IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol

The White Rose (German: Weiße Rose, pronounced [ˈvaɪsə ˈʁoːzə] ⓘ) was a non-violent, intellectual resistance group in Nazi Germany which was led by five students and one professor at the University of Munich: Willi Graf, Kurt Huber, Christoph Probst, Alexander Schmorell, Hans Scholl and Sophie Scholl. The group conducted an anonymous leaflet and graffiti campaign that called for active opposition to the Nazi regime. Their activities started in Munich on 27 June 1942; they ended with the arrest of the core group by the Gestapo on 18 February 1943. They, as well as other members and supporters of the group who carried on distributing the pamphlets, faced show trials by the Nazi People's Court (Volksgerichtshof); many of them were imprisoned and executed.

History Rhymes... 👀

The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security. United States v. Reynolds, which involved alleged military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.

Following a claim of "state secrets privilege", the court rarely conducts an in camera [in camera (/ɪŋˈkɑːmɛrɑː/; Latin: "in a chamber") is a legal term that means in private.] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion. The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.

US Justice Department officials told a federal judge on 24 March 2025 that the Trump administration was invoking the state secrets privilege to avoid giving him information about deportation flights from earlier this month that are at the center of a legal dispute over whether the government flouted his judicial commands.

More Shenanigans... 👀

Denaturalization goes through civil courts and requires only "Clear and convincing evidence" which is a lower standard than "Beyond reasonable doubt"

Excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Loss_of_nationality

The process of denaturalization is a legal procedure which results in nullifying nationality. Based upon the 1943 Supreme Court decision of Schneiderman v. United States, clear and convincing evidence must be evaluated in processing a denaturalization action. United States Attorneys for the district in which a defendant resides bring suit in the jurisdiction's Federal District Court. Juries are typically not present and the defendant may be compelled to testify. Failure to testify may result in a presumption of guilt, though defendants can plead against self-incrimination. The standard of proof is not reasonable doubt, but rather clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence. Decisions may be appealed in federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court. Once the legal process has concluded, the Department of State issues a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.

Standards of Proof in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Clear_and_convincing_evidence

Excerpt:

Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality. In this standard, a greater degree of believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions (i.e. preponderance of the evidence), which only requires that the facts as a threshold be more likely than not to prove the issue for which they are asserted.

Why YSK: If you are a naturalized US citizen, you might want to reconsider if you want to protest and ending up being another Mahmoud Khalil. (Not saying to not protest, just informing you of the risks so you can decide for youself if its worth it or not).

And if you aren't a naturalized US citizen; Why YSK: So you understand that the risks of protesting is higher than the risks of natural-born US Citizens protesting, so I hope you don't judge them too harshly for not protesting.

Interesting... 👀

Context: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

Many constitutional rights don't apply near the border, where 2/3 of Americans live.

🤔

Why YSK: If you are a US Resident, don't lose your Social Security card more than 10 times, or else you might need to respawn 💀

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

In accordance with §7213 of the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004 and 20 CFR 422.103, the number of replacement Social Security cards per person is generally limited to three per calendar year and ten in a lifetime.

I mean, there are two side of the argument.

Pragmatically, fleeing would save your life.

But ethically, it feels cowardly. (I'm not calling anyone a "coward", its just how I internally feel about such an act, if I were the one doing it)

Time to collect my paycheck I guess 😂

(Also: When the fuck did I ever mention Taiwan? I said "Before becoming a Wumao, learn some Chinese". Bro is mad 😁)