Conspiracy News Now: Judge

Showing posts with label Judge. Show all posts

Friday, September 13, 2013

The State: Judge in its Own Cause

by Kevin Carson

At a 2011 press conference President Obama, in response to a question about Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, said ?We are a nation of laws. We don't let individuals make decisions about how the law operates.?

Is this really a nation of laws, though? There?s an old legal principle, ?nemo iudex in causa sua,? which translated into English means ?no one should be the judge of their own cause.? But in fact all the laws theoretically limiting the state?s power are interpreted by ? wait for it ? officials of the state.

The state is, in a very real sense, judge in its own cause. Consider what the security community?s classification system amounts to, stripped of its phony veneer of ?public safety? and disinteredness. The U.S. government, to further the interests that control it, commits atrocities and crimes against the peoples of the world. It then decides for itself how much of its criminal activities it will allow its own domestic population ? supposedly its sovereign masters to whom it is accountable ? to know about. If one of its functionaries possesses the career-killing handicap of a conscience and feels morally bound to let the people know what kinds of criminal stuff ?their? government is really doing, the same government that?s doing all these awful things also sets the criminal penalties for clueing in the American people to what it?s doing.

The commission of the actual military, intelligence and diplomatic crimes themselves, the classification of documents that evidence those crimes, and the setting of civil and criminal penalties for revealing wickedness in high places ? all these things are done by officials of the same government.

During the administration of Richard Nixon, who was less vindictive toward whistleblowers than our current President, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, a collection of classified documents showing how the United States had inexorably increased its involvement in Indochina ever since the French withdrawal, lying to the American people about the situation the whole time. That secret decision-making process, uncovered by Ellsberg after the fact, cost over 50,000 American and millions of Vietnamese lives, and turned most of south Indochina into a dioxin-soaked hell.

In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow Iran?s elected government ? an act which eventually led to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and thirty subsequent years of war and tension in the Gulf. It led indirectly to a bloody war between Iran and Iraq in which millions died, creating a regional political climate that at times threatened superpower war. It was only in the past month ? sixty years after the fact ? the CIA officially admitted it had written a check to be cashed with the a**es of the American people.

In the late ?70s, under Zbigniew Brzezinski?s foreign policy leadership, the U.S. began backing Islamic fundamentalist rebels against the Soviet-friendly government of Afghanistan, resulting in a Soviet-backed coup and subsequent invasion reminiscent of what the U.S. engineered in South Vietnam in 1963-1965. The explicit goal of Brzezinski?s move in the ?Great Game? was to get the USSR bogged down in its own sucking chest wound of a counter-insurgency war, with the possible side-benefit of destabilizing control in the largely Muslim southern republics of the Soviet Union. Other unintended consequences of this brilliant chess move included the rise of al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. Even after 9/11, though, Brzezinski still said it was worth it. Funny thing is ? I never heard of the American people getting a vote on it.

The farce is made even more absurd by the fact that high-ranking officials like Obama do, in fact, break the law whenever they feel like it ? with impunity. At the same press conference where he gave the quote above, Obama said: ?? I have to abide by certain rules of classified information. If I were to release material I weren't allowed to, I'd be breaking the law.? But Obama does that all the time. The movie ?Zero Dark Thirty? is chock full of classified material leaked with the full complicity of the Obama administration. Last I heard, nobody was in prison, or holed up in an embassy, or had their plane forced down, pursuant to an effort to track down the leakers. Government illegally leaks classified information all the time, to smear its enemies or promote its propaganda line, and heads don?t roll for it. Because, you know, government.

That?s the way it works. The government commits crimes, classifies all the evidence of its criminal activity, and punishes anyone with the audacity to tell you about it. The government is judge of its own cause, every step of the way. This is not a government of laws. The state is the opposite of law.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- How "Your" Government Works
- Pelosi: Willing to "Protect" Syrian Children To Death
- Who's Really Getting Punished?
- How the State Destroys Social Cooperation
- Perpetual Chaos and Crises
- The Twisted Premises Implicit in the Drive for War
- The US Uses Gas To Kill Civilians
- We're All Edward Snowden Now

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Judge Refuses To Dismiss Suit Against Feds Who Arrested Former Marine For His Controversial Facebook Posts

by Tim Cushing

Almost exactly a year ago, former Marine Brandon Raub was taken from his home by federal agents and involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward, all because of some controversial postings to his Facebook account, including some 9/11 conspiracy-related articles and violent song lyrics.

On August 16, 2012, Raub was visited by local police, FBI agents and Secret Service personnel who questioned him about his Facebook posts. Raub was cooperative and discussed his activity with the officers, despite their not having a warrant. At some point, one of the agents made a call to Michael Campbell, a psychotherapist retained by the county who decided, despite having never met or observed Raub, that the former Marine was "potentially dangerous" and should be detained.

At that point, the collected officers cuffed Raub and took him to the local jail before having him committed to the mental hospital. Government officials later claimed Raub wasn't arrested, but the video taken of his "not being arrested" looks for all the world to the un-government-trained eye like an arrest.

After being detained for four days, Raub appeared before another judge who ordered him to be held for 30 days for evaluation. A short while later, this was overruled by Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett, who ordered Raub released immediately, stating that the prosecution's case was ?so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy.? At this point, the Rutherford Institute, which had taken Raub's case after his "non-arrest," filed a lawsuit on his behalf against the officers and agents involved with his unlawful detainment.

Needless to say, the government has attempted to have this lawsuit dismissed. Fortunately for Raub (and the American public), the judge isn't willing to let the involved parties just walk away from their problem.

A federal judge in Richmond, Va., has refused to dismiss from a lawsuit several FBI and Secret Service agents as well as local police officers who arrested a military veteran based on an opinion from a counselor who had never met him that he might be a danger.
The decision came from U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, who essentially said there is not enough information at this point in the case to dismiss the law enforcement defendants. He ordered limited discovery.
Hudson said the Rutherford Institute, which is representing Raub, had alleged sufficient facts to indicate that the involuntary commitment violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution?s First and Fourth Amendments.

The government agents named have claimed that officers only have to show "probable cause that the individual poses a danger to himself or others" in order to forcibly detain and commit civilians. Hudson has rebutted this claim, stating that these agents had no previous experience with Raub and were acting solely on the claims made by a third party, unless other facts indicating otherwise present themselves during the limited discovery. That handles the Fourth Amendment claims. The First Amendment claims brought by Raub also survived the motion to dismiss.

[T]here is no dispute over whether political speech is protected or whether an arrest for political speech would adversely affect one's ability to further engage in political expression. And the third element -- causation -- may be inferred from Raub's allegation that the only knowledge the County Defendants had at the time of arrest concerned his political views.

No one has a problem with law enforcement investigating threats, but all too often lately, these agencies have proven they are quick to act on very little information, much of it devoid of any context. Raub's case and other incidents involving social media all have one thing in common: the word "terrorist." The government's favorite witch hunt is hurting Americans, as zealous government entities are willing to see the implicit threat of terrorism everywhere someone tells them to look.

08 02 2013 Raub Opinion (PDF)

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Manning Speaks: "I am a Good Person"
- Owner of Snowden's Email Service on Why He Closed Lavabit Rather Than Comply With Gov't
- NSA Spying Threatens Law-Abiding Americans
- "Parallel Construction": Government Term for Lying About Its Investigations
- Former NSA Boss Calls Snowden's Supporters Internet Shut-ins; Equates Transparency Activists With Al-Qaeda
- DEA Conceals Reliance on Surveillance Conducted by Intelligence Agencies
- Comcast NBC Universal Already Moving Past Six Strikes; Trying New Malware Popups Urging Downloaders To Buy
- Greenwald: Is U.S. Exaggerating Threat to Embassies to Silence Critics of NSA Domestic Surveillance?

at BEST this case would be:

1.) the biggest pussies in the world running around with body armor and outnumbering and outgunning every person around them, while calling everyone and everything "a threat".

but we all can see the truth is not that "best" case scenario,
the truth is:

2.) (their voice): "DON'T YOU DARE EVEN TALK BAD ABOUT YOUR GOD THE COPS AND GOVT, WE ARE YOUR GOD, GODDDD!!!!!"

the real truth: nope, ur not. reach out and touch me - you will pull back a bloody stump. like your hand? keep it off me and it'll be fine.

in related news: midway has some .308 for sale:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/958697/lapua-mega-ammunition-308-winchester-185-grain-soft-point-box-of-20

where in the heck have i been? @nonymous 12169 seems to be shaking-off the programming. there's still hate in her (i think it's a "her" ? not sure. might be someone programmed after p.l.a.t.o. was scrapped... Short sentences suggests both, female, and, educated male.

headline on yahoo reads: "Bride Gets Wedding Cake Revenge on eBay". mind you, that's a HUMONGOUS f*-up. the wedding cake wad suppose to look like tires, "Yes," tires....

in fake-believe land, my first impression was: the brits. have white-trash too? however, i play by the rules of logic-land.

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex-bride-lists-appalling-wedding-cake-on-ebay--publicly-shames-cake-maker-180206231.html

so, the REAL story in the link above, reads that "a team-player" (a default-bride), wasn't recognized by the cartel; they made her run through a maze, redirected her, and, compiled a bunch of nonsense - to send her spinning in circles, (or, a "tire.")

now, she's calling the cartels' cops, "incompetent." the "uppers" in the hierarchy, are siding w/ her.

A man who builds race-cars, told me once: "there's no replacement for displacement." so, i slapped a 351 Windsor, in my 1967 cougar. (this was prior to my having become unplugged, and, one could still drag race, without having to worry over cops. ). But, the engine resulted in a poor fit.

(yes, fuck-wits, i see the numbers, and, the irony, in the word: "cougar"

View the original article here

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Judge Scolds Jury for Getting the Verdict "Wrong"

ABC News:

COLUMBUS (Carol Luper/Ken Hines) -- A Franklin County judge may be subjected to disciplinary measures after chastising a jury for reaching a not guilty verdict in an assault trial.
Judge Amy Salerno expressed her dissatisfaction with a jury's verdict in open court at the conclusion of a recent trial, according to four jurors, who complained about the incident to Franklin County Administrative Judge James Green.
"The judge came off the bench, and she indicated she thought they had gotten the verdict wrong," Judge Green said.
"They were further told, 99 percent of the time, the jury gets it right. It's now 98 percent. They brought that percentage down by getting it wrong."
One of the jurors who spoke to Judge Green was visibly upset while describing the actions of Salerno, who also stated that she was not done with the defendant that had been acquitted.
"They reported to me [that] she made a comment to them, it was okay because she would have another chance to get this defendant because he had other charges pending," he said.

Latest Politics/Corruption
- As Head Of NSA Review Group Obama Appoints Same Person Who "Apologized" For Lying To Congress
- DOJ Decided To Ratchet Up Case Against Aaron Swartz Because He Spoke Out Publicly About Being Innocent
- Tennessee judge orders that parents rename their 7-month-old son
- Lawmakers Issued License Plates That Make Them 'Invisible' To Traffic Cams And Parking Tickets
- Rep. Keith Ellison: Gov. Not Broke Because There's Plenty of Money In Private Hands And 'Government Has A Right' To It
- The Definitive Expos? of Glenn Beck
- Obama Agrees with Hitler on Schooling Children
- Obama Supporters Petition to Grant Him Immunity for All Crimes He Commits While in Office

Sounds like this fool needs to keep her opinions to her self as she is not paid to express them in open court as she is about to find out.
Express yourself all you want on your own time & in a place that is appropriate, however grandstanding because you have a fancy outfit & an audience is another matter entirely, who the heck does she think she is, oh that's right, "I'm a judge & I can lock you up!" Hello to Jury Nullification....

View the original article here

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Federal Judge: NYC Stop And Frisk Violates The 4th Amendment

by Timothy Geigner

For anyone who might not know already, New York City's infamous stop and frisk program is the completely useless policy of the police department to go around randomly molesting anyone they deem to be suspicious, or more correctly described as brown-skinned. It appears that everyone who isn't a member of the NYPD or the current mayor of New York hates this program as much as I do, including AG Eric Holder and the NY City Council. Still, that didn't keep Chuck Schumer from trying to export this interracial softcore porn policy to the federal level by recommending Police Chief Ray Kelly as the head of the Department of Homeland Security. Kelly's resume, however, may take a bit of a hit.

That's because a federal judge recently declared that the stop and frisk program violated tens of thousands of people's constitutional rights, which is the kind of thing that most folks frown on.

In a decision issued on Monday, the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ruled that police officers have for years been systematically stopping innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Officers often frisked these people, usually young minority men, for weapons or searched their pockets for contraband, like drugs, before letting them go, according to the 195-page decision.
These stop-and-frisk episodes, which soared in number over the last decade as crime continued to decline, demonstrated a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, according to the ruling. It also found violations with the 14th Amendment.

Now, it's worth noting that Scheindlin didn't order that the program be stopped immediately or set a time and date for Mayor Bloomberg's lobotomy, which I found disappointing, but instead has appointed an outside legal counsel to oversee the police department and ensure that any random stopping and frisking of citizens is done constitutionally. That means no stops without reasonable suspicion. The problem, however, has been how police officers thus far have fudged their own reports on why they were stopping people.

While the Supreme Court has long recognized the right of police officers to briefly stop and investigate people who are behaving suspiciously, Judge Scheindlin found that the New York police had overstepped that authority. She found that officers were too quick to deem as suspicious behavior that was perfectly innocent, in effect watering down the legal standard required for a stop.

Obviously no outside legal overseer is going to be able to witness any sizable number of these stops, meaning there is a high likelihood that officers will continue to manufacture suspicion that is unfounded. In addition, it's well known that police officers consider themselves members of a fraternal organization, with all of the implications such a membership carries with it. How accurate a picture this outside counsel will get of these stops moving forward is an open question with a likely problematic answer.

That's why, while we should all be pleased that Judge Scheindlin ruled against stop and frisk, I think it would have been far better to scrap it entirely and make police play by the rules that are already prescribed by our constitution.

Floyd Liability Opinion 8 12 13 (PDF)

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Cop Convicted Of Second-Degree Manslaughter For Shooting 5-Yr-Old Boy In Back Of Head Gets Record Expunged, Now Free Again To Become An Officer
- Boston Cop Shoves Videographer, Then Threatens to Arrest Him for "Battery On A Police Officer"
- Man Refuses To ID At Texas Border Patrol Checkpoint, Checkpoint Officer Says "Get The F*ck Out of Here" & Waves Him Through
- Attorneys For Ibragim Todashev's Father Say There's NO Evidence He Was Armed When FBI Executed Him
- Philly Cop Filmed Punching Small Woman In Face At Puerto Rican Day Parade Gets Job Back With Full Back Pay
- Oregon Deputies Caught on Dash Cam Acknowledging Illegal Traffic Stop
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- "They Kidnapped Our Child": Why CPS Needs Transparency Now

View the original article here

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Federal Judge None Too Impressed With Government's Defense Of Its 'No Fly' List

by Tim Cushing

The top secret "No-Fly" list has been problematic since day one. The DHS and FBI apparently believe over 20,000 people are too dangerous to allow to board a plane but not dangerous enough to arrest.

This is the process the government follows to place would-be travelers on the no-fly list.

1. The government places a person on the no-fly list.

That's all there is to it. The list is too "sensitive" to publish and exposing its methodology would apparently result in airliners raining down around us.

If you're a lucky recipient of the "no-fly" designation, here's how you're informed of your new status.

1. Purchase a ticket and attempt to travel. 2. Be rebuffed by TSA personnel.

This process can sometimes be applied with more flexibility.

1. Purchase a roundtrip ticket and fly to a foreign destination. 2. Attempt to return home. 3. Be rebuffed by local customs/security officials.

You won't know you're on The List until the list is triggered, which could happen when you're a few thousand miles from home. And if you think you're boarding the next boat back to the US, think again. The list is also "no-sail," meaning passenger ships are out of the question.

Now, if you're on the list and wish to be removed or, at the very least, informed of why you've been banned from commercial airline travel, there's no reason to panic. The DHS has a resolution process that relies very heavily on "process" and skips the "resolution" completely.

Their only recourse is to file a request with the Department of Homeland Security's "Traveler Redress Inquiry Program," after which DHS responds with a letter that does not explain why they were denied boarding. The letter does not confirm or deny whether their names remain on the No Fly List, and does not indicate whether they can fly. The only way for a person to find out if his or her name was removed from the No Fly List is to buy a plane ticket, go to the airport, see if he or she can get on the flight ? taking the risk of being denied boarding and marked as a suspected terrorist, and losing the cost of the airline ticket.

One wonders what a letter that answers no questions and explains nothing is supposed to "redress."

Dear Sir/Madam No Fly,
Thank you for expressing an interest in our Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. The Department of Homeland Security works in conjunction with all domestic airports, as well as those in 22 other nations worldwide, in order to provide you with a safe traveling experience. We hope that you will continue to make use of our products and services.
Thank you again for your support.
If you have additional comments or questions, please dial (202) 282-8495.
Sincerely, The Department of Homeland Security

This decade-long lack of specifics or actual redress has led to the ACLU suing the federal government on the behalf of thirteen no-fly list members.

Thirteen people on the no-fly list have sued the U.S. government, arguing that their placement deprives them of due process and smears their reputation by branding them as terrorists. Several of the men who filed suit have been surrounded at airport security areas, detained and interrogated.
The suit seeks to either remove the plaintiffs from the no-fly list or tell them why they are on it.

Government attorney Scott Risner addressed these complaints by arguing that air travel is not a "right" but a "convenience."

Risner said placement on the list doesn't stop people from traveling, and stopping people from using one mode of travel doesn't deprive them of their liberty. That's a key question in determining whether the government must ensure due process and one that's at the heart of the constitutionality of being placed on the list.

"We're not suggesting that there's not a convenience in air travel," Risner said. "(But) there's no right to travel without impediments. That's what's happening here.

Risner went so far as to point out that those stranded by sudden inclusion on the no fly list had made it back to the US via alternate forms of travel, thus "proving" a lack of air travel isn't preventing traveling.

Unfortunately for Risner, Judge Anna J. Brown wasn't buying it.

"To call it 'convenience' is marginalizing their argument," Brown said. [She] said alternatives to flying are significantly more expensive. "It's hugely time-consuming, and who knows what impediments there are between the Port of Portland and other countries."

She also pointed out that sea and land travel options aren't suitable replacements for flying, especially when time is of the essence and that the government's argument "fails to take into account the realities of modern life."

The DHS and FBI would obviously like everything to proceed the way it has for years, which means convincing the judge that flying isn't a fundamental right. This removes the question of constitutionality, as least as far as flight restrictions go.

The ACLU has gone further, though, declaring the entire system to be screwed up.

"We're asking the court to finally put a check on the government's use of a blacklist that denies Americans the ability to fly without giving them the explanation or fair hearing that the Constitution requires. It's a question of basic fairness," said ACLU Staff Attorney Nusrat Choudhury, one of the ACLU attorneys who will argue the case Friday in Portland. "It does not make our country safer to ban people from flying without giving them an after-the-fact redress process that allows them to correct the errors that led to their mistaken inclusion on the list."

It also points out that issuance of notice and due process are required for much less far-reaching actions.

The ACLU argues that this system violates the Fifth Amendment's command that the government cannot deprive a person of liberty "without due process of law." Courts have ruled that the Constitution requires some kind of notice and hearing for far less severe actions, such as losing state assistance for utility bills or being suspended from school for 10 days.

Judge Brown hasn't said when she'll issue a ruling, but so far she seems less than impressed with the government's arguments. In the meantime, 20,000 people, including the 13 US citizens represented here (four of which are military veterans), are still stuck in War on Terror limbo -- unofficially "detained" in the US by secretive travel restrictions.

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- TSA Puts on the Dog
- Charges Dismissed For Teen Arrested Over NRA T-Shirt
- 5-Year-Old's Suspension Over Toy Cap Gun Reversed
- "There's A LOT Of Wrong Doing Taking Place (By The U.S. Government) That Americans Aren't Aware Of"
- "I Think Glenn Greenwald Should Calm Down" Piers Morgan
- "Snowden Is The Traitor! (NOT ME!) And Anybody That'd Call Him A Hero Is Terribly Misguided!"
- Maddow Does Her Best To Convince You Snowden Is The One Stealing Your Information NOT Obama
- Snowden's Secrets 'Belong To The People Of The US' & He's A Traitor For Giving Them What They Own?

View the original article here

Monday, December 31, 2012

U.S. Gov't Asks Federal Judge to Dismiss Cases of Americans Killed by Drones

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs'); Joe Wright

As Americans mourn the deaths of 20 children and 6 adults in the Newtown, CT tragedy - and the gun control debate has reached a fever pitch - autonomous killing systems are being funded by American taxpayers, and drone strikes continue to kill an increasing number of civilians abroad.

Barack Obama and the U.S. government policy makers have shown an incredible level of hypocrisy before; on the one hand lamenting such senseless deaths as have occurred in "mass shootings" while conducting their own mass killing, torture, and terror campaigns in foreign lands.

A culture of violence can't have it both ways, though, and the welcoming of drones into American skies by Congress is sure to unleash physical havoc shortly after concerns over surveillance and privacy are dismissed.

As a clear sign of what can be expected, the U.S. government has asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit brought by the families of three Americans killed by drone strikes in Yemen. If federal courts rule that these cases are without merit, it will set a dangerous precedent that only the executive branch of government can decide which Americans have a constitutional right to due process, while further enhancing a framework where the government will decide who is fit to be mourned and who should be forgotten.

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- North Carolina: Driving While Nervous is Not a Crime
- Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine
- Not So Merry Christmas Drug Busts
- Utah: Traffic Stop Valid Even When Cop Causes Violation
- Santa Claus Arrested by DPS Capitol Police for Chalking Sidewalk
- San Diego Cops Beat & Pepper Spray Innocent Man With Down Syndrome
- Arizona Police Officer Caught Hiding Evidence In His Garage, Lying About It -- Keeps Job
- Denver Police Officer Found Guilty Of Using Badge To Sexually Assaulting Woman

View the original article here

Monday, October 22, 2012

No Duty to Secure Wi-Fi from BitTorrent Pirates, Judge Rules

A crucial ruling in one of the ongoing BitTorrent lawsuits in the United States has delivered a clear win for open Wi-Fi operators. Among other things, California Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that Internet subscribers are not required to secure their wireless networks to prevent outsiders from pirating movies. In other words, people can?t be held liable for the alleged infringements of other people on their network.

BitTorrent lawsuits have been dragging on for more than two years in the US, involving more than a quarter million alleged illicit file-sharers.

The copyright holders who start these cases generally provide nothing more than an IP-address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena which allows them to request the personal details of the alleged offenders from their Internet providers.

The problem with this scheme, however, is that the person who pays the Internet bills may not be the person who pirating the movie or song in question. Several judges have noted that an IP-address is not a person, much to the disappointment of copyright holders.

To counter this argument copyright holders have introduced the ?negligence? theory, arguing that Internet subscribers are liable when other people pirate files through their networks. This would allow copyright holders to sue people even when their targets haven?t committed an offense.

One of these cases was decided last week in favor of the Internet subscriber.

The case was started by adult video company AF Holdings who sued an Internet account holder called Josh Hatfield in a California federal court. AF Holdings claimed that Hatfield had a "duty to secure his Internet connection," and that he "breached that duty by failing to secure his Internet connection."

As a result, AF Holdings argued that Hatfield was liable for the copyright infringements that were committed by an unknown person. Mr. Hatfield disagreed with this claim, and argued that the copyright holder couldn?t prove that people are obliged to secure their wireless networks to prevent piracy.

In her verdict Judge Phyllis Hamilton sided with the defendant.

?AF Holdings has not articulated any basis for imposing on Hatfield a legal duty to prevent the infringement of AF Holdings' copyrighted works, and the court is aware of none,? Hamilton writes.

?Hatfield is not alleged to have any special relationship with AF Holdings that would give rise to a duty to protect AF Holdings' copyrights, and is also not alleged to have engaged in any misfeasance by which he created a risk of peril,? she adds.

In addition to this lack of duty of care, Judge Hamilton ruled that even if negligence could be proven then ?personal injury? state law would be preempted by federal copyright law.

The ruling in the current case is similar to that of Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York earlier this year although perhaps even stronger ? Judge Hamilton specifically rules that Internet subscribers don?t have an obligation towards copyright holders to secure their Wi-Fi.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who have helped out many alleged BitTorrent pirates over the years, are happy with the outcome.

?This ruling, along with the Tabora ruling in New York, send a strong judicial message that copyright owners can?t use legal tricks to bypass the law?s protections for Internet access points,? EFF?s Mitch Stolz writes.

?There are still many open cases in the federal courts where copyright owners are trying to use this bogus legal theory,? he adds.

The ruling is definitely a setback for the many copyright holders who jumped aboard the lucrative BitTorrent lawsuit bandwagon. Should more judges reach the same conclusion in future cases the end of this type of lawsuit in the U.S. may very well be near.

Latest Science/Technology
- No Traffic Lights Vs Traffic Lights
- AZ SWAT Team Kills Man in Drug Raid Shoot-Out
- Man Eats Uranium, Drinks and Swims In Reactor Water, Ignites Plutonium In His Bare Hand
- FOI Documents Show TOR Undernet Beyond the Reach of the Federal Investigators
- Keep Out: NASA Asks Future Moon Visitors to Respect Its Stuff
- Leap Motion: A New Way To interact With Your Computer
- Spectacular video: 'Jetman'; soars over Rio de Janeiro skyline
- Jimmy Wales Says Irrelevance, Not Piracy, Will Doom Hollywood

View the original article here

Monday, August 13, 2012

Pro-Copyright Judges Never Drop Cases Over Conflicts, So Why Does Megaupload Judge Have To Step Down?

by Mike Masnick

This isn't a huge surprise, but yesterday, we wrote about some comments by Judge David Harvey in New Zealand concerning region coding on DVDs and the New Zealand/US negotiations over the TPP agreement. None of this had anything to do with Megaupload or the Dotcom case, but at one point he referred to a tweet that did a slight satire on the famous saying, and noted that "we have met the enemy and he is [the] US." The press was already blowing this out of proportion -- suggesting, totally incorrectly, that he had "called the US an enemy" when it came to copyright law. That's not true at all. Beyond the fact that he was paraphrasing a common saying in a clearly hyperbolistic manner, the issue he was talking about was very specific to anti-circumvention issues related DVD region coding, and nothing, whatsoever to do with the direct issue in the case.

That said... as many people are noting, Judge Harvey, recognizing the press furor about all this has stepped down from the case and will allow another judge to pick up the extradition issue down the road. This is unfortunate, as Judge Harvey is noted as one of New Zealand's key internet law experts, who really understood these issues at a deep level. Still, it's unclear if this change will have a huge impact on the case. The judge taking over for Harvey, Judge Nevin Dawson, has also been involved in the Megaupload case, and was the judge who released Dotcom on bail, despite pressure from the US to keep him locked up. Furthermore, Harvey and Dawson are district court judges, and it seems likely that, in the end, this will involve New Zealand's High Court, which is already engaged and has already ruled against the US.

But, here's the bigger issue: we see stories of judges in big copyright cases all the time who have strong ties to pro-copyright or copyright maximalist organizations... and people shrug and move on. Let's just say, for example, if Judge Harvey had said that he agreed with New Zealand's efforts to join the TPP because he thought that New Zealand needed stronger anti-circumvention rules to protect DVDs, would anyone even blink an eye? I doubt it.

Furthermore, travel around the globe, and you find the exact opposite situation in many cases, where the judges did not step down. Most famously, over in Sweden, the judge who heard The Pirate Bay trial had close ties to the copyright lobby, and was a member of a few organizations that worked towards promoting stronger copyright law. It seems like that would be a much more direct and obvious conflict than Judge Harvey's... yet that Swedish judge stayed on. Similarly, here in the US, Judge Beryl Howell, who bucked the trend in copyright trolling cases, by allowing cases to move forward on questionable theories, was just recently an RIAA lobbyist, and prior to that had helped write the DMCA, while a Congressional staffer. And, yet, she remained on the case.

It seems that there's a pretty clear double standard at work here. If you're strongly pro-copyright, no one blinks an eye if you are hearing copyright cases. But, if you make an offhand joking comment that's marginally critical of US copyright policy in one specific area, totally unrelated to the case at hand... you step down.

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Judge says it's OK to use your seized phone to impersonate you and entrap your friends
- Sandra Cortez's Ordeal: Once You're On The Terrorist "Watch List," You Can't Get Off
- TSA Agents Allegedly Strip-Search Woman, Fiddle with Feeding Tube
- TSA TROUBLE: Disabled Man Points Finger At TSA
- Australian Government Moves to Expand Surveillance Powers
- DOJ Tries To Explain How It Can Get Around Requirement To Serve Megaupload In The US
- FDA Spied On Emails To Try To Silence Critics
- TSA agents to staff UK airports during Olympics

View the original article here

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Judge says it's OK to use your seized phone to impersonate you and entrap your friends

By Cory Doctorow

A federal judge has upheld the practice of police using seized phones to impersonate their owners, reading messages and sending sending entrapping replies to contacts in the phone's memory, without a warrant. The judge reasoned that constitutional privacy rights don't apply to messages if they appear on a seized device -- even if the messages originated with someone who has not been arrested or is under suspicion of any crime:

A federal appeals court held that the pager owner's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure were not violated because the pager is "nothing more than a contemporary receptacle for telephone numbers," akin to an address book. The court also held that someone who sends his phone number to a pager has no reasonable expectation of privacy because he can't be sure that the pager will be in the hands of its owner.
Judge Penoyar said that the same reasoning applies to text messages sent to an iPhone. While text messages may be legally protected in transit, he argued that they lose privacy protections once they have been delivered to a target device in the hands of the police. He claimed that the same rule applied to letters and e-mail. (Police would still need to seize or search a phone or computer legally, and phones are much easier for cops to seize than computers, which generally require a warrant.)
"On his own iPhone, on his own computer, or in the process of electronic transit, Hinton's communications are shielded by our constitutions," he wrote, referring to both the state and federal constitutions. "But after their arrival, Hinton's text messages on Lee's iPhone were no longer private or deserving of constitutional protection." Penoyar rejected Roden's privacy arguments on similar grounds.

It's legal: cops seize cell phone, impersonate owner

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Sandra Cortez's Ordeal: Once You're On The Terrorist "Watch List," You Can't Get Off
- TSA Agents Allegedly Strip-Search Woman, Fiddle with Feeding Tube
- TSA TROUBLE: Disabled Man Points Finger At TSA
- Australian Government Moves to Expand Surveillance Powers
- Pro-Copyright Judges Never Drop Cases Over Conflicts, So Why Does Megaupload Judge Have To Step Down?
- DOJ Tries To Explain How It Can Get Around Requirement To Serve Megaupload In The US
- FDA Spied On Emails To Try To Silence Critics
- TSA agents to staff UK airports during Olympics

View the original article here

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Kim Dotcom's NZ Extradition Judge Sees U.S. as "The Enemy"

by Ernesto, TorrentFreak

New Zealand?s District Court Judge David Harvey made some interesting comments recently with regard to U.S. attempts to change copyright law worldwide.

Judge Harvey, who?s handling Kim Dotcom?s extradition case, is not a fan of these practices as became clear at the launch of the ?Fair Deal? campaign.

Commenting on the U.S. backed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, which will push for harsher copyright legislation, he said the following.

?There are all sorts of ways this whole thing is being ramped up and if I could use Russell [Brown's] tweet from earlier on: we have met the enemy and he is [the] U.S.?

Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge told NZHerald that judges should be free to make comments, but that Judge Harvey?s remarks are ?unhelpful?.

Whether the U.S. authorities ask for a new judge because of this apparent ?bias? has yet to be seen.

Last week Dotcom?s extradition hearing was delayed until March 2013.

Latest Resistance
- Real Gunfighter Lance Thomas on Justic Files
- Cat has been mayor of Alaska town for 15 years
- Foie Gras Goes Underground at California 'Duckeasies'
- Stefan Molyneux and Jeffrey Tucker at Freeeeedomfeeeeest!
- New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law!
- Law Student Puts Cop In His Place After Being Unlawfully Stopped For Carrying A Gun In Maine
- Public Swearing Ban Cursed at Protest in Massachusetts Town
- Adam curses at police officer in civil disobedience & gets away with it

I live in the US and I do not agree with the government's actions relating to this particular topic. Why do they believe that they can go around the world enforcing their will upon others? Who put the US government in charge of the rule of law for all of the world? We have so many problems here at home yet these people want to focus their attention abroad? Well don't worry everyone because the political scene is changing here and we will have these scumbags out of office soon enough.

View the original article here

Sunday, June 10, 2012

IP-Address Can't Even Identify a State, BitTorrent Judge Rules

by Ernesto, TorrentFreak

The mass-BitTorrent lawsuits that are sweeping the United States are in a heap of trouble. After a Florida judge ruled that an IP-address is not a person, a Californian colleague has gone even further in protecting the First Amendment rights of BitTorrent users. The judge in question points out that geolocation tools are far from accurate and that it?s therefore uncertain that his court has jurisdiction over cases involving alleged BitTorrent pirates. As a result, 15 of these mass-BitTorrent lawsuits were dismissed.

In recent years more than a quarter million people have been accused of sharing copyrighted works in the United States.

Copyright holders generally sue dozens, hundreds or sometimes even thousands of people at once, hoping to extract cash settlements from the alleged downloaders. The evidence they present to the court is usually an IP-address and a timestamp marking when the alleged infringement took place.

Early 2010, when these mass-lawsuits began, copyright holders targeted IP-addresses from all across the US in single lawsuits. This led some judges to dismiss cases because their courts have no jurisdiction over people who live elsewhere.

As a result, copyright holders switched to a new tactic. Before filing a suit they ran their database of infringing IP-addresses through so-called ?geolocation? services so they could argue that the defendants most likely reside in the district where they were being sued.

This worked well for a while, but a new ruling by California District Court Judge Dean Pregerson puts an end to this new approach, killing 15 lawsuits in the process.

According to Pregerson, alleged BitTorrent pirates are protected by the First Amendment as they are ?engaging in the exercise of speech, albeit to a limited extent.? Therefore, the copyright holder?s request to identify anonymous internet users has to meet certain criteria.

One of the requirements is that it?s absolutely clear that the accused are residents of the region where the court has jurisdiction, but according to Judge Pregerson it is not sufficient to use the results from a ?geolocation? tool to prove it.

In a previous order the copyright holder ? movie company Celestial Inc. ? was asked to convince the court of the accuracy of these tools. In a reply Celestial referred to a website which contained some general claims as well as a quote from the company that collected the evidence, but it wasn?t enough.

?Based on Plaintiff?s own reliability claims, there may still be a 20 to 50 percent chance that this court lacks jurisdiction,? Judge Pregerson writes in his order.

The Judge adds that even if there is a slight chance that these tools are wrong, he simply can?t sign off on the subpoena request.

?Even if the most advanced geolocation tools were simply too unreliable to adequately establish jurisdiction, the court could not set aside constitutional concerns in favor of Plaintiff?s desire to subpoena the Doe Defendants? identifying information.?

?Again, it is the First Amendment that requires courts to ensure complaints like this one would at least survive a motion to dismiss, before the court authorizes early discovery to identify anonymous internet users.?

The IP-address lookups and additional information provided by Celestial Inc. can?t guarantee that the defendants do indeed reside in California, and Judge Pregerson therefore dismissed the 15 mass-BitTorrent lawsuits the company filed at his court.

It also means the end of mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the Californian court, as no geolocation tool is 100% accurate.

While the ruling doesn?t mean the end of all mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the US just yet, it appears that there?s a growing opposition from judges against these practices.

For example, two weeks ago we reported on a related ruling in which a Florida judge dismissed several cases because an IP-address doesn?t identify a person. In other words, even when a court has jurisdiction, the copyright holder can not prove that the account holder connected to the IP-address is the person who shared the copyrighted file.

If other judges adopt either of the rulings above, it means the end of mass-BitTorrent lawsuits as we know them.

View the original article here

Monday, May 21, 2012

Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge

By Bob Van Voris and Patricia Hurtado

Opponents of a U.S. law they claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism persuaded a federal judge to temporarily block the measure.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan yesterday ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.

The complaint was filed Jan. 13 by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The plaintiffs contend a section of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on ?suspicion of providing substantial support? to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S., such as al-Qaeda.

?The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ?associated forces? - i.e., ?foreign terrorist organizations,?? Forrest said in an opinion yesterday. ?The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.?

Latest Resistance
- Federal court enjoins NDAA
- IP-Address Can't Even Identify a State, BitTorrent Judge Rules
- Anarchast Ep. 25 with Josh Luther
- Drone Bombings Truther Caught on Video
- You Have Every Right to Photograph That Cop
- Pokemon Theme Song Creator Creates Parody Re-Mix For Ron Paul
- Rand Paul Launches Campaign to End the TSA
- Montreal Protesters Go Fishing For Cops w/ Donuts On Sticks [Pic]

Good on that judge! Too bad Obama will probably have her assassinated for disobeying his authority and standing up to this bullying bill now, though.

View the original article here

Friday, February 24, 2012

Judge Napolitano: Final Word on the Last Episode of Freedom Watch

Judge Napolitano: Final Word on the Last Episode of Freedom Watch - informationliberationinformationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...Breaking NewsBrowse by CategoryAnalysisHighlightsMultimediaLatest CommentsArchivesRSS FeedSyndicationAboutContact
Multimedia

An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything

The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires

The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off

Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in Europe

The New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century(more)Article posted Feb 14 2012, 6:30 PMCategory: ResistanceSource: YouTube

Print
Judge Napolitano: Final Word on the Last Episode of Freedom Watch

Judge Napolitano's Final Word on the Last Episode of Freedom Watch.

SHARE: Share Tweet submit to reddit

Email This

Latest Resistance
- Non-Compliance In Action: Bar Patrons Ignore Armed Robber Until He Goes Away
- Vietnam farmer a hero after shootout with police
- The Way of Empires -- Lew Rockwell on Alex Jones
- The Pirate Bay Statement on Prison Sentences: "2012 is the Year of the Storm"
- Dutch ISPs Refuse To Block The Pirate Bay Without A Direct Order
- Australia: Thousands of parents illegally home schooling
- Assange TV on RT: Exclusive interview show coming soon
- Ron Paul: "We Are The Next Generation!"

No Comments PostedAdd Comment

Add CommentNameComment

* No HTML

Verification *Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

PLEASE NOTEPlease see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston ChurchillSearch

Advanced SearchLogin Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register
Most Popular TSA Forces Woman To Use Naked Body Scanner Three Times Because of "Cute" Figure - 02/14Kurt Haskell Exposes Government False Flag Operation During Underwear Bomber Sentencing - 02/16Caught On Tape: Cop Sucker Punches Suspect In Back Of Head, Then Charges Him With "Assaulting A Police Officer" - 02/15Caught On Tape: Officer Threatens to Make Up Evidence After Arrest of Innocent Men - 02/14Why Are Government Bureaucrats Turning America Into Nazi Germany? - 02/13According To The FBI, Internet Privacy Is Now Considered To Be Suspicious Activity - 02/06David Stanley, RIP - 02/03911 IS A JOKE: Detroit citizens no longer rely on police as self-defense killings skyrocket - 02/07
Highlights

The Missing Lesson From Norway: Never Trust a Man in Uniform

"They're Only Out To Make Cold Hard American Cash"; Park Police Crack Down on Bicycle Cabs in DC

18 Signs That Life In U.S. Public Schools Is Now Essentially Equivalent To Life In U.S. Prisons

Eighth Grader Executed for Scaring a Cop

Feds Drop All Charges Against 27 Head-Shop Owners They Falsely Accused of Being Terrorist Drug Dealers

Straight-A College Student Faces 125 Years In Jail For Producing Fake IDs

Texas Cops Ticket Thousands of Schoolchildren to Raise Revenue, Some as Young as 6-Yrs-Old

Houston Police Chief: Videotaping or Criticizing Police May be Sign You're a Cop-Killer(more)
Top

View the original article here

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Ireland: Website accused of defamation is closed by judge

By Tim Healy

A JUDGE yesterday ordered a website to be shut down and said lawmakers should think about making it illegal to post "patently untrue" allegations about people on the internet.

Mr Justice Michael Peart was speaking after he granted Damien Tansey various orders, effectively ending the operation of the website www.rate-your-solicitor.com.

The Sligo-based solicitor brought defamation proceedings to the High Court arising out of comments on the website.

The action was against site operators John Gill, of Drumline, Newmarket-on-Fergus, Co Clare; and Ann Vogelaar, of Parklands, Westport, Co Mayo.

It is also against the US-based internet services provider, Dostster Inc, which hosts the site. Both Mr Gill and Ms Vogelaar denied the claims against them.

In his ruling, the judge said he was satisfied to grant injunctions against Mr Gill and Ms Vogelaar, pending the full hearing of the action, requiring them to end the operation of the website. They were also ordered to remove various material posted about Mr Tansey on the website and refrain from publishing further defamatory material about him.

They must also provide the names and address of all those involved in the posting of defamatory material. Mr Tansey also obtained similar orders against Dotster, which did not enter a defence.

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Skype Chats Between Megaupload Employees Recorded with a Governmental Trojan?
- Feds Seize Sports Streaming Domains in New Super Bowl Crackdown
- FDA's New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug--and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!"
- Estonia Next In Line To Receive US 'Encouragement' To Adopt Harsher Anti-Piracy Laws
- Pirate Bay Verdict Signals Threat Of Huge New Anti-Piracy Campaign
- DEA investigates Montana state legislator for medical marijuana views
- Justice Department Backs RIAA Against Pirating Student
- Pirate Bay Founders? Prison Sentences Final, Supreme Court Appeal Rejected

View the original article here

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

WI Judge: No "Fundamental Right" to Own a Cow, or Consume Its Milk...Am I Making Myself*Clear?

by The Complete Patient

Those raw milk proponents advocating "teach, teach, teach" may want to enroll Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler in their first class--in the kindergarten section.

In response to a request from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, the judge issued a clarification of his decision last week regarding his assessment of the constitutionality of food rights. The judge expanded on his original statement that such constitutional issues are "wholly without merit."

He explained that the FTCLDF arguments were "extremely underdeveloped." As an example, he said the plaintiffs' use of the Roe v Wade abortion rights case as a precedent does "not explain why a woman's right to have an abortion translates to a right to consume unpasteurized milk...This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one's choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue." Gee, I thought they both had to do with the right to decide what to do with your own body.

As if to show how pissed he was at being questioned, he said his decision translates further that "no, Plaintiffs to not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

"no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;"

And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice..."

Latest Politics/Corruption
- Elizabeth Warren's TARP panel under scrutiny, members paid $200,000/yr, won't disclose where $10,000,000 in taxpayer funds went
- Flashback: Obama Gives Speech at Solyndra, Now Bankrupt After Obama Gave $535,000,000 Taxpayer Money
- Shared Sacrifice: DOJ Serves $16 Muffins at Meetings
- St. Louis police arrest scalpers, use tickets themselves
- Price to Buy off a TSA Agent? Less than $10.
- During commercial break of Wednesday's GOP debate, Perry physically grabbed Ron Paul and got in his face
- Obama's Antitrust Luddites
- One Man's Waste Is Another Man's Bonanza

How did this ignorant asshole get the robe?
Come on over to my neck of the woods and try that BS! Plaintiffs don't have the fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow? Yes they do, it's called property rights. The entire Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from prohibiting things like this. Any state that still prohibits the sale of raw milk directly violates the 14th Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This fckn moron is the product of syphallis. What a fckn douche bag , and he is a Judge? Christ on a stick.

View the original article here

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Judge Rules Cops Beating Up Seizing Diabetic They Thought Was Drunk Is A-OK

Chris | InformationLiberation

Cops find a man experiencing a diabetic seizure, rather than call for medical help they chose to strike him with a baton and handcuff him, only because he started to bleed from his head, the cops decided to call paramedics. When the paramedics arrived, they found the man's diabetes card and administered treatment, the man stopped breathing, presumably in a preamble to dying, but the paramedics were able to revive him. The report states he died two weeks later of "natural causes." The man's estate sued the cops for their excessive force, but U.S. District Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen just ruled the officers were "entitled to forcibly remove him from his car" because "he did not comply with their command to get out on his own." A three-judge panel rubber stamped the Judge's ruling, so he won't even get to have a trial.

From Courthouse News:

CHICAGO (CN) - Indiana police officers do not have to stand trial for Macing and beating a man they thought was a drunken driver, but was actually diabetic and having a hypoglycemic episode, the 7th Circuit ruled.
On Aug. 24, 2006, Jerome Clement, an insulin-dependent, Type 1 Diabetic, experienced a sharp drop in blood sugar while driving to work. He turned off the road, drove into a recycling plant's parking lot and came to rest on a truck scale. Clement was incoherent when a plant employee asked him to move his car.

Note, the man was not "drunk driving," but was instead parked in a parking lot.

East Chicago police were dispatched to the scene. Officers Jesus Arceo and Timothy Leimbach, who were told that Clement was potentially intoxicated, found him slouched over in his car, which they said smelled like stale beer. Clement was not wearing a diabetic necklace or bracelet.
Unable to rouse Clement, the officers physically removed him from the vehicle. Clement then kicked, flailed his arms, and jerked his head up and down, striking himself against the pavement. A bystander later said Clement had moved "like he was having ... a seizure of some sort maybe." He also reported that Clement's eyes were rolled back and he was foaming at the mouth.
The officers Maced Clement twice and struck him with a baton in the arm and legs while trying to handcuff him. Since Clement was bleeding from his head, the officers then called for medical assistance.

Is beating people up who are experiencing seizures really necessary? The man was slumped over in his car before the cops decided to harass him.

When paramedics arrived 20 minutes later, they found Clement's diabetes card and administered an injection of dextrose. Clement stopped breathing, but was revived on his way to the hospital.
Doctors diagnosed the man with acute cardiac and respiratory failure, severe hypoglycemia, and severe metabolic and respiratory acidosis. Testing revealed marijuana and a low presence of alcohol in his system. Clement died of natural causes two weeks after the arrest.
William Padula, the administrator of Clement's estate, sued the officers, the city of East Chicago, and the East Chicago Police Department. He alleged wrongful arrest and excessive force, failure to train officers, and condoning and ratifying the use of excessive force.
But U.S. District Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen found the officers' actions were justified, ruling that they had probable cause to believe Clement had been driving while intoxicated.
"In light of the circumstances and their reasonable belief that Clement was intoxicated, Officers Leimbach and Arceo were entitled to forcibly remove him from his car when he did not comply with their command to get out on his own," Judge Joel Flaum wrote for a three-member panel.
The court's hesitation to second-guess the snap judgments made by law enforcement, and the lack of evidence indicating the use of excessive force, led the three-judge panel to affirm the grant of summary judgment to the defendants.
"Since Padula's underlying claims for wrongful arrest and excessive force failed, his claims for failure to train and for condoning and ratifying excessive force must also fail," the decision states.
No officers were disciplined in connection with the incident.

Chalk this up as one more case of justice not served and agents of the state being above the law.

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- To Serve and Protect -- the State
- Feds Wrongly Raid Home Of CBS Correspondent In Alameda
- Flight on 9/11 anniversary ends in handcuffs for housewife
- Family Sues School District In Student's Death
- Fullerton Police Ticketing Drivers Who Honk In Support of Man Murdered by Police
- Residents of Texas Fire Area Must Register with Police
- NYPD kills good samaritan
- Owners Angry After Cops Shoot Dog in Backyard

Many Judges are just as guilty as the bad cops.

Cops probably paid him off. Scum.

Bad Judges, bad cops.... they will all face God.
They should be worried.

Gives a new meaning to the question, "What would Jesus do?" "Many Judges are just as guilty as the bad cops.

Cops probably paid him off. Scum.

Bad Judges, bad cops.... they will all face God.
They should be worried."

Are you serious? These people wont face anything. They will die in their beds many years from now without a regret. Take action, stop leaving the heavy lifting to god and get to work.

Kangaroo court system is a joke! this is murder. lets hold the cops and judge accountable! TO PROTECT AND SERVE MY FUCKING BALLS. NEO RENAISSANCE. REVOLUTION. "Many Judges are just as guilty as the bad cops.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.

There are millions of us and a handful of them in comparison.

I'm disgusted that the majority of the population doesn't speak up or do anything to stand up for themselves.

People today do not unite for the common good of all. Common sense is gone. The elite divide us to conquer us, and most sit back and watch.

Everyone of those bastards deserves the horrid treatment they dish out.

You are right.

"When they break down your front door, what you gonna do, put your hands on your head, or the trigger of your gun?"

Guns of Brixton

this is so fucked up, there are no words for it. when someone is FOAMING AT THE MOUTH wth makes you think, immediately, that they are intoxicated? especially if it is in the morning when a person is driving to work?! my boyfriend has diabetes, Gd forbid if this ever happened to him, i would sue the fucking officers for every fucking penny. "natural causes" my ass - maybe if the police hadn't UNNECESSARILY BEAT THE INNOCENT MAN, he wouldn't have died of "natural causes" (*cough* the beating led to complications which killed him *cough*). and so what if the guy had a little bit of marijuana or alcohol in his system? maybe he had a glass of wine with dinner the previous night. maybe he has physical pain that marijuana eases. either way, this guy did not deserve to die because of these irresponsible, abusive officers. wtf. He should have known that marijuana is illegal because only cops are allowed to harm you. To protect and serve, themselves maybe? Explain to me how beating someone with a baton should ever be acceptable when the person is not being violent. Being Diabetic myself, this is absolutely infuriating. Having experienced quite terrifying lows (low blood glucose (sugar) levels), putting myself in his shoes is all too real. Who the fuck watches the watchmen? pot may be harmful but COPS KILL!! Idiots leading Idiots...most of the those judges dont know shit about anything. So then beating drunk people is A-OK? Let it be known, if you are drunk the PO PO can beat yo ass Sounds exactly like what happened to a buddy of mine. It was in a taco bell parking lot if I remember correctly, thankfully he survived it. Still lost his case though. Edit: Just realized both happened in Indiana.
"He also reported that Clement's eyes were rolled back and he was foaming at the mouth."
The officers Maced Clement twice and struck him with a baton in the arm and legs while trying to handcuff him. Since Clement was bleeding from his head, the officers then called for medical assistance.
I usually foam from the mouth when I'm drunk also.

~Spanic

*Just as a side note
Marijuana has been proven to have NO negative effects, and MANY positive effects, including healing properties.
A recent study at a university did publish the report.
And I remember seeing a panel of doctors debate this issue some 30 plus years ago on very late night TV.
5 out 6 doctors were PRO marijuana.
Its a crime to be happy and healthly.
Its sick that criminals run and actively participate in the judicial system.

View the original article here

Google Search

Friday, September 13, 2013

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Monday, December 31, 2012

Monday, October 22, 2012

Monday, August 13, 2012

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Monday, May 21, 2012

Friday, February 24, 2012

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Saturday, September 17, 2011