Videos

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: ...

Woman Fighting Tiny Home Ban Left Homeless

The housing crisis has hit every corner of the country and few places ...

FBI Caught Misleading Judge, Seizes 100s of Deposit Boxes

#shorts #FBI

BODYCAM: Mayor Caught Using Police Against Election Rival

#shorts

Bodycam shows 'Minority Report' style policing in Florida

#shorts

Houston's new surveillance camera law is INSANE

Let us know: ...

Road Ragin' Off-Duty Cop is Immune From Suit. This Needs to Change.

https://ij.org/case/mario-rosales-qualified-immunity

[BODYCAM] Mayor Caught Using Police Against Election Rival

Our free and democratic society isn’t possible if citizens cannot ...

Our free and democratic society isn’t possible if citizens cannot voice their opinions about politics and elected officials. That’s why the First Amendment safeguards people’s rights to participate in the ...political process, to criticize government officials and to advocate for political change. That’s just what William Fambrough was doing in his home city of East Cleveland in 2021 when he used his step van—outfitted as a sound truck with a candidate poster—to campaign for a challenger to the incumbent mayor.

https://ij.org/case/east-cleveland-retaliation/

But rather than respecting his basic rights, the city government, angered at its political competition, used its police and law departments to retaliate against William in the months leading up to the election. Police officers repeatedly showed up at William’s home and claimed that parking the van there violated an old city ordinance—an ordinance that is never enforced against anyone else. They ultimately fined him and towed his van, doing thousands of dollars of damage in the process. And they cited William for “noise pollution,” despite his obtaining a permit to broadcast campaign messages from his van throughout East Cleveland.

Because the towing caused so much damage to the van, it knocked it out of commission for the crucial final weeks of the campaign. When William went to court to resolve the noise citation, the city’s assistant law director made it clear that William was being targeted for his political advocacy.

Government officials using the police to punish political opponents is a core violation of the First Amendment. William is fighting back with a lawsuit against East Cleveland to vindicate his First Amendment rights and to hold city officials accountable. Represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), his lawsuit is part of IJ’s long tradition of protecting free speech. The lawsuit is also part of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability, which is devoted to the simple idea that government officials are not above the law; just as citizens must follow the law, the government must follow the Constitution.

East Cleveland’s retaliatory tactics go beyond depriving William of his rights. Without being held to account, East Cleveland will serve as a model to local governments that want to punish political enemies. The sheer number of laws on the books in federal, state and municipal codes ensures that government officials can always find one to enforce against any American. If they are allowed to do so when the reason is retaliation for political speech, then nobody’s rights are safe.[+] Show More

VICTORY for Ohio Taxidermist Who Fought Against Warrantless Inspections (part 2/2)

...

Taxidermist Threatened with Jail for Refusing Warrantless Search #shorts (part 1/2)

https://ij.org/case/ohio-warrantless-inspections/ Part 2: ...

Feds Threaten to End Only Black Radio Station in Knoxville Over Owner’s Personal Tax Conviction

https://ij.org/case/knoxville-radio/

[BODYCAM] Watch Florida Sheriff Terrorize Families with Creepy Algorithm

The Sheriff’s Office of Pasco County, Florida, harasses people in ...

The Sheriff’s Office of Pasco County, Florida, harasses people in their own homes using a method they call “predictive policing.” The program has unfolded like a dystopian nightmare for the ...Pasco County residents it has ensnared, who have been subjected to near-constant police surveillance and harassment. The Sheriff’s Office claims the program’s goal is to predict and prevent crime before it happens by targeting people they suspect may commit crimes in the future, dubbing the approach “intelligence-led policing.” This euphemism may make it seem like there’s thoughtfulness to the approach, but there’s nothing fair or smart about it.

https://ij.org/case/pasco-predictive-policing/

Using a crude computer algorithm, the Sheriff’s Office creates a list of people they think are likely to commit crimes in the future. It places people on the list based on their criminal record, but also based on things that the person may not have been able to control, such as whether they have been suspected of a crime, whether they witnessed a crime or even whether they were a victim of a crime. The Sheriff’s Office calls the people on the list “prolific offenders.”

Then, deputies are sent out to monitor, intimidate and harass people on the list. The deputies are instructed to gather as much information as possible about their targets, and routinely show up unannounced at people’s houses to interrogate them about their friends, their families and their comings and goings. Dalanea Taylor, who was placed on the prolific offender list because she had been incarcerated as a teenager, was harassed by Pasco deputies for years after she was released and had turned her life around.

Code enforcement is a favorite tactic for ensuring compliance during the deputies’ visits. To coerce people into letting the deputies into their home or answering their questions—or sometimes purely to intimidate them—the deputies slap their victims with citations for innocuous offenses like missing house numbers on the mailbox, chickens in the back yard or unmowed grass on the lawn. By design, family members of prolific offenders are ensnared by the program too. Robert Jones had a son on the prolific offender list, and Pasco deputies showed up at his door multiple times a week asking about his son. When the deputies decided that he wasn’t cooperating fully, they wrote him multiple citations for tall grass and other similar property code violations. They even arrested him several times on bogus charges.

Tammy Heilman and Dolly Deegan, who both had sons on the list, also received multiple citations for thousands of dollars in fines for code enforcement violations.

Worse, the motivation of the program is more sinister than merely “fighting crime”: The Sheriff’s Office acknowledged that they want these “problem people” gone. Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco, the architect of the program, boasted that the goal was to predict which residents are likely to commit crimes and then “take them out.” In the words of a former Pasco County deputy, they were under orders to “[m]ake their lives miserable until they move or sue.”

Experts on policing have roundly criticized Pasco County’s practices, pointing out that it is based on junk science and could tend to reinforce racially biased policing practices.

But the Sheriff’s use of predictive policing is not only methodologically shaky; it’s unconstitutional. The government cannot harass you in your home just because it has decided that you or someone you live with might someday do something wrong. That’s why Robert, Dalanea, Tammy, and Dolly have decided to challenge Pasco’s program, alongside the Institute for Justice, in court to affirm the basic principle that there is no such thing as “innocent until predicted guilty.”

Filmed on a Canon C70. B-cam Canon R5 with RF 70-200 2.8 lens. Drone shots taken on a DJI Mavic 3.[+] Show More

SWAT team DESTROYED Innocent Woman’s Home but City Refused to Pay

https://ij.org/case/texas-swat-destruction/

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

Stay Informed