Tag: police state

As Folks Rot in Cages for Weed, Cop Gets No Jail for Setting Home on Fire, Killing Two Dogs Inside

In a world where people are rotting in cages for possessing a plant, is it really that surprising to see a former Indiana State Police trooper walk free after admitting to heinous crimes such as arson, animal cruelty, and insurance fraud? Well, that’s exactly what happened, and this glaring discrepancy in the justice system highlights the deep-rooted corruption, double standards, and “blue privilege” that plague our society.

Jeremy Galloway, the ex-ISP trooper, was sentenced to four years on Thursday. However, he won’t be spending a single day behind bars, according to court records. Instead, Galloway will serve the first two years of his sentence on electronic home monitoring, the third year on reporting probation, and the fourth year on non-reporting probation. This lenient punishment comes as a result of Galloway pleading guilty to all charges as part of a plea agreement.

In October 2019, Galloway maliciously set fire to his Tell City home, killing his dogs in the process. Despite the severity of his crimes, Galloway was only placed on administrative leave without pay during the investigation, before ultimately resigning from his position as an ISP trooper. This slap on the wrist is a stark contrast to the draconian penalties faced by individuals who are caught with a mere plant.

The irony of this situation is unmistakable. While Galloway avoids prison for causing destruction and death, countless individuals who have never harmed a soul are languishing in cages for simply possessing or using cannabis. These people are not arsonists, they’re not cruel to animals, and they’re not committing fraud – yet their lives have been upended by a deeply flawed and outdated legal system that seems to protect its own at the expense of justice.

Keep reading

Police Get a Green Light to Use Force Against Unarmed Individuals Who Have Already Surrendered or Complied

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again refused to hold police accountable for using force on unarmed individuals who have already surrendered or complied with police orders. Despite a series of high-profile incidents involving the use of unnecessary and excessive force by police against unarmed individuals, the Court declined to narrow the scope of qualified immunity granted to officers who assault non-violent suspects who have ceased to resist arrest.

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute and Cato Institute had filed a joint amicus brief before the Supreme Court in Salazar v. Molina, challenging a lower court ruling that essentially gives police a green light to punish and harm suspects solely based upon their initial nonviolent resistance or flight. The legal coalition warned that the ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted qualified immunity to a police officer who tased a non-violent suspect in the back after he lay down to surrender, undermines public safety by discouraging suspects from surrendering or complying with police commands.

“The old police motto to ‘protect and serve’ has become ‘comply or die,’” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “This is how we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat ‘we the people’ like suspects and criminals.”

In March 2014, around 2:00 a.m., a sheriff’s deputy in Zapata County, Texas, tried to pull over Juan Carlos Salazar for speeding. However, Salazar accelerated and led police on a high-speed chase for approximately five minutes. After two vehicles pulled out in front of Salazar and blocked his way forward, Salazar stopped his car, got out, raised his hands, and then lay face-down on the ground with his arms above his head to surrender. There was no indication that Salazar had any weapon or was violent. But within seconds, a sheriff’s deputy ran up and fired his taser at Salazar’s back while he was still lying prone on the ground.

Salazar subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming that the deputy used excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The deputy moved to dismiss the lawsuit by claiming that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Although the trial court disagreed with the deputy, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that when a suspect has tried to evade capture, officers can question whether the suspect’s purported surrender is a ploy. Despite there being no reasonable indication of any such ploy by Salazar, the Fifth Circuit found that the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity and therefore dismissed the lawsuit against him.

Keep reading

Disgraced Cop Arrested for Sexually Assaulting Boys at ‘Youth Special Forces’ Camp He Started at Church

When the parents of children at the MorningStart Fellowship Church heard about a youth program for boys started by a police officer, they likely felt their children would be learning how to become men and that they would be protected. Unfortunately, however, it was the exact opposite, and their children were preyed on and exploited by the very person they thought would do the protecting.

In a shocking revelation, a now-former Cornelius police officer has been accused of exploiting his position within a local church to sexually assault multiple young boys. Erickson Douglas Lee, 25, who was once an active member of MorningStar Fellowship Church, reportedly turned himself in to authorities on May 2nd.

The church’s safety coordinator, Nate Degranpre, alerted the York County Sheriff’s Office (YCSO) after receiving complaints from concerned parents. The allegations against Lee stem from a program he founded in 2018, dubbed the ‘Young Special Forces.’ Lee pitched the program as a leadership school designed to teach young men valuable skills and foster team-building habits. Instead of teaching them skills, however, he was sexually preying on them.

The narrative took a sinister turn when, in early 2020, Lee allegedly began hosting parties for at least four juveniles, during which he provided them with alcohol and engaged in sexual acts. These incidents are said to have taken place at Lee’s Fort Mill residence and other locations.

According to the investigation, Lee lured the unsuspecting parents by claiming that he wanted to take their children for leadership exercises or camping trips. Instead, he took the minors to various places both within and outside York County, including the MorningStar Church. Lee’s status as a police officer likely helped him garner the trust of the boys’ parents. Unfortunately, that trust was extremely misplaced.

Keep reading

King Charles III’s coronation is a surveillance nightmare

On Wednesday, the London (Metropolitan) police appeared to still be considering using its live facial recognition system during the coronation of the UK’s new king, and only a short while later – in fact, the same day – they confirmed that this would actually be the case.

This form of mass surveillance will be used in central London during the ceremony and will mostly consist of technology provided by Hikvision, a controversial company due to its tech being used in labor camps in China.

Ahead of the confirmation of this news, UK civil liberties nonprofit Big Brother Watch said on Twitter the police were “testing public opinion” by making the announcement about the possible deployment of the tech.

“The Government’s decision to install 38 Hikvision cameras along the Coronation route shows a staggering lack of judgment, especially given that Hikvision is already banned from many Government sites. It is grossly inappropriate, deeply insensitive, and a stain on our country’s record that Chinese state-owned companies closely linked to grave human rights abuses will have their surveillance tech at the heart of this historic event,” Big Brother Watch said in a statement.

If that was the case, the “testing phase” was over quickly, as on Wednesday the London police website detailed all the actions they would be undertaking during the coronation.

Among those details was the statement that facial recognition would be used in central London. The plan to use the technology was explained as utilizing the “watch list” that will focus on persons whose presence “would raise public protection concerns.”

This “class” of citizen includes those with outstanding warrants against them, or those undergoing “relevant offender management programs.”

Keep reading

Excessive force, cover-ups: LAPD whistleblower expands ‘SWAT Mafia’ allegations

Anthony Soderberg was wounded, no longer armed and positioned precariously on a steep embankment when Los Angeles Police Lt. Ruben Lopez radioed to the surrounding SWAT team that the mentally ill man they’d just flushed from a nearby home remained a threat and must not be allowed to leave.

SWAT Sgt. Tim Colomey, a crisis negotiator standing next to Lopez in the command center, was stunned — interpreting the remark, as he knew other officers would, as a kill order.

“What the f— did you just say?” Colomey asked Lopez, just before the barrage of gunfire erupted.

“It was like pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop,” Colomey recalled. Officers outside “just started blasting away.”

In a frank and far-ranging legal deposition in March, the former SWAT sergeant offered extensive new details in support of allegations he first made in 2020 that the LAPD’s most elite tactical unit — a model for similar units across the country — is deeply corrupt and controlled by a violent inner circle known as the “SWAT Mafia.”

The 27-year LAPD veteran, who speaks quickly in a thick Boston accent, provided the deposition under oath as part of a lawsuit against the department and the city, in which he alleges he was transferred out of SWAT as retaliation for whistleblowing about the violence. He is seeking unspecified damages.

The city has denied Colomey’s claims in court; Lopez declined to comment on the allegations.

It is the SWAT team’s job to confront the most dangerous situations, and its members are specifically trained to end threats to the community. They are equipped and armed accordingly — and, department officials have said, rarely use force.

The Los Angeles Police Department as a whole has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, including over its multibillion-dollar budget and its use of force. Colomey’s allegations and other recent scandals involving SWAT members have intensified the spotlight on the team.

Keep reading

Proof that the Vaccines Were a Military-Backed Countermeasure

Here is a high-level review of the manufacturing contracts between US DOD and Moderna. 

Moderna’s injection, mRNA-1273 is co-owned with the US Government, as the company has been funded by the defense research grants for years and also received intellectual property transfers from the US Government, in addition to preclinical and clinical research work conducted for Moderna by the NIH Vaccine Research Center. The NIH and Moderna each have a separate Investigational New Drug number for this product.

Moderna entered 2 types of contracts with the US Government for Spikevax injection:

  • “Vaccine” contract and amendments that specifies R&D projects that the US Government ordered and paid for. Note that in Pfizer’s case no R&D activities were ordered or paid for by the US Government, as these were excluded from the scope of the contract.
  • “Manufacturing” contract(s) that ordered a large-scale manufacturing. This is different from Pfizer manufacturing contracts as the words “demonstration” and “prototype” are not used. I believe this is because OTA contracts must be for prototypes but FAR contracting doesn’t have to be.

Note on redactions. In both Moderna and Pfizer’s contracts many areas are redacted indicating a reason for redaction – the “redaction codes.” Redacted content has been given codes b (4) and b (6), standing for:

(b) (4) Disclosure of information that would affect the application of advanced technology in a U.S. weapons system,

and

(b) (6) Disclosure of information, including information of foreign governments, that would cause serious harm to relations between the United States and a foreign government or to ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States.

There are several versions of the contract available, plus amendments. The first version was signed on August 9, 2020 and the last available version is June 15, 2021. In one of them the name of the signatory on the Moderna side was redacted with (b)(6). In another version it’s unredacted – it was Hamilton Bennett, a senior director of vaccine access and partnerships. 

Keep reading

This California Bill Would Mandate Punishment of Marijuana Debtors Without a Hearing

California’s cannabis industry, which includes state-licensed growers, manufacturers, testing companies, distributors, retailers, and event organizers, has a deadbeat problem. In a business that generated $5.3 billion in sales last year, bills for marijuana products and services frequently go unpaid, leaving creditors in the lurch and compounding the financial difficulties created by federal prohibition.

According to an estimate cited by Assembly Member Phil Ting (D–San Francisco), “the unpaid debt bubble is over $600 million across California’s supply chain.” But Ting’s solution—a bill that would inject state regulators into debt disputes between marijuana businesses—could create new problems by interfering with freedom of contract and penalizing licensees without due process.

A.B. 766, which Ting introduced in March, would require cannabis licensees to pay bills for goods or services totaling $5,000 or more within 15 days of the final date listed on the invoice. That date could be no more than 30 days after the goods were delivered or the services were performed.

When a buyer misses that state-prescribed deadline, the seller would be required to file a report with the California Department of Cannabis Control (DCC). The DCC would then be required to notify the buyer of the violation and “commence a disciplinary action,” which could lead to suspension or revocation of his license if he fails to “pay the outstanding invoice in full” within 30 days of the notice. In the meantime, the buyer would not be allowed to “purchase goods or services from another licensee on credit.”

Griffen Thorne, an attorney at the Los Angeles office of Harris Bricken, a firm that specializes in cannabis law, says the problem that Ting describes is real. But Thorne is troubled by the implications of dictating contract terms, requiring businesses to report collection issues, and imposing a penalty based on nothing more than a report, which might be based on disputed facts.

Keep reading

Ex-FBI agent who feds say urged Jan. 6 rioters to kill police worked terrorism task force

An ex-FBI official who allegedly urged rioters to “kill” officers during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was previously the supervisory special agent in charge of Homegrown Violent Extremism for the FBI New York Field Office’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a senior law enforcement official told NBC News.

Jared Wise was arrested in Oregon this week, charged with four misdemeanor counts. After he entered the Capitol and exited through a broken window, an FBI affidavit alleges, Wise yelled at officers outside the Capitol.

“You’re disgusting. You are the Nazi. You are the Gestapo. You can’t see it,” he yelled, according to the bureau. “Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!”

As officers were knocked down in front of him, Wise turned toward the violence and started yelling again, according to the FBI.

“Yeah, f— them! Yeah, kill ’em!” Wise said, according to the FBI. “Kill ’em! Kill ’em! Kill ’em!”

Wise, according to a senior law enforcement official, served in the homegrown violent extremism role from 2014 to 2017.

Keep reading

These Senators Want the Federal Government To Verify Your Age Online

Despite their many disagreements, Republicans and Democrats have developed a common affinity for social media regulation, largely relying on the disputed assumption that platforms like Instagram and TikTok severely degrade children’s mental health. The latest regulatory proposal in Congress is the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act, sponsored by a bipartisan group of four senators: Sens. Brian Schatz (D–Hawaii), Tom Cotton (R–Ark.), Chris Murphy (D–Conn.), and Katie Britt (R–Ala.).

The bill features several flawed policies, drawing from recent state and federal social media proposals. It would require social media platforms to verify the age of every would-be user. Platforms could allow the unverified to view content, but not to interact with it or with other users. After providing age verification to register an account, underage teens would need proof of parental consent. Those under 13 years old would be completely barred from registering accounts.

The bill does propose one novel—and potentially dangerous—innovation. It would establish a “pilot program” for a federally run verification system. This system would ascertain social media users’ age and, for teen users, confirm parental consent.

Age verification mandates, which invariably entail intrusive data gathering, threaten user data privacy and security. They also violate the individual’s right to speak freely and anonymously online. Although the bill’s authors sought to mitigate the risks their implementation would pose to users, they largely failed. Such risks are inextricable from the process of age verification itself. The bill proposes a legal safe harbor for social media platforms that choose to use the pilot program. To avoid even the appearance of noncompliance, many platforms will do just that.

The proposed pilot program would require would-be social media users to submit documentation to the Department of Commerce in order to verify their age. In return, the pilot program would provide a “credential” to be submitted to social media platforms. Users would verify parental consent by the same process. To administer the program, the government would necessarily obtain and store troves of personal data on American social media users—to prove regulatory compliance, if nothing else.

To protect user privacy, the bill directs Commerce to “keep no records of the social media platforms where users have verified their identity.” It would also forbid the agency from sharing user data with platforms or law enforcement without user consent, a court order, or a program-specific fraud or oversight investigation.

Nonetheless, the bill would require users to register personal information with state authorities simply to speak online. Government agencies, under a legal pretext, could retrieve from social media platforms the records necessary to identify user accounts. Democrats have long been skeptical of the federal government’s data abuses, but both parties—including newly skeptical Republicans—ought to understand these risks.

Keep reading

While Americans Argue Over Bud Light, the US Gov’t is Quietly Building the Standing Army Our Forefathers Warned Us About

“There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.”

– Thomas Jefferson, 1789

What does it say about the state of our freedoms that there are now more pencil-pushing, bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with weapons than U.S. Marines?

Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the IRS, Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities.

Add in the Biden Administration’s plans to swell the ranks of the IRS by 87,000 new employees (some of whom will be authorized to use deadly force) and grow the nation’s police forces by 100,000 more cops, and you’ve got a nation in the throes of martial law.

We’re being frog-marched into tyranny at the end of a loaded gun.

Make that hundreds of thousands of loaded guns.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of federal agents armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment, authorized to make arrests, and trained in military tactics has nearly tripled over the past several decades.

As Adam Andrzejewski writes for Forbes, “the federal government has become one never-ending gun show.”

While Americans have to jump through an increasing number of hoops in order to own a gun, federal agencies have been placing orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point bullets and military gear.

For example, the IRS has stockpiled 4,500 guns and five million rounds of ammunition in recent years, including 621 shotguns, 539 long-barrel rifles and 15 submachine guns.

The Veterans Administration purchased 11 million rounds of ammunition (equivalent to 2,800 rounds for each of their officers), along with camouflage uniforms, riot helmets and shields, specialized image enhancement devices and tactical lighting.

The Department of Health and Human Services acquired 4 million rounds of ammunition, in addition to 1,300 guns, including five submachine guns and 189 automatic firearms for its Office of Inspector General.

According to an in-depth report on “The Militarization of the U.S. Executive Agencies,” the Social Security Administration secured 800,000 rounds of ammunition for their special agents, as well as armor and guns.

The Environmental Protection Agency owns 600 guns. The Smithsonian now employs 620-armed “special agents.”

Even agencies such as Amtrak and NASA have their own SWAT teams.

Ask yourselves: why are government agencies being turned into military outposts?

Keep reading