Virginia Politicians Really So corrupt They'd Pass A Bill Making It Illegal To Criticize Them

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

There’s a very good reason that Virginia wants to disarm civilians with a rash of new, unconstitutional laws. That’s because they seem to be modeling themselves after one of those countries where the government cannot be publicly criticized without great risk to the critic.

Fragile? You mean satanically corrupt shites, don't you?

Yet another new bill is on the table and this one criminalizes criticism of certain government officials. The summary of HB1627, proposed by Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne, reads:

Threats and harassment of certain officials and property; venue. Provides that certain crimes relating to threats and harassment may be prosecuted in the City of Richmond if the victim is the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia. In addition, threats to damage property may be prosecuted in the City of Richmond if the property is owned by the Commonwealth and located in the Capitol District. (source)

Oh, muffin. Have the people you’re oppressing been hurting your feelings? Then, by all means, while you’re actively trying to dismantle the Second Amendment, you should pass another unconstitutional law to attack the First Amendment.

It’s sort of like declaring a State of Emergency and calling gun owners white supremacists because you know you pushed them too hard and now you’re scared. But longer-lasting.

It’s also like communist China where critics can end up vanishing into a labor camp or watch their entire family be arrested. Or Thailand where lèse-majesté laws mean that a critic can be imprisoned for 3-15 years per count for any hurtful words about the king.

What constitutes a threat or harassment?

What exactly do the words “threats” and “harassment” mean in the terms of HB1627?
I’m glad you asked. If you take a look at some other codes that have been previously passed in Virginiastan, you’ll see that it can be something as simple as foul language.
Matt Palumbo wrote:

The bar for harassment is already as low as “vulgar language” in Virginia’s code 18.2-152.7:1:
If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. 

Bourne’s bill proposes adding the following amendment:
A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Bourne’s Bill also changes the language of “he shall be guilty” to “he is guilty” of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
It’s insane that a bill defining harassment so vaguely is already on the books in Virginia – and it’s even more insane that someone is proposing expanding it so that politicians can legally intimidate their detractors with ease. (source)

Can you imagine the way this bill could be used to silence detractors? It’s so vague that it could be enforced completely arbitrarily.

If you say mean things on the internet, if you use swear words when talking about our elected officials, or if you happen to suggest some solutions like… I don’t know… is tarring and feathering considered illegal and immoral?…then you could be guilty under this proposed law. My comments section alone would fill an entire prison cellblock, not to mention the comments sections of other websites.

When a government plays stupid games like trying to disarm a bunch of gun-loving, rural-dwelling Virginians, that government is bound to get stupid prizes like those same Virginians marching on the capital and criticizing them on the internet.

People in public office open themselves up to criticism.

This is why we have a First Amendment. If anyone in the state should be allowed to be criticized, it’s the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

By the very nature of running for public office, one should expect to be the target of some verbal harassment. People who are so thin-skinned as to make a law about why nobody should be able to say mean things to or about them have no business whatsoever in government.

I wonder if this petition to recall Governor Northam counts as being abusive toward him? (Please take a moment to go sign it.) The bad news is, the Virginia state congress has been working on another bill meant to keep them in power by changing the rules for a recall.
HB842 reads:

Removal of public officers; petition requirements; signature requirements. Clarifies that the requirement that a petition for the removal of a public officer be signed under penalty of perjury applies only to the person or persons filing such petition with the circuit court. Registered voters signing the petition for purposes of reaching the required number of signatures shall not be required to sign under penalty of perjury. The bill also increases the required number of signatures to a number of registered voters in the locality equal to 25 percent, up from 10 percent, of the total number of votes cast at the last election for the office, and requires the signatures to be collected within a 60-day period. (source)

The hits just keep on coming in Virginia. Redistricting and a crapton of money from Michael Bloomberg during the election served to turn this state’s congress upside down. A legitimate protest has been meaningless to the government of Virginia. The members of the legislature don’t care what Virginians think and they’re arrogant enough to pass vaguely worded laws to silence their constituents.

This is the very definition of tyranny.

Don’t think it can’t happen in your state.

What’s happening in Virginia is a cautionary tale and political road map for what will soon happen in the rest of the country.

• First, they took over the legislature by redrawing districts and dumping in millions of dollars from out of state.
• Then they began changing the rules so they can’t be recalled.
  
• Then they began imposing draconian gun control measures.
  
• Then they set about to make criticism of them illegal.
  

Could it be any more clear that every step of this was planned ahead of time?

The contrast between civilian and government officials is stark. Government officials get off basically scot-free for actual serious harm to victims.

25 Year Sentence for NOT Driving Drunk in a parked car Versus Probation for Prison Guard Who Raped Inmate

25 years without the possibility of parole.

What did this guy do? Rape? Murder? Armed Robbery? A botched terrorist attack?
Nope. He was sitting in a parked car, off the road in a parking lot, waiting for a taxi, with the AC on.

Granted, he drove drunk a lot. Actually, this was his fourth driving while intoxicated conviction.
But driving is a bit of an overstatement… he was arrested in the parking lot after turning on his car and pressing the brakes. As most modern cars require your brake pedal to be depressed in order to start the car, this is to be expected.

But HE NEVER DROVE THE CAR. EVER. HE WAS JUST SITTING IN AIR CONDITIONING. AS HE WAS BEING ARRESTED, THE CAB HE ORDERED SHOWED UP.

The man said he was just sitting in his car waiting for a cab. His blood alcohol content was .276 which would put most people down for the night with a bad headache the next day.

But 25 years in prison? No one was actually hurt by his behavior. Yes, many people could have been hurt. He was putting other people at risk for his own selfish reasons. But that is still a pre-crime. What he did was a crime because of what that behavior could lead to, not because of actual harm done to any person.

I think people should be punished for actual harm they do, not for victimless crimes. But forget the philosophical consistency for a minute and just think about this subjectively.

People who actually kill someone drunk driving don’t usually get that kind of sentence. In the last month, a man drunk driving in New York got 3.5-10.5 years for hitting and killing an elderly couple. A California illegal immigrant hit two pedestrians, killing one, left the scene, and was sentenced to one year in prison. A woman did get a 25-year sentence for killing one pedestrian and injuring another while under the influence, but she will be eligible for parole after 5 years.

In following these kind of cases, it pays to be an illegal ANYTHING in the US, because typically you get a year or LESS, and usually don't serve the full year. If however, you are a white, expect severe and stiff punishment.

At the trial of the man who never hurt anyone, the prosecution presented three prior DWI convictions which weighed into his conviction and sentencing. Yet judges routinely do not allow that kind of evidence for much more serious crimes. In one murder trial past violent crimes against women, even with the same style of assault, were not allowed to be presented at trial.

The court ruled that the sentence is not excessive because it was his fourth DUI arrest, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS NOT DRIVING AT THE TIME. The prosecutor says we owe law enforcement a debt of gratitude for keeping us safe. UH....RIGHT.

But what happens when law enforcement commit serious crimes with actual victims?

A corrections officer was found guilty of raping a male inmate. His sentence: two years of PROBATION. He did not even get a single day in jail. For RAPE. Of a prisoner who could not fight back or run away.

So a man will be put in jail for 25 for NOT driving under the influence, and guarded by people who could literally rape him, and not even face a single day in prison.

The man who was raped by a prison guard sued the prison alleging cruel and unusual punishment and failure of the prison to protect someone in their care. The court rejected his claims and dismissed the lawsuit.

A former Nebraska prison inmate who was sexually assaulted by a corrections officer in 2012 can’t pursue civil damages against prison officials who placed him in solitary confinement after he reported the rape.

The contrast between civilian and government officials is stark. Government officials get off basically scot-free for actual serious harm to victims.
And for the civilians, the sentencing can be harsh but follows no sane guidelines. This is not meant to be a defense of drunk driving. The point is that victimless crimes are often punished more severely than actual wrongdoing.

Under a common law system where all suits derive from conflicts between individuals–victimizations–this would not be the case.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

THE LESSON IS NEVER GET IN ANY CAR, EVEN SITTING IN ONE THAT IS NOT MOVING NOR ON A PUBLIC STREET, IF INTOXICATED. THE BASTARDS WILL STILL THROW YOU IN JAIL FOR LIFE.

If an illegal immigrant kills your family and leaves the scene, expect him or her to be out by christmas.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-20/25-year-sentence-driving-drunk-versus-probation-prison-guard-who-raped-inmate

California Cops Savagely Beat Teen For Recording Police, Caught in Massi...

DEA seized $4.15 billion in cash since 2007

The Drug Enforcement Administration seized more than $4 billion in cash from people suspected of drug activity over the last decade, but $3.2 billion of those seizures were never connected to any criminal charges.
A report by the Justice Department Inspector General released Wednesday found that the DEA's gargantuan amount of cash seizures often didn't relate to any ongoing criminal investigations, and 82 percent of seizures it reviewed ended up being settled administratively—that is, without any judicial review—raising civil liberties concerns.
In total, the Inspector General reports the DEA seized $4.15 billion in cash since 2007, accounting for 80 percent of all Justice Department cash seizures. Those figures do not include other property, such as cars and electronics, which are favorite targets for seizure by law enforcement.

All of this is possible through civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize property if they suspect it's connected to criminal activity, without having to file criminal charges against the owner. While law enforcement groups say civil asset forfeiture is a vital tool to disrupt drug traffickers and organized crime, the Inspector General's findings echo the concerns of many civil liberties groups, which say asset forfeiture creates perverse incentives for law enforcement to seize property.
"When seizure and administrative forfeitures do not ultimately advance an investigation or prosecution, law enforcement creates the appearance, and risks the reality, that it is more interested in seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution," the Inspector General warned.
Darpana Sheth, an attorney for the libertarian-leaning nonprofit law firm Institute for Justice, said in a statement that the report's findings "fundamentally undercut law enforcement's claim that civil forfeiture is a vital crime-fighting tool."
"Americans are already outraged at the Justice Department's aggressive use of civil forfeiture, which has mushroomed into a multibillion dollar program in the last decade," she continued. "This report only further confirms what we have been saying all along: Forfeiture laws create perverse financial incentives to seize property without judicial oversight and violate due process."

More than a dozen states have passed reforms to civil asset forfeiture in recent years in response to civil liberties concerns, but the practice remains robust in part because of joint federal and state drug task forces, which share forfeiture proceeds through the Justice Department's Equitable Sharing Fund. According to the report, the Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture program participants have collected $28 billion over the last decade.
As part of its investigation, the Justice Department Inspector General reviewed 100 DEA seizures that occurred without court issued-warrants or accompanying narcotics seizures—cases it said presented "particularly significant" risks to civil liberties.
Only 44 of the 100 seizures were connected to or advanced a criminal investigation. The majority of seizures occurred in airports, train stations, and bus terminals, where the DEA regularly snoops on travel records and maintains a network of travel industry employees who act as confidential informants.
According to the Inspector General, common red flags for passengers are "traveling to or from a known source city for drug trafficking, purchasing a ticket within 24 hours of travel, purchasing a ticket for a long flight with an immediate return, purchasing a one-way ticket, and traveling without checked luggage."
DEA agents then detain and question travelers with large amounts of cash, and, if they determine the money is linked to drug activity, seize it, even if there is no hard evidence that it is connected to illegal activity. As the Inspector General notes, these agents "rely on their immediate, on-the-spot judgment." The passenger is then released, bereft of money but otherwise free to go.
The report highlights one case where DEA agents detained a man at the airport and, after searching his duffel bag, found several rubber-banded bundles of hundred-dollar bills:

When a task force officer explained that the U.S. currency in the bag was going to be seized pending further investigation, the passenger asked whether he could keep some of the currency to travel home. The passenger asserted that all of the currency in the bag was his, and the task force officers allowed him to retain $1,000. This seizure resulted in an administrative forfeiture of $27,000 to the U.S. government, and the DEA explained to the OIG that, other than the events surrounding the seizure, there was no subsequent investigative activity or additional law enforcement benefit.

If the DEA task force agents thought that man's cash was connected to drug activity, why allow him to keep some of it? If they weren't sure, why take it in the first place? The answer, of course, is there is no logical or legal rationale for this sequence of events.
"We found that different task force officers made different decisions in similar situations when deciding whether to seize all of the cash discovered," the Inspector General wrote. "These differences demonstrate how seizure decisions can appear arbitrary, which should be a concern for the Department, both because of potentially improper conduct and because even the appearance of arbitrary decision-making in asset seizure can fuel public perception that law enforcement is not using this authority legitimately, thereby undermining public confidence in law enforcement."
Most of these types of seizures are never challenged. The Inspector General found petitions were filed in only 20 percent of DEA cash seizures, but of those, 40 percent saw money fully or partially returned to the owner, indicating that there may be a significant amount of unfounded seizures that go unchallenged.
The Inspector General recommended the Justice Department collect data to evaluate whether asset forfeitures and seizures advance criminal investigations, which it currently does not do.
In a written response to the Inspector General included in the report, the Justice Department's Criminal Division disputed both the report's findings and methodology. It maintains that civil asset forfeiture is "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

 http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/29/the-dea-seized-4-billion-from-people-sin

Tampa police arrest volunteers for feeding the homeless

Seven activists were arrested this week for feeding hungry, freezing homeless people in a Tampa city park. Volunteers from Food Not Bombs were aware that their actions were made technically illegal by heartless wankers and chose to pass out food anyway.

The group often feeds the homeless in public spaces. Although they were made aware that their actions required a special permit, they proceeded with passing out food. The permit required to feed the homeless twice a week in a public setting can be expensive due to the heavy insurance policy the city requires.

Although police say that the activists were arrested on charges of serving food without a permit, Food Not Bombs says that they have served food in the exact same location to homeless individuals over 100 times – without ever having a permit. The group also says they will continue to feed the homeless, without a permit, even at the cost of being arrested.

In a public statement, the group said, “compassion should never be criminalized” and “[Food Not Bombs] has no plans to stop sharing food with the homeless and hungry and will continue to defy unjust laws that criminalize compassion and mutual aid. We intend to expose the city’s cruelty in the face of thousands in our community who are struggling with issues of food insecurity, mental and medical health issues, poverty, and homelessness.”
It is rumored that Tampa is cracking down on homelessness right now in order to clean up before Monday night’s college football national championship, which will take place at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa.
Foods Not Bombs plans to set up again early Tuesday morning to pass out more food.

 http://www.nationofchange.org/2017/01/09/watch-tampa-police-arrest-volunteers-feeding-homeless/

Doing good in a satanic system, go to jail or die

Now it seems we can’t go a week without hearing a new story about someone being punished, with fines or even jail time, for activities that would be encouraged in a free society. I’ve taken the liberty (pun intended) of compiling some of the more egregious examples of this trend for your reading pleasure (or displeasure).
1. Single mom faces possible jail time for selling $12 worth of ceviche to an undercover police officer.
Mariza Ruelas had her day in court in early November. Her crime? She sold a $12 plate of ceviche, an authentic Mexican dish, to an undercover cop on Facebook.
I know what you’re thinking: Why are police setting up stings to catch people selling food to willing customers over Facebook? Don’t they have actual crimes to investigate — like ones with actual victims? Murders and armed robberies are rife and ignored, but watch out if you want to do some legal free enterprise or act of kindness.
2. Federal prosecutors threaten Aaron Swartz with a life-crushing sentence for legally downloading academic articles that were public domain.
On January 11^th 2013, Aaron Swartz ended his own life, concluding one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in contemporary history.
In the months leading up to his suicide, Swartz had been embroiled in a legal battle with the federal government after prosecutors charged Swartz under the draconian Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. His crime? Downloading thousands of academic articles from the JSTOR database.
The CFAA is a particularly cruel piece of legislation, as it carries severe mandatory minimum sentencing requirements, resulting in Swartz facing up to 35 years in prison for a nonviolent crime.
Many legal observers at the time pointed out that had Swartz robbed a bank, aided al-Qaeda, or produced child pornography he would have faced a more lenient sentence.
Swartz’s story was detailed in great depth in the documentary The Internet’s Own Boy. The documentary was released under the Creative Commons — a nonprofit initiative Aaron Swartz himself was an early architect of — so you can watch it for free on YouTube.
3. Government claims ownership of all water, jails Oregon man for 30 days for collecting rainwater on his own property.

Way back in 2012 the libertarian blogosphere was abuzz over an egregious case of local government tyranny out of Oregon. Gary Harrington was sentenced to spend 30 days in jail for the crime of collecting rainwater using three reservoirs (that’s newspeak for “ponds”) on his property.
Oregon law states that all water is a public resource, to be owned communally by the collective population of Oregon, and as such any attempts to obtain or store water must first begin with applying for the proper permits to do so. Yes, really.
One of the reservoirs on his property had been there for 37 years, Harrington said. To add insult to injury, Harrington’s applications for permits were initially approved by the state’s Water Resource Department, but were rescinded after a state court reversed their decision.
As a result of this 1920s-era law, Harrington was ordered to turn himself in to the county jail to serve his 30-day sentence. Being self-sufficient makes everyone a target in the NWO.
4. Maryland church ordered to evict homeless people from its property or pay a $12,000 fine.
No good deed goes unpunished in the Land of the Free.No good deed goes unpunished in the Land of the Free^TM. In late 2016, Reverend Katie Grover was met with a $12,000 citation attached to the door of the Patapsco United Methodist Church in Dundalk, Maryland. The alleged crime was allowing several homeless people to sleep on the church’s property in violation of the county regulation prohibiting “non-permitted rooming and boarding.”
The church wasn’t even letting the homeless sleep indoors, rather they were just allowing a few homeless people to sleep on some of the benches located in the church’s yard. Letting people sleep on YOUR OWN LAND, especially if christian based, will have every satanic bitch targeting you for the rest of your life.
5. San Antonio chef fined $2,000 for feeding homeless people.
In early 2015, the chef and founder of the not-for-profit food truck Chow Train, Joan Cheever, was cited by police officers for the outrageous crime of serving hot meals to the city’s homeless population.
The citation, which she received for transporting the food in a different vehicle than her licensed food truck, carries with it a fine totaling $2,000.
As is par for the course in these sorts of cases, there isn’t an observable wronged party. The only apparent “crime” here is the violation, unwitting or otherwise, of an arbitrary government dictate. In this case in particular, no one called the police requesting assistance. Cheever was doing what she had done for more than 10 years, except this time her charity stepped outside of the parameters set forth by an unelected bureaucrat at the city’s health department.


In a satanically controlled society, as it is in the USA, being kind to the less fortunate makes YOU A BIG TARGET FOR THE ass rammers.

some content zero hedge

Exposed: DNC Scheme to Silence Delegates, White Noise Machine Put Above ...

Disabled cancer patient slammed to the ground by TSA guards, lawsuit claims

Hannah Cohen, 18, was on her way home from St Jude’s Hospital when a scanner went off and led to incident that left her ‘physically and emotionally’ injured

A brain tumor had left Hannah blind in one eye, deaf in one ear and partially paralyzed, so when the guards grabbed each of her arms it startled her, she said. Photograph: Courtesy of Shirley Cohen

A disabled teenage cancer patient was injured during a violent arrest by security agents at Memphis international airport, her family has alleged in a lawsuit filed against the Transport Security Administration.
Hannah Cohen, 18, at the time of her arrest on 30 June 2015, and her mother had been on their way home to Chattanooga from St Jude’s hospital in Memphis, where Hannah underwent her final treatment for a brain tumor.
Hannah and her mother, Shirley, told the Guardian that the pair had made the trip hundreds of times, and knew the airport security routine well. Shirley would usually go through the scanner first and wait for Hannah on the other side, since Hannah’s tumor, and numerous surgeries and treatments since she was two years old, had left her easily confused and frightened in unfamiliar situations.
According to the complaint, the warning alarm was triggered when Hannah passed through the body scanners. Hannah attributed the alarm to her shirt’s design.
“My shirt – it had sequins,” Hannah told the Guardian, laboring to speak. According to the complaint:
“You could see on the screen what it was pointing out,” Shirley said. She stood to the side, watching, wearing an immobilization boot on a broken foot.
Agents told Hannah they needed to take her to a “sterile area” where they could search her further. She was afraid, Shirley said, and offered to take off the sequined shirt as she was wearing another underneath, but a female agent laughed at her.
Seeing the scene begin to unfold, Shirley hobbled to a supervisor standing nearby. “She is a St Jude’s patient, and she can get confused,” she said. “Please be gentle. If I could just help her, it will make things easier.”
But soon, a voice on the public address system requested more agents to report to the checkpoint, Shirley said. “That’s when the armed guards came.”
The brain tumor had left Hannah blind in one eye, deaf in one ear and partially paralyzed, so when the guards grabbed each of her arms, it startled her, she said. “I tried to push away,” she said. “I tried to get away.”
The guards slammed Hannah to the ground, her mother said, smashing her face into the floor, which the complaint alleges left her “physically and emotionally” injured.
Shirley had just picked up her phone from the conveyor belt, and she snapped a photo of Hannah on the floor: handcuffed, weeping and bleeding.
“Another guard pushed me back 20ft, in my boot, and told me I couldn’t be nearby,” said Shirley, a professor of nursing at a university in Chattanooga.
“I felt so helpless. I sat down on a bench facing away so I couldn’t see what they were doing to my daughter.”
The lawsuit alleges that the TSA did not give Hannah adequate accommodation to screen her, and discriminated against her because of her disability. It names the TSA and the Memphis-Shelby County airport authority and seeks damages that include medical expenses and for personal injury, both physical and emotional. It calls for a “reasonable sum not exceeding $100,000 and costs”, and an undisclosed punitive amount.
The TSA has not yet responded to the complaint.
Hannah disappeared behind a door, then went to a hospital, and finally to the Shelby County jail. After 24 hours apart, the mother and daughter were reunited in the parking lot of the jail.
Shirley said she held her daughter, who sobbed, “I’m sorry, Mama.”
The next morning – now two days without their belongings, which had made the flight home – the pair appeared before a local judge, who asked the accused to explain herself.
When Hannah responded, the judge said: “You’re going to have to speak up.”
That’s when Hannah looked up and her hair fell back from her face, revealing her unseeing eye, surrounded by cuts and contusions.

“The judge’s eyes got big and round,” Shirley said.
After inquiring if the pair were from Memphis, the judge recommended they get legal representation.
The charges were all dropped two days later, and the court refunded the $250 in costs the family had paid.
The TSA did not immediately return a request for comment. But a TSA spokeswoman, Sari Koshetz, said in a statement that “passengers can call ahead of time to learn more about the screening process for their particular needs or medical situation”.
“Why should I do that when we’ve been going through that airport for 17 years?” Shirley said.
“These people think they are God. They think they can do anything they want,” she said. “Well, in this country we have the Americans with Disabilities Act. And if they will do this to a disabled girl, does that mean they’ll do it to an 80-year-old grandmother? It’s time for justice.”

Worse than Criminals — Cops Use Asset Forfeiture to Steal $53K from an Orphanage and a Church

Source: Matt Agorist

The criminal depths to which police will sink to bolster their budgets, apparently have no limit, as a recent case of police theft in Oklahoma illustrates. To keep society safe, sheriff’s deputies in Muskogee County, Oklahoma robbed a church and an orphanage of $53,000. Real American heroes.
Eh Wah, 40, a refugee from Burma, who became a US citizen more than a decade ago, was traveling with the cash to deliver it to the intended recipients when he was targetted by modern day, state-sanctioned pirates — for a broken tail light.
Eh Wah had been entrusted with the money by the members of his Christian band who had been on a 19-city tour raising funds for the Dr. T. Thanbyah Christian Institute, a religious liberal arts college in Burma serving the Karen community there. And, they had also collected funds for the Hsa Thoo Lei orphanage in Thailand, which serves internally displaced Karen people.
Clearly a vulnerable host for their parasitic process, Eh Wah’s English was incompatible with that of the deputies’ and he was accused of trafficking drugs. A K9 was called to the scene, and, naturally, alerted to the vehicle. As the Free Thought Project has reported in the past, drug dogs will alert to your vehicle nearly every single time they are brought out regardless of actually having drugs or not.
In spite of the fact that not one single bit of contraband was found, Eh Wah was brought to the police station and interrogated for hours. Police even called one of Eh Wah’s friends in the band who confirmed the story, but the cops, with dollar signs in their eyes, still believed that his story was “inconsistent.”

Eh Wah was then released without charges and sent on his way — police kept his cash, and Eh Wah kept his broken tail light.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Eh Wah’s attorney, Dan Alban, noted that while the deputies took all of the cash, they left Eh Wah a check written out to him for $300 from a family friend.
“If they really thought these were drug proceeds and they thought he was a drug trafficker, why would they give back a check that they thought was drug proceeds?” Alban asked. But, he said, “if the real purpose of the stop was to increase revenue, there’s no point in keeping the check because they can’t cash the check.”
In an apparent attempt to justify their lowlife theft from an orphanage, five weeks after he was stopped, Muskogee County authorities eventually charged Eh Wah with a crime. They issued a warrant for his arrest April 5, for the crime of “acquir[ing] proceeds from drug activity, a felony.” For probable cause, the authorities noted the positive alert from the drug dog, “inconsistent stories” and, according to the Post, said Eh Wah was “unable to confirm the money was his.”
And we call this process ‘justice’ in the Land of the Free.
For decades now, the federal government and their cohorts in law enforcement have been carrying out theft of the citizenry on a massive scale. We’re not talking about taxes, but an insidious power known as Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF).
The 1980’s-era laws were ostensibly designed to drain resources from powerful criminal organizations, but CAF has become a tool for law enforcement agencies across the U.S. to steal money and property from countless innocent people.
It was CAF, which allowed the Muskogee County deputies to legally pilfer from an orphanage without any worry of recourse or accountability
No criminal charge is required for this confiscation, resulting in easy inflows of cash for law enforcement departments and the proliferation of abuse. This is called “policing for profit.”

In the last 25 years, the amount of “profit” stolen through CAF has skyrocketed.

According to the US Department of Justice, the value of asset forfeiture recoveries by US authorities from 1989-2010 was $12,667,612,066, increasing on average 19.5% per year.
In 2008, law enforcement took over $1.5 billion from the American public. While this number seems incredibly large, just a few years later, in 2014, that number tripled to nearly $4.5 billion.
When we examine these figures and their almost exponential growth curve, it appears that police in America are getting really good at separating the citizen from their property — not just really good, criminally good.
To put this number into perspective, according to the FBI, victims of burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses in 2014.

That means that law enforcement in America has stolen $600,000,000 more from Americans than actual criminal burglars.

When police surpass the criminal accomplishments of those they claim to protect you from, there is a serious problem.
When police can publicly steal from charitable organizations and orphanages in the name of the war on drugs, it is time society reassess who the criminals are.
The good news is that Americans are waking up to this Orwellian notion of police robbing the citizens, and they are taking a stand.
Even police officers are taking a stand against CAF. In an exclusive interview in September of last year, the Free Thought Project talked to officer Stephen Mills, chief of police at the Apache, Oklahoma police department. Mills became an outspoken advocate against CAF after he became a victim of it.
The idea of thieving cops has also united organizations on opposite ends of the political spectrum. In October, the ACLU and the Koch Brothers came together to stop the inherent police theft in America.
While the police keep grabbing your property, it is important to remain vigilant. Only through a lesser ignorance and the spreading of information will we overcome this blatant tyranny. Please share this article with your friends and family to wake them up to the criminal reality that is – civil asset forfeiture.

We live in a PRO CENSORSHIP CULTURE NOW. Just another amendment of the Constitution that is under attack. Here, they use PC and feminism and the attack dogs to achieve agenda goals.

Top Feminist Says Put Men in Concentration Camps

CRAZY Feminist tries to get me fired: BACKFIRES SPECTACULARLY

WHY?

The satanists are a death cult. It's their defining soul quality.

CALIFORNIA IS ROLLING OUT ITS DROUGHT IS NEVER GOING TO END PROPAGANDA I...

Brown is the new Green? They are in love with death and dying. They want a wasteland, not a land of beauty. For they hate life and are in love with death.

'Marching to Zion' Full - Christian Zionism and 1948 Israel Exposed!

Undercover police exposed trying to embed themselves in the march Madiso...

Jade Helm logo - witches circle, demons in control of human beings, satanic meaning

Home › Big Brother & Police State › Police Seize $63,530 From Veteran Because He Kept It In Grocery Bags Police Seize $63,530 From Veteran Because He Kept It In Grocery Bags

(Daniel Jennings)  Simply carrying a large amount of cash in a grocery sack in your car is now sufficient grounds for a police officer to seize your money, a US circuit court has ruled. A panel of the Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals found that all a deputy has to do to seize cash from a person is say it is drug money.
The court refused to return the $63,530 that Deputy Dave Wintle seized from a disabled veteran named Mark A. Brewer during a traffic stop in 2011. Brewer was never charged with a crime or even given a traffic ticket. Yet the decorated Air Force veteran lost his savings when a drug-sniffing dog smelled marijuana on it, even though no cannabis was found in Brewer’s car or his home.
Brewer saved the money from disability payments and his Air Force pay — as documents deputies found in the car indicated. He said he was traveling to Los Angeles to visit his uncle and to use the money as a down payment for a house. He added he was hoping his uncle could help him get a job there.
“The record here does not make clear whether the seized currency constitutes property used to facilitate a drug offense or proceeds from a drug offense,” Judge Bobby E. Shepherd wrote in a March 23 opinion upholding the seizure. “For the purposes of analysis, however, we will assume that the currency facilitated a drug offense and is thus subject to [to be seized].”
It was taken through a legal mechanism called civil forfeiture. (Listen to Off The Grid Radio’s report on civil forfeiture here.)
Brewer’s ordeal began when he was driving through Douglas County, Nebraska, outside of Omaha on Interstate 680 in November 2011. Wintle, a Douglas County sheriff’s deputy, pulled him over for not signaling when he made a lane change, and then Wintle asked for permission to search the vehicle.
Keeping Cash in a Grocery Bag Can Lead to Seizure
Wintle had just run a background check on Brewer and found he had “no major violations” on his record when he had the dog search the car. The search was apparently prompted by Wintle’s discovery of $1,000 in cash in Brewer’s pocket. He then found the other money in grocery sacks in a backpack.

Martial Law, hundreds of thousands of tanks, troop carriers and men - for four months. Remember the big eviction of the national parks of 4 million people? Well, now its TEN STATES and troops on street corners with machine guns. Just like in Iraq or Afghanistan

Late last week, when we covered the various signs that "something big" may be coming, we discussed the one "exercise that people have really been buzzing about" - operation "Jade Helm", an “unconventional warfare exercise” during which the states Texas and Utah will be designated as hostile territory.
As previously profiled, "Jade Helm is a challenging eight-week joint military and Interagency (IA) Unconventional Warfare (UW) exercise conducted throughout Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado,” according to an unclassified military document announcing the training drill, which runs from July 15 through September 15.
Multiple branches of the US military, including Green Berets, Navy Seals, and the 82nd Airborne Division, will participate in the 8-week long exercise, which may result in “increased aircraft in the area at night.”
Troops will be tasked with honing advanced skills in “large areas of undeveloped land with low population densities,” and will work alongside “civilians to gain their trust and an understanding of the issues.”
The exercise, in which some participants will be “wearing civilian clothes and driving civilian vehicles,” lists Texas and Utah as “hostile" territory.
The proposed theater of operations of Operation Jade Helm is shown on the map below:


So while there are still three months until Jade Helm officially opens, various documented reports of substantial national guard drills and troop exercises are starting to trickle in early. As Paul Joseph Watson notes, the first documented proof of National Guard drills comes from Ontario, California where National Guard troops can be seen patrolling residential streets and practicing traffic control.
In the video troops, followed by a humvee, are seen marching close to an elementary school and single family homes.

“I just watched it again and recognized the low block wall and the elementary school! It was right there where my sister and her husband live! OMG how frightening!” one YouTube commenter responded, while others insisted the patrols were a routine occurrence.

However, another respondent insisted that the patrol was not normal.

“During the last few seconds I got a quick glimpse of my sister and brother-in-laws house on Fuschia. Ave,” wrote the commenter.”That motorcycle was parked almost in front of their house. They told me they saw this procession going on from their front yard. They have lived in that house for 30 or so yrs and this is the first time they have seen this type of thing in their neighborhood. Might be a common thing to do their training someplace else but not in that area.”

This is not the first such clip: a disturbing video out of Fort Lauderdale, Florida last month also showed military and law enforcement practicing the internment of citizens during martial-law style training.
Meanwhile on the eastern US easboard, the PostStar reports that nearly 600 Army and Air National Guard forces from New Jersey and New York "are preparing for the worst."

They are participating in a homeland response force drill at New Jersey's Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst on Friday.

The troops specialize in rescue, security, decontamination and medical treatment.

The units will train to rapidly assess and identify a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incident.

Of course, the bigger concern is that the real motive behind this major national guard exercise is not a focus on a "defensive" drill from an outside threat, but one dealing with a domestic threat.
How is that possible, some would say? Could the national guard really be preparing for a confrontation with the US population?
Unfortunately the answer is yes, as we reported last August in "Under What Conditions Can The US Army Engage Citizens: The Army's "Civil Disturbances" Primer" which lays out not only when the US Army (and national guard) can engage the US population, but lays out clearly the protocol under which the US army is specifically permitted to engage in "PSYOPs" against the US population.
Here are the salient points, as reported previously, from the primer which begins with the umbrella statement:

Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn into full-scale riots. Gathering in protest may be a recognized right of any person or group, regardless of where U.S. forces may be operating. In the United States, this fundamental right is protected under the Constitution of the United States...

"Protected" it may be, but as usual, the interpretation of the Constitution is in the eye of the beholder, or more appropriately, gun holder. Because shortly thereafter we further read the following:

The Constitution of the United States, laws, regulations, policies, and other legal issues limit the use of federal military personnel in domestic support operations. Any Army involvement in civil disturbance operations involves many legal issues requiring comprehensive legal reviews. However, federal forces are authorized for use in civil disturbance operations under certain circumstances.

What circumstances? For the answer we turn to section, 2-8. To wit:

The Constitution of the United States provides two exceptions for which the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply. These exceptions are based upon the inherent right of the U.S. government to ensure the preservation of public order and to carrying out governmental operations within its territorial limits by force, if necessary. These two exceptions are—

• Emergency authority. A sudden and unexpected civil disturbance, disaster, or calamity may seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal governmental functions to such an extent that local authorities cannot control the situation. At such times, the federal government may use military force to prevent the loss of life or wanton destruction of property and to restore government functions and public order. In these circumstances, federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances (see DODD 3025.18).
• Protection of federal property and functions. When the need for the protection of federal property or federal functions exists, and duly constituted local authorities are unable to, or decline to provide adequate protection, federal action, including the use of military forces, is authorized.

2-9. Laws passed by the U.S. congress include four exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. With the first three laws discussed below (10 USC 331–333) there is a prerequisite that the President must take personal action, including the issuance of a proclamation calling upon insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably within a limited time. The four exceptions, based on law are—

• 10 USC 331. When a state is unable to control domestic violence and they have requested federal assistance, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
• 10 USC 332. When ordinary enforcement means are unworkable due to unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
• 10 USC 333. When a state cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens, due to domestic violence or conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
• House Joint Resolution 1292. This resolution directs all departments of the U.S. government, upon request of the Secret Service, to assist in carrying out its statutory duties to protect government officials and major political candidates from physical harm.

In other words, if and when the US Armed Forces decide that rioting infringes upon any of these exclusions, then the constitution no longer applies and the use of lethal force becomes a viable option against US citizens.
It gets worse, because whereas one would expect that a "Constitutional expert" such as the president, Barack Obama would be the one tasked with interpreting if and when the Constitution no longer applies, the primer is quite explicit in handing over responsibility to "federal military commanders":

... federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbance.

So should Obama resume his vacation even as things in Missouri escalate dramatically, and be "unreachable", it may well come to pass that Obama's opinion will be irrelevant not only whether the National Guard should be unleashed in Ferguson, but whether Posse Comitatus is suddenly null and void.
The good news: the use of lethal force is not the only option the US Army would have if and when it engages with the population. US citizens may simply  be herded into "temporary internment camps" for reindoctrination purposes under the supervision of PSYOP Officer (no really, they used that word), as follows from the Army's FM3-39.40 "Internment and Resettlment Operations" manual:

Internment and Resettlement (I/R) operations facilitate the ability to conduct rapid and decisive combat operations; deter, mitigate, and defeat threats to populations that may result in conflict; reverse conditions of human suffering; and build the capacity  of a foreign government to effectively care for and govern its population. This includes capabilities to conduct  shaping operations across the spectrum of military operations to mitigate and defeat the underlying conditions  for conflict and counter the core motivations that result in support to criminal, terrorist, insurgent, and other destabilizing groups. I/R operations also include the daily incarceration of U.S. military prisoners at facilities  throughout the world.

An adaptive enemy will manipulate populations that are hostile to U.S. intent by instigating mass civil disobedience, directing criminal activity, masking their operations in urban and other complex terrain, maintaining an indistinguishable presence through cultural anonymity, and actively seeking the traditional sanctuary of protected areas as defined by the rules of land warfare. Such actions will facilitate the dispersal of threat forces, negate technological overmatches, and degrade targeting opportunities. Commanders will use technology and conduct police intelligence operations to influence and control populations, evacuate detainees and, conclusively, transition rehabilitative and reconciliation operations to other functional agencies. The combat identification of friend, foe, or neutral is used to differentiate combatants from noncombatants and friendly forces from threat forces.

Presenting army camps, hopefully not in a city near you:

Detainee facilities, an important planning consideration, are treated in the same basic fashion as any base camps. The same basic planning considerations are taken into  account. Some detainee facilities will be subordinate to a larger base camp but they may also be at a separate location.

Of course, none of this will be needed if the Army's Psyops work as required:

The PSYOP officer in charge of supporting I/R operations serves as the special staff officer responsible for PSYOP. The PSYOP officer advises the military police commander on the psychological impact of military police or MI actions to prevent misunderstandings and disturbances by detainees and DCs. The supporting I/R PSYOP team has two missions that reduce the need to divert military police assets to maintain security in the I/R facility.  The team—

• Assists the military police force in controlling detainees and DCs.
• Introduces detainees or DCs to U.S. and multinational policy.
• Develops PSYOP products that are designed to pacify and acclimate detainees or DCs to accept U.S. I/R facility authority and regulations.
• Gains the cooperation of detainees or DCs to reduce the number of guards needed.
• Identifies malcontents, trained agitators, and political leaders within the facility who may try to organize resistance or create disturbances.
• Develops and executes indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes.
• Identifies political activists.
• Provides loudspeaker support (such as administrative announcements and facility instructions when necessary).
• Helps the military police commander control detainee and DC populations during emergencies.
• Plans and executes a PSYOP

In other words, if and when the time comes to "override" Posse Comitatus, random US citizens may have two options: i) end up in the US version of a Gulag or, worse, ii) be shot. For now, however, just keep an eye on the various drill videos to get a sense of the US army's preparedness in dealing with "civil disobedience."

This man had entire life savings stolen by police