Daily Archives: July 16, 2021

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, said that property has divine rights and the moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, anarchy and tyranny begin.

People today would not be ready to equate property rights with the laws of God, yet it is still true that the founding fathers held no doubt as to the supreme importance of private property rights.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution expresses that right quite simply and directly by providing that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. This means that private property is not to be subjected to the whims and caprices of the majority, or of the government.

Today, supposedly educated leaders speak only in favor of human rights not property rights as if the two are in some way inconsistent or mutually exclusive. But the right to own property is a valuable human right. Private property rights are the soil in which our concept of human rights grows and matures.

Of all the precious freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights, none has become so weakened as the right of private ownership of property. Layer upon layer of governmental bureaucracy has been enacted to take this right away. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in McCullough v. Maryland: The power to tax involves the power to destroy.

Hence, so does the power to regulate involve the power to take away the right to own private property?

We the People must help to retain the fabric of our capitalistic republican form of government by electing only those politicians who believe in retaining private property rights as human rights.

Excerpt from:
Letter to the editor: Property rights should be considered human rights - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

EDITOR'S NOTE: Gary Pearce was a reporter and editor at The News & Observer, a political consultant and an adviser to former Gov. Jim Hunt. He blogs about politics and public policy at New Day for NC.

We Americans have a contradictory history when it comes to tolerating, or not tolerating, dissent. The latest chapter is the Nikole Hannah-Jones controversy at UNC-Chapel Hill.

The fight, fittingly, played out around July 4th, the most American of holidays. We take off work, grill hot dogs and set off fireworks to celebrate our Declaration of Independence and, supposedly, our dedication to independence of speech and thought.

That dedication has been tested from the nations beginning.

In 1798, Congress and President John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The sedition law outlawed any false, scandalous and malicious writing against Congress or the president and made it illegal to conspire to oppose any measure or measures of the government. A congressman and a journalist were convicted and sent to jail. The laws were repealed or expired after Thomas Jefferson was elected president in 1800.

Race and dissent have long been intertwined. Before the Civil War, Southern states banned abolitionist writing and speaking. The U.S. House passed a Gag Resolution in 1836 to squelch discussion of abolishing slavery. For 100 years after the Civil War, advocating for Black Americans civil rights could be dangerous.

In the 1960s, racist demagogues like North Carolinas Jesse Helms, a television editorialist then, conflated communism and civil rights. In 1983, Sen. Helms filibustered against a national holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Helms said King followed a philosophy of ''action-oriented Marxism'' that ''is not compatible with the concepts of this country.''

Helms was a father of the Speaker Ban Law that thrust UNC-Chapel Hill into a battle over free speech almost 60 years ago. On the last day of the 1963 session, after just an hour of debate, the legislature enacted the law, which prohibited speeches on North Carolina public college campuses by known members of the Communist Party, persons known to advocate the overthrow of the Constitutions of North Carolina or the United States, or individuals who had pleaded the Fifth Amendment in order to decline answering questions concerning communist subversion.

For years, the ban embroiled the university in controversy. Its accreditation was threatened. In 1969, a three-judge federal court ruled that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

Now the university is embattled over Hannah-Jones, who won a Pulitzer Prize for The New York Times The 1619 Project. The project tells how slavery has shaped America since slaves were first brought here over 400 years ago.

Conservatives claim the 1619 viewpoint somehow threatens our 1776 national narrative. But both stories shaped our nations history. Both should be studied.

When Hannah-Jones announced last week that she wouldnt be coming to UNC, the state Republican Party exulted that she will no longer be spreading her divisive agenda at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Is that cancel culture?

Explaining her decision, Hannah-Jones criticized the universitys leadership. She called out Walter Hussman, the Arkansas publisher and big donor for whom the journalism school is now named and who opposed her hiring:

I cannot imagine working at and advancing a school named for a man who lobbied against me, who used his wealth to influence the hires and ideology of the journalism school, who ignored my 20 years of journalism experience, all of my credentials, all of my work, because he believed that a project that centered on Black Americans equaled the denigration of white Americans.

Her decision is understandable. But many people at UNC stuck out their necks for her and may get their heads cut off in retaliation. The fight for freedom of speech and thought will go on without her voice at Chapel Hill.

Capitol Broadcasting Company's Opinion Section seeks a broad range of comments and letters to the editor. Our Comments beside each opinion column offer the opportunity to engage in a dialogue about this article.

In addition, we invite you to write a letter to the editor about this or any other opinion articles. Here are some tips on submissions >> SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Continued here:
GARY PEARCE: UNC and the debate over dissent - WRAL.com

James Harper v. Charles P. Rettig, in His Official Capacity as IRS Commr, IRS, and 10 John Doe IRS Agents

Washington, D.C., July 15, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In August 2019, James Harper received a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) accusing him of not having properly reported his transactions involving virtual currency. A press release followed shortly thereafter stating, Taxpayers should take these letters very seriously and correct past errors. Mr. Harper, one of more than 10,000 cryptocurrency holders who received such a letter, filed a lawsuit challenging IRSs questionable information-gathering practices.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, has filed an opening brief in James Harper v. Charles P. Rettig, et al. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing that IRS took Mr. Harpers data without reasonable suspicion and without a judicial warrant. NCLA contends IRS violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment constitutional rights by obtaining his private financial information from virtual-currency exchanges without following statutory limitations on its power to issue subpoenas.

NCLA argues the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire erred in its March 2021 decision granting IRSs motion to dismiss. It was mistaken that a waiver of sovereign immunity is necessary; sovereign immunity does not divest federal courts of their subject-matter jurisdiction in suits for specific nonmonetary relief against IRS alleging that the government actors acted unconstitutionally or without statutory authority.

The district court ruled without benefit of the Supreme Courts May 2021 decision in CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, which concluded that the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) does not prohibit a suit seeking to set aside an information-reporting requirement that is backed by both civil tax penalties and criminal penalties. Mr. Harpers suit, brought to set aside IRSs illegal information gathering, is not a suit brought to enjoin a taxs assessment or collection.

Story continues

Mr. Harper requests declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order expunging his private financial information from IRSs records if it was obtained in violation of the Constitution or the statute. The First Circuit should conclude that the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction, decide that Mr. Harper has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, and either rule in his favor or else remand the case to the trial court for a decision on the merits.

NCLA released the following statements:

After CIC, it is not sufficient for IRS to claim that the information it possesses may culminate in the assessment or collection of taxes. By that logic, nearly all information that comes into IRSs possessionwhether obtained by following proper procedures or otherwisecould culminate in the assessment or collection of taxes. But the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution do not contain an IRS exception. Adi Dynar, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court held that IRS cannot block lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of its behavior by hiding behind the Anti-Injunction Act. Unfortunately, that decision came out after the district court allowed IRS to abuse the law in just that way. According to the Supreme Court, though, this case is a cinch, and the First Circuit should swiftly reinstate this lawsuit. Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch Mr. Harpers story here.

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLAs public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans fundamental rights.

###

Read the original:
NCLA Appeals to First Circuit Over IRSs Unlawfully Seizing Cryptocurrency Data of Thousands - Yahoo Finance

In an important brief filed in court on Friday, had the Justice Department wanted to recognize that the Constitutions due process clause applies to detainees held at Guantanamo, the brief would have essentially written itself. The Supreme Court already decided in 2008, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, that the Constitutions Suspension Clause applies to the wartime detainees at Guantanamo, guaranteeing them habeas corpus rights. As the American Bar Association has noted, Under a straightfoward application of Boumediene, Guantanamo detainees are entitled to claim the protections of the Due Process Clause.

Admittedly the ability of non-citizens outside the United States to claim any constitutional right is an uphill climb. But as the Supreme Court reasoned in Boumediene, In every practical sense Guantanamo is not abroad; it is within the constant jurisdiction of the United States.

That is likely why the Department of Defense and Department of State reportedly wanted Fridays brief to recognize the due process clause applies to the prisoners at Guantanamo, and why the intelligence agencies accepted that legal position as well.

The brief was submitted in classified form, but the New York Times reported that the Biden administration punted on the key legal question. The brief was silent on whether the due process clause applies at all at Guantanamo.

According to Charlie Savages reporting, the reason for this ambiguous result rests with officials at the Justice Department, where lawyers who served during the Trump administration (and the W. Bush and Obama administrations before that) are reluctant to acknowledge this straightforward application of the law. Some of these lawyers wrote a brief in December 2020 claiming that the due process clause does not apply to Guantanamo detainees.

The remainder of this article focuses on the legal doctrine at issue, but there are policy implications worth highlighting up front. Failure to recognize that due process rights apply at Guantanamo not only undercuts President Biden and Secretary Austins stated goal of closing the prison (read Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dick Durbins (D-IL) powerful letter to the Justice Department along those lines). Whats perhaps even worse is the legacy effect of the Justice Departments position: it risks having Guantanamo remain a legal black hole for future presidents to transfer and indefinitely detain individuals in wartime or other situations.

The Justice Department may wish to preserve flexibility for the executive branch with its legal stance. However, there are countless situations in which flexibility undermines political leaders policy objectives, and this is surely one of them.

Regardless, one can anticipate that the judges hearing the case will press government lawyers to answer the constitutional question, either in subsequent briefing or at oral argument. Counselor, does the government dispute the petitioners claim that the Due Process Clause applies at Guantanamo? is one version of the question. Theres one right answer.

The Supreme Court Has Spoken

Unlike some murky areas of constitutional law, there is Supreme Court case law on point for the purposes here. In Boumediene, the Court held that a functional approach determines whether a constitutional provision, such as the right to habeas corpus, extends to territory outside the United States. The functional approach would clearly support the due process clause, like the Suspension Clause, applying at Guantanamo.

At first blush, there appears to be contrary case law, but not on closer inspection. The Trump Justice Departments brief stated that the Supreme Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager [1950], rejected the notion that enemy combatants detained by American military forces in Germany could invoke the Due Process Clause due to such extraterritorial application. But that reference to judicial authority is its own undoing. Rather than involving such an extraterritorial application, Boumediene turned on the fact that in every practical sense Guantanamo is not abroad.

In Boumediene, the Supreme Court explicitly concluded that, as a functional matter, the circumstances in Eisenstrager a time-limited and collective occupation of Germany in which U.S. control of the prison was neither absolute nor indefinite was substantively very different from Guantanamo and the United States indefinite, exclusive, and total control over the detention facility there.

This understanding of the Courts doctrine is well recognized. In Boumediene, the Court determined that Guantanamo was de facto U.S. territory, then-Judge Brett Kavanuagh wrote when serving on the D.C. Circuit, in which he directly contrasted the decision with Eisenstrager. Writing for the Supreme Court majority in a 2020 decision, Justice Kavanaugh quoted Boumediene for the proposition that under some circumstances, foreign citizens in the U. S. Territoriesor in a territory under the indefinite and complete and total control and within the constant jurisdiction of the United Statesmay possess certain constitutional rights. Indeed, the Boumediene Court explained that the functional approach to territory applied across a range of cases concerning different constitutional provisions from the Insular Cases to Reid v. Covert and others.

But what about a slippery slope? Wouldnt the governments recognition that the due process clause applies at Guantanamo mean that federal judges may erroneously say in future that constitutional rights apply in other locations under U.S. control and the like? First, take a moment to reflect on the ethical implications of that line of reasoning. It would mean the administration knows but should not recognize that these detainees have due process rights on the speculation that courts in future may afford some constitutional protections to other people where the executive branch believes they shouldnt. What an unsound reason to deny these detainees have constitutional rights.

Regardless, the slippery slope idea is unfounded for other reasons too. The degree of U.S. control over Guantanamo making it de facto U.S. territory is an extremely high bar for any other situation to reach or even approximate. And if that threshold were somehow met, the government could still demonstrate practical barriers to implementing the right to preclude its recognition, as provided by Boumedienes functional approach. Whats more, the courts have been directly tested on whether they would go down any slope following Boumediene, and they didnt. In Al Maqaleh v. Gates, a three-judge panel (including two liberal judges) on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously held that the Suspension Clause did not apply to detainees held at Bagram Airfield Base. While it is certainly realistic to assert that the United States has de facto sovereignty over Guantanamo, the same simply is not true with respect to Bagram, the court explained. Further applying Boumedienes framework, the court also found a host of practical obstacles worked against extending the right of habeas to Bagram, including that the military facility was (unlike Guantanamo) located in a theater of war.

It would be beyond anomalous to suggest that the due process clause does not apply to Guantanamo using the Boumediene framework. To put it more strongly, no good argument can be made that there are practical barriers to applying the due process clause along with the suspension clause to the Guantanamo detainees, which is the only theoretical hope for claiming the functional approach should produce a different result. Moreover, as the ABAs amicus brief explains, the rights to habeas corpus and due process generally work hand-in-hand and run together (citing Blackstone and Justice Antonin Scalias writing).

In terms of practical capacity to afford due process rights, it is no surprise the Defense Departments lawyers reportedly accept the due process clause applies to the military facility at Guantanamo. Also, the governments brief filed on Friday reportedly tells the court that existing policies already afford Guantanamo detainees the same level of protection that the Fifth Amendment requires. That surely robs the government of claiming that it is impractical or anomalous to afford the Guantanamo detainees the protections of the due process clause.

* * *

The Justice Department would have served President Biden and US national security interests best by acknowledging the due process clause of course applies at Guantanamo, and arguing instead on the more solid ground of what exactly the scope of due process rights should be in that context. When asked in future briefing or at oral argument about the United States legal position, the government will have another opportunity to do the right thing as a matter of law and policy.

See more here:
What the US Government Brief Should Have Said in Al-Hela: On Guantanamo and Due Process - Just Security

16 July 2021

Husch Blackwell LLP

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On January 6, 2021, webloggedabout two California farms' challenges toCalifornia's regulation requiring agricultural producers togrant unions access to their property to recruit workers. Theregulation required access for three hours a day one hourbefore work started, one hour at lunch and one hour after work for a maximum of 120 days per year. The Ninth Circuitheld that this regulation did not constitute a per se taking forpurposes of the Fifth Amendment because it did not require accesson a 24/7 basis.

In a 6-3 opinion on clear ideological lines, the Supreme Courtreversed. The majority opinion held that the Court hadrecognized two kinds of takings: physical occupation ofproperty, which is a per se taking, and regulatory takings, whenthe regulation goes "too far."

The majority held that the California regulation was a per setaking because it appropriated the growers' property for thebenefit of the unions. The courts have long held that one ofthe most fundamental elements of the right of property is the rightto exclude others, and the regulation deprives the owners of thatright for up to 360 hours a year. It effectively forces theowners to grant an easement to the unions.

The majority held that the temporary nature of the easement wasirrelevant. As a matter of common sense, it makes no sense toapply one set of rules to an easement available 365 days a year andanother to an easement 364 days a year. As a matter of law, anumber of prior Court cases had held that temporary invasions ofprivate property were nonetheless a taking. For example, a1946 case found that the government had taken plaintiff'sproperty by periodically flying aircraft over it less than 100 feetoff the ground.

The majority also held that it made no difference that theregulation did not provide a common law easement as defined byCalifornia law. While state law is generally the source ofproperty rights, it would be a wholesale elevation of form oversubstance to hold that the permanent, periodic access allowed bythe regulation was not a taking.

As we predicted in our January 6 blog post, the majority wentout of its way to emphasize that its holding would not impactordinary health and safety inspections. The majority heldthat there is a clear difference between a trespass and ataking. It also held that there were various common lawexceptions to the law of trespass, such a public official'sright to arrest or to engage in a reasonable search. Andthere is nothing wrong with conditioning a permit or license on thecondition that the recipient allow reasonable health and safetyinspections.

Justice Kavanaugh concurred. While the case did notinvolve labor unions, Justice Kavanaugh thought that theCourt's opinion in NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox stronglysupported the result. In Babcock & Wilcox, the Court heldthat Congress could authorize labor unions to enter on privateproperty to organize workers only when the unions had no otherreasonable means of communicating with the workers elsewhere.The day of the company town is over and there was no reason whyunion representatives could not contact workers at their place ofresidence.

The ruling does not mean that California cannot continue torequire producers to allow limited union access to theirpremises. It only means that California must amend itsstatutes to authorize just compensation to the owner. Theopinion does not address what compensation would be just or how itshould be calculated.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Employment and HR from United States

Potomac Law Group

With safety restrictions now being lifted as the COVID-19 vaccine becomes readily available and the percentage of the vaccinated US population is rising, the time has come for many employers to plan...

Go here to read the rest:
Update On Union Access To Property - Employment and HR - United States - Mondaq News Alerts

Under the First Amendment, you dont have to speak (to government officials or anyone else). The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead

A federalCOVID-19 vaccination strike force may soon be knocking on your door, especially if you live in a community with low vaccination rates. Will you let them in?

More to the point, are you required to open the door?

The Biden Administration has announced that it plans to send federal surge response teams on a targeted community door-to-door outreach to communities with low vaccination rates in order to promote the safety and accessibility of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Thats all fine and good as far as government propaganda goes, but nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims, especially not when armed, roving bands of militarized agents deployed by the Nanny State show up at your door with an agenda that is at odds with what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional right to be let alone.

Any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenrys privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution. These door-to-door visits by COVID-19 surge response teams certainly qualify as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

First, there is the visit itself.

While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans have a rightnotto answer questions or even speak with a government agent.

Courts have upheld these knock and talk visits as lawful, reasoning that even though the curtilage of the home is protected by the Fourth Amendment, there is an implied license to approach a residence, knock on the door/ring the bell, and seek to contact occupants. However, the encounter is wholly voluntary and a person is under no obligation to speak with a government agent in this situation.

Indeed, you dont even need to answer or open the door in response to knocking/ringing by a government agent, and if you do answer the knock, you can stop speaking at any time. You also have the right to demand that government agents leave the property once the purpose of the visit is established. Government officials would not be enforcing any law or warrant in this context, and so they dont have the authority of law to remain on the property after a homeowner or resident specifically revokes the implied license to come onto the property.

When the governments actions go beyond merely approaching the door and knocking, it risks violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant and probable cause of possible wrongdoing in order to search ones property. A government agent would violate the Fourth Amendment if he snooped around the premises, peering into window and going to other areas in search of residents.

It should be pointed out that some judges (including Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch) believe that placing No Trespassing signs or taking other steps to impede access to the door is sufficient to negate any implied permission for government agents or others to approach your home, but this view does not have general acceptance.

While in theory one can refuse to speak with police or other government officials during a knock and talk encounter, as the courts have asserted as a justification for dismissing complaints about this police investigative tactic, the reality is far different. Indeed, it is unreasonable to suggest that individuals caught unaware by these tactics will not feel pressured in the heat of the moment to comply with a request to speak with government agents who display official credentials and are often heavily armed, let alone allow them to search ones property. Even when such consent is denied, police have been known to simply handcuff the homeowner and conduct a search over his objections.

Second, there is the danger inherent in these knock-and-talk encounters.

Although courts have embraced the fiction that knock and talks are voluntary encounters that are no different from other door-to-door canvassing, these constitutionally dubious tactics are highly intimidating confrontations meant to pressure individuals into allowing police access to ones home, which then paves the way for a warrantless search of ones home and property.

The act of going to homes and taking steps to speak with occupants is akin to the knock and talk tactic used by police, which can be fraught with danger for homeowners and government agents alike. Indeed, knock-and-talk policing has become a thinly veiled, warrantless exercise by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into talking with heavily armed police who knock on their doors in the middle of the night.

Knock-and-shoot policing might be more accurate, however.

Knock and talks not only constitute severe violations of the privacy and security of homeowners, but the combination of aggression and surprise employed by police is also a recipe for a violent confrontation that rarely ends well for those on the receiving end of these tactics.

For example, although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or threatened police, he was gunned down by police who knocked aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed Scott when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. The police were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night knock and talk in Scotts apartment complex.

Carl Dykes was shot in the face by a county deputy who pounded on Dykes door in the middle of the night without identifying himself. Because of reports that inmates had escaped from a local jail, Dykes brought a shotgun with him when he answered the door.

As these and other incidents make clear, while Americans have a constitutional right to question the legality of a police action or resist an unlawful police order, doing so can often get one arrested, shot or killed.

Third, there is the question of how the government plans to use the information it obtains during these knock-and-talk visits.

Because the stated purpose of the program is to promote vaccination, homeowners and others who reside at the residence will certainly be asked if they are vaccinated. Again, you have a right not to answer this or any other question. Indeed, an argument could be made that even asking this question is improper if the purpose of the program is merely to ensure that Americans have the information they need on how both safe and accessible the vaccine is.

Under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency should only collect and maintain information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency. In this situation, the government agent could accomplish the purpose of assuring persons have information about the vaccine simply by providing that information (either in writing or orally) and would not need to know the vaccination status of the residents. To the extent the agents do request, collect and store information about residents vaccination status, this could be a Privacy Act violation.

Of course, there is always the danger that this program could be used for other, more nefarious, purposes not related to vaccination encouragement. As with knock-and-talk policing, government agents might misuse their appearance of authority to gain entrance to a residence and obtain other information about it and those who live there. Once the door is opened by a resident, anything the agents can see from their vantage point can be reported to law enforcement authorities.

Moreover, while presumably the targeting will be of areas with demonstrated low vaccination rates, there is no guarantee that this program would not be used as cover for conducting surveillance on areas deemed to be high crime areas as a way of obtaining intelligence for law enforcement purposes.

Weve been down this road before, with the government sending its spies to gather intel on American citizens by questioning them directly, or by asking their neighbors to snitch on them.

Remember the egregiously invasive and intrusiveAmerican Community Survey?

Unlike the traditional census, which collects data every ten years, theAmerican Community Survey(ACS) is sent to about 3 million homes per year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, while the traditional census is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling, their ages and ethnicities, the ownership of the dwelling and telephone numbers, the ACS is much more intrusive, asking questions relating to respondents bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among other highly personal and private matters.

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance.

At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire. These concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among others. For instance, the ACS asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race and their physical, mental and emotional problems, etc. The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house, along with the fuel used to heat your home, the cost of electricity, what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments, property taxes and so on.

However, thats not all.

The survey also demands to know how many days you were sick last year, how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven, whether you have trouble getting up the stairs, and what time you leave for work every morning, along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends, relatives and employer. The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak and when they last worked at a job, among other things.

While some of the ACS questions may seem fairly routine, the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.

Finally, you have the right to say no.

Whether police are knocking on your door at 2 am or 2:30 pm, as long as youre being asked to talk to a police officer who is armed to the teeth and inclined to kill at the least provocation, you dont really have much room to resist, not if you value your life.

Mind you, these knock-and-talk searches are little more thanpolice fishing expeditions carried out without a warrant.

The goal is intimidation and coercion.

Unfortunately, with police departments increasingly shifting towards pre-crime policing and relying on dubiousthreat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged words, and suspicious activity reports aimed at snaringpotentialenemies of the state,were going to see more of these warrantless knock-and-talk police tacticsby which police attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement and prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Heres the bottom line.

These agents are coming to your home with one purpose in mind: to collect information on you.

Its a form of intimidation, of course. You shouldnt answer any questions youre uncomfortable answering about your vaccine history or anything else. The more information you give them, the more it can be used against you. Just ask them politely but firmly to leave.

In this case, as in so many interactions with government agents, the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and your cell phone recording the encounter) are your best protection.

Under the First Amendment, you dont have to speak (to government officials or anyone else). The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. And under the Fifth Amendment, you have a right to remain silent and not say anything which might be used against you.

You can also post a No Trespassing sign on your property to firmly announce that you are exercising your right to be left alone. If you see government officials wandering around your property and peering through windows, in my opinion, you have a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Government officials can ring the doorbell, but once you put them on notice that its time for them to leave, they cant stay on your property.

Its important to be as clear as possible and inform them that you will call the police if they dont leave. You may also wish to record your encounter with the government agent. If they still dont leave, immediately call the local police and report a trespasser on your property.

Remember, you have rights.

The government didnt want us to know aboutlet alone assertthose rights during this whole COVID-19 business.

After all, for years now, the powers-that-bethose politicians and bureaucrats who think like tyrants and act like petty dictators regardless of what party they belong tohave attempted to brainwash us into believing that we have no right to think for ourselves, make decisions about our health, protect our homes and families and businesses, act in our best interests, demand accountability and transparency from government, or generally operate as if we are in control of our own lives.

But we have every right, and you know why?

Because as the Declaration of Independence states, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rightsto life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happinessthat no government can take away from us.

Unfortunately, that hasnt stopped the government from constantly trying to usurp our freedoms at every turn. Indeed, the nature of government is such that it invariably oversteps its limits, abuses its authority, and flexes its totalitarian muscles.

Take this COVID-19 crisis, for example.

What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) has become yet another means by which world governments (including our own) can expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents.

The government has made no secret of its plans.

Just follow the money trail, and youll get a sense of whats in store: more militarized police, more SWAT team raids, more surveillance, more lockdowns, more strong-armed tactics aimed at suppressing dissent and forcing us to comply with the governments dictates.

Its chilling to think about, but its not surprising.

In many ways, this COVID-19 state of emergency has invested government officials (and those who view their lives as more valuable than ours) with a sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant,Big Brother Knows Bestapproach to top-down governing, and the fall-out can be seen far and wide.

Its an ugly, self-serving mindset that views the needs, lives and rights of we the people as insignificant when compared to those in power.

Thats how someone who should know better such as Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, can suggest that a free peopleborn in freedom, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and living in a country birthed out of a revolutionary struggle for individual libertyhave no rightsto economic freedom, to bodily integrity, or to refuse to comply with a government order with which they disagree.

According to Dershowitz, who has become little more than a legal apologist for the power elite, You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business And if you refuse to be vaccinated,the state has the power to literally take you to a doctors office and plunge a needle into your arm.

Dershowitz is wrong: as I make clear in my bookBattlefield America: The War on the American People, while the courts may increasingly defer to the governments brand of Nanny State authoritarianism,we still have rights.

The government may try to abridge those rights, it may refuse to recognize them, it may even attempt to declare martial law and nullify them, but it cannot litigate, legislate or forcefully eradicate them out of existence.

Read more:
The Right To Be Let Alone: What To Do When COVID Strike Force Teams Come Knocking OpEd - Eurasia Review

Law enforcement confirmed that Paul Flores, 44, was set to correct his murder charges and include two allegations of rape of an unconscious woman. Los Angeles range.

Los Angeles Police Department Captain Jonathan Tippet confirms that San Luis Obispo County prosecutors are investigating two sexual assault cases in the San Pedro area where Flores lived between 2013 and 2017. did.

Prosecutors are seeking a motion on Wednesday to amend Floress original murder charges for rape or attempted rape in the 1996 Christine Smart case.

In April, Flores was arrested and charged with Smarts murder.He was the top suspect in the case for a long time after being the last person to see her alive after the party during their freshman years. California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo.

44-year-old Paul Flores was arrested in April for the murder of former classmate Christine Smart.

Investigators search Flores fathers home in February 2020 and March 2021

Smart was officially sentenced to death in 2002, but her body has not been found.

Prosecutors hope that the rape case will utilize the case law attached to a crime in another county to link Flores to some of his alleged rapes.

On Monday, the judge prepares for a 12-day preliminary hearing scheduled for July 20, revealing what he thinks smartly happened after the prosecution found evidence of Flores fathers property. Said that some motions will be reviewed this week.

Ruben Flores, 80, was charged with accessories after being accused of helping his son hide Smarts body.

Young Flores was accused of sexual assault in three separate cases, including a case in which his DNA matched a sample of a rape kit, years after the college student disappeared.

In the Redondo Beach case, police were called to the hospital in January 2007 after being tested for rape kits, believing that the woman had been assaulted.

Investigators have found biological evidence that Smarts body was buried at home but was recently relocated.

Ruben Flores pleaded not guilty to accessories after a murder that hid Smarts body

The woman told police that she had been drinking at a bar with a friend earlier that night, but then woke up naked in the mans bed without remembering what had happened.

The woman, who told police she might have taken the medicine, said she was still drunk and left the mans house.

The rape kit determined that she was having sex, but there were no clear signs of force or aggressive behavior.

Also, no trace of date rape drug was seen.

DNA samples collected as part of the test were entered into a police database and matched with Flores four years later.

Redondo Beach police have launched a rape investigation and interviewed Flores. Flores told them that there was no special memory for women.

He said he might have had sex with her because he had sex with so many girls, a police note related to the incident said.

The suspect was unable to identify Flores from the police line.

Smarts family subsequently filed a proceeding in the San Luis Obispo County High Court alleging that her body was buried in Rubens yard, but he moved it in the dark.

The judge will consider several motions this week prior to the 12-day preliminary hearing scheduled for July 20.

The prosecutor finally decided that Flores could not prove that he had raped the woman and did not prosecute him.

A DNA hit only proves that there was some sort of sexual contact, not what the nature of that contact was, said Christie Frey, Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles County. I am writing in.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Police Department suspected Flores had sexually assaulted two women between 2013 and 2017, and details of these assault charges are unknown, but a judge amended the San Luis Obispo County prosecutors office. It will be revealed if you allow it.

Apart from allegations of sexual assault, Flores has been convicted of at least five convictions for drunk driving in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

He also has the belief that he is drunk in public.

Flores was arrested in 1998 at Huntington Beach for assault with a deadly weapon other than a gun, but was not charged due to lack of evidence.

Flores previously exercised his fifth amendment right not to answer the question before the grand jury and in the testimony of the proceedings filed against him in connection with the investigation.

In one of his probation reports unintentionally published from a previous conviction, he was once described by the Deputy District Attorney as a continuous rape criminal based on claims from dozens of women. It was.

The report did not include details of these alleged assaults, or whether they were all reported and investigated by police.

When Flores was arrested for Smarts murder in April, San Luis Obispo District Attorney Dandau revealed for the first time that investigators believed he had killed a young woman during an attempted rape.

Dow said the prosecutor intended to use the history of Flores sexual attacks in the murder case.

He specifically mentioned two cases in Los Angeles.

Prosecutors may use alleged assaults to prove that Flores has a history of predatory behavior, but many of the details surrounding Smarts case have been rigorously scrutinized by authorities through investigations. It is protected.

Kristin Smarts accused killer Paul Flores charges amended to include two allegations of rapein LA Source link Kristin Smarts accused killer Paul Flores charges amended to include two allegations of rapein LA

Continue reading here:
Kristin Smart's accused killer Paul Flores' charges amended to include two allegations of rape in LA - Californianewstimes.com

Bill Cosby is a free man.

His longtime on-camera wife, Phylicia Rashad, tweeted that a miscarriage of justice [was] corrected. Her tweet followed a high court decision that overturned his sexual assault conviction in late June.

#MeToo founder Tarana Burke spoke directly to survivors soon afterward on Twitter and in a segment of Good Morning America on July 1, reiterating that their healing "isnt determined by a conviction or a prison sentence.

And, former televisionJudge Joe Brown said law separates us from animalsafter repeatedly mentioning that Cosbys due process rights were violated on a video segment with Marc Lamont Hill.Their heated discussion on the evening of July 1 was viewed over 600,000 times and collected 20,000 comments.

Their reactions joined the flurry of debates and outcries on social media, television, radio programs and within social circles.It'sthe latest twist in a yearslong saga that has laid bareemotional triggers and fault linesentangled with law, emotions and facts. Among the frictions: the benefits of power and platform to navigate a system that has historically impacted Black men disproportionately, and other judicial lapses that selectively help some and hurt others, including survivors of sexual assault. In essence, there is direct conflict between thetwomost dominant social movements of the past few years: MeToo and justice system reform.

In the eyes of the law, prosecutors were held accountable for the handling of Cosby's case,but in the eyes of onlookers, commenters and more hes still a sexual predator.

Cosby was convicted in 2018of drugging and molestingAndrea Constand.He was servingathree- to 10-year sentence at a state prison near Philadelphia buthad vowed to serve all 10 years rather than acknowledge any remorse over the 2004 encounter with the Temple University employee at his suburban estate.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturned his sexual assault conviction on June 30 because of a "procedural issue that is irrelevant to the facts of the crime,"Kevin Steele, the Montgomery County district attorney who convicted Cosby, said in a statement to USA TODAY.

Ayesha Bell Hardawaywould beremissto calltheCosbytrialviolation a technicality.

But itwasunique.

The rules of engagement for litigators are critical and are what we are taught to believe can significantly impact the outcome of a case, said the assistant professor of law and director of the Criminal Defense Clinic at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland. Hardaway is also co-director of the Social Justice Institute and director of the Social Justice Law Center.

Historic realities seep from thecase, Hardaway said.

In regard topeople ofcolor, specifically Black men, who havelongbeendisproportionallyimpactedby the judicial system,theserules of engagement aredesigned specifically to stack up against the possibility of them having a fair trial, she said.

But cases like Cosbys a powerful, wealthy Black man do not match the typical experience of Black people in the criminal justice system.Think Walter McMillian,Robert McClendon, Ricky Jackson, and Laurese Glover, who collectively served over 80 years behind barsfor crimes they did not commit. They were all exonerated years after the fact.

As for Cosby, the remedy in this case came from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,Hardaway said. It did not come at the trial-court level. It did not comeatthe first appellate court level.Unfortunately, the historical unfairness,injustice that's built into the legal system for Black and brown defendants didn't necessarily provide any relief.

The commonwealths highest court, examining the casede novo,found Cosby's trialunfair because prosecutors used damaging evidence that Cosby turned over in a civil case, even though former District Attorney Bruce Castor told him and the publicyears earlierthose charges were off the table.

It wasnt just a technicality but "gross prosecutorial abuse" that eventually set Cosby free, said Jody Armour, a University of Southern California professor who studies the intersection of law and race. That misconduct landed him in a cage for two years. Armour said its hard to say what is appropriate" as far as Cosby's punishment, but he believes two years imprisonment is about right.

The deal itselfan unwritten non-prosecution agreementis rareon a typical legal battlefield.Such agreementsaremore oftenallottedinhigh-profilecases,Hardaway explained, and Cosbys fit the billas the alleged victim, Constand, brought forward acivillawsuit.

Back in the courtroom, from the first jury to the second trial, a judge letina significant amount of evidence that could be deemed prejudicialtippingthe scales in favor of the prosecution.

In effect, the opinion concluded, Cosby was forced to give up his Fifth Amendment rightsprotecting self-incrimination.

What's notable here is that he had the resources and the ability to hire lawyers that were,I'm sure,working full time on his case,Hardaway said, notingthecelebrityfigureslegal teamwould havekept anexhaustiverecord throughoutyears of legal proceedings.

Fortheaverage defendant, perhaps unable to afford apersonallawyer,the story mayhave gone differently.

I want us to recognize that were talking about real pain and suffering, Armour said. Even two years is real punishment.

Armour added that two facts can be true at the same time: Cosby experienced prosecutorial abuse while also guilty of gross misconduct.

Others question the system as a whole, and as it applies to the rich and the poor.

April Reign is the creator of OscarsSoWhite and is vice president of content strategy for Overture Globals Ensemble. Her initial reaction to Cosby's release was that "the prosecution should have done a better job.

"If the system is broken for one person, itis broken for everyone," she said.

Rashad isn'talone in applauding the release of her old friend. A divide continues to deepenbetween supporters and non-supporters as evidenced by the continued back-and-forth between opposing sides.

Reign saidthere is a difficulty in "separating the art from the artists" in society. Mr. Huxtable from "The Cosby Show" is a character once beloved as "America's dad." He's not the man who was convicted and ultimately released.

There are way too many examples of Black men who should be exonerated, Reign said as she explained that she refers to the criminal justice system as the criminal "legal" system because Black and brown people do not get justice.

Cosby wasnt exonerated, but the stance that hisrelease is a way getting off or beating the system stems from a history of Black men getting less fair treatment in the courtroom.

I definitely understand why part of Black America celebrated his release because there is a long history of Black people and Black men in particular being railroaded by the criminal justice system, Sherri Williams said.

Williams is an assistant professor in race, media and communications at American University in Washington, D.C.

The sentiment that celebrations are in order, regardless of guilt, when a Black man gets the better end of the justice system is not a new phenomenon, but it comes at a cost.

Williamswas in college when Mike Tyson was convicted of raping Desiree Washington in 1992. Tyson was given a 10-year prison sentence with the last four years suspended. Not only was Tyson relentlessly supported throughout the process, she recalled, but victim blaming was tremendously present.

The message?

When or if you come forward, there will be no support for you but there will be support for your predator, Williams said.

That trend of support is sacrificing the protection of Black women and girls in order to uphold Black patriarchy.

Nearly five dozen women, with testimonies that span decades, have accused Cosby of sexual assault. He was one of the first individuals during the #MeToo movement to be convicted.

The prosecutions successful conviction of Cosby is something to be heartened by from the standpoint of holding people accused of sexual assault accountable, Armour, the University of California professor,said. With the final result of Cosbys case, though, victims of sexual violence feel disheartened about justice working in their favor.

Were dealing with social attitudes that jurors bring into the jury box, Armour said. On top of that, you give [accusers] the beyond a reasonable doubt standard and you have a mountain to climb.

Cosby's release was not only a shock to the movement, but it added more questions to thehandling of rape culture in general for all survivors.

One in four women hasexperienced rape or an attempted rape during their lifetimes, according to the #MeToo website.

Sonya Martinez-Ortiz, a therapist and executive director at the Rape Recovery Center in Salt Lake City, told USA TODAY that nearly 80% of survivors do not report.

Said Reign, the OscarsSoWhite creator: What incentive is there for people who are assaulted to come forward when these are the results?

Ricardo Kaulessar and Matthew Korfhage of the USA TODAY Network'sAtlantic Region How We Live team contributed to this story.

Jasmine Vaughn-Hall is a culture reporter for the USA TODAY Network's Atlantic Region How We Live team. Contact her at jvaughnhal@ydr.com or (717) 495-1789. Follow her on Facebook (@JasmineVaughnHall),Twitter (@jvaughn411), and Instagram (@jasminevaughnhall).

See the original post:
Cosby case rips open wounds that just won't heal. Here's why. - York Daily Record