Videos

Citizen Journalist Arrested and Prosecuted for His Reporting

Justin Pulliam was standing still when a Fort Bend County deputy ...

Justin Pulliam was standing still when a Fort Bend County deputy walked up and arrested him for interfering with the police in December 2021. While Justin had permission from the ...property owner to record a mental health call and was far from the active scene, the deputy cuffed him and put him in a squad car. Justin was forced to undergo a strip search and spent several hours in jail, during which the Sheriff personally called Justin in for a meeting and became angry when Justin refused to speak to him without a lawyer present.

This was not the first time that Justin had problems with the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office. In July 2021, Justin was excluded from a press conference at Sheriff Eric Fagan’s explicit direction. The First Amendment prohibits government officials from unreasonably restricting an individual’s right to record the police, and it doesn’t let them decide who is or isn’t a journalist. Today, Justin filed a federal lawsuit against the Sheriff and his deputies with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a non-profit public interest law firm that defends free speech nationwide.

“Arresting and prosecuting Justin is a violation of his First Amendment rights, and it can’t stand,” said IJ Attorney Tori Clark. “The Sheriff may not like Justin’s style, but the government doesn’t have the power to single out journalists because they don’t like their viewpoint.”

Justin believes that local government has the greatest impact on our daily lives and that our freedom depends on its transparency and accountability. He reports on everything from city council meetings to vehicle accidents—events that traditional media outlets typically do not cover. His videos are uploaded onto his YouTube channels, such as Corruption Report, and other social-media sites.

“Sheriff Fagan is unfairly discriminating against me because I sometimes criticize the police and other government officials,” said Justin. “It’s outrageous that I was harassed, arrested and prosecuted for exercising our constitutionally protected rights to film and report about activities by public officials from a different perspective. Filming the police makes communities safer and increases accountability.”

Journalism and political commentary like Justin’s are at the heart of the First Amendment. Justin gathers information about, broadcasts, and reports on government officials’ public activities. Independent journalists like Justin are increasingly stepping into gaps left by traditional media outlets in recent years.

The lawsuit seeks to protect Justin’s First Amendment rights in two ways. First, the public is allowed to record police subject only to reasonable restrictions. Again, Justin was far from interfering with police activities. Second, government officials cannot treat independent journalists differently from members of the established media or other members of the public. The deputy who arrested Justin singled him out from others on the scene just because Justin was recording. And the Sheriff excluded Justin from the press conference, which occurred at a public park, while choosing to answer questions from other news crews on site.

“Filming the police and other officials conducting public business is good for everyone,” said IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes. “It protects the public from police abuse, and it protects the police from false accusations of wrongdoing. We want to protect the rights of Justin and every other American to document government officials.”

Background music via https://www.FesliyanStudios.com[+] Show More

[DASHCAM] Police Caught Red-handed Making Bogus Traffic Stop

We expect police officers to pull people over for speeding or running ...

WATCH: Rogue Judge Leads Warrantless Search Party Through Man's Home

Man fights to uphold court ruling that judges aren't above the law. ...

Man fights to uphold court ruling that judges aren't above the law.

https://ij.org/case/west-virginia-judicial-field-trip/

Judges are not entitled to do whatever they want, and then demand special treatment just because they happen to ...wear a robe at work. But that’s exactly what happened in Raleigh County, West Virginia.

During divorce proceedings between Matthew Gibson and his ex-wife, Raleigh County family-court judge Louise Goldston personally forced her way into Matthew’s home to search for items that were in dispute. Goldston—accompanied by Matthew’s ex-wife and the ex-wife’s attorney, among others—walked barefoot through the house, ordering Matthew’s ex-wife to seize DVDs, yearbooks, and pictures off the wall. Some of the items didn’t even belong to Matthew’s ex-wife. And when Matthew tried to record the encounter, the judge threatened him with arrest. Goldston was ultimately censured and fined, and roundly condemned, by the West Virginia high court for violating the state’s code of judicial conduct.

When Matthew sued for these egregious violations of his privacy and free-speech rights, Goldston argued that she was not liable—even if she had violated the Constitution—by invoking a court-made doctrine called judicial immunity. Judicial immunity, as the name suggests, shields judges from liability only for things they do in their roles as judges. Goldston argued that she was entitled to judicial immunity’s special protections for leading a search party through Matthew’s home.

But judicial immunity is reserved for judicial actions, and searching someone’s home is not a judicial act. Just like police officers cannot act like judges, judges cannot act like police officers. The trial court correctly recognized this principle and denied Goldston judicial immunity for her actions. Nonetheless, Goldston is now appealing that decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, Matthew is teaming up with the Institute for Justice to protect important constitutional guarantees by holding judges accountable.[+] Show More

78-Yr-Old Grandma Arrested for Feeding the Needy??

Watch the full case video here: ...

NY Cops Took $8k from an Innocent Woman, Offered to Split her Money

Watch the full case video here: ...

Arrested at Gunpoint for Joking About COVID and Zombies

https://ij.org/case/bailey-v-iles/

Do THIS when police pull you over for no reason.

Learn more: http://www.ij.org

The Eric André Airport Search Is Not an Isolated Incident

For 30 years, IJ has come to the aid of real people fighting ...

Grandma Arrested for Feeding People in Need

In Bullhead City, Arizona, your kindness might cost you your freedom. ...

In Bullhead City, Arizona, your kindness might cost you your freedom. It nearly did for Norma Thornton, a 78-year-old grandmother who was arrested and criminally charged for feeding those in ...need in Bullhead City. Under a new ordinance, the city has deemed it a criminal misdemeanor—punishable by fines and even imprisonment—to share prepared food in a public park “for charitable purposes.” As the city attorney clarified, people may freely share food in public parks at “social events, which would include a party.” But be sure your “party” doesn’t include any homeless people, or you might go to jail.

https://ij.org/case/arizona-charitable-giving/

That’s the city’s lesson for Norma Thornton. Norma operated a restaurant before retiring to Bullhead City in 2017. Bullhead City is a city of 40,000, neighboring the Colorado River on Arizona’s western border. In Bullhead City Community Park, Norma encountered people in need—that is, people who could barely afford housing nearby, as well as people experiencing homelessness. Though no one spends nights at the park (retreating to federal land nearby), some come together in the day in the public park, where they can take advantage of shade, benches, and restrooms. She learned that the nearest shelters and food pantries are miles away, and their resources and availability are limited, leaving dozens hungry each night. So Norma decided to use her career skills to share nutritious, hot, homecooked meals with people in the park. For more than four years, Norma would regularly bring her food to the picnic tables there, sharing with anyone who asked.

That all changed on March 8, 2022. Just as she was performing her usual cleanup of the area, Norma was arrested and criminally charged with violating the city’s ordinance. Norma refused to plead guilty as she felt she’d done nothing wrong; months later (after hearings in criminal court), the city dropped the charge—but only while clarifying that if Norma does it again, the city would throw her in jail. Now, Norma shares her food in a private alley—without shade in the scorching heat, without tables or a seating area, without a place for people to wash their hands, and out of sight of people who could use her help.

Homelessness is, of course, a complicated and serious problem. But criminalizing acts of charity isn’t the solution. What’s more, it’s unconstitutional. That’s why on October 25, 2022, Norma joined with the Institute for Justice (IJ) in filing a new federal lawsuit against Bullhead City. The lawsuit asks the court to strike down the city’s ordinance and allow Norma, and people like her, to share food in the park.[+] Show More

Tiny Home Ban Leaves Homeowner Homeless 😱

Watch the full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38k3v273XFo ...

THE ONION's Supreme Court Brief is No Joke

For more details on this case visit ...

$4 MILLION in Fines for Someone Else’s Cannabis Crime – California

In 2018, after a wildfire destroyed their Southern California home, ...

In 2018, after a wildfire destroyed their Southern California home, Corrine and Doug Thomas did their best to find a silver lining and turn that nightmare into a dream: They ...packed up their remaining possessions, and—along with one of their two autistic adult sons—bought a modest home nestled in Northern California’s fabled redwood forests. The home, which is perched on a hill over the Avenue of the Giants highway in Humboldt County, was a perfect fit for their family and included a large barn out back for Doug’s workshop.

Unfortunately, the Thomases’ dream quickly turned into a terrible new nightmare.

Just six days after moving in, they received a notice from the county fining them $12,000 per day because the previous owners had used the barn to grow cannabis over two years before the Thomases bought it. The county, which requires a lengthy permit process for demolitions, gave them just ten days to tear it down. Panicked, they hired a building engineer, who estimated that the demolition would cost more than $180,000—which was money they don’t have. As of today, they have accrued more than $1 million in fines.

By the county’s reasoning, anyone with a greenhouse, cleared garden, barn or any other structure that could be used to grow cannabis is assumed to be growing cannabis and fined at least $10,000 per day. Humboldt accuses property owners of cannabis-related offenses without any proof or process. The county rarely bothers to conduct even the most cursory investigation. If the inspector had visited the Thomases’, for instance, he would have found an empty barn with a few tools. But Humboldt’s inspectors have admitted that they frequently rely on satellite images alone to issue fines.

The Thomases, like hundreds of other Humboldt property owners, are victims of the county’s so-called “abatement” program, which levies crippling fines based on unfounded, scattershot allegations that property owners are growing cannabis without paying the county for a permit. Once fined, owners face a legal labyrinth to prove their innocence. In the Thomases’ case, for instance, they’ve waited more than a year for the county to schedule a simple hearing to plead their case. Even as the Thomases waited for a hearing, the daily fines continued to accrue.

That is why, today, the Thomases—along with a group of other Humboldt property owners—have partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a class-action lawsuit to put an end to the county’s unconstitutional practice of levying outrageous fines against innocent individuals.

“Humboldt is fining innocent homeowners millions of dollars for crimes they didn’t commit,” said Jared McClain, an attorney at the Institute for Justice. “The Constitution guarantees that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But in Humboldt County, inspectors have turned that principle on its head and are fining innocent homeowners based on crimes the county has no proof of and hasn’t even bothered to investigate.”

Like the Thomases, Blu Graham knows the pain of Humboldt’s abusive abatement program firsthand. Blu, who is also part of the lawsuit, is a backcountry guide and volunteer firefighter. He and his wife own a local restaurant in Shelter Cove, California, which is known for its homemade hot sauces. They were having a hard time getting the exotic peppers locally, so Blu decided to build two rudimentary greenhouses and started to grow them himself.

When the county inspector was reviewing satellite images, he saw Blu’s new greenhouses, assumed they had to be for cannabis cultivation, and gave Blu ten days to remove them, along with a rainwater-catchment pond he’d built for fire safety, or face $10,000 daily fines. Incensed, Blu drove into Eureka to appeal the fine, where county officials insisted they knew he was “not just growing asparagus.” With nearly $1 million in fines hanging over his head, Blu waited more than four years for a hearing, which the county mysteriously scheduled just before Blu filed this suit.

“If the county inspector had asked to swing by, I would have been happy to show him inside my greenhouses. I’ve got nothing to hide. It was just a bunch of peppers,” said Blu. “But instead, I had to wait years for a hearing. The County eventually gave up on pretending they had proof I grew marijuana but wouldn’t give me a permit for my house unless I settled.”

The lawsuit, which represents the interests of all Humboldt property owners still subjected to the county’s abusive abatement procedures, argues that fining property owners for crimes they did not commit, without even a cursory investigation, is a clear violation of their constitutional right to due process. Furthermore, it argues that $10,000 daily fines for permitting violations are unconstitutionally excessive and that owners have a right to have a jury decide whether they really violated the code to grow cannabis illegally.

Filmed on a Canon C70, R5C, and a DJI Mavic Pro 3.[+] Show More

Facebook Jokester hit with a FELONY for Police Parody - Onion Amicus

If the First Amendment means anything, it surely means that an ...

If the First Amendment means anything, it surely means that an individual can mock the government without fear of being arrested. But that’s exactly what happened to Anthony Novak when ...he created a parody Facebook page poking fun at his local police department in Parma, Ohio.

Anthony has lived in Parma for most of his life. In his free time, he enjoys writing comedy sketches with his friends. And in March 2016, he decided to create a Facebook page parodying the Parma Police Department’s page. Anthony’s parody page was modeled after the real department page. It had the same name and profile picture, but displayed the satirical slogan, “We no crime.” The posts on Anthony’s page were obvious parody and included things like the announcement of an “official stay inside and catch up with family day” to “reduce future crimes” during which anyone caught outside would be arrested.

The Parma Police Department did not appreciate Anthony’s criticism. Citing 11 calls that Parma residents made to a nonemergency line to either ask about or tattle on Anthony’s parody page, police obtained a warrant for his arrest, searched his apartment, seized his electronics, and charged him with a felony under an Ohio law that criminalizes using a computer to “disrupt” “police operations.” Anthony had to spend four days in jail before making bail. He was prosecuted, but after a full criminal trial, a jury found him not guilty.

But when Anthony tried to vindicate his rights by filing a civil-rights lawsuit, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hold the police officers accountable for their actions. Despite the clear violation of Anthony’s First and Fourth Amendment rights, the Sixth Circuit granted the officers qualified immunity—a doctrine that the Supreme Court invented in the 1980s to protect government officials from being sued for unconstitutional conduct. As a result, Anthony’s case was thrown out.

If the police can use their authority to arrest their critics without consequence, everyone’s rights are at risk. Now, with the help of the Institute for Justice (IJ), Anthony is asking the Supreme Court to take up his case. The First Amendment has a long history of protecting parodies like Anthony’s, and qualified immunity cannot shield officials who arrest people for their speech.

Filmed on a Canon C70, R5C, and a DJI Mavic 3 Drone.

The Onion Amicus was for Anthony's case.[+] Show More

City Destroys Popular Business Because Developer Thinks it’s Ugly

Nearly a decade ago, Jeremy Sark opened an automotive repair business ...

Nearly a decade ago, Jeremy Sark opened an automotive repair business on North Main Street in Mauldin, South Carolina, which he and his partner, Marie Dougherty, still run today. From ...the beginning, they have rented U-Haul trucks and trailers to people moving across town or across the country and welcomed new Mauldin residents dropping off U-Haul trucks and trailers. The rentals are an important part of their business, but the city has decided that rental trucks are unsightly. At the end of the year, it will be illegal for Sark’s to continue renting U-Hauls where it has been for more than nine years.

https://ij.org/case/south-carolina-amortization/

In anticipation of hoped-for downtown development by a private developer, the city reworked much of its zoning code. All existing businesses at the time of the rezoning were grandfathered into the new code except one: moving truck rentals. The city cannot prohibit someone from continuing a safe, reasonable use of their private property, especially not to benefit private developers. Jeremy and Marie have joined up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to sue the city of Mauldin for violating their rights under the South Carolina Constitution.

“Jeremy and Marie are living the American Dream, but city officials don’t like how that dream looks,” said IJ Attorney Bob Belden. “The city thinks it is ‘compensating’ Jeremy and Marie by letting them rent U-Hauls until the end of the year, even though they want to keep renting them indefinitely. That is an absurd and dangerous argument that threatens property rights in general.”

Small-town Mauldin has big-city plans. For years, city officials have worked with a string of developers on plans to give downtown a makeover. At one point, a developer expressed distaste for the look of moving truck rentals. City leaders agreed. So, as part of a broad overhaul to the city’s zoning laws, the City Council prohibited the “sale and rental of moving trucks [and] trailers” in all zones but one, effective December 31, 2022.

Banning a land-use while giving existing uses a period of time to wind up is called “amortization.” Cities resort to amortization to avoid having to compensate property owners for taking their land-use or business, on the theory that the property owner has a reasonable time—in the government’s view—to recoup their investment in the property.

But operating for one more year falls far short of compensating Jeremy and Marie for what they will lose if the U-Haul rentals are taken away, especially in light of the fact that Jeremy and Marie would have continued renting them indefinitely. The revenue from that part of their business is approximately $50,000 a year and losing it will mean having to lay-off at least one employee, and maybe two. They will also lose the work they currently do repairing U-Haul trucks and trailers, as well as the benefits that come from people finding out about their businesses when they rent or drop-off U-Haul trucks after moving to Mauldin.

“The city will do real damage to our business and put people out of work if they eliminate U-Haul rentals,” said Jeremy. “We’ve invested a lot in Mauldin over the years, turning an empty store into a thriving business. It’s disappointing that the city is prioritizing the opinion of private developers over people working to build up the community.”

The Institute for Justice defends property rights nationwide and successfully defended Wilmington, North Carolina homeowners from an amortization that tried to take away their right to rent their home. IJ recently defended a mechanic whose city tried to force him to create dozens of new parking spaces for his one-man shop and a home day care owner who was threatened with fines by her Texas city.

“Giving you a reprieve for a couple more years doesn’t make it okay for the government to stop the legal, safe use of your property,” said IJ Attorney Seth Young. “If Mauldin is allowed to do this to the Jeremy and Marie, other cities will certainly try the same scheme against all sorts of disfavored businesses. Courts should put a stop to this before more small business owners and homeowners find themselves in the same situation.”[+] Show More

Is Giving Diet Advice Free Speech?

Learn more about this case at: ...

Citizen Journalist Arrested and Prosecuted for His Reporting

Stay Informed