by a year or more.

3.) Congress finds firearms and ammunition are things in interstate commerce. 4.) Congress finds the power to seal a juvenile record lies solely with the State

5.) Congress finds an expunged or pardoned record shall never count to aggravate any new sentence for a conviction

Definitions:

1.) Qualified law enforcement officers are defined as any federal agent authorized to carry a firearm in the performance of his job and authorized and regulated police, private detectives or peace officers. A military member is any person on active or reserve duty of the Armed Forces of the United States or its honorably discharged or retired personnel.

2.) Relevant convictions from sealed conviction data used to aggravate any new imposition of sentence are those existing to within 10 years from the date of filing of the new charges, excluding periods of imprisonment.

3.) An expunged record shall never count to aggravate any sentence for a conviction

4.) Antique firearms, to include operable antiques, are defined as being produced in or before the year 1900, proven by a preponderance, and are exempt from these regulations

5.) A firearm shall be defined as any device designed to expel a projectile by combustion that actually does.

Be it enacted, that:

1.) Any conviction older than 10 years from the date of the filing of a new charge does not count to aggravate any new sentence either federally, in the Several States, or in the territories

2.) There shall be no more than 5 round magazines for a 6 shot total on any longarm (shotgun or rifle). The lawful age to shoot any firearm (longarm or pistol) shall now be 13. Military members and qualified law enforcement officers are exempt from this limitation on ammunition.

3.) Concealed carry permits are for those 21 years of age or older (except military members and qualified law enforcement officers) with no psychiatric commitments ever or conviction data whatsoever in their background.

4.) Pistols with a cartridge capacity exceeding 12 shots for a 13 shot total are per se illegal and in violation of this statute, except for military members and qualified law enforcement officers.

5.) Pistols of any cartridge capacity may only be carried (either concealed or open) by those 21 years of age and older except military members and qualified law enforcement officers.

5a.) Exempt from this provision are hunters and fishermen while hunting and fishing and traveling to and from provided they are 13 and up;

5b.) Exempt from this provision are individuals 13 and up for target shooting at and while driving to and from a lawful range;

5c.) Exempt from this provision are individuals 13 and up for being at and driving to and from a licensed firearms dealer.

6.) Juvenile records are only permitted to be sealed for an information filed before the 18th birthday both federally, in the Several States, and in the territories. Conviction data for a presentation filed on or after the 18th birthday always counts as an adult record. Any sealed conviction data shall be retained in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) and may be used to preclude any firearm purchase. Sealed conviction data pursuant to this section is to be unavailable on any public records search and may not be used in any way for purposes of deciding employment. Any other expunged record shall remain in the NICS database for purposes of precluding a firearms purchase or concealed carry permit, which shall also not be used in any way for purposes of deciding employment.

6a.) Exempt from this provision are military members and qualified law enforcement officers

7.) Any sealed juvenile records shall count to aggravate future sentences for criminal convictions provided they are relevant as defined by this statute (i.e. not distant convictions).

8.) All other automatic and semi-automatic pistols and long-rifles are regulated as heretofore unless re-defined by this statute

9.) Any purchase of hollow point or high powered ammunition shall be tracked by the bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms in a federal database and limited to 30 projectiles at a time every 90 days per entry of a verified identity, except for military members and qualified law enforcement officers with proper identification. 10.) Any state law providing protection for the person or property, to include for a house or fixed place of business, remains in full force and effect provided the person or property is protected consistent with that law and this law.

11.) A cause of action for due process under the 5th Amendment is hereby created for any person aggrieved by a sentence which would be shortened by an after the fact application of this statute, resulting in an ex-post-facto reduced sentence.

12.) Anything inconsistent with this statute is hereby found to be illegal and shall result in prosecution for a federal felony pursuant to this section with a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and a $50,000 fine or both.

13.) A parent or other custodian of a minor in defiance of this statute who is in possession of a firearm shall be liable same as the minor as if he committed the liability.”

Respectfully yours,

James A. Blatt & Barack Obama

(Drafted May-July 2020 AD)

EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE LIABILITY

An Open Letter to the United States Congress,

Redress Grievance believes Employers should be shielded from any liability, civil or criminal, where their employee has any distant conviction in his or her background.

Definitions:

“Distant conviction” is any for which the sentence imposed has been completed and 7 years have passed since the termination of all punishment, excluding for costs and fines.

It is Redress Grievance’s position that once the sentence is completed, no more punishment may come for the employer/employee but from the existence of the public record as a stigma.

It may be used for deciding employment, if legal to do so, but not for punishing the employer.

It is imperative to note that most criminals get caught. It is the exception that someone goes 7 years or longer without getting caught, even presuming they’re expertly covering up their crimes.

A history of 7 years without a new conviction convinces Redress Grievance of genuine enough change for employment purposes.

James A. Blatt