Tag: police state

Cop Who Avoided Jail After Killing 6-Month-Old Baby, Arrested Again… For Biting a Toddler

Former Fairfield County Police Department officer Jason Michael Colley, who escaped jail time for the 2017 death of his infant daughter due to a lenient plea deal, has once again been charged with child abuse. After finally coming to terms with the fact that this man is a threat to children, a Maryland judge recently denied bail on these new charges.

As The Free Thought Project initially reported in 2018, Colley was indicted on charges of first-degree child abuse resulting in death, first-degree child abuse causing severe physical injury, and first-degree assault following the death of his 6-month-old daughter, Harper Colley. Authorities were alerted to the infant’s injuries on September 17, 2017, and she tragically succumbed several weeks later due to “abusive head trauma.”

Frederick County’s State’s Attorney Charles Smith explained that “Abusive head trauma can detail slamming a baby down on the ground, slamming a baby on maybe a table or against a wall, something along those lines.” Smith highlighted that in Harper’s case, there was “severe brain bleeding…with that, taken together with his conflicting statements, we felt we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Despite maintaining his innocence, Colley conceded to the state’s evidence and entered an Alford plea. Consequently, he was handed a reduced 50-year sentence, with all but eight years suspended. In August 2022, Frederick County Circuit Judge Julia A. Martz-Fisher permitted Colley to serve his time on private house arrest, plus five years of supervised release — a deal fit for an Epstein.

Keep reading

A State of Martial Law: America Is a Military Dictatorship Disguised as a Democracy

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”—Thomas Jefferson

The government is goosestepping all over our freedoms.

Case in point: America’s founders did not want a military government ruled by force. Rather, they opted for a republic bound by the rule of law: the U.S. Constitution.

Yet sometime over the course of the past 240-plus years that constitutional republic has been transformed into a military dictatorship disguised as a democracy.

Most Americans seem relatively untroubled by this state of martial law.

Incredibly, when President Biden bragged about how the average citizen doesn’t stand a chance against the government’s massive arsenal of militarized firepower, it barely caused a ripple.

As Biden remarked at a fundraising event in California, “I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is—you know, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16.  You need something else than just an AR-15.”

The message being sent to the citizenry is clear: there is no place in our nation today for the kind of revolution our forefathers mounted against a tyrannical government.

For that matter, the government has declared an all-out war on any resistance whatsoever by the citizenry to its mandates, power grabs and abuses.

By this standard, had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers extremists or terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.

This is no longer the stuff of speculation and warning.

Keep reading

Homeland agency expanded authority to wage ‘domestic surveillance and censorship,’ House report says

Secret documents obtained by the House Judiciary Committee show that a Department of Homeland Security agency “expanded its mission to surveil Americans’ speech on social media, colluded with Big Tech and government-funded third parties to censor by proxy, and tried to hide its plainly unconstitutional activities from the public,” according to an interim staff report released Monday night.

The findings add details to reporting by Just the News about the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and its work with private entities to remove, throttle and label purported misinformation on elections, Hunter Biden and COVID-19 — efforts that might even constitute election meddling and sometimes target true content.

The “severe public outcry” in spring 2022 against DHS’s Disinformation Governance Board, shuttered a few months later, so alarmed CISA and its advisors that they “tried to cover their tracks” on censorship and surveillance, which “included scrubbing CISA’s website of references to domestic ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation,'” the report says.

By outsourcing its “censorship operation” to a CISA-funded nonprofit in the wake of First Amendment litigation by Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general, CISA was “implicitly admitting that its censorship activities are unconstitutional,” House Judiciary Republicans said.

Keep reading

The EU Wants To Make It Legal To Install Spyware on Journalists’ Devices

In a contentious turn, EU leaders have unveiled draft legislation permitting national security agencies to deploy spyware on journalists’ phones in certain circumstances. The move has obviously triggered an outcry from media and civil society organizations, who argue that the draft European Media Freedom Act could be a perilous weapon against the press.

Sophie in’t Veld, a Dutch Member of the European Parliament (MEP) who has been integral in the European Parliament’s inquiry into the use of Pegasus spyware against journalists and prominent figures, termed the reasoning behind the draft as mendacious. “I think what the council is doing is unacceptable. It’s also incomprehensible. Well, it’s incomprehensible if they are serious about democracy,” in’t Veld remarked.

A striking aspect of the draft’s release was the absence of an in-person meeting involving ministers in charge of media affairs, which typically precedes such announcements.

Keep reading

UK drivers warned they risk £5,000 fine if they are wearing sunglasses

Drivers caught wearing sunglasses can be slapped with large fines of up to £5,000 according to the Highway Code.

Despite sunglasses helping to prevent the sun from blinding drivers, the Highway Code enforces that drivers should stop or slow down when affected by sunshine.

Experts warn that while many believe sunglasses heighten road safety, they may in fact be a risk due to the blinding glare by low light and reflections from puddles or oncoming traffic.

People caught wearing tinted lenses and visors that restrict visibility could be slapped with penalties ranging from points on their licence, unlimited fines and potentially disqualifications.

Keep reading

Cops Use Phony Diagnoses To Explain Away Stun Gun Deaths

A small change in wording by medical examiners could have a big impact on how deaths in police custody are reported. In March, the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) said “excited delirium” should not be cited as a cause of death.

“Instead,” the organization said, “NAME endorses that the underlying cause, natural or unnatural (to include trauma), for the delirious state be determined (if possible) and used for death certification.” While that guidance is not legally binding, it further undermines the concept of excited delirium, which proponents describe as a state of wild agitation or distress, often resulting from illicit drug use, that can lead to sudden cardiac arrest. NAME now joins the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association in not recognizing excited delirium as a cause of death.

The controversial term was popularized in the 1980s by a Miami forensic pathologist who was study sudden deaths of cocaine users, most of them in police custody. Nearly all “excited delirium” victims die after being tased or physically restrained by police. Since 2000, a 2017 Reuters investigation found, excited delirium had been linked to at least 276 deaths following the use of a stun gun, which suggested that electrocution, not excitement or agitation, was largely responsible.

The diagnosis has been used in other scenarios to clear police or other state actors. In 2019, three Aurora, Colorado, police officers accosted 23-year-old Elijah McClain as he was walking home from a convenience store and violently restrained him. McClain died after two paramedics diagnosed him with excited delirium and forcibly injected him with an overdose of ketamine, a powerful sedative. From January 2019 through September 2020, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office found, Aurora paramedics injected people with ketamine 22 times in response to what they perceived as excited delirium.

Keep reading

Patriot Front ‘White Supremacist’ Unmasked As Suspected Fed

Here’s “Joe Biden” trying to look like he knows what he’s saying, as he calls white supremacy “the greatest threat” to the United States today.

Now, if our schools (including colleges and universities) taught history, and not the pieties that fill the textbooks (however “woke” such textbooks may now be), and if “our free press” investigated warnings of the latest “threat” confronting us (according to the government), instead of amplifying such alarms non-stop, it would be clear at once to most of us, and not just to some few of us, that this year’s “existential threat” is just as fake as those that came before, and that it too has been created by the government now using it to panic and divide the rest of us. Thus it was with “the communists” back in the Fifties (when countless “Reds” were agents of the FBI, and the CIA helped keep the Daily Worker going), then, after Soviet communism fell apart, with “Islamic terrorism” (all those “plots” concocted by the state), and now with “white supremacy” (a specter as delusory as the “killer virus” that was used to smash the world).

Here are glimpses of the latest show of “white supremacy,” as captured over the weekend in Oregon, by some real patriots who scared off a contingent of the “Patriot Front,” and unmasked two of them—both literally and figuratively. If (again) “our free press” took a duly skeptical approach to the scare stories pumped out by the government, instead of just repeating them ad nauseam (while trashing anyone who questions them), yesterday’s unmasking would be major news, and not just one more passing flash of truth on Twitter.

Keep reading

UK Home Secretary Uses Idea of Keeping Children Safe as a Justification To Demand Ban on Private Messaging

It would be extremely refreshing to hear a government official in the UK, or in a number of other countries, make a, “think of the encryption” plea – which would show they understand the very fundamentals of a safe and privacy-preserving internet.

But instead, we are getting more and more “think of the children” platitudes – as always, designed not to actually do that, but mask other, controversial and unpopular policies.

This time, it is UK’s Home Secretary Suella Braverman who claims that her opposition to Facebook’s slow-moving, alleged attempt to make a number of its products safe via implementing end-to-end encryption has to do with fears that children might get abused online.

Any tech-literate person would present the big picture, and argue quite the opposite, but Braverman is either not one of those, or elects to pretend not to be, in order to serve a policy that is staunchly anti-encryption, for a whole different reason – summed up, that technology stands severely annoyingly, no doubt, in the way of governments’ wholesale mass surveillance of everybody on the internet.

And what better place to twist the narrative about fears of awful things like child grooming and sexual abuse – perversely juxtaposed with actually improving internet security, i.e., encryption – than a get-together of the (in)famous “Five Eyes,” held in one eager member – New Zealand.

Braverman made an effort to write to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and, ignoring the reality of what an internet without encryption would turn into, tried, no doubt, above all to pull at her constituents’ heartstrings:

“As a mother to young children,” the politician stomped her feet, “I won’t stand by idly and watch this happen,” The Daily Mail reported.

“This” would be – platforms like Facebook Messenger and Instagram Direct introducing secure communications, so that third parties – be they criminals, malign (foreign) actors, or (sometimes (effectively malign) domestic law enforcement – cannot just swoop in and use personal information in any way they please, including to directly harm those participating, children included, by gaining unfettered access to all their data.

Keep reading

The UN Wants People To Report Each Other For “Hate Speech”

There’s been a lot of talk about the United Nations (UN) and its actions of late – mostly, those actions that fall way beyond the scope of what its founding Charter designates the organization’s role to be.

As a short history reminder – the UN is basically the international body that succeeded the League of Nations – the one that failed to prevent the (previous, atrocious) world war.

The UN is – and has, for a long time, focused its energy on “doing better” – mediating, providing a neutral ground for dialogue, helping those places around the globe unfortunately afflicted by local wars since 1945 – and just in general, not repeating the mistake of its predecessor of miring itself into irrelevancy.

You would think that with the real danger of another global war now on the cards, that would take up all of the UN’s energy and focus. But you would be wrong.

Here’s the UN, dabbling in things like alleged “hate speech.”

But – world peace – that’s supposed to be the mission. Not policing social media for dubiously defined “hate speech.”

The UN is now using its always precarious resources (depending on member-countries’ contribution, and, consequently, the way the organization satisfies the biggest contributors’ own agendas) to deal with things like real or perceived “hate speech” online.

But can that really be the mission of the world organization set up to make sure another world war doesn’t happen, and help/mediate in regional conflicts?

It seems almost absurd. Yet here it is. The UN is reported to be descending into internet censorship by “encouraging” people to report one another for hate speech online.

Keep reading

No Warrant, No Problem

In 1928, the late Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis characterized the values underlying the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as embracing the uniquely American right, and the right most valued by civilized persons, which he called the right to be let alone. Today we call it the right to privacy. He also warned that the greatest dangers to privacy lurk in the slow and insidious encroachments upon it by zealots in the government.

Last week, the Biden administration’s director of National Intelligence caused me to recall Justice Brandeis’ warnings when she revealed that the 16 federal spying agencies that she nominally supervises have begun to do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits them from doing directly.

Since they cannot obtain search warrants from a judge to surveil targets without first demonstrating under oath probable cause of crime by the persons whose surveillance they seek, these zealots in the government are purchasing private data about every American adult from the corporations and entities to which we all have unwittingly surrendered it.

This constitutes computer hacking – and it is as criminal as if federal agents had directly broken into the computers of those about whom and from whom they desire personal data.

Can the government do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly? In a word: NO.

Here is the backstory.

Keep reading