#that would be a violation of your 4th amendment rights: to be secure in your person houses papers and effects against unreasonable seizures

[friendrat]

But I don't wanna live in a dystopian world!!!

[necarion]

I have a long rant about the neutering of the 14th Amendment here, but I'll add a couple things about the slightly tortured nature of Roe and Griswold (states can't prevent the purchase of contraception).

There is obviously some right of privacy in the US. Like, there is no fucking way the Founders thought that the government could just look at their stuff and their private lives whenever. The constitution didn't explicitly provide for it, but there are substantial limits there in the 4th Amendment that says the drafters were thinking about it. The governments are limited, and so should have limited reach.

People who complain about the Griswold line of cases complain about the Supreme Court creating a "right of privacy" that didn't exist before. But of course it fucking exists, they just had to have a slightly tortured explanation for why ("penumbras" of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments.) I think the most ardent anti-Griswold nutty right wing lawyer would be extremely upset if Congress put a spycam outside their bedroom and broadcast peeping footage of them having sex. It isn't in the 4th Amendment that you can't be looked at, just that your home is secure against "search" and "seizure". [note 1] Neither of those are "just lookin'"

If the Ninth Amendment had any precedential power, this would be considered far more reasonable. Except that over 200 years, the general judicial response to something added specifically to declare that "people have rights not contained in this constitution" is "this is just a truism" (Scalia used the word "truism" here). Literally every other aspect of the Bill of Rights protects something, but the 9th Amendment is just saying "yeah, obviously people have rights, man".

[note 1] One thing a lot of RW folks get mad at is that the Constitution doesn't say anything about police not being allowed to use evidence gathered from an unreasonable search or seizure. Just that they can't make them. So the "exclusionary rule" in Mapp v. Ohio is totally "made-up" from a textual standpoint. Except that if you don't have it, the 4th Amendment is basically meaningless if police can violate your privacy with no consequences whatsoever.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I agree that Wickard and friends were largely inevitable (in that it's in the self-interest of those with power), but that doesn't mean it's good or necessary. "big guberment bad" shouldn't be the only concern, but it's still an important one. You should oppose both the barons and the god emperor.

I mean, the snarky response to this is, what has your unyielding opposition gained you? Wickard is the law of the land, while you are some guy complaining on the internet.

More seriously, I think the fallacy being committed by most of the people who gripe about Wickard is the belief that if you just establish the forms and institutions of government on a piece of paper, and then make that paper impossible to change, you can keep those forms and institutions the same forever even while the world changes around you. And this just is not true. If you try to do this, one of three things is going to happen:

The necessary changes are made in an informal and ad hoc way by means of ludicrous interpretations of the existing texts, combined with just plain old looking the other way at violations of the text and spirit of the law. Which is pretty antithetical to the supposed rule of law which underpins liberal democracy.

Your government becomes unable to function, and collapses into tyranny when people get sick of the forms and institutions not working for them. This is a widely-accepted explanation for the fall of the Roman Republic: Rome had a government that worked fine for managing a city-state but could not handle a continent-spanning empire, yet it refused to evolve to match its new responsibilities. And when people got sufficiently tired of the resulting ineptitude and chaos, the whole thing fell apart and became an autocracy.

You are conquered from the outside by other governments which don't share your resistance to change. This is what happened to Austria-Hungary, Qing China, and so on. They fought fiercely to keep their mechanisms of governance static, which meant they were institutionally incapable of adapting to things like the Industrial Revolution, and eventually the outside world came barging in with weapons and tactics they had no hope of opposing.

America has been experiencing #1 for well over a century now, and I think you'll agree there's a very real danger in the coming years of #2.

By contrast, if it was easy to change the Constitution, the government would still gain the new forms and powers it needs to operate, but it would do so in a transparent and democratically-accountable way instead of the insane hacks that it uses now. I argue that making the Constitution easier to amend results in more freedom and democracy. This is not how I think lot of Wickard-haters see it, but I am right and they are wrong.

[crim50n-r8er-reblogs]

BEST BLM AND ASIAN HATE ADVICE TO HAVE

It is BEST to have EVERY PERSON OF COLOR to memorize the 4th amendment which goes like this:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, in the persons or things to be seized.”

What this says is that no matter how much police officers request/order you to let them look through your things, whether that be anything in your house, car, phone, EVERYTHING, they cannot do it...without a warrant. You can probably even sue them for not following this amendment.

You HAVE TO REMEMBER; just because they are an authority figure doesn’t mean you have to do everything they say. We have many rights in the Constitution that specifically say there are things we can say no about. Also, if they are holding you somewhere, you can ask if you are getting arrested. And if you are not being arrested or detained, you are allowed to leave.

It is baked into us at a young age from our parents and our teachers that we should be following directions from our authorities without question. Still, there are many things in our Constitution that say the opposite to prevent the police, military, or the government from harassing us, innocent citizens, for no apparent reason.

The 4th amendment is fundamentally about putting down boundaries with people who are in power or authority figures. We must maintain this balance of power because if we lose this balance, even if we don’t have anything to hide, it makes the power too strong on one side, and it hurts regular civilians whether you are white, black, yellow, or red.

Update:

Now if it is confirmed that you are getting arrested after asking, you should now start relying on the 5th amendment which is as follows:

“ no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a present meant or instinct meant of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in times of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Sry if that sounds passive, that’s just the original text.

Anyway, I bet that you’re feeling overwhelmed for how many rights are cramped into that amendment, but something tells me that they were just going all in on that one.

What this amendment is most famous for is “pleading the fifth” or having the right to say that you don’t want to answer specific questions the law asks of you because it would incriminate you. The 5th Amendment covers a LOT more than that. It says that the government can't take your property without payment; you are entitled to the process of the law before the government tries to take your possessions, your time, put you in prison, or anything of the sort. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE YOUR TIME IN FRONT OF A JURY AND HAVING YOUR CASE HEARD OUT. We need to have everyone get the chance to have their time with a jury to get their case heard and not have the wrong/innocent people be put in prison for something they didn't do. The 5th amendment is the one that protects us against the law enforcement that tries to kill the innocent because they “might” be a criminal. That is why police should bring people in; they are considered suspects instead of actual criminals unless they have a recorded criminal history that needs to be justified in the eyes of the law. But knowing them, they will probably try their best to find loopholes to alter the criminal records to say that the person in question DOES have one. All this stuff in bold and in red are the things you should be focusing on as that is the part that can help you out the MOST in these situations.

Please spread this as much as you can to your friends, family, loved ones, heck, even your pets. I don’t care who you share it to. All that matters is that you do it. The more people that see this, the more of an advantage we have against the issue of police brutality, white supremacy, and racism.

[atheistforhumanity]

Secret Police in America

We have been saying that Trump is a dangerous figure that does not respect democracy from day one, and now we face the worst possible threat. This of course ties closely to the militarization of police, which the right wing has been working on for years. In this post I’m going to break down secret police and how they exist right now. There is a lot to unpack here, so I’m going to break this up into a short Q and A style. 

What are secret police?

What makes a security for secret, and separate from normal police, is chiefly the lack of identity. These actors wear masks, carry no identification, will not respond to questions, and will never be identified to the public. They also will not be identified to local police authorities. This means the public has zero ability to hold them accountable for abuse or misconduct. Secret police are also characterized by lack of oversight. The public usually has no information on who these people take their orders from. 

Why are secret police bad?

The number one reason is that these parties act outside of the scope of the law. That sounds strange, because it’s hard to imagine law enforcement being illegal. However, the key difference is that normal police operate on rules and regulations that have requirements for action, but secret police act solely on whim and have no clear requirements to justify them taking action (more on that further down). Secret police have only ever been maintained in authoritarian/fascist states. It is impossible for a secret police force to be maintained within a true democracy. The reason for this being that democracies are based on the concept of public accountability over government and representative action. Secret police are literally the opposite of this model. Furthermore, the motivation and purpose of secret police is completely anti-democratic. Secret police have never existed to maintain law and order. They are purely enforcers of a leader’s political agenda and meant to strike fear into those who decent. This is why we see them pop up during a major protest and why Trump has threatened to send them to other cities “run by liberal democrats.” Historically, we can clearly see that a leader uses secret police when their policies and actions are in extreme opposition to the people and there is heavy political resistance. These leaders have given up on winning politically or maintaining order and protecting civil rights. They choose control over human rights and democracy. 

Are secret police legal?

Secret police generally start out as an illegal force that violates it’s citizen’s rights and later becomes legalized when an authoritarian gains more power. The secret police’s actions in America are 100% illegal and their very creation is is anti-democratic. Their actions are illegal because they violate the 4th Amendment, which prevents law enforcement from making seizures without probable cause or warrants. Trump’s legal defense of them right now is that they are operating under the rule that can “arrest” anyone if they believe that a felony has happened or will take place. The key here is that they do not require probable cause, only the suspicion of a crime. Also, the Trump admin has stripped away the proviso for this group that their actions cannot be solely on First Amendment activity. This literally means these men are being told they can “arrest” people for protesting. This, of course, is completely illegal. This is why none of the representatives of the people of Portland or Oregon want these forces in their city or state. 

How did Trump create this secret police force?  

The how of this is intertwined with the militarization of police forces. It was ten years ago when I first protested police militarization online and on my college campus. Now we are facing the worst case of police militarization. The core of this creation has to do with the DHS. Over the course of Trump’s presidency, he has fired or pushed out every single Presidential appointed leader in the DHS. As he usually does with other institutions, he only partially filled the gaps and with inexperienced loyalists. The agency has been acting with a shortage of leadership and a lack of oversight for some time now. Trump has made use of this and altered the already broad purview of the DHS to create his Domestic Security Force, or secret police. This secret police force is made up of DHS agents, CBP officers, and DEA agents. Trump also altered the mandates of the DEA to allow them supplement other law enforcement and conduct covert surveillance. This is particularly concerning, because the language used makes it sound if the DEA is combatting some terrorist or drug cartel force, but in actuality the subjects in these new mandates are the American people. Customs and Border Patrol agents have been pulled into this because of Trump’s political ties to the agency and their support for him. In the past, Trump has ordered CBP officers to break the law and turn back asylum seekers, and even said he would use his pardon power to protect them. This is not the only time Trump has urged illegal behavior and promised pardons. He, of course, has pardoned several criminals already. 

So now we have a mixture of DHS, CBP, and DEA agents in non-identifying military fatigues snatching up citizens off the streets without any clear indication a law has been broken, and not going through any of the law enforcement regulations, such as reading of rights, official declaration of arrest, use of warrants, and observing constitutional rights. 

What Comes Next? What is being done?

The ACLU if fighting a legal battle for our democracy. They are suing the federal agents and trying to argue their legality. All of this happens as Democrats are about to reveal their sweeping bill on police reform, in reaction to protests around the country. This bill, however, will not directly effect the secret police situation. For that we need congressional action. What our representatives are doing right is arguing. They are currently locked in debate about the legality of the secret police and about money. Earlier in the year, funding for several agencies connected to domestic security ended, and now congress is trying to decide who should be refunded and how much they should receive. The main argument circles around the DHS, which is the main body of the secret police force. Shockingly, our representatives are failing us in dramatic fashion. There is no consensus rejecting the secret police or against further funding them. If more funding is given to the DHS and other agencies then that will mean Trump gains that much more resources for his secret police force, if something is not done. Furthermore, congress is currently debating giving the DHS powers vastly expand their powers of surveillance and use dragnet tactics with computer data. Basically, this would mean they would track internet activity for anyone in favor of protests and then use these secret police to “arrest” them. It is as scary as it sounds, and people like myself would come under danger.

What Can You Do?  

This is a very critical time because our representatives are about to make decisions that could reign in this illegal power or could strengthen it. They will be making this decision with a presidential election coming up in mere months. The best thing everyone can do is call their house representative and tell them how passionately you are against the creation of this police force and make it clear their decision will effect your vote in November. That’s the power of Democracy, and it’s still the best weapon we have! 

Thank you for reading. If you have any questions just ask. 

[freudensteins-monster]

A Banner Reunion

A WinterShock follow up to A Banner Day. Set post Age of Ultron and Ragnarok, not really Civil War compliant, and there’s no Thanos or looming Infinity War. Also posted on AO3.

The first person Bucky Barnes met as he stepped off the last quinjet out of Wakanda was Darcy Lewis. She looked more uptight than her file photo would suggest (Bucky had read the files of all facility staff on the flight over, and Darcy’s maybe twice), and seemed to have taken Pepper Potts as her style icon. The wavy brown hair from her file photo was pulled back in a tight bun, and the colourful sweaters and jeans had been replaced by a sharp business suit and sharper heels. 

“Good morning, Sergeant Barnes. I’m Darcy Lewis. I manage the upstate facility and act as the team’s PR manager. I’ll also be acting as a liaison between the facility, your legal team, and other interested parties. If you have any questions, day or night, please don’t hesitate to contact me.”

She handed him a crisp white business card. Bucky took it with his shiny new Wakandan arm, noting a complete lack of reaction from Miss Lewis.

“Science Wrangler?” he read aloud.

“I have new ones on order,” she replied with a long-suffering sigh. 

“Thank you, Miss Lewis,” he smiled, tucking the business card into his jacket pocket. “But all I really want to know right now is which way to the mess hall?”

Miss Lewis smiled, but before she could respond Steve clapped him on the shoulder and led him away for a second breakfast. 

Over the next couple of weeks he received dozens of updates via Miss Lewis from his legal team about their attempts to have him cleared of all charges relating to the crimes he committed as the Winter Soldier (and the few he committed after), but he never saw her outside of their meetings. Not in the mess hall, not at team movie nights, not even in passing. According to Steve she was drowning in work and pretty much lived in her office. She needed help but had refused to hire assistants, not trusting the vetting process with all the enemies the Avengers had accumulated.

Feeling guilty, and just a little too curious for his own good, Bucky went in search of her office. He heard her before he saw her. It sounded like she was having the argument of the century with a disgruntled voice that reminded him of his old drill instructor. He was going to leave her to it and try again later when he heard his name being thrown about. He crept closer, keeping out of sight of Darcy and the holograph she was arguing with.

“How can you stand there denying the dangers posed by enhanced individuals when you’re harbouring the fugitive James Buchanan Barnes, the most prolific assassin in living memory?”

Bucky winced but Darcy narrowed her eyes at the hologram and stood her ground.

“Sergeant Barnes’ location is not a secret, nor is he a fugitive. He surrendered himself to the Wakandan authorities and per the agreement his legal representation made with the US government - which you’re well aware of, I remember how much you bitched about it in the press - he is on house arrest at this facility until his trial commences, if it ends up going ahead at all. And if you think he’s going to give up what little freedom he has now and could have in the future and sign this joke of a document, you’ve got another thing coming.”

Her opponent sneered. “Last I checked, Miss Lewis, you weren’t a lawyer.”

“Not yet, anyway. But I did pass my Civics 101 class, and I watched a lot of SchoolHouse Rock! as a kid: This is not a bill, or a law, or an official policy of the US Government. Even if it gets ratified by the UN, you cannot enforce it as it goes against the Constitution and violates a US citizen’s 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendment rights.”

“Wanda Maximoff-“

“-is a dual Sokovian-US citizen; I made sure of it. And if you can somehow round up a bunch of asshole commandos willing to enforce this PR nightmare to appease your bruised ego, the governor of New York - who gifted this land to the Avengers - and all his friends on Capitol Hill are going to have something to say about it. Especially after the so-called World Security Council tried to nuke his hometown while the Avengers were risking their lives to save his constituents from aliens. So,” she continued, tossing the intimidated stack of paper aside and waiting for it to hit her desk with a satisfying thump before continuing, “until you can put together something less offensive than this pile of crap, we don’t have anything more to talk about.”

“Listen here you little-“

“Sorry Thad, you’re breaking up. I think your country club is going through a tunnel.”

Darcy disconnected the holographic video call with a wave of her hand and fell into the closest chair with a dramatic groan.

“Wow…” Bucky remarked, stepping into her office. “I take it we don’t like that guy.” 

“We really don’t like that guy,” Darcy concurred, tossing her heels across the room in irritation.

“What’s his deal?”

“General Ross’ deal is that he wants all the power. And since superheroes have lots of power he wants them, preferably conscripted into service of the US government or locked up in a submersible military black site paid for with taxpayer dollars that he thinks I don’t know about. He’s been this way ever since Bruce’s accident.” At Bucky’s lack of recognition she continued, “Bruce was trying to replicate the supersoldier serum for the US Military, reporting to General Ross. Things went boom, Bruce turned into the Hulk, escaped Ross’ clutches and went on the run. Under the guise of bringing the Hulk in, Ross approved another human trial of the supersoldier serum. He ended up creating what the media dubbed as “the Abomination” – twice the rage of the Hulk, none of the ability to reconnect with his humanity. And while Bruce was forced to go back into hiding for the next five years for his part in destroying Harlem, General Ross didn’t even get knocked down a rank. The bastard shouldn’t be able to breathe in DC’s direction, let alone have a hand in policing “enhanced individuals,” so naturally he makes a perfect choice for Secretary of State,” she scoffed.

Bucky watched her for a moment before reaching out to help her up from her chair. “You look like you could use a drink. C’mon, I’m buying.”

“Dude, it’s like 10am,” Darcy argued, but took his hand regardless. 

Two floors down and one building over in the facility cafeteria Bucky watched on with barely disguised amusement as Darcy made love to her Mocha Frappuccino.

“Oh, yeah, that’s the stuff.”

She’d put on some flats and discarded her jacket before leaving her office, and once they were seated and waiting for their drinks she set her glasses down on the table and took down her hair. 

Bucky loved the way she smiled when she was able to let go of the stress of her job, even if it was only for a moment, so he did what he could to give her more of them. Tuesday morning coffee breaks became a regular occurrence, and if she missed dinner Bucky would check in on her to make sure she took a break and ate something. Eventually he asked her to schedule all their meetings and anything to do with his legal issues as her last tasks of the day, that way if she was snowed under and running late he had an excuse to invite her to join him for dinner afterwards. He was working up the nerve to ask her to dinner without the pretense of work when the Asgardians arrived.

Steve stood beside him, watching as the huge ship landed just beyond the facility's - and Bucky’s - boundaries. 

“So it’s true?” Darcy asked, out of breath from the short run from the administration building. “He’s really back?”

“Yeah, Thor’s back. You were there when he crash landed the first time, right?” Steve asked.

“She tased him,” Bucky informed him with a smirk. “I read the report.”

“Yeah, I totally tased him. And introduced him to Pop-Tarts. But I also lost him in the breakup – it’s been, like, almost two years since I last saw him.”

It didn’t stop her waving like a lunatic the moment Thor ambled down the spaceship’s ramp, a small village worth of people following close behind him.

“Oh, this is going to be so much paperwork…” Darcy muttered as the god caught sight of them.

“My friends! Lady Darcy!!”

“Thor! What the hell happened to your eye?” she asked when he wrapped her up in one of his godly hugs.

“It’s a long story, lightning sister.”

“Did you bring all of Asgard with you?” Steve asked as he and Bucky watched the strangely dressed visitors make the most of the sunshine and soft grass.

“As many as we could save,” Thor admitted somberly. “I know that their arrival will cause some problems for your world’s governments but any aid you could provide my people in our time of need would be gratefully appreciated. A new homeland, perhaps?” he added, managing to do pretty decent puppy dog eyes even with only one good one.

“I’ll make some calls,” Darcy offered, flashing Thor an indulgent smile.

“Thank you, my lightning sister. And for your efforts, I have brought you a souvenir.”

“Space souvenir? Cool!”

“Aye, very cool,” he smirked, putting a hand around her shoulders and directing her gaze to where a man wearing psychedelic monk robes was trying to make his way through the crowd of Asgardians. 

Darcy’s expression fell and Bucky almost rushed to her side.

“Bruce?”

At the sound of his name the man looked up and regarded Darcy sheepishly.

“Hey, bunny.”

“Bruce!!” Darcy was off like a shot, shoes abandoned in the grass as she all but threw herself on the new arrival. “What the hell happened to you? I hacked everyone trying to find you but not even Phil had eyes on you. Why didn’t you call me!” she cried, hugging him so tightly Bucky was worried the guy might not be able to breathe.

“I’m so sorry Darcy. I was stuck in Hulk mode up until a couple of days ago. He was like a gladiator on this trash planet in the outer reaches of the universe. It was crazy.”

“Not as crazy as these clothes, dude,” she teased with a sniffle, tugging on the gold vestments.

“Yeah, they’re a lot. But I had to Hulk out again on Asgard and these were the only spare clothes lying around on the spaceship. Oh, I gotta introduce you to some new friends,” he exclaimed excitedly, leading Darcy back towards the spaceship. 

Bucky watched her go, his heart breaking at the sight of her reuniting with her fella. She’d mentioned Bruce a few times, but he hadn’t realised they had been an item. Maybe, since he’d apparently disappeared on her, it had been too painful for her to talk about. Bucky left Steve and Thor to organise the SHIELD agents that had descended to deal with the alien incursion, and left Darcy to her reunion. 

In the weeks that followed Bucky hardly saw Darcy at all. She was spearheading talks with the Norwergian government to establish New Asgard within their borders and spent the rest of her time managing the needs of the refugees who had set up a temporary camp in the field where they landed. She was also fending off demands for the arrest of Thor’s brother, who apparently was more hated and feared than the Winter Soldier was. 

In an effort to reduce her workload Bucky had offered to deal with his legal team directly, even though he hated how they talked down to him when giving him updates. But it made Darcy’s life easier so he took it on, often bringing Steve in on their conference calls to act as a buffer when he felt he was close to snapping at one of his condescending but very, very good lawyers.

Now that he had no reason to bother Darcy he saw her even less than when he first arrived, though he did hear that Bruce had dragged her out of her office once or twice for a late dinner. They never seemed as touchy feely as they had when they were first reunited and they hadn’t spent any time alone together behind closed doors (not that he’d checked security footage). Maybe they weren’t together any more - a lot can happen in two years, Bucky mused. Maybe Bruce had moved on - he was always gushing about that intimidating and frequently drunk Valkyrie woman. Or maybe, Bucky hoped against hope, Darcy had. The question was keeping him up at night, and since Darcy was too busy to be bothered with his insecurities he sought out the famous Dr Bruce Banner. 

Bucky found him a few days later, after another postponed coffee date, in one of the facilities labs, looking over some holographic schematics. 

“Sergeant Barnes, it’s nice to see you again. What can I do for you?” Bruce greeted with a smile. 

“I’m not interrupting?” he asked, gesturing at the complicated calculations.

“Not at all. It’s just a project Tony wants a second opinion on. It’s his way of saying “I missed you too,” he jested. 

Bucky bit the bullet. “It’s about Darcy.”

“What about her?” 

“I just… I feel like a real shitheel asking, but I gotta know; are you and Darcy together?”

“Together like…”

“Dating. Are you dating?”

Bruce’s eyes almost bugged out of his skull. “Did Tony put you up to this?”

“Stark and I aren’t exactly on speaking terms,” Bucky admitted.

“And Darcy never mentioned me? She said you two had been hanging out a lot before she got sidetracked with all the Asgardian refugee drama.”

“She mentioned you plenty. She just never mentioned that two of you were an item.”

“And she also never mentioned that I’m her father, I take it,” Bruce replied with a smirk.

“...What?”

“I’m her biological father. I am not dating her,” Bruce reiterated. “But I take it you want to?” he teased. 

“Uh… yes?” he winced after his brain came back online after processing this new information. “Did you not want me to? I would understand,” he murmured, gesturing vaguely at his shiny new arm as though his bloody history was written on the metal plates.

“I don’t get to have a say in the matter,” Bruce remarked, not unkindly, as he returned most of his attention back to the glowing calculations. “and I’m kind of the last guy who should be giving you grief over things you did when you weren’t in full control of yourself. Besides, you’ve probably known her longer than I have at this point.” He smiled sadly at Bucky’s confused expression. “The first time I met Darcy was when she and Jane moved into Tony’s tower. She told me I was her biological father about two weeks later. Before that moment, I hadn’t even known I had a daughter. We had maybe three months of getting to know each other, eating takeout in my lab once a week, and then Ultron happened. I quite literally disappeared off the face of the earth. I come back, and she’s all grown up and practically running the world,” he laughed. “She’s also crushing pretty hard on a certain supersoldier, in case you were wondering.”

“Yeah, well, Steve is pretty cute I guess,” Bucky mused, ducking his head to hide the blush in his cheeks behind his hair. 

Bruce smiled. “Ask her out, Sergeant.”

Bucky delivered a Mocha Frappuccino to Darcy’s office that night and asked her to have dinner with him whenever she found the time. She blushed something fierce as she said yes, and Bucky committed the image to memory. 

A month later they were officially a couple, but with Darcy’s crazy workload and his looming trial they were taking things slow. He’d only kissed her goodnight a couple of times but he’d stopped resisting the urge he had to wrap Darcy up in his arms the second she was off the clock. 

He was indulging in said urge the night of the Asgardian farewell party - the Norwegian deal had gone through pretty quickly all things considered, and Thor and the last of the Asgardians were heading out to New Asgard in the morning - when Tony Stark made his trademarked grand entrance. He had barely taken two steps out of his latest Iron Man suit when he pointed a finger in their direction. 

“What’s the murderbot doing with his murderarm around my niece?” 

“I’m not your niece, Tony,” Darcy called over everyone else's scolding.

“What are you talking about? Bruce is your bio dad, I’m his science bro; you’re totally my science niece.”

Darcy giggled. “That’s not a thing, Tony. And to answer your totally offensive question; we’re dating.”

“No, I forbid it.”

“You don’t get to have an opinion.”

“Of course I do. Everyone loves hearing my opinions.”

“We really don’t,” Bucky heard Steve mutter into his beer. 

“I don’t want to hear them, Tony. I’m a big girl and I make my own choices.”

“You make terrible choices,” Tony mumbled petulantly. 

“I tell Pepper the same thing all the time,” she teased.

“How dare you!” Tony gasped, feigning offence. “Do I at least get to give the Russian menace the shovel talk?”

“No, no shovel talks. I don’t want you scaring him off.”

“If the Hulk didn’t scare me off, doll, nothing will.”

“Awww.” 

“That’s not the way I remember it,” Bruce chimed in.

“Shut up,” Bucky retorted over Bruce’s chuckles. “Besides, I already got the shovel talk from Valkyrie. She takes her role as angry-mom very seriously.”

“Who’s Valkyrie? Wait, did you say mom?!” Tony squawked, turning to demand answers from Bruce. 

“Hulk like angry girl,” Thor teased.

“Where is she? Is she here? I have to meet her.”

“Tony! Tony, stop. She went to New Asgard two days ago. No! Step away from the suit!”

As everyone one laughed at Bruce trying to keep Tony away from his suit Darcy leant in close, sending a shiver down Bucky’s spine as she whispered in his ear. 

“How about I say goodbye to Thor and you walk me back to my room, Sergeant?”

Bucky smiled. “Whatever you want, doll.”

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Q2 2021, Apple announces the iPhone+, its main new feature being what they call “Total Voice Accessibility.”  They advertise this as the first hands free iPhone.  There are no buttons; home, power, or volume; it’s all voice activated.  What this really means is that the microphone is always on, always recording.  Most people don’t bother to think about the implications of this.  There is a privacy feature, buried deep within the settings app, that lets you deactivate TVA, but this is quietly done away with in 2022 when they release the iPhone+S

Apple claims not to collect any user data when the phone is turned off, while at the same time acknowledging that even if they did collect it, they would only do so to better personalize ads.  Nobody considers that the government’s new "cyber security and speech equality” regulations mandate all major technology and social media companies upload all user data to a federal DHS/DOJ database.  In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court decides that this is not a violation of the 4th or 5th Amendments, declaring that the constitution does not explicitly give Americans a right to privacy.  Cops no longer need warrants to access your data, and everything you say and do around your phone is admissible in court as self-incrimination.

Big Brother is Watching You, and you get to pay him for the privilege.

[noctomania]

For more info on this read below the line. Sorry it got longer than i expected.

The best way to avoid self-incrimination is to not say anything but just know you have rights protecting you from self-incrimination.

“ Officers must support this showing with sworn statements (affidavits), and must describe in particularity the place they will search and the items they will seize. “(1)

If the cops are at your door, after you have confirmed they are cops, and if they have a search warrant:

1- have them slide it under the door, through the mail slot, a window, whatever. do not open the door. At all. Because plain view doctrine which states that if an officer sees evidence of a crime in plain view, they may confiscate it and it would be admissible in court.

2- Read the warrant first before they enter. They are required to state what exactly they are looking for and where they intend to search. “ When conducting a search, police may only search the places and people listed on the search warrant, and may only search for the sought-after evidence. Accordingly, officers may only search places where they might reasonably find the evidence. For example, officers searching for a rifle may not look in a small jewelry box. “

3- anything they attempt to confiscate/charge you for, anything they find in a location they did not list in the warrant will be rendered as excluded evidence and would not be admissible in court. This can literally make or break a case so they definitely do not want you to know. “ The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. “

So for example they come knocking on your door and they say they have a warrant and try to give you a warrant like this:

Then they have no right to enter your home! They may confiscate that phone that is listed for that phone number that is blacked out. And then that’s it. And by what i understand from this warrant you wouldn’t even have to hand it over right then if it was not yet april 3rd of 2019 before 10pm. You might need a new battery for it before you pass it on to them. Or you left it at work/friends. Point being read the warrant first.

This one is an example of one that would be searching an actual place. The first arrow points to how they describe where all exactly they intend to search. You can read:

“the house boat located at (address) to include Safe therein.” they go on to describe the house boat more. (which is how you should know a cop is lying if they say oops wrong place) They were specific about the safe and that may be because they figure evidence is there, or this could be to cover their ass if the individual tries to contest the legality of that search.

The second arrow points to where they describe exactly what they are looking to find/seize:

“documents. physical evidence, address books, bank account information, financial records, receipts, firearms & ammo, as well as photographs and other items tending to establish evidence of homicides and other crimes”

“Physical evidence” is an interesting one in how that would play out in court in terms of what is considered “physical”, whether digital would count, etc. I’m not sure how common it is to include “and other crimes” if those crimes are not listed in the warrant or how/when that is deemed admissible.

This is the best they can do probably do to make as broad a search as possible. They cannot just say “anything & everything” because below all that they list why they are searching.

In case anyone was unfamiliar here is the 4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Sorry for the length but I hope you learned  something that may save someone some day. I’m no professional, always consult a lawyer asap.

What to do if police officers arrive at your home

[extasiswings]

@cogentranting replied to your post: Just so we’re clear, everyone knows it’s illegal...

Why is it illegal?

Great question! See below!

@kalena-henden  replied to your post “Just so we’re clear, everyone knows it’s illegal that Flynn’s in...”

Flynn stole property (the Mothership), kidnapped Lucy and killed multiple people including Anthony Bruhl. They could prosecute/jail him on that alone.

Right, so, that’s actually not how the law works. At all. First, “prosecute” and “jail” are two completely different things and you’re entitled to different constitutional protections along the way. Second, and this is an extremely important piece of information that I think everyone should know for their own personal knowledge bank: The fact that you have committed a crime on its own does not give anyone the right to throw you in jail/hold you against your will. The fact that you have committed a crime does not mean you do not have rights.  

If you are arrested for a crime, law enforcement has to have probable cause that you actually committed a crime/are presently committing a crime/or are going to commit a crime. Depending on your jurisdiction, there is a limited window of time (usually between 24-72 hours) where they must charge you or let you go.  

Lack of probable cause for an arrest is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Being continually held without being charged is a 6th Amendment violation. If after your arrest, law enforcement obtains a confession through mental or physical coercion (or obtains one otherwise in violation of your rights), that is a 5th Amendment violation.

 Being refused an attorney could be a 6th Amendment violation. Being denied the right to a trial at all is a 6th Amendment violation (and being denied the right to a fair trial is a 14th Amendment violation). Being denied knowledge of what the charges are against you is a 6th Amendment violation. Being denied the opportunity to confront witnesses against you is a 6th Amendment violation. I could go on, but I don’t think I need to.

So, Flynn. Yes, we know he’s committed crimes, but let’s break that down. He stole the Mothership. Okay. How do you charge or prosecute him for that? It’s classified information. No member of the public is supposed to know a time machine exists. So, what? You charge for theft and have no evidence to present because you can’t even say what was stolen? That’s also not how the law works. At least theoretically, you have to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by an impartial jury. The way I see it, there’s no charge for the Mothership theft because it’s classified. Most of his other crimes have occurred in the past. Again, how do you create evidence to support charges for those things? Are Wyatt, Lucy, and Rufus witnesses? Is this all coming out in a trial? Because that’s what the Constitution requires. 

The way I see it, the only crime he’s committed that he could actually be charged and prosecuted for is Anthony’s murder (although it’s important that with that as well, we don’t know what evidence there is that would support a conviction). Not to mention that we, the audience, also know that’s not why he’s in prison. It’s for everything else. Given the circumstances and how much classified information is in play, I would bet that Flynn hasn’t been charged with anything. He’s never seen a lawyer. He’s never been informed about his rights. Hell, it’s not like the giant squad of federal agents who arrested him were reciting Miranda (You know, “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you, you have the right to an attorney, etc etc”?).

What’s more, as far as I can tell, he’s not being held by regular law enforcement, he’s being held by what I’m assuming is Homeland Security. Which entitles him to the same constitutional protections, but I don’t doubt that Denise isn’t exactly abiding by those. 

So. After all that. When I say Flynn being in prison is illegal? I mean that regardless of what crimes he’s committed, he’s entitled to constitutional protections around due process and a myriad of other rights. And given that I’d assume all of this is classified government information that isn’t going to be revealed to an impartial jury in a court of law, or given to a defense lawyer, or anything else? Given that due to the classified nature of the evidence, I have serious doubts that he’s been charged with anything or ever was going to be charged with anything? He’s being held in violation of all of them. That’s illegal. 

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk; know your rights, folks. 

[thelegendofclarke]

gunlovinhillbilly replied to your post

Opinion of a learned blogger yet not that of an experienced blogger. An overwhelming majority of legal firearms owners have not and will not ever commit crimes. An overwhelming majority of firearms crimes are committed by those that are prevented by law from possessing them. No worries though, they will hire someone that passed the bar exam to get them a light prison sentence….. then will commit more crimes when released. Kinda makes you wonder which is worse.

WOW! Where to even START?!?

An overwhelming majority of legal firearms owners have not and will not ever commit crimes. An overwhelming majority of firearms crimes are committed by those that are prevented by law from possessing them.

You know, my favorite thing about this kind of argument is that it inherently undermines itself. It’s great! You are straight up admitting that firearms are a problem and that our current (nonexistent) gun control measures do nothing to stop them. You are basically saying “we have a problem and our current preventative measures are insufficient so we should just continue to do nothing.” It’s completely illogical, it makes no sense.

If illegal firearm ownership and crime is a problem, shouldn’t we be doing more to prevent people who use them improperly from being able to get their hands on them? Oh naaahhh that would make WAY too much sense. And also, for the record, basically everyone and their mom over the age of 18 is eligible to buy a gun. In some states even convicted felons can own guns. The problem with our current gun control laws and legal restrictive measures is basically that there are none.

No worries though, they will hire someone that passed the bar exam to get them a light prison sentence….. then will commit more crimes when released.

Ok, my dude, listen… Lawyers do more to protect peoples’ constitutional rights in ONE DAY than you will in your entire, ignorant, pathetic little existence.

They make sure an accused individual’s 5th Amendment (No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …) and 14th Amendment ([N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …) Due Process and Equal Protection rights are respected:

Indictment by a grand jury for capital crimes

Right against double jeopardy

Right against self incrimination

the right to have their guilt proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” by the prosecution

the right to Brady disclosures (requires a criminal conviction to be reversed if the government withholds exculpatory or impeachmentmaterial, within the government’s possession, from the defendant, and there is a reasonable probability that, if such material had been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different)

the right of Mental Competence (a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial)

protection from prosecutorial misconduct

protection from selective prosecution on invidious bases

the right to  jury pools and venires represent a “fair cross section” of the community

protection from the discriminatory use of jury peremptory challenges

They are also responsible for ensuring an accused individual’s 6th Amendment rights (Most commonly referred to as The Rights of the Accused? You might have heard of them?) aren’t violated:

the right to an attorney

the right to a speedy trial

the right to a public trial

the right to be tried by an impartial jury of their peers

the right to notice of accusation (the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him by an indictment that alleges all the elements of the crime to such a degree of precision that it would allow the accused to assert double jeopardy if the same charges are brought up in subsequent prosecution.)

the chance to confront witnesses against them (aka the right to cross examine witnesses against them and challenge their credibility in court)

the right to compulsory process (aka the right to call witnesses in their favor; and if such witnesses refuse to testify, the right to request the power of the court to compel them to do so)

the right to effective assistance of counsel

Also, during the pre-trial process or in the case that an accused individual is in fact convicted, lawyers make sure that their punishment does not violate the 8th Amendment:

the right against excessive bail

the right against excessive fines

the right against cruel and unusual punishment

the right to receive a punishment that is not unconstitutionally excessive and is proportionate to the seriousness of their crime

Also during the pre-trial process, attorneys are tasked with making sure that the government did not violate the accused’s 4th amendment rights while building the case against them. The rights in the 4th Amendment govern over shit that happens before an attorney even started working, or possibly before they even knew about, a case; and yet they are still responsible for them. These constitutional rights guarantee that people be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” include:

protection from unsearchable searches

protection from unreasonable seizures

protection from arrest without probable cause

protection from warrantless searches or seizures

guarantee that any warrant issued is supported by probable cause

protection from evidence obtained through a violation of the 4th Amendment being used against them in court (the Exclusionary Rule)

It’s a defense attorney’s literal job to make sure that the government and the protection did theirs. If we are going to deprive another human being of their property, their liberty, or especially their life, then the government better damn well prove they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So don’t talk to me about not knowing or respecting peoples’ constitutional rights pal. Don’t even try it.

Also, in regards to your claim that criminals “then will commit more crimes when released,” 

You are actually right there… It is literally the only thing you said that was even close to being somewhat correct.

Recidivism rates in the U.S. are in fact staggeringly high… A recent Bureau of Justice Statistic study reported that Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were rearrested. Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6%) of released prisoners were rearrested. Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7%) were arrested by the end of the first year. However, this has next to nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with the state of our prison system. 

Prisons in the U.S. are woefully under funded, under staffed, and under resourced. A vast majority of prisoners never receive any kind of rehabilitation, recovery, reintegration, or or re-entry assistance before they are basically just shoved out the door and back into the world with the general population. It’s yet another example of the U.S.’s “lets continue to do nothing about this problem” strategy. Addicts who are arrested for drug crimes receive slightly less than zero therapy or drug rehabilitation assistance while they are in jail. They are not taught and do not learn ANY mechanisms to deal with their addiction and then people are ASTOUNDED when they fall off the wagon again when they are arrested. It makes literally no sense.

Kinda makes you wonder which is worse.

Nah… If you aren’t a completely ignorant idiot sandwich with your head shoved so far up your ass you could lick your own colon, it really shouldn’t.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[newhampshirerdan086-blog]

20 Reasons You Need To Stop Stressing About New Hampshire City Pass

five-C:32 Adoption Recording Processes. one hundred fifty; &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp I. Adoptions shall be recorded pursuant to this part and RSA 170-B:eighteen. &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp II. In accordance with the reporting requirements cited in RSA one hundred seventy-B:eighteen, the sign-up with the county probate court shall ship a done adoption form, as referenced in RSA five-C:31, for each baby adopted inside the point out of latest Hampshire into the division within 7 times after the ultimate decree is submitted. &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp III. On receipt of the observe of adoption in the probate courtroom, the clerk of the town or city of birth occurrence shall right away course of action a whole new birth file and, within two weeks, forward a replica on the division. &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp IV. On receipt with the division of the recognize of adoption in New Hampshire for a kid born out-of-point out the division shall deliver recognize of the adoption to your crucial records company on the point out of start so that the beginning report in that condition can be amended and, In the event the adoption notice obtained because of the division has inaccurate or lacking facts, the condition registrar shall return the detect towards the court issuing the adoption decree through the applicable state's crucial documents company asking for essential corrections. &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp V.

Enter letters or possibly a clue and click 'Uncover Anagrams' to uncover anagrams. Optionally, offer phrase lengths or a solution pattern to improve success.

As part of The category, Cypher was needed to make a five minute off-the-cuff speech, before a class of sixty, with a heritage matter she obtained that day.

The return is thanks on the fifteenth working day in the 4th thirty day period subsequent the tip in the taxable period. There is absolutely no filing necessity for somebody whose total fascination and dividend earnings, soon after deducting all interest from U.

    five-C:43 Distribution of your Marriage License. – Following the clerk of a town or city has forwarded the completed marriage license on the division, the registrar shall give the original on the future bride and groom. A marriage license may be mailed to the bride or groom if mailed by using certified mail with return receipt requested and the fee for that Licensed mail handling shall be compensated because of the applicants.

"All I could think about is my high school teacher declaring 'I explained to you you would want to be aware of this,'" Cypher stated. "I don't keep in mind what The subject was, but it absolutely was another person from history that I didn't know. It unquestionably was not an individual like Andrew Jackson."

Basic hospitals and Distinctive hospitals for rehabilitation necessary to be licensed underneath RSA 151 that deliver inpatient and outpatient hospital services, although not such as government facilities.

Yes. An approximated payment equal to 90% of the particular tax gathered is owing on or prior to the fifteenth day of the month through which the legal responsibility is incurred.

It is usually regarded as the the very least populous state and is also ranked because the ninth a single amongst the fifty states. The brand new Hampshire has Massachusetts in its south, What's more, it has the Vermont in its Extraordinary west, for the east it has the Maine and also the Atlantic Ocean, and during the north it has the Canadian province of Quebec.

    five-C:fifty one Certificate of Remarriage. – &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp I. A marriage certificate shall not be issued to events that are already lawfully married to one another other than as delivered in RSA 5-C:fifty. This shall also contain issuing a marriage certification for that renewal of marriage vows for religious or anniversary uses. &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp II. In the case the place the state registrar receives an affidavit challenging the legality of a marriage certification, the point out registrar shall send a Licensed letter to your married pair advising them that an allegation of violation of RSA 457 has been produced that results in the legality in their marriage certification for being subject to challenge and so could possibly void the marriage certification and advising them of the knowledge required to answer the alleged violation of RSA 457. &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp III. The condition registrar shall mail a duplicate on the certified letter described in paragraph II to the clerk of the town or city who issued the marriage license also to the officiant. &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp IV. The validity of the marriage certification shall not be afflicted due to insufficient legal authority or jurisdiction about the Portion of the officiant or as if not stated in RSA 457:36. &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp V. Should the correction of an alleged violation calls for An additional marriage ceremony to be conducted in conformance with New Hampshire statutes, it shall not be essential for the clerk of the town or city to challenge a brand new certificate.

So alot of people instructed me you don't need to move to Claremont, NH well three years in the past We moved to town and now i have a property for my loved ones and Animals major lawn it's so amazing It is this sort of a beautiful spot with…

(Notice: In cities, it is the clerk, not the moderator, who establishes strategies to the conduct of elections in any respect polling sites within the city.) The clerk has a lot of tasks before, all through and once the election or town Conference. The following descriptions give an summary from the clerk’s part inside the election approach.

you might be carried out! All of our wall maps are secured! They're laminated on both sides utilizing the highest high-quality three mil hot process. Lamination is on the market in all sizes, nearly 9 by 12 ft and larger! Make use of your dry erase markers and Mark-It Dots specifically over the wall map!

 Estimates usually are not akin to other geographic levels resulting from methodology differences that may exist in between unique data resources.

[crim50n-r8er-reblogs]

I posted 13,773 times in 2021

96 posts created (1%)

13677 posts reblogged (99%)

For every post I created, I reblogged 142.5 posts.

I added 12,156 tags in 2021

#the owl house - 2026 posts

#art - 1876 posts

#funny - 1627 posts

#lol - 1456 posts

#toh - 1195 posts

#luz noceda - 1028 posts

#amity blight - 878 posts

#meme - 741 posts

#fanart - 686 posts

#lumity - 643 posts

Longest Tag: 139 characters

#i love the owl house i love the owl house i love the owl house i love the owl house i love the owl house i love the owl house i love the ow

My Top Posts in 2021

#5

MAGIC ICE CREAM FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION

32 notes • Posted 2021-06-10 01:45:01 GMT

#4

POV: You follow the “kfc” tag

36 notes • Posted 2021-09-16 21:39:07 GMT

#3

IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE OWL HOUSE, PLEASE UNFOLLOW ME FOR A BRIEF MOMENT

Because I’m most likely going to be posting nothing BUT it for maybe a week.

44 notes • Posted 2021-05-17 19:32:44 GMT

#2

T O P 3 B O I S ! ! !

45 notes • Posted 2021-05-18 00:38:26 GMT

#1

BEST BLM AND ASIAN HATE ADVICE TO HAVE

It is BEST to have EVERY PERSON OF COLOR to memorize the 4th amendment which goes like this:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, in the persons or things to be seized.”

What this says is that no matter how much police officers request/order you to let them look through your things, whether that be anything in your house, car, phone, EVERYTHING, they cannot do it...without a warrant. You can probably even sue them for not following this amendment.

You HAVE TO REMEMBER; just because they are an authority figure doesn’t mean you have to do everything they say. We have many rights in the Constitution that specifically say there are things we can say no about. Also, if they are holding you somewhere, you can ask if you are getting arrested. And if you are not being arrested or detained, you are allowed to leave.

It is baked into us at a young age from our parents and our teachers that we should be following directions from our authorities without question. Still, there are many things in our Constitution that say the opposite to prevent the police, military, or the government from harassing us, innocent citizens, for no apparent reason.

The 4th amendment is fundamentally about putting down boundaries with people who are in power or authority figures. We must maintain this balance of power because if we lose this balance, even if we don’t have anything to hide, it makes the power too strong on one side, and it hurts regular civilians whether you are white, black, yellow, or red.

Update:

Now if it is confirmed that you are getting arrested after asking, you should now start relying on the 5th amendment which is as follows:

“ no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a present meant or instinct meant of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in times of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Sry if that sounds passive, that’s just the original text.

Anyway, I bet that you’re feeling overwhelmed for how many rights are cramped into that amendment, but something tells me that they were just going all in on that one.

What this amendment is most famous for is “pleading the fifth” or having the right to say that you don’t want to answer specific questions the law asks of you because it would incriminate you. The 5th Amendment covers a LOT more than that. It says that the government can't take your property without payment; you are entitled to the process of the law before the government tries to take your possessions, your time, put you in prison, or anything of the sort. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE YOUR TIME IN FRONT OF A JURY AND HAVING YOUR CASE HEARD OUT. We need to have everyone get the chance to have their time with a jury to get their case heard and not have the wrong/innocent people be put in prison for something they didn't do. The 5th amendment is the one that protects us against the law enforcement that tries to kill the innocent because they “might” be a criminal. That is why police should bring people in; they are considered suspects instead of actual criminals unless they have a recorded criminal history that needs to be justified in the eyes of the law. But knowing them, they will probably try their best to find loopholes to alter the criminal records to say that the person in question DOES have one. All this stuff in bold and in red are the things you should be focusing on as that is the part that can help you out the MOST in these situations.

Please spread this as much as you can to your friends, family, loved ones, heck, even your pets. I don’t care who you share it to. All that matters is that you do it. The more people that see this, the more of an advantage we have against the issue of police brutality, white supremacy, and racism.

347 notes • Posted 2021-05-02 01:00:01 GMT

Get your Tumblr 2021 Year in Review →

[tachyonpub]

PETER WATTS IS AN ANGRY SENTIENT TUMOR preview: “Life in the FAST Lane”

In celebration for the release of the irreverent, self-depreciating, profane, and funny PETER WATTS IS AN ANGRY SENTIENT TUMOR, Tachyon presents glimpses from the essay collection.

Life in the FAST Lane

by

Peter Watts

Nowa Fantastyka Apr 2015

Back in 2007 I wrote a story about a guy standing in line at an airport. Not much actually happened; he just shuffled along with everyone else, reflecting on the security check awaiting him (and his fellow passengers) prior to boarding. Eventually he reached the head of the queue, passed through the scanner, and continued on his way. That was pretty much it.

Except the scanner wasn’t an X-ray or a metal detector: it was a mind-reader that detected nefarious intent. The protagonist was a latent pedophile whose urges showed up bright and clear on the machine, even though he had never acted on them. “The Eyes of God” asks whether you are better defined by the acts you commit or those you merely contemplate; it explores the obvious privacy issues of a society in which the state can read minds. The technology it describes is inspired by a real patent filed by Sony a few years ago; even so, I thought we’d have at least couple more decades to come to grips with such questions.

I certainly didn’t think they’d be developing a similar system by 2015.

Yet here we are: a technology which, while not yet ready for prime time, is sufficiently far along for the American University Law Review to publish a paperi exploring its legal implications. FAST (Future Attribute Screening Technology) is a system “currently designed for deployment at airports” which “can read minds . . . employ[ing] a variety of sensor suites to scan a person’s vital signs, and based on those readings, to determine whether the scanned person has ‘malintent’—the intent to commit a crime.”

The envisioned system doesn’t actually read minds so much as make inferences about them, based on physiological and behavioral cues. It reads heart rate and skin temperature, tracks breathing and eye motion and changes in your voice. If you’re a woman, it sniffs out where you are in your ovulation cycle. It sees your unborn child and your heart condition—and once it’s looked through you along a hundred axes, it decides whether you have a guilty mind. If it think you do, you end up in the little white room for enhanced interrogation.

Of course, feelings of guilt don’t necessarily mean you plan on committing a terrorist act. Maybe you’re only cheating on your spouse; maybe you feel bad about stealing a box of paper clips from work. Maybe you’re not feeling guilty at all; maybe you’re just idly fantasizing about breaking the fucking kneecaps of those arrogant Customs bastards who get off on making everyone’s life miserable. Maybe you just have a touch of Asperger’s, or are a bit breathless from running to catch your flight—but all FAST sees is elevated breathing and a suspicious refusal to make eye contact.

Guilty minds, angry minds, fantasizing minds: the body betrays them all in similar ways, and once that flag goes up you’re a Person of Interest. Most of the AULR article explores the Constitutional ramifications of this technology in the US, scenarios in which FAST would pass legal muster and those in which it would violate the 4th Amendment—and while that’s what you’d expect in a legal commentary, I find such concerns almost irrelevant. If our rulers want to deploy the tech, they will. If deployment would be illegal they’ll either change the law or break it, whichever’s most convenient. The question is not whether the technology will be deployed. The question is how badly it will fuck us up once it has been.

Let’s talk about failure rates.

If someone tells you that a test with a 99% accuracy rate has flagged someone as a terrorist, what are the odds that the test is wrong? You might say 1%; after all, the system’s 99% accurate, right? The problem is, probabilities compound with sample size—so in an airport like San Francisco’s (which handles 45 million people a year), a 99% accuracy rate means that over 1,200 people will be flagged as potential terrorists every day, even if no actual terrorists pass through the facility. It means that even if a different terrorist actually does try to sneak through that one airport every day, the odds of someone being innocent even though they’ve been flagged are—wait for it—over 99%.

The latest numbers we have on FAST’s accuracy gave it a score of 78-80%, and those (unverified) estimates came from the same guys who were actually building the system—a system, need I remind you, designed to collect intimate and comprehensive physiological data from millions of people on a daily basis.

The good news is, the most egregious abuses might be limited to people crossing into the US. In my experience, border guards in every one of the twenty-odd countries I’ve visited are much nicer than they are in ’Murrica, and this isn’t just my own irascible bias: according to an independent survey commissioned by the travel industry on border-crossing experiences, US border guards are the world’s biggest assholes by a 2 to 1 margin.

Which is why I wonder if, in North America at least, FAST might actually be a good thing—or at least, a better thing than what’s currently in place. FAST may be imperfect, but presumably it’s not explicitly programmed to flag you just because you have dark skin. It won’t decide to shit on you because it’s in a bad mood, or because it thinks you look like a liberal. It may be paranoid and it may be mostly wrong, but at least it’ll be paranoid and wrong about everyone equally.

Certainly FAST might still embody a kind of emergent prejudice. Poor people might be especially nervous about flying simply because they don’t do it very often, for example; FAST might tag their sweaty palms as suspicious, while allowing the rich sociopaths to sail through unmolested into Business Class. Voila: instant class discrimination. If it incorporates face recognition, it may well manifest the All Blacks Look Alike To Me bias notorious in such tech. But such artifacts can be weeded out, if you’re willing to put in the effort. (Stop training your face-recognition tech on pictures from your pasty-white Silicon Valley high school yearbook, for starters.)  I suspect the effort required would be significantly less than that required to purge a human of the same bigotry.

Indeed, given the prejudice and stupidity on such prominent display from so many so-called authority figures, outsourcing at least some of their decisions seems like a no-brainer. Don’t let them choose who to pick on, let the machine make that call; it may be inaccurate, but at least it’s unbiased.

Given how bad things already are over here, maybe even something as imperfect as FAST would be a step in the right direction.

i Rogers, C.A. 2014. “A Slow March Towards Thought Crime: How The Department Of Homeland Security’s Fast Program Violates The Fourth Amendment.” American University Law Review 64:337-384.

For more info about PETER WATTS IS AN ANGRY SENTIENT TUMOR, visit the Tachyon page.

Cover design by Elizabeth Story Icon by John Coulthart

[ericfruits]

Judges examine complaints from inmates at a troubled Brooklyn jail

IT HAS been a particularly trying ten days for more than 1,000 inmates at the Metropolitan Detention Centre (MDC), a federal jail in the Sunset Park neighbourhood of Brooklyn. On Januaryy 27th an electrical fire knocked out power and melted the switch that moves the system to generator power. With temperatures outside falling, the heating system faltered, too, and the incarcerated men—most of whom are awaiting trial and have not been convicted of a crime—were left shivering in near-freezing conditions inside their darkened cells. Medical attention waned, as did access to hot food. Normal operations in the federal facility were suspended as well: visiting hours for family and lawyers were cancelled for six straight days, with only brief chats allowed on February 3rd. 

On February 4th, the Federal Defenders of New York—a non-profit organisation of lawyers who represent indigent inmates charged with federal crimes—sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons and MDC’s warden, Herman Quay. The complaint, prepared by the firm of Kaplan, Hecker & Fink, warned of a “humanitarian crisis taking place at the main federal detention facility” in New York’s eastern district, a region that spans Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and Long Island and includes 8m people. In addition to “little or no heating, no or limited hot water, minimal access to electricity, and near total lack of access to certain medical services, telephones, televisions, computers, laundry or commissary”—as well as “noxious fumes”—inmates faced a “near-total cancellation of legal and family visiting”. This, the complaint alleged, was a violation of the inmates’ constitutional right to “assistance of counsel” under the Sixth Amendment. 

Get our daily newsletter

Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks.

More chaos ensued. On February 3rd, demonstrators say they were pepper-sprayed as they tried to force their way into the facility. The fumes evidently trailed back inside the building, causing lawyers who had finally gained access to their clients to begin coughing. “Legal visits were then abruptly cut short”, the complaint reads, “and the visiting attorneys were escorted out” of the jail. By the next morning, February 4th, power had been restored but a bomb threat at MDC scuttled visiting hours yet again. 

Just as that most recent drama was unfolding at the facility, lawyers representing the public defenders against the Bureau of Prisons and the warden gathered for a hearing at a federal district court in Brooklyn. Hours later, Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall granted a temporary restraining order blocking the jail from cancelling normal visiting hours for the inmates’ attorneys. Judge Hall ordered that the lawyers’ visiting period—8am until 8pm, seven days a week—be restored immediately. Should MDC need to suspend these visits for more than two hours, she ruled, the Bureau of Prisons and warden would have to inform the court within two hours and explain the extenuating circumstances. The judge did not order the restoration of family visiting hours, as she could find no clear basis in law for such a right. But she did set a February 13th court date (before a different judge) for a fuller review of this and other plaintiffs’ claims. “If the conditions of confinement at MDC are as represented in plaintiff’s submissions”, she wrote, “there can be little question that such conditions are constitutionally intolerable”.

The federal government had argued that judges meddling with visiting hours would “impede the ability of the Bureau of Prisons to address potential security concerns” and “mire the court in the daily administration” of the jail. Judge Hall pushed back strongly against these contentions. Mandating visiting opportunities between lawyers and inmates planning a defence does not implicate the court in the “minutiae” of day-to-day administrative decisions, she explained; the judiciary’s big-picture aim is to vindicate the inmates’ fundamental constitutional rights. Federal courts are “not only authorised but obligated to ensure that individuals confined in our federal institutions are provided with access to attorneys”, she wrote, “as guaranteed by the constitution”. Nodding to the respective roles of the three branches of government, Judge Hall’s order included a rhetorical question on the necessity of judicial oversight: “If not the courts, then who?”

Other judges are keeping a close eye on the facility. Analisa Torres, a judge set to preside over the trial of one of the men detained at MDC, has instructed officials from the Bureau of Prisons to address MDC inmates’ complaints at a hearing in her Manhattan courtroom on February 5th. After the hearing, flanked by a federal defender and an investigator from Brooklyn’s US attorney’s office, she plans to take a field trip across the East River to see conditions in the jail for herself.

https://econ.st/2UICyIa

[bowsetter]

Bitcoin Use Case: Limiting Government Growth

The Institute for Justice (IJ) bills itself as the national law firm for liberty. IJ works to slow the growth of government in the US in all its forms: economic freedom, education, private property, freedom of speech, not to mention amicus briefs to the Supreme Court. Now bitcoiners can help support IJ’s valuable work, a real world use case, through Bitpay and bitcoin cash (BCH).

Also read: Roger Ver and Ryan X. Charles Reveal the Future of Cash

Freedom, a Use Case for Bitcoin Cash

This year started very well for The Institute for Justice, a national law firm taking the terribly unsexy cases where government encroachment upon average folk goes largely unnoticed. The venerable Pineapple Fund donated to “only 58 charities so far selected to receive a grant,” including the IJ. In response to the January notice of receiving a grant, the Institute noted it would use the money to “help us defend and secure the rights of hundreds of thousands of people like those you will read about in this issue of Liberty & Law, protecting them from government abuse and enabling them to live as free and responsible individuals.”

The Pineapple Fund was a foundation of sorts lasting less than half a year. Started by a bitcoin core (BTC) whale, it garnered widespread praise in the cryptocurrency ecosystem for promoting the idea at least some of the recent years’ gains ought to be set aside for causes working for a brighter future. And it became yet another connection between crypto and the Institute for Justice.

A Thirty Year History Meets Money’s Future

In fact, the IJ has come to terms with crypto payment provider Bitpay, allowing supporters to donate in bitcoin cash (BCH) as well. The higher fees and lag times of bitcoin core (BTC) made it less hospitable toward microtransactions such as lower-level giving. A hundred bucks worth here, twenty there, were simply eaten alive by transaction costs. A much better match, at the moment, is BCH for those very reasons. And all donations are tax deductible.

Supporting work of the sort IJ does is something crypto enthusiasts can feel good about. A cursory gloss over the cases during their near 30 year history is proof enough. Eminent domain, whereby governments bully property owners into selling, or worse, under the rubric of the ‘greater good’ are causes rarely heard by other groups. IJ regularly fights them.

Crypto fans are especially sensitive about the subject of licensing and certification, as they’re often frictions and barriers to entry into the polite, proper economy — something enthusiasts can empathize with. The IJ is a lone advocate in this regard, making sure those who wish to simply offer a nice meal or a haircut are protected from petty bureaucrats. The IJ is also keen on providing support for landmark cases via amicus briefs, as in the case of Carpenter v. United States. The Carpenter case deals with the 4th Amendment violations and may be instrumental towards the pending Ross Ulbricht Supreme Court petition as well.  

For the BCH Gang, giving to important causes is yet another perk of decentralized cash. Groups such as EatBCH are “collecting bitcoin cash donations for the past few months and have been using the funds to purchase food and feed Venezuelans who are in need of assistance. Nearly every single day for over three months the group’s Twitter handle shows pictures of children and adults getting all kinds of food — and it’s all paid for with bitcoin cash,” these pages reported. The Institute for Justice is yet another use case.

Do you donate crypto? Is it a good way to spread adoption? Tell us in the comments below! 

Images via Shutterstock and Pixabay.

Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our tools section.

The post Bitcoin Use Case: Limiting Government Growth appeared first on Bitcoin News.

READ MORE http://bit.ly/2J2uVdE

[jacobhinkley]

Bitcoin Use Case: Limiting Government Growth

The Institute for Justice (IJ) bills itself as the national law firm for liberty. IJ works to slow the growth of government in the US in all its forms: economic freedom, education, private property, freedom of speech, not to mention amicus briefs to the Supreme Court. Now bitcoiners can help support IJ’s valuable work, a real world use case, through Bitpay and bitcoin cash (BCH).

Also read: Roger Ver and Ryan X. Charles Reveal the Future of Cash

Freedom, a Use Case for Bitcoin Cash

This year started very well for The Institute for Justice, a national law firm taking the terribly unsexy cases where government encroachment upon average folk goes largely unnoticed. The venerable Pineapple Fund donated to “only 58 charities so far selected to receive a grant,” including the IJ. In response to the January notice of receiving a grant, the Institute noted it would use the money to “help us defend and secure the rights of hundreds of thousands of people like those you will read about in this issue of Liberty & Law, protecting them from government abuse and enabling them to live as free and responsible individuals.”

The Pineapple Fund was a foundation of sorts lasting less than half a year. Started by a bitcoin core (BTC) whale, it garnered widespread praise in the cryptocurrency ecosystem for promoting the idea at least some of the recent years’ gains ought to be set aside for causes working for a brighter future. And it became yet another connection between crypto and the Institute for Justice.

A Thirty Year History Meets Money’s Future

In fact, the IJ has come to terms with crypto payment provider Bitpay, allowing supporters to donate in bitcoin cash (BCH) as well. The higher fees and lag times of bitcoin core (BTC) made it less hospitable toward microtransactions such as lower-level giving. A hundred bucks worth here, twenty there, were simply eaten alive by transaction costs. A much better match, at the moment, is BCH for those very reasons. And all donations are tax deductible.

Supporting work of the sort IJ does is something crypto enthusiasts can feel good about. A cursory gloss over the cases during their near 30 year history is proof enough. Eminent domain, whereby governments bully property owners into selling, or worse, under the rubric of the ‘greater good’ are causes rarely heard by other groups. IJ regularly fights them.

Crypto fans are especially sensitive about the subject of licensing and certification, as they’re often frictions and barriers to entry into the polite, proper economy — something enthusiasts can empathize with. The IJ is a lone advocate in this regard, making sure those who wish to simply offer a nice meal or a haircut are protected from petty bureaucrats. The IJ is also keen on providing support for landmark cases via amicus briefs, as in the case of Carpenter v. United States. The Carpenter case deals with the 4th Amendment violations and may be instrumental towards the pending Ross Ulbricht Supreme Court petition as well.  

For the BCH Gang, giving to important causes is yet another perk of decentralized cash. Groups such as EatBCH are “collecting bitcoin cash donations for the past few months and have been using the funds to purchase food and feed Venezuelans who are in need of assistance. Nearly every single day for over three months the group’s Twitter handle shows pictures of children and adults getting all kinds of food — and it’s all paid for with bitcoin cash,” these pages reported. The Institute for Justice is yet another use case.

Do you donate crypto? Is it a good way to spread adoption? Tell us in the comments below! 

Images via Shutterstock and Pixabay.

Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our tools section.

The post Bitcoin Use Case: Limiting Government Growth appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Bitcoin Use Case: Limiting Government Growth published first on https://medium.com/@smartoptions

[notbecauseofvictories]

bluecamellia replied to your post “But what if we really want to give you money?”

didn't the fuckwit say media should shut up and listen more (to the people)? significant difference, no?

First of all, any time anyone in power says “listen to the people” in any context, please substitute VERY LOUD EMERGENCY SIRENS going off in your head because here’s the thing:

You cannot actually listen to All The People. It’s impossible for even the most well-meaning politician; there are too many people, and significant chunks of them hold contradicting views. (For example, some people in the US believe that if an individual’s skin reflects light at a certain wavelength, they are subhuman. Some people do not believe that. These views are incompatible and both cannot be considered when making policy decisions.) Even the most lovingly crafted compromise between two fundamentally opposed groups is going to make some people unhappy. The Affordable Care Act is a good example of a compromise that resulted in a net good, and look at how angry people are about that.

Which means that every politician is listening to some people. Not all. Who exactly gets to be the “some” is a question we should always, always ask about our elected representatives.

It’s not always bad! Theoretically, we’ve set up a system that rewards politicians who listen to their “some”---if a politician listens to their constituents, they get reelected, which means there’s incentive to listen to at least 51% of their constituents. A politician’s “some” might include the groups they feel strongly about---for example, my alderman is passionate about stopping domestic violence, and the Chicago sheriff has thrown his weight behind mental health care in prisons. But there’s always a “some” and it can just as easily be major donors, special interest groups, or their own party members.

Especially because Strategist Stephen Bananas wasn’t elected, or even nominated to an existing Cabinet position, which requires review & approval by Congress. There’s no incentive for him to listen to anyone but himself and those he already agrees with.

Secondly, he did not say "listen to the people” in the first place. Steven wants the media to shut up and listen to Orange & Co, because the majority of news outlets predicted Clinton would win the election, and somehow that is “humiliating” and a “failure”???

Which, even if it was---

Freedom of the press isn’t a game, and the media outlets relied on by the American people aren’t a sports team. You don’t get to bench players when they report exit polls just because the exit polls said it would be Clinton. You don’t get to shout at them because they are writing articles about crowd sizes, or favorably ratings, or poorly-received speeches. You actually don’t get to tell them how or when or what to do with their jobs at all.

The free press does not work for the government.

America has very few protections for individual privacy and security the way EU nations do. If we lose freedom of the press, we will lose all control of information. Right now we get by (barely, Snowden and violations of the 4th amendment are a discussion for another day) by saying that no one is protected, and so everyone has a right to know all but what is constitutionally protected. If Woodward and Bernstien uncover Watergate, well, the President shouldn’t have gotten caught sabotaging and defrauding in the first place. If Bethany McLean and Paul Krugman start shouting about impossibly high Enron stock prices, then Enron shouldn’t have been engaging in shady business practices.

America relies on journalists specifically not to listen to the received wisdom from on high. (Doesn’t matter who’s on high.) Or even to listen to the people---not without reservation, fact-checking, polls, follow-up leads, articles series on “what really happened” and questioning of their own methods along with everybody else’s. Journalism goes bad and sour when it accepts without question, when it stews in its own biases, and we always need it not to accept without question. Everywhere. With everything and everyone.

I can see how that’s threatening to an administration that would like us to believe claims without proof (illegals voting!) and disbelieve the evidence of our eyes (inaugural crowd sizes!) and ignore every flavor of scientific inquiry (climate change is a hoax!) 

But also, fuck them.

Additionally, just overlay this whole situation with another layer of bizarre irony, Strategist-in-Chief von Fuckstick ran the largest neo-nazi news site in the US for years. He IS the media.

for reference, relevant quotes from the interview below the cut....