Tag: government overreach

A judge decides that property owners in Wainfleet, Ont. deserve to be fined MILLIONS for renting their properties!

Government overreach has once again reared its ugly head in the Township of Wainfleet, Ont. (pop. approximately 7,000). And at least one Ontario judge is OK with this.

Here’s the skinny: Wainfleet council has effectively declared war on landowners who make their properties available for short-term rentals. And the township is fining these residents at least $10,000 per owner per dwelling per day!

Translation: as these daily fines mount, few can afford to pay these enormous sums. And that ultimately means “violators” risk having their properties seized by the township.

This seems like banana republic stuff to say the least.

Meanwhile, one dare not say anything negative about this council on social media. That’s because this council is trying to silence citizens via a lawsuit based on… copyright violation? Indeed, the township claims videos online depict the township’s crest and corporate log, emblems that are being used without consent or approval. Seriously.

It would appear that the Township of Wainfleet likes to carry out its shakedowns away from the public eye and will pursue censorship to ensure that goal if need be. All of which has many residents in the township pondering if Wainfleet is situated in the Dominion of Canada – or the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.

Rebel News interviewed Scott Wilson and Laural Duquette more than a year ago. They head up the Wainfleet Association of Responsible Short-Term Rentals (STR).

Wilson says he is facing a total fine threshold that now totals $175 million. As such, his family risks having their property confiscated by the township given that they are unable to pay those fines.

The township’s heavy-handed tactics are beyond the pale. Granted, Canadians do not enjoy private property rights under the constitution. But the questions arise: what is driving this short-term rental vendetta? What is the harm in a homeowner renting out his or her property? Those are key questions – and questions that deserve answers – except that nobody at the township will come on the record to comment.

And another query arises: what indeed is the unspoken strategy behind the short-term rental jihad? Is this all about Wainfleet councilors embracing a NIMBY initiative when it comes to short-term rentals in their township?

Recently, Wilson and his fellow renters had their day in court fighting these massive fines. It did not go well. Justice James Ramsay in the Superior Court of Justice in Welland ruled in favour of the township. Here are some excerpts from his decision:

  • “There is no evidence of bad faith [by the Township of Wainfleet].”
  • “The penalties are coercive, as opposed to punitive. They are not disproportionate.”
  • “The by-law is not discriminatory. Requiring the owner to own the property for two years before applying for a licence promotes stability of ownership and makes absenteeism by landlords less desirable. Operators who live in the community have a stake in the liveability [sic] of the neighbourhood.”

Justice Ramsay dismissed the application and awarded the Township of Wainfleet partial legal costs totaling $5,000. Then again, given that Wilson is already on the hook for $175 million, five grand amounts to chump change…

Check out our most recent interview with Wilson. While he and his fellow renters may be down, they are not out given they are appealing the decision.

That appeal is scheduled for next January. This story is far from over. Stay tuned.

Keep reading

The KIDS Act: A Bipartisan Mass Surveillance Megabill

Just weeks after Americans criticized the United Kingdom for imposing intrusive and heavy-handed social media rules, Congress is now advancing legislation that raises strikingly similar concerns about government overreach, privacy erosion, and the expansion of online surveillance.

A bipartisan agreement on children’s online safety legislation unveiled by House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders would impose new obligations on social media platforms, while creating powerful incentives for companies to end online anonymity.

The proposal is part of the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act), an omnibus package that bundles together multiple bills, including the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), the SCREEN Act, the SAFE BOTs Act, COPPA 2.0, the SPY Kids Act, and more, as well as data broker provisions and research and education initiatives.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie and ranking Democrat Frank Pallone announced Monday that they had reached agreement on the legislation, which would require social media companies to provide additional safeguards and parental tools for minors. The lawmakers said it would “hold Big Tech accountable.”

“We worked across the aisle for many months and have now found common ground on policies to significantly improve the digital environment for kids,” Guthrie and Pallone said in a joint statement.

As always, under that framing lies a familiar and deeply controversial approach: imposing broad obligations on platforms that hinge on whether companies know a user is a minor, without clearly defining how that knowledge is supposed to be obtained.

Congress has tried for years to set national rules for social media and youth safety. Those efforts have repeatedly stalled, in part because of unresolved tensions between child protection goals and fundamental privacy rights. In the absence of federal action, states have moved ahead with their own laws, often pushing even more aggressive requirements.

One of the main disputes appears to have been resolved in favor of House Republicans. According to a committee spokesperson, the agreement does not include a “duty of care” provision, a requirement backed by many child-safety advocates and several Senate lawmakers.

The bill text states that nothing in it may be construed to “impose a duty of care on a provider of a covered platform.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Upholds Marijuana Users’ Gun Rights, Rejecting Trump DOJ Arguments In Major Second Amendment Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously sided with a man who was prosecuted for possessing a gun while being a regular consumer of marijuana, ruling that the government’s actions violate the Second Amendment.

The opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch is narrow in scope and does not entirely strike down the federal law known as 922(g)(3) that prohibits people who illegally consume controlled substances from possessing or purchasing firearms.

But it does say that as applied to the man in the current case, Ali Danial Hemani, it is unconstitutional to automatically bar people from lawful gun ownership just because they happen to use marijuana occasionally.

It also says that the broad ban and the government’s effort to defend it are “at odds with” the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis.

The government “asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing,” the opinion says. “All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. And affording the government that kind of ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment.”

The court’s opinion in U.S. vs. Hemani does not address “efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm,” it says. “We do not address other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms. We do not address 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies (often including drug-related ones).”

“We do not even address whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others. Or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous because of its potency or for some other reason. None of those issues is before us and we do not pass on them either way.”

“All that is before us is one, if surely ambitious, theory. The government maintains that it may automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm because he uses marijuana a few times a week,” Gorsuch wrote. “More than that, because he possessed a gun despite this prohibition, the government insists it may imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life.”

“According to the government, none of this turns on how much marijuana Mr. Hemani uses or what effect it has on him. It makes no difference either if he keeps a firearm only in his home for selfdefense, never misuses a gun while intoxicated, and never poses a danger to himself or others as a result of his marijuana use. The only thing the government must show, it says, is that an individual like Mr. Hemani regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance.”

The court’s opinion details recent large-scale federal policy changes concerning marijuana, and how they undermine the broad statute seeking to strip cannabis consumers of their Second Amendment rights.

Keep reading

UK’s Renewed Ban on Palestine Action Confirms Legal Overreach in the Designation of Terrorism

In a dispiriting ruling yesterday, the Court of Appeal in London overturned a ruling in February, by the High Court, that the government’s proscription of the direct action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, which was passed by Parliament last July, was unlawful.

The High Court’s ruling, in response to a judicial review submitted by Huda Ammori, one of Palestine Action’s two co-founders, repudiated the two counts on which the High Court had ruled the proscription unlawful.

Garden Court Chambers, whose barristers represented Huda Ammori at the judicial review in February, explained that these two counts were, firstly, that the Court “upheld the Claimant’s challenge that the Home Secretary failed to comply with her own policy when making the decision to proscribe Palestine Action”, and, secondly, that “proscription breached the rights of Freedom of Expression and Assembly as protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The Court of Appeal shamefully reinstates the terrorism proscription

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal overturned both. The repudiation of the first was a long and detailed analysis of the home secretary’s powers regarding proscription, in which it was noticeable that, in dismissing it, the Court of Appeal not only poured scorn on the High Court, declaring that they had “adopted an excessively analytical approach to the interpretation of the Proscription Policy”, but also showed repeated and obsequious deference to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary at the time of the proscription, and her “expert” advisers from the police and the intelligence services.

At one point, for instance, the judges described how they were “required to attach special weight to the judgments and assessments of a primary decision-maker with special institutional competence” — yes, that really is a fawning description of Yvette Cooper! — and elsewhere, in deference to the executive branch of government, they noted that “The Proscription Decision lies in the area of national security which, before the Human Rights Act 1998, would have been regarded as unsuitable for judicial scrutiny at all.”

On the ECHR issues, described by the Court of Appeal as “questions of proportionality and the fair balance between the rights of individuals (free speech and freedom of assembly) and the rights of the community (national security and the rights of others)”, the Court acknowledged difficulties involving “the rights of the many law-abiding citizens wishing peacefully to protest, hold placards and otherwise support Palestine Action”, over 3,500 of whom have now been arrested — although they did also note that all of them ought to have been aware that doing so had become a “criminal act.” They also acknowledged “the ‘chilling effect’ that proscription may have upon those wishing to support the Palestinian cause, but who may be dissuaded from doing so by fear of committing offenses under the 2000 Act.”

Keep reading

Thomas and Alito Take a Regrettable Position in a Qualified Immunity Case

Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine that routinely shields bad cops from facing civil lawsuits over their abusive and unconstitutional behavior. All too often, a federal judge will hear a case in which a clear constitutional violation occurred, only to then shield the offending officer anyway from facing civil liability over the blatant misconduct. It’s a legal doctrine that deserves to be abolished.

Occasionally, however, the officer will lose one of these cases, and qualified immunity will be denied. That’s what happened last year in Hart v. Grand Rapids, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit actually let a federal civil rights lawsuit proceed against a Michigan police officer whose use of deadly force against a protester was officially reprimanded by his own superiors because of how the officer’s actions violated the department’s training and procedures.

That officer subsequently appealed his loss to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally turned him down earlier this week, thereby leaving the 6th Circuit’s denial of qualified immunity undisturbed. The civil rights suit against the officer will now move forward in federal court, a welcome result. To be clear, the officer may still prevail in the end, but at least his alleged victim will now get the chance to seek redress for a credible constitutional rights violation.

What makes this case especially notable, in addition to the all-too-rare denial of qualified immunity, is the fact that two members of the Supreme Court went out of their way to let us know just how eager they were to rule in the offending officer’s favor.

In the view of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the officer in this case was fully entitled to receive qualified immunity and to be shielded from facing civil suit. If it were up to Thomas and Alito, the 6th Circuit’s judgment against the officer would have been summarily reversed.

I am sometimes asked which members of the Supreme Court are the most reliably libertarian on various legal matters, such as criminal justice. After clarifying that nobody on the current Supreme Court is a truly consistent legal libertarian on anything, I typically say something to the effect that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch usually tend to give libertarians the most reasons to cheer on matters of criminal justice.

This case presents us with the flip side of that coin. When viewed from a libertarian legal perspective, Thomas and Alito tend to stand out as the worst on criminal justice issues. In far too many cases, Thomas and Alito have exhibited a kind of overriding deference to law enforcement that undermines the Bill of Rights and thwarts government accountability. Their actions this week continue that unfortunate trend.

Keep reading

Fighting for Food Freedom: A Georgia Farmer’s Stand Against Bureaucratic Overreach

“I never set out to battle county government. I simply wanted to sell the food I grow—healthy, local produce and value-added goods—to my neighbors,” Georgia farmer Stephanie Jones shared with The Gateway Pundit.

Recently, The Gateway Pundit spoke with Stephanie Jones, owner of Jones Creek Farm, a small family farm in Liberty County, Georgia.

In an era when Americans are increasingly demanding transparency and control over what ends up on their plates, the farm-to-table movement has emerged as a powerful counter to our industrialized food system.

By supporting small farmers and cottage food businesses, communities gain access to fresher, more nutritious food while strengthening local economies and preserving agricultural traditions.

These direct connections between growers and consumers are vital—not only for economic resilience, but for restoring personal agency over the food we eat.

This push for greater food sovereignty sits at the heart of the growing MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement, which seeks to reduce chronic disease by reforming agricultural policy, empowering small producers, and challenging the dominance of ultra-processed foods.

In this interview, this dedicated Georgia farmer shares her firsthand battle with local bureaucracy and her vision for a more resilient, community-centered food system.

Keep reading

Secret Grand Jury Convened to Unmask Anonymous Government Critic on Reddit

Federal prosecutors have ordered Reddit to appear before a grand jury in Washington, D.C., and hand over the personal data of an anonymous user who posted criticism of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The company has until April 14 to comply. Reddit has declined to say whether it plans to fight the order.

The user, identified in court filings as John Doe, is a US citizen in the Pacific Northwest. Doe’s attorneys reviewed the account’s post history and found nothing resembling criminal activity.

The most aggressive posts they could locate: sharing already-public biographical details about Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who killed Renee Good in Minneapolis in January; suggesting “Urine speaks louder than words” as an anti-ICE protest sign (a reference to a song); and writing “TSA sucks and we all know it.”

Keep reading

Democrats Turn to Unconstitutional Exit Taxes After Their Policies Drove the Wealthy Out of Blue States

Democrats believe all our money belongs to them. They believe they have the moral and legal authority to take the money we earn and redistribute it to their preferred constituencies, while ignoring (or even facilitating) massive fraud and enriching themselves in the process. 

With the news of massive fraud scandals in Minnesota and California, it’s clear we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a fraud problem, and we’d bet the majority of our deficit could be erased if we eliminated fraud. But Democrats don’t have any interest in doing that. They just keep taxing people more and more to make up for their fiscal mismanagement. 

And when they raise taxes, the people who can afford to move from those blue states to tax-friendlier red states. That leaves the blue states with even more self-inflicted budget woes.

Rather than roll back wealth taxes, Democrats have decided to tax the people even more in the form of an exit tax, and that concept is gaining traction in blue states.

Keep reading

‘Arctic Frost’ called overreach of monumental proportions and consequence

Recent disclosures about special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation raise a deeply troubling question for the American people: Did federal law enforcement cross the line from pursuing justice into wielding government power for political ends?

Documents released by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley describe investigative actions by the Biden-era Department of Justice and FBI that were not merely aggressive but aggressively partisan in focus and sweeping in scope. It is increasingly clear this was an overreach of monumental proportions and consequence, using law enforcement authority in a manner that transformed the justice system into a political weapon.

That is the very definition of lawfare.

Arctic Frost itself may have been partisan in its execution, but the response to it cannot be. Accountability must be rooted in principle, not party.

According to materials released by Senate investigators, Arctic Frost was the internal codename used for a broad federal inquiry into efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. Under Smith, the investigation issued at least 197 grand jury subpoenas and sought information from more than 400 individuals, organizations and lawmakers connected to post-election activities.

That scale is not a minor detail. It reflects an investigation that moved beyond specific alleged crimes and into a systematic mapping of political actors and associations. One of the most consequential disclosures involves an intrusive investigation into Kash Patel, the current FBI director, who at that time was a private citizen.

According to Senate materials, investigators subpoenaed Verizon, Patel’s phone carrier, for his phone records spanning multiple years, between 2020 and 2023. These demands included not just basic call and text message logs (whom he contacted, when and for how long — metadata that paints an intimate portrait of personal and professional associations), but also residential and mailing addresses, email addresses, IP addresses, usernames, screen names and, crucially, payment information, including credit card numbers and bank details tied to his phone account.

These subpoenas came with court-authorized gag orders lasting up to a year, meaning Verizon was legally barred from telling Patel he was being spied on. As a result, he had no chance to challenge the requests in court. So here we have raw, unaccountable surveillance of an American citizen that went unimpeded for years.

The issue is not whether the government has authority to investigate. It does. The issue is whether that authority was exercised with appropriate limits, neutrality and respect for constitutional protections.

Keep reading

Carney Liberals push Bill C-16 that could criminalize normal family conversations

Mark Carney’s Liberal government wants to control everything. With Bill C-9, they seek to remove the religious exemption for prosecutable hate speech; MP Marc Miller specifically cited Bible passages as examples. With Bill C-16, they could open the door to criminalizing conversations between family members after the fact.

The new Bill C-16 (not the 2017 bill of the same name, which prohibited “hate speech” on the grounds of “gender identity and expression” and made Dr. Jordan Peterson famous) has been titled the “Protecting Victims Act,” and was introduced by the Liberals in the 45th Parliament. It has not attracted much attention, but as MP Leslyn Lewis recently highlighted, it may have far-reaching effects.

Bill C-16 creates a new offense under Criminal Code Section 264.1 for patterns of “coercive or controlling conduct” in relationships but goes far beyond abuse and lists non-violent behaviors that are subject to after-the-fact interpretation.

“Do you think the government should criminalize everyday interactions in your home with your family? If not, you should read Bill C-16,” Lewis wrote on X. “The bill creates new offences (Criminal Code Section 264.01), which are deeply concerning for normal, loving family interactions, based on a ‘pattern of coercive or controlling conduct,’ even when no violence, threats, or illegal acts occur.”

“It criminalizes a pattern of otherwise lawful and often common behaviour that may later be perceived as threatening by an intimate partner,” Lewis continued. “That means ordinary family interactions could be re-interpreted as criminal after the fact.” She cited a series of examples that should make Canadians sit up straight:

  • Asking a spouse where they are after they said they’d be home,
  • Expressing concern about excessive drinking,
  • Disagreeing about finances or spending,
  • Asking a partner not to give children junk food,
  • Raising concerns about time away from family,
  • Setting household boundaries or expectations,

Obviously, many of these cited examples, which could be interpreted as “criminal” under the Liberals’ new crime bill, are common discussions and arguments in the family context.

Keep reading