Tag: police state

Spies, Secrets, and iCloud: Apple’s Legal Showdown in London

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in London is the one that will consider Apple’s appeal against the UK’s Home Office secret order to include an encryption backdoor in the giant’s iCloud service.

As things stand now, pending the outcome of the legal – and political – wrangling, iCloud users no longer enjoy the security and privacy benefits of the Advanced Data Protection (ADP).

This affects iCloud Backup in the following categories: iCloud Drive, Photos, Notes, Reminders, Safari Bookmarks, Siri Shortcuts, Voice Memos, Wallet Passes, and Freeform.

Meanwhile, the tribunal itself is “secret,” and the date it will consider Apple’s attempt to avoid the permanent breaking of encryption, and of the trust of its users worldwide, has been set for Friday, March 14.

But privacy activists like Privacy International (PI) want these hearings to be public, since the outcome of the UK’s anti-encryption push potentially affects millions, possibly billions of people around the world.

Secret as it may be, the IPT – which is believed to normally deal with national security issues – announced Friday’s closed-door meeting, a move that is described as “unusual.”

Unusual perhaps, but not illogical – Apple’s appeal against the original secret order was also apparently meant to be secret but has in the meantime been “leaked” to the public.

The original order came from Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who targeted the US company with a “technical compatibility notice.” The end result of compliance was giving UK’s spies and law enforcement access to data, by compromising iCloud encryption.

Keep reading

FOIA Requests Target Biden Administration’s Financial Surveillance

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has proceeded with filing a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the Treasury Department, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The goal is to receive relevant information regarding the Biden administration’s alleged weaponization of government and censorship.

This is yet another attempt to shed light on how third-party groups and organizations were used to circumvent a number of constitutional prohibitions.

ADF’s focus this time is on the previous administration’s policy of using the issue of domestic extremism to, in fact, negatively affect its political opponents – in the cases brought up in these FOIA requests, via access to financial records of US conservatives.

An iteration of the Big Government-Big Tech collusion, which has been investigated by Congress, this one is about Big Governments and Big Banks suspected of having worked together to achieve political goals. But not always by collaborating directly – and this is one of the aspects ADF wants to understand better.

Namely – the involvement of private organizations and businesses hired (“outsourced”) in one way or another, to help banks identify what were designated to be purveyors of misinformation, and domestic extremism.

The FOIAs also aim to reveal the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) role in flagging what are said to be “conservative-coded” transactions (the keywords here are reported to be, “Trump,” “MAGA”, etc.)

Keep reading

Zelenskiy Cozies Up To Turkey As Erdogan Sees Chance To Finally Join EU, Zelenskiy WILL NOT Hold Elections

The former Ottoman Empire – Turkey – firmly ensconced in a Islamist frame of mind, as it supports the former Al Qaeda members running Syria and slaughtering Christians, sees its chance to finally be part of the EU tyrannical club with the issue of Ukraine.

As America pulls back from the brink, Turkey is a possible benefactor for Ukrainian President Zelenskiy, now that further massive American ‘aid’ is not likely.

But it will come with a cost for Ukraine. After all, Ukraine does need men.

Zelenskiy said yesterday that Ukraine saw Turkey as a partner in security guarantees for his country, and added that Kyiv was ready to ratify a free trade agreement between the states.

Keep reading

When Dissent Becomes a Crime: The War on Political Speech Begins

“Once the principle is established that the government can arrest and jail protesters… officials will use it to silence opposition broadly.”
~ Heather Cox Richardson, historian

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.

You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.

There’s always a boomerang effect.

Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again – rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

Arresting political activists engaged in lawful, nonviolent protest activities is merely the shot across the bow.

The chilling of political speech and suppression of dissident voices are usually among the first signs that you’re in the midst of a hostile takeover by forces that are not friendly to freedom.

This is how it begins.

Consider that Khalil Mahmoud, an anti-war protester and recent graduate of Columbia University, was arrested on a Saturday night by ICE agents who appeared ignorant of his status as a legal U.S. resident and his rights thereof. That these very same ICE agents also threatened to arrest Mahmoud’s eight-months-pregnant wife, an American citizen, is also telling.

This does not seem to be a regime that respects the rights of the people.

Indeed, these ICE agents, who were “just following orders” from on high, showed no concern that the orders they had been given were trumped up, politically motivated and unconstitutional.

If this is indeed the first of many arrests to come, what’s next? Or more to the point, who’s next?

We are all at risk.

Keep reading

UN Drug Commission Votes To Ban Previously Uncontrolled Marijuana Compound, With U.S. Abstaining

The United Nations (UN) Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) voted this week to ban the marijuana component hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) under an international treaty, with every country present except the United States casting a vote in favor of placing the substance under Schedule II of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

The U.S., for its part, abstained. In a statement afterward, officials said they were “unable to vote” on the HHC proposal as well as another being voted on that placed the drug carisoprodol under Schedule IV.

“While the United States supports the use of the international scheduling system to make scientifically-informed decisions about international drug control, we were unable to vote on the proposals,” the statement said. “Nevertheless, both of these substances are already controlled in the United States, at levels that will allow the United States to meet its international obligations arising from the CND’s decisions today.”

The statement gave no further information explaining why the U.S. was unable to cast those votes.

CND also voted to regulate four other non-cannabis compounds under international law.

In a social media post, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) called the actions “critical decisions on the control of harmful substances.”

“These decisions shape drug policies, law enforcement and public health worldwide,” the body said.

Keep reading

No Other Land Won an Oscar. Miami Beach’s Mayor Is Trying To Evict a Movie Theater for Screening It

The mayor of Miami Beach, Florida, is trying to terminate the lease of a movie theater for screening No Other Land, an Oscar-winning documentary about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The Miami Herald reported that Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner introduced a resolution to terminate the lease of O Cinema, an independent film theater that rents space from the city, and discontinue more than $60,000 in promised grant funding. The legislation comes after Meiner tried to pressure the theater to cancel the screening.

Florida civil rights groups and First Amendment experts say such government retaliation against the theater for the content of the films it chooses to screen would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

“Simply put, the First Amendment does not allow the government to discriminate based on viewpoint or to retaliate against anyone for their speech,” says Daniel Tilley, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida. “Pulling funding from an independent, community-based cinema under these circumstances is patently unconstitutional. The government does not get to pick and choose which viewpoints the public is allowed to hear, however controversial some might find them.”

The Miami Beach mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

However, in a newsletter to Miami Beach residents earlier this week, Meiner wrote: “I am a staunch believer in free speech. But normalizing hate and then disseminating antisemitism in a facility owned by the taxpayers of Miami Beach, after O Cinema conceded the ‘concerns of antisemitic rhetoric,’ is unjust to the values of our city and residents and should not be tolerated.”

On March 5, Meiner sent O Cinema a letter on official city letterhead expressing outrage at the cinema’s decision to screen the film, which documents the destruction of Palestinian homes in the West Bank.

“Here in Miami Beach, our City has adopted a strong policy of support for the State of Israel in its struggle to defend itself and its residents against attacks by the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah,” the letter read. “Airing performances of the one-sided, inaccurate film ‘No Other Land’ at a movie theater facility owned by the City and operated by O Cinema is disappointing.”

This is flagrant government jawboning—an attempt to use the mayor’s bully pulpit and the implicit threat of government action to cow the theater into self-censorship.

O Cinema initially complied.

“Due to the concerns of antisemitic rhetoric, we have decided to withdraw the film from our programming,” Vivian Marthell, CEO of O Cinema, wrote to Meiner the following day. “This film has exposed a rift which makes us unable to do the thing we’ve always sought out to do which is to foster thoughtful conversations about cinematic works.”

However, the theater then reversed course and told the Miami Herald it would continue the screenings after all.

Keep reading

Covid Taught Americans To Stop Trusting A Government That Puts Them Last

When Donald Trump first sailed into the Oval Office, his detractors shrieked that his blunt rhetoric was dividing the country. His supporters pointed out that Trump wasn’t so much creating division as he was revealing divisions that had been growing in America for a long time. 

The reaction to the novel Wuhan coronavirus did the country a similar service, by revealing a new fault line: two sets of rules, which were applied differently to Americans depending on their membership in certain political cliques. For the average American who assumed his political leaders still shared the belief that all men are created equal, it was a cruel betrayal.

Coronavirus lockdowns alerted Americans to an uncomfortable reality: the institutions to which they’d entrusted their liberties were no longer trustworthy. If the 2024 election is any indication, they got the message.

In the Covid times, hardworking people were deemed “nonessential” and lost their jobs while watching Tony Fauci’s net worth climb. They were banished from church while thousands gathered in the street to worship George Floyd. They watched their kids fall behind in school while Nancy Pelosi and Lori Lightfoot broke the rules to get their split ends trimmed. Their dying loved ones left this world alone, while Obama danced with Hollywood stars at his 60th birthday bash. To add further insult, those loved ones were denied proper funerals, while 10,000 people gathered to eulogize a drug-addicted criminal in a gold casket on television. Only some Americans were authorized to print their opinions online, while others were punished and censored.

The delusion that we were “all in this together” didn’t survive for long. A certain set of rules applied to the BLM protesters, the Democrat politicians, and the Hollywood elites, and another set of rules applied to everyone else. Americans started to realize they were being had.

When Covid vaccine mandates rolled out, the dichotomy was even clearer. For the vaccinated class, there were jobs, service academy appointments, college acceptances, and social acceptance. For the unvaccinated, there was talk of denying them entry to airplanes, restaurants, and stores, or even putting them into camps.

Once the double standard was exposed, it became visible everywhere. The Bidens got away with selling White House access because of their last name, while Trump was relentlessly prosecuted for made-up crimes because of his. Peaceful pro-life protesters were dragged to prison while abortion supporters got away with firebombing pregnancy clinics. Ukrainian oligarchs got billions while we watched the buying power of each paycheck shrink. Our government seemed more interested in caring for citizens of other countries who broke our laws than in looking after its own. Our president was more interested in apologizing for using the term “illegal” to describe Laken Riley’s murderer than he was in apologizing to Riley’s family for inviting her killer across the border. Our speech was muzzled as a “threat to democracy” while partisans gleefully dismantled our republic.

Nearly 8 in 10 Americans told Trafalgar Group pollsters in 2022 that they felt they were living under a two-tiered justice system.

If Covid brought the double standard into focus, the racial turmoil of 2020 confirmed leftists’ belief that it was a good thing. Americans were given different rules to live by, depending on the color of their skin. White Americans were expected to engage in public spectacles of guilt and self-hatred for their own inherent racism, examine their white fragility, pay “reparations” to their black friends, and accept fault for all of society’s ills. Black Americans were encouraged to celebrate their “black pride” and demand preferential treatment. The Smithsonian released an infographic saying traits like being “polite” or on time were hallmarks of “whiteness,” with the overly racist implication that black Americans should not be expected to do either. Hiring quotas were installed to reflect the principle that black and white people should be treated differently.

The ideology represented by the shorthand “DEI” turned this discrimination into a $9 billion industry. DEI didn’t just institutionalize racial discrimination, it also implemented discrimination based on sexual preferences. While white guys got blamed for society’s faults, white guys who dressed up as women got special victim status and Bud Light brand deals!

Keep reading

Mel Gibson Controversy Highlights a Bigger Scandal: Many Americans Lose Their Gun Rights for No Good Reason

Elizabeth Oyer, a former public defender who was appointed as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney in April 2022, says she was fired last Friday because she refused to sign off on a recommendation to restore Mel Gibson’s gun rights. The movie star and director, who supported Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election and was recently designated as one of the administration’s three “ambassadors” to Hollywood along with Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone, lost the right to own firearms because of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.

Oyer presents the episode as a conflict between public safety and political favoritism, and The New York Times framed the story the same way. But the incident also illustrates how difficult it is for people who have lost their Second Amendment rights as a result of criminal convictions—a category that includes the president himself—to regain those rights, even when there are no grounds to think they pose a threat to public safety.

In March 2011, Gibson pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge involving his girlfriend, and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Sautner sentenced him to 36 months of probation. Although Gibson’s deal with prosecutors allowed him to avoid jail time, his plea triggered an ancillary penalty under 18 USC 922(g)(9), which makes it a felony for anyone who “has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to receive or possess a firearm. Another provision of the same law, Section 922(g)(1), sweeps more broadly, imposing the same lifelong disability on anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, no matter how long ago it was committed and whether or not it involved violence.

As Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted in an opinion she wrote as an appeals court judge, the constitutionality of the latter prohibition is doubtful. Barrett dissented from a 2019 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the application of Section 922(g)(1) to a manufacturer of therapeutic shoes and footwear inserts who had pleaded guilty to mail fraud. History “demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” she wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.”

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen added heft to that argument by clarifying that gun control laws must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” when they impinge on conduct covered by the “plain text” of the Second Amendment. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that Section 922(g)(1) failed that test as applied to Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man who had pleaded guilty to food stamp fraud, a state misdemeanor that was notionally punishable by up to five years in prison. Based on similar reasoning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last year overturned the Section 992(g)(1) conviction of Steven Duarte, a California man who had lost his gun rights because of a nonviolent criminal record.

Without such judicial intervention, “prohibited persons” like Range and Duarte have little recourse. Under 18 USC 925(c), they theoretically can ask the attorney general to restore their Second Amendment rights. The attorney general has the discretion to do that based on a determination that “the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.” But that responsibility has been delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which Congress has barred from considering such applications.

“Although federal law provides a means for the relief of firearms disabilities,” the agency explains, “ATF’s annual appropriation since October 1992 has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, ATF cannot act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.”

If the ATF cannot act on such applications, can people with disqualifying criminal records seek relief in federal court? No, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the 2002 case United States v. Bean.

Keep reading

Cop Arrested for Child Sex Abuse, Planting Cameras in 6th Grade Girl’s Bedroom

Another day, another cop exposed for horrific crimes against children—this time, a high-ranking veteran of the Houston Police Department (HPD). Daryn Blake Edwards, a 32-year veteran and former captain, has been arrested and charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child, possession of child pornography, and sexual performance of a child—charges so vile they are difficult to stomach.

According to court documents, Edwards began molesting his victim—identified as Jane Doe—when she was in the sixth grade. Over the past year alone, she reported being assaulted between 85 and 100 times. The abuse wasn’t limited to physical assault; Edwards allegedly installed hidden cameras in her bedroom to record her without her knowledge, further violating her privacy and humanity.

A Predator in Uniform

The shocking allegations detail a pattern of systematic grooming and coercion. Edwards reportedly added his victim on Snapchat and Instagram, using the apps to send explicit messages and solicit nude photos. He even resorted to bribery, offering her money in exchange for sexually explicit images. Disturbingly, he allegedly threatened her with a folder of compromising photos, saying it would “ruin her life” if she didn’t comply.

Investigators discovered that Edwards kept multiple hidden cameras throughout his house, recording minors in various explicit situations. Police have since seized his personal and HPD-issued cell phones as part of the investigation, and his home in League City has been searched under a warrant.

A Long, Corrupt Career

Despite these charges, Edwards was not some low-level beat cop. He spent three decades moving up the ranks at HPD, overseeing divisions like burglary and theft, cyber and financial crimes, and Southwest Patrol. He was even promoted to assistant chief in 2020, before being demoted following the Astroworld tragedy. Despite his past disciplinary issues—including a 2023 written reprimand for policy violations—he remained in a position of power until his arrest.

This raises the question: How many red flags were ignored? How many other officers looked the other way? How long did this abuse go unchecked? These are the kinds of questions police unions and “thin blue line” apologists don’t want the public asking.

HPD has since announced that Edwards has been “relieved of duty” pending an internal affairs investigation—a toothless statement given the heinous nature of his alleged crimes. The reality is that police departments routinely protect their own, even when faced with overwhelming evidence of criminal behavior.

Consider the implications: This man had access to crime scenes, evidence lockers, and confidential databases for decades. He held a position of authority and public trust while allegedly committing some of the worst crimes imaginable. Yet, had he not been caught, he would still be wearing a badge today.

This case is yet another glaring example of systemic corruption within U.S. law enforcement. If a high-ranking police captain can get away with this for years, what else is happening behind closed doors?

Keep reading

Former Las Vegas Officer Who Led Route 91 Shooting Investigation and Maui Police Chief During Lahaina Fires Named as Co-Defendant in Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Sexual Assault Lawsuit

On October 1, 2017, shots rang out all over the Las Vegas Strip as concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival fled to safety.

In total, 59 people were killed and over 500 injured during the chaos that erupted from above on the country music gathering.

John Pelletier, then a captain with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, was the incident commander and was tasked with managing the extensive crime scene.

After an incredibly controversial investigation, it was determined that Stephen Paddock, 64, was the lone gunman who opened fire on the crowd from the Mandalay Bay hotel, positioned adjacent to and above the music venue.

The assessment was woefully inadequate, seemingly omitting hordes of evidence including 911 calls and evidence that suggested multiple shooters and suspicious circumstances regarding aircraft overhead before and after the events.  Several helicopters began hovering over the event 10 to 15 minutes prior to the shooting before turning off their transponders while another helicopter appeared on radar as a Southwest Airlines commuter jet.

Vegas-local Mindy Robinson put together an incredible documentary exposing the inadequacies of the investigation.  You can view that documentary here.

Following the events in Las Vegas, Pelletier moved to Maui, Hawaii and was named police chief on December 15, 2021.

Again, tragedy would find Pelletier as he was the head law enforcement officer during the August 8th, 2023 Lahaina Fire, which claimed 102 lives.

Once again, numerous claims of mismanagement arose following the fire.  They included a lack of planning, ineffective or unavailable advanced warning systems, and potential evacuation routes blocked by debris and, in many cases, police officers.

While he remained as the Maui Police Chief following the Lahaina Fire, there are now calls for him to be placed on administrative leave, including from the Maui mayor.

The calls for administrative leave are in conjunction with him being named as a co-defendant in a federal lawsuit levied against disgraced hip-hop mogul Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs.  Trouble certainly seems to follow this man wherever he may go.

The lawsuit was originally filed in October 2024 by Ashley Parham along with an anonymous man and woman.  On March 7th, that complaint was amended to include Chief Pelletier, as well as many other notable figures including former NFL star Odell Beckham, Jr., singer Jacquelyn “Jaguar” Wright, and Keith Lucks aka “Big Homie CC,” among others.

Keep reading