Isaiah Smith Foundation

10/01/2022

Update: A Notice of Allowance was recently issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). We are looking forward to serving communities and making an impact around the globe.

ismithfoundation.org

09/25/2022

Update: A Notification of Notice of Publication was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). We are looking forward to serving communities and making an impact around the globe.

ismithfoundation.org

10/05/2021

Trademark applications have been filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office concerning the Isaiah Smith Foundation (TM). We are looking forward to serving communities and making an impact around the globe.

01/01/2021

We want to wish everyone a good, safe and a happy New Year! 2020 was a challenging time for many, but we are hoping that 2021 will get better for those that have had challenges. We hope that everyone keeps their heads up, keeps on doing what they do best, and we hope that your hard work will lead you to thrive in this new year!

12/05/2020

Documents obtained by The Intercept reveal that law enforcement monitored gatherings with no apparent protest component, including an online Juneteenth celebration, candlelight vigils, and a meditation event. This is totally unacceptable and this type of outrageous conduct cannot be tolerated in or anywhere else!

Documents obtained by The Intercept show that law enforcement monitored an online Juneteenth celebration and a meditation event.

06/26/2019

We are extremely blissful that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fazaga, et al v. FBI, et al, issued a ruling that rejected the FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation's request for a constitutional suit that was brought against them to be dismissed pursuant to the "state secrets privilege defense." When the FBI engages in thuggish "COINTELPRO" survelliance investigations and operations against the community, we are hoping that more and more federal appeals courts will not give them a free pass to step on the Constitution of the United States while trying to dismiss suits that are filed against them for violating the Supreme Law of the United States. The FBI and the "state secrets privilege defense" are absolutely not above the Constitution of the United States and we believe that Congress needs to reform the "state secrets privilege defense" because it is widely being incorrectly used in United States Courts.

The long-awaited decision is a blow to the government’s use of the so-called state secrets privilege.

10/31/2018

President Donald J. Trump cannot end birthright citizenship of individuals by an executive order. Such a move by The White House would clearly be unconstitutional.

Supreme Court decisions and a scholarly consensus reject Mr. Trump’s claimed power to end birthright citizenship by executive order.

05/28/2018

We are glad that a federal judge decided to drop the criminal charges that officials with the Federal Bureau of Investigation brought against Christopher Daniels in federal court, based on frivolous charges. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation's memo on "Black Identity Extremists" is extremely concerning and it does have the potential as to ensuring that constitutional violations occur across the United States against individuals. We are hoping that Christopher Daniels will request the assistance of the ACLU and the ACLU of Texas to sue because whenever the government tries to criminally prosecute a person, the liberty and the property interests of a targeted individual are at stake. The government needs to be held to an extremely high standard whenever they open a criminal investigation into a person or whenever they seek to criminally prosecute a person. When the government does so, they cannot file frivolous criminal charges against individuals for political purposes and they are not allowed to target individuals based on the content of the speech that a person engages in.

Critics say African American activist Christopher Daniels has been held since December because FBI policed his views.

03/25/2018

President Donald J. Trump is at it again at trying to ban individuals from serving in the armed forces of the United States. Multiple federal judges accross the United States have already issued injunctions prohibiting the Administration from banning transgender individuals. So, we are awating to hear of a federal judge to issue a nationwide injunction prohibiting this new unconstitutional ban from being enforced.

The White House endorsed the recommendations of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to permit most transgender service members to remain, in essence rescinding the president’s tweets and memos last summer in which he said he would no longer allow transgender individuals to serve.

02/14/2018

A second federal judge in the United States has stopped President Donald J. Trump's Administration from stopping . This is a blow to the Trump Administration. Maybe The White House needs to work on unity instead of trying to break up families in cases where the family members are law abiding citizens and have not committed criminal offenses.

The injunction by a Brooklyn federal judge spares the program for young undocumented immigrants and comes one month after a similar ruling in San Francisco.

01/01/2018

Banning individuals from the armed forces of the United States should have never been done. All individuals that are qualified should be given a right to serve. The White House and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) need to respect all service members and all individuals that want to serve in the armed forces of the United States.

There are more than 15,000 transgender people serving in the military today, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality.

12/12/2017

We are extremely pleased that the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, both conservative and liberal, want to enhance privacy protections that all individuals in the United States are supposed to already have. We hope that the United States Supreme Court will make sure that they issue a ruling that gives more procedural due process protections to targeted individuals and that they will help provide safeguards that will help prevent government officials from abusing their power and their authority.

But Carpenter v United States shows they are unsure about how to do so