Tag: police state

New York Teen Forced Out of School Again After 3 More Doctors Argue Vaccines Would Harm Her

Seventeen-year-old Sarah Doe is back in court seeking emergency federal court intervention so she can stay in school after three more doctors said the teen shouldn’t get the last two vaccines the state requires for school attendance.

The three medical opinions add to the seven the school district has received over the last two years. In each case, doctors argued that Sarah qualifies for a medical exemption. They said forcing Sarah to get the vaccines would put her already precarious health at increased risk.

In an emergency motion filed late last week in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Sarah and her mother Jane Doe asked for a temporary restraining order allowing the high school senior to attend school pending the district’s review of a new medical exemption request relating to a third hepatitis B (Hep B) shot and the meningococcal vaccine.

Children’s Health Defense is funding Sarah’s case.

The emergency motion followed a Sept. 23 ruling by U.S. District Judge Gary Brown. Brown declined to extend Sarah’s previous medical exemption, for the 2024-2025 school year, to the current school year. The district expelled Sarah from school the next day, Sept. 24.

A few days later, the district readmitted Sarah pending the outcome of a blood test, ordered by her doctor, to determine if she has hepatitis B titers from the first two shots she received, according to her attorneys.

However, Sarah still needed a medical exemption from the meningococcal vaccine — even though the district didn’t require proof of meningococcal vaccination for any student until Sept. 30. Many states don’t require this vaccine for secondary school.

At the time, Sarah had a medical exemption request pending from Dr. Michael Miller, a pediatric infectious disease specialist who also concluded that she shouldn’t be vaccinated.

On Sept. 28, the district denied Miller’s exemption request, according to court documents, citing three unsuccessful attempts by its reviewing physician to reach him by telephone.

According to Sarah and her mother, the court gave no other reason for denying Miller’s request. They said the school never sent Miller a HIPAA form, which he would need in order to share Sarah’s medical information with the district’s reviewing physician.

School officials notified Sarah’s family that as of Oct. 1, they again would not allow her to attend school unless she provided proof of vaccination or a valid medical exemption.

Keep reading

New Mexico Found a Way to Fine Platforms for Speech It Didn’t Delete

A civil jury has found Meta liable for violating New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, and now the judge is being asked to order the company to pay between $35 billion and $40 billion.

At a hearing on October 1 in Santa Fe, special prosecutor Randi McGinn asked Judge Francis Mathew of the First Judicial District Court to order Meta to pay this amount, while a lawyer for the social media giant said such a penalty would be “an astronomical” one, violating “a host of constitutional provisions.”

Meta is being punished for making false statements about user privacy, and also for not removing “hate speech” and “misinformation” fast enough.

The verdict was delivered on September 25, finding Meta had made 26 false or misleading statements, resulting in nearly 43.9 million violations of the state’s Unfair Practices Act.

This would translate to a maximum of $5,000 per violation, or $219 billion in all – more than the $206 billion the tobacco industry had to pay in a settlement in 1998. The state asked for about 20% of this amount.

The number of violations was arrived at by counting the number of people in New Mexico, and the number of Facebook users in the state, and then multiplying these numbers by the number of times Meta made false statements in news outlets and on its own platforms.

The state had to show only that harm was likely, not that it actually occurred.

Meta is being punished for lying about how it handled user data, and the Cambridge Analytica scandal that saw a third party harvest data from about 87 million profiles. The company is also being punished for not removing “hate speech” and “misinformation” fast enough – and the number of violations in this category is about a quarter of the total.

The New Mexico case is not the only one where Meta is being forced to pay up – in March, a Santa Fe jury ordered it to pay $375 million in a case involving child safety on Facebook and Instagram, and in August, the judge in that case added another $567 million for a youth mental health fund.

In August, 47 states reached a settlement with Meta, along with other social media companies, that will see them pay $17 billion. Judge Mathew mentioned this during the October 1 hearing, saying that due process suggests he should opt for a much lower amount than what the state of New Mexico is asking for.

During the hearing, Meta’s lawyer Matt Nicholson described the case as “about 26 statements over 11 years” and said that the state “made absolutely no showing that anyone in the state of New Mexico ever saw them, relied on them or were harmed by them in any way.”

McGinn countered that “the one thing you didn’t hear from counsel is an apology.”

Keep reading

DOJ Moves to Strip Citizenship from Criminals in ‘Largest Denaturalization Effort in Modern History’

The Department of Justice announced on Monday that it had filed denaturalization actions against 40 people accused of serious crimes or acting as agents for foreign governments.

The actions were filed in various U.S. district courts, with one individual being accused of committing aggravated sodomy against a special needs man, according to a Justice Department news release.

The DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs said the complaints, filed between Aug. 21 and Oct. 2, 2026, amount to “the largest volume of complaints submitted in a single period under the Trump administration.”

“Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a naturalized U.S. citizen’s citizenship may be revoked, and certificate of naturalization canceled, if the naturalization was illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation,” the release noted.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said, “Today’s announcement marks the largest denaturalization effort in modern history.”

“From an individual convicted of espionage to others convicted of sexual offenses against minors, these defendants concealed critical facts from the U.S. government and represent serious criminal offenders,” he continued.

Blanche added, “Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Justice will continue to employ the denaturalization process to maintain our national security and protect the American people.”

Keep reading

Doctor suspended over ivermectin importation, Medsafe threats and vaccine claims

A doctor who tried to import 2000 unapproved Covid-19 treatment tablets, threatened health officials, and sent alarmist vaccine claims to a media executive has been suspended from practice.

Timaru general practitioner Dr Tracy Anne Chandler was suspended for three months by the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal after it found her guilty of professional misconduct across nine allegations.

The Tribunal found Chandler committed malpractice and negligence during the Covid-19 pandemic between August 2021 and August 2022.

Her conduct included attempting to bulk-import 2000 tablets of unapproved ivermectin from India without specific patients in mind, while telling Medsafe she needed them for “an epidemic of patients with parasites unresponsive to usual treatments”.

Keep reading

New Report Confirms Biden’s DOJ Did Target Parents Who Spoke Out At School Board Meetings

The Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group released a report Monday concluding that former Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Oct. 4, 2021 school board memo grew out of pressure from the Biden White House and turned the department’s law enforcement powers on parents.

The report describes how DOJ officials under President Joe Biden looked for ways to bring federal cases against parents and protesters who addressed school boards and school officials during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also contains the Working Group’s formal acknowledgment that the prior administration’s actions “chilled the exercise of parental and free speech rights, parents who lawfully exercised their parental rights and freedom of speech were often targeted by members of the educational establishment.”

Garland addressed the memo to the FBI director, the assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division, the director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. attorneys nationwide. The memo told its recipients that “in recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence,” even though, according to the report, he had seen very little evidence of actual violence or violent threats against school administrators or at school board meetings when he signed it.

The Working Group traces the memo’s ideological origin to a letter the National School Boards Association sent to Biden on Sept. 29, 2021, five days before Garland acted. That letter asked the federal government to consider that “these heinous actions” “could be equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

Records cited in the report show that leadership at the Biden White House and the DOJ pressed for a memo that would locate a federal “hook” for prosecuting parents and charging protesters with federal crimes.

“Among the most egregious findings, exhibits show that individuals in the Biden White House and Attorney General Garland’s advisors wanted to involve federal law enforcement and prosecutors in matters involving parents and school boards,” a DOJ press release explains.

Further, the Memo established a task force to find federal enforcement options for investigating and prosecuting parents, and the FBI opened 25 “Guardian assessments” on parents. One FBI whistleblower disclosed that a mother was investigated because she “is a gun owner” and belonged to a “right-wing mom’s group.”

Internal communications and investigative records show that more than a dozen DOJ and FBI personnel raised concerns about the memo and its directive. “Stupid, stupid, stupid,” one employee wrote. Another wrote that “they might as well rename the damn thing the Anti-MAGA Task Force.” Several of the objections centered on the law. One staffer warned that the directive was “challenging from a First Amendment perspective,” and another said it placed the department on “potentially dangerous ground.” Other employees focused on how the directive would reflect on the department. One wrote that the memo “look[s] political.” Another called it “a partisan exercise aimed at those who do not support the Administration,” and a third cautioned that it would “tarnish reputation as an apolitical law enforcer.” One described the effort as “very messy and political.” Shorter reactions in the record include “ridiculous,” “horrible,” and “confusing.”

Emails cited in the report show that Garland issued the memo over those objections and that White House officials influenced his decision.

The department announced a series of remedial steps alongside the findings. Parents and other school board meeting participants who became subjects or targets of a Guardian assessment because of the memo will have the opportunity to review their assessment. The FBI has closed or discontinued most of those files, and each one will now carry a disclaimer stating that the memo raised serious constitutional concerns and that readers should treat the assessment with caution.

The DOJ will also review the file of every person investigated under the memo. Where reviewers identify a constitutional violation, the department will issue a formal apology and adopt internal controls intended to prevent a recurrence.

Leaders of the DOJ and the Department of Education sent letters on parental rights to the attorneys general of all 50 states. The department said Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Trump administration have made securing parental and First Amendment rights a top priority.

Keep reading

UK Police Arrest 15-Year-Old Over Posts Mocking Politician

Good news for those in the UK who were worried that their country’s police might have been getting a little too comfortable with the idea of going after people for what they say online.

No such luck.

We now learn that four officers, from the West Midlands force, were dispatched to the home of a 15-year-old, to arrest him. And this was no dawn raid to take in some dangerous terrorist suspect – it was a 15-year-old boy who had been making fun of a local councillor’s attire.

And the police seized his phone and laptop.

The whole thing started when the teenager, a Reform UK party activist, posted on Facebook about Conservative councillor Simon Bennett’s conduct and dress at council meetings in Wolverhampton.

Bennett reported the teenager to the police, saying that the posts were “quite personal about my appearance.”

One of the posts compared Bennett’s appearance to that of a “rent boy.” Another one said, “Why do some councillors rock up at a scrutiny committee in shorts and t-shirt in trainers? So unprofessional.”

And then there was one where the teenager Photoshopped rabbit ears onto a picture of Bennett, with the comment, “Nibble… nibble… crunch… crunch Can you hear it? That’s the sound of a rabbit devouring the last remaining shreds of Wolverhampton Conservatives’ credibility.”

Half asleep when the police came for him, the boy recalls the officers telling him that the arrest was for harassment, malicious communications, or a hate crime – or some mix of these. One officer said it was “to do with social media.”

The teenager, who has only been identified as Fraser, was taken in for questioning, and after that, he was bailed and banned from attending council meetings in Wolverhampton.

The police have not explained why four officers were needed to make the arrest.

“The police have not arrested for no reason,” he said. “There were a number of posts that targeted me…It was unpleasant and I was targeted by a child I had no way of dealing with.”

And the councillor also revealed that he had asked the council for advice on what to do, “and they thought it best to report it to the police.”

The police, in turn, “thought it merited arresting him,” Bennett said.

The Free Speech Union has taken up the case and intends to sue the police for “wrongful arrest” and “false imprisonment.”

Meanwhile, the group’s lawyers have written to the police to say that “plainly there has been no offence and the arrest and investigation represent an egregious interference with his rights.”

Fraser, who says he was more active online in criticizing the local Labour Party (which runs the council) than the Conservatives, is still waiting to learn if he will be charged.

This latest incident may just take the cake. Four officers, a laptop seized, and a teenager hauled off – for making fun of a councillor’s outfit. And the police wonder why they are losing the trust of the public.

Keep reading

Retired Police Officer Convicted and Fined Over £1,000 for Sharing Bacon Meme About Child Marriage — Warns ‘Blasphemy Law Is Back’

Britain’s relentless crackdown on so-called “offensive” speech has produced yet another astonishing criminal conviction, this time against a retired police officer who spent nearly three decades serving the public.

Stephen Gray, 65, served nearly 30 years with Cleveland Police. He and his wife Alex, 62, have fostered children. None of that mattered once a neighbor he was already feuding with over a sewage pipe tipped off police about two posts Gray had reshared.

According to The Telegraph and the Free Speech Union, Gray was interviewed under caution, the Crown Prosecution Service initially decided there was no realistic prospect of conviction, and the neighbor then used the Victims’ Right to Review scheme to force the case back on. The neighbor was not Muslim.

At Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court in April 2026, District Judge Steven Hood split the difference in the way only two-tier Britain can.

One post, “time for mass deportation,” paired with a caption about a supposed “12-year-old Mohammed” who wanted donors to move him from a three-star hotel to a five-star hotel with a better halal menu, free Wi-Fi, Sky, and a location nearer a girls’ school, was treated as politics.

The judge said it concerned an issue already debated in Parliament and acquitted Gray.

The second post was the one that counted. It showed a rasher of bacon next to a man in a turban, with the caption: “Fun facts about bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9-year-old!”

Keep reading

Cambridge University Declares Free Speech Should Be ‘Restricted’

Gonville and Caius College, one of Cambridge’s oldest foundations, is compelling its undergraduates to attend mandatory “inclusivity training” from the start of term.

The 90-minute sessions are being delivered by Stop Hate UK, a ‘charity’ activist organisation whose own materials tell students their free speech rights may be restricted, that “Islamophobia is a crime”, and that a facial expression can count as harm.

The order lands in the same university that spent the better part of two years investigating a philosopher for lawful speech, and in the same education system that has spent 2026 drilling children in white privilege, “racism requires power”, and compulsory hijabs.

According to an email from the college’s education and tutorial office, seen by The Spectator, “attendance by undergraduate students is mandatory. It is important for the community as a whole to ensure a collective and unified response.” The course, due to run from the week commencing 5 October, will cover “demonstrating inclusive behaviours” and “recognition of a hate incident and its impact.”

A Caius spokesman told The Spectator the college had, “in consultation with student representatives,” committed to “hosting facilitated discussions around inclusivity to support the whole community at Caius.”

That is a softer description than the email students actually received. Mandatory attendance and a demand for a “collective and unified response” is not a discussion. It is an instruction.

Keep reading

The Supreme Court Won’t Save ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ From the School Censors

Two Michigan middle-school boys wore sweatshirts bearing three words that contained no profanity: “Let’s Go Brandon.” School administrators made them take the shirts off anyway because everybody knew what the phrase meant.

Now the Supreme Court has decided not to get involved.

The justices declined Monday to hear the students’ First Amendment appeal, leaving intact a divided Sixth Circuit ruling that allowed Tri County Area Schools to treat the slogan as vulgar speech. A denial of review doesn’t mean the Supreme Court endorsed that reasoning. It does mean the two students lost their last chance to overturn it in their case.

From the Associated Press:

The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought them for Christmas in 2022.

Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase allows schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for “F-— Joe Biden.”

The woman’s attorneys argued that the decision wrongly gives school officials wide latitude to squelch political speech based on their personal ideas of what is vulgar. The phrase itself doesn’t contain any swear words or sexual implications, they said.

The school district urged the justices to reject the case, arguing that messages with lewd implications have no place in school, even if they touch on political topics. There has been evidence that some students wore clothing that read “Make America Great Again” or had messages supporting President Donald Trump, a Republican who lost the 2020 election to Biden, a Democrat.

Keep reading

FAFO: Students at UC-Berkeley Facing Deportation After Celebrations of Charlie Kirk’s Death Sparked Interest of State Department

Some students at UC-Berkeley are now facing the possibility of deportation after the State Department took interest in some celebrations of the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

OOPS.

This kind of disgusting behavior has been documented at more than one college or university. It’s not enough for the left that Charlie Kirk was killed, they feel the need to keep kicking his dead body as well.

The College Fix reports:

Event at UC Berkeley mocking Charlie Kirk memorial draws scrutiny from State Department

A group of UC Berkeley students who celebrated the anniversary of Charlie Kirk’s death have caught the attention of U.S. State Department officials.

Spokesman Tommy Pigott told The College Fix in a statement via email that “people in the United States on visas are guests in this country, and we will not tolerate people here on visas who break our laws, support terrorism, or unlawfully incite violence, which ultimately led to the horrific assassination of an American.”

“That is not only common sense, it’s an essential component of our national security. If that wasn’t the policy under the previous administration, it should’ve been, and it is now under the Trump administration,” Pigott said.

At issue is a Sept. 10 event on the one year-anniversary of Charlie Kirk’s death. Initially, members of Turning Point USA, the conservative campus group founded by Kirk, gathered to solemnly mark his death.

They had a large portrait of Kirk along with posters about “freedom and American patriotism,” according to the Daily Californian student newspaper.

At the event, John Paul Leon, president of TPUSA at UC Berkeley, reportedly said: “You don’t have to agree with everything he said, but when you support the literal political violence and action against this man, that is an act of moral depravity.”

Keep reading