archives

legal stuff

This category contains 59 posts

Hey! Rights Ain’t Dead, Yet!

This, courtesy of Wirecutter

For the first time, a federal judge has suppressed evidence obtained without a warrant by U.S. law enforcement using a stingray, a surveillance device that can trick suspects’ cell phones into revealing their locations.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan on Tuesday ruled that defendant Raymond Lambis’ rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used such a device without a warrant to find his Washington Heights apartment.

The DEA had used a stingray to identify Lambis’ apartment as the most likely location of a cell phone identified during a drug-trafficking probe. Pauley said doing so constituted an unreasonable search.
MORE

stingray

If you are keeping score, that’s the anti-constitutional Statist bastards – 356

Liberty and Freedom – 3

 

Hasn’t Anyone Read the Democrats Sit-In Bill? OMG

From Alan Korwin’s email this morning, in part…

The Infamous No-Fly No-Buy Gun Bill HR 2578:

“Blatant Rape of the Constitution.”

— Legislators who proposed this should be removed from office —

Has anyone even read the bill that had democrats
staging a sit-in on the floor of Congress?

“No district court of the United States
or court of appeals of the United States
shall have jurisdiction to consider the
lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…”

It gets worse.

Under the excuse of fighting terrorism, these democrats, with republican allies, wanted to deny Americans their individual rights to travel by air — or obtain arms — without probable cause, without due process, and get this — without being able to view the evidence against them or face their accusers. Their accusers and the evidence remains a secret. Your rights would be denied solely by a secret-police list.

You can’t challenge the proposed law’s legality… because it hasn’t got any. It would not pass even the slightest scrutiny, and they know that, hence that clause above in bold. My republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, supports this, smiling when he announced it on TV.

The people proposing this 17-page tyrannical travesty should be removed from office.

And THIS STATIST CLOWN is the more ‘conservative’ of Arizona’a two Senators!  (The other being McCain!)  Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave!

Even if you are not from Arizona, please contact this guy’s office in protest! (link below)

Senator Jeff Flake

(I have – THREE TIMES!)

_______________________________________________________

(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
I would ask all of you bloggers out there to at least make the effort to post a link to www.projectwelcomehometroops.org/#22kill

22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY

Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #22 of 22)

Every Tragedy Has A Lesson

Peter (aka Bayou Renaissance Man) has a well thought out post regarding the terrorist attack in Florida, and personal response.  (Link Here)  Because group response after-the-fact is rarely efficient or just! (more gun control?!)

(In part:)

We’ve discussed terror attacks like that last night at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on numerous occasions in these pages.  Suffice it to say that anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew that something like this was coming.  Furthermore, it won’t be an isolated event.  More such attacks will follow.  Our terrorist enemies have already promised that – and every time they’ve made that promise, they’ve kept it.  We know they’re coming.  The question is, are we – we as individuals, not just as a society – prepared to do something about it?

There is much more in his post.  Please, educate yourself and go read it!  (You should be reading Peter daily, regardless!)

He concludes asking what lessons WE have learned(?)

Here is the comment I humbly left:

A.C.E.
ALWAYS CARRY EVERYWHERE!

Something I am already doing, barring the interference of metal detectors.
Just signage? Ignore it.
OR DON’T GO IN!

Easy Peasy.

Now, I’m not advocating violating any law.  HOWEVER, this is truly a personal choice.  Better to be tried by twelve, than buried by six?

_______________________________________________________

(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
I would ask all of you bloggers out there to at least make the effort to post a link to www.projectwelcomehometroops.org/#22kill

22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY

Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #10 of 22)

You Cannot Put The Jeannie Back In The Bottle!

…or, the Gene.

https://i0.wp.com/overpassesforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/evolution-gone-transgender-300x218.jpg

A transgender school teacher has been given a payout of $60,000 after complaining of being harassed by colleagues for over a year who allegedly “misgendered” her, despite an official investigation stating otherwise.

Leo Soell, who works as a fifth grade teacher at Gresham-Barlow school in Oregon, submitted a complaint to Oregon district officials that she had been “harassed” by colleagues after coming out as transgender last September.

In the complaint, she claimed that her co-workers continually called her “she,” “lady,” and “Miss Soell,” while other staff had conspired to stop her using a gender neutral bathroom, despite the school hosting an hour long training session on transgender issues.

Last I heard, true ‘transgender’ folks comprise something like 0.03% of the population.  These are persons who have a non-standard chromosomal makeup and feel the need to do ‘something’ about it.  Like have reassignment surgery.
THEN, there are others (percentage unknown) who because of confusion, trauma, abuse, mental illness or just because, feel the need to identify as another gender.
These folks need help, not enabling!
But, the federal government, in it’s infinite wisdom, has decided these people can self-identify.  And change their self-identity as often as they want.
And, apparently take legal action when they see fit.
The genii is out of the bottle, my friends!  Sorry, wrong metaphor.
Pandora’s box?

h/t (in part) Free North Carolina

Restroom Wars, Part Number Two

bathroom-sign-jpgWhen I ran across this article on Facebook, I truly thought it must be either dizinformazia, or an article culled from The Onion.

After a little side research, I determined this to be the genuine article.  By a genuine LGBT activist.  Who is quite obviously NOT a libertarian!

Famous LGBT Activist Reveals The Scary, Real Goal Of The Bathroom Battle (And It’s Not Bathrooms…It’s Way Worse)

What you may have been suspecting has been confirmed. LGBT activists’ end goal is not ruling over the bathroom. It’s obliterating the family. Riki Wilchins, a famous transsexual who recently wrote a piece in the gay publication The Advocate, revealed that many conservatives and even LGBT activists are missing the forest for the trees.

Titled,“We’ll Win the Bathroom Battle When the Binary Burns,” Wilchins says the real goal is to kill the notion of male and female altogether. The “binary” refers to gender distinction, and getting rid of the “heterobinary structure” is the goal. Wilchins writes that the fact that we are arguing over male and female facilities is proof that we still have far to go–that there should be no gender distinctions in general.

In fact, Wilchins points to an emerging group of people who don’t want to affiliate as any gender. Life Site News explains, “’Non-binary’ people don’t identify as male or female and they often want to be referred to as ‘they’ or ‘hir’ or ‘zer.’  So the fact that there are even intimate facilities that reflect the “binary” truth about gender should change, Wilchins wrote.”

If you are confused, you are not alone. But beneath all of the titles and non-titles, the insidious plan is the destruction of the family, reveals Stella Morabito, senior contributor to The Federalist.

“What we are really talking about is the abolition of sex. And it is sex that the trans project is serving to abolish legally, under the guise of something called ‘the gender binary.’  Its endgame is a society in which everyone is legally de-sexed.  No longer legally male or female.  And once you basically redefine humanity as sexless you end up with a de-humanized society in which there can be no legal ‘mother’ or ‘father’ or ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ or ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ without permission from the State.  Government documents are already erasing the terms.  In such a society, the most intimate human relationships take a hit. The family ends up abolished.”

Morabito hits home the point: “Sex distinctions are the germ of all human relationships. Abolishing them legally basically abolishes family autonomy.  And this is an act of violence against children because it would serve at some point to separate them from their origins. Every child’s first transcendental question is ‘Where did I come from?’  If the law will not allow the child to see his own origins and wholeness in the faces of a mother and a father, it destabilizes the child’s sense of self.  It creates personal dysfunction in children and basically ends up spreading more dysfunction and even dystopia in society.”

This is scary. If Morabito and other cultural watch-dogs are right, the bathroom battle is far more serious than many think. We need to really pray and ask God for help–before it’s too late and our future generations end up really damaged. Do you agree? (Faith Family America)

SO.  Either Ms. Wilchins is a dystopian uber-Statist of the first order, or is a deepest cover agent promoting such nonsense reductio ad absurdum*!

I truly hope it is the second choice offered.

If this is indeed the true ultimate agenda, it goes way beyond men ‘self-identifying’ as female to visit women’s rooms and/or taking surreptitious photos of women and girls, or worse!

But, as The President is taking a hard line on this issue, ‘blackmailing’ the States to conform to this agenda in their schools, or lose federal funding(!), and many believe him to be a variety of Marxist…

Q.E.D.

*Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum, is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.  (Wikipedia)

A Right Is A Right Is A Right, Part Dos

Social Security moves to block mentally impaired from owning guns

– The Washington Times – Thursday, May 5, 2016

People who get Social Security disability payments by dint of mental impairment and who need help to manage their finances are so dangerous they shouldn’t be able to buy firearms, the Obama administration said in a new proposal published Thursday that could add millions of people to the lists of banned gun owners.

Disability and gun rights advocates said it was a dangerous proposal that threatened to strip constitutional rights from a large number of people, and they vowed to fight it.

But the Social Security Administration said it has a duty under a 2007 law to start sending information from its files to the list of banned purchasers.

Under the new scheme, those who get disability payments because of mental impairment, and who also have someone designated to handle their finances because of their mental impairment, will be deemed too unstable to buy a gun. Their names will be listed in the National Instant Background Check System, which every licensed firearms dealer must check before selling a gun to a customer.

Social Security didn’t provide an estimate of how many people would be affected, but independent calculations suggest there are millions of people receiving benefits who have a “representative payee” managing their affairs.

The public will have 60 days to comment on the rule, and then Social Security will take those comments into account.

It’s already drawing strong opposition from a powerful mix of groups, particularly disability advocates, who called the move “extremely offensive” and based on broad generalizations.

Cheryl Bates-Harris at the National Disability Rights Network said there’s no evidence connecting someone’s ability to manage finances with being a dangerous gun owner. She said drawing that connection was stigmatizing and stereotyping those with disabilities.

Just as troubling is that Social Security isn’t very good at deciding who should get a representative payee, she said. That means government will be denying the gun-buying rights of people who never should have been on the list in the first place.

“We come across beneficiaries all the time who have rep-payees and don’t need them,” she said.

Gun-rights groups have also vowed to register their objections.

“They are set to strip away your constitutional rights just because you meet a set of criteria established by a group of faceless bureaucrats you’ll never meet,” said Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “That puts thousands of Americans in the terrible position of choosing whether to pay their bills or give up their constitutional rights.”

She said there’s no requirement that the government ever make any individual determination on those it strips of gun rights.

Instead, the administration says it will create an appeal after the fact, so those who have already ended up on the banned-purchaser list can ask to be taken off it. Those on the list could also challenge the situation in court, Social Security said in its proposal.

In its proposal, the Social Security Administration signaled it won’t go back and apply the rule retroactively to people already deemed disabled, but will apply it to everyone going forward — including those cases where Social Security conducts a re-review of a previous decision.

Story Continues →

At least this Administration is consistent.  It keeps trying, through all avenues, to restrict the natural rights of law-abiding citizens, by any means necessary.

We have 60 days to comment to the SS Administration.  It may be a lost cause, but, I would suggest we do so.

SOCIAL SECURITY RULE CHANGE COMMENTS PAGE (link)

Government ‘In Action’, Again

(from Wirecutter)

The IRS is struggling to ensure that illegal immigrants are able to illegally use Social Security numbers for legitimate purposes, the agency’s head told senators on Tuesday, without allowing the numbers to be used for “bad” reasons.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen made the statement in response to a question from Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., during a session of the Senate Finance Committee about why the IRS appears to be collaborating with taxpayers who file tax returns using fraudulent information. Coats said that his staff had discovered the practice after looking into agency procedures.

“What we learned is that … the IRS continues to process tax returns with false W-2 information and issue refunds as if they were routine tax returns, and say that’s not really our job,” Coats said. “We also learned the IRS ignores notifications from the Social Security Administration that a name does not match a Social Security number, and you use your own system to determine whether a number is valid.”
MORE

SERIOUSLY?

Well, this explains how someone using a dead Connecticut guys SSN could advance in politics all these years.

REALLY advance…

From The ‘Well DUH!’ Department…

Says Jeh Johnson 

The nation’s top immigration officer said that the “11 million” undocumented aliens in the United States are “not going away,” are “in effect” citizens, and added that deporting the few the administration wants out is unpleasant.
Jeh Johnson, secretary of Homeland Security, told Harvard University students this week that the administration is focused on its plan to integrate illegals into America, despite the policy being tied up in court.
Johnson said that he plans to be in the front row of the Supreme Court April 18 when the case is discussed.
But in the meantime, he is making the case that the illegals here, estimated at a much higher 15.7 million by the Center for Immigration Studies, have essentially become American. The proof: They go to school, have licenses to drive, and can even practice law in California.
Johnson said:
“Immigration policy must be two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, we want to reckon with, acknowledge the estimated 11 million undocumented in this country. More than half of the undocumented population of this country has been here for more than 10 years. And millions of them have in effect become integrated members of society, they go to school with us, they have driver’s licenses, they have kids who are U.S. citizens, they have kids who are lawful permanent residents. The California Supreme Court says that an undocumented person has a right to practice law in the state of California. So they are not going away. So do we insist that they live in a state of ambiguity, or do we reckon with this population and give them the opportunity to get on the books and be accountable?”
Addressing the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum Monday night, he also said that the U.S. doesn’t have “open borders,” but added that deporting criminal aliens and others targeted for removal isn’t pleasant.
Johnson said that deportations have dropped because he wants the focus only on criminals, but even then he isn’t a fan of deporting illegals.
“While the number of deportations in the last several years have gone down dramatically, because I’ve told our immigration enforcement personnel to to focus on the convicted criminals, we have a border security obligation to return people after they’ve gone through the process, gone through the litigation process, they’ve litigated their asylum claims, and they have been ordered deported by a court, and if they are our priorities we have to send them back.
“Is it pleasant? Absolutely not. But as long as we have the obligation to enforce the law, we must enforce the law. We can’t have open borders. I know that disappoints many people, but we can’t have open borders,” said Johnson.
(Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com)

I was curious as to the name Jeh, and Googled it…

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Jeh)

“Jeh” redirects here. For other uses, see Jeh (disambiguation)

Jahi[pronunciation?] is the Avestan language name of Zoroastrianism’s demoness of “lasciviousness.” As a hypostatic entity, Jahi is variously interpreted as “hussy,” “rake,” “libertine,” “courtesan” and “one who leads a licentious life.” Her standard epithet is “the Whore.”

In Zoroastrian tradition, Jahi appears as Middle Persian Jeh (Jēh, J̌ēh), characterized as the consort of Ahriman and the cause of the menstrual cycle.[a]

Hopefully, his parent’s didn’t name Jeh him because of this…

Death Or Hanging, Part Two

So, which is worse – the constant (and government-approved) encroachment of Islamic folks (some of whom appear to be scofflaws and terrorists!) or the constant encroachment against our civil liberties by our own government?

Must I choose one?  Really?

from Free North Carolina

We Are At War

Via WRSA

https://i2.wp.com/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/16/00/2E7ADF9D00000578-0-image-a-58_1447634992599.jpg

We are currently in the process of losing our freedoms and effective control over our societies. It is sheer madness to continue Muslim immigration in a situation when militant Muslims are actively waging war against us in our own cities. Western political leaders who promote such policies are guilty of criminal negligence at best. They must be removed from power, and replaced by people who protect the long-term interests of our nations.

*******************************
 On the morning of March 22, 2016, Belgium was struck by coordinated nail bombings. Two hit Brussels Airport at the check-in counter, before the security screening. Another suicide bomber hit Maalbeek metro station, located not far from prominent EU buildings. The attacks occurred a few days before the Christian Easter celebrations. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (IS or ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attacks. At least 35 people were killed, and many seriously injured. The Muslim terrorists have connections to militant Muslims in many parts of Europe and the Middle East.[1] The authorities faced difficulties in apprehending some of the terrorists partly because they enjoy widespread sympathy and support in certain Muslim communities.

Brussels is not merely the capital of Belgium. It is also the capital of the European Union (EU), and houses the headquarters of the Western defense alliance NATO. It is therefore a symbolic target. The city contains a large Muslim immigrant population. In notorious urban districts such as Molenbeek, radical Muslims have ties to international Jihadist networks. Belgium has produced more Jihadists as a proportion of its population than any other Western European country. On May 24, 2014, a gunman killed four people at the Jewish Museum of Belgium in Brussels.

Following the Brussels bombings, the US State Department warned US citizens of the “potential risks” of traveling to Europe. A statement said terror groups were planning “attacks throughout Europe, targeting sporting events, tourist sites, restaurants and transportation.”[2]

Europe is now becoming more like Israel, facing constant Islamic terror threats in daily life.

And we are becoming more like Britain or Canada, with a side of Russia, as far as RIGHTS are concerned.  Bill of Rights?!  WHAT Bill of Rights?!  And The Supreme Court deciding (through attrition) that union non-members can be forced to pay…

WASHINGTON — Conservatives bent on crippling the power of public employee unions lost their best opportunity in years Tuesday when the Supreme Court deadlocked over a challenge to the fees those unions collect from non-members.

Rather than seeking to reschedule the case for their next term, the justices simply announced they were tied 4-4 — a verdict which leaves intact the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upholding the fee collections.  (USA Today)

Say WHAT?!

HIPAA, Schmippa!

Texas: Med Board lets DEA sneak peeks at patient records

By

Courtesy of U.S. Department of Justice.

It’s such a hassle getting information this way, when you can just pretend to be a state regulator.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has been sifting through hundreds of supposedly private medical files, looking for Texas doctors and patients to prosecute without the use of warrants.

Instead, the agents are tricking doctors and nurses into thinking they’re with the Texas Medical Board. When that doesn’t work, they’re sending doctors subpoenas demanding medical records without court approval.

The DEA can’t even count how many times it has resorted to the practice nationwide. A spokesman estimated it was in the thousands.

But, as a legal brief filed last week points out, lawyers for the federal government can’t find a single case in which a court has “authorized the use of such a broad array of patient information with such a sparse record as to why it needs such information.”

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Texas did just that, setting up a showdown in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals over whether the DEA needs a reason to go rummaging through private medical records in search of pill mills and prescription drug abusers.

Without the legalese, the issue is simple: How good a reason does the DEA need to get access to medical records? The DEA doesn’t think it needs much of one.

Attorneys for Dallas-area doctors Joseph and Abbas Zadeh argue “the DEA should not be allowed to circumvent the requirements of a warrant, and should be required to show probable cause.” Failing that, they should at least have to justify their intrusions to a judge who’s acting as more than a rubber stamp.

The DEA’s practice of avoiding warrant requirements has produced this absurdity: If you have a prescription for Adderall or OxyContin, you might be safer getting your drugs on the street than through your own doctor.

Street dealers, after all, don’t keep patient records, and they’re afforded more constitutional protections than medical practitioners. That is, cops still need a warrant to search them.

In Texas, the DEA’s criminal investigators do an end run around the Constitution’s warrant requirements by getting the Texas Medical Board to order doctors to open their records.

In that 5th Circuit case that’s about to set an important precedent, DEA agents spent hours examining private medical records after tricking a nurse into believing they were with the Medical Board.

The trick was easy. Three DEA agents showed up at a Dallas doctor’s office accompanied by a medical board investigator who told the nurse “they were with the Texas State Medical Board,” according to a deposition in the case. “The other three persons along with her kept silent.”

Mari Robinson, the medical board’s executive director, testified last year in a legislative hearing that her agency does that sort of thing 20 to 40 times a year, but it took some grilling by state Rep. Bill Zedler, R – Arlington, to get that out of her.

“How many times do you show up (at a doctor’s office) with the DEA and not tell ‘em that the DEA is with you,” Zedler asked Robinson at a Sept. 24 hearing.

“I’m not sure what you mean by that,” Robinson said.

“Well, I mean that when they show up, they say, ‘We’re with the Texas Medical Board.’ Period.”

“That is what we do for our part,” Robinson said. “The DEA has its own responsibility.”

Zedler gave an example almost identical to the facts in the Zadeh lawsuit: Medical board investigators got the DEA two hours’ access to confidential medical records through misrepresenting who they were; when the doctor’s lawyer showed up demanding to see some ID’s, the party ended.

“You don’t find that an unconstitutional search through fraudulent non-disclosure,” Zedler demanded. “Did your investigators not know that they had DEA agents with them?”

There wasn’t “anything that we did” that could be unconsidered unconstitutional, Robinson answered, but she couldn’t speak for the DEA.

It turned out that each of the 20 to 40 times a year medical investigators turn up unannounced demanding to see records they’re actually working with the DEA.

The problem is this: The medical board has authority to issue “administrative subpoenas,” as they’re called, because it’s in the business of administering the medical industry. The DEA isn’t. It’s in the business of criminal investigations, which can be hindered by the Fourth Amendment.

The entire apparatus of administrative law is something of a shadow government grafted onto a constitutional system back in the New Deal era, and this shadow government has few safeguards. Rather than checks and balances, the regulatory state is characterized by agencies that handle all the investigation, prosecution, adjudication and appeals in-house, with little interference from other bodies.

The DEA has noticed how convenient it is simply to write a letter demanding all the evidence one might need. So in some cases, such as the Zadeh’s, where the initial subterfuge fails, the DEA simply writes the doctors its own administrative subpoena, even though, by its own admission, it’s looking for evidence in potential criminal cases against doctors and patients.

All too often, the doctors behave much like the telecom companies who were pressured by the National Security Administration to share customer records.

In fact, there are so few cases of doctors actually fighting back the government’s lawyers are building their argument on a case from 1950 in which regulators got access to the financial records of the Morton Salt Co.

RELATED: Texas Medical Board considers arming itself

In 2014, a federal court in Oregon agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union that a database of prescriptions was protected by medical privacy rights, and the DEA would need a warrant to access it.

That expectation of privacy will also factor into the decision before the 5th Circuit. Unlike some privacy rights, this one is no novelty.

Arguing on behalf of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, attorney Andrew Schlafly points out that patient privacy dates back 2,500 years to the Hippocratic Oath, which states, “All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession… which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and never reveal.”

The 5th Circuit may not decide to impose a standard of “probable cause” on law enforcement, but any standard of evidence would be an improvement on nothing, which is what investigators apparently have on the Zadehs.

Zedler has examined volumes of secret Medical Board records under his legislative privilege, and although he’s sworn to secrecy about them, he said during the hearing the medical board had confirmed the Zadehs weren’t running pill mills, and that there was “zero evidence of non-therapeutic prescribing.”

Yet a federal court upheld the subpoenas based on vague testimony from a DEA investigator that “(i)nformation developed in that investigation indicated (that) Dr. Joseph Zadeh (and Dr. Abbas Zadeh)… may have violated” the law.

That little phrase illustrates the difference between typical law enforcement and whatever the DEA is up to here.

Cops don’t swear that “information developed.” They tell the judge what it is if they want their warrant signed.

Contact Jon Cassidy at jon@watchdog.org or @jpcassidy000.

This story was initially reported last fall, but I thought it bore repetition when I saw it.  Many folks are fond of lampooning States like Massachusetts, New York and California about their progressive politics, policies and politicians.

But, even though Texas is of a more individualist, rights-loving nature, it is still a STATE!  And State and federal entities therein are still made up of people, many of whom want nothing more to control and spy on individuals.

And I’m not even factoring in the whole mental health/gun ownership part of the equation!

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 397 other followers