Tag: police state

Federal Court Rules Firearm Restrictions on Defendants Awaiting Trial Are Constitutional

A federal court has ruled it is constitutional to block a defendant’s Second Amendment rights while they are awaiting trial.

On March 18, the three-judge panel in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the restriction on the rights of Jesus Perez-Garcia and John Thomas Fencl to bear firearms is constitutional because it is consistent with historic legal precedent.

While these are two separate cases, with Judge Gonzalo Paul Curiel ruling on Mr. Perez-Garcia’s case on Dec. 2, 2022, and Judge Janis Lynn Sammartino ruling on Mr. Fencl’s case on Dec. 7, 2022, both men brought their legal challenge before the federal appeals court on Jan. 26, 2023.

In the 47-page appellate court opinion (pdf), Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez said, “Here, the historical evidence, when considered as a whole, shows a long and broad history of legislatures exercising authority to disarm people whose possession of firearms would pose an unusual danger, beyond the ordinary citizen, to themselves or others.

“The temporary disarmament of Fencl and Perez-Garcia as a means reasonably necessary to protect public safety falls within that historical tradition,” Judge Sanchez wrote further, adding that the court found that restricting the defendants’ right to own firearms is “consistent with our nation’s long history of temporarily disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges and those deemed dangerous or unwilling to follow the law.”

Judge Sanchez wrote that the decision to confiscate the guns owned by Mr. Perez-Garcia and Mr. Fencl was “consistent with our nation’s long history of temporarily disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges and those deemed dangerous or unwilling to follow the law.”

Keep reading

J6 Political Prisoner, Dominic Pezzola, Confronts Myth of Rehabilitation in Federal Prison and the Reality of Prison Abuse

January 6TH, Prisoner Dominic Pezzola’s life within the Federal Bureau of Prisons has been anything but ‘rehabilitative.’ Each passing day of his ten-year sentence reveals a system marred by injustice and riddled with apparent apathy from those tasked with his care while in custody. Lisa, his wife, remains resolute in her role on the outside, relaying the brutal realities of Dominic’s ordeal to those willing to listen.

Earlier this year, Dominic was thrust into the cruel isolation of the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for an inexplicable 45 days. Dom told Lisa that prison authorities offered no explanation, leaving him in the dark about his alleged transgressions. After his release from the SHU, it was just two weeks later that the entire prison was placed under lockdown for more than two weeks due to a stabbing incident in a separate unit, no amount of explanation in the aftermath could undo the damage of what amounts to collective punishment. The prison walls seem impervious to reason, punishing every inmate indiscriminately, regardless of their involvement in the incident.

Dom’s confusion over the sudden confinement was compounded by the fact that he never received a formal write-up, a violation notice that typically accompanies punitive measures. For all he knew, the authorities had deemed him guilty without affording him the right to understand his supposed crimes.

Dominic’s release from the SHU was as abrupt as his initial confinement. No explanation was immediately given, and the slate was wiped clean as if the ordeal had never occurred. Through the proverbial grapevine, he learned that the prison authorities swiftly concluded the investigation of the stabbing within 48 hours. Without further explanation from BOP officials, to either Dom or his wife Lisa, motives behind the extended lockdown and solitary confinement remain unclear.

Many inmates believe that what happens with frequent and extended periods of lockdown are more than just arbitrary measures. In fact, many allege they are but one component of a systemic strategy rooted in corruption.

Keep reading

Colorado’s star forensic scientist, Yvonne “Missy” Woods, EXPOSED for alleged data fraud – those she sent to prison now want their convictions reexamined

One of the largest scandals in forensic DNA testing is unfolding in Colorado where a veteran forensic scientist abruptly quit her post last fall amid allegations that her data compilation methods are fraudulent.

Yvonne “Missy” Woods worked as Colorado’s star forensic scientist for nearly three decades supplying police and prosecutors with DNA testing data in some of the most high-profile and baffling crimes in the state’s history – that is, until she resigned in late 2023.

An internal review into Woods’ work revealed anomalies so severe that a criminal probe was launched. What many are now wondering is: Is Colorado’s criminal justice system legitimate?

In order to answer that question, the state says it needs to review and retest about 3,000 DNA samples that Woods handled. The end result could be thousands of cases thought to have been solved having to be looked at a second time, public defenders warn.

Those convicted based on Woods’ potentially corrupted DNA findings could end up suing the state, and prosecutors are now bracing for this onslaught. The state has also allocated nearly $7.5 million in preparation for these possible retrials and case reviews, along with retesting.

“This is a huge, unprecedented mess,” said George Brauchler, a former district attorney in the Denver suburbs whose office oversaw numerous cases in which Woods testified. “I want to know: What in the world did she do?”

Keep reading

‘Major Win’ – Amish Farmer Persecuted By Feds Can Now Sell Raw Milk Out-of-State

Amos Miller, an Amish farmer in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, will be allowed to sell his raw milk products out-of-state following a ruling this week by Lancaster County Judge Thomas Sponaugle.

Attorney and podcast host Robert Barnes, who represents Miller in the case, labeled the decision a “major win” for the farmer.

“Court agreed to modify injunction so that it only applies within the state of Pennsylvania removing the ban on sales to customers outside state,” he wrote, thanking Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for their support.

The Kentucky congressman responded on X, writing, “Congrats! A small win, but a win nonetheless for Amos Miller . Why is the government is spending resources prosecuting an Amish farmer who sells to willing buyers when we have so many real problems at the moment? We should empower small farmers instead of prosecuting them.”

Keep reading

Globalists are constructing AI-powered control grid designed to end independent journalism and free speech on the internet

We’ve heard some disturbing reports out of Canada and the U.S. recently that shouldn’t be viewed in a vacuum. A trend is developing.

Last Friday, March 15, Rebel News reporter David Menzies was arrested while trying to interview attendees at a Pro-Hamas rally in Toronto.

According to Rebel News, the arrest came just days after the announcement of David’s lawsuit against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police “for a pattern of intimidation and exclusion following shocking displays of police brutality against David.”

Rebel News reports that what transpired was a blatant disregard for civil liberties.

David was in full compliance with the law, Rebel News reported, noting that he presented his identification upon request. All of this was captured on camera.

Yet, he was arrested and detained for exercising his right to document a public event.

In the U.S., we have also seen reporters hauled off to jail recently for simply covering events that the government didn’t want covered. Just two weeks ago the FBI arrested Steve Baker, a reporter for Blaze Media, for his coverage of the J6 event. Last year, the FBI arrested journalist Owen Shroyer of Infowars and he was convicted and sentenced to 60 days in prison for his coverage of J6 (he did not even enter the Capitol that day). NBC News, a key part of the state-run media in America, dutifully reported upon Shroyer’s conviction that he was not a journalist but a “conspiracy theorist.”

Keep reading

Scottish Police Trained To Target Actors And Comedians Under Hate Crime Laws

Police in Scotland are being trained to target actors and comedians under new hate crime laws set to be activated next month, reports The Herald, citing leaked police documents.

Training materials obtained by the outlet state that content deemed to be “threatening and abusive” under the Hate Crime and Public Order can be communicated “through public performance of a play.”

A slide from the leaked training material titled “stirring up hatred” also lists ‘protected’ characteristics including age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity.

In other words, under First Minister Humza Yousaf’s new law, any performer who for example ‘misgenders’ trans people, jokes about race or religion, or even criticises migrants can potentially be prosecuted.

The training material further states that even those forwarding or sharing material deemed to be ‘hateful’ can also be targeted under the law.

It states “The different ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by: displaying, publishing or distributing the material, for example on a sign, on the internet through websites, blogs, podcasts, social media etc., either directly, or by forwarding or repeating material that originates from a third party, through printed media such as magazine publications or leaflets.”

Keep reading

J.K. Rowling Vows to Continue “Calling a Man a Man” in Defiance of “Ludicrous” New Hate Crime Laws

J.K. Rowling has vowed to continue “calling a man a man” in defiance of controversial new SNP hate crime laws, which she branded “ludicrous”. The Telegraph has more.

The Harry Potter author said she would not delete her social media posts, in which she has regularly argued that trans women are not women, to avoid being taken to court “under this ludicrous law”.

She said she would instead “do some more accurate sexing” after the legislation takes effect at the start of next month, despite predictions that LGBT campaigners plan to use it to target her. Rowling lives in Edinburgh.

Humza Yousaf oversaw the passage of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act at Holyrood in 2021, when he was Justice Secretary in Nicola Sturgeon’s Government.

It will come into force on April 1st after Police Scotland said it needed time for “training, guidance and communications planning”.

The legislation creates a criminal offence of “stirring up of hatred”, expanding on a similar offence based on racist abuse that has been on the statute book for decades.

Keep reading

Michigan Lawyer Stefanie Lambert Arrested by US Marshals in DC Following Court Appearance — for Submitting “Evidence of Numerous Crimes” Including Internal Emails from Dominion Voting Systems to Law Enforcement

Michigan attorney Stefanie Lambert Junttila was arrested in Washington, D.C., on Monday following a court hearing after she gave the “evidence of numerous crimes” to law enforcement containing internal emails from Dominion Voting Systems, AP reported.

Lambert attended a court hearing in Washington, D.C., for a defamation case involving Patrick Byrne, whom she represents. Byrne, the former CEO of Overstock, is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems over his claims of election fraud.

Lambert’s arrest occurred after it was revealed that she had leaked confidential documents from Dominion to Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf, who has been actively investigating claims of voter fraud from the 2020 election, according to CNN.

The Gateway Pundit reported earlier that Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf has made a bold move by sending a letter to U.S. Representative Jim Jordan, urging a congressional investigation into what he claims as evidence of “foreign interference” in the 2020 election.

Sheriff Leaf alleges that electronic voting machines were accessed by foreign nationals across the United States, including Michigan, to manipulate election results.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Declines to Consider Case of Indiana Couple Who Lost Custody of ‘Transgender’ Teen Son for Refusing to Use Female Pronouns

The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case from an Indiana couple who lost custody of their “transgender” teenage son for refusing to use female pronouns.

The court rejected the case without providing any commentary or a reason why.

As the Gateway Pundit previously reported, Mary and Jeremy Cox, who are Catholic, opted to bring their son to therapy when he decided he wanted to be a girl in 2019.

Becket Legal, who is representing the Cox family, explained in a press release, “Because of their religious belief that God creates human beings with immutable sex—male or female—they could not refer to him using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biology. The Coxes also believed that he needed help for underlying mental health concerns, including an eating disorder.”

“To address both issues, they provided therapeutic care for their child’s gender dysphoria and scheduled appointments with a specialist to help him with the eating disorder. In 2021, Indiana began investigating the Coxes after a report that they were not referring to their child by his preferred gender identity. Indiana then removed the teen from the parents’ custody and placed him in a home that would affirm his preferred identity.”

The state did not find evidence of abuse — but claimed the couple’s non-acceptance of their son’s gender identity was harmful to the child’s mental health.

“If this can happen in Indiana, it can happen anywhere. Tearing a child away from loving parents because of their religious beliefs, which are shared by millions of Americans, is an outrage to the law, parental rights, and basic human decency,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “If the Supreme Court doesn’t take this case, how many times will this happen to other families?”

In a statement responding to the Supreme Court’s rejection, the Cox family said, “We can’t change the past, but we will continue to fight for a future where parents of faith can raise their children without fear of state officials knocking on their doors.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Appears Wary of Blocking Biden Admin-Big Tech Censorship Collusion

During oral arguments in a major First Amendment case on Monday, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about restricting interactions between the Biden administration and social media platforms. This concern emerged during the Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) case, which delves into the extent of governmental influence over online content.

Brian Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, presented oral arguments for the petitioners in the case, Biden’s Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy and several other current and former members of the Biden administration.

The respondents in the case, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, and several other individuals who were subject to social media censorship, allege that the federal government had pressured platforms to block or downgrade posts on various topics, including some related to Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Several lower courts agreed with the respondents, with a district judge describing the Biden administration’s Big Tech-censorship collusion as “Orwellian” and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Biden admin likely violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.

During the oral arguments today though, the justices displayed skepticism towards a broad prohibition on governmental communications with social media platforms. They raised concerns that such a ruling could unduly restrain the government’s ability to address pressing issues.

Fletcher defended the Biden admin’s actions and framed them as the government exercising its right to “speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.” He argued that the government is entitled to communicate with social media companies to influence their content moderation decisions, as long as these interactions do not veer into coercion. According to Fletcher, the litmus test for legality should be the presence or absence of threats from the government, asserting that using the bully pulpit for exhortations is a right protected under the First Amendment.

Fletcher also tried to argue for the significant power and autonomy of social media companies, noting their capability to resist governmental pressures.

The solicitor general of Louisiana, Benjamin Aguiñaga, representing one of the Republican-led states behind the lawsuit, argued that the government’s actions amounted to coercion, effectively leading to censorship by social media platforms. He highlighted a significant shift in the focus of government-led content moderation. Initially aimed at tackling foreign interference and misinformation, these efforts increasingly targeted speech by American citizens, particularly around the contentious topics of the 2020 election and the pandemic.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga’s viewpoint. “And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So, can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that.”

Keep reading