General Comments April 2026

Looks like another PFR is murdered in Florida.

https://share.google/VQ0eBYDkE5OssSsNS

Since Wisconsin picked up another liberal on the supreme court, I wonder if some lawyers should be thinking about doing another lower court challenge to residency ordinances & lifetime GPS laws? 🤔Maybe reword it differently than the last lawsuits..

“Federal Court Strikes Down 158-Year-Old Home Distilling Ban”
“Writing for a three-judge panel in McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice, Judge Edith Hollan Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the ban actually reduced tax revenue by preventing distilling in the first place, the opposite of its stated intent.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/federal-court-strikes-down-158-year-old-home-distilling-ban-6010681?utm_source=rtnewsnoe&src_src=rtnewsnoe&utm_campaign=rtbreaking-2026-04-13-2&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2026-04-13-2&utm_medium=email&utm_content=access0&est=RJhNtjmHvAQX8nCPe20cFAxiHEVk7oIrPxb7gUbd%2BuUiw%2BqqM6zOsiZDrUtO

Just like SORNA/SORA does the opposite of its stated intent (public safety), while the government promotes its “frightening and high” defamatory big SCOTUS lie, to rob people of their constitutional protections and incite horrific crimes on the public!

Without Precedent, pg 286, Power chapter

“Over two decades of Robert’s rulings and criminal cases never…has Robert’s acted with such seeming concern for the rights of the accused or convicted.”

This is why PFRs are going to have a hard time getting anything past him while he’s still in the Chief Justice seat wearing a robe.

I’ve just found a post by someone who appears to be doling out vigilante justice on SOs in my area. The registry truly makes people vulnerable and this guy seems to be stoking fear and disgust by posting videos of his personal sting operations. Is there any recourse?

Is it against the law for a government to create a label for a certain group of members of the public, to lie about this group in a way that has proven to incite violence and death to this group and those close to them?

Yes, it is fundamentally against international law for a government to engage in state-sponsored campaigns that use labels and lies to incite violence against a group. Welcome to the United Nations
 +2
When a government creates a specific “label” for a group and spreads lies about them that lead to violence or death, it crosses the line from political speech into incitement, which is a serious violation of global human rights standards.
1. Violations of International Law
Governments are bound by several international treaties that specifically prohibit this behavior: 

• ICCPR (Article 20): The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires all states to prohibit “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
• Genocide Convention: Direct and public incitement to commit genocide—which often begins with “othering” and dehumanizing labels—is a crime under international law, even if no genocide actually occurs.
• Rome Statute: The International Criminal Court (ICC) can prosecute leaders for Crimes Against Humanity if they oversee a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, including through state-sponsored persecution and incitement. UNHCR – The UN Refugee Agency
•  +2

2. The “Labels and Lies” Strategy (Disinformation)
Modern international standards, such as the UN’s Rabat Plan of Action, look at six factors to determine if a government’s “labeling and lying” has become illegal incitement: International IDEA

1. Context: Is there a history of violence or a tense political climate?
2. Speaker: Does the speaker have a high-level government position or authority?
3. Intent: Was the “label” created specifically to cause harm?
4. Content: Is the speech dehumanizing or advocating for violence?
5. Extent: How far-reaching was the campaign (e.g., state media)?
6. Likelihood: Is it actually leading to violence and death?

3. Domestic Law (United States)
In the U.S., the government is generally prohibited by the First Amendment from restricting private speech, but the government itself is not above the law if its actions lead to harm: 

• Incitement: If a government official’s speech is intended to and likely to produce “imminent lawless action,” it is not protected.
• Equal Protection: The 14th Amendment prohibits the government from targeting specific groups for “unequal” treatment, which includes state-sanctioned harassment or campaigns that put their lives at risk.
• Civil Rights Violations: Under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 242, it is a federal crime for anyone acting “under color of law” (a government official) to conspire to deprive a person of their constitutional rights, including the right to life. 

Summary

While a government has the power to speak, it does not have the legal right to dehumanize and incite its own citizens.

When labels and lies result in proven violence and death, these actions can be prosecuted as war crimes, crimes against humanity, or civil rights violations, depending on the jurisdiction. Welcome to the United Nations
 +3
Are you looking for information on how victims or advocacy groups can hold a government accountable through international bodies like the UN?