Tag: police state

Federal Judge Could Force IRS To Release Internal Records in Alleged Political ‘Weaponization’ Case

A federal judge could soon rule on whether the Internal Revenue Service falsified records to target companies for tax penalties, according to new court filings on Friday.

Three companies filed a motion on Friday asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to determine whether there is sufficient evidence that the IRS fraudulently “backdated” documents while cracking down on “syndicated conservation easement” schemes, which allow individuals and corporations to offset their taxes by donating land to charitable groups.

The filing is part of a two-year-long Freedom of Information Act case against the IRS. The plaintiffs, Arden Row Assets, Basswood Aggregates, and Delwood Resources, claim IRS agents hit their companies with millions of dollars in tax penalties without proper authorization, and later fraudulently backdated documents to cover up the misconduct.

If the court decides there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the IRS, it could force the agency to release internal records related to the case.

Critics of the tax bureau say the case is a prime example of politicized “weaponization” by the IRS, an agency that has faced extensive budget cuts and layoffs by the Trump administration.

“In the emails between the IRS agents, it’s clear that they know they didn’t properly date the documents, and they seem to have no concern about backdating the forms,” Rod Rosenstein, the former deputy attorney general who is representing the companies suing the IRS, told the Washington Free Beacon.

Rosenstein said it appears that agents were “encouraged to pursue penalties in easement cases” which “may have created pressure to pursue penalties even when they failed to get the required approval.”

Over the past decade, the IRS has launched a crackdown against “syndicated conservation easements,” a tax loophole that allows companies to donate undeveloped land to nonprofit groups for a tax writeoff. The easements have been criticized by some lawmakers who say they’re being abused by companies that buy up low-worth land, obtain inflated land value assessments, and then sell off portions to investors looking for tax breaks.

The lawsuit cited internal IRS emails that appeared to show agents discussing backdating forms that authorized millions of dollars of penalties against the plaintiff companies.

Keep reading

USAID Censorship Scheme Exposed; Global Engagement Center Worked With UK Government And Media Firms To Deploy AI Tools

On Thursday, America First Legal (AFL) released explosive new documents obtained through ongoing litigation against the U.S. Department of State’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), exposing a vast, government-backed censorship operation to silence Americans under the guise of “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation.” The documents reveal a disturbing alliance between the GEC, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the British Foreign, Commonwealth, Development Office (FCDO), and media censorship organizations, all working in lock-step to manipulate public discourse, control media narratives, and suppress free speech.

The GEC, which was forced to shut down in December 2024, was designed to “combat foreign disinformation abroad.” However, through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, AFL uncovered that the GEC engaged in state-sponsored propaganda, repeatedly using willing participants from private media organizations. Further, AFL’s lawsuit against the GEC revealed that USAID had created an internal “Disinformation Primer” that explicitly praised private sector censorship strategies and recommended further censorship tactics.

Keep reading

UK MP Questions Whether Elon Musk and JD Vance’s Criticism of Censorship Laws May Constitute “Foreign Interference”

At first glance, you might think Emily Darlington, Labour MP for Milton Keynes Central, had simply woken up on the wrong side of a particularly Orwellian bed. During a recent parliamentary inquisition — sorry, hearing — on social media, misinformation, and algorithms, Darlington floated an idea so alarmingly daft that even the Ministry of Truth would have blushed.

Her proposal? That public criticism of the UK’s speech laws by Elon Musk and US Vice President JD Vance might amount to “foreign interference.” That’s right. According to Darlington’s logic, if an American so much as questions the Online Safety Act, they might as well be stuffing ballot boxes or hacking government servers.

“Should we consider the current JD Vance, Elon Musk campaign against the UK — particularly against the government and the Prime Minister — and this push about free speech and the misrepresentation of our free speech laws as foreign interference?” she asked, in a sentence so brazenly bonkers it should come with its own government warning label.

This wasn’t a discussion about cyberattacks or deepfake election manipulation. No, Darlington was talking about speech. Dissent. Opinions. The sort of thing democracies used to be quite fond of.

Now, under the UK’s freshly unwrapped National Security Act 2023, “foreign interference” can land you 14 years in prison and an unlimited fine. It used to be that such punishments were reserved for actual enemies of the state — spies, saboteurs. Now, apparently, tweeting that Britain’s Online Safety Act is a bad idea could get you tossed into the Tower.

One would expect a room full of educated adults to respond to this with a firm, resounding no. Instead, we got caution, hedging, and a heavy whiff of complicity.

Dr. Eirliani Abdul Rahman, a Senior Fellow at Georgetown and one-time Twitter Trust and Safety Council member, refused to outright dismiss the idea that Musk or Vance might be causing harm.

Keep reading

Compromised integrity: Medical professionals failed to uphold ethics and freedoms during covid

The covid pandemic exposed the ease with which democratic societies can abandon ethical principles and human rights under collective fear, with a response driven more by authoritarian impulses than science.

The medical profession failed to uphold its ethical principles, with many doctors and medical bodies complicit in enforcing government policies that disregarded patient autonomy and scientific integrity.

To reclaim ethics and freedom, the medical profession and society must speak truth to power and defend principles such as informed consent, patient autonomy and free scientific discourse.

Keep reading

Perilous Times for Personal Liberty

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a socialist.|
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”
~ Rev. Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)

The history of human freedom is long, tortuous and not gratifying. It consists essentially in governments trampling the laws enacted to restrain them. It is the profound clash of natural personal freedom and the commands of the state backed by force. The constitutions of totalitarian countries are papered over with restraints on the state, but the restraints are toothless. The state does what it wants. It doesn’t take rights seriously.

In liberal democracies – with the separation of powers, and checks and balances – the state is theoretically restrained. Yet often, there, too, the restraints are paper tigers. There, too, HERE, too, the state does not take rights seriously.

Thomas Jefferson argued that in the long march of history, personal liberty shrinks and state power grows. He famously believed that only a revolution can bring about a proper reset.

All of this history and theory came into sharp focus in the past two weeks when the feds arrested a Syrian graduate student in his student housing at Columbia University in New York City and shipped him to an immigration jail in Louisiana. He is married to a native-born American, they are expecting a child in April, and he is a permanent resident alien.

Last week, the federal government arrested a Lebanese physician at Logan Airport in Boston. She is a professor of medicine at Brown University, and she, too, is a permanent resident alien.

The student was charged with immigration violations. The physician was summarily deported to Paris and then to her native Lebanon.

The charging documents filed against the student allege no crime or personal misbehavior, point to no statutory violations, and offer no evidence of the student’s danger to persons or property or the government. The papers claim that Secretary of State Marco Rubio believes that this student’s presence on the Columbia campus – given his outspoken support for a Palestinian state, the existence of which has been the public policy of the U.S. for generations – is a material impediment to the execution of American foreign policy.

There are no charging papers filed against the physician, but the government leaked that when federal agents seized her mobile phone, they determined that she had been at the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah, the recently murdered head of Hezbollah. She was there along with more than one million others. When asked about this, according to the government leakers, she stated that she followed Nasrallah’s religious teachings but not his political ones.

While the physician was confined at Logan, her attorneys obtained an order from a federal judge prohibiting her deportation until a hearing could be held before him. The government ignored the order.

These two arrests implicate numerous constitutionally guaranteed rights, which are generally taken for granted here.

The first is the freedom of speech. We know from the writings of James Madison – who authored the Bill of Rights – that the Founders regarded the freedom of speech as a personal individual natural right. It is also, of course, expressly protected from government interference and reprisal in the First Amendment. The courts have ruled that it protects all persons – no matter their immigration status – who may think as they wish, say what they think, publish what they say, worship or not and associate with whomever they choose.

If the government can punish the speech it or its friends and benefactors hate and fear, then the First Amendment is useless and democracy is a sham.

Also implicated in these arrests is freedom of religion and assembly. Just as the student can make any public political statement he wishes – no matter how offensive or provocative it may be to his immediate or a distant audience – the physician can attend any funeral she wishes, can associate with any mourners of her choosing, can embrace any religion and can follow any preacher.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of the business of speech, religion and assembly. Without government fidelity to it, America is no longer a democracy but rather some form of conformist secular theocracy that rejects the basic values protected by the Constitution – and changes with every election.

Also implicated by these arrests is due process, guaranteed to all persons by the Fifth Amendment. At its rudimentary base, due process requires a fair hearing before a neutral arbiter before the government may interfere with life, liberty or property – and at which the government must prove personal fault.

Keep reading

A New Study Adds to the Evidence That Drug Busts Result in More Overdose Deaths

Prohibition makes drug use more dangerous by creating a black market in which quality and potency are highly variable and unpredictable. Ramped-up enforcement of prohibition magnifies that problem, as dramatically demonstrated by the deadly impact of restricting access to pain medication at the same time that illicit fentanyl was proliferating as a heroin booster and substitute. That sort of perverse effect pervades drug law enforcement, as illustrated by a new study that found drug seizures in San Francisco were associated with a substantial increase in overdose risk.

The study included 2,653 drug seizures and 1,833 opioid-related deaths from 2020 to 2023. “Within the surrounding 100, 250, and 500 meters,” RTI International researcher Alex H. Kral and his two co-authors reported in JAMA Network Open on Wednesday, “drug seizures were associated with a statistically significant increase in the relative risk for fatal opioid overdoses.”

That is not the result that local authorities expected. “Since fentanyl entered the unregulated drug supply in San Francisco, California, around 2019, overdose mortality rates have reached record highs,” Kral et al. note. “This has sparked increased enforcement of drug laws.”

In December 2021, then-Mayor London Breed “declared a state of emergency in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco to enable ‘more coordinated enforcement and disruption of illegal activities.'” District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, who took office in July 2022, “made combatting open-air drug markets and holding drug dealers accountable a top priority of her administration,” her office brags. In May 2023, Kral et al. note, Gov. Gavin Newsom “authorized the assignment of California Highway Patrol and California National Guard personnel to a new multiagency operation with the San Francisco Police Department aimed at ‘targeting fentanyl trafficking, disrupting the supply of the deadly drug in the city, and holding the operators of drug trafficking rings accountable.'”

How did all of that work out? The day after cops busted drug dealers, Kral et al. found, the risk of fatal overdoses rose by 74 percent, on average, within 100 meters. The increase in risk persisted for as long as a week, falling to 55 percent after two days, 45 percent after three days, and 27 percent after seven days. That pattern reinforces the conclusion that these police interventions, which aimed to reduce drug-related deaths, had the opposite effect.

Keep reading

Gangsters, Terrorists, And Deep State Judicial Tyranny

The primary purpose of the federal judiciary is to make sure that anything the federal government does is almost never, ever, ruled to be unconstitutional. This is Hamilton’s constitutional regime. A believer in unlimited government, Alexander Hamilton’s constitutional belief was that the constitution can and should be used as a rubber stamp on unlimited government — as long as the government is run by “well behaved” politicians like himself, he insisted. His political nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, took the opposite view that the government needed to be “bound by the chains of the Constitution.”

Andrew Napolitano pointed out in his book, The Constitution in Exile, that the federal government’s “supreme” court did not rule a single federal law to be unconstitutional from 1935 to 1997. The eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Jeffersonians warned that if the day ever arrived that the federal government, through its judiciary, would be the sole arbiter of constitutionality Americans would then live under a tyranny. That judicial tyranny was cemented into place in April of 1865 with the destruction of the rights of nullification and secession and the evisceration of the Tenth Amendment – the real purposes of the “Civil War.” 

The latest example of our bullying and tyrannical federal judiciary is Chief Justice John Roberts’ nasty rebuke of President Trump’s recommendation of impeaching a federal judge who issued one of those Stalinist-sounding federal judicial “decrees” saying that the president has no authority to deport illegal aliens who have committed such felonies as rape and murder, as he did with over 200 members of a notorious El Salvadoran criminal gang. 

Americans – and American presidents – were not always bullied by black-robed totalitarians. They once understood that there are three branches of the federal government, not just the judicial branch, and that federal judges are not black-robed deities. President Andrew Jackson, who President Trump apparently reveres, is a good example of such a president. After Chief Justice John Marshall “ruled” in 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland) that the Second Bank of the United States (BUS), a precursor of the Fed, was constitutional despite not being one of the delegate powers in Article 1, Section 8, and despite its being voted down during the constitutional convention, Jackson voiced his disagreement by vetoing the recharter of the BUS in 1832. 

Keep reading

Finland’s Big Bet on Biometrics: Crime-Fighting Tool or Privacy Nightmare?

Finland has come out with a plan to expand the use of biometric data, with a new a new proposal from the country’s Interior Ministry.

Even as the push to introduce various forms of advanced biometric surveillance, including that incorporating facial recognition, is gaining momentum in countries around the world – so is the pushback from civil rights and privacy campaigners, which ensures that such initiatives these days rarely fly under the radar.

Finland’s Interior Ministry announced on its website that the proposal aims to amend existing rules on biometric data stored by the police and the immigration service – stored, that is, in Finnish citizens’ ID cards, and registers containing biometric data of foreigners.

The government says the intent is not only to strengthen crime prevention – but also to “improve the conditions for using biometrics in law enforcement.”

In addition to the collection of data captured by facial recognition devices, the proposal includes DNA samples and fingerprints taken from suspects. The process is then to attempt to match this biometric data with other types already contained in the law enforcement’s databases – for “crime prevention and investigative purposes.”

The groups keeping a close eye on this development are warning about some of the issues that crop up time and again around similar legislative efforts: the wording that allows for future “mission creep”- as well as unsatisfactory level of provisions that would guarantee against any abuse of such highly sensitive personal information.

Currently, the Finish proposal is yet to be presented to the lawmakers – the Interior Ministry is seeking comments before this can happen. And while the announcement of the proposal goes into the intent driving it, it is short on detail regarding the elephant in the room – privacy safeguards.

Keep reading

Town Secretly Seizes Developers’ Property Then Threatens Them With Trespassing Citation

As readers might recall, in the Providence suburb of Johnston, the town government and its very outspoken mayor have been attempting to seize a family of developers’ land to prevent their construction of an unsubsidized affordable housing project.

Last week the developers sued to stop the seizure in federal court, alleging that the “municipal campus” Johnston was seizing the land for was merely a pretext to stop new affordable housing.

Already, Rhode Island law establishes a fairly elaborate process that local governments have to follow when using eminent domain to take land for public buildings.

The developers’ constitutional challenge to the town’s seizure would typically delay things even more.

But in a surprise turn of events late last week, the town is claiming to have already seized the developers’ plot without providing any advance notice to the owners and without following the processes laid down in Rhode Island law.

The owners first learned of the seizure via Johnston’s mayor’s X post. With the town now alleging that the seizure is complete, it’s telling the former owners of the land they have until Friday to get off it or else they’ll be cited for trespassing.

In response, the developers are now filing for a temporary restraining order to stop what they describe as the town’s unprecedented lawlessness in taking the land.

“In 40 years, I’ve seen some pretty outrageous exercises of eminent domain powers. Never anything like this,” says Robert Thomas, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a public interest law firm, who is representing the developers.

Keep reading