The real crime here, let it not be forgotten, is not an offense to the supposed majesty of any court, but the repeated violent abduction of an innocent and harmless man as punishment for the peaceful exercise of his rights.

In this entire affair, Matthew Townsend has never broken the law, and his official persecutors have never obeyed it. No law forbids a citizen to walk away from a police officer who refuses to charge him with a crime. Nor is it a criminal offense to publish a Facebook post demanding that a spurious charge arising from that incident be dropped, and promising non-violent, peaceful protest if that demand isn't granted.

No law authorized Richard Brockbank to arrest Matthew for the first act, or Abbey Germaine to pursue a felony charge for the second -- particularly in light of Judge Cawthon's finding that the second charge had no merit. We are supposed to believe that those actions reside within the discretion of public officials.

Someone who is ruled by the "discretion" of another is, to that extent, a slave.

In an unmarked car, the policeman was allegedly attempting to park without using his blinker at a green light. (His reverse lights weren't on. Likely double parked without hazards on.) The Uber driver pulled around and gestured that he should use his blinker, casually and non-offensively, and kept driving us. The policeman aggressively pulls up behind us and this is what happens.

(This occurred just before 2pm on the West side of Manhattan, in police precinct 6, on March 30th, 2015. The officer did not identify himself, but he had a New York license plate: GSS 8891)

Prominent photography groups are sounding the alarm about a new bill that was just passed by the Arkansas Senate. SB-79, the “Personal Rights Protection Act,” would require photographers to get written consent from a stranger to feature their likeness in a photograph for most purposes.

The law could have a huge implication on street photography, whose practitioners thrive on the ability to capture life and people on camera without having to constantly stop and ask for releases from the subjects.

The American Society of Media Photographers writes that it is joining the MPPA, DMLA, NPPA, and other organizations in opposing this bill and asking Arkansas’ governor to veto it.

“This bill expands the individual’s Right of Publicity to an unprecedented extreme,” the ASMP writes. “The implications of this bill are staggering. For example, an image showing recognizable people posted to the Internet for a use that would not require written consent anywhere else in the world could leave you open to a lawsuit just because someone in Arkansas could view it online.”

The ASMP argues that the law will place “an unprecedented burden on all photographers” who wish to have their work visible to residents of Arkansas. Those that don’t get permission from strangers they photograph could risk getting sued and having to prove that their work qualifies as a “fair use” exemption, as outlined in the law.

Exemptions include advertisements, political or newsworthy photos, photos in which the individual is not named or singled out, and a few other niche cases. You can read the entire text of the bill for yourself here.

The ASMP writes that the bill must be vetoed by Tuesday, March 31st, or it will stand as a law. The group has posted some instructions on what you can do if you’d like to join in on opposing it.

An 11-year-old girl was suspended from her Florida school after she recorded her fifth-grade teacher threatening and bullying other students.

The evidence Brianna Cooper recorded was enough to get the teacher fired from Samuel Gaines Academy in Fort Pierce, about two hours north of Miami.

But administrators say it was also enough to earn the student a five-day suspension.
After all, they claim, the teacher, had an expectation of privacy in the classroom.

But how much privacy can a public school teacher expect in a large class filled with students, most of them carrying smart phones?

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A judge with the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court denied several requests by the attorneys of Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo to have his case dismissed.

Brelo, 31, was charged with voluntary manslaughter in the Nov. 29, 2012 shooting deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams following a lengthy police chase through Cleveland and East Cleveland.

He was one of 13 police officers who fired 137 shots into the car driven by Russell. Brelo fired the most and continued to fire after other officers had stopped, according to prosecutors.

Brelo's attorneys asked to have the case dismissed based on Garrity rights, which prevent a public official from making incriminating statements against themselves during investigations carried by their employers.

The judge also denied a motion to have the case dismissed based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a defense available to state and federal officials -- including police officers -- that asks whether the defendant knew whether they were breaking an established law at the time of the incident.

Judge John P. O'Donnell denied both motions Monday. The trial is scheduled to begin April 6.

A Redbox movie rental cost Knox County taxpayers $2,500.

Records obtained by the News Sentinel show an off-duty Knox County Sheriff’s Office sergeant drew his gun and threatened to arrest a man for assault — an allegation his fellow on-duty deputies did not support in a report — after the two argued over who was first in line at a Redbox movie rental kiosk outside a CVS on East Emory Road.

KCSO Sgt. Paul Story’s profanity-laced rant after the February 2014 dispute with Timothy Nelson was captured on an E-911 recording of Story’s demand that a dispatcher send an on-duty deputy to the store. Responding deputies did not charge Nelson nor did they even list him as a suspect of assault, records show. Nelson later hired attorney Cullen Wojcik to represent him.

With a lawsuit filing deadline looming, the Knox County Law Director’s Office in February settled Nelson’s demand for $25,000 by instead agreeing to pay him $2,500. The News Sentinel obtained via a Tennessee Open Records Act request the law department file in the case.

...

A Codorus Township couple filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against the Pennsylvania State Police, the commonwealth and the two troopers who they say shot their dog, Lucy.

According to the suit filed in U.S. Middle District Court, Trooper Jeremiah R. Mistick and Trooper Shawn Panchick responded to a home in the 2900 block of Seven Valleys Road shortly after midnight on March 19, 2013, for a report of a dog barking and chewing at the back door.

The suit alleges the troopers went to the rear of the home with guns drawn. Lucy noticed them and ran in their direction, but stopped when the troopers yelled, according to the complaint.

The suit maintains that when the dog did not run away, Panchik shot it in the head. The troopers left the dog in the yard and went to inform the resident who had called about the loose dog of what had happened.

The suit alleges that when Mistick returned to the yard he saw that the dog had moved a short distance and was “breathing shallowly.”

The suit states that Mistick shot the dog once more in the chest, “killing her” and that the troopers then tossed the dog carcass over a guardrail across the street from the house.

“No efforts were made to locate and/or contact the owners of the dog,” according to the suit.

The next day, Bryan and Michele Hartman began posting “lost dog” fliers, trying to locate the 1 1/2-to-2-year-old pit bull-terrier mix they adopted from the SPCA about five months earlier. The dog had been let out into the yard around 3 or 4 p.m. on March 18, 2013 and had wandered off, the suit said.

Some time later, the resident who had called the police about the stray dog saw one of the posters and informed Michele Hartman that it may have been their missing dog.

Mistick told Bryan Hartman where he could find the dog’s body. Hartman recovered the body and confirmed it was Lucy.

Now, the Hartmans are suing for alleged violations of their constitutional rights. Their suit alleges the commonwealth, the state police and the two troopers violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure without a warrant and their 14th Amendment rights against deprivation of property without due process.

The Hartmans in their suit contend that Lucy was not acting aggressively and, in fact, was standing still, when she was shot and killed.

Their suit also maintains the troopers had their guns drawn before even seeing the dog, “which had not been reported as aggressive or threatening,” and did not attempt any non-lethal means of catching the dog.

A former FBI special agent was sentenced today to 10 years in prison and ordered to forfeit $70,000 for soliciting and accepting bribes to obstruct a federal grand jury investigation into an alleged kickback scheme involving a defense contractor, announced Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Carlie Christensen of the District of Utah and Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz.

...

According to court documents, from October 2011 to September 2012, Lustyik and Thaler conspired to use Lustyik’s official position as an FBI counterintelligence special agent to obstruct a criminal investigation into Taylor, a businessman who owned and operated American International Security Corporation. Taylor was under investigation for allegedly paying kickbacks to obtain a series of contracts from the Department of Defense worth approximately $54 million. Taylor promised Lustyik and Thaler that, in exchange for their help, he would provide them cash and multimillion dollar business contracts. In an email message, Taylor told the two men, “I’ll make you guys more money than you can believe, provided they don’t think I’m a bad guy and put me in jail.”

According to court documents, Lustyik attempted to obstruct the investigation into Taylor by identifying Taylor as an official FBI confidential source in an effort to persuade the FBI, the Justice Department and the prosecutors and law enforcement agents in Utah that Taylor’s usefulness to the government outweighed the government’s interest in prosecuting him. Indeed, Lustyik emphasized that indicting Taylor would threaten the nation’s security. Lustyik also sought to take steps to directly intervene in the investigation by interviewing key witnesses.

According to court documents, the defendants boasted about the success of their scheme. In one email message, Lustyik wrote to Taylor, “The rate this is going. I will be indicted way before u ever are !!” Lustyik wrote separately to Thaler, “I can leave [the FBI] in June. But I’m afraid to if [Taylor] gets indicted n I’m not an agent I’m no help. Has he mentioned giving me‐u a salary?”

Taylor admitted at his plea hearing that, as part of this conspiracy, he offered Lustyik a six-figure salary and a share of the proceeds from various multi-million dollar business deals he was pursuing. Acknowledging this, Lustyik wrote to Taylor, “Let’s just get Utah over with and get stinking rich,” to which Taylor replied, “Getting stinking rick [sic], we are well on the way with that so I have the ball.”

Detective Vantil of the New York City Police Internal Affairs Bureau told PINAC’s Felipe Hemming that the Hyundai the man was driving was not registered to the NYPD, even though it had built-in red and blue emergency lights.

Vantil said he is still trying to determine the identity of the driver and the agency he works for, but it’s possible he could be an Amtrak cop, a Federal Reserve cop or even a federal agent.

SALT LAKE CITY — A man arrested and later charged with pointing a gun at an Uber Car Company employee is a federal law enforcement officer.

On Oct. 20, Byron Keith McDonald, 44, and three others were picked up from a downtown bar by Uber Car Company employee James Brothers. Three men got into the back seat of the taxi service's vehicle and a woman got in front, Brothers said.

The group was going to another location to continue their party, but one of the men told McDonald that he hadn't been "nice" and it would be best if he just went home, Brothers said. The man asked Brothers to take him to the Hilton Hotel, 255 S. West Temple, where McDonald was staying, and drop him off.

McDonald climbed into the passenger seat of the car and Brothers said he tried to have a small conversation with him.

"Immediately I kind of felt there was something off with him. Not only was he intoxicated, but there had to have been something else. As I'm driving, he's like really paranoid. I have my hand on my leg. And he grabs my hand and firmly places it on the gear shift, and he says, 'You need to keep your hand there.'"

While taking McDonald to the hotel, Brothers received a phone call from the man who told him to take McDonald home. McDonald told investigators later that he heard the man say, "Take him home," and "Just get rid of him," according to court documents.

McDonald continued to make odd comments, Brothers said, including, "I can't believe this is happening in Utah" and "Do you want to live or die?"

"Yes, he's very strange, it's getting awkward but it's not anything alarming yet," he recalled.

When they reached the hotel, Brothers turned his vehicle off, but McDonald didn't move.

McDonald asked Brothers if he loved his 3-year-old daughter, although he doesn't have any children, and then asked about his girlfriend, said Brothers, who is married.

McDonald then asked for a second time, "Well, do you want to live or die?" Brothers said.

"I said, 'I want to live.' And so he pulls this gun from behind his waist, sticks it to my head, and then he kind of lowers it and covers it with his arm," he said.

Brothers reacted by grabbing his keys out of the ignition, jumping out of the car and calling 911. McDonald grabbed Brothers as he was getting out of the car, ripping his shirt, according to charging documents.

...

Vantil said he is still trying to determine the identity of the driver and the agency he works for, but it’s possible he could be an Amtrak cop, a Federal Reserve cop or even a federal agent.

It's October 2013 and a man is walking home down a picturesque road. He is being watched. He is being followed. This is evidenced by the police dashcam video that was finally released.

When he gets stopped by an officer for "suspicious activity" he doesn't just shrug and leave it at that. He morphs into assertive overdrive. He knows the law and his rights, even though the officer claims otherwise.

The officer demands the pedestrian's identification on the claim of suspicious activity. He follows the man, saying repeatedly that yes, it is his business.

The cop projects everything he is doing onto his prey. Stop escalating, he warns. And, you are acting suspicious right now. A second cop arrives to interrogate even after the man provides information to quell any suspicions of criminal activity. When they can't arrest him for acting suspicious or not giving ID, voila! they pull something else out of their bag-o-charges.

The escalation of the cop and ensuing arrest resulted in damages awarded to the arrested man. At his request, the town's entire police department was to undergo more training on "Terry Stops" (described as proper search and seizure).


So much for, "I defend this country...I defend those rights for you," as the cop claims, and "I'm not doing anything that's illegal."

Volume begins at about one minute when the vehicle lights activate the dashcam recorder. There is no editing aside from the typed narration.

Dash cam video of a police interaction that I had from October 0f 2013. I did get arrested (for protecting the rights these idiots took an oath to uphold). The whole ordeal was about two hours, BUT, I was awarded damages and at my request, the town's entire police department had to undergo special training on "Terry Stops" (proper search and seizure essentially). This is not to mention that I got to school these rogue "police officers".

Also, just to mention, this was settled without going to any courts and without the town or police department/employees admitting any guilt... of course!!!

The volume begins at about the one minute mark and is garbled for the first few seconds. It's activated when the public servant employs the (false)emergency lights. If by chance you see or hear anything in the video that sounds like editing, it was not done by me. I posted this in it's entirety, as it was given to me. That would be aside from any typed narration of course.

...

$10,000.00 and the entire PD had to undergo special training on terry stops

..A man who was caught on camera cursing out an Uber driver during a bias-filled three-minute tirade in the West Village is an NYPD detective in the joint terrorism task force, police sources confirmed Tuesday.

The NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau is investigating the video, which shows the Uber driver being subjected to a xenophobic rant by the detective, Patrick Cherry...