Tag: private property

The Kill Switch Society

There was a time — not very long ago — when the automobile represented one of the clearest expressions of individual choice in a free society. Limited only by fuel, roads, and imagination, a person could choose where to go, when to go, and how to get there. The car was not merely a machine. It was mobility made personal — an extension of autonomy and freedom.

Sadly, that is no longer the case. Increasingly, this same instrument, once a tool to facilitate individual independence, has been repurposed into a system of monitoring and control. Though advertised as safety measures for the consumer, these measures were clearly designed to empower the state.

Modern vehicles are no longer just mechanical devices; they are computers on wheels. Embedded sensors track speed, braking patterns, seatbelt usage, location, and even driver attention. Event Data Recorders — commonly referred to as “black boxes” — have been standard in most new vehicles for years. Originally justified as instruments to reconstruct accidents, these devices record data in the moments before a crash. Few object to understanding the causes of collisions. But it is worth noting that once data exists, its use rarely remains confined to its original purpose.

Insurance companies now seek access to driving data to adjust premiums. Law enforcement agencies have used vehicle data in criminal investigations. Courts have admitted such data as evidence. Each of these developments can be justified in isolation. Together, they represent a quiet but unmistakable shift: the automobile is no longer simply your property — it is a source of information about you.

More recently, legislative developments have accelerated this trend. The federal infrastructure legislation passed in 2021 includes a mandate for advanced impaired driving prevention technology to be installed in all new vehicles within the coming years. While often described in benign terms — systems that passively detect intoxication or driver impairment — the practical reality is that these systems must continuously monitor driver behavior in order to function. Monitoring creates data. And data, once created, rarely remains unused. It takes on a life of its own.

Proposals and discussions around remote vehicle disablement — popularly referred to as “kill switches” — have raised further concerns. While proponents argue that such features could prevent high-speed chases or stop stolen vehicles, the existence of remote-control capabilities introduces a fundamentally different relationship between the individual and the machine. A car that can be disabled remotely is clearly not under the control of its owner.

History suggests that powers granted for limited purposes seldom remain limited. Civil asset forfeiture, initially justified as a tool against organized crime, expanded into widespread seizures affecting ordinary citizens. Surveillance authorities granted for national security purposes have been used in far broader contexts. It would be historically naïve to assume that vehicle control technologies would be immune to similar expansion.

Keep reading

Is This the Scandal That Dooms Josh Shapiro’s Presidential Ambitions?

Josh Shapiro has spent years polishing his image, positioning himself as a potential presidential candidate. He hasn’t quite figured out that his party will never nominate a Jew for president, so you would think he’d still try to keep up appearances and pretend to be a decent human being before he starts his presidential campaign next year.

Instead, he’s making headlines for something extremely unflattering: a backyard land grab that truly destroys his statesman image and makes him out to be more like a corrupt governor abusing his position to get what he wants.

“Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s neighbors are suing the Democrat, accusing him of stealing a slice of their land to erect an eight-foot-high security fence around his private residence in an ‘outrageous abuse of power,’” reports the New York Post. “The neighbors, Jeremy and Simone Mock, are currently duking it out with the governor in court over a 2,900 square foot parcel of land located between their two homes in Abington, Montgomery County, court papers show.”

It gets worse. Shapiro is essentially claiming squatter’s rights on the land.

The Mocks alleged in a lawsuit filed last month that Shapiro and his wife, Lori, unlawfully seized the stretch of land after initial negotiations to buy it from them went up in flames.

Shapiro claimed in a countersuit that he owns the disputed land due, citing an “adverse possession” loophole that makes it his because he has maintained the sliver of property for decades.

The land-grab tit-for-tat kicked off last year when the Shapiros first sought to erect the huge fence and upgrade security following an arson attack on the governor’s official residence in Harrisburg while they were all sleeping inside on April 13.

“This is a case of squatters’ rights, which is the colloquial term for the legal doctrine known as adverse possession,” attorney Chad Cummings told Realtor.com. “Where a person continuously maintains possession of another’s property openly, visibly, and notoriously for a set period of time, which varies by state, the squatter can file a court action to ask the court to recognize the squatter—the ‘adverse possessor’—as the legal owner through a quiet title action.”

Think it can’t get worse? Well, it does.

Keep reading

One in Five California Home Sales Canceled Due to Unaffordable Insurance

Glenn and Lorraine Crawford paid about $500 a month to insure their home in Agoura Hills northwest of Los Angeles when they bought it in 2012.

The Crawfords say they have little alternative but to pay the bill that arrived last month, which, at more than $44,000 a year, is almost as much as their mortgage bill. The only other insurer willing to cover their home, Lloyd’s of London, quoted them $80,000 a year.

More than a year after infernos tore through Los Angeles County, millions of Californians like the Crawfords are suffering through a home-insurance crisis that has rolled on for years with eye-watering rate increases, canceled policies and rejected claims.

Two of the biggest insurers, State Farm and Allstate, aren’t selling to new customers in the state, despite getting double-digit rate increases approved for their existing policyholders. A third, Farmers Insurance, has committed to cover more homes in fire-prone areas, but only a fraction compared with the drop in its overall number of policies since the crisis began.

The insurance dysfunction has spread to California’s housing market, the country’s biggest and most expensive, with nearly one-in-five real-estate agents reporting a canceled sale last year because of clients unable to find affordable insurance, according to a survey by the trade body California Association of Realtors.

The roots of California’s insurance crisis go back years. The state’s tough rate caps kept premiums low. But home insurers eventually balked, saying they couldn’t charge enough to cover rising wildfire and other losses, made worse by climate change and development. Insurers didn’t renew tens of thousands of policies, especially in fire-prone areas.

California’s uphill battle to draw insurers back could prove a template—or cautionary tale—for other disaster-prone states. New rules implemented last year, for instance, require home-insurers in the state to pledge to sell new policies in high-risk wildfire zones, in return for allowing them to charge higher rates.

As part of a request for a 6.99% rate increase, Farmers, the second-biggest home-insurer in the state, pledged to add at least 5,596 policies in high-risk areas by September 2028. That is less than a 10th of the 59,806 reduction in Farmers’ total number of California home-insurance policies in the previous two years, according to a Consumer Watchdog analysis.

Others continue to shun the state despite winning big concessions. California regulators approved a 34% rate increase for Allstate in 2024. Yet it has no “growth aspirations” in California home insurance, Chief Executive Tom Wilson said last year, adding that it would take time to fix the market. A spokesman said that remains Allstate’s position.

Keep reading

Oregon moves to penalize landlords who reveal tenants’ immigration status

Oregon lawmakers have approved a bill that would allow tenants to collect up to twice their monthly rent in court if landlords disclose their immigration status, the latest move by the state to expand protections for illegal aliens.

According to The Oregonian, House Bill 4123 passed the Oregon Senate Monday in a 24–3 vote and now heads to Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek’s desk. If signed into law, the measure would impose financial penalties on landlords who “knowingly” release confidential tenant information, including details about immigration or citizenship status, Social Security numbers, and medical or disability records. Under the proposal, tenants whose protected information is disclosed could sue to recover damages equal to two months’ rent.

The legislation builds on a 2025 Oregon law that already prohibits landlords from discriminating against tenants based on immigration status. That law also bars landlords from sharing or threatening to share a tenant’s citizenship information in order to harass, retaliate, or intimidate them. However, it did not include a set financial penalty for violations, instead leaving tenants to pursue legal remedies through the courts.

State Sen. Dick Anderson, R–Lincoln City and vice chair of the Senate Committee on Housing and Development, called the measure a “simple, common-sense” step to protect privacy. “This is a balanced approach that protects tenant privacy without burdening housing providers,” Anderson said during floor debate.

Landlord groups also signaled support after amendments clarified what information can still be shared. The bill allows landlords to provide routine contact details, such as phone numbers or email addresses, for maintenance and utility coordination. It also permits disclosure of information when required by court order, during affordable housing compliance audits, or when conducting background and credit checks.

Keep reading

Arizona Senators Take Up Bills To Criminalize ‘Excessive’ Marijuana Smoke, Even On Private Property

Arizona lawmakers are considering at a pair of measures that would make the act of creating “excessive” amounts of marijuana smoke a nuisance crime punishable by jail time, even if the person is using cannabis in compliance with state law in their own homes.

Sen. J.D. Mesnard (R) is sponsoring the two proposals—one that would amend state statute legislatively that would put the issue before voters at the ballot. Members of the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee are set to consider the proposals this week.

The lawmaker said he decided to push the issue due to the smell of marijuana in his own neighborhood.

Both versions of Mesnard’s legislation stipulate that “it is presumed that a person who creates excessive marijuana smoke and odor causes a condition that endangers the safety or health of others.”

The reason behind having both a proposed bill and resolution is related to the potential legal challenges of lawmakers changing the voter-approved marijuana legalization law.

The legislation would establish “a presumption that the creation of excessive marijuana smoke and odor is injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses and an obstruction to the free use of property that interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property,” a summary of the proposal says.

If enacted, the loosely defined offense of creating “excessive” marijuana smoke under the bill and resolution would be considered a class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail, a maximum $500 fine and up to one year of probation.

“I’m hearing from some people that, depending on their neighbor situation, they may not be able to have their kids go outside because the marijuana smoke is so potent,” Mesnard, the sponsor, said. “It can even creep into your own house or, in my case, into my garage.”

“But experiencing now what’s happened, even in my own neighborhood, is a pretty frustrating situation,” he told The Arizona Daily Star. “You should be responsible neighbors if you’re going to smoke pot… It can be a real issue for families, especially with kids.”

Asked about the seeming double standard given that no such nuisance offenses exist for smoking cigarettes or cigars on a private property, the senator said, “I’ll concede I hadn’t thought about it.”

Keep reading

Serial squatter’s lawyer says client used ‘squatter rights’ to take over $2.3 million Bethesda home—she’s back in the house after prison release

The lawyer of a convicted squatter said that his client was able to enter and “assume the property” of a $2.3 million home under so-called “squatters’ rights” in Maryland. The squatter, after being released from jail, was able to take over the home again.

Tamieka Goode as well as her partner Corey Pollard unlawfully took over a bank-owned mansion in Bethesda, Maryland, according to neighbors. Court records from last July show that Goode and Pollard were charged with trespassing and fourth-degree burglary. The charges were made in response to a filing from a 19-year-old who lives with his parents next door to the $2.3 million mansion, per Fox 5.

Videos that Goode has also posted online show her flaunting her lavish lifestyle in the home. “Less than two weeks of being incarcerated, Tamieka Goode is back in the house,” neighbor Ian Chen said, the same neighbor who reported Goode in the first place.

Goode spent 11 days in prison after she was convicted for squatting, posting a cash bail of $5,000. She also retained attorney Alex J. Webster, III, with Maronick Law to have him represent her in other court appearances.

After she was released, security footage showed she was back at the house squatting again. Goode’s lawyer, who thought he could ask reporters to “cut” the video when asked about her activities, said, “Well, Miss Goode did her research. She found out that a certain property was under the control of a certain group – there was a title issue.”

“Due to the title issue, she was able to assume the property under squatter’s rights,” he added.

After being asked about so-called “squatter rights” in Maryland, he said, “It’s not a particular squatter right, but there are rights known as squatter’s rights.”

He said that there are “loopholes” that “people do take advantage of, but loopholes are loopholes” and that Goode followed the “order of events” to exploit them and obtain residency in the property.

A neighbor in the area, who went by Mi, but did not share her full name, fears that the situation could “erupt into violence,” as others around Goode have been pushing her to get out of the home.

Keep reading

Inside Dem Socialists’ extreme plan for Los Angeles — seizing property, replacing cops and closing jails

A radical left-wing group in Los Angeles has published a shocking 40-page roadmap to transform the nation’s second-largest city into a bizarre socialist experiment.

The Democratic Socialists of America’s LA chapter wants to straight-up seize private property through a “creative use of eminent domain,” take control of your neighborhood grocery store, and replace cops with unarmed social workers while shutting down jails.

Their Communist fever dream wishlist includes banning Airbnbs, grabbing golf courses for public housing, allowing noncitizen immigrants to vote in local elections, enforce a school curriculum that supports social justice, and eliminating all fossil fuel use by 2035.

The 3,500 member group has already helped elect several candidates to local office, and previously backed Nithya Raman, a DSA-member now running for mayor. They openly trash the Democratic Party establishment as capitalist sellouts and want to build “working class power” through what they call a “socialist mass organization.”

The manifesto, published in 2025 is more than 9,000-words long and gives an insight into the policies that a potential Mayor Raman has signed up to as a DSA member and could try to implement in LA. It targets the “status quo coalition” of elected officials, real estate developers, billionaires, nonprofits, and even some union leaders who’ve supposedly sold out workers.

They think they can actually pull this off in six to eight years through local elections and organizing.

“We are on the burning edge of the economic, climate, and moral crises that define this generation,” the manifesto warns, adding ominously: “The choice remains socialism or barbarism.”

Keep reading

EU Court Confirms Right to Confiscate Cars Imported From Russia in Violation of Sanctions

The EU Court confirmed the right of EU countries to confiscate cars imported from Russia in violation of sanctions.

“The prohibition, laid down by that provision, on purchasing, importing or transferring into the European Union applies to any good falling under the Combined Nomenclature codes listed in Annex XXI to Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022, without it being necessary to verify, for each individual transaction, whether the purchase, importation or transfer in question generates significant revenues for the Russian Federation,” the statement, published on Thursday, said.

The sanctions on goods from Russia also apply to individuals, the court said, adding that cars imported from Russia in violation of sanctions not subject to registration in bloc, can be seized.

Keep reading

The Great Taking: Global Looting of Humanity Imminent?

When the globalist World Economic Forum (WEF) predicted in 2015 that “you will own nothing and be happy” by 2030, people worldwide recoiled in horror at the thought, but almost nobody understood the mechanism by which it might take place. Now, thanks to brave whistleblowers and attorneys, the plan to seize virtually everything is plain to see. The real question at this point is: Can it be stopped before it’s too late? 

If the WEF’s Great Reset is the marketing campaign for global “transformation,” what retired investment banker David Webb calls “The Great Taking” is the legal and financial machinery designed to make the transformation unavoidable. The plan involves ending private-property rights in securities — stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments — to allow mega-banks allied with governments to take everything when the next crisis hits.

In essence, you no longer own your securities; the deed has already been done. The stocks and bonds in your retirement and investment accounts may seem like they are yours. But thanks to little-noticed changes in state law going back decades, they are actually not. And when a major economic and financial cataclysm strikes, the Deep State establishment and the governments and megabanks it controls will take over everything from you.   

Great Reset Reality

If the scheme is not stopped, the World Economic Forum’s prediction that “you will own nothing” could become a reality in the not-too-distant future. Imagine: Ownership and control of every publicly traded company in the hands of a tiny, megalomaniacal elite. And this plan is not just for the United States, but for the world.

Webb, who first blew the whistle on the scheme to steal all securities in recent years with a book and documentary that went viral, explains the operation in terms any non-finance person can understand. For centuries, stocks and bonds were treated as personal property, which insulated the public from failures inside the financial system.

“For hundreds of years … securities were your property,” he explained to this writer during a 2025 interview. “If the banker or the custodian failed … that was entirely their problem.” Historically, the investor could simply tell those holding the securities, “here’s where you send my stuff.” But that “bulletproof” protection is now gone, he warned.

“Security Entitlement”

In fact, even the direct record of ownership has been severed. Securities are now held in pooled form. And what investors possess is not ownership, but a legal abstraction. “You no longer have a property right — you have what’s called a security entitlement,” warned Webb.

Right now, that may not seem too important. After all, you can still call you broker, put in a sell order, and receive your cash. But when the next crisis hits — and many experts and economists believe it could be just around the corner — the significance of this change will be clear.   

This concept was first embedded into American law through amendments adopted across the states beginning in 1994. In short, through seemingly minor changes to commercial and contract law adopted quietly nationwide, Americans were stripped of their property rights to their securities.

The practical consequence is stark: “If the intermediary fails, you have no right to take your property back,” Webb explained.

Keep reading

A City Fined Her Over $100,000 for Parking on Her Own Grass. The Florida Supreme Court Won’t Hear Her Case.

What price should someone pay for three minor code violations?

For Sandy Martinez of Lantana, Florida, the answer is: over $165,000, plus interest, a sum so high that selling her house would be insufficient to pay off the debt, according to her complaint filed against the city in 2021. The Florida Supreme Court effectively closed the door on the case in December when it declined her appeal and left in place a decision that ruled the fines were not “excessive.” But Martinez’s little-known story is a microcosm of the broader debate over what, exactly, transgresses the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on fines that are unconstitutionally severe, especially as local governments are known to rely on such penalties to raise revenue.

Whether there is a disconnect between common sense and the law is open to interpretation. The bulk of her debt—over $100,000—comes from a parking job.

Keep reading