Tag: police state

The Era of Informed Consent is Over

In a significant blow to patient autonomy, informed consent has been quietly revoked just 77 years after it was codified in the Nuremberg Code.

On the 21st of December 2023, as we were frantically preparing for the festive season, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final ruling to amend a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act. This allowed 

…an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than a minimal risk to the human subject…

This ruling went into effect on January 22nd, 2024, which means it’s already standard practice across America. 

So, what is the 21st Century Cures Act? It is a controversial Law enacted by the 114th United States Congress in January 2016 with strong support from the pharmaceutical industry. The Act was designed to

…accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st-century cures, and for other purposes [?]…[emphasis added]

Some of the provisions within this Act make for uncomfortable reading. For example, the Act supported: 

High-risk, high-reward research [Sec. 2036].

Novel clinical trial designs [Sec. 3021]

Encouraging vaccine innovation [Sec. 3093].

This Act granted the National Institutes of Health (NIH) legal protection to pursue high-risk, novel vaccine research. A strong case could be made that these provisions capture all the necessary architecture required for much of the evil that transpired over the past four years.

Overturning patient-informed consent was another stated goal of the original Act. Buried under Section 3024 was the provision to develop an

Informed consent waiver or alteration for clinical investigation.

Scholars of medical history understand that the concept of informed consent, something we all take for granted today, is a relatively new phenomenon codified in its modern understanding as one of the critical principles of the Nuremberg Code in 1947. It is inconceivable that just 77 years after Nuremberg, the door has once again opened for state-sanctioned medical experimentation on potentially uninformed and unwilling citizens.  

Keep reading

California Bill Would Roll Back Marijuana Employment Protections For Law Enforcement Jobs

A California bill that was introduced last month as a minor technical fix to an existing law protecting workers from employment discrimination over legal marijuana use was substantially amended in committee this week with new section that would roll back the protections for various categories of workers, including those in law enforcement, coroners’ offices and animal control.

Under two pieces of legislation signed into law in 2022 and 2023, California employers are now prohibited from asking job applicants about past cannabis use, and most are barred from penalizing employees over lawful use of marijuana outside of the job.

The newly amended bill, SB 1264, sponsored by Sen. Shannon Grove (R), would remove those protections for “employees in sworn or nonsworn positions within law enforcement agencies who have or would have functions or activities” related to:

(1) The apprehension, incarceration, or correction of criminal offenders.
(2) Civil enforcement matters.
(3) Dispatch and other public safety communications.
(4) Evidence gathering and processing.
(5) Law enforcement records.
(6) Animal control.
(7) Community services duties.
(8) Public administrator or public guardian duties.
(9) Coroner functions.

The proposed change comes just months after the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training removed questions about marijuana from police job application forms. Several forms, the commission said at the time, were “modified to remove inquiries about a candidate’s prior cannabis use.”

Grove’s amendments were adopted on Tuesday, and the legislation currently sits before the Senate Rules Committee.

Both employment protections laws took effect on January 1 of this year. With certain exceptions, “it is unlawful for an employer to request information from an applicant for employment relating to the applicant’s prior use of cannabis,” one of them says.

Keep reading

Despite Supreme Court Ruling, States Are Still Confiscating People’s Homes

Horses taught Christine Searle the importance of being fair. Intelligent and innately honest creatures, horses know deceit when they see it. She wishes they could teach that principle to the state of Arizona.

The 70-year-old horse trainer and Arizona native is on the verge of losing her life’s savings over an unpaid $1,607.68 property tax bill.

“I owed them the money. And that’s what they should get—the money I owe them,” Ms. Searle told The Epoch Times.

“I don’t think that they should have the right to take all of it.”

Arizona is one of almost a dozen states that allow creditors to keep all the proceeds from sales of homes foreclosed due to unpaid taxes—known as tax lien sales, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF).

A 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case out of Minnesota offers some hope to property owners in these situations, but only if a similar case is brought in their state. In the 2022 case, the justices ruled that Minnesota’s practice of keeping all the proceeds of a tax sale constitutes an illegal seizure of property.

“The taxpayer must render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the unanimous decision.

But, under their current laws, 10 states and the District of Columbia have no means of returning the excess proceeds of a home sale; what Mountain States Legal Foundation lawyers representing Ms. Searle call “home equity theft.” The states include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and South Dakota.

Ms. Searle hopes her case will be the one to set things right in Arizona.

Keep reading

Justice Department Launches the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center

The Justice Department launched the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center (the Center) which  will provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service and social service providers, community organizations, and behavioral health professionals responsible for implementing laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others.

“The launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence.”

ERPO laws, which are modeled off domestic violence protection orders, create a civil process allowing law enforcement, family members (in most states), and medical professionals or other groups (in some states) to petition a court to temporarily prohibit someone at risk of harming themselves or others from purchasing and possessing firearms for the duration of the order.

In 2023, the Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) awarded $238 million to states, territories, and the District of Columbia under the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP), which was created by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and is designed to help jurisdictions implement crisis intervention strategies, including ERPO programs. In addition, OJP awarded $4 million to support training and technical assistance under Byrne SCIP, including $2 million that was awarded to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions to establish the ERPO Resource Center. In collaboration with OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Center will support states, local governments, law enforcement, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service providers, and behavioral health and other social service providers in their efforts to implement ERPO programs to fit local needs, share resources and promising practices with the field, and help ensure that funding received through Byrne SCIP is effectively utilized.

“Supporting our law enforcement and community partners in curbing the scourge of gun violence is more critical than ever,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer. “In addition to other resources leveraged across the Justice Department, this Center will provide communities with new tools and technical assistance to help them implement effective crisis intervention strategies and reduce gun violence.”

Keep reading

Liberal state declares war on small farmers and homesteaders: War on food is spreading in U.S. through land-use restrictions, geoengineering and waves of propaganda

War on food is spreading in U.S. through land-use restrictions, geoengineering and waves of propaganda

Remember, it really is all about depopulation

The World Economic Forum warned us several years ago that its ultimate goal was to destroy the middle class. How else would you explain their slogan: “You will own nothing and learn to like it“?

This mantra is playing out in real time in the state of Oregon, and other states, in various forms which we will get into in this article.

Small farmers are under attack in the Beaver State, which has begun shutting down family farms throughout the state under the guise of water conservation and groundwater protection.

The owner of Yanasa Ama Ranch shared a 20-minute video explaining what is going on in Oregon as bureaucrats erroneously classify small family farms and homesteads as “concentrated animal feeding operations,” or CAFOs, in order to shut them down. Any feeding area that has a concrete, rock or gravel floor falls into this category, which would include most small dairy or egg farms.

If you have two or three milking cows, the rancher explains, you are now targeted by the state for closure.

The rancher further explains in the video:

“The state of Oregon has effectively shut down small farms and market gardens on a large scale, and they’re actually sending out cease-and-desist letters to farms and they’re using satellite technology to find their victims and send them these letters that say you can’t operate.”

The below video is 20 minutes but the most critical information is contained in the first 5 or 6 minutes. Note that he says most of these anti-farming, anti-private property laws start in places like Washington and Oregon but end up spreading to other states over time. That is so true!

Keep reading

Small Town in Maryland Suspends Entire Police Force and Residents Have No Idea Why

The leaders of the small town of Ridgely, Maryland recently suspended its entire police force and to make matters worse, the people who live there have absolutely no idea why this happened.

So much for transparency in government.

This comes at a time when concerns about crime are at an all-time high.

The Associated Press reported:

A small town suspended its entire police force. Residents want to know why

A small town on Maryland’s Eastern Shore has suspended its entire police force pending the results of an investigation by state prosecutors, a largely unexplained decision that has left residents shocked, skeptical and on edge…

With the Ridgely Police Department temporarily defunct, other public safety agencies have agreed to fill the void. But residents of the historic town are concerned about response times should they need assistance. And they remain entirely in the dark about why their police department was shut down.

Keep reading

Lego Lineups: Company Warns California P.D. To Stop Using Lego Heads To Hide Criminal’s Faces

Murrieta is a city in Southern California with just over 100,000 residents. Even though it isn’t a huge city, the Neighborhood Scout, a website that tracks local statistics for potential homebuyers or renters, reported this about the municipality on its website:

The crime rate in Murrieta is considerably higher than the national average across all communities in America from the largest to the smallest, although at 15 crimes per one thousand residents, it is not among the communities with the very highest crime rate. The chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime in Murrieta is 1 in 65. Based on FBI crime data, Murrieta is not one of the safest communities in America. Relative to California, Murrieta has a crime rate that is higher than 40% of the state’s cities and towns of all sizes.

It’s common for the public to be interested in the details of an arrest, including the crime committed and the appearance of the suspect. However, in California, there is a law that prioritizes the rights of the suspect over the public’s right to know by requiring that the faces of certain suspects be concealed. In Murietta, this law has been taken to an extreme level, where police hide suspects’ faces with Lego heads.

In an Instagram post, the police department explained the new law this way:

On January 1st, a new law went into effect that restricts the how and when law enforcement agencies in California share suspect photos & mugshots. The new law, Assembly Bill 994 & Penal Code 13665, now prohibits law enforcement from sharing suspect photos for nonviolent crimes, unless specified circumstances exist. Additionally, the new law requires agencies to remove suspect mugshots from social media after 14 days, unless special circumstances exist.

The Murrieta Police Department prides itself in its transparency with the community but also honors everyone’s rights & protections as afforded by law, even suspects. In order to share what is happening in Murrieta, we chose to cover the faces of suspects to protect their identity while still aligning with the new law.

Using something so ridiculous minimizes the severity of crimes and turns serious events into cartoons. People may understand the need to comply with the law, but this approach is inappropriate.

Keep reading

Nebraska Lawmakers Approve 100% Tax Rate For CBD And Hemp Products To Help Offset Property Taxes

A Nebraska legislative committee has given preliminary approval to a bill that would tax hemp and CBD products in the state at a whopping 100 percent rate.

The cannabis product tax hike is part of legislation designed to bring in more money to state coffers to offset property tax bills, according to an outline of the plan from Sen. Lou Ann Linehan (R), the legislation’s sponsor, that was posted by a Nebraska Public Media reporter.

The legislature’s Revenue Committee advanced the underlying measure, LB 388, on a 7–0 vote on Thursday, according to a report in the Nebraska Examiner. The state’s full unicameral legislature could take up the bill as soon as Tuesday.

“We are going to tax hemp and CBD at 100%,” Linehan’s document says, adding that, along with other reforms—including removing sales tax exemptions on soda, candy, pet services, advertising revenue over $1 billion and lottery tickets—the change is estimated to bring in $182 million in new revenue for the state.

The changes are not currently reflected in the bill’s language as available online, nor has any relevant amendment been posted to the bill page. Linehan, who also chairs the panel that approved the measure this week, did not immediately respond to emailed questions from Marijuana Moment.

Adam Morfeld, a former Nebraska state senator who co-chairs the advocacy group Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, reacted to the proposal with shock.

“The Legislature is going to tax hemp and CBD at 100 percent!??” he posted on social media.

Keep reading

The Supreme Court Should Reject Clandestine Government Censorship of Online Speech

When federal officials persistently pressured social media platforms to delete or downgrade posts those officials did not like, a government lawyer told the Supreme Court on Monday, they were merely offering “information” and “advice” to their “partners” in fighting “misinformation.” If the justices accept that characterization, they will be blessing clandestine government censorship of online speech.

The case, Murthy v. Missouri, pits two states and five social media users against federal officials who strongly, repeatedly, and angrily demanded that Facebook et al. crack down on speech the government viewed as dangerous to public health, democracy, or national security. Some of this “exhortation,” as U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher described it, happened in public, as when President Joe Biden accused the platforms of “killing people” by allowing users to say things he believed would discourage Americans from being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who echoed that charge in more polite terms, urged a “whole-of-society” effort to combat the “urgent threat to public health” posed by “health misinformation,” which he said might include “legal and regulatory measures.” Other federal officials said holding social media platforms “accountable” could entail antitrust action, new regulations, or expansion of their civil liability for user-posted content.

Those public threats were coupled with private communications that came to light only thanks to their discovery in this case. As Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga noted on Monday, officials such as Deputy Assistant to the President Rob Flaherty “badger[ed] the platforms 24/7,” demanding that they broaden their content restrictions and enforce them more aggressively.

Those emails alluded to presidential displeasure and warned that White House officials were “considering our options on what to do” if the platforms failed to fall in line. The platforms responded by changing their policies and practices.

Facebook executive Nick Clegg was eager to appease the president. In emails to Murthy, he noted that Facebook had “adjust[ed] policies on what we’re removing”; had deleted pages, groups, and accounts that offended the White House; and would “shortly be expanding our COVID policies to further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content.”

Facebook took those steps, Clegg said in another internal email that Aguiñaga quoted, “because we were under pressure by the administration.” Clegg expressed regret about caving to that pressure, saying, “We shouldn’t have done it.”

According to Fletcher, none of this implicated the First Amendment because “no threats happened.” He meant that federal officials never explicitly threatened platforms with “adverse government action” while urging suppression of constitutionally protected speech.

That position is hard to reconcile with the Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court held that Rhode Island’s Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth had violated the First Amendment by pressuring book distributors to drop titles it deemed objectionable.

Keep reading

Feds Can Film Your Front Porch for 68 Days Without a Warrant, Says Court

Law enforcement in Kansas recorded the front of a man’s home for 68 days straight, 15 hours a day, and obtained evidence to prove him guilty on 16 charges. The officers did not have a search warrant, using a camera on a pole positioned across the street to capture Bruce Hay’s home. A federal court ruled on Tuesday that it was fine for law enforcement to do so, in what’s potentially a major reduction in privacy law.

“Mr. Hay had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a view of the front of his house,” said the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in its decision on U.S. vs Hay. “As video cameras proliferate throughout society, regrettably, the reasonable expectation of privacy from filming is diminished.”

Hay, an Army veteran, was found guilty of lying about his disability status to collect benefits from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). However, the concerning part of this case stems from how VA officers collected evidence against Hay. The veteran appealed his case, arguing that the months-long surveillance of his home crossed a line. However, the federal court ruled that law enforcement can videotape the outside of your home, partially because of how prominent video cameras have become in society.

The federal court’s decision says that video cameras have become “ubiquitous,” and have therefore diminished our expectations of privacy. Police officers wear body cameras now, cellphones have cameras, and many doorbells record your porch. The court isn’t wrong that cameras are everywhere.

Keep reading