Tag: police state

P’Nut The Squirrel’s Owners Sue New York For $10M After Raid, Decapitation

The owners P’Nut – a beloved squirrel that was seized and euthanized by the state of New York are suing for $10 million in damages over the death of their pets, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in New York Court of Claims.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation staged a five-hour raid on the home of Mark Luongo after an anonymous complaint was lodged against the P’nuts Freedom Farm, where internet sensation Peanut the squirrel was taken into custody along with his sidekick, Fred the raccoon – before the state euthanized both animals ‘in order to test for rabies.’

DEC officials claimed that P’Nut but an agent through thick leather gloves during the raid, necessitating both the squirrel and raccoon be decapitated and tested for rabies. The state later admitted that both tests were negative, and have never apologized nor returned the bodies of the pets. 

According to court documents, P’Nut and Fred’s execution were “not due to a fear of rabies,” but a “senseless act of violence” and “obscene demonstration of government abuse.” 

This lawsuit comes on top of a previous suit filed by Longo and Bittner on June 27 in Chemung County Supreme Court against the City of Elmira and 36 individuals from various levels of state and local office – and seeks unspecified damages via jury trial. 

The couple claims they’ve suffered emotional trauma and financial losses since losing their star squirrel – who had appeared all over social media (including OnlyFans !?), according to both lawsuits. 

Keep reading

Tornado Cash Co-Founder Roman Storm Convicted, Raising Fears for Privacy Rights and Open-Source Development

Roman Storm’s guilty verdict is sending shockwaves through privacy advocates and the open-source development community, with many warning it could change how the US criminal justice system treats creators of decentralized tools.

A federal jury in New York on August 6 convicted the Tornado Cash co-founder of operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business, a charge that could carry up to five years in prison. Jurors could not agree on two other allegations, conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to breach US sanctions, leaving prosecutors the option to bring those charges to trial again.

Tornado Cash, launched in 2019 by Storm along with Alexey Pertsev and Roman Semenov, was designed to obscure the origins of cryptocurrency transactions and give users financial privacy.

Although the protocol never took control of user funds, US authorities claimed it had been exploited for laundering illicit proceeds and sanctioned it before later reversing that decision in March. Pertsev is facing trial in the Netherlands, Semenov is still wanted by the FBI, and Storm’s arrest took place a year after Pertsev’s.

In September 2024, Judge Katherine Failla allowed the case to move forward, ruling that Tornado Cash met the definition of a money transmitter under federal law and should have followed Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer rules. Privacy supporters have long argued that holding developers accountable for the actions of users, particularly when they lack the technical ability to intervene, creates a dangerous precedent.

The Blockchain Association, a crypto policy group, called the decision “a dangerous precedent for open-source software developers.”

In an earlier amicus brief, it said Storm had no custody or control over the funds moving through Tornado Cash and warned the ruling could lead to criminal charges against creators of browsers, messaging apps, or other tools if those were misused.

Keep reading

Push To Cut Livestock For Climate Goals (Due To Burping & Farting) Worries UK Farmers, Ecologists

UK government advisers have urged deep cuts to the country’s cattle and sheep numbers to reduce the overall levels of methane emissions.

Officials insist no mass cull is planned.

But farmers are concerned that it’s part of a growing push to reduce livestock levels, which could sacrifice traditional grazing and damage the fragile ecosystems it supports. 

The UK’s net-zero policies go further than those of the European Commission, where cattle farms remain outside regulatory crosshairs until next year.

In February, the UK’s independent adviser on climate action, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), whose advice strongly guides government policy, recommended a 27 percent decrease in cattle and sheep numbers by 2040 in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the UK government, agriculture is the country’s largest source of domestic methane emissions, accounting for 49 percent of total emissions. Of this, around 85 percent of agricultural methane comes from cows and other ruminant animals through enteric fermentation and is released as mostly burps but also flatulence.

One discussed option in the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee’s 2024 report as a mitigation strategy included “reducing ruminant livestock numbers, enabled by dietary change and reduced food waste.”

‘It’s Completely Backwards’

Britain’s livestock farms, which are mostly grass-based, are integrated into the iconic patchwork countryside, with sheep and cattle grazing in open fields divided by hedgerows and stone walls as part of a complex natural ecosystem.

Alan Hughes, a fourth-generation tenant farmer who is part of the Farmers to Action agricultural rights campaign, told The Epoch Times that wider net-zero proposals on livestock ignore the ecological function of grazing.

“It’s completely backwards to stop grazing. It causes fires, which then releases far more CO₂ than the livestock sequence by grazing,” he said.

He added that without sheep grazing, “sheep don’t eat the dry matter,” which then turns to kindling.

“This then starts wildfires, from the peat and from the crops which should have been eaten by the sheep, which causes a massive release of CO₂,” he said.

Beyond fire risk, Hughes said that reducing livestock also damages food security and degrades natural ecosystems.

“The biggest issue we’re going to have before long is not enough protein to feed our population, which is why they’re looking at bugs,” he said.

“If they force us to do more, I call it ‘less natural’ ways of production. If you don’t have livestock grazing, you don’t have the manure or improve the biodiversity of soil, and that’s when you get soil erosion, which causes deserts, or you’re forced to do vegetable crops.

“Now, when you plow up a field for vegetable crops, you kill the root structure of grass. Now that then turns to methane and carbon dioxide, which is actually released.”

Keep reading

Age-Restricted Taxi Tracking? The Absurd Consequences Of Britain’s Online Safety Act

I was recently travelling in the UK and, after a lot of sightseeing on foot, decided to order a taxi to go back to my hotel.

I searched the internet for a local taxi firm and found one with relative ease. I called the number and went through an automated process which worked well. I managed to book a taxi quickly. The computer-generated voice told me that my taxi was on its way. I was sent a link so that I could monitor the progress of my taxi. The message also said that I would know the taxi driver’s name and the type of vehicle and registration number that was on its way….

I can’t understand why anyone would consider a link to show you the progress of a taxi that you have ordered to be age-inappropriate content.

I can only assume that it is to do with the recent Online Safety Act, although coincidentally I had recently changed mobile providers, so it might purely have been that the mobile provider that I’d switched to had a different standard as to what was considered adult content.

I doubt this on the basis that the company I moved to, Talkmobile, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the company I had used previously, Vodafone, and, as you can see, the block was from Vodafone.

Whoever has decided that this link contains age-restricted content hasn’t necessarily thought this through.

Consider the scenario where a 17 year-old girl can’t get hold of her parents and it’s too far away or she does not want to walk home, so she orders a taxi through a reputable taxi service.

A link is sent to her so she can see the progress of the taxi that she has ordered.

Of course, she can’t open it because it’s considered age-inappropriate and, being only 17, she’s not in a position to prove that she’s over 18 and thus get the link to the taxi.

Thankfully it’s rare, but we do know that there are predators out there who will look for people who are vulnerable, and it’s not difficult to spot someone who’s waiting for somebody to pick them up or waiting for a taxi, because every time a car approaches the person will look up from whatever they’re doing to see if it’s the car that’s picking them up.

All it would take would be for a predator to be around at that time, pull the window down and say, “Did you call for a taxi?” and, of course, because she’s just ordered one, she believes this is her taxi, so she gets in, perhaps never to be seen again — all because some moron has decided that a link to follow the progress of a taxi is something you’re not allowed to see if you’re under the age of 18.

Keep reading

New EU Media “Freedom Law” Allows for Journalist Arrests if Justified by “Public Interest”

The European Union’s “European Media Freedom Act” became binding law across all member states on August 8, but behind its name lies a set of provisions that could restrict the very freedoms it claims to safeguard.

We obtained a copy of the act for you here.

Alongside language about protecting reporters, the regulation authorizes arrests, sanctions, and surveillance of journalists whenever authorities say it serves an “overriding reason in the general interest.”

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, hailed the legislation’s arrival on social media, saying, “A free and independent press is an essential pillar of our democracy. With our European Media Freedom Act, we want to improve their protection. This allows journalists to continue their important work safely and without disruption or intimidation.”

Although the law outlines protections such as prohibiting spyware or coercion to expose sources, those assurances are undercut by built-in loopholes.

Governments can bypass them if their actions are allowed under national or EU law and deemed proportionate to a vaguely defined “general interest.”

That permission extends to intrusive surveillance technologies in cases tied to crimes carrying a maximum prison term of three years or more, a list that ranges from terrorism and human trafficking to offenses labeled as “racism and xenophobia.”

The legislation also orders each country to maintain registers of media owners and addresses. It targets so-called “disinformation,” accusing some media outlets of manipulating the single market to spread falsehoods.

Large online platforms are portrayed as choke points for access to news, blamed for fueling polarization.

Keep reading

Texas DA known for naked stunts faces five years in prison after posting video of herself smoking weed in her garden

Best known for a viral video in which she straddled an oil pumping jack while topless and bottomless, a Texas elected official now faces jail time after smoking a joint on TikTok.

District Attorney Sarah Stogner, 41, could be incarceration after she posted a social media video of herself smoking weed in protest of a state ban on THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. 

The Republican made headlines in 2022 when she posted the viral clip of her riding the oil pump jack at the time she was running to be the state’s railroad commissioner.

Stogner, now the DA of Texas’s 143rd judicial district near Pecos, hopes her latest stunt might shame Texas into legalizing weed – especially if she is arrested and made a martyr for the cause. 

‘I did this to raise attention,’ she told Newsweek. 

‘Its silly that our elected officials want to completely ban THC when that’s not what our constituents want.’

Medical marijuana is legal in Texas, but recreational use of the drug is not. 

And in recent weeks, Lone Star State lawmakers passed a bill banning any products containing any ‘detectable amount of any cannabinoid.’

If signed into law, the bill would outlaw the majority of hemp products, including those that are legal under the federal definition in Texas. 

Keep reading

Trump DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Uphold Ban On Marijuana Users Owning Guns

Amid a series of legal challenges, the Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case on the federal government’s ban on users of marijuana and other illegal drugs from owning firearms and uphold the prohibition, saying it is consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

To that end, the DOJ solicitor general is urging SCOTUS to hear one of five relevant cases to resolve conflicting lower court decisions on gun rights for cannabis consumers.

With the multiple competing legal cases resulting in differing rulings in federal appeals courts across the country, DOJ last week requested that SCOTUS review one in particular that it described as “archetypal” of the issue related to federal code 922(g)(3), which precludes users of unlawful drugs from having guns or ammo.

The case “presents an important Second Amendment issue that affects hundreds of prosecutions every year: whether the government may disarm individuals who habitually use unlawful drugs but are not necessarily under the influence while possessing a firearm,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, an appointee of President Donald Trump, said.

The solicitor general reiterated his position that, despite recent appeals court decisions calling into question the constitutionality of the firearms ban for people who use cannabis—even in compliance with state law—the restriction is nevertheless lawful.

Some lower courts have said the government’s blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.

But over recent years, various federal district and appeals courts have take differing approaches to the issue. As DOJ argued in its latest filing in the case, “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.”

“The petition for a writ of certiorari [filed by Sauer in June] identified three sides of that conflict: The Seventh Circuit has upheld Section 922(g)(3); the Eighth Circuit has held it violates the Second Amendment unless the government can make a case-by-case showing justifying the drug user’s disarmament; and the Fifth Circuit has held that it generally violates the Second Amendment unless the drug user was intoxicated while possessing the firearm.”

“Since then, the conflict has deepened,” it said, referring to several other cases on the issue that are pending before the high court. And DOJ wants SCOTUS to focus on one case in particular to resolve what it called a “four-way circuit conflict”: U.S. v. Hemani.

One reason DOJ could be focused on the justices taking up Hemani in particular is that the defendant in that case is not only a cannabis user but also a user of cocaine who’s sold drugs in the past, according to court findings, which could make him less sympathetic in the eyes of the court. Defendants in the other cases were merely found in possession of both a firearm and marijuana.

Lawyers for the defendant in Hemani argued in a brief last month that the high court should decline the case.

But in its reply brief submitted to SCOTUS this week, the Justice Department said that “this case is the best vehicle available.”

Keep reading

Conservative Moms Org Labeled ‘Hate Group’ in Police Training

A police training entity in Massachusetts asserted that Moms for Liberty, a nationwide conservative grassroots parental rights coalition, is a “hate group.”

The designation was made by the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee, an entity which trains over 20,000 officers across Massachusetts.

A Friday report from The Daily Wire, which first covered the story, said that Moms for Liberty was listed alongside other “Hate Groups.”

Some of those other groups included Antifa and various Neo-Nazis.

The slides claimed that Moms for Liberty is an “anti-government extremist” entity.

The training materials also said that Moms for Liberty opposes “books that reference race and gender identity.”

The group has indeed mobilized conservative parents nationwide to raise the alarm over heavily sexualized books, as well as those with leftist ideological themes.

The training accused Moms for Liberty of purportedly using “parents’ rights as a vehicle to attack public education and make schools less welcoming for minority and LGBTQ students.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Moms for Liberty an “anti-government extremist,” a reality likewise cited by the training materials.

“Moms for Liberty is here to show up at school board meetings, speak out against curriculum, failing schools, inappropriate books maybe in your public school library,” Tina Descovich, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, reacted to the designation of her group.

“Antifa is burning down whole cities and parts of cities and rioting in the streets,” she said.

“These two are not equivalent.”

Moms for Liberty secured copies of the training documents through a freedom of information request of the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee.

“We have to ask what is going on here in Massachusetts with these trainings to police officers,” Descovich said.

“We are not conducting ourselves in a way that police ever need to be concerned about the way we act,” she continued.

“As a matter of fact, our chapter chair there in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, who is the one that brought all this to my attention, said she has local members of their police force come up to her all the time.”

“Please keep going. We can’t talk about it publicly, but I have kids. I appreciate you guys speaking out. So thank you for your courage and your bravery,” the officers reportedly say.

Keep reading

Canadians In Nova Scotia Now Banned From Using Public Forests

Tyranny is a process of acclimation.  Governments test the public to see what they will quietly tolerate; leaders then turn “temporary” restrictions into permanent laws as people are conditioned to accept the new normal.  Sometimes the public fights back and officials are forced to retreat.  However, the tests never end and the bureaucracy continues to press year after year until it gets what it wants.

Many commentators have noticed that the Canadian government has been expediting this authoritarian process in recent years to the point that the intentions of elitist politicians can no longer be misunderstood.  The mask is fully off and the country is becoming a draconian cesspool.  From censorship laws, to gun bans, to carbon taxes and even legislation that turns Christian worship into “hate speech”, Canada is almost every bit as cooked as their commonwealth cousins in Britain. 

Every few weeks it seems a new and oppressive mandate is enforced.  This month, the province of Nova Scotia has abruptly banned nearly all civilian activity in public forests.  It is illegal for Canadians to walk, hike, drive, camp (outside of official campgrounds) or fish in Nova Scotia’s woods and anyone caught without a heavily regulated permit is subject to extreme fines.  Smaller parks that have woods are also restricted.  The bans will continue until October 15th unless the provincial government decides to extend.

The offices for obtaining work permits have been swamped with requests and questions and citizens have been told to stop calling.  At least one citizen, Canadian veteran Jeff Evely, has challenged the law and has been fined over $28,000 simply for walking into the forest.

Keep reading

‘No rational reason’: Court strikes government restriction on customers who want to visit home-based businesses

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, located in Nashville, has struck down a municipal ordinance that limited the number of customers who could visit a home-based business.

It is invalid because it discriminated based on the type business it was.

According to a report from the Institute for Justice, which fought on behalf of record producer Lij Shaw and hairstylist Pat Raynor, Nashville’s rule allowed the two only six client visits a day at their businesses.

And then the city came up with “invasive and burdensome requirements.”

However, other businesses based in homes, such as short-term rentals, home daycares, historic homes and more, were allowed to have 12 or more clients daily, “free from additional requirements.”

“This kind of arbitrary favoritism has no place under the Tennessee Constitution,” explained Paul Avelar, a lawyer for the IJ. “Lij and Pat have a constitutional right to use their homes to earn an honest living. But Nashville treats their home-based businesses worse than other, privileged, home-based businesses for no real reason.”

The lawsuit stems from the city’s 2017 attacks on the two businesses, in which it shut them down.

Then came COVD, and the city allowed them to have six client visits daily.

Now a unanimous ruling from Judges Frank Clement, Andy Bennett, and Jeffrey Usman agreed with the claims that the city had not offered good reasons for favoring some home business over others.

The ruling said, “Metro has offered no rational reason for the difference in treatment that is relevant to the purpose of the law.”

The case already has been to the state Supreme Court, which rejected a lower court’s dismissal and reinstated it for further opinions at the lower court level.

At first, the lower court claimed the limits were “constitutional because they were rationally related to the city’s interests in preserving the residential nature of neighborhoods.”

The appeals ruling noted that the city changed its code during the time period that the lawsuit was pending. But throughout the proceedings the city exempted short-term rentals, home-based daycares, historic buildings and such.

The case ended up addressing the city’s irrational decision to distinguish between different types of home-related businesses.

“Plaintiffs argued that there was no rational reason that was relevant to the purpose of the law for distinguishing between their businesses and the Exempt Businesses. In support, Plaintiffs produced evidence that their businesses had no more of an impact on the residential character of neighborhoods than the Exempt Businesses,” the ruling said.

The opinion noted the city didn’t even try to dispute that.

Keep reading