Cui bono…
Tag: police state
Government tyranny comes to Main Street, with the feds more powerful than ever
Americans today have the “freedom” to be fleeced, censored, wiretapped, injected, disarmed, detained, groped and maybe shot by government agents.
Politicians are hell-bent on protecting citizens against everything except Uncle Sam.
“We live in a world in which everything has been criminalized,” warned Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
There are now more than 5,200 separate federal criminal offenses and tens of thousands of state and local crimes.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, police can lock up anyone accused of “even a very minor criminal offense,” such as an unbuckled seatbelt.
The Founding Fathers saw property rights as “the guardian of every other right.”
But today’s politicians never lack a pretext for plundering private citizens.
Federal law-enforcement agencies arbitrarily confiscate more property from Americans each year (without criminal convictions) than all the burglars steal nationwide.
The IRS pilfered more cash from private bank accounts because of alleged paperwork errors than the total bank robbers looted nationwide.
Government decrees are blighting more lives than ever before.
Powerful members of Congress are dead-set on killing UFO transparency
Since 2020, no fewer than 10 former government officials, military officers and scientists, along with a former senate majority leader, have alleged (or suggested) publicly that the U.S. government has recovered advanced craft of unknown origin — that is, UFOs.
Nearly all of these individuals also claim that the government transferred multiple craft to defense contractors for scientific and technical analysis.
Key members of Congress, drawing on testimony from dozens of whistleblowers, appear to find these extraordinary allegations credible.
Bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) aimed to establish a process with the ostensible goal of revealing the existence of “non-human intelligence” to the public. But the legislation, which is co-sponsored by three Republican and two Democratic senators, is now in jeopardy.
In comments yesterday on the Senate floor, Schumer stated that “House Republicans are also attempting to kill another commonsense, bipartisan measure passed by the Senate, which I was proud to cosponsor… to increase transparency around what the government does and does not know about unidentified aerial phenomena.”
According to reports, Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, are leading efforts to prevent any meaningful version of this provision from being added to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.
Members of Congress generally clamor for enhanced government oversight — a core function of the legislative branch — and transparency. So what could cause a small group of influential lawmakers to suddenly resist it?
Notably, the legislation calls for the U.S. government to reassert control over “recovered technologies of unknown origin” currently held by defense contractors. Some analysts suspect that corporations potentially holding such exotic technology are exerting undue pressure and influence to oppose the provision in Schumer’s legislation.
In his only public comments on the legislation to date, Turner denied “holding up” the measure, while adding, “I do think it’s a poorly drafted piece of legislation.”
A closer analysis of Schumer’s 64-page bill tells a starkly different, and intriguing, story.
At its core, the Schumer legislation strongly hints that elements of the U.S. government, in collaboration with defense contractors, have long operated surreptitious “legacy programs” to “reverse engineer” retrieved UFOs. Other secret programs supposedly “examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence.”
The remarkable nature of Schumer’s bipartisan legislation is only trumped by revelations that key members of Congress appear intent on blocking or neutering it for what seems to be no good reason.
As Schumer and his co-sponsors suggest, “credible evidence and testimony indicates” that government records describing UFO retrieval and reverse-engineering programs have been concealed from Congress and the public for decades.
The legislation largely mirrors the allegations of David Grusch, a decorated former military officer and intelligence official. The intelligence community’s internal watchdog deemed Grusch’s whistleblower complaint “credible and urgent.” At the same time, an eyebrow-raising report citing multiple sources alleges that a secretive CIA unit is overseeing clandestine retrievals of “non-human craft.”
A core objective of the Schumer legislation is to “restore proper oversight over [UFO] records by elected officials in both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.”
As analysts have noted, there are only two elected officials in the executive branch. So one of the highest-ranking U.S. senators is implying that some presidents and vice presidents have not been informed of clandestine efforts to retrieve and reverse engineer “technologies of unknown origin” — UFOs — or examine “biological evidence of non-human intelligence.”
Bill to ‘end solitary confinement’ under federal government introduced in Senate
Democratic-aligned senators introduced legislation Tuesday that would largely ban the use of solitary confinement in federal institutions and give states and local jurisdictions incentives to do the same.
The End Solitary Confinement Act, a companion to a bill that over a dozen House Democrats introduced in July, would also prevent inmates and detainees from being segregated alone for more than four hours to de-escalate emergency situations and, even then, require staff members to meet with them at least once an hour.
And, similar to the House bill, incarcerated people would also be entitled to at least 14 hours of daily time out of their cells, including access to seven hours of programming meant to address topics such as mental health, substance abuse and violence prevention.
The Senate legislation is being introduced by Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, both D-Mass.; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; and Peter Welch, D-Vt.
“Being forced into a small, concrete cell without windows for hours, days, weeks, and even months on end isn’t rehabilitation, it’s cruelty,” Markey said in a statement. “Solitary confinement is unjust and inhumane torture that disproportionately targets our nation’s most vulnerable groups.”
Ohio Senators Take Testimony On Controversial Marijuana Legalization Overhaul As House Republican Files Alternative Bill
Ohio senators held a second meeting on a bill to significantly change the state’s marijuana legalization law that’s set to take effect this week, hearing public testimony amid sharp criticism of the GOP-led effort. In other chamber, meanwhile, a Republican representative has filed alternative legislation that would largely preserve what voters approved at the ballot, with certain exceptions such as a proposed ban on sharing cannabis between adults.
One day after the Senate General Government Committee gave initial approval to the cannabis overhaul measure, voting to attach it to an unrelated House-passed bill, the panel reconvened on Tuesday to take testimony, hearing from business owners, advocates and legalization opponents.
The legislation—which Senate President Matt Huffman (R) hopes to advance to the floor as early as Wednesday, before legalization takes effect on Thursday—would make fundamental alternations of the voter-passed initiated statute.
For example, it would eliminate a home grow option for adults, criminalize the use and possession of marijuana obtained outside of a licensed retailer, reduce the possession limit, raise the sales tax on cannabis and steer funding away from social equity programs and toward law enforcement. The bill also contains substantive amendments related to THC limits, public consumption and changes to hemp-related rules that stakeholders say would “devastate” the market.
Advocates have sharply criticized the GOP-controlled chamber over the proposal, arguing that it disrespects the will of voters, especially as it concerns the elimination of home cultivation and changes to possession rules.
Top Republicans, including Gov. Mike DeWine (R), have insisted that voters were only supportive of the fundamental principle of legalizing marijuana without necessarily backing specific policies around issues such as tax revenue.
The committee chairman, Sen. Michael Rulli (R), told the packed room of testifiers on Tuesday that he “strongly” suggested they “lower the temperature,” offering his assurances that lawmakers “understand the problems with homegrown and with taxes and how do we fix that and how do we get the people’s wishes.”
Rulli and other members asked several witnesses about how to most effectively mitigate the illicit market, including the possibility of allowing existing medical cannabis dispensaries to start selling to adult consumers before recreational retailers are licensed.
The chairman also expressed interest in addressing the lack of regulations around hemp-based intoxicating products, though he said it was unlikely to be tackled under the bill at hand given the expedited timeline they’re working with.
The panel heard testimony from several representatives of advertising companies who expressed opposition to the bill’s outright ban on billboard media for cannabis businesses, saying the industry should be subject to the same rules as alcohol.
“Discounting that the voters know about things I think is always a bad decision,” Sen. Bill DeMora (D) said at the hearing, pushing back on his colleagues pushing for major changes. “Voters spoke—and in my district voters [there was a] 70 percent approval rating—and for me to say that ‘voters be damned because they didn’t know what they’re talking about’ is a bit egotistical on my part.”
Want To Challenge Your Speed Camera Ticket? That’ll Be $100.
Motorists caught speeding in Peninsula, Ohio, have options: They can pay with Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or PayPal. But if they want to dispute a ticket, the flexibility ends.
Before vehicle owners can appear in municipal court to defend themselves, they must pay a $100 “filing fee.” No exceptions. No discounts. No deferrals. It’s the cost of admission—roughly the same as a one-day ticket to Disneyland.
Many drivers skip the expense and plead guilty, which works well for Peninsula. In just the first five months after launching a handheld photo radar program in April 2023, this village south of Cleveland generated 8,900 citations and $400,000 in revenue. That’s an average of about 1,800 citations and $110,000 in revenue per month.
These are staggering numbers for a community of just 536 residents. If revenue from the program continues at this rate, Peninsula could meet nearly its entire $1 million annual budget from traffic enforcement alone. Six police officers, rotating among nine strategic locations, could keep the village solvent with virtually no help from tax collectors.
Locking the courthouse doors to all but the most determined defendants—who also have $100 to spare—is key to the scheme. The tactic solves a built-in problem with photo radar enforcement that municipalities have grappled with for decades.
These programs are designed for maximum efficiency, which means eliminating human contact as much as possible. The only hiccup occurs when people demand their day in court. Hearings involve old, labor-intensive technology, which has not changed much in 200 years. A sudden strain on the system—inevitable when a police department starts cranking out more than three citations per resident per month—can produce a backlog.
So Peninsula is hiding its judges behind a paywall. Now officers can point and click without talking to anyone. No traffic stops. No trips to the courthouse. No testimony under oath. Revenue can flow like the nearby Cuyahoga River.
The streamlined approach might not seem novel. Many states impose court costs for minor traffic offenses. Appearance fees range from $22.50 in Maryland to $226 in Illinois.
Other states let people contest their tickets for free but charge for lawful behavior outside the courtroom. Arizona, for example, requires hand delivery of automated traffic tickets, which means vehicle owners can ignore violation letters that come in the mail. Once a process server tracks down these people, they must pay extra for not waiving their right to proper notice.
All of these fees undercut the Constitution, which guarantees due process. But judges typically wait until they hear evidence and render a decision before demanding payment. The timing is important. It means even the poorest citizens—people with no money in the bank—can at least show up and confront their accuser.
Nevada Officials Approve Plan To Let People With Marijuana Convictions Become Police Officers
Nevada officials have officially adopted a proposal to amend hiring standards for police officers to allow job candidates who were previously disqualified for certain marijuana-related offenses to now be eligible for law enforcement positions.
After holding a public hearing on the reform in October, the state Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) voted to approve the change, revising regulations around hiring that currently prevent a person from becoming a peace officer if they have been convicted of an offense involving the unlawful use, sale or possession of a controlled substance.
The new language says the restriction doesn’t apply “to a person who has been convicted of an offense involving the unlawful use, sale, or possession of marijuana if the offense is not unlawful at the time the person submits an application for certification as a police officer.”
The commission said the change will expand the pool of eligible candidates for law enforcement positions and “aid agencies in the ability to fill much needed positions.” There will be no adverse effects from the reform, it says, nor additional costs to regulators.
Approval of the change, which was first proposed in May, does not mean that officers can use cannabis once employed, but it represents a significant policy change, especially given that the current rules are written in a way that explicitly emphasizes the no-tolerance policy for marijuana.
UK porn watchers could have faces scanned
Porn users could have their faces scanned to prove their age, with extra checks for young-looking adults, draft guidance from Ofcom suggests.
The watchdog has set out a number of ways explicit sites could prevent children from viewing pornography.
The average age children first view pornography is 13, a survey suggests.
Explicit website Pornhub said regulations requiring the collection of “highly sensitive personal information” could jeopardise user safety.
Privacy campaigners have also criticised the proposals warning of “catastrophic” consequences if data from age checks is leaked.
A large chunk of the UK population watch online pornography – nearly 14 million people, according to a recent report by Ofcom.
But the ease of access to online pornography has also raised concerns that children are viewing explicit websites – with one in ten children seeing it by age nine, according to a survey by the Children’s Commissioner.
The Online Safety Act, which recently became law, requires social media platforms and search engines to protect children from harmful content online.
It will be enforced by Ofcom, who can issue large fines if firms fail to comply.
Ofcom has now outlined how it expects firms to become “highly effective” at complying with the new regulations, which come into force sometime in 2025.
Father who built four luxury holiday cabins complete with hot tubs at a beauty spot he owns has been ordered to demolish them
A father who built four luxury holiday cabins complete with hot tubs in a natural beauty spot has been ordered to demolish them following a planning battle.
Owner John Phillips, 38, who opened his £200-a-night chalets in the Gower Peninsula in Wales over a year ago, built them without proper permissions.
Mr Phillips said he did not believe the buildings needed planning permission because of their size when he initially put them up. But after speaking to council workers, he was advised to apply for ‘change of use’ if he intended to rent them out.
He later applied for retrospective planning permission, which was denied.
Mr Phillips and his partner Kerrie Garrett saw the chalets as a chance to ‘cash in’ on the beauty of the surrounding area and provide for their two-year-old daughter Darcy-Mae.
But furious locals claimed the chalets were a ‘blot on the landscape’ of Britain’s first Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and should not have been built.
The cabins in the hamlet of Landimore, about 13 miles east of Swansea, faced objections from neighbours and even the National Trust – before planning officials ruled they detracted from the Landimore Conservation Area and Gower AONB.
Council officers issued enforcement action on eight grounds, including the lack of flood and ecology reports, and potential damage to the roots of trees at the rear of the cabins.
The enforcement notice requires Mr Phillips to remove all traces of the cabins and return the land to its previous condition.
The notice was due to take effect from next week but Mr Phillips has appealed the council decision with the Welsh Government department Planning and Environment Decisions Wales.
He argued the cabins would attract visitors to the area all year round and boost the economy in an area where tourist accommodation was limited.
He built the cabins in the grounds of his home as an investment.
Wyoming Cop Assaulted a Disabled 8-Year-Old, Then Deleted the Body Camera Footage, Lawsuit Claims
Last spring, a disabled Wyoming 8-year-old was assaulted by a school resource officer, who pinned the boy facedown on the floor of a school conference room seemingly unprovoked. According to a lawsuit filed by the boy’s family last week, after the incident, the resource officer deleted body camera footage showing the most egregious parts of the attack and even accessed the child’s private school records without his parents’ or school administrators’ knowledge.
Last February, an 8-year-old with a “diagnosed neurodivergent disability” was sitting in the principal’s office of Freedom Elementary School in Cheyenne, Wyoming, during the school’s lunch period. The boy, named in the suit as “J.D.,” had been doing this for days, in accordance with his Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The complaint states that Principal Chad Delbridge and another faculty member began to quietly speak to J.D. about comments he made to a school cafeteria cashier and whether he should apologize to the cashier. Deputy Benjamin Jacquot, the school resource officer, was standing nearby during the discussion. J.D. was calm during this period.
According to a report later filed by Delbridge, when J.D. stood up to return to class moments later, Jacquot grabbed J.D.’s arm. Delbridge had not asked for Jacquot’s assistance in any way.
“J.D. was not a threat to himself or to anyone else. There was no reason at all for Deputy Jacquot to become involved with J.D. during this interaction with Principal Delbridge,” the lawsuit notes. “Deputy Jacquot, nevertheless, forcibly wrestled J.D. into a nearby conference room using an armlock where the assault grew violent.”
The suit claims that Jacquot repeatedly “slammed” J.D.’s face into the conference room floor, causing numerous lacerations and bruises. The undeleted portion of Jacquot’s body camera footage shows the 250-pound Jacquot pinned on top of 68-pound J.D.
“At this point, J.D. is bleeding from wounds on his face, and his smeared blood is visible on the video,” the complaint reads. “As shown on the video, Deputy Jacquot is out of control, pinning J.D. by his arms face down to the ground in a prone restraint position and yelling threats at J.D. J.D., meanwhile, is struggling to breathe, and is coughing.”
According to the suit, Jacquot screamed at J.D.: “Do you understand me! I should be taking you to jail!”
Eventually, Delbridge called J.D.’s father, Ishmael DeJesus, to pick him up. When he arrived, DeJesus asked Jacquot why he grabbed J.D. even though the boy wasn’t causing a disruption.
“Because, as a law enforcement officer, that’s my primary function,” Jacquot replied.
The complaint further alleges that “immediately after his assault on J.D., Deputy Jacquot went to his vehicle, and, upon information and belief, destroyed evidence by deleting his body cam video which showed the most violent portion of the assault, as well as the footage of his improper intervention into and escalation of this situation.”
Later, Jacquot obtained J.D.’s “private and protected” school records and included excerpts of those records in the police report of the incident. An investigation from the school later concluded that Jacquot had “no need to access these records in his work with this situation.”
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.