Tag: police state

The 10th Circuit Agrees That Prosecuting Cannabis Consumers for Gun Possession May Be Unconstitutional

On a Friday in May 2022, Jared Harrison was on his way to work at an Oklahoma medical marijuana dispensary when a police officer stopped him for running a red light. When Harrison rolled down his window, the officer smelled marijuana. A search of the car discovered a loaded revolver, a pill bottle containing a few partially smoked joints, another joint in a console tray, and a backpack containing marijuana, THC gummies, and two THC vape cartridges.

Because Harrison did not have a state-issued medical marijuana card, he was charged with illegal possession of cannabis under state law, a misdemeanor. But he also faced a felony charge under 18 USC 922(g)(3), the federal law that bars illegal drug users from possessing firearms. That charge, he argued, violated the Second Amendment. A federal judge agreed, ruling in February 2023 that the government had failed to show Harrison’s prosecution was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test that the U.S. Supreme Court established in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

This week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed that ruling and remanded the case for further consideration. The 10th Circuit’s decision in United States v. Harrison, because it endorsed U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick’s reasoning in nearly all respects, nevertheless represents another in a series of blows to a policy that affects millions of peaceful Americans, depriving them of the constitutional right to armed self-defense for no good reason.

As it has in other Section 922(g)(3) cases, the government argued that cannabis consumers are not part of “the people” whose “right to keep and bear arms” is guaranteed by the Second Amendment because they are not “law-abiding.” Wyrick made short work of that claim, noting that the Supreme Court has said “the people,” as used in the Bill of Rights, “unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.”

The government’s argument amounted to “an outright declaration of the federal government’s belief that it can deprive practically anyone of their Second Amendment right,” Wyrick added. “Who among us, after all, isn’t a ‘lawbreaker’? For sure, there
may well exist some adult[s] who [have] never exceeded the speed limit, changed lanes without signaling, or failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, but they are few and far between.”

The three-judge 10th Circuit panel unanimously agreed with Wyrick on this point. “A contrary conclusion would defy law and logic,” Judge Veronica Rossman, a Joe Biden appointee, writes in the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Judge Michael R. Murphy, who was nominated by Bill Clinton, and in part by Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr., who was appointed by George H.W. Bush. “The First and Fourth Amendments also refer to the ‘people,’ and nobody contends only ‘law-abiding citizens’ enjoy the rights protected by these constitutional guarantees….Restricting the Second Amendment to ‘law-abiding’ citizens—as the government urges us to do—would make it harder to administer and would risk turning it into ‘a second-class right.'”

Keep reading

Federal Appeals Court Says Government Must Prove Marijuana Users ‘Pose A Risk’ Of Danger To Justify Gun Ban

A federal appeals court has ruled that the government must prove that people who use marijuana “pose a risk of future danger” if it wants to justify applying a law banning cannabis consumers from owning firearms.

In its opinion on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sided with a federal district court that dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic stop.

The case has now been remanded to that lower court, which determined that the current statute banning “unlawful” users of marijuana from possessing firearms, known as 922(g)(3), violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

The Justice Department appealed that ruling in 2023, sending it to the Tenth Circuit. That three-judge panel said they “agree with much of the district court’s analysis” of the legal considerations, including its challenge to the federal government’s claims that there is historically analogous precedent substantiating the firearm ban for cannabis consumers.

Keep reading

Ohio governor calls kratom an imminent public health risk, pushes for ban

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine is urging the Ohio Board of Pharmacy to classify kratom as a Schedule I drug, citing it as an “imminent public health risk” due to its potential dangers, particularly for teenagers and babies.

Kratom, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is sold in products like the Feel Free drink at gas stations and stores in Ohio and Kentucky.

The governor’s proposal would make Ohio the first state to take such strong action against kratom.

Doctors at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital are raising alarms about its risks.

Dr. Stephanie Merher, a neonatologist, said, “Some of the moms who have taken this and not taken anything else, they have actually needed to go on buprenorphine or methadone to get off of this. It’s that potent.”

She has treated babies exposed in utero who exhibit symptoms similar to opioid withdrawal, including fussiness, tremors and difficulty eating.

Dr. Shan Yin, medical director of the Cincinnati Drug and Poison Information Center, explained that kratom and kava, another ingredient in Feel Free, create a “speedball-like” effect. He noted, “It’s also at this point, unregulated. So, you never know quite what’s in it.”

Feel Free is sold as an herbal product, not a controlled substance, and carries a “21+ only” warning, which the company says it voluntarily implemented. However, that is not required under federal or Ohio law, so anyone can purchase it in the state.

Kentucky lawmakers enacted a 21-plus age limit on kratom last year, while Indiana banned it completely in 2014. Ohio currently has no restrictions.

Earlier in August, Ohio House Minority Leader Dani Isaacson (D) told WLWT he wants to protect kids from the synthetic form form of Kratom known as 7-OH. “You can buy it at convenience stores and gas stations and vape stores in super concentrated forms with no age restrictions. It’s not behind the counter. And so we need to do something about it.”

Botanic Tonics, the maker of Feel Free, disputes the safety concerns, asserting that its product contains only natural, whole-leaf kratom, not the concentrated synthetic form known as 7-OH.

Keep reading

The mask charade returns in Ukraine, as medical tyrants mandate masks to save a beleaguered nation from “Nimbus and Stratus” COVID strains

We’re living in a world where the same failed policies—once exposed as useless, humiliating, and psychologically damaging—are dusted off and paraded back onto the stage like a washed-up magician repeating his worst trick. That’s exactly what’s happening in Ukraine right now, where health authorities, clutching their pearls over a few hundred COVID cases, have decided to drag the public back into the dark ages of mask mandates, restricted hospital visits, and the suffocating illusion of control.

The threat that Ukrainians now face? Two new Omicron subvariants, dubbed “Nimbus” and “Stratus,” which sound less like scientific designations and more like the names of rejected Transformers villains. But let’s cut through the theatrical fog: This isn’t about health. It’s about conditioning a population to accept that their freedoms are negotiable, that their bodies are not their own, and that the ruling class will never voluntarily surrender the power they seized in the name of a “pandemic.”

Key points:

  • Ukraine has reintroduced mask mandates in hospitals in the Rovno and Odessa regions, citing a rise in COVID-19 cases linked to new Omicron subvariants “Nimbus” and “Stratus,” with nearly 500 cases reported since August and 1,121 in Kiev alone last week.
  • The move mirrors the failed COVID policies of 2020–2021, when mandates and lockdowns were imposed globally despite no evidence they stopped transmission—only that they crushed economies, mental health, and civil liberties.
  • The same institutions pushing masks and vaccines—the CDC, FDA, WHO, and their globalist backers—have a documented history of regulatory capture, fraudulent science, and financial conflicts of interest with Big Pharma.
  • Natural immunity and early treatment options (like ivermectin, vitamin D, and zinc) were suppressed during the pandemic, while experimental mRNA injections were forced on populations with no long-term safety data—and now, vaccinated populations are seeing surges in infections.
  • The real agenda behind renewed mask theater may be distraction, control, or conditioning for future biosecurity measures, including digital health passes, vaccine mandates, or even another lockdown push.
  • Informed consent and bodily autonomy must be non-negotiable—no government or health authority has the right to coerce medical compliance under the guise of “public health.”

Why are “experts” still pretending masks work?

Let’s get one thing straight: Masks were never about science. They were about symbolism—a visible sign of submission to authority, a way to signal virtue while doing nothing to stop a respiratory virus. Study after study, from the Danish mask trial (which found no statistically significant reduction in COVID transmission) to the CDC’s own meta-analysis in 2020 (which admitted cloth masks offer “little to no protection”), confirmed what common sense already told us: A piece of fabric over your face doesn’t stop an aerosolized virus or a bioweapons that is being programmed directly into the cells through vaccination platforms. Yet here we are, three years later, watching Ukraine’s health bureaucrats dust off the same discredited playbook as if we didn’t just live through the largest-scale psychological experiment in modern history.

Andrey Karaush, head of the Rovno regional council, proudly announced the return of mask mandates in a Telegram post, as if he were unveiling a groundbreaking medical breakthrough rather than recycling a failed policy of mental degradation. Nearly 500 cases in a region of over a million people—and suddenly, the entire population must don the muzzle again. But let’s ask the obvious: If masks worked, why are cases rising now? Why did fully vaccinated college campuses—like the University of Oregon, where 960 “breakthrough” infections erupted in January 2022—see massive outbreaks among the jabbed and the masked? Why did Israel, one of the most vaccinated nations on Earth, experience record-case surges in 2021?

What we’re seeing in Ukraine isn’t a public health response—it’s a power grab. The same institutions that suppressed early treatment, censored dissenting doctors, and pushed experimental injections with zero long-term data are now testing the waters to see how much compliance they can still extract. And if history is any guide, they won’t stop until they’re forced to.

Keep reading

The Right to Be Left Alone

What if the federal government captures in real time the contents of every telephone call, email and text message and all the fiber-optic data generated by every person and entity in the United States 24/7? What if this mass surveillance was never authorized by any federal law and tramples the Fourth Amendment?

What if this mass surveillance has come about by the secret collusion of presidents and their spies in the National Security Agency and by the federal government forcing the major telephone and computer service providers to cooperate with it? What if the service providers were coerced into giving the feds continuous physical access to their computers and thus to all the data contained in and passing through those computers?

What if President George W. Bush told the NSA that since it is part of the Defense Department and he was the commander in chief of the military, NSA agents could spy on anyone, notwithstanding any court orders or statutes that prohibited it? What if Bush believed that his orders to the military were not constrained by the laws against computer hacking that Congress had written or the interpretations of those laws by federal courts or even by the Constitution?

What if Congress has written laws that all presidents have sworn to uphold and that require a warrant issued by a judge before the NSA can spy on anyone but Bush effectively told the NSA to go through the motions of getting a warrant while spying without warrants on everyone in the U.S. all the time? What if Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump have taken the same position toward the NSA and ordered or permitted the same warrantless and lawless spying?

What if the Constitution requires warrants based on probable cause of criminal behavior before surveillance can be conducted but Congress has written laws reducing that standard to probable cause of communicating with a foreign national? What if a basic principle of constitutional law is that Congress is subject to the Constitution and therefore cannot change its terms or their meanings?

What if the Constitution requires that all warrants particularly describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized? What if the warrants Congress permits the NSA to use violate that requirement by permitting a federal court — the FISA Court — to issue general warrants? What if general warrants do not particularly describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized but rather authorize the bearer to search indiscriminately through service providers’ customer data?

What if the government has no moral, constitutional or legal right to personal information about and from all of us without a valid search warrant consistent with constitutional requirements?

Keep reading

Denmark Summons US Ambassador Over Alleged ‘Covert Influence Operations’ in Greenland, as Copenhagen Apologizes for Decades of Forced Sterilization of Inuit Greenlander Women

Operation Greenland seems to be ‘on’.

These last days, the US territorial ambitions regarding the island of Greenland have resurfaced in the headlines, as the consequences of the brutal treatment by Denmark of the indigenous Inuit populations are also propelled back to the news.

Today (27), the main Danish national broadcaster reported that ‘at least three people with connections to President Donald Trump’ have been carrying out what they called ‘covert influence operations’ in Greenland.

This led Copenhagen to summon the U.S. ambassador to the country for talks.

Associated Press reported:

“Public broadcaster DR said Danish government and security sources which it didn’t name, as well as unidentified sources in Greenland and the U.S., believe that at least three American nationals with connections to Trump have been carrying out covert influence operations in the territory.

One of those people allegedly compiled a list of U.S.-friendly Greenlanders, collected names of people opposed to Trump and got locals to point out cases that could be used to cast Denmark in a bad light in American media. Two others have tried to nurture contacts with politicians, businesspeople and locals, according to the report.”

Keep reading

Miami Beach’s Silent Crisis: How Greed, Corruption, And Indifference Are Destroying Lives Behind Closed Doors

In Miami Beach, we have a problem most residents never see until it is too late. What is happening to Robert Kraft, known to many as Raven, is not just one man’s story. It is a warning to every homeowner and resident in this city.

Raven has run eight miles every single day along Ocean Drive for nearly fifty years. His daily run has become part of the soul of Miami Beach. Now, after decades of calling this city home, he faces foreclosure. Not because he refused to pay. Not because of financial irresponsibility. But because bad actors inside a broken system have found ways to exploit local enforcement gaps, city oversight failures, and association loopholes for personal profit.

It started as a legitimate repair issue. Structural problems led to court intervention. A Special Master, David Swilley, was appointed to oversee the building at 326 Ocean Drive. That is where the real abuse began. Instead of protecting residents, Swilley and his associates took complete control of the building’s finances, levied inflated assessments, misapplied payments, and took out high-interest loans without owner approval. Many of those loans appear to be linked to entities associated directly with Swilley.

There has been no functioning board. Residents have no vote. Notices are delivered late or not at all. Accounting records are opaque. Personal information was improperly exposed. Violations of the Florida Condominium Act and consumer protection laws are piling up. While residents are being financially squeezed and forced out, those in control continue collecting legal fees, management fees, and pocketing the proceeds of a manufactured financial crisis.

This is not mismanagement. This is exploitation.

The most outrageous part is not just the conduct of those running this building. It is the silence and failure of the city that allowed this to happen. Miami Beach’s local officials have known for years how these games work. They know certain properties get selective code enforcement. They know who receives special treatment with permits and inspections. They know when court-appointed agents abuse their authority, hide behind court orders, and strip residents of their homes one lien at a time. They know, and they do nothing. Why? Because too many of them are controlled by the same consultants and insiders who thrive off this system.

The city has building officials, inspectors, and lawyers on staff who could have flagged this behavior years ago. But instead, they looked the other way while residents like Raven were left to fend for themselves.

Keep reading

The Palestine Chronicle Case: When Truth Becomes the Crime

The Palestine Chronicle is not a militant organization. It is a modest, independent publication, sustained by small donations and animated by a singular mission: to bear witness. It tells the untold stories of Palestine, documenting dispossession, resistance, and the endurance of a people condemned to silence. In a media landscape dominated by powerful conglomerates repeating the language of governments, the Chronicle insists on a journalism of proximity – grounded in daily lives, in the rubble of Gaza, in voices otherwise erased. Its true offense, in the eyes of its detractors, is not invention but truth.

At the heart of this endeavor stands Ramzy Baroud. His career is the antithesis of clandestine. For decades he has written, taught, and spoken in public, producing books translated into multiple languages, contributing columns to international publications, addressing audiences in universities and public forums across continents. He is not a shadowy figure; he is a man whose work has been consistent, transparent, and intellectually rigorous. His life is not untouched by the tragedy he describes: many members of his family were killed under Israeli bombardments. Yet while mainstream media rushed to amplify unproven allegations against him, they remained deaf to his personal grief. His tragedy was ignored, his integrity overlooked, his voice distorted – because his engagement is unbearable to those who would prefer silence.

A Crime of Conscience, Not of Law

He is an engaged journalist in the noblest sense: independent, lucid, unflinching. His so-called crime is not collusion with violence but fidelity to memory. That is why he is demonized – not for what he has done in law, but for what he represents in conscience. America, unable to silence Palestinian voices through censorship alone, now instrumentalizes its justice system to achieve by indictment what it failed to achieve by argument. Having harassed universities, intimidated students, and punished professors for their solidarity with Gaza, it turns the courtroom into a new battlefield. And Congress, captive to the whims of its Zionist masters, joins the manhunt, targeting a journalist for the sole offense of telling the truth of his people. As for the mainstream press, it chooses cowardice: ignoring his family’s suffering, ignoring the emptiness of the charges, while echoing the accusations of power as if they were evidence.

Law Twisted into Weapon

The complaint filed against Ramzy Baroud and the organization (People Media Project) that runs the Palestine Chronicle rests on the Alien Tort Statute, grotesquely overstretched to criminalize editorial decisions rather than acts of war. It alleges that by publishing articles from Abdallah Aljamal – described by Israel as a Hamas operative killed during a hostage rescue – the Chronicle “aided and abetted” terrorism. But here lies the first fissure: this characterization of Aljamal comes exclusively from Israeli military sources, themselves a belligerent party. It has never been independently verified. The claim that he was both a journalist and a Hamas operative remains an allegation, not an established fact. To treat it as judicial evidence is to replace proof with propaganda.

Even if – hypothetically – Aljamal had, at the demand of a militant group, harbored hostages, such a circumstance would not in itself render him culpable: what ordinary civilian in a war zone can refuse the command of militants under threat of force? And even if it occurred, how could Ramzy Baroud have known of it? Even taken at face value, the allegation collapses upon scrutiny. No evidence demonstrates that the Chronicle or its editor had actual knowledge of Aljamal’s supposed operational role, nor that modest freelance payments – if any at all – bore any causal nexus to hostage-taking. The federal judge, in February 2025, dismissed the original complaint precisely for lack of proof of knowledge or intent. The plaintiffs returned with an amended filing, repackaged in rhetoric and pathos, but still devoid of the material elements required under international law: actus reus (a substantial contribution to the crime) and mens rea (intent or knowledge).

To equate the publication of articles with material support for terrorism is not jurisprudence but a juridical contortion. It is the substitution of law by politics, the criminalization of journalism under the mask of counterterrorism. What is sought is not justice but intimidation – to cast suspicion on every Palestinian voice, to brand their words as weapons, their witness as crime.

Keep reading

‘World-first’ eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant exposed: How taxpayer’s money is being wasted on an endless game of online whack-a-mole – as it’s revealed banned X posts can simply be re-uploaded

The Australian government’s attempts to police online speech have descended into farce after its ‘world’s first’ eSafety Commissioner admitted it was effectively powerless to stop people re-sharing ‘banned’ posts.

On Tuesday, Daily Mail Australia revealed the Australian government tried to force a Canadian man called Chris Elston to delete an ‘offensive’ post about a UN trans expert, threatening X owner Elon Musk with an $800,000 fine if it was not removed from the platform.

Mr Elston, who goes by the name of ‘Billboard Chris’ on X and lives in Canada, refused to delete the post.

When X subsequently complied with the ‘removal order’ by geo-blocking the post in Australia, Mr Elston simply re-shared the offending post. 

In a colossal back-fire for the e-Safety Commissioner, that post alone has been seen over 130,000 times and a concerted campaign to re-share it by others has racked up hundreds of thousands of views.

In response to this publication’s story, Billionaire X owner Musk said: ‘What is the world coming to?’ 

Now, the taxpayer-funded eSafety Commissioner has admitted it can only block or remove the subsequent posts if other complaints are made by the offended party.

‘eSafety’s Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme is a complaints-based scheme,’ a spokesperson for the eSafety Commissioner told Daily Mail Australia. 

‘In cases where a new version of the material has been posted after a removal notice has been issued and complied with, we require a new complaint from the targeted Australian resident – or someone authorised to report on their behalf – to take regulatory action.’

This effectively means the ‘world’s first’ online safety regulator could be engaged in an endless game of whack-a-mole as it attempts to police speech online. 

Political figures were lining up to condemn the alleged waste of Aussie taxpayer’s money. 

Keep reading

4chan and Kiwi Farms Sue UK Regulator Ofcom Over Online Censorship Law, Citing First Amendment Violations

Two of the internet’s most free-speech supporting platforms, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, are taking their fight for online free speech to court, targeting the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, for what they describe as an unconstitutional attempt to enforce British censorship laws on American websites.

In a lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs argue that the UK’s controversial Online Safety Act is not only an unlawful extraterritorial power grab but a direct attack on foundational American liberties.

Read the complaint here.

The suit calls Ofcom’s enforcement tactics a clear violation of the First Amendment and a dangerous attempt to establish global jurisdiction over online speech.

The complaint lays out how the UK’s censorship regime is being pushed onto American soil, despite the fact that both platforms operate entirely within the United States and are in full compliance with US law.

“Parliament does not have that authority. That issue was settled, decisively, 243 years ago in a war that the UK’s armies lost and are not in any position to relitigate,” Kiwi Farms stated bluntly in a letter responding to Ofcom’s demands.

Ofcom, under the new Online Safety Act, is demanding that platforms like 4chan and Kiwi Farms conduct written “risk assessments,” install content moderation systems, remove speech deemed “illegal” by UK standards, and verify the identities of their users.

The platforms face criminal penalties and steep fines of up to £18 million ($24M) or 10% of their global revenue if they refuse.

The plaintiffs argue these demands are not only legally unenforceable but blatantly unconstitutional. “Where Americans are concerned, the Online Safety Act purports to legislate the Constitution out of existence,” the lawsuit states.

Central to the challenge is the claim that Ofcom, a British corporate regulator funded by the very companies it polices, is attempting to impose UK-style speech control on a global scale.

According to the complaint, Ofcom has no lawful authority to regulate US platforms, let alone to compel speech or force the removal of content that is protected under the US Constitution.

The filing asserts that Ofcom’s threats of imprisonment and massive fines, coupled with demands for speech censorship and compelled disclosure of sensitive company information, constitute “egregious violations of Americans’ civil rights.”

The UK regulator has already targeted both platforms with a series of legal notices and threats, despite lacking jurisdiction or proper legal process.

These include multiple emails and letters declaring 4chan and Kiwi Farms in breach of UK law, none of which were served under the required UK-US Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.

The plaintiffs argue that these attempts at enforcement are not just improper, but “repugnant to United States public policy.”

“Ofcom purports to regulate content and interactions on platforms and services with which Plaintiffs’ users are voluntarily interacting,” the complaint says. “Ofcom seeks to control those interactions in order to satisfy the whims of Ofcom employees or the UK law enforcement or political apparatuses.”

Notably, both platforms have limited or no access for UK users in response to the threats. Kiwi Farms, for instance, blocked UK IPs entirely after receiving what it interpreted as an impending Section 100 order demanding compliance.

The lawsuit requests the court to block Ofcom from issuing further demands without going through proper international legal channels and to declare the Online Safety Act’s enforcement efforts unenforceable in the United States.

It also seeks a permanent injunction against any future attempts by Ofcom to impose UK regulations on the plaintiffs.

The case stands as a direct confrontation between two visions of the internet: one based on the US constitutional tradition of free speech and open access, and another that embraces government-mandated safety regimes that can be weaponized to silence speech on a global scale.

For the plaintiffs, the message is clear: they will not yield to foreign censors. As the suit puts it, “Delaware and West Virginia are not part of the UK. Their citizens, both natural and corporate, do not answer to the UK.”

Preston Byrne of Byrne & Storm, P.C., who represents the plaintiffs, told Reclaim The Net the platforms are refusing to comply with Ofcom’s demands because “American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail.”

He praised the decision by 4chan and Kiwi Farms to stand firm against the foreign regulator, stating, “In the face of these foreign demands, our clients have bravely chosen to assert their constitutional rights.”

Byrne characterized the UK’s censorship law as a calculated attack on the American tech sector, warning that “the UK Online Safety Act is a brazen attempt by a foreign country to hobble American competitiveness and suffocate American freedom by exporting the UK’s censorship laws to our shores.”

He made it clear that the legal team would not allow such interference to go unanswered: “The First Amendment bar is prepared to hale any foreign censor into federal court at any time to defend any American.”

In a statement to Reclaim The Net, Ronald Coleman of the Coleman Law Firm, P.C., co-counsel in the suit, framed the case as a broader defense of national sovereignty and individual liberty.

Keep reading