Tag: police state

Based on Loose Reasoning, a Federal Judge Rejects a Challenge to the Gun-Free School Zones Act

A federal law prohibits gun possession within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school. That restriction, a federal judge in Montana noted last week, “covers almost the entirety of every urban location in the United States, including many places that have nothing to do with the closest school.”

U.S. District Judge Susan Watters nevertheless concluded that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act is consistent with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The decision shows that some federal judges are still bending over backward to uphold constitutionally dubious gun control laws, despite the Supreme Court’s recognition that the Second Amendment guarantees a right not only to keep firearms at home for self-defense but also to carry them in public for the same purpose.

The case involves Gabriel Metcalf, who lives across the street from Broadwater Elementary School in Billings, Montana. Last August, Metcalf was observed pacing his front yard while holding a rifle, a precaution he said was provoked by threats from a neighbor against whom his mother had obtained a protection order.

Since the Gun-Free School Zones Act makes an exception for guns “on private property not part of school grounds,” Metcalf was not doing anything illegal provided he remained in his yard. But he admitted he had stepped onto the sidewalk and street near his house, which according to federal prosecutors made him guilty of a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

The federal statute also includes an exception for people who are “licensed” to carry guns by the state where a school is located if law enforcement authorities “verify that the individual is qualified” to “receive the license.” A Montana law says anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun “is considered to be individually licensed and verified by the state of Montana within the meaning of” the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

That provision, Metcalf argued, meant he could not be prosecuted for violating the federal law. Watters disagreed, deeming Montana’s notion of “verification” inadequate.

Watters then addressed the question of whether the Gun-Free School Zones Act is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test prescribed by the Supreme Court. While the Court has said schools themselves are “sensitive places” where the government may prohibit guns, she noted, that does not necessarily mean Congress was free to create 1,000-foot “buffer zones” around them.

Watters said the government, which had the burden of satisfying the Supreme Court’s test, failed to do so. But instead of stopping there, she embarked on her own “analysis of the historical sources.”

Watters claimed to locate “a historical analogue” in a 1776 Delaware constitutional provision and laws passed during or after Reconstruction that banned guns near polling places. She reasoned that education, like voting, is “essential for a responsible citizenry.”

Keep reading

PROSECUTORS BURIED EVIDENCE AND MISLED THE COURT. TEN YEARS LATER, THEY GOT A SLAP ON THE WRIST.

AFTER RULING THAT federal prosecutors withheld key evidence resulting in a defendant’s wrongful imprisonment, D.C.’s top court took nearly a decade to decide on an appropriate sanction. In December, after extensive hearings, the D.C. Court of Appeals gaveOpens in a new tab two prosecutors a year of probation plus a stern warning not to commit any further misconduct, or they would be suspended from practicing law for six months.

Both prosecutors, Mary Chris Dobbie and Reagan Taylor, still work for the Justice Department, according to media reportsOpens in a new tab and other records. One of their former supervisors, Jeffrey Ragsdale, currently leads the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which oversees investigations into alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to defense attorneys. At the trial for two defendants accused of assaulting an officer during a jailhouse brawl, Dobbie and Taylor withheld unequivocal evidence that their lead witness, a corrections officer, had a history of filing false reports. Based on the officer’s testimony, one defendant was imprisoned for more than four years before his conviction was reversed.

In 2021, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility, a disciplinary panel appointed by the appeals court, unanimously recommendedOpens in a new tab a six-month suspension for Dobbie and Taylor. But in a divided opinion, the court ratcheted down the sanction to probation based on “one overriding mitigating circumstance”: the “deficient conduct” of Ragsdale and another supervisor, John Roth, who later served as inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security. There were no ethics charges or misconduct findings for either supervisor.

Reached by phone, Roth declined to comment, saying that he was not aware of the decision. Attorneys for Dobbie and Taylor did not respond to multiple requests for comment, nor did Ragsdale. The Justice Department also failed to respond.

The dissenting judge, Joshua Deahl, argued that Dobbie and Taylor “should face real consequences for their actions.”

“The board comes to us — despite innumerable favorable inferences drawn in respondents’ favor — with the rare recommendation of an actual suspension that at least comes close to reflecting the gravity of this serious prosecutorial misconduct,” Deahl wrote. “Yet this court balks.”

Deahl noted a dissonance between how courts treat prosecutors’ ethical violations versus misconduct by private attorneys, who are routinely disbarred or suspended for actions like dipping into client funds.

“That is too harsh a result, the majority concludes, when prosecutors intentionally suppress evidence in violation of the Constitution and thereby secure felony convictions resulting in years of unjust imprisonment,” wrote Deahl, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019 and served as a public defender before joining the bench.

Keep reading

Biden’s AI plan to censor you revealed: Researchers say Americans can’t ‘tell fact from fiction’

Twitter’s censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 could soon be possible on an industrial scale — thanks to AI tools being built with funding from his father’s administration, a report from Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee claimed Tuesday.

The report reveals how the Biden administration is spending millions on artificial intelligence research designed to make anti “misinformation” tools which could then be passed to social media giants.

And it discloses how researchers who got funding for the plan — known as “Track F” — emailed each other to say that Americans could not tell fact from fiction online, and that conservatives and veterans were even more susceptible than the public at large.

The report was published by the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Government, which is chaired by Jim Jordan (R-OH).

It casts new light on how funding from the National Sciences Foundation is being given to elite institutions including Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Madison-Wisconsin and the University of Michigan, for a program called “Trust & Authenticity in Communication Systems.”

Keep reading

Homeland Security Cited Inaccurate Allegation To Censor New York Times Journalist

As the 2020 Election Day count dragged on into the next morning in the crucial swing state of Wisconsin, the New York Times campaign reporter Reid Epstein reported a hiccup at 4:52 a.m.: “Green Bay’s absentee ballot results are being delayed because one of the vote-counting machines ran out of ink and an elections official had to return to City Hall to get more.

Eight minutes later Epstein sent a follow-up tweet giving the all-clear: “Clerk has returned with printer ink!”

This tiny drama from Wednesday, Nov. 4, would be lost to history but for the deep consternation it ignited among influential members of the government and tech industry. Details uncovered in the Twitter Files and revealed here for the first time show that Epstein’s tweet prompted immediate and mostly successful speech suppression efforts by the Department of Homeland Security and others who were intent on undermining any facts or claims that might possibly be used to question the integrity of the 2020 election.

The episode is of more than passing historical note because it is the first known case of the agency attempting to silence a social media account associated with a national newspaper – and because the Times, which has long professed to report the news “without fear or favor,” did little to push back against the censorship, even though nothing has emerged to invalidate Epstein’s reporting.

Epstein’s tweet set off immediate alarm bells in Wisconsin and Washington, D.C. At 5:11 a.m., 19 minutes after Epstein’s first tweet, an election clerk from another part of the state, Rachel Rodriguez, disputed the Times’ reporting on Twitter: “I’m very familiar with the ballot scanners Green Bay uses,” wrote Rodriguez. “There’s no ink involved.”

Four minutes later, at 5:15 a.m., the official Twitter account of the Wisconsin Elections Commission retweeted Rodriguez’s post commenting, “Rachel is correct.”

Except she was not. Although most of Green Bay’s voting machines did not use ink – the DS200, the primary vote-counting machine, relied on thermal tape – that year, there was another machine involved. Local officials, in expectation of higher turnout for the heated presidential race and newly eased rules concerning absentee ballots, opted to additionally use the DS450, a high-speed tabulator that prints results through an external ink-jet printer.

Rodriguez recently told RCI that her 2020 tweet was based on the mistaken understanding that Green Bay used only DS200 machines for the election. She also confirmed that if the city had indeed used a high-speed tabulator, like the DS450 or its variation, the DS850, then her tweet would have been mistaken, because that system uses ink cartridges through an external printer. She explained over phone that her tweet fact-checking Epstein got “way more traction than I thought.” Rodriguez added that “it was 3 a.m. and I was just being sarcastic.”

Her tweet did, indeed, set off a chain reaction at the highest levels..

Keep reading

Mom’s Manslaughter Conviction for Her Son’s School Shooting Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A jury on Tuesday convicted a Michigan woman on four counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the mass shooting her son executed at Oxford High School in November 2021. But while the defendant, Jennifer Crumbley, and her husband, James Crumbley, have been the subject of widespread scorn, her novel prosecution and his upcoming trial have raised questions about how far the state can reach to hold parents accountable for the actions of their children and what kind of precedent that sets.

Here, the prosecution posited the Crumbleys bore criminal responsibility for the murders committed by their son, Ethan, because they allegedly disregarded signs he was depressed and gifted him a gun for Christmas. But the evidence presented at trial painted a more complicated narrative. In some sense, the overall case seemed to hinge on what prosecutors wished the law said, not on what it actually says.

James Crumbley’s trial is set for March; Jennifer Crumbley’s sentencing will take place in April. They both face up to 60 years in prison.

Core to the state’s case during Jennifer Crumbley’s proceeding was the notion that Ethan had shown himself to be emotionally disturbed, and, instead of intervening, she left him to his own devices. Much was made of her extramarital affair and her devotion to her equestrian hobby; prosecutors wanted the jury to believe, one assumes, that she was more interested in riding horses and having sex with a man who wasn’t her husband than she was in parenting her child.

But while she very well may have been a flawed parent—few serious people would argue adultery is a stand-up choice—testimony at trial made it far from clear that her son’s murderous streak was predictable, much less that she “willfully disregard[ed]” it and could have prevented it via “ordinary care,” the standard required by Michigan statute. 

The state said Ethan told his mom via text that their house might be haunted; she testified he thought he was joking. More damning was a journal entry furnished by prosecutors where Ethan drew pictures of guns and wrote that “my parents won’t listen to me about help or a therapist.” Jennifer Crumbley, however, countered she was surprised to hear that, as she claims Ethan had not told her about a desire for therapy, and that she did not read his diary entries.

Keep reading

Ahead Of Legalization Vote, Florida Senate Panel OKs Proposal To Limit THC In Adult-Use Marijuana Products

Florida’s Senate Committee on Health Policy advanced a bill on Tuesday that would preemptively limit THC levels in adult-use marijuana products. The change would restrict products allowed under a recreational cannabis legalization ballot initiative that organizers are working to put on November’s ballot.

The bill, SPB 7050, would prohibit dispensary sales of marijuana flower with a potency of greater than 30 percent THC. All other cannabis products would be limited to 60 percent THC. It would also set a serving size on edible products of 10 milligrams THC or less, with the total amount per package no more than 200 mg.

“This is setting the stage and recognizing that should the amendment pass—should it be on the ballot and should the amendment pass—that we will continue to have a medical marijuana market and we would have a personal use market,” said Sen. Colleen Burton (R), who chairs the committee and who spoke in favor of the committee’s proposed THC limit bill. “The potencies and quantities that you see in the recommended language today are based upon keeping that separate.”

As more states have legalized marijuana and highly concentrated THC products become more widely available, some have raised concerns about apparent associations between high-THC products and mental health problems, especially in developing brains.

On the House side, that chamber’s Healthcare Regulation Subcommittee last week advanced a bill, HB 1269 from Rep. Ralph Massullo (R), that would set the same preemptive THC limits on recreational marijuana.

At Tuesday’s Senate panel hearing, Sen. Gayle Harrell (R) referenced studies indicating an association between high THC cannabis products and mental health issues like psychosis and schizophrenia, especially in youth.

“When I look at the medical evidence out there and the dangerous impact that high-potency THC has, it is overwhelming,” she argued, adding: “I can tell you, the high risk of schizophrenia is sixfold with high levels of THC.”

Other members expressed mixed feelings on the bill. Sen. Rosalind Osgood (D), who said she was 13 when she smoked her first joint—a decision she said led her to “be on the streets, homeless, with other addictions”—said she supports limiting the strength of mind-altering substances.

But rather than take up THC levels in the standalone measure, she said, “I would have preferred to have this bill at another time, after voters have made a decision, to comprehensively look at all the different arms that go toward this.”

Keep reading

Technocracy: The Operating System For The New International Rules-Based Order

In this article, we will explore the true nature of the international rules-based order (IRBO) and examine the forces that shape it. We will consider if the narratives we are commonly fed stack up. 

It is widely accepted that the IRBO is undergoing disruptive change. That transformation is often reported as an eastward shift in the balance of power between nation states. 

It is said that this new, emerging international order will be founded upon a global multipolar system of sovereign states and international law. This new system allegedly stands in opposition to the fading, western “rules-based” model. 

This time, rather than relying upon western imperialism, the new international law-based system will emphasise multipolar cooperation, trade and respect for national sovereignty. It will instead be led by a Eurasian economic and technological power-block.

The apparent, ongoing antagonism of geopolitics looks likely to maintain the East-West divide we are familiar with. However, what is now being framed as the multipolar order is, in reality, the multistakeholder order. 

As we shall discover, nation states are not the driving force behind the current restructuring of global governance. The geopolitical narratives we are given are frequently superficial. 

Those leading the transformation have no allegiance to any nation state, only to their own globalist network and collective aspirations. In their hands, international law is no more of an impediment to their ambitions than a vague commitment to “rules.”

National governments are partners within this network formed of both state and non-state actors. Despite professed animosities, they have collaborated for decades to fashion the global governance complex that is now emerging.  

No matter who is said to lead it, the IRBO is set to continue in a new form. As the post WWII system recedes, the framework being imposed to take its place is completely alien to the people who live in the former western, liberal democracies.

Thus, we too must be transformed if we are to accept the realignment. We are being conditioned to believe in the promise of the new IRBO and the global technocracy it is built upon.

Keep reading

NEVER FORGET… Kamala Harris Kept Black Men in Prison Past Their Release Date for Cheap State Labor in California

Kamala Harris kept hundreds of black men in prison past their release date so she could use these men for $2 a day for cheap California state labor.

That alone should have disqualified Kamala Harris from public office.
Extending prison sentences for cheap labor sounds like criminal activity.

Back in February 2019 Jackie Kucinich at The Daily Beast wrote about Kamala Harris’s Attorney General office keeping inmates locked up so the state could use them for cheap labor.

Just like slavers.

Kamala also locked up 1,500 people for marijuana violations.

The Daily Beast reported:

Ordered to reduce the population of California’s overcrowded prisons, lawyers from then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office made the case that some non-violent offenders needed to stay incarcerated or else the prison system would lose a source of cheap labor.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Plata that California’s prisons were so overcrowded that they violated the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Three years later, in early 2014, the state was ordered to allow non-violent, second time offenders who have served half of their sentence to be eligible for parole.

By September 2014, plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit were back in court, accusing California of slow-walking the process, which lawyers for Harris’ office denied.

According to court filings, lawyers for the state said California met benchmarks, and argued that if certain potential parolees were given a faster track out of prison, it would negatively affect the prison’s labor programs, including one that allowed certain inmates to fight California’s wildfires for about $2 a day.

“Extending 2-for-1 credits to all minimum custody inmates at this time would severely impact fire camp participation—a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought,” lawyers for Harris wrote in the filing, noting that the fire camp program required physical fitness in addition to a level of clearance that allowed the felon to be offsite.

Not only that, they noted, draining the prisons of “minimum custody inmates” would deplete the labor force both internally and in local communities where low-level, non-violent offenders worked for pennies on the dollar collecting trash and tending to city parks. A federal three-judge panel ordered both sides to confer about the plaintiffs’ demands, and the state agreed to extend the 2-for-1 credits to all eligible minimum security prisoners.

This is the Democrat Party’s nominee for VP.

Keep reading

Terror by Night: Who Pays the Price for Botched SWAT Team Raids? We Do

Sometimes ten seconds is all the warning you get.

Sometimes you don’t get a warning before all hell breaks loose.

Imagine it, if you will: It’s the middle of the night. Your neighborhood is in darkness. Your household is asleep. Suddenly, you’re awakened by a loud noise.

Barely ten seconds later, someone or an army of someones has crashed through your front door.

The intruders are in your home.

Your heart begins racing. Your stomach is tied in knots. The adrenaline is pumping through you.

You’re not just afraid. You’re terrified.

Desperate to protect yourself and your loved ones from whatever threat has invaded your home, you scramble to lay hold of something—anything—that you might use in self-defense. It might be a flashlight, a baseball bat, or that licensed and registered gun you thought you’d never need.

You brace for the confrontation.

Shadowy figures appear at the doorway, screaming orders, threatening violence, launching flash bang grenades.

Chaos reigns.

You stand frozen, your hands gripping whatever means of self-defense you could find.

Just that simple act—of standing frozen in fear and self-defense—is enough to spell your doom.

The assailants open fire, sending a hail of bullets in your direction.

In your final moments, you get a good look at your assassins: it’s the police.

Brace yourself, because this hair-raising, heart-pounding, jarring account of a SWAT team raid is what passes for court-sanctioned policing in America today, and it could happen to any one of us or our loved ones.

Nationwide, SWAT teams routinely invade homes, break down doors, kill family pets (they always shoot the dogs first), damage furnishings, terrorize families, and wound or kill those unlucky enough to be present during a raid.

No longer reserved exclusively for deadly situations, SWAT teams are now increasingly being deployed for relatively routine police matters such as serving a search warrant, with some SWAT teams being sent out as much as five times a day.

SWAT teams have been employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of so-called criminal activity or mere community nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling.

Police have also raided homes on the basis of mistaking the presence or scent of legal substances for drugs. Incredibly, these substances have included tomatoes, sunflowers, fish, elderberry bushes, kenaf plants, hibiscus, and ragweed. In some instances, SWAT teams are even employed, in full armament, to perform routine patrols.

These raids, which might be more aptly referred to as “knock-and-shoot” policing, have become a thinly veiled, court-sanctioned means of giving heavily armed police the green light to crash through doors in the middle of the night.

No-knock raids, a subset of the violent, terror-inducing raids carried out by police SWAT teams on unsuspecting households, differ in one significant respect: they are carried out without police even having to announce themselves.

Keep reading