Edward Abbey on the Rule of Law…
Tag: police state
DIA Releases Heavily Redacted Documents on COVID-19 Origin: Raises More Questions than Answers
In a recent revelation through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), The Black Vault has procured documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) relating to investigations into the origins of the Covid-19 novel SARS-2 Coronavirus. But the excessive redactions and withheld information have only intensified the mystery around the pandemic’s inception.
The original FOIA request specifically sought “all reports, papers, memos, etc. from the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center during 2019, 2020 or 2021 evaluating the origin of the Covid-19 novel SARS-2 Coronavirus and/or whether the Covid-19 novel SARS-2 Coronavirus was created in a laboratory.” The DIA’s response: “A search of DIA’s systems of records located one document (32 pages) responsive to your request.”
But the catch? Hefty redactions. Out of the 32 pages found responsive, 18 pages were “withheld in part” while a staggering 14 pages were “withheld in full.” The few visible headers include hints at what was being withheld like “China: Emergence of a Novel Coronavirus in Wuhan” and “Analysis of Alternatives: 2019-nCoV Outbreak Caused by Leak at WIV.” Yet, substantial portions of content, entire paragraphs, and even entire pages remain obscured from view.
California To Drop ‘Medical Misinformation’ Law After Judge Blasts ‘Dramatic Examples’
California has quietly announced it’s ditching Gov. Gavin Newsom’s draconian ‘Covid-19 medical misinformation’ law, which would threaten the licenses of doctors who don’t agree with “scientific consensus” on various issues.
The law, AB 2098, was signed into law by Newsom last year. In response, five doctors alleged it to be unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the US constitution.
The five doctors, Tracy Hoeg, Ram Duriseti, Aaron Kheriaty, Pete Mazolewski, and Azadeh Khatibi, argued that the law prevents them from providing information to their patients that may contradict what the law permits or prohibits. They also alleged the law was used to intimidate and punish physicians who disagreed with prevailing views on COVID-19.
Three Met Police officers who strip-searched 15-year-old schoolgirl wrongly accused of possessing cannabis could be sacked as watchdog announces misconduct hearing over scandal
Three Metropolitan Police officers could be fired after allegations of gross misconduct by carrying out a strip search on a 15-year-old schoolgirl wrongly accused of cannabis possession.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said on Thursday that the officers will face a misconduct hearing, and a fourth lesser misconduct meeting, over the treatment of Child Q.
The girl was strip-searched while on her period with no appropriate adult present, at a school in Hackney, east London in December 2020, after being accused of carrying drugs.
No drugs were found in her bags or outer clothing, and she was then strip-searched by two female officers with two male officers standing outside. Again no drugs were found.
Met bosses have been told by the IOPC that they should consider writing formal letters of apology to Child Q and her mother.
Ninth Circuit rebukes lawmakers, grants injunction against California law targeting gun marketing
A California law ostensibly aimed at restricting the marketing of firearms to minors infringes on the free speech rights of adults, according to a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its ruling handed down on Thursday morning, the panel vacated a lower court decision denying an injunction against the law’s enforcement and delivered a resounding win for both First and Second Amendment advocates.
Writing for the majority, Judge Kenneth Lee ruled that the law forbidding marketing and advertising firearms that “reasonably appear to be attractive to minors” is likely to infringe on the First Amendment, given that the statute is so broadly written that advertisements aimed at adults who can lawfully purchase a firearm would be swept up in its provisions.
While California has a substantial interest in reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors, its law does not “directly” and “materially” further either goal. California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms. There is no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad. Nor has the state produced any evidence that truthful ads about lawful uses of guns—like an ad about hunting rifles in Junior Sports Magazines’ Junior Shooters—encourage illegal or violent gun use among minors. Simply put, California cannot lean on gossamers of speculation to weave an evidence-free narrative that its law curbing the First Amendment “significantly” decreases unlawful gun use among minors. The First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government’s muzzling of speech.
California’s law is also more extensive than necessary, as it sweeps in truthful ads about lawful use of firearms for adults and minors alike. For instance, an advertisement directed at adults featuring a camouflage skin on a firearm might be illegal because minors may be attracted to it.
While the state of California had argued that the statute didn’t violate the First Amendment given the broader latitude given to regulations on commercial speech, the panel was unswayed, with Lee writing that even under a lowered standard of intermediate scrutiny the law fails to pass constitutional muster in light of the fact that the “state has made no showing that broadly prohibiting certain truthful firearm-related advertising is sufficiently tailored to significantly advance the state’s goals of preventing gun violence and unlawful firearm possession among minors.”
Federal judge blocks suspension of right to carry firearms in public ordered by New Mexico governor
A federal judge has blocked part of a public health order that suspended the right to carry guns in public across New Mexico’s largest metro area, as criticism mounted over the actions taken by the governor and political divides widened.
The ruling Wednesday by U.S. District Judge David Urias marks a setback for Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham as she responds to several recent shootings that took the lives of children, including an 11-year-old boy as he left a minor league baseball game in Albuquerque.
Lujan Grisham imposed an emergency public health order Friday that suspended the right to open or concealed carry of guns in public places based on a statistical threshold for violent crime that applied only to Albuquerque and the surrounding area. The governor cited recent shootings around the state that left children dead, saying something needed to be done.
U.S. District Judge Urias agreed Wednesday with plaintiffs in several lawsuits who said the order violates constitutional rights and he granted a temporary restraining order to block the governor’s suspension of gun rights. It’s in place until an Oct. 3 court hearing.
Speaking of Lujan Grisham’s actions, Urias said “I don’t blame her for wanting to take action in the face of terrible acts.” But he said he was faced with a much more narrow question regarding the rights afforded to citizens.
State police had authority under the order to assess civil penalties and a fine of up to $5,000. The local sheriff and Albuquerque’s police chief had refused to enforce the firearms ban.
The rest of the public health order, including directives for monthly inspections of firearms dealers statewide, reports on gunshot victims at New Mexico hospitals and wastewater testing for illicit substances, remains intact.
Advocates for gun rights filed a barrage of legal challenges to the order in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque alleging infringement of civil rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Republicans in the legislative majority have called for impeachment proceedings against the governor.
Biden’s Gun Control Law Will Radically Change U.S. Gun Ownership
President Joe Biden keeps telling Americans that the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), the gun control bill he signed last year, is the most significant gun control legislative accomplishment in nearly 30 years. He is right, but it will do nothing to improve safety. The innocuous-sounding BSCA will radically change gun ownership.
Americans are only now learning that the act prohibits federal funding for “training in the use of a dangerous weapon.” In July, the Biden Department of Education announced it would end funding to schools with riflery or archery teams or hunter safety classes. Federal funding for public schools is substantial and hard to ignore, typically accounting for about eight percent of education spending. This prohibition effectively spells the end of classes or sports pertaining to shooting or archery in public schools. It is an attempt to end the American culture of legal gun ownership.
Federal law explicitly prohibits the creation of a federal firearm registry, but through a proposed 108-page set of regulations published at the end of August by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF), the Biden administration is trying to use the BSCA to implement universal background checks on all gun purchases and to track virtually everyone who obtains a gun.
G20 Announces Plan to Impose Digital Currencies and IDs Worldwide
The leaders of the Group of 20 nations have agreed to a plan to eventually impose digital currencies and digital IDs on their respective populations, amid concern that governments might use them to monitor their people’s spending and crush dissent.
The G20, which is made up of the world’s leading rich and developing nations and is currently under India’s presidency, adopted a final declaration on the subject over the weekend in New Delhi.
The group announced last week that they had agreed to build the necessary infrastructure to implement digital currencies and IDs.
While the group said that discussions are already underway to create international regulations for cryptocurrencies, it claimed that there was “no talk of banning cryptocurrency” at the summit.
Many critics are concerned that governments and central banks will eventually regulate cryptocurrencies and then immediately replace them with central bank digital currencies (CBDC), which lack similar privacy and security.
Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said that discussions are underway to build a global framework to regulate crypto assets because they believe that cryptocurrencies can’t be regulated efficiently without total international cooperation.
Senators Call For Government Power To Hand Out Licenses To AI Companies, Curb “Deceptive” Election-Related AI and “Deepfakes”
This week, a Senate Judiciary hearing under the umbrella of the Privacy, Technology and Law Subcommittee became the stage for bipartisan senators to divulge plans aiming to focus on the allegedly looming threats of manipulative artificial intelligence, especially in the realm of elections. Visions for a framework proposed by Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), foresee a new government agency, tasked with issuing licenses to entities working with AI systems.
Simultaneously, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) unveiled preliminary details of upcoming legislation, crafted in tandem with Hawley, along with Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine). This new proposal targets the prospects of AI technologies pervading the electoral process.
Apprehension regarding deceptive generative AI undermining democratic elections took center stage during the Senate hearing, with Klobuchar expressing a sense of urgency given the rapidly approaching electoral calendar.
Specifically, the newly minted legislation, coined the Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act, is envisioned to clamp down on AI-assisted impersonation of federal political aspirants in campaign ads.
Rendered as an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, this legislation provides a legal recourse in federal court for targeted candidates to counter harmful AI-generated deceptive content.
Smell Of Marijuana Alone Does Not Justify Vehicle Search, Minnesota Supreme Court Rules
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that the odor of marijuana, on its own, does not establish probable cause for police officers to search a car.
The ruling came in the case of a 2021 traffic stop in Meeker County where Adam Torgerson was pulled over by Litchfield police for having too many auxiliary lights on his vehicle’s grill. The officer claimed he smelled marijuana coming out of the open vehicle window. Torgerson, who was driving with his wife and a child, denied there was weed in the car.
A second officer approached and said he, too, smelled weed. The officers ordered everyone out of the vehicle and searched it, finding a small amount of methamphetamine and some paraphernalia.
Torgerson was not driving erratically, nor was there any evidence of a crime in open view when the officers approached the car. They based their probable cause finding solely on the marijuana odor.
A district court subsequently ruled that the evidence obtained from the search was inadmissible. Even in 2021, there were certain circumstances in which possession of marijuana was legal. Medical marijuana patients could possess it, for instance, and industrial hemp (which looks and smells a lot like regular marijuana) was also legal. The possession of small quantities of pot had also been decriminalized by that point—still prohibited by statute, but not in itself a crime.
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.