Tag: police state

Women Allegedly Raped in Prison by Trans-Identifying Inmate Will Have To Refer to Attacker as ‘She/Her’

Women who allege they were raped in a California prison by a biological male claiming to be transgender will be compelled to refer to the defendant using she/her pronouns, a Madera County judge ruled last week, further complicating a case centered on a crime that was emboldened from the outset by the government.

Tremaine Carroll allegedly raped multiple inmates while at Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla after securing placement there by self-identifying as transgender. The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in January 2021, allows California inmates to be placed in a facility corresponding with the sex they say they are. Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved. The government considers their testimony sufficient.

In 1990, Carroll was charged with three counts of kidnapping for ransom, two counts of robbery, and three counts of oral copulation in concert by force, ultimately pleading guilty to two counts of kidnapping. Several years later, Carroll was sentenced to 25 years to life under California’s three-strike law after acting as a getaway driver in a robbery.

“After his first cellmate became pregnant and was moved to Los Angeles, two other cellmates of his had complained that he had raped them,” Madera County District Attorney Sally Moreno told the local ABC affiliate. One of those cellmates says Carroll attacked her while she was in the shower. “This is a particular issue in this case because it’s confusing to the jury,” Moreno added. “In California, rape is a crime that has to be accomplished by a man.”

It may be disorienting to the alleged victims, as well, who will be vulnerable to speech policing from the judge—or directly from Carroll, their alleged rapist, who has opted for self-representation. Charged with two counts of rape and one count of dissuading a witness from testifying, Carroll has since been transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison, a men’s facility.

Prison rape is sadly a problem that attracts limited public outrage and is by no means constrained to women’s prisons. Though precise statistics are hard to track, as such assaults sometimes go unreported, a 2012 report from the Justice Department estimated that over 200,000 inmates were sexually abused behind bars in one year alone. Many of those occur in men’s prisons or happen to women at the hands of government employees. Those cases matter just as much.

Keep reading

Alabama Teen Killed During ‘No-Knock’ Drug Raid Had His Hands Raised, Lawsuit Says

A 16-year-old teenager had his hands raised when he was fatally shot by police during an unauthorized “no-knock” drug raid in Mobile, Alabama, last year, according to a civil rights lawsuit filed by his mother in federal court earlier this month.

The lawsuit against the City of Mobile and several anonymous Mobile police officers says Randall Adjessom came out of his room holding a gun when he heard someone break down the front door of the house where he lived with his mother, grandmother, aunt, and sisters. When he realized the intruders were police, he put his hands in the air and stepped back, but a Mobile Police Department (MPD) SWAT officer shot him four times.

“The complaint is replete with revelations from our pre-suit investigation,” civil rights attorneys representing Adjessom’s mother said in a press release accompanying the suit, “perhaps none more repulsive than the fact that MPD body-worn camera (BWC) video of the shooting clearly shows Randall begin to retreat after realizing the intruders into his family home were members of the police force when he was repeatedly shot and killed in cold blood.”

And after he was shot, the suit says, police left Adjessom to bleed out on the floor for four minutes before half-heartedly rendering medical aid.

If true, the lawsuit’s narrative—which purports to be backed by video evidence, internal affairs reviews, and a recent independent audit of the Mobile Police Department—is another tragic example of what happens when the drug war, unregulated SWAT teams, and the Second Amendment right to self-defense mix.

An MPD SWAT team executed a “no-knock” search warrant on November 18, 2023, as part of an investigation into Adjessom’s older adult brother for suspected marijuana sales. However, the lawsuit says Adjessom’s brother did not live at the residence the MPD acquired a search warrant for—only Adjessom, who was a minor, and several women in his family.  

The lawsuit says there were numerous problems with the raid besides the absence of its only articulated target: MPD officers intentionally didn’t evaluate the risk to civilians in its pre-warrant threat assessment or note the presence of civilians in its search warrant affidavit; didn’t obtain authorization for a nighttime raid from a judge, supervisor, or prosecutor; and failed to announce themselves until after they had breached the front door and entered the house. 

All those errors became a force that swept together—like a malevolent current—the MPD SWAT officers and Randall Adjessom, who came out of his bedroom and turned into the hallway holding a gun with a laser sight.

Keep reading

U.K.’s Advanced Censorship Laws Force Small Websites To Shut Down!

The United Kingdom’s rulers created an online censorship law that has now advanced to the point where small websites are being shut down. The authoritarians who authored the U.K.’s “Online Safety Act” are citing disproportionate liability and risk under the new law when it comes to these smaller web pages.

The new legislative landscape in the country, which is supposed to go into effect in full force in March is already claiming victims, according to a report by Reclaim the Net. The law is not providing any kind of safety for hundreds of small websites, including non-profit forums, that will be forced to shut down because they are unable to comply with the act.  Specifically, the websites are faced with what reports refer to as “disproportionate personal liability.”

The massive global censorship campaign has not slowed down as we inch our way to 2025. Much of it is still done, but it’s become a behind-the-scenes issue as those reporting on it have been more focused on who will rule over the United States for the next four years instead.

The fines for not complying with the U.K.’s new law go up to the equivalent of $25 million U.S. dollars, while the law also introduces new criminal offenses.

Ofcom, who is responsible for enforcing this act, has published dozens of measures that online services are supposed to implement by March 16th, 2025. Some of these measures include naming a person responsible and accountable for making sure a website or an online platform complies with the ruling class’s edicts.

The law is presented as a new way to efficiently tackle illegal content, and in particular, provide new ways to ensure the safety of children online, including by age verification (“age checking”), but many have pointed out it is just another way to censor things that those in charge don’t want others focused on.

Microcosm has already fallen victim to this new law, as it will be unable to comply by monitoring encrypted messages on the site. U.K. press reports have already been declaring this as one of the first examples of the harm this law will cause. The non-profit free hosting service Microcosm and its 300 sites, among them community hubs and forums dedicated to topics like cycling and tech, will all go down in March, unable to live up to the “disproportionately high personal liability.”

“It’s too vague and too broad and I don’t want to take that personal risk,” Microcosm’s Dee Kitchen is quoted. The fines alone just for disobeying could be enough to destroy the life of one single person who is to be “accountable” to the ruling class.

Ofcom has made it clear that “very small micro businesses” are also subject to the legislation, according to Reclaim the Net. 

Keep reading

UN General Assembly Adopts Controversial Cybercrime Treaty Amid Criticism Over Censorship and Surveillance Risks

As we expected, even though opponents have been warning that the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime needed to have a narrower scope, strong human rights safeguard and be more clearly defined in order to avoid abuse – the UN General Assembly has just adopted the documents, after five years of wrangling between various stakeholders.

It is now up to UN-member states to first sign, and then ratify the treaty that will come into force three months after the 40th country does that.

The UN bureaucracy is pleased with the development, hailing the convention as a “landmark” and “historic” global treaty that will improve cross-border cooperation against cybercrime and digital threats.

But critics have been saying that speech and human rights might fall victim to the treaty since various UN members treat human rights and privacy in vastly different ways – while the treaty now in a way “standardizes” law enforcement agencies’ investigative powers across borders.

Considerable emphasis has been put by some on how “authoritarian” countries might abuse this new tool meant to tackle online crime – but in reality, this concern applies to any country that ends up ratifying the treaty.

Keep reading

Tennessee Officials Will Pay $735,000 To Settle Lawsuit Over Seizure Of Legal Hemp Products

The state of Tennessee and the city of Spring Hill will jointly pay two businesses $735,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging state and local law enforcement wrongfully seized 231 pounds of legal hemp products earlier this year, according to a statement from an attorney representing the businesses.

The settlement follows the Spring Hill police department’s seizure of legal hemp products from Old School Vapor and SAK Wholesale in Columbia, Tennessee last May.

Days later, the businesses filed a federal suit seeking the return of products they said were valued at $1.35 million. The lawsuit named Spring Hill Police Chief Don Brit and 11 other officers and employees of the local district attorney’s office, including District Attorney Brent Cooper, whom—the lawsuit claims—articulated the position that legal hemp was “the same damn thing” as marijuana.

Hemp is distinguished from marijuana under federal and state law based on the concentration of a compound known as delta-9 THC. Hemp products with a concentration of less than .3 percent delta-9 THC are legal to sell, buy and consume in Tennessee—and federally. Cannabis with concentrations greater than .3 percent is classified as marijuana and is illegal in Tennessee.

The appearance of hemp flowers and marijuana are virtually indistinguishable, requiring laboratory testing to differentiate legal from illegal substances.

Keep reading

The Spies Who Hate Us

Brownstone Institute has been tracking a little-known federal agency for years. It is part of the Department of Homeland Security created after 9-11. It is called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency or CISA. It was created in 2018 out of a 2017 executive order that seemed to make sense. It was a mandate to secure American digital infrastructure against foreign attack and infiltration. 

And yet during the Covid year, it assumed three huge jobs. It was the agency responsible for dividing the workforce between essential and nonessential. It led the way on censorship efforts. And it handled election security for 2020 and 2022, which, if you understand the implications of that, should make you spit out your coffee upon learning. 

More than any other agency, it became the operationally relevant government during this period. It was the agency that worked through third parties and packet-switching networking to take down your Facebook group. It worked through all kinds of intermediaries to keep a lid on Twitter. It managed LinkedIn, Instagram, and most of the other mainstream platforms in a way that made you feel like your opinions were too crazy to see the light of day. 

The most astonishing court document just came out. It was unearthed in the course of litigation undertaken by America First Legal. It has no redaction. It is a reverse chronicle of most of what they did from February 2020 until last year. It is 500 pages long. The version available now takes an age to download, so we shrunk it and put it on fast view so you can see the entire thing. 

What you discover is this. Everything that the intelligence agencies did not like during this period – doubting lockdowns, dismissing masking, questioning the vaccine, and so on – was targeted through a variety of cutouts among NGOs, universities, and private-sector fact-checkers. It was all labeled as Russian and Chinese propaganda so as to fit in with CISA’s mandate. Then it was throttled and taken down. It managed remarkable feats such as getting WhatsApp to stop allowing bulk sharing. 

Keep reading

The National Guard and the Militarization of D.C.

Fox News recently published a story entitled “Defense Secretary Austin overruled National Guard chief on keeping troops at the Capitol: memo.” To many readers, this may have appeared to be a sensationalized article throwing fuel on the embers of an already charred military issue in our nation’s capital. But the story captures a troubling divide between the new defense secretary and the chief of the National Guard Bureau over the appropriate use of the Guard. Yet, amid this break in ranks, the story suggests a much larger and more concerning dilemma. And it is what the Founding Fathers feared most.

The article references a defense memo or coordination sheet normally used to “concur” or “non-concur” on issues within the Defense Department. In this instance, a policy memo from the defense secretary’s office requested an “Extension of NG [National Guard] support to U.S. Capitol Police” with an additional 2,280 guardsmen to support the U.S. Capitol Police security detail beyond March 12. However, there are several issues with the request.

From my experience in the Pentagon, this type of appeal is not easily granted. It usually requires a stringent justifying rationale and reason that explains the request’s urgency. Each submission is officially petitioned through a formal request-for-assistance and sent to the DoD’s executive secretary, where it is staffed for coordination — an arduous process involving rigorous approval criteria that can take weeks.

Here is where the problem begins.

The latest Capitol Police request to extend Guard support was coordinated in two days and failed to give a convincing case for approval. Laying out its rationale, the Capitol Police referenced the Department of Homeland Security’s National Terrorism Advisory System, particularly the Jan.  27, 2021, threat bulletin, as the chief reason for the augmented security support.

The bulletin summary describes a “heightened threat environment” using words like “believes” or “suggests” that “ideologically-motivated violent extremists [domestic violent extremists] …could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence” – a somewhat anemic threat assessment to justify the continued military presence in our Capitol.

Also, federal statutes and defense directives come into play when the military is used in direct support of law enforcement, which is the case here. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, and other federal laws limit the powers of the government to use U.S. troops to “execute the laws,” including “search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity” — a concerning legal quandary.

What is more, the defense department’s support of civil authority’s directive provides ruling guidance for any assistance in missions normally carried out by civil authorities. The defense regulation has six approval criteria to “examine” and “assess” the need for support. If we use the regulation’s six criteria — legality, lethality, risk, cost, appropriateness, and readiness — an argument can be made that any one of them would disqualify the Capitol Police application.

Keep reading

The Return of Free Speech

Lying, exaggerating, or just being stupid is not new. These sins existed before the internet, and they will always exist. No one deemed them a national security threat until recently.

As a point of comparison, 9/11 was the deadliest attack in the history of our country, exceeding the death toll of Pearl Harbor. Nearly 3,000 innocent people lost their lives. The event led to a mobilization of military and government power that rivaled the Cold War buildup.

Public opinion largely supported a campaign of retaliation, but there were some disagreements and dissenters.

No One Censored the 9/11 Truthers

Among the critics, there was an enormous proliferation of “9/11 Truthers.” These were generally conspiracy theorists of middling intelligence who opined about structural engineering and other things they didn’t understand. They said it was an inside job or was known in advance, and some denied that commercial airliners were used in the attacks at all, even though there were millions of eyewitnesses and hours of footage showing exactly that.

Most people ignored the 9/11 Truthers because most of what they said was ridiculous. There was almost no effort to censor these people. No one said they should be “deplatformed” from the internet, removed from Google search results, or banished from college campuses. The idea that “platforming” meant tacit endorsement or that “deplatforming” was the right solution to bad thoughts had not been invented yet.

There was significant controversy when dyed-in-the-wool leftists like Ward Churchill said the victims deserved it, but even he was allowed to speak on campus.

Obama and the Public-Private Censorship Complex

The supposed scourge of misinformation appeared later, during the latter part of the Obama administration. It was made out to be a big national problem in order to justify hand-in-glove coordination between government agencies and private institutions in order to manipulate public opinion. Without acting directly to avoid violating the First Amendment, government officers persuaded and pressured tech monopolies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter to censor materials that officials did not want to be distributed.

They did all of this to advance a very narrow set of approved beliefs. The architects of this censorship regime labeled the system’s consensus Our Democracy™. Simultaneously, critics and skeptics of that consensus were defamed as election deniers, anti-vaxxers, bigots, terrorists, Nazis, Russian “assets,” and otherwise declared anathema.

This strategy did not come out of nowhere. We saw signs of coordinated messaging involving the mainstream media as early as 2008 when they did almost nothing to look into Barack Obama’s background as a radical, left-wing activist during his first presidential run.

Things then kicked into high gear in 2016. By that time, social media had eclipsed the importance of legacy media, the Brexit vote demonstrated a trend of populist rejection of elite opinion, and, in the United States, Donald Trump became the Republican nominee. These events worried the various players in the censorship game, and they correctly recognized Trump as a threat to business as usual.

Intelligence agencies and federal law enforcement worked closely with both legacy and social media companies to stop him. In the process, the media companies abandoned any pretense of neutrality, and this coordination continues through the present.

Fundamentally, all of this activity is premised on the idea that ordinary people need to be saved from themselves because they are too gullible, prejudiced, or prone to mass hysteria. The establishment believes it has the right to manipulate public opinion—through spying, censorship, criminal prosecutions, and lawfare—to counterbalance the populace’s self-destructive tendencies.

Keep reading

Economic Reconstruction and the Police State

One of the most common justifications for increasing state police and military power is that it guarantees the security of citizens. Without basic security, it is impossible for people to devote themselves to the pursuit of their social and economic goals. In the US there are proposals to send in the military to help enforce a crackdown on illegal immigration. In the UK, some police stations have proposed to send armed police patrols to Christmas markets, to keep traders and shoppers safe from terrorists. Yet it is less often recognized that the police state, which may be defined as “an enormous government apparatus of prisons, prosecutors, police, and bureaucrats,” is inimical to economic liberty.

Debates on the role of the police state are also pertinent in understanding the Reconstruction Era (1865-1877) in the American South. One of the main justifications given for the presence of federal militia in the South was that this was necessary to maintain law and order. It is too often presumed that social and political upheaval in the Reconstruction South was entirely explained by the fact that “racists” did not like the idea of black people being armed or enfranchised. The federal militia was said to be required to protect black people from such racism.

This reduction of Reconstruction history to a tale of racism disregards all the other factors involved, including a phenomenal rise in the role of state militia in daily life. It overlooks the fact that the presence of federal and state troops across the South was an ever-present sign of living under occupation, one that was greatly resented by Southerners.

Keep reading

Operation Choke Point 2.0: How The Feds Are Seeking To ‘Debank’ Targeted Industries

A federal initiative that began during the Obama administration with the goal of debanking certain industries disfavored by federal officials has apparently been resurrected and is taking aim at cryptocurrencies.

Operation Choke Point was started by the U.S. Dept. of Justice in 2013 as a way to put pressure on banks to sever their ties, without due process, with legal businesses like gun dealers, cannabis dispensaries and payday lenders which the administration found objectionable.

That initiative was ended by President Trump in 2017 but under the Biden administration, it appears that Operation Choke Point 2.0 has begun with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) sending letters to U.S. banks in 2022, urging them to “pause all crypto-related activity.”

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) told Fox Business that the regulatory abuse is real and that President-elect Trump will put an end to this type of regulatory abuse.

Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen recently described the practice of debanking as “a privatized sanctions regime” on The Joe Rogan Experience, saying, “There’s no rules, there’s no court, there’s no decision process, there’s no appeal. Who do you go to to get your bank account back?”

And if the tune of Operation Choke Point 2.0 sounds familiar, there are also familiar faces as well.

Palmetto State News reports that Michael Eakes is the founder of the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) and Self-Help Credit Union, which operates five credit unions in South Carolina and was also an inaugural member of the FDIC’s Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion when it was started in 2006.

Another member of the advisory committee is Michael Calhoun who is president of the Center for Responsible Lending and a former employee of Self-Help Credit Union.

Keep reading