Archive for the ‘Fourth Amendment’ Category

2021 Year In Review: Madness, Mayhem And Tyranny OpEd – Eurasia Review

On any given day, the average American going about his daily business was monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead

Disgruntled mobs. Martial law. A populace under house arrest. A techno-corporate state wielding its power to immobilize huge swaths of the country. A Constitution in tatters.

Between the riots, lockdowns, political theater, and COVID-19 mandates, 2021 was one for the history books.

In our ongoing pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, here were some of the stumbling blocks that kept us fettered:

Riots, martial law and the Deep States coup.A simmering pot of political tensions boiled over on January 6, 2021, when protestersstormed the Capitolbecause the jailer of their choice didnt get chosen to knock heads for another four years. It took no time at all for the nations capital to be placed under a military lockdown, online speech forums restricted, and individuals with subversive or controversial viewpointsferreted out, investigated, shamed and/or shunned. The subsequentmilitary occupation of the nations capital by 25,000 troopsas part of the so-called peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next was little more than martial law disguised as national security. TheJanuary 6 attemptto storm the Capitol by so-called insurrectionists created the perfect crisis for the Deep Statea.k.a. the Police State a.k.a. the Military Industrial Complex a.k.a. the Techno-Corporate State a.k.a. the Surveillance Stateto swoop in and take control.

The imperial president.All of theimperial powers amassed by Donald Trump, Barack Obama and George W. Bushto kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountabilitywere inherited by Joe Biden, the nations 46thpresident.

The Surveillance State.On any given day, the average American going about his daily business was monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears. In such asurveillance ecosystem, were all suspects and databits to be tracked, catalogued and targeted. Consider that it took days, if not hours or minutes, for the FBI to begin the process of identifying, tracking and rounding up those suspected of being part of the Capitol riots. Imagine how quickly government agents could target and round up any segment of society they wanted to based on the digital trails and digital footprints we leave behind.

Digital tyranny.In response to the events of Jan. 6, the tech giants meted out their own version of social justice by way of digital tyranny and corporate censorship. Suddenly, individuals, including those who had no ties to the Capitol riots, began to experiencelock outs, suspensions and even deletions of their social media accounts. It signaled aturning point in the battle for control over digital speech, one that leaves we the people on the losing end of the bargain.

A new war on terror.Domestic terrorism, usedinterchangeablywith anti-government, extremist and terrorist, to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered dangerous, became the new poster child for expanding the governments powers at the expense of civil liberties. As part of his inaugural address, President Biden pledged to wage war on so-calledpolitical extremism, ushering in what investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald described as a wave of new domestic police powersand rhetoric in the name of fighting terrorism that are carbon copies of many of the worst excesses of the first War on Terror that began nearly twenty years ago. The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

Government violence.Thedeath penalty may have been abolished in Virginiain 2021, but government-sanctioned murder and mayhem continued unabated, with the U.S. government acting as judge, jury and executioner over a populace that had already been pre-judged and found guilty, stripped of their rights, and left to suffer at the hands of government agents trained to respond with the utmost degree of violence. Police particularlyposed a risk to anyone undergoing a mental health crisis or with special needs whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent.

Culture wars.Political correctness gave way to a more insidious form of group think and mob rule which, coupled with government and corporate censors and a cancel culture determined not to offend certain viewpoints, was all too willing to eradicate views that do not conform. Critical race theory also moved to the forefront of the culture wars.

Home invasions.Government agents routinelyviolated the Fourth Amendment at willunder the pretext of public health and safety. This doesnt even begin to touch on the many ways the government and its corporate partners-in-crime used surveillance technology to invade homes: with wiretaps, thermal imaging, surveillance cameras, and other monitoring devices. However, in a rare move, the Supreme Court put its foot down in two casesCaniglia v. StromandLange v. Californiato prevent police fromcarrying out warrantless home invasions in order to seize lawfully-owned guns under the pretext of their so-called community caretaking dutiesandfrom entering homes without warrants under the guise of being in hot pursuit of someone they suspect may have committed a crime.

Bodily integrity.Caught in the crosshairs of a showdown between the rights of the individual and the so-called emergency state, concerns about COVID-19 mandates and bodily integrity remained part of a much larger debate over the ongoing power struggle between the citizenry and the government over our property interest in our bodies. This debate over bodily integrity covered broad territory, ranging from abortion and forced vaccinations to biometric surveillance and basic healthcare. Forced vaccinations, forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases: these were just a few ways in which Americans continued to be reminded that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.

COVID-19.What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) became yet another means by which world governments (including our own) expanded their powers, abused their authority, and further oppressed their constituents. Now that the government has gotten a taste for flexing its police state powers by way of a bevy of lockdowns, mandates, restrictions, contact tracing programs, heightened surveillance, censorship, overcriminalization, etc., it remains to be seen how the rights of the individual will hold up in the face of long-term COVID-19 authoritarianism.

Financial tyranny.Thenational debt(the amount the federal government has borrowed over the years and must pay back) exceeded$29 trillionand is growing. That translates to almost $230,000 per taxpayer. The amount this country owes is nowgreater than its gross domestic product(all the products and services produced in one yearby labor and property supplied by the citizens). That debt is also growing exponentially: it is expected to betwice the size of the U.S. economyby 2051. Meanwhile, the government continued to spend taxpayer money it didnt have on programs it couldnt afford; businesses shuttered for lack of customers, resources and employees; and consumers continued to encounterglobal supply chain shortages(and skyrocketing prices) on everything from computer chips and cars to construction materials.

Global Deep State.Owing in large part to the U.S. governments deep-seated and, in many cases, top-secret alliances with foreign nations and global corporations, it became increasingly obvious that we had entered into a new world ordera global world ordermade up of international government agencies and corporations. Weve been inching closer to this global world order for the past several decades, but COVID-19, which saw governmental and corporate interests become even more closely intertwined, shifted this transformation into high gear. Fascism became a global menace.

20 years of crises.Every crisismanufactured or otherwisesince the nations early beginnings has become a make-work opportunity for the government to expand its reach and its power at taxpayer expense while limiting our freedoms at every turn: The Great Depression. The World Wars. The 9/11 terror attacks. The COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, the governments (mis)management of various states of emergency in the past 20 years from 9/11 to COVID-19 has spawned a massive security-industrial complex the likes of which have never been seen before.

The state of our nation.There may have been a new guy in charge this year, but for the most part, nothing changed. The nation remained politically polarized, controlled by forces beyond the purview of the average American, and rapidly moving the nation away from its freedom foundation. Over the past year, due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans found themselves repeatedly subjected to egregious civil liberties violations, invasive surveillance, martial law, lockdowns, political correctness, erosions of free speech, strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, government spying, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, etc.

In other words, as I make clear in my bookBattlefield America: The War on the American Peopleand in its fictional counterpartThe Erik Blair Diaries, the more things changed, the more they stayed the same.

See the original post here:
2021 Year In Review: Madness, Mayhem And Tyranny OpEd - Eurasia Review

European Union: COVID-19 State aid update – State aid Temporary Framework prolonged and additional aid for recovery possible (6th Amendment) -…

In brief

On 18 November 2021, the European Commission ("Commission") further prolonged the Temporary Framework for COVID-19 State aid ("Temporary Framework") until 30 June 2022. This 6th Amendment has also added investment support measures and solvency support measures to support economic recovery and increase certain aid ceilings.

Background: In March 2020, the European Commission adopted the Temporary Framework to support the economy in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak, which allows EU Member States to have State aid approved quickly by the Commission. It has since been amended six times: First, increasing possibilities for public support to research, test and produce products relevant to fight the COVID-19 outbreak. Second, to enable recapitalization and subordinated debt measures; and third, to further support micro, small and start-up companies and to incentivize private investments. A fourth amendment extended the coverage of the Temporary Framework again and prolonged its application into 2021. The fifth amendment prolonged the application of the Temporary Framework to the end of 2021, increased aid amounts that the Commission would approve and allowed for the conversion of limited amounts of repayable Temporary Framework aid to grants.

Key takeaways

The 6th Amendment prolongs the application of the Temporary Framework until 30 June 2022. In addition, it adds two new categories of support measures for which EU Member States can obtain quick Commission State aid approval:

In more detail

Prolongation

The Temporary Framework, which was set to expire on 31 December 2021, has now been prolonged until 30 June 2022 (except as noted otherwise). It remains subject to further extension if necessary.

Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager noted that "[t]he limited prolongation gives the opportunity for a progressive and coordinated phase-out of crisis measures, without creating cliff-edge effects, and reflects the projected strong recovery of the European economy overall."

Two new categories of support measures

The 6th Amendment includes two new categories of support measures that EU Member States may adopt to help companies recover:

These investment support measures can be granted by Member States until 31 December 2022.

Provided appropriate justifications are made by the Member State, the Commission may accept alternative selection and remuneration methods, higher aid amounts per company, or extend the application to investments to larger companies.

Aid under these solvency schemes can be granted until 31 December 2023.

Other notable amendments

In addition to the prolongation of the Temporary Framework and the two new categories of State aid measures added, the 6th Amendment:

Content is provided for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. For more information, please visit: http://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/disclaimers.

Read more:
European Union: COVID-19 State aid update - State aid Temporary Framework prolonged and additional aid for recovery possible (6th Amendment) -...

Cop watcher close to settlement with San Jose over broken arm – San Jos Spotlight

San Jose appears to be settling litigation with a resident injured while trying to film police officers.

Last week in closed session, the San Jose City Council discussed a lawsuit brought by Nicholas Robinson, a security guard who records policeinteractions.Robinson was arrested while monitoring police conducting an arrest near Highway 101 in November 2018. He claimed in a lawsuit officers broke his arm whiledetaining him and violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

City Attorney Nora Frimann told San Jos Spotlight settlement negotiations conducted by the court are confidential. She addedthe city doesnt have a signed settlement agreement yet.

Robinsons attorneys told the courta settlement agreement has been reached, according to federal records. The attorneys, who did not respond to requests for comment, told Robinsonthe city approved the settlement, according to a screenshot of a text message.

Robinson told San Jos Spotlight hes upset with the settlement award, which he said amounts to roughly $30,000most of which will go toward attorney fees.

Thats not even going to cover my future surgery, Robinson said, notinghe has titanium rods and screws in his arms that will have to be replaced in several years.

The settlement is far from the $1.5 million Robinsons attorneys requested in September. In a court brief, they argued the short altercation resulted in a permanent disability.

Although defendants never told Mr. Robinson he was at least being detained, they tackled and broke his arm within a span of 12 seconds of meeting each other, the attorneys state in a court filing made in September.

His attorneys said in court briefs that Robinson sustained a broken arm that left him with permanent nerve damage. They claim the injury has cost Robinson approximately $75,000 in medical bills and at least $10,000 in lost wages.

Paying the price

San Joses city attorney said in a court brief that Robinson interfered with a felony warrant arrest at a homeless encampment by shining a flashlight at police officers, preventing them from continuing their operation.

Recordings from police body cameras show an officer demanding Robinson turn his flashlight off. After Robinson turned it off, he protestedhe had a right to be there and gestured with the end of his flashlight. This prompted the officers to grab Robinson and lift his arms above his head, which allegedly resulted in the injury.

Raj Jayadev, co-founder of Silicon Valley De-Buga community organizing group that focuses on the criminal justice systemtold San Jos Spotlight theres a long tradition of civilians monitoring police to prevent or at least witness misconduct.

Its an extremely important activity, and I think Nick should be applauded for it, Jayadev said. Hes actually had to pay the price with his body.

A recent audit of the San Jose Police Department founda quarter of officers received at least one complaint in 2020, and 23% of complaints contained allegations about use of force.

Attorney Robert Powell recently secured a $400,000 settlement for a San Jose couple allegedly injured by SJPD officers during a 2019 arrest. He told San Jos Spotlightnumerous factors may come into play when settling this kind of case, including the extent and severity of an injury, whether the plaintiff was resisting arrest and if there was missing body camera footage.

The problem with a number in a vacuum is its kind of meaningless, said Powell, referring to Robinsons lawsuit. Does it seem low? Thats fair to say. But thats about all one can say thats intellectually honest.

Robinson documents traffic stops in an effort to increase transparency around police activities, he said. Recording law enforcement officers in a public space is allowed under the First Amendment, but restrictions apply when it interferes with police worksomething several departmentsallege about Robinson.

Multiple law enforcement agencieshave restraining orders against Robinson, including the San Jose Police Department, Santa Clara Police Department, California Highway Patrol and the San Jose Police Officers Association. According to court records, Robinson has interfered with traffic stops by recording police officers with his cellphone, shining his flashlight at officers and sometimes shouting vulgarities.

Robinson said he supports law enforcement, but wants to create an additional layer of accountability for police. He notedbody cameras are supposed to fulfill this function, but he doesnt trust them.

We see time and time again, even when they do have the cameras on, it doesnt even hold them accountable, Robinson said.

Contact Eli Wolfe at[emailprotected]or@EliWolfe4on Twitter.

Visit link:
Cop watcher close to settlement with San Jose over broken arm - San Jos Spotlight

Govt readies bill to levy new taxes of Rs400b – Pakistan Observer

The government has started implementing the conditions imposed by the International Monetary Fund for the revival of $6 billion extended fund facility programme as it has readied a bill that will allow it to levy new taxes amounting to Rs350 billion to Rs400 billion, sources divulged on Monday.

The sources further said government in its pursuit to fulfil the IMF conditions has prepared a bill permitting it to impose new taxes to the tune of Rs350-400 billion. They reveal that the Law Ministry has finalized the Fourth Amendment Bill to Taxation Law for levying new taxes and slashing development budget.

The government has decided to cut down developmental expenditures from Rs900 billion to Rs700 billion, they added.

According to sources, the bill also recommends abolition of all unnecessary tax exemptions. The Law Ministry has also tinkered with the Amendment to State Bank of Pakistan Act, sources concluded.

Read more:
Govt readies bill to levy new taxes of Rs400b - Pakistan Observer

Final Version, "The Fourth Amendment Limits of Internet Content Preservation" – Reason

My latest article, The Fourth Amendment Limits of Internet Content Preservation, was recently published in final form by the St. Louis University Law Journal. Here's the abstract:

Every year, hundreds of thousands of Internet accounts are copied and set aside by Internet providers on behalf of federal and state law enforcement. This process, known as preservation, ordinarily occurs without particularized suspicion. Any government agent can request preservation of any account at any time. Federal law requires the provider to set aside a copy of the account just in case the government later develops probable cause and returns with a warrant needed to compel the account's disclosure. The preservation process is largely secret. With rare exceptions, the account owner will never know the preservation occurred.

This Article argues that the Fourth Amendment imposes significant limits on the preservation of Internet account contents. Preservation triggers a Fourth Amendment seizure because the provider, acting as the government's agent, takes away the account holder's control of the account. To be constitutionally reasonable, the initial act of preservation must ordinarily be justified by probable causeand at the very least, in uncommon cases, by reasonable suspicion. The government can continue to use the Internet preservation statute in a limited way, such as to freeze an account while investigators draft a proper warrant application. But the current practice, in which investigators order the preservation of accounts with no particularized suspicion, violates the Fourth Amendment.

The article begins:

Imagine you are an FBI agent. One day you receive an anonymous tip that a particular person has committed a crime. You go online and search for the person's name, and your search reveals that, like most American adults, the person has a Facebook account. At this point, you only have an unverified tip. You lack reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause, to believe a crime was committed. And you have no particular reason to think the Facebook account was involved. But imagine federal law gave you the power to preserve and set aside the suspect's entire Facebook account nowincluding every private message and every saved photojust in case you later had the probable cause needed to access it.

Let me explain how this hypothetical law would work. At any time, you could command any Internet provider to save all of the contents of any account for up to 180 days. In response to your command, the provider would copy the entire account and set aside the copy for you without notifying the account holder. You would be unable to see the contents of the account unless you eventually develop probable cause and obtain a warrant. But you would have 180 days to develop probable cause. If no probable cause emerged, the preservation would end, and the provider would delete the saved copy without notifying the suspect. And if you developed probable cause during the 180-day period, you could get a warrant and compel the provider to hand over the contents of the account that had been previously preserved.

This hypothetical law would have obvious appeal for government investigators. A lot can happen in 180 days. The suspect might delete incriminating files. The suspect might get wise to the investigation and delete his online accounts to prevent the government from accessing them. By saving accounts at the beginning of a case, investigators could ensure that every record in existence at the outset is available if probable cause later develops. And it would all happen behind the scenes, as the provider would not disclose the preservation to the account holder. Even if the government eventually obtained a warrant and filed criminal charges, the preservation would not be disclosed during routine discovery. The entire process would remain secret.

As you might have guessed, this scenario is not just hypothetical. It describes a federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2703(f), as it is interpreted and used today.

Continue reading here:
Final Version, "The Fourth Amendment Limits of Internet Content Preservation" - Reason