Tag: private property

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

House Vote Keeps Federal “Kill Switch” Vehicle Mandate Despite Privacy Concerns

A Republican attempt to cut off federal funding tied to vehicle “kill switch” enforcement failed in the House this week, leaving intact a law directing the Department of Transportation to develop mandatory impaired-driving prevention systems in new vehicles.

The proposal, led by Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, sought to bar the government from spending money to advance or enforce the measure, formally known as Section 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

The amendment was added to a broader spending bill, H.R. 7148, but was defeated 268 to 164. According to the House Clerk’s official roll call, 160 Republicans supported it, joined by four Democrats, while 57 Republicans and 211 Democrats voted against it.

Massie’s measure would have “prohibit[ed] the use of funds made available by this Act to implement section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, including any requirements enabling or supporting vehicle ‘kill switch’ technology.”

His goal was to block any federal action that could force automakers to install technology capable of monitoring driver behavior and intervening when impairment is detected.

Following the vote, Massie wrote on X: “Unfortunately, the amendment I offered to defund the federally mandated automobile kill switch did not pass. 57 Republicans joined 211 Democrats to defeat it.”

The Kentucky lawmaker has led several efforts on this issue, including the “No Kill Switches in Cars Act” introduced in early 2025, which would “repeal a requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to issue certain regulations with respect to advanced impaired driving technology.”

Although the technology has not yet been required in any vehicle, the 2021 infrastructure law compels the Department of Transportation to develop regulations mandating its use. The legislative text refers broadly to systems that can “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation” if impairment is detected, but it leaves the technical design and privacy boundaries to regulators.

Four Democrats, Representatives J. Luis Correa of California, Val Hoyle of Oregon, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, joined most Republicans in supporting Massie’s amendment. The final tally recorded 164 in favor, 268 against, none present, and four not voting.

Those opposing the amendment argue that the technology could prevent thousands of deaths caused by drunk driving.

Keep reading

Billionaire Sports Mogul Has Quietly Become America’s Largest Private Landowner

Stan Kroenke, the billionaire sports magnate who owns the NFL’s Los Angeles Rams and England’s Arsenal FC, has quietly ascended to the top of America’s private landownership rankings, controlling more than 2.7 million acres following a blockbuster off-market acquisition in December, according to The Land Report.

The deal saw Kroenke purchase over 937,000 acres of ranchland in New Mexico from the heirs of Teledyne founder Henry Singleton, marking the largest single private land transaction in the U.S. in more than a decade, according to The Land Report’s 2026 ranking of the nation’s 100 largest landowners.

The noncontiguous parcels, focused on cattle and horse operations, vaulted Kroenke from fourth place into the No. 1 spot, surpassing the Emmerson family’s 2.44 million acres of timberland through Sierra Pacific Industries, Liberty Media’s John Malone at 2.2 million acres, and former CNN owner Ted Turner’s 2 million acres, Fox Business reports.

Kroenke, who built his fortune in real estate development before expanding into professional sports, has assembled his sprawling portfolio – primarily ranching and grazing land – across the American West and into Canada over decades.

Key holdings include the 560,000-acre Q Creek Ranch in Wyoming, the historic 535,000-acre Waggoner Ranch in Texas, Montana’s Broken O Ranch, Nevada’s Winecup Gamble Ranch, and British Columbia’s Douglas Lake Ranch, according to The Land Report.

How staggering is Kroenke’s total land holdings?

Well, it now exceeds the size of Yellowstone National Park and equates to roughly 2 million football fields, according to Fox Business.

Keep reading

Justice Jackson Cites Racist ‘Black Codes’ As Precedent To Justify Gun Control In Hawaii

During oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the post-Civil War “Black Codes” – a set of openly racist laws enacted in the Democrat-controlled South to strip newly freed Black Americans of basic rights, including the right to possess firearms – could serve as legitimate historical precedent under the Supreme Court’s Bruen test. That test evaluates modern gun laws by asking whether similar restrictions were accepted in the nation’s historical tradition. The case concerns a Hawaii law that bars licensed gun owners from carrying firearms onto privately owned property open to the public. Jackson relying on the Black Codes for constitutional guidance is hilarious, as those laws were explicitly designed to deny civil rights to Black Americans in defiance of emancipation.

The exchange unfolded as Justice Jackson pressed U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris on why post–Civil War Black Codes should be excluded from consideration when courts examine modern-day gun control laws. Hawaii relied on a 1865 Louisiana statute as historical support for its law, a statute even Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing Hawaii, admitted was “undoubtedly a relic of a shameful portion of American history.”

“So, I guess I really don’t understand your response to Justice Gorsuch on the Black Codes,” Jackson began. She explained that, under Bruen, courts are required to look to history and tradition to assess constitutionality. “The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make.”

Harris responded by emphasizing the fundamentally racist purpose of those laws. “Black Codes were unconstitutional from the moment of their inception because they are pretextual laws that are designed to ensure that newly freed slaves are returned to a condition of sharecropping.”

Justice Jackson, a black woman, immediately pushed back. “Okay, let me stop you there. They were not deemed unconstitutional at the time that they were enacted,” she said. “They were part of the history and tradition of the country, and when we have a test now that’s asking us to look at what people were doing back then, I don’t understand why they should be excluded.”

Harris reiterated that point. “Because they are outliers. They are, by definition, unconstitutional. They have always been unconstitutional.”

Jackson bizarrely remained unconvinced. “Found later, afterwards, not at the time,” she said, returning to the Bruen framework. “And if the test says what’s happening at the time tells us what’s constitutional for this purpose, why aren’t they in?”

Harris responded by insisting the laws should be disregarded because they were aberrations and unconstitutional from their inception.

But Jackson rejected that framing. She argued that their unconstitutionality was determined later, not contemporaneously, making it a legitimate precedent. And, according to Jackson, if the test looks to historical practice at the time of enactment, she asked, why should those laws be left out?

Harris attempted to explain how a law could be unconstitutional from inception, while still accounting for historical analysis. Jackson claimed that Harris’s position effectively dismissed history altogether. When Harris denied that implication, Jackson underscored the contradiction by noting that history either matters under Bruen or it does not.

Harris then stressed that historical inquiry remains essential, though not indiscriminate. “We should deeply care about the history,” she said, adding that Bruen requires courts to identify a genuine national tradition by excluding aberrations. She described the Black Codes as precisely that — laws enacted “for the purpose of trying to reduce newly freed slaves back to conditions of servitude,” including measures that criminalized carrying arms on private property. “Those are obvious outliers which should not count under the whole point of Bruen.”

Keep reading

Mamdani Pressed on ‘The View’ Over Appointee Who Labeled Homeownership ‘Weapon of White Supremacy’ 

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was confronted on national television Tuesday over controversial past statements made by one of his appointees, as well as other members of his administration, during an appearance on The View, as reported by Fox News.

The exchange centered on comments made by Cea Weaver, whom Mamdani appointed as director of the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants.

Weaver has drawn attention for prior social media posts criticizing homeownership and calling for communist electoral victories.

During the interview, co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin raised concerns about the message sent by the mayor’s staffing decisions.

“Some appointees have come under fire for past social media posts, this often happens when new administrations come in,” Griffin said.

“Your new chief equity officer made several now-deleted comments disparaging liberal White women. Your tenant advocate tweeted that homeownership was a weapon of White supremacy and called to elect more communists, among other posts. What message do you think this conveys to New Yorkers, and how would you push back on this?”

Mamdani responded by directing attention to his own public statements and priorities as mayor.

Keep reading

Immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says

Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.

The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections and upends years of advice given to immigrant communities.

The shift comes as the Trump administration dramatically expands immigration arrests nationwide, deploying thousands of officers under a mass deportation campaign that is already reshaping enforcement tactics in cities such as Minneapolis.

For years, immigrant advocates, legal aid groups and local governments have urged people not to open their doors to immigration agents unless they are shown a warrant signed by a judge. That guidance is rooted in Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit law enforcement from entering a home without judicial approval. The ICE directive directly undercuts that advice at a time when arrests are accelerating under the administration’s immigration crackdown.

Keep reading