Tag: police state

Court Rules Warrantless Section 702 Searches Violated the Fourth Amendment

In a long-awaited ruling in United States v. Hasbajrami, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York last night held that warrantless queries — or searches — conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment. The ruling is the first of its kind, and it follows years of public revelations about how Section 702 has been used by the government to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans, including protesters, members of Congress, and journalists.

The court’s opinion addresses numerous queries the FBI conducted of the defendant, Mr. Agron Hasbajrami, during an investigation years ago. The government initially hid its use of Section 702 in Mr. Hasbajrami’s case and others, reversing course only after the Department of Justice’s policy of wrongly concealing Section 702 surveillance in criminal cases came to light.

“This is a major constitutional ruling on one of the most abused provisions of FISA,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “As the court recognized, the FBI’s rampant digital searches of Americans are an immense invasion of privacy, and trigger the bedrock protections of the Fourth Amendment. Section 702 is long overdue for reform by Congress, and this opinion shows why.”

The decision follows a groundbreaking 2019 ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which recognized that Section 702 queries of people in the United States are searches that trigger separate Fourth Amendment scrutiny. The court of appeals sent the case back to the lower court for further constitutional analysis, culminating in yesterday’s ruling. While the new opinion holds that the FBI’s Section 702 queries violated the Fourth Amendment, the court ultimately denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the resulting evidence on separate grounds.

Keep reading

Soros-Backed DA Seeks to Bring Charges Against Jan 6 Prisoners Despite Trump Pardon

Radical progressive Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is now scrambling to find ways to bring state charges against January 6 prisoners who were pardoned by President Donald Trump.

Krasner is exploring the possibility of bringing charges against Pennsylvania residents, CNN’s Marshall Cohen reported.

The Soros-backed district attorney’s plans to charge the J6 protesters would likely face significant legal hurdles, such as double jeopardy.

However, he maintains, “You can have a state prosecution for conduct that was not fully encompassed in the federal prosecution.”

Past attempts to bring state charges against individuals are usually unsuccessful due to constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

Krasner said he is now scouring over federal charging documents in order to find prosecutable conduct that was not covered in the January 6 prosecutions.

Keep reading

D.C. Gulag Holds J6 Prisoners Hostage Despite Trump’s Pardons

One of Donald Trump’s first acts as president was to commute the sentences of or pardon nearly every single Jan. 6 prisoner, setting them all free. But multiple prisons and halfway houses have resisted complying, with the D.C. gulag holding multiple prisoners hostage and refusing to release them.

Trump’s historic order commuted the sentences of about a dozen individuals and pardoned “all individuals convicted of offenses related to event that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” It ordered that those “currently held in prison are released immediately.” But the thugs who have so abused and trampled the rights of the J6ers under the Biden-Harris administration for four years are defying the law one last time. J6ers and friends reported prisons and halfway houses across America slow-rolling prisoners’ releases, and the infamous Washington, D.C., jail nicknamed the Gulag flat out refused to release multiple J6 hostages.

Even Elon Musk responded to families’ pleas, resharing a message urging them to bring Trump‘s pardon with them to the prison and requesting to be notified if they continued to encounter resistance in the release of their loved ones.

A family member of J6er Jake Lang, likely his fiancée, accused via Lang’s X account on Monday evening that he was assaulted by prison guards, handcuffed, and thrown back in his cell while in the process of being released. Lang has been in jail for four years without a trial in inhumane conditions, much of it in solitary confinement. I was subsequently able to reach Lang by text, and he confirmed that the D.C. Gulag was refusing to release some of the J6 prisoners.

“The GULAG doesn’t want to cough up its hostages!!! After 1465 days, every second is like an eternity!! I’m ready to go home!!! God will deliver!!!” Lang wrote me in his message. 

Keep reading

Trump failed to deliver ‘Day 1’ promise to grant clemency to Ross Ulbricht, founder of Silk Road

President Trump did not pardon or commute the prison sentence of Ross Ulbricht, the founder of the anonymous marketplace website Silk Road, despite his promise on the campaign trail to free him on “day one.”

Ulbricht was convicted because his website, which was founded in 2011 and used cryptocurrency for payments, was used to sell illegal drugs, even though he did not sell any of the illicit substances himself.

After being sworn into office on Monday, Trump issued several executive actions, including efforts to reduce immigration, designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move to resume federal executions and pardoning or commuting sentences to time served of people convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

But Trump’s first day back in the White House came to an end with Ulbricht still behind bars without a pardon or commutation from the president, who pledged to do so last spring.

Keep reading

‘I break the law to buy my child’s life-saving cannabis drug’

Until recently, Jane would have described her family as normal, law-abiding citizens. But that changed last summer, when the full-time mum started illegally buying cannabis oil online for her daughter, Annie.

The 10-year-old has a severe, rare type of epilepsy, resistant to conventional treatments.

At her worst, Annie was admitted to hospital 22 times in 22 months. Doctors warned Jane there was a very real prospect of her daughter dying from a seizure.

Jane says she doesn’t want to break the law – but the severity of Annie’s condition is such that she doesn’t care. We have changed their names to protect their identities.

“[Annie] deserves to be happy. She deserves to have this quality of life,” Jane explains. “And if I’m breaking the law by giving her this quality of life, am I wrong or is the law wrong?”

The family cannot afford a private prescription, which costs approximately £2,000 each month from one of the many clinics that have been established since the legalisation of so-called full-spectrum medical cannabis – which includes the psychoactive ingredient THC.

Keep reading

The Climate and Nature Bill will destroy the UK economy and end private property

The Climate and Nature Bill has its second reading in Parliament on 24 January 2025. If it becomes law, it will bring in compulsory re-wilding of more than 30% of the UK and place controls on travel and consumption.

“You may think that all the bills that have gone through Parliament already in the last six months have been disastrous and have been an attack on our way of life our culture and our economy. But there’s something else coming up which is as bad or even worse as everything that has gone before. And this is something called the Climate and Nature Bill,” David Kurten said.

“It will destroy the economy, essentially, and it will give the Government powers over your private property …  Because of [something to do with] the climate or … nature then the government can essentially take your property,” he warned.  “Because everything that happens in the country will have to be beholden to the targets in this Climate and Nature Bill.”

Keep reading

Jeffrey Epstein’s Cellmate Alleges Late Pedophile Was Offered ‘Sweetheart Plea Deal’ if He Gave Incriminating Information To Impeach Trump – But He Had Nothing on Him!

Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were two fabulously rich guys in Palm Beach, Florida. But that’s where the similarities end.

They were not friends. Trump barred him from Mar-a-Lago.

And when Palm Beach police first investigated Epstein, Trump was the only famous name to help police in their inquiries.

Now, evidence has arisen that suggests Jeffrey Epstein was offered by the DOJ a ‘sweetheart plea deal’ if he could provide ‘incriminating information’ that would lead to President Trump’s impeachment.

The revelation was made by Epstein former cellmate.

Former cop and convicted killer Nicholas Tartaglione shared a cell with Epstein at the Manhattan MCC weeks before his death in August 2019.

Tartaglione, in a call with with Jessica Reed Kraus, said the King of Pedophiles told him about the proposal after one meeting with the feds.

New York Post reported:

“[Epstein] said [to Tartaglione ‘They told me they’d let me plead out something small, and I’ll do just a couple of years in a camp, if I can give them something on Trump to get him impeached. […] The government told me I don’t have to prove what I say about Trump, as long as Trump’s people can’t disprove it’, Tartaglione said — adding that Epstein considered ‘making stuff up’ to save his skin. Tartaglione never said what Epstein ultimately planned to do.”

Keep reading

Springfield Illinois City Council Bans Trump Shirt

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) was founded in 1990 with the mandate to protect religious and constitutional freedoms.

Under the leadership of Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the organization engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation that includes representing clients before the Supreme Court of the United States and international tribunals around the globe.

ACLJ has taken on the case of Ms. Rosanna Pulido, a resident of Springfield, Illinois, who “faced outrageous restrictions on her freedom of expression at a city council meeting.”

According to ACLJ, Ms. Pulido attended a Springfield City Council meeting on October 29, 2024, sporting a “Chicanos for Trump” T-shirt.

Despite her peaceful and orderly participation, exercising her free speech was too much for the council, and she was singled out by a Springfield alderwoman, who claimed the shirt violated a policy against “campaign materials” in the council chambers.

She was then forced to either turn her shirt inside out or cover the message.

As ACLJ notes, this rule is nowhere to be found in writing and, although Ms. Pulido wrote to the city council and to the city’s attorney asking what law was being enforced, she received no reply.

Further, the rule is completely unconstitutional: Citizens can wear campaign T-shirts in public places.

Keep reading

The Secular State Reinvents the Inquisition

One of my favorite books is The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene.

Set in the 1930s when Mexico was still persecuting the Catholic Church (a persecution which the government of the United States consented to), the novel follows the life of a nameless “whiskey priest” who, despite being a drunk and a fornicator with an illegitimate daughter, continues to illegally minister to the people while other more reputable priests have abandoned their ministry out of fear of the punishment by the government.

The whiskey priest is lured to his doom by his sense of duty, as a request for a deathbed confession is communicated to him by a lying Judas-like figure. Despite his suspicions, the whiskey priest goes and is arrested. Sentenced to die, and denied confession by one of those priests who had abandoned ministry, we see into the whiskey priest’s thoughts for a final time in what I consider the most moving paragraph in all of literature:

What a fool he had been to think that he was strong enough to stay when others fled. What an impossible fellow I am, he thought, and how useless. I have done nothing for anybody. I might just as well have never lived. His parents were dead—soon he wouldn’t even be a memory—perhaps after all he was not at the moment afraid of damnation—even the fear of pain was in the background. He felt only an immense disappointment because he had to go to God empty-handed, with nothing done at all. It seemed to him, at that moment, that it would have been quite easy to have been a saint. It would only have needed a little self-restraint and a little courage. He felt like someone who has missed happiness by seconds at an appointed place. He knew now that at the end there was only one thing that counted—to be a saint.

The novel ends with another fugitive priest arriving, and a young boy who had previously been a skeptic greeting him enthusiastically, having been inspired by the martyrdom of the whiskey priest.

Years ago, this novel helped convince me that I could enter seminary despite the heavy realization of my own sinfulness. In 2020, those of us who were trying to get sacraments to people despite being forbidden by tyrants certainly could identify with the sense of duty demonstrated by the whiskey priest. I know of one priest who had to remove his cassock, put on jeans, and pretend to be a grandson in order to bring the sacraments to a woman in the nursing home.

The irony in all of this, however, is that some powerful men in the Church wanted the novel placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. Thankfully this would not occur, and Greene’s account of the conflict includes a useful comparison to totalitarianism:

The Archbishop of Westminster read me a letter from the Holy Office condemning my novel because it was “paradoxical” and “dealt with extraordinary circumstances.” The price of liberty, even within a Church, is eternal vigilance, but I wonder whether any of the totalitarian states…would have treated me as gently when I refused to revise the book on the casuistical ground that the copyright was in the hands of my publishers. There was no public condemnation, and the affair was allowed to drop into that peaceful oblivion which the Church wisely reserves for unimportant issues.

I’d like to suggest that understanding the use (and abuse) of the religious impulse to limit what type of content an adherent consumes can help us to understand the wave of censorship which has taken hold in the West, especially with respect to what began in 2020.

Keep reading

The FDA Proposes a De Facto Cigarette Ban, Which Would Expand the Disastrous War on Drugs

On its way out the door, the Biden administration has proposed a rule that would effectively ban cigarettes by requiring a drastic reduction in nicotine content. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which unveiled the proposed rule on Wednesday, says the aim is to make cigarettes unappealing by eliminating their “psychoactive and reinforcing effects.”

In addition to cigarettes, the FDA’s proposed rule covers cigarette tobacco, pipe tobacco (except shisha for waterpipes), and cigars (except for “premium” cigars). All of those products would be limited to 0.7 milligrams of nicotine per gram of tobacco. That cap technically complies with a federal law that bars the FDA from banning tobacco products or “requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero.” But the negligible amount of nicotine allowed under the rule would amount to both in practice.

The FDA, which first considered this policy under Scott Gottlieb during the first Trump administration, has abandoned the idea of gradually phasing in the nicotine reduction because that would initially result in “compensatory smoking.” That is, current smokers would be apt to inhale more deeply, take more or bigger puffs, or consume more cigarettes to get the nicotine dose to which they are accustomed, which would increase their exposure to the toxins and carcinogens in tobacco smoke. But avoiding that pitfall by mandating an immediate cut to a negligible nicotine level would magnify the black-market effects of de facto cigarette prohibition.

Given the disastrous results of the war on drugs, it is hard to fathom why a government agency in 2025 would think it is a good idea to expand that crusade to include products that are regularly consumed by nearly 30 million American adults. The proposed nicotine cap “would effectively outlaw almost all cigarettes currently being sold,” which would “benefit organized crime by igniting a robust illicit market for cigarettes and other tobacco products,” the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP) notes in an emailed press release.

Keep reading