• 1127-10-13 Bncr (JUSTIN-AMES GAMACHE DID NOT IMPERSONATE A POLICE OFFICER)

    DEAR ALEXANDER N. BURKE,

    WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE FOR, BUT YOUR WORD WILL NEVER BE ABOVE MINE.

    YOU CAN DEAL WITH IT… I KNOW WHAT I DID AND NOT WHAT YOU THINK I DID. I WILL NOT COMPLY WITH GUILT, SORRY NOT SORRY!

    Final words stated, “there was no baring proof that I impersonated a police officer by way of video and photo. Even know the state may argue, I am going to continue to argue back, and I am not waiving any of my rights.”

  • Vermont – Bennington Unit – You can drop the 2013 charges against Mr. Gamache.

    You can and will drop all charges against Mr. Gamache. Mr. Gamache did not impersonate a police officer in 2013 nor did he plead guilty. Nor will he live accordingly to the false accusations made by an ill-will police officer.

    The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment and compelled self-incrimination.

    Cato Institute:

    “Qualified immunity is one of the most

    obviously unjustified legal doctrines in

    our nation’s history…[It] has failed

    utterly as a matter of law, doctrine,

    and public policy.”

    Law Enforcement Action

    Partnership (LEAP):

    “We believe it is crucial to end a

    legal doctrine that has contributed to

    the erosion of public trust in the

    justice system and made all of us less

    safe: qualified immunity.”

    Justice Clarence Thomas:

    “Our qualified immunity jurisprudence

    is on shaky ground” and “our analysis

    is no longer grounded in the common

    law.”

    justice Sonia Sotomayor: Qualified immunity “tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished…there is nothing right or just under the law about this.”

    officers can’t use laws of this ilk simply to punish people who mouth off to them, even those who use profanity. (Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987).)

    Final words stated, “there was no baring proof that I impersonated a police officer by way of video and photo. Even know the state may argue, I am going to continue to argue back, and I am not waiving any of my rights.”

  • FALSE CONCLUSIONS

    I am so happy people have come to their false conclusions about my life…

    Final words stated, “there was no baring proof that I impersonated a police officer by way of video and photo. Even know the state may argue, I am going to continue to argue back, and I am not waiving any of my rights.”

  • VERMONT SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 22-AP-067Justin-Ames Gamache* v. Thomas Mozzer MEMORANDUM – NOT CONCEDING

    VERMONT SUPREME COURT
    CASE NO. 22-AP-067
    Justin-Ames Gamache* v. Thomas Mozzer
    MEMORANDUM – NOT CONCEDING


    UPON the decision of the court, it is the great pleasure to affirm that I, Justin-Ames Gamache hereby do not concede on Case no. 22-AP-067. No VERMONT STATE POLICE TROOPER IS ABOVE THE LAW. I, Justin-Ames Gamache, am not on a government watchlist and hereby refuse to comply with the decisions of the court. Thomas Mozzer broke the law and violated a US CITIZENS RIGHTS by stalking them. AT NO POINT WILL I CONTINUE TO AGREE WITH THE CORRUPT VERMONT STATE POLICE AND THE CORRUPT VERMONT SUPREME COURT. Any continuous to deny or disagree will undermine the power of A US CITIZEN. Freedom is free and does not come at a cost.


    I, Justin-Ames Gamache, continue to hold Lt. Thomas Mozzer responsible for the below violation. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS DEAD. I SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE ENDING OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. H.R.1470 – Ending Qualified Immunity Act


    The law in violation:


    18 U.S. Code § 242 -Deprivation of rights under color of law
    Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.


    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.


    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual
    abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


    SIGNED and CERTIFIED on this day in strong defense to the US CONSTITUTION and Bill of rights ON THIS DAY AUG 22, 2022

    Final words stated, “there was no baring proof that I impersonated a police officer by way of video and photo. Even know the state may argue, I am going to continue to argue back, and I am not waiving any of my rights.”

  • VERMONT SUPREME COURT Justin-Ames Gamache* v. Alexander N. Burke | Case No. 22-ST-00176| WILL NOT CONCEDE TO TYRANTS


    MEMORANDUM- NOT CONCEDING #2

    VERMONT SUPREME COURT
    Justin-Ames Gamache* v. Alexander N. Burke
    Case No. 22-ST-00176


    MEMORANDUM- NOT CONCEDING #2


    Apparently, no one can read the laws set forth by the department of Justice. VERY CLEARLY IN THE STATEMENT “MEMORANDUM – NOT CONCEDING #1” the law was clearly stated… read the statement again. I, Justin-Ames Gamache, will not concede. If this continues a new case will be brought against Mr. Alexander N. Burke and a lien will be placed on his property. As a US CITIZEN, liar Alexander N. Burke will not violate my rights… he committed the crime, now it’s time for him to do the time. ANY CONTINUED ATTEMPT TO DISRUPT MY DECISION, THE COURT SHALL BE HELD IN CONTEMPT. Mr. Burke stalked my address.

    18 U.S. Code § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law


    • Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    Final words stated, “there was no baring proof that I impersonated a police officer by way of video and photo. Even know the state may argue, I am going to continue to argue back, and I am not waiving any of my rights.”

  • Data brokers

    You’re not going to win with me. So you can cease and desist. I know what you’re up to, and it’s not going to work. You might as well give up now and save yourself the trouble.

    Final words stated, “there was no baring proof that I impersonated a police officer by way of video and photo. Even know the state may argue, I am going to continue to argue back, and I am not waiving any of my rights.”

  • why deleting your personal/private from data brokers is important?

    ① Problem:

    Each and every day, we generate mountains of data. This data can be incredibly personal, including everything from our addresses and Social Security numbers to our shopping habits and medical records. Unfortunately, much of this data is collected and stored by data brokers without our knowledge or consent.

    ② Agitate:

    These data brokers often sell this information to third-party companies, which can then use it for a variety of purposes, such as identity theft, fraud, and even targeted advertising. What’s more, there’s very little we can do to stop them.

    ③ Solution:

    But all that is starting to change. A recent law called the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) gives EU citizens the right to know what personal data is being collected about them, as well as the right to have that data deleted.

    This is a huge step forward, and one that we should all be fighting for. To learn more about the GDPR and how to protect your personal data, visit the website of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    Why Deleting Your Personal Data from Data Brokers Matters

    If you have ever searched for yourself online, you have likely come across at least one data broker. These brokers compile data on individuals from a variety of public and private sources, including social media, purchase histories, and voter registration data. They then sell this data to advertisers, marketers, and others who want to know more about you. While data brokers provide a valuable service to those who want to target ads and other content to specific individuals, they also pose a privacy risk. For this reason, it is important to delete your personal data from data brokers.

    1. What are data brokers, and what kinds of personal data do they collect?

    Data brokers are companies that collect and sell personal data. They usually collect data from public records, surveys, and other sources. They may sell information about your race, income, age, and health. They may also sell your contact information, including your email address and phone number.

    2. Why is it important to delete your personal data from data brokers?

    There are a lot of reasons why it’s important to delete your personal data from data brokers. For one, data brokers often sell or share your personal data without your consent or knowledge. This means that your personal information could end up in the hands of companies or organizations that you don’t want to have it. Additionally, data brokers often collect and store personal data in ways that are insecure and can lead to identity theft or other types of fraud. Lastly, data brokers can use your personal data to target you with advertising or other marketing materials. By deleting your personal data from data brokers, you can help protect your privacy and reduce the risk of identity theft or fraud.

    3. How can you delete your personal data from data brokers?

    There are a few ways to delete your personal data from data brokers. You can contact the data broker and ask them to delete your personal data. You can also contact the data protection authority in your country and ask them to help you delete your personal data from the data broker.

    4. What are the consequences of not deleting your personal data from data brokers?

    When you provide your personal data to a data broker, you are essentially giving that company the right to sell that information to other businesses. As a result, you may start seeing more targeted ads, or you may be approached by companies that want to sell you products or services. If you do not want your personal data to be shared in this way, you should delete it from data brokers.

    Final words stated, “there was no baring proof that I impersonated a police officer by way of video and photo. Even know the state may argue, I am going to continue to argue back, and I am not waiving any of my rights.”

  • Does it Hurt your comments aren’t showing?

    I can play your games to buddy… but your comments are not showing… Reported your IP address from your cellphone ATT Mobility. You should have a knock on your door soon from the police. why not make a real account and show your real name? come on now don’t be afraid. You have no clue what I have been doing…

    Final words stated, “there was no baring proof that I impersonated a police officer by way of video and photo. Even know the state may argue, I am going to continue to argue back, and I am not waiving any of my rights.”

  • YOU CAN STOP, WHAT YOU’RE DOING ISN’T WORKING!

    You can stop what you are doing, you’re not going to win.

    Final words stated, “there was no baring proof that I impersonated a police officer by way of video and photo. Even know the state may argue, I am going to continue to argue back, and I am not waiving any of my rights.”

  • when they comment on your post but don’t realize their IP Address is seen.

    To the person’s who comment on the last post with the IP ADDRESS OF 71.232.4.23. I know its from East Arlington, VT and your ISP is COMCAST. And the emails you use like: notlawenforcement@gmail.com and fuckoff@gmail.com are not actually emails created through google services. Weird right, don’t worry… I reported your IP ADDRESS to your ISP and you are now UNDER INVESTIGATION. I will continue to express my first amendment right and will not be stopped…

    LET’S SEE THE NEXT COMMENT?

    Update:

    next comment comes from an IP ADDRESS of 107.115.21.42

    ISP: AT&T Mobility LLC

    ::: 1802704170::: ((comes from a cellphone, must have commented from Brattleboro, VT – Brattleboro Memorial Hospital.)))

    fake email address:  blahahaha@fmail.com

    Guess I will make some phone calls to AT&T and report your address.

    Final words stated, “there was no baring proof that I impersonated a police officer by way of video and photo. Even know the state may argue, I am going to continue to argue back, and I am not waiving any of my rights.”