Tag: wrongful arrest

Militant Zionists Spur Arrest of Pro-Palestine Student, Judge Rules

A U.S. federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that the detention of a former student who expressed pro-Palestine views was unconstitutional and that it was a punitive measure triggered almost solely by a complaint from the Zionist militant group Betar.

Late last week, Judge Angel Kelley wrote in her decision that a former student at the University of Massachusetts (UMass), detained unlawfully by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), be released, providing the first court admission that a Zionist extremist groups is working with U.S. authorities to violate free speech rights.

Judge Kelley wrote that the government’s “pursuit of [the former student’s] detention seems to have been almost exclusively triggered by Betar Worldwide.” 

Keep reading

BATFE: “Show Me The Man, And I’ll Manufacture The Crime”

Guns don’t kill people.  People kill people.  

But people don’t kill people with replica guns, because they are not guns. 

The point appears to be lost on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATFE), the nation’s top cops for enforcing federal firearms laws. 

It’s nearly illegal, and very difficult, for regular civilians to get machine guns, or anti-tank rocket launchers.  But you can get replicas of either; at most, they’ll have been demilitarized, with things like triggers, bolts and firing pins removed and plugs welded into barrels; at the lower level, they are metal facismiles that are specifically deisgned not to be able to shoot anything, absent some fairly malicious ingenuity.  

Which brings us to the case of Patrick Adamlak – who had a business, selling not firearms, but replicas, including of “RPG’7s” – the Soviet-era “bazooka” famous from “Black Hawk Down” and countless third world wars – and of a “Sten” submachinine gun, a bargain-basement British weapon from World War 2 favored by Resistance groups on the continent.  

This is the story of Patrick “Tate” Adamlak, a US Navy Petty Officer First Class and candiate for Naval Special Warfare (from which we might deduce had had a clean criminal record), and his…gun store?

No.  Replica store.

Keep reading

Woman admits she made up rape claims that put innocent man in jail and reveals she targeted him over his ‘creepy’ looks

A 20-year-old Pennsylvania woman admitted she fabricated kidnapping and rape allegations that kept an innocent man locked up for over a month — saying she targeted the stranger because he was “creepy.”

Anjela Borisova Urumova is now facing jail time herself after pleading guilty to charges that she fabricated the sexual assault outside a local supermarket, the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office said.

Urumova claimed a 41-year-old man attacked her from behind outside a Redner’s supermarket on April 16, cooking up a story that the assailant pulled her pants down and smacked her, leaving a bruise on her face.

The phony victim, who had a cut lip at the time, fingered Daniel Person as her attacker, Law & Crime said.

She later confessed to cops that she got the cut on her lip from an object her grandmother, who suffers from dementia, threw at her when she walked into their home prior to the fake attack.

Keep reading

Vindictive: Merrick Garland DOJ Continues Reign of Error: Feds Arrest J6er Who Served ENTIRE SENTENCE

Military veteran and MAGA African-American radio broadcaster Darrell Neely – was re-arrested on November 4, 2024. Reportedly, the Merrick Garland DOJ has told January 6 prosecutors to continue with business as usual and prosecute Trump supporters with no change.

But the Garland DOJ is clearly engaged in an angry, vindictive campaign against January 6 Defendants, “big mad” that all their lawfare smears of Donald Trump failed. Instead, Friday’s hearing sailed through and Judge Bates easily and quickly approved Darrell’s release with the able help of public defender Sandra Roland.

Today, December 14, Darrell is being released (again) from the D.C. Gulag, the jail in Washington, D.C. We did not want to report on this earlier because the DOJ kept the allegations of a probation violation under seal. Observers didn’t know what the charges might be except that his public defender said only that they were “technical” and to plan for him to be back in North Carolina shortly.

So we now have confirmation that there were only trivial and insignificant “technical” allegations about his probation. There were no surprises and no big deal. This, too, is a pattern many are seeing with the bitter clingers at the Biden DOJ. While Federal judges usually do not like having their time wasted, prosecutors are “violating” the probation of January 6 defendants on extremely minor issues that would normally be resolved at the probation officer level.

The only clues we had are that Darrell has been unable to pay restitution of $939.93. Like many others, such as John Mellis, even those with impeccable pre-January 6 work credentials have been unable to rent apartments or get jobs with the stigma of January 6 and/or just any criminal record.

Keep reading

‘Objectively outrageous’: Judge tosses criminal case against mom arrested for criticizing city official at public meeting

A state judge in Arizona this week tossed a criminal case against a woman who was arrested at a city council meeting for criticizing the pay raise and professional competence of a city attorney.

Justice of the Peace Gerald Williams on Wednesday had dismissed the trespassing charge filed against Rebekah Massie two months ago as unconstitutional, saying it was “objectively outrageous” for the government to attempt to control the content of her political speech.

“For more than two months I’ve been living with the threat of punishment and jail time — being taken away from my kids, even — for doing nothing more than criticizing the government,” Massie said in a statement following the ruling. “Free speech still matters in America, and I can’t tell you what a relief it is to have people on my side standing up for our rights with me.”

Against the request of prosecutors, the charge was dismissed “with prejudice,” meaning the case against Massie cannot be refiled at a later date.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Revives Lawsuit Against Missouri Cop Who Jailed a Man ‘for Being an Asshole’

On a Saturday night in May 2021, Mason Murphy was walking on the shoulder of a rural road in Sunrise Beach, a small Missouri town, when he was accosted by a local police officer, Michael Schmitt, who asked him to identify himself. Since Murphy was minding his own business and was not, as far as he knew, doing anything illegal, he did not think he should have to comply with that request. Murphy’s objection resulted in a nine-minute argument with Schmitt, who ultimately handcuffed Murphy and took him to jail, where he was detained for two hours.

Why? Schmitt had trouble answering that question. “I didn’t want him walking down my highway,” he told another officer at the jail. Schmitt also suggested that Murphy was being held “for being an asshole” and that he would stay in jail “until he decides to play nice.” Even after consulting with a senior officer and a local prosecutor, Schmitt could not come up with a valid reason to arrest Murphy, who was released without being charged.

Five months later, Murphy sued Schmitt for violating his First Amendment rights by arresting him in retaliation for constitutionally protected speech. A federal judge dismissed Murphy’s claim, and last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld that decision. But this week the U.S. Supreme Court revived Murphy’s lawsuit, remanding the case for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, a June 2024 decision that made it easier for victims of retaliatory arrests to make a case for compensation.

“This decision is a huge step forward, not just for Mason Murphy, but for all Americans who have been retaliated against by government officials for their speech,” said Marie Miller, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, which filed Murphy’s Supreme Court petition. “Our work is building lasting precedent, making it easier for people to hold officials accountable when their rights are violated. We will continue fighting until all Americans are protected against government retaliation.”

Although Schmitt evidently did not realize it at the time, Murphy had broken the law: He had violated Section 300.405.2 of Missouri’s statutes, which says: “Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction.” Murphy was walking on the right side of the road when Schmitt approached him—a fact to which the officer alluded during the initial encounter, most of which was recorded by Schmitt’s body camera.

Keep reading

Woman Sues After Being Arrested, Jailed, Tortured with Death-Metal Recordings Over Clerical Paperwork Blunder

Police refused to accept her own identification even though description didn’t match up.

A woman is suing Broward County, Florida, after law enforcement officers there arrested her for something someone else did, refusing to accept her own identification and ignoring the fact that the description of the wanted woman didn’t match.

The Institute for Justice reports the complaint against the county is on behalf of Jennifer Heath Box.

She charges authorities violated her constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, as well as due process.

The IJ explained the background:

In December 2022, Jennifer went on a cruise with family members to celebrate the news that her younger brother, Mark, had beat cancer for the second time. After a fun week aboard the Harmony of the Seas, the cruise ship returned to Port Everglades on the morning of Christmas Eve, giving Jennifer enough time to spend Christmas with her three adult children. But when Jennifer scanned her ID to get off the ship, police surrounded her and told her there was a warrant for her arrest for child endangerment out of Harris County, Texas.

The IJ reported the warrant did seek a woman named Jennifer, but it wasn’t this Jennifer. And she documented that her own children already all were adults.

“It was a really scary and confusing experience, because I’ve never had run-ins with law enforcement and I have no criminal record,” she explained. “I couldn’t believe that I could be stopped, arrested, and jailed, just because my name was similar to someone they were looking for.”

She knew the officers were wrong, so she cooperated calmly and provided police with her license and date of birth, as well as information about her children.

It didn’t matter to officers.

Keep reading

Man Who Was Arrested for Flipping Off Cop Settles for $175,000

A man who was arrested and charged for flipping off a Vermont State Police (VSP) officer settled his case last month for $175,000.

“Far too often, police abuse their authority to retaliate against and suppress speech they personally find offensive or insulting,” Lia Ernst, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Vermont, tells Reason about the case. “This settlement demonstrates that violating these rights does not come without a cost.”

Through the settlement, Gregory Bombard will receive $100,000 in damages. The ACLU of Vermont and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which both represented Bombard in his suit, will receive the remaining $75,000.

All told, Bombard spent “about a year fighting the criminal charges and more than three years seeking declaratory relief,” a spokesperson for FIRE tells Reason.

Jay Riggen, the officer who arrested Bombard, “retired from VSP effective May 31, 2024,” a spokesperson for the Vermont State Police tells Reason. “We have no additional comment on this case.”

In February 2018, Bombard was stopped by Vermont State Trooper Riggen, who believed Bombard had given him the finger while driving—an allegation Bombard denies. However, after Riggen walked away from the car, Bombard flipped Riggen off and swore at the officer in frustration for having been pulled over.

In response, Riggen pulled Bombard over again and arrested him for disorderly conduct. “The first one may have been an error,” said Riggen during the arrest, referring to the reason for the initial stop, but “the second one certainly was not.”

Keep reading

Sotomayor Is Right: The Supreme Court Should Reevaluate Absolute Immunity for Prosecutors

Consider the following hypothetical: You are jailed for two years as you await trial for murder. You are facing the death penalty. You have cancer, which relapsed during your incarceration without access to adequate treatment. And it turns out you were charged based on a false witness confession, which the local prosecutor allegedly destroyed evidence to obscure.

Now imagine suing that prosecutor and being told you have no recourse, because such government employees are entitled to absolute immunity.

This is the backdrop for Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion Tuesday arguing that the Supreme Court may need to reevaluate the confines of that legal doctrine—absolute prosecutorial immunity—which prevents victims of alleged prosecutorial misconduct from getting recourse in the vast majority of circumstances.

The case at issue centers around Nickie Miller, a Kentucky man whom a woman named Natasha Martin implicated in a bizarre murder plot after the government offered her a deal to avoid prison time. The primary issue: She almost immediately sought to recant that confession. Law enforcement wouldn’t accept that. So she testified before a grand jury, and then tried to recant again, writing in jailhouse letters to another man she implicated that her statement came in response to “coercive interrogation techniques, threats, and undisclosed promises of consideration.”

When Miller’s defense team heard about those letters, it tried to obtain them. Martin reportedly asked Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Keith Craycraft how she should comply with the order, to which he allegedly responded that she should destroy the correspondence. She obliged.

The state eventually dropped the charges against Miller. The two years in jail, however, took a toll, according to his criminal defense attorney, who said that his cancer was in remission but recurred after the state locked him up, as he could not access his medication.

After his release, he sued Craycraft; the district court concluded he was entitled to absolute immunity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit subsequently noted that Craycraft’s alleged misconduct was “difficult to justify and seemingly unbecoming of an official entrusted with enforcing the criminal law.” And then that court, too, confirmed the grant of absolute immunity, a testament to the sort of behavior the doctrine greenlights with its sweeping inoculation.

Miller has since died, and his estate is continuing the litigation on his behalf.

Keep reading

Supreme Court strikes obstruction charge used for hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters

Federal prosecutors improperly charged a Jan. 6 defendant with obstruction, a divided Supreme Court ruled on Friday, likely upending many cases against rioters who disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

After the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, federal prosecutors charged more than 350 participants in the pro-Trump mob with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding. The charge carries a 20-year maximum penalty and is part of a law enacted after the exposure of massive fraud andshredding of documents during the collapse of the energy giant Enron.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the government’s broad reading of the statute would give prosecutors too much discretion to seek a 20-year maximum sentence “for acts Congress saw fit to punish only with far shorter terms of imprisonment.”

To use the statute, he wrote, the government must establish that a defendant “impaired the availability or integrity” of records, documents or other objects used in an official proceeding.

In dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett — joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — said the court’s reading of the obstruction statute is too limited and requires the majority to do “textual backflips to find some way — any way — to narrow the reach” of the law.

Friday’s ruling has the potential to affect the convictions and sentences of a small set of rioters — around 27— who are serving time in prison for only this felony. It also could impact about 110 more who are awaiting trial or sentencing, according to prosecutors.In addition, the ruling may affect former president Donald Trump’s stalled trialfor allegedly trying to remain in power after his 2020 defeat; two of the four charges he faces are based on the obstruction statute, and he could move to have those charges dismissed.

Keep reading