Category: Fourth Amendment rights

Categories
Fourth Amendment rights general freedom tax policy

Not Inadvertent

political donations, IRS, government surveillance, privacy

Maybe we can put a stop to the assault on the privacy of donors to political causes.

By “we” I mean The Buckeye Institute and the Institute for Free Speech, who have teamed up to challenge “a decades-old law that forces the IRS to demand that nonprofit charities hand over the private information of their largest donors every year.”

The IRS itself admits that collecting this personal data “poses a risk of inadvertent disclosure.”

Also a risk of fully advertent disclosure. 

The IRS has often been used to harass the political enemies of federal officials in a position to tell the agency what to do.

Buckeye Institute President Robert Alt reports the Institute’s own experience as Exhibit A. In 2013, soon after it had urged Ohio to reject Obamacare-inspired efforts to expand Medicaid, the Institute was subjected to an IRS harassment-audit.

The specter of this investigation was a scary one for the Institute’s major donors, who reasonably assumed that the audit was retaliatory. They worried that if their own names came up during the audit, they too would be subject to IRS attention. Many donors drastically scaled back their giving so they’d be less of a target; others stopped donating altogether.

Prospects for the Institutes’ litigation are good. The U.S. Supreme Court determined in a 2021 ruling that the government must at least consider “the potential for First Amendment harms before requiring that organizations reveal sensitive information about their members and supporters.”

Anonymity in political activism has a long American history — from the start, actually.

It’s what democracy looks like.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E2

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights Fourth Amendment rights international affairs

The Chinazis Next Door

China, spies, police, Canada, USA, America

The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!

This 1966 comedy about the accidental grounding of a Soviet submarine off the coast of New England was nominated for four Academy Awards and captured the Golden Globe Award for best motion picture.

But a remake exclaiming “The Chinese Are Coming!” would be old hat: They’re already here. 

“The People’s Republic of China has opened at least three police stations on Canadian soil as part of an alleged attempt by the country’s security state to keep an eye on the Chinese-Canadian diaspora,” The National Post informed last month.

“Canada-based dissidents of the Beijing government have long warned Canadian authorities that they face organized harassment from Chinese authorities,” The Post added.

A new report by Safeguard Defenders, a Spain-based foundation working for human rights in Asia, reveals there are now 54 of these Chinese “service stations” in 30 countries . . . including one in New York City.

The organization warns of “China’s growing global transnational repression,” explaining that in the last year 230,000 expats were “persuaded to return” to China but “these returns are often obtained by visiting extreme sanctions on the families of those targeted, such as asset seizures and prohibition from seeking government health care or education.”

In another recent report noted by The Globe and Mail, “the United Nations human-rights office said it found ‘patterns of intimidations, threats and reprisals’ against Uyghurs and other Chinese nationals living overseas who had spoken out against Beijing.”

Just last week, “El Correo published direct corroboration from Chinese authorities” of “illegal policing operations” with an anonymous Chinese official telling the Spanish paper, “The bilateral treaties are very cumbersome, and Europe is reluctant to extradite to China. I don’t see what is wrong with pressuring criminals to face justice. . . .”

The message to Chinese dissidents is clear: “You’re not safe anywhere.”

Are we?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment Fourth Amendment rights general freedom

Fourth Amendment Dead?

4th Amendment, search, privacy, law

Unconstitutional actions are constitutional.

A federal judge doesn’t say so explicitly, but that’s what his ruling amounts to.

The case, which we discussed previously, involves U.S. Private Vaults, a Beverly Hills company that the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided last year. The company has been fined $1.1 million for money laundering because it let dealers anonymously keep cash in its safe deposit boxes.

Judge Gary Klausner concedes that the FBI lied to obtain a warrant, planning to seize the property of all boxholders whether or not there was any evidence of a crime against a given boxholder. And to this day, “specific criminal conduct has not been alleged against customers.” Nevertheless, Klausner ruled that despite the lie, it was constitutional for the FBI to grab the boxes’ contents.

Of course, if the warrant authorizing the FBI to ignore Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures had been honestly solicited, that still would not have transmuted unconstitutional actions into constitutional ones.

“The court does not deny that the government had an improper motive when it applied for its warrant,” observes Rob Johnson, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which is representing the boxholders.

“But it says that fact is irrelevant unless the improper investigatory motive was the only reason that the Government opened the safety deposit boxes. . . . If today’s shocking decision stands, it will set a dangerous precedent that will allow the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to bypass the Fourth Amendment.”

Thankfully, the Institute for Justice doesn’t regard the case as closed. It will appeal.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights Fourth Amendment rights

The Bidening

Joe Biden

It does seem — because of the raids and surveillance and things targeting critics of the regime — that the Biden administration (“the Biden”) is out to get its political opponents.

John Hinderaker of Powerline notes a few recent tip-of-the-iceberg actions by the Biden or its political allies.

The Dilbert comic strip by Scott Adams was suddenly dropped from 80 newspapers after the strip began mocking certain modish pieties about diversity. We’ve learned that ostensibly private censorship is often done at the behest of government or politicians eager to muzzle somebody.

The Biden issued a slew of subpoenas to persons associated with the Trump administration for documents about efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. Nearly all these pertain “to activities that are plainly lawful,” observes Hinderaker.

The Biden seized the cell phone of Mike Lindell, CEO of MyPillow and infamous skeptic of the 2020 election results. He’s accused of identity theft and damaging a computer related to an alleged breach of Colorado voting machines, accusations that Hinderaker regards as implausible on their face. “This all has to do with his opposition to the regime.”

Although the Biden may provide rationales for the targeting, these tend to be paper-thin. Why? Probably because the Biden wants you to know exactly why all this banana-republic stuff is happening. You are expected to take the micro-thin excuses as a hint — so that you will adopt a paranoid stance.

And to avoid saying or doing anything that may get you, too, targeted by the Biden.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability Fourth Amendment rights

Unjust “Investigation”

cop, cash, asset forfeiture

Can we trust the FBI to stick to the rule of law and defend our rights?

Yesterday I more than suggested that the answer is “No.” 

Adding more fuel to this negative judgment, last week Eric Boehm at Reason told the tale of a Federal Bureau of Investigation raid upon safe deposits. 

“The FBI told a federal magistrate judge that it intended to open hundreds of safe deposit boxes seized during a March 2021 raid in order to inventory the items inside,” Boehm writes, “but new evidence shows that federal agents were plotting all along to use the operation as an opportunity to forfeit cash and other valuables.”

When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton’s response, reportedly, was “that’s where the money is!” He actually didn’t say it, but FBI personnel understand the operative principle all too well . . . regarding safety deposit boxes. 

Convictions? Hah! 

They seize property on an expected-revenue-based rationale.

Since “details regarding the planning and execution of the FBI’s raid of U.S. Private Vaults arenow out in the open,” Boehm goes on to explain, it looks like the FBI has to say bye-bye to “more than $86 million in cash as well as gold, jewelry, and other valuables from property owners who were suspected of no crimes.”

The plot’s been foiled, it appears, but will the culprits within the FBI be prosecuted?

Seems unlikely.

Truth is, the culture at the FBI has never been good. Barring defunding (which would be politically difficult) perhaps FBI agents should be restricted to just investigation, stripped of their weaponry, forced to rely on state and local lawmen — and perhaps the U.S. Marshals — to make any searches and arrests at all. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Illustration assist from DALL-E

Categories
Common Sense Fifth Amendment rights First Amendment rights Fourth Amendment rights general freedom Second Amendment rights Tenth Amendment federalism

July 4, 2022 Independence Day

independence, Fourth of July, freedom, Independence Day, 2018

Independence Day

Those core ideas of independence and liberty still matter — perhaps now more than ever.

And to help take Common Sense with Paul Jacob beyond 2022, join . . .

Thanks for your contribution!

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights Fourth Amendment rights

The War Against Cash Carriers

Gretchen Whitmer, MIchigan, asset forfeiture, theft, crime

Michigan’s lawmakers and governor seem determined to remind us that history is no nonstop march into the light.

In the Great Lake State, the latest confirmation is a return to virtually unrestricted legalized cash-grabbing at the airport, reversing halfhearted reforms of several years earlier.

After those reforms were enacted, a traveler had to be toting in excess of $50,000 before officials a Michigan airport could be “justified” in confiscating his cash on a mere suspicion that it is associated with a crime.

But now, because of legislation just signed by Governor Whitmer, the threshold has been knocked down to $20,000.

Maybe you must be naïve to carry so much cash where police and other functionaries can easily get at it, but as Dan King of the Institute for Justice observes, you don’t have to be a criminal. And traveling with cash is not a crime.

Around the country, innocent persons have often run afoul of civil forfeiture laws that let authorities steal money earned by others without any showing that the money is ill-gotten.

With help from organizations like Institute for Justice, people who make the mistake of traveling with substantial cash — to buy a truck, open a bank account, whatever — just might get their money back after spending months in the courts. 

And suffering much anxiety. 

For the officials who cause the anxiety, both the thefts and any temporary judicial setbacks amount to just another day at the office.

This is open thievery by the State, turning cops into robbers.

Opposing it is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Fourth Amendment rights national politics & policies

The J. Edgars’ Threat Tags

Attorney General, Merrick Garland

Last year, Attorney General Merrick Garland found himself under fire for putting parents under fire. That is, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was shown to be targeting for investigation parents upset at school boards for promoting Critical Race Theory.

Garland tried to weasel out of the situation, but since then a lot of details accumulated, like the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center special “snitch line” allowing Democrats to report on parents who buck school board opinions on race.

And now it’s been shown to be worse: it is not just about CRT. Parents who complained about mask mandates also got flagged for being “threats.”

From its inception, the FBI has engaged in shady political activities. The Hoover years — in which J. Edgar erected quite a fiefdom for himself, giving rise to the moniker “J. Edgars” for FBI agents — has served as a casebook on how a government operation is not supposed to work.

During the Trump years, agents were caught lying on FISA surveillance warrant applications to engage in a long-running coup attempt. More recently, it was shown in court that the FBI had encouraged the Governor Whitmer kidnapping plot.

On May 11, Representatives Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson co-signed a letter to Merrick Garland on the matter. Whistleblowers, they informed him, had confirmed the FBI was actually investigating concerned parents as “domestic terrorists” using the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division’s “threat tag” system.

Most investigations fizzled, since there was no real threat to be found on most tips, but the partisan slant of the tagging/targeting procedures suggests that the FBI has become, again, a deviously rogue agency pursuing partisan political goals.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights Fourth Amendment rights

A Guide for the Surveilled 

cyber security, web, internet, crime

If you’re hounded — or merely have reason to suspect you are about to be hounded — by censors and spies, there are things you can do to protect yourself.

Self-defense often starts with your communication devices, the kind of things that Big Brother and Big Corporate Overlords tend to target. Reclaim the Net has put together a fairly comprehensive overview and explanation of ways to reduce your risk.

For example:

● Use a strong passkey.

● Turn off fingerprint unlock and face unlock.

● Be alert to phishing attempts.

● Delete unused apps and data.

● Delete photo metadata before sending or posting photos.

● Disable location services.

● Use airplane mode when preventing access to you is more important than having access yourself.

● Usea VPN to evade censorship and tracking.

● Be careful what kind of information about yourself you make public.

● Take steps to recover a confiscated or stolen device, or at least to make its data unrecoverable.

● Use anonymous accounts.

● Use encrypted text messengers.

● Switch to more privacy-conscious browsers, search engines, and ISPs.

Depending on your circumstances, some of these tips will be more relevant than others, of course. But it’s worth perusing the whole list.

Of course, to go to all this trouble, you’d have to believe that big governments and mega-corporations are trying to surveil you. As if we lived in one of those dystopian futures they talk about in scary science fiction stories.

And who could ever believe that?

Well . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Fourth Amendment rights privacy tax policy too much government

A Closer IRS

IRS, privacy, banking, audit

Congressman Jared Golden, a Democrat in a Trump district, may be feeling heat.

“First, Nancy Pelosi said she’d raise taxes. Now, she’s coming for what’s left,” warns an American Action Network television advertisement airing in Golden’s Maine district. 

“To help pay for trillions in new spending, Pelosi wants the government to spy on nearly every American bank account, looking for new money to spend,” the spot continues. “Your deposits, payments, bank balance . . . under Pelosi’s plan, the government monitors them. 

“Call Jared Golden and tell him to . . . keep the government out of your bank account.”

Fact-checking the spot, News Center Maine determined that, “yes, as part of that plan, banks would be required to give two additional pieces of information to the IRS: how much money went into certain bank accounts over the course of the year and how much came out.”

Those “certain” accounts started out being those with $600 going in or out. After the public uproar, the plan hiked the amount to $10,000. 

Same principle, though.

“The only way to ensure that upper-income taxpayers pay what they owe,” explained a U.S. Treasury press release, “is by giving the IRS the resources and information required to close the tax gap.”

But does our system work that way? Not according to the Fourth Amendment.

We do not keep “a closer eye” on people making a certain amount; it is un-American to require all such “suspects” be put through the wringer the better to find a few guilty of something.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts