Tag: police state

Family of Man Killed During FBI Raid Speaks Out for First Time

Family members of the man killed during an FBI operation this week are decrying what happened.

“We, the family of Craig Deeluew Robertson, are shocked and devastated by the senseless and tragic killing of our beloved father and brother, and we fervently mourn the loss of a good and decent man,” the family said in a statement after Mr. Robertson was fatally shot during the Aug. 9 operation in Provo, Utah.

FBI agents and other law enforcement officers were trying to serve arrest and search warrants at the home after reviewing social media posts in which Mr. Robertson, 74, threatened President Joe Biden and other politicians, according to court documents and officials.

Video footage from the scene showed heavily armed officers outside of Mr. Robertson’s home before dawn shouting at him to open the door.

Jon Michael Ossola, who recorded the video, told The Epoch Times that about 20 officers were present and that they told Mr. Robertson to exit the home.

Mr. Robertson, said, responded by saying “I haven’t broken any federal laws.”

After gunshots rang out, Mr. Robertson, a U.S. Air Force veteran, was taken outside and declared dead.

The video did not capture the shooting and Mr. Ossola said he could not see exactly what unfolded.

The FBI has described what happened as an “agent-involved shooting” that took place around 6:15 a.m. local time. The shooting is being reviewed by the bureau’s Inspection Division, according to a spokesperson, who declined to provide more details.

Keep reading

Moment seven officers drag ‘autistic’ girl, 16, kicking and screaming from Leeds home for committing a ‘hate crime’ after she told female cop ‘you look like my lesbian nana’

Police have been accused of heavy handedness after an autistic teenage girl was arrested by seven officers after saying ‘a female officer looked like her lesbian nana’.

The 16-year-old, who also suffers from scoliosis, had been driven to her home in Leeds, West Yorkshire, by officers after midnight when she allegedly made the comment.

She was later dragged away screaming in the early hours of Monday morning having been served a ‘homophobic public order offence’.

The incident was recorded by the girl’s mother who uploaded the footage to TikTok. 

The mother posted: ‘This is what police do when dealing with autistic children. My daughter told me the police officer looked like her nana, who is a lesbian.

‘The officer took it the wrong way and said it was a homophobic comment [it wasn’t].

‘The officer then entered my home. My daughter was having panic attacks from being touched by them and they still continued to manhandle her.’

The footage prompted outrage online, with one social media user writing: ‘I cannot believe my own eyes. Someone in the police force needs to be sacked for this egregious, disgraceful situation.’

Another posted: ‘This is disgusting behaviour by [West] Yorkshire police. And how many officers needed to attend? No small wonder that girl was terrified.’

Andrew Piper added: ‘@West Yorks Police completely unacceptable from the officers in this video. When the officer was informed that the daughter had autism, the comment [from the officer] “I don’t care” is completely inappropriate.’ 

In the footage, two officers can be seen in the hallway of the home, while the girl hides in a corner next to a cupboard. 

The female officer in question, who has cropped blonde hair, can be heard insisting ‘she [the girl] is going to be arrested’.

Keep reading

Qualified Immunity May Shield FBI Agents Who Abused the No-Fly List

Any inconvenience governments can impose will eventually be abused as a tool of arbitrary punishment. Take, for example, the no-fly list and related watchlists, which are supposed to contain the names of known and suspected terrorists so they can be monitored and their movements restricted. From day one, placement on the list has been misused to punish innocent people who won’t do what federal agents command. Now FBI agents caught abusing the system want qualified immunity to shield them from consequences as people they mistreated seek justice through the courts.

“Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, FBI agents unsuccessfully attempted to pressure a group of innocent Muslims, including Muhammad Tanvir, to become informants for the Bureau,” notes the Institute for Justice (I.J.), which filed an amicus brief in Tanvir v. Tanzin. “Tanvir and the others—who were all either American citizens or lawful permanent residents—declined to become informants, because doing so goes against their sincerely held religious beliefs. FBI agents then harassed the group and placed them all on the No-Fly List.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights acts as co-counsels for the plaintiffs alongside the CUNY School of Law’s CLEAR Clinic. They sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ Muslim faith forbids them to inform on coreligionists. The defendants—FBI agents who put Tanvir and the other plaintiffs on the no-fly list—protested that the RFRA doesn’t provide for monetary damages against government officials who violate rights, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled otherwise in an important 2020 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Keep reading

FBI Official Involved In Trump-Russia Hoax To Plead Guilty To — Conspiring With Russia

An ex-FBI agent who led the agency’s New York counterintelligence division and played a key role in the Trump-Russia collusion probe – will plead guilty to charges of colluding with Russia himself, a federal judge suggested in a Monday order reported by the Washington Times.

Charles McGonigal was arrested in January and charged with violating US sanctions on Russia by taking secret payments from a Russian oligarch, Oleg V. Deripaska, to investigate a rival oligarch.

“The court has been informed that defendant Charles McGonigal may wish to enter a change of plea,” wrote Judge Jennifer Reardon in a brief order in which she also scheduled a hearing for Aug. 15.

McGonigal initially pleaded not guilty on four corruption charges – including conspiring to evade U.S. sanctions, money laundering, conspiring to commit money laundering and conspiring to violate federal law against doing business with sanctioned individuals. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Keep reading

I’m a former prosecutor. The ‘War on Drugs’ incentivizes convictions, not justice

Political campaigns are heating up, and politicians are jostling for clickbait by taking jabs and attacking the First Step Act. Not only do these attacks grievously mischaracterize a law that has been a boon to public safety – but they also mischaracterize some of the people involved in its passage, including a woman named Alice Marie Johnson.  

Her name might be familiar. Alice was sentenced to life in prison in 1997 as a first-time, nonviolent offender. She became the national face of criminal justice reform when she was granted clemency by President Trump in 2018 after Kim Kardashian, fueled by the unfairness of Alice’s prison sentence, lobbied for her release.  

I know Alice personally – I’ve worked with her since her release on many criminal justice reform issues, including the passage of the First Step Act. That’s why seeing her referred to in the media as a “career criminal” and “kingpin” is so shocking. But this is not the first time Alice has been misrepresented. Her story was first warped during her trial by prosecutors who manipulated drug laws – not to nab a drug “queen pin,” but to pin the blame on the little guy.

Keep reading

How America’s Constitutional Government Came To An End

The few people who benefit from the U.S. Government’s being the world’s most powerful are U.S.-and-allied billionaires, who profit from the enormous sales of U.S.-made war-weapons and from the international extraction corporations such as Exxon-Mobil which rely upon its military, but all of this comes at the expense of the publics in every country including that of America itself. Any empire serves only its aristocracy, at the expense of the public. In modern times, the publics need to be deceived by the media and by the billionaires’ other agencies, so as to become deceived to vote for the billionaires’ candidates. This requires massive censorship, notwithstanding that America’s Constitution bans such censorship.

Freedom of the press, and freedom of expression, are ‘guaranteed’ in the U.S. Constitution, but if the controlling owners of the press are a small group of people who benefit from the fact that the wealthiest 1% of the wealthiest 1% of Americans — the wealthiest ten-thousandth of Americans — donate 57.16% of all the money that funds U.S. political campaigns, and that the “Top 400 Donors” (all of whom are multi-billionaires, not merely billionaires) donate 29.86%, or virtually 30%, of all political money, in the U.S., then how likely will the ‘news’-media be to accept for publication or to broadcast news reports that threaten this status-quo from which all of them have made and keep their enormous wealth? Not only do those billionaires own or control virtually all of the ‘news’-media, but the other corporations that they also own or control advertise in them; and, so, they select to hire editors and producers who will reject job-applicants who would report the types of things that those controllers want the public not to know — things such as these. The most-important realities are thus effectively censored-out.

For an example of the most-important realities, here is an entirely truthful 10-minute-long entirely independently produced compendium video that shows the key evidences that the overthrow of Ukraine’s Government in February 2014 was definitely not the democratic revolution that all of the U.S.-and-allied press pretend it was, but was instead a U.S. coup. And here is the complete showing of the smoking-gun piece of evidence in it, so that one can now see this crucial item of evidence within its broader context, and understand how it fits into that context, to produce crucial history instead of the ‘news’-media-promulgated myth that strings together lie-upon-lie. It’s documentation of how the war inside Ukraine (and to which U.S. taxpayers donated over a hundred billion dollars last year) actually started — via this U.S. coup. And here is an even broader contextual documentation of how that U.S. coup started this war, which U.S.-and-allied Governments and their ‘news’-media blame against Russia — as-if it were the case that Russia had expanded up to NATO’s border, instead of NATO’s having expanded up to Russia’s border.

Keep reading

Law Profs Tout Qualified Immunity for Unconstitutional Gun Restrictions

Some ideas are so terrible that combining them into a cocktail of awfulness makes rotten sense. So it is with gun control and qualified immunity: Why not mix impunity for violating basic rights with denial of a specific right so as to maximize the harm? At least, that’s the inspiration that struck two law professors who propose qualified immunity for enforcing even overtly unconstitutional gun control measures. While the duo sees the idea as much as a means of weakening officials’ protections from liability as for promoting restrictions on private arms, it’s a dangerous innovation that could entrench authoritarianism.

“Gun regulation seems to have hit a legal brick wall,” complain Guha Krishnamurthi, associate professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, and Peter Salib, assistant professor at the University of Houston Law Center in Notre Dame Law Review Reflection. “In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court threw out what had been the standard approach for applying the Second Amendment to gun laws.”

Krishnamurthi and Salib argue that Bruen impedes “regulatory innovation” and leaves lawmakers “shackled to the regulations of the distant past.” That’s an interesting way of regretting that government is bound to respect constitutional protections for individual rights. But the two legal thinkers have a fresh regulatory innovation to propose for bypassing such protections—or, at least, a fresh way of applying a controversial legal doctrine to achieve their desired ends.

Keep reading

Ohio officer accused of having sex with minor

The FOX 8 I-Team has learned a Chester Township police officer has been charged with having sex with a 16-year-old girl while on duty.

Chardon Municipal Court records show Nicholas Iacampo, 29, was arrested Sunday a few hours after the alleged incident took place. According to a complaint filed with the court, Iacampo admitted to the offense while speaking with detectives.

Iacampo now faces a felony count of sexual battery. He appeared in court Monday. He was arraigned by a visiting judge and bond was set at $50,000. He was released on bond Monday afternoon.

His attorney, Ian Friedman, told the I-Team that the case is just beginning.

“We will assess the situation as the information comes in and will prepare the appropriate defense,” Friedman said.

Iacampo filled in as a school resource officer from January until June, according to Chester Township Police Chief Craig Young.

Iacampo was immediately placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation, Young said in a statement Monday evening.

Young said his department sought help from the Lake County Sheriff’s Office for a third-party investigation.

“The Lake County Sheriff’s Office investigation is ongoing and will continue until it reaches a conclusion,” Young is quoted in the statement, later adding, “Additional information will be released as the investigation continues.”

Keep reading

From Covert To Overt: UK Govt & Businesses Unleash Facial Recognition Technologies Across Urban Landscape

The Home Office is encouraging police forces across the country to make use of live facial recognition technologies for routine law enforcement. Retailers are also embracing the technology to monitor their customers. 

It increasingly seems that the UK decoupled from the European Union, its rules and regulations, only for its government to take the country in a progressively more authoritarian direction. This is, of course, a generalised trend among ostensibly “liberal democracies” just about everywhere, including EU Member States, as they increasingly adopt the trappings and tactics of more authoritarian regimes, such as restricting free speech, cancelling people and weakening the rule of law. But the UK is most definitely at the leading edge of this trend. A case in point is the Home Office’s naked enthusiasm for biometric surveillance and control technologies.

This week, for example, The Guardian revealed that the Minister for Policing Chris Philip and other senior figures of the Home Office had held a closed-door meeting with Simon Gordon, the founder of Facewatch, a leading facial recognition retail security company, in March. The main outcome of the meeting was that the government would lobby the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on the benefits of using live facial recognition (LFR) technologies in retail settings. LFR involves hooking up facial recognition cameras to databases containing photos of people. Images from the cameras can then be screened against those photos to see if they match.

The lobbying effort was apparently successful. Just weeks after reaching out to the ICO, the ICO sent a letter to Facewatch affirming that the company “has a legitimate purpose for using people’s information for the detection and prevention of crime” and that its services broadly comply with UK Data Protection laws, which the Sunak government and UK intelligence agencies are trying to gut. As the Guardian report notes, “the UK’s data protection and information bill proposes to abolish the role of the government-appointed surveillance camera commissioner along with the requirement for a surveillance camera code of practice.”

The ICO’s approval gives legal cover to a practice that is already well established. Facewatch has been scanning the faces of British shoppers in thousands of retail stores across the UK for years. The cameras scan faces as people enter a store and screens them against a database of known offenders, alerting shop assistants if a “subject of interest” has entered. Shops using the technologies have placed notices in their windows (such as the one below) informing customers that facial recognition technologies are in operation, “to protect” the shop’s “employees, customers and stock.” But it is far from clear how many shoppers actually take notice of the notices.

Keep reading