Category: Fourth Amendment rights

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

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights First Amendment rights Fourth Amendment rights general freedom

Three Decades of Justice

IJ, Institute for Justice, law

Since September 1991, the libertarian law firm founded by Chip Mellor and Clint Bolick has been fighting for the rights of its clients against governmental assault.

For no charge, Institute for Justice helps people stripped of options fight for:

● The right to keep one’s land (and what’s on it).

In 2001, the city of Mesa, Arizona launched eminent-domain proceedings against Bailey’s Brake Service, owned by Randy Bailey. The plan was to destroy the shop and give the land to a hardware store, not a constitutionally permitted “public use.” Bailey and IJ eventually prevailed in court.

● The right to make a living despite arbitrary professional licensing.

The Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology demands that aspiring hair braiders submit to hundreds of hours of training and pay for an expensive license to ply their trade. IJ is challenging the requirement on behalf of clients Ashley N’Dakpri, Lynn Schofield, and Michelle Robertson.

● The right to keep one’s cash despite arbitrary civil forfeiture — i.e., the power of police and prosecutors to grab your money or other belongings without charging you with a crime.

One recent victim is Marine Corps veteran Stephen Laura, whose $86,900 was looted by the Nevada Highway Patrol. The Institute has agreed to help him get it back.

And so on.

It doesn’t look like governments will stop interfering with our ability to live and work any time soon. 

“Eternal Vigilance”? Thy name is IJ.

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

Marks of Tyranny

chalk, tire, Constitution

It pays to contest petty (as well as major) civil and criminal charges that your local and state governments lay against you. Sometimes you get off.

People have used some pretty “out there” arguments in their own defense. Example? Risk homeostasis in a speeding case. That was a stretch.

But this Michigan case, though it may seem odd, is as American as Apple pie.

Alison Taylor sued the city of Saginaw over her parking violation citations. Her argument? The Fourth Amendment.

You see, the municipality’s parking officer had used chalk to mark her (and others’) tires. If on a second round the officer sees a car with the mark at the right spot, showing that it had not moved in the allowed period — write up a ticket!

Ms. Taylor had accumulated 14.

So she and her lawyer argued that “using the chalk to mark her tires constituted an unreasonable search without a warrant.”

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. This traditional method of enforcing parking rules was recognized as an infringement of the right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.”

Trivial? The consequences may not be, as my source for this case, Greg Rasa of Autoblog, points out.

Dubious? Imagine a non-legal way to fight the chalk-mark method — non-officers chalking car tires with multiple marks indistinguishable from the officers’. Cities would object, of course, but their best case against such a practice would be the car owners’ case: defacement of private property. 

Yes, if the saboteurs’ marks are defacement, so are the city’s.

Justifying the appellate court’s ruling.

Chalk one up for constitutionally guaranteed rights?

This is Common Sense. It’s Friday! I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts