Tag Archive: Due Process


New York Flags 278 Gun Owners As “Mentally Unstable”

 

 

 

 

” New York State’s tough new SAFE Act gun control law has flagged 278 gun owners who could lose their weapons because they have been deemed mentally unstable, a new report shows.

  Gov. Andrew Cuomo urged lawmakers to pass the SAFE Act quickly after the 2012 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

  The Syracuse Post-Standard reported last week that since the law’s enactment, the state has collected 38,718 names in a database of individuals who have been found at-risk for owning guns by psychiatrists and other health professionals.

  The paper said when the database was checked against a list of pistol permit holders in the state, there were 278 matches, less than 1 percent.

  Monroe County had the most matches at 36, followed by Westchester, 17, Suffolk, 16 and Dutchess, 14. “

 

Fox News

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About these ads

DC Police Department Budgets Its Asset Forfeiture Proceeds Years In Advance

 

 

 

 

” Asset forfeiture may be the greatest scam perpetuated on the American people by their government — and it’s all legal. For the most part, assets seized translate directly to monetary or physical gains for the agencies doing the seizing, an act often wholly separated from any American ideals of due process.

  The New York Times recently obtained recording of asset forfeiture conferences which showed prosecutors advising cops on how to best exploit these programs to obtain additional funds and goods for their respective law enforcement agencies. In short, it appears that many agencies use asset forfeiture to fill departmental shopping lists, rather than as the criminal syndicate-crippling action it was intended to be.

  The Washington Post has been digging into the oft-abused programs for the last six weeks. The latest article in this series comes to similar conclusions about how the programs are viewed by law enforcement agencies.

  D.C. police have made plans for millions of dollars in anticipated proceeds from future civil seizures of cash and property, even though federal guidelines say “agencies may not commit” to such spending in advance, documents show.

  The city’s proposed budget and financial plan for fiscal 2015 includes about $2.7 million for the District police department’s “special purpose fund” through 2018. The fund covers payments for informants and rewards. “

TechDirt has more on this grand scheme of legalized theft

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee DA Restricts Use Of Civil Forfeiture Laws

 

 

Tennessee Asset Forfeiture Reform

 

 

 

” An agency at the center of NewsChannel 5’s “Policing for Profit” investigation has severely restricted the use of civil forfeiture laws that had been used to seize cash from drivers passing through Tennessee.

  Instead, the new boss of the 23rd Judicial District Drug Task Force said he wants officers to re-emphasize their primary mission of looking for drugs.

  For more than three years, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has shined the light on laws that let police take cash from drivers without charging them with a crime.

  Critics called it “highway robbery.”

I don’t want the public to believe that we are out there trying to just take money from innocent people,” said District Attorney General Ray Crouch. “That is not what we are going to do. I am not going to be part of that.

  It marks the first time that a Tennessee district attorney has publicly rejected the broad use of the civil forfeiture laws that have drawn national attention. For the past several years, the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference has lobbied lawmakers to preserve that source of money.

” I want the public to know that they do not have to be in fear of the 23rd Judicial Drug Task Force seizing their personal property, their cash, their assets,” Crouch toldNewsChannel 5 Investigates. “

 

More at JRN.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AG Nominee Loretta Lynch Boasts Having Seized $904 Million Through Asset Forfeitures In 2013 Alone

 

 

 

” Civil asset forfeiture is a controversial policy in which the government seizes private property that it believes was either gained through the commission of a crime or used to commit one. However, the items being seized sometimes belong to someone who was never accused of a crime at all or people who later turn out to be completely innocent. Since a civil process is used to seize the items in question, individuals facing the loss of property do so without the benefit of the level of due process that would ordinarily be afforded a criminal defendant.

  The Washington Post notes that, under President Obama, civil asset forfeitures have doubled. Now, as Eric Holder steps aside as US Attorney General, his potential replacement, nominee and US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Loretta Lynch, recently announced that her office seized over $904 million in asset forfeitures in 2013 alone.

  According to a quote from The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, “As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.” The editorial calls for senators to ask questions in an effort to clarify Lynch’s views on the controversial policy. “

 

Ben Swann has more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets To Seize

 

 

 

 

 

 

” The seminars offered police officers some useful tips on seizing property from suspected criminals. Don’t bother with jewelry (too hard to dispose of) and computers (“everybody’s got one already”), the experts counseled. Do go after flat screen TVs, cash and cars. Especially nice cars.

  In one seminar, captured on video in September, Harry S. Connelly Jr., the city attorney of Las Cruces, N.M., called them “little goodies.” And then Mr. Connelly described how officers in his jurisdiction could not wait to seize one man’s “exotic vehicle” outside a local bar.

“ A guy drives up in a 2008 Mercedes, brand new,” he explained. “Just so beautiful, I mean, the cops were undercover and they were just like ‘Ahhhh.’ And he gets out and he’s just reeking of alcohol. And it’s like, ‘Oh, my goodness, we can hardly wait.’ ”

  Mr. Connelly was talking about a practice known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government, without ever securing a conviction or even filing a criminal charge, to seize property suspected of having ties to crime. The practice, expanded during the war on drugs in the 1980s, has become a staple of law enforcement agencies because it helps finance their work. It is difficult to tell how much has been seized by state and local law enforcement, but under a Justice Department program, the value of assets seized has ballooned to $4.3 billion in the 2012 fiscal year from $407 million in 2001. Much of that money is shared with local police forces. “

   NY Times offers that story on police departments and their wish lists for asset forfeiture while BuzzFeed has a piece that dovetails nicely with it … “If In Doubt , Take It” … below is an excerpt :

There are three kinds of people in this world: Those who’re outraged by civil forfeiture, those who don’t know what it is and those who profit from it

  Without even needing to charge someone with a crime, law enforcement can seize and keep cash, cars and even homes, by exercising civil forfeiture. Now the Institute for Justice has uncovered recordings of government officials from across the country making unsettling comments about this controversial power:

• One city attorney called his legal documents a “masterpiece of deception” and has won 96 percent of his forfeiture cases.
• An assistant district attorney takes property, even from owners who have been acquitted, because “people are not found innocent, they are found not guilty.”
• One government official doesn’t want to disclose information about civil forfeiture, because it might become a “bullet-point for people that are trying to fight the program.”
• A prosecutor teaches other attorneys how to take property from innocent people. He even offers this piece of advice, “IF IN DOUBT…TAKE IT!” 

Speaking at a forfeiture conference on September 10, 2014, Pete Connelly, City Attorney for Las Cruces, New Mexico, detailed his plan that would let police take the homes of people caught with tiny amounts of marijuana, even in states where the plant is legal:

“ I got to thinking this morning, in the paper that everybody is running around liberalizing marijuana or thinking about it. Putting it on the ballot. Taking it off the ballot. And I thought, boy, what a trap. You liberalize marijuana so somebody can sell it, they sell the marijuana out of the house, then you seize the house, which is like 10 bucks of marijuana and you [the police] get a $300,000 house. What a deal. That’s really exciting. They get what they want, and you get what you want. And the title of that article in the [Wall Street] Journal was ‘What’s Yours Is Theirs.’ I want to turn it around as ‘What’s Theirs is Yours.’” “

 

 

 

   Be sure to read them both and funnel your outrage towards your nearest GOP representative . Demand that they eliminate the policy of legalized theft otherwise known as “Civil asset forfeiture” .

   Defending the practice of seizing property from American citizens who have not only not been convicted of a crime , but in most cases not even charged , is an impossible task and we would welcome any effort by the incoming congressional Republicans to put their Statist opponents on the other side of the aisle on the spot with a vote to abolish this plainly unconstitutional law .

How Asset Forfeiture Allows Cops To Steal From Citizens

 

 

 

 

” It probably seemed like a bright idea at the time: Let the police seize the ill-gotten gains of alleged drug dealers and other suspected criminals and sell it, using the proceeds to buy much-needed crime-fighting gear.

  Unfortunately, the process—civil asset forfeiture—did not require convicting anybody of a crime. In fact, it didn’t even require charging anybody with a crime. Not surprisingly, this led to rampant abuse, which has been abundantly documented for many years. Various reform efforts, including a 2000 federal law, have been unable to stop what’s become known as policing for profit.

  But Virginia lawmaker Mark Cole is going to give it another shot. That’s as good a sign as any that civil asset forfeiture has jumped the shark. “

 

 

  We wish Mr Cole good luck . Legalized theft , aka civil asset forfeiture , is an abuse that is completely incompatible with the spirit of America as well as being blatantly unconstitutional .

 

Reason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York’s Registry Of Mentally Ill People Barred From Having Firearms Draws Heavy Criticism

 

 

 

 

 

 

” A newly created database of New Yorkers deemed too mentally unstable to carry firearms has grown to roughly 34,500 names, a previously undisclosed figure that has raised concerns among some mental health advocates that too many people have been categorized as dangerous.

  The database, established in the aftermath of the mass shooting in 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and maintained by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, is the result of the Safe Act. It is an expansive package of gun control measures pushed through by the administration of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. The law, better known for its ban on assault weapons, compels licensed mental health professionals in New York to report to the authorities any patient “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.

  But the number of entries in the database highlights the difficulty of America’s complicated balancing act between public safety and the right to bear arms when it comes to people with mental health issues.

“ That seems extraordinarily high to me,” said Sam Tsemberis, a former director of New York City’s involuntary hospitalization program for homeless and dangerous people, now the chief executive of Pathways to Housing, which provides housing to the mentally ill. “Assumed dangerousness is a far cry from actual dangerousness.” “

 

Post Gazette

 

John Oliver Strikes Again

 

 

 

” It does seem to me that John Oliver is in the process of inventing some interesting new kind of political/social commentary – the 20-minute single-issue rant that is both hilariously funny, well put-together, and often quite devastatingly effective, as argument.  I find that when he deals with something I happen to know something about — net neutrality, say, or the governance of FIFA, or the so-called right to be forgotten” — he gets to the heart of the matter pretty quickly, and that’s not something I often find to be true, and it’s not an easy thing to do (though of course, like all good performers, he makes it look easy).  He is quite good at isolating the outrageous and then looping us for a while around the slippery slopes that surround it, and then bringing the conversation back to another bit of outrageousness and doing it again.  It’s like an amusement park ride, but it has an argumentative purpose.   There’s a line between simplifying (which he does, brilliantly) and over-simplifying (which I find he generally does not do), and it’s a very hard one to walk, and he does it quite well. “

Washington Post

 For The Record: “Seized”

 

 

Published on Sep 29, 2014

” A little known law that allows the IRS and law enforcement to empty bank accounts and seize personal property without warning or proof of a crime.

  Could you be their next target? Find on Wednesday’s episode of For the Record at 8PM ET.

  Watch full episodes of For The Record on demand with a subscription to TheBlaze TV:http://theblaze.com/fortherecord “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 Key Supreme Court Cases This Term

 

 

 

 

” If you use Facebook, pay taxes, enjoy fishing or drive a car, the 2014-2015 term of the Supreme Court, which begins Oct. 6, will be worth watching.

  Many of the cases from the last term touched on issues such as executive power, religious liberty, free speech and racial preferences.

Here are highlights of the upcoming term:

  To hear about all these cases and how the term may unfold, join us at Heritage for our annual Supreme Court Preview on Thursday at noon (or watch online). Legal luminaries Paul Clement and Michael Carvin will discuss the big cases of the upcoming term.”

 

Daily Signal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Government Self-Interest Corrupted A Crime-Fighting Tool Into An Evil

 

 

” Last week, The Post published a series of in-depth articles about the abuses spawned by the law enforcement practice known as civil asset forfeiture. As two people who were heavily involved in the creation of the asset forfeiture initiative at the Justice Department in the 1980s, we find it particularly painful to watch as the heavy hand of government goes amok. The program began with good intentions but now, having failed in both purpose and execution, it should be abolished.

  Asset forfeiture was conceived as a way to cut into the profit motive that fueled rampant drug trafficking by cartels and other criminal enterprises, in order to fight the social evils of drug dealing and abuse. Over time, however, the tactic has turned into an evil itself, with the corruption it engendered among government and law enforcement coming to clearly outweigh any benefits.

  Then, in 1986, the concept was expanded to include not only cash earned illegally but also purchases or investments made with that money, creating a whole scheme of new crimes that could be prosecuted as “money laundering.” The property eligible for seizure was further expanded to include “instrumentalities” in the trafficking of drugs, such as cars or even jewelry. Eventually, more than 200 crimes beyond drugs came to be included in the forfeiture scheme.

  The Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was enacted in 2000 to rein in abuses, but virtually nothing has changed. This is because civil forfeiture is fundamentally at odds with our judicial system and notions of fairness. It is unreformable.

 Civil asset forfeiture and money-laundering laws are gross perversions of the status of government amid a free citizenry. The individual is the font of sovereignty in our constitutional republic, and it is unacceptable that a citizen should have to “prove” anything to the government. If the government has probable cause of a violation of law, then let a warrant be issued. And if the government has proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, let that guilt be proclaimed by 12 peers.”

 

Read more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

American Shakedown: Police Won’t Charge You, But They’ll Grab Your Money

 

 

 

 

 

 

” On its official website, the Canadian government informs its citizens that “there is no limit to the amount of money that you may legally take into or out of the United States.” Nonetheless, it adds, banking in the U.S. can be difficult for non-residents, so Canadians shouldn’t carry large amounts of cash.

That last bit is excellent advice, but for an entirely different reason than the one Ottawa cites.

There’s a shakedown going on in the U.S., and the perps are in uniform.

  Across America, law enforcement officers — from federal agents to state troopers right down to sheriffs in one-street backwaters — are operating a vast, co-ordinated scheme to grab as much of the public’s cash as they can; “hand over fist,” to use the words of one police trainer. “

  It usually starts on the road somewhere. An officer pulls you over for some minor infraction — changing lanes without proper signalling, following the car ahead too closely, straddling lanes. The offense is irrelevant.

  Then the police officer wants to chat, asking questions about where you’re going, or where you came from, and why. He’ll peer into your car, then perhaps ask permission to search it, citing the need for vigilance against terrorist weaponry or drugs.

What he’s really looking for, though, is money.

‘Authorities claim it’s legal, but some prosecutors and judges have called it what it is: abuse. In any case, it’s a nasty American reality.’

  And if you were foolish (or intimidated) enough to have consented to the search, and you’re carrying any significant amount of cash, you are now likely to lose it.

  The officer will probably produce a waiver, saying that if you just sign over the money then the whole matter will just disappear, and you’ll be able to go on your way.

  Refuse to sign it, and he may take the cash anyway, proclaiming it the probable proceeds of drugs or some other crime.

  Either way, you almost certainly won’t be charged with anything; the objective is to take your money, not burden the system.

  You’ll have the right to seek its return in court, but of course that will mean big lawyer’s fees, and legally documenting exactly where the money came from. You will need to prove you are not a drug dealer or a terrorist.

  It might take a year or two. And several trips back to the jurisdiction where you were pulled over. Sorry.

  In places like Tijuana, police don’t make any pretense about this sort of thing. Here in the U.S., though, it’s dressed up in terms like “interdiction and forfeiture,” or “the equitable sharing program.

  Authorities claim it’s legal, but some prosecutors and judges have called it what it is: abuse.

  In any case, it’s a nasty American reality.

  Seizing suspected drug money has been legal here for decades, but after 9/11 police acquired a whole new set of powers and justifications. And they set about using them for profit.

The Washington Post this week reported that in the past 13 years, there have been 61,998 cash seizures on roadways and elsewhere without use of search warrants. The total haul: $2.5 billion.

  As the Canadian government notes, there is no law against carrying it here or any legal limit on how much you can carry. But  if you’re on an American roadway with a full wallet, in the eyes of thousands of cash-hungry cops you’re a rolling ATM. “

 

Read more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sen. Rand Paul Wants To Make It Harder For The Feds To Take Your Stuff

 

 

 

 

 

” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) today announced he has introduced the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act to add a bit more due process to the system by which federal prosecutors seize citizens’ assets, often before ever proving they’ve broken the law. From his office’s announcement:

  The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property. State law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property. Finally, the legislation would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General’s Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury’s General Fund.

” The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime. The FAIR Act will ensure that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process, while maintaining the ability of courts to order the surrender of proceeds of crime,” Sen. Paul said. “

 

Reason has more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—-

 

Lawsuit: Man Arrested, Searched For Marijuana Solely For Having Colorado License Plate

 

igplpve7evyklgswxmne

 

 

 

” An Idaho state trooper arrested and fully searched a 70-year-old Washington man’s vehicle solely because he had a Colorado license plate – a state where marijuana is legal – a federal “license plate profiling” lawsuit alleges.

  Darien Roseen was driving along I-84 between his second home in Colorado and Washington state on Jan. 25 when Idaho State Trooper Justin Klitch “immediately” pulled out from the Interstate median and began “rapidly accelerating” to catch up to Roseen, according to the complaint in a Courthouse News Service report. Exiting at a designated rest area, Roseen says he became “uncomfortable” that Klitch had followed him though he had not “done anything wrong.”

  After pulling Roseen over, Klitch reportedly failed to explain why he made the stop, although he later said he made the stop because Roseen failed to use his signal when pulling off on the exit, and because he bumped the curb. Klitch rejected Roseen’s reason for pulling into the rest area, telling him, “You didn’t have to go to the bathroom before you saw me … I’m telling you, you pulled in here to avoid me.” “

  Klitch repeatedly asked to search Roseen’s vehicle as he accused him of “hiding” something. And when Roseen did not grant him permission, Klitch threatened to bring in a drug-sniffing dog and characterized Roseen’s behavior as “consistent with a person who was hiding something illegal.

  Finally consenting to a search of “parts” of the vehicle to get “back on the road faster,” Roseen says that this proved to be a mistake.

“ When Mr. Roseen opened the trunk compartment, and despite the strong gusts of wind and precipitation that day, Trooper Klitch claimed he could smell the odor of marijuana,” the complaint states. “Mr. Roseen stated that he could not smell the odor of marijuana that Trooper Klitch claimed to be coming from the trunk compartment.”

  Calling in an additional police officer, Klitch said the aroma gave him cause to search the entire vehicle, and Roseen was detained in the back of Klitch’s vehicle, but was told he was not under arrest despite having been read his Miranda rights.

  The second officer drove Roseen’s Honda Ridgeline to the Payette County Sheriff’s sally port although Roseen states that he never gave the officer permission to drive his vehicle and the car’s items were not inventoried.

  The ensuing search of the vehicle by multiple unidentified officers found nothing and Roseen was issued a citation for “inattentive/careless” driving.”

 

CBS Seattle has the rest

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family Sues After Armed Police Kick Down Wrong Door

 

 

 

No Knock Welfare Check Click For Video

 

 

” A Caldwell family has filed a lawsuit in federal court after armed police mistakenly kicked in their apartment door while looking for the family’s neighbor.

  The incident happened last year on February 21 around 11:30 p.m. The Johnsons filed a lawsuit in federal court in November, saying they were illegally searched and their Constitutional rights were violated. 

” Not acceptable. Being put in handcuffs. Kicking our door in. What’s that all about? No. Not acceptable. Not acceptable,” David Johnson said. 

  The Johnsons name the cities of Caldwell and Nampa, the police departments, the police chiefs and officers in the lawsuit. This month, both departments filed court papers denying accusations that the Johnsons’ rights were violated.”

 

 

   Of course the Johnson’s rights were violated , only thug cops with no respect for the Constitution could believe otherwise …

 

 

” David Johnson says he, his wife, and his adult son were all asleep when the police came to their door. He says there was no knock and no identification by police.

” We had no idea. No idea what was going on. Nothing. We were sound asleep when it started,” Johnson said. “We didn’t know who it was, and as I walked up to the door, pieces of the door were hitting me.” 

  Johnson says he unlocked the deadbolt and came face-to-face with a large gun. 

” There’s a gun pointed at me. No one said anything. Next thing I know somebody grabbed my arm, pulled me out and handcuffed me. Just like that,” Johnson said. “

 

 

    Once again , thanks to the increasingly violent nature of law enforcement a family’s lives were endangered on heresay from a woman that allegedly was threatened … by a third party , no less . Listening to the audio , which is available here and here it is apparent that the cops do not know where they are going nor even what they are looking for .

This incident grew from a woman complaining that a man threatened her to , according to the cops , a “homicide in progress” .What bulls**t . 

 

 

” After they brought him out, he says the police searched his home with a police canine and eventually got the neighbor they were looking for out of the next-door apartment as well. He says police told him they were looking into a “homicide in progress,” gave him a business card, and then left.”

 

 

   It is a miracle that no one was killed this time around , but the prevalence of the KGB-like tactics of midnight door busting must be stopped at all costs if we are to maintain any sort of liberty in our country . 

    It’s bad enough that the cops screwed up but to compound the error by stonewalling and refusing to admit that they’ve made a mistake and violated the Johnson’s rights to due process only serves to highlight a law enforcement culture that has morphed into a fine example of a police state … The Stasi would be proud . 

 

 

” The city says the officers had true information and with that had reason to attempt to find the potential suspect and victim by conducting “a no-knock, no-warrant welfare check“. The department says procedures and policies are proper.”

 

 

    That phrase ” no-knock , no-warrant welfare check” has to be the greatest example of government double-speak since George Orwell passed . 

   Where is the accountability ? Since when do unsubstantiated allegations and the rumored presence of a weapon demand an immediate , poorly planned dynamic entry ? The governing principle of the jackboots today is if there is any suspicion that a resident might own a gun , rights be damned , assault the property .

   That policy should strike fear into the hearts of millions and millions of Americans when one considers the fact that at least 50% of us own a gun . The next time you piss off your ex-wife or a neighbor is annoyed with your dog or how you parked your car you could be a candidate for a full blown SWAT raid if they suspect that you are a gun owner . That is chilling .

 Read the whole thing and pray it doesn’t happen to you .

 

 

 

 

 

Secret List: Having Your Name On This Secret Michigan List Of 275,000 People Could Cost You Your Job

 

 

The state maintains something called the Michigan Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry and the sole power to label you an abuser lies not with a judge or a jury, but with child protective services workers.

  And you may be surprised at how the state can define “abuse.”

  Anita Belle says she’s never been convicted of a crime.  But Belle’s name has been put on the Central Registry as a child abuser. 

“ Where is the due process,” asked Belle.

  The Central Registry is maintained by Child Protective Services workers inside Michigan’s Department of Human Services, or DHS.

  Right now, there are about 275,000 people on that secret list and many of them don’t even realize they are on it.  You don’t have to be found guilty in court to be put on the registry.  All it takes is the word of CPS staffers to label you an abuser, which can prevent you from getting certain jobs or doing volunteer work.

You just get on the registry, by a push of the button.  By one worker,” said Warner.With no verification that the crime was actually committed,” asked Catallo.“They believe that their investigation, even if it’s one sided, is all they need to ruin somebody’s life,” said Warner.”

 

Read more on this horrendous abuse of State power here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lawyer Weighs In On Arlington Man Sent To Nursing Home

 

 

 

” A lawyer weighed in Friday on the case of an 85-year-old North Texas man who said he couldn’t get out of a local hospital on Wednesday. Instead of going home, Charlie Fink ended up in a nursing home after he was detained against his will by the state under an emergency protective order. Fink called FOX 4 for help.

  While FOX 4 hasn’t seen the court documents in Fink’s case, we do know the state believes that not only is Fink potentially a threat to himself and others, but that he can no longer handle his responsibilities at home.

  Fink allowed FOX 4 to enter what he called his crowded home on Friday, where neighbors Kenny and Debra McIntosh were cleaning. Trash and treasure fill Fink and his wife Edith’s home.

” They’re getting older, so it’s hard for them to move everything where they need to be, and dust high and stuff like that, which I can understand,” said Debra. Fink and 87-year-old Edith are now together in a nursing home.

   Edith was removed by the state Feb. 5, and Charlie was removed this week after driving himself to Richardson Methodist Hospital for hernia surgery. A hearing was held Wednesday for the state to temporarily take custody of Fink after he was placed in the hospital’s psychiatric ward.

” One thing that troubled me about that protective hearing you’re talking about is, he wasn’t present,” said attorney Geoff Henley, unrelated to Fink’s case. “He was not present, according to your story, and he was entitled to be.”

   

    Answer me this : Why is it totally unacceptable for the State to harass , incarcerate or in any way molest the mentally ill homeless on every city’s streets that the ACLU are so eager to defend yet when it comes to the rights of an self-sufficient elderly man who keeps his own home , pays his bills and feeds himself or those of a teenaged girl who’s parents are eager to take proper care of her those rights and their defenders are nowhere to be found ?

     How did we get to such a topsy-turvy world that the street people , the winos and the homeless , some of whom are mentally unbalanced and may indeed pose a threat to society , have benefactors , protectors and unalienable rights while those who choose to be responsible members of the community can so readily be deemed “unfit” and carted off by the State “for their own good” without so much as a peep from the usual “civil libertarian” groups ?

 

 

Another State kidnapping by the protection nazis … HT/PoliceStateUSA 

 

 

     Post Script: A bit off topic , but we have one more thought . As we have been compiling a fairly voluminous list of violations of individual liberty by the authorities in the US it has surprised us a good bit that Texas , a state that prides itself on being a haven of civil liberty supplies us with a disproportionate amount of stories like the one above and many other even worse examples of police brutality , no-knock raids and all round Statist behavior . Odd that …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 And Not A Single Lawmaker Voted Against It

 

 

” A new report published by the Libertas Institute, a free market think tank, reveals how a little-known new law greatly weakened legal protections for property owners facing civil forfeiture in Utah.  Unlike criminal forfeiture, with civil forfeiture, someone does not have to be convicted of or even charged with a crime to permanently lose their property.

  Sponsors of the bill, HB 384, presented their amendments as a mere “re-codification” of the state’s forfeiture law.  While some of the changes to Utah’s forfeiture laws might appear minor, they have significant consequences.”

 

Read more at Forbes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Paul Goes To Washington

 

 

 

” Is it absurd to fear, as some of Paul’s colleagues charged, that the president will begin launching drone strikes on American soil? Probably. But the point is precisely that we live under an administration is so unwilling to acknowledge meaningful limits on what they may do in the name of national security that it was an exercise in tooth-pulling just to get a public disavowal of an absurd scenario that the government’s anemic targeted killing “standards,” taken to their logical extreme, would not appear to foreclose. The crucial message we should take from Paul’s marathon oration, then, may be this: If it’s absurd to pose the question that inspired his filibuster, surely it’s far more absurd that we’ve arrived, after a decade of complacency about government secrecy and unfettered executive discretion in the sphere of counterterrorism, at a point where the question would need to be posed.”

 

 

#StandWithRand: Rand Paul, Barack Obama, Drones, and Presidential Kill Lists

Both Paul And Obama Win With Brennan Nomination

 

 

 

” The Senate today confirmed John Brennan to be the new director of the CIA. The vote was 63 to 34.

Brennan has been President Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser and earlier spent 25 years at the CIA.

The confirmation came after Sen. Rand Paul, R.-Ky., ended a 13-hour filibuster. He’d been demanding that the administration say whether it believes the president has the authority to use a drone to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil.

In the end, both Paul and the president got what they wanted.

“No president from no party gets to be judge, jury and executioner,” Paul said

 

   Despite the headline we fail to see how Rand Paul got what he wanted . Neither Obama , Brennan , Holder or have disavowed the possibility of domestic drone strikes >

 

   McCain continues to disappoint . He really is a statist at heart and no different from the democrats whose coattails he so often holds . For Shame 

 

” Others, such as Arizona’s John McCain called Paul misguided.

“I think we’ve done a disservice by giving Americans the impression that they’re in danger from our government,” McCain said. “They’re not!” “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Takeaways from Rand Paul’s #StandwithRand #Filibuster About Drone Strikes

 

 

 

” For all of the late-night punch-drunkiness that eventually ensued on Twitter (well, at least on my feed), yesterday’s 12-hours-plus filibuster led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is among the most electrifying and insipiring events in recent political memory. The point of the filibuster – which derailed a confirmation vote on John Brennan as Barack Obama’s CIA head – was to call attention to the president’s insufficient answers to questions about his policy of targeted killings via drones and, one assumes, other methods.

Here are three takeaways from yesterday’s epic event:

 

1. It shows what one man can do to call attention to a hugely important issue that nonetheless is largley ignored by the mainstream media and the political establishment. “

 

 

 

Read the whole thing 

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT: FIRST HOUR OF RAND PAUL’S FILIBUSTER

 

 

” In the first hour of his filibuster over the nomination of John Brennan, Sen. Paul spoke 9,024 words, enough to fill 15 pages as a standard Word document. A transcript of the first hour was provided by Sen. Paul’s office and appears below in its entirety:

 

I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in bowling green, Kentucky, is an abomination. It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. I don’t rise to oppose John Brennan’s nomination simply for the person. I rise today for the principle. The principle is one that as Americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to give up on the Fifth Amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted. This is a precious American tradition and something we should not give up on easily. They say Lewis Carroll is fiction. Alice never fell down a rabbit hole and the White Queen’s caustic judgments are not really a threat to your security. Or has America the beautiful become Alice’s wonderland? ‘No, no, said the queen. Sentence first; verdict afterwards. Stuff and nonsense, Alice said widely – loudly. The idea of having the sentence first? ‘Hold your tongue, said the queen, turning purple. I won’t, said Alice. Release the drones, said the Queen, as she shouted at the top of her voice.

Lewis Carroll is fiction, right? When I asked the President, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal, “no.” The President’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that. 
The President says, I haven’t killed anyone yet. He goes on to say, and I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might. Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that? Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a President to say he might kill Americans? But he will judge the circumstances, he will be the sole arbiter, he will be the sole decider, he will be the executioner in chief if he sees fit. Now, some would say he would never do this. Many people give the President the – you know, they give him consideration, they say he’s a good man. I’m not arguing he’s not. What I’m arguing is that the law is there and set in place for the day when angels don’t rule government. Madison said that the restraint on government was because government will not always be run by angels. This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican. Were this a Republican President, I’d be here saying exactly the same thing. No one person, no one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country.

This isn’t even new to our country. There’s 800 years of English law that we found our tradition upon. We founded it upon the Magna Carta from 1215. We founded it upon Morgan from Glamorgan and 725 A.D. We founded upon the Greeks and Romans who had juries. It is not enough to charge someone to say that they are guilty.

 

 

Click the link to read the rest …

 

 

 

 

 

 

—-

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,944 other followers