Cops Charged for Raping Teen in Van May Walk Free Because Cop/Suspect Sex is LEGAL—In 35 States

Image: Facebook

It has been over four months since then 18-year-old Anna Chambers (not her real last name) accused two on-duty NYPD officers of raping her in the back of a police van on the night of September 15th, 2017. As emphatically as she claims she was raped and did not consent to having sex with two police officers, she asserts not only have the police continued to attempt to intimidate her but the very justice system she’s now looking to for help is set up to help the alleged rapists.

In other words, defense attorneys have been victimizing the victim, attempting to discredit her story by bringing up her past, and insist the sex between two cops was consensual. She’s endured hours upon hours of decepositions, cross-examinations, and had to explain her various social media posts and comments to defense attorneys. She’s also had to be present in the same courtroom where she says her attackers sat mere feet away from her.

The attempts to intimidate Anna started before she even left the hospital where she went to have a forensic exam performed by emergency room personnel. As statistics reveal, few rape victims ever present at the emergency room and file a police report, but when the perpetrators are police officers, surely the courage to make such accusations does not go unnoticed. The police noticed. According to Anna, there was a steady stream of police officers from varying ranks walking by her hospital room the night she was allegedly attacked.

That fateful night back in September, Anna was stopped by two of NYPD’s finest who told her she was being taken into custody for marijuana possession. Her two male friends were told to leave and the cops took only her. After the police officers reportedly told her friends not to follow the police van, the two had other things in mind for her. According to Buzzfeed News:

Anna said the detectives took turns raping her in the backseat as the van cruised the dark streets and as she sat handcuffed, crying and repeatedly telling them “No.” Between assaults, she said, the van pulled over so the cops could switch drivers. Less than an hour later, a few minutes’ drive from where it all began, the detectives dropped Anna off on the side of the road, a quarter-mile from a police station, surveillance footage shows. She stood on the sidewalk, her arms wrapped around her chest, looking up and down the dimly lit street and pacing slowly before borrowing a cell phone from a passerby to call a friend.

Surely dropping her off near the police station is not standard procedure when someone is being arrested for pot possession. But defense attorneys aren’t interested in such minor details. They’re too busy combing through her social media accounts, her sexual history, and her comments on Facebook to enter into any plea bargaining. And the law is on their side.

It turns out Anna happens to live in one of 35 states where police officers can claim sex with someone they have taken into custody was consensual. Buzzfeed News describes the situation in New York:

It is one of 35 states where armed law enforcement officers can evade sexual assault charges by claiming that such an encounter — from groping to intercourse — was consensual.

All of this means if the jury believes the police officers’ testimony over Anna’s, they’re going to walk free, probably get their jobs back, and continue to hide behind their badge when they have sex while on duty.

Anna isn’t taking it lying down. She’s been voicing her objections to being subjected to the legal system’s definition of justice. When Anna’s story was questioned by a skeptic, she replied with reason:

Listen man it doesn’t fucking matter they’re on duty police officers its a fucking violation these are the people we call for help not to get fucked.

Buzzfeed’s Albert Samaha researched the phenomena of police officers being accused of rape. He said of the 700 officers accused of sexual assault of someone in custody since 2006, only 158 officers actually had criminal charges filed against them. Of those, 26 officers had their cases dismissed or charges reduced because of the consent loophole.

Anna reportedly told Buzzfeed she came forward so that other victims will do the same. She said she wanted “to encourage other victims to come forward,” adding, “Police aren’t supposed to be doing this.” Watching her story “blowing up” reportedly leaves her optimistic the phenomena of police officers using their badge to engage in on-duty sex with detainees will cease and that more women can find justice. She said, “all it took was one voice.”

If there’s ever been a time and an occasion where politicians could make a noticeable difference with public policy it is now, in the middle of the #metoo movement. How easy would it be for legislatures all across the 35 states, where sex with detainees is legal, to pass laws banning such claims of immunity.

It is important to point out that even if the sex is consensual, the officer’s position of authority over their detainee removes the ability to consent as the threat of arrest or charges could dangle over the victim’s head as a reason to engage in sexual acts. Being threatened with jail time to have sex with a cop is hardly “consent.”

Many critics believe that not only should all police officers who have sex on duty be fired (even if it’s between co-workers) but mandatory charges and minimum sentencing for police officers should exist for any law enforcement officer who has sex with detainees.

Doing so would set a high standard of accountability for law enforcement agencies across the country, and rid the courts of such cases of he said/she said consensual sex claims. Both officers’ DNA was found on Anna’s person. She says she was raped. They say it was consensual but ignore the fact that they had kidnapped her and held her as their prisoner. The courts will now decide.

As for Anna, she says police are continuously posted outside her home in an attempt to intimidate her. She also says she was charged with marijuana possession weeks after she came forward with her rape allegations.

Source Article from

Wyoming Bill To Restore Constitutional Gold Silver As Legal Tender & Eliminate All Taxes Levied

Wyoming State Flag

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Feb. 8, 2018) – A bill filed in the Wyoming House would define gold and silver specie as legal tender and eliminate all taxes levied on it. The new law would pave the way for the use of gold and silver in everyday transactions and could help undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.

A bipartisan coalition of 11 Republicans prefiled House Bill 103 (HB103) for introduction in the 2018 session. Titled the Wyoming Legal Tender Act, the legislation defines gold and silver specie as “legal tender,” meaning it would be recognized as a medium of exchange for the payment of debts and taxes in the state. Practically speaking, gold and silver specie would be treated as money, putting it on par with Federal Reserve notes in Wyoming.

The bill defines specie as coins having gold or silver content, or refined bullion, coined, stamped or imprinted with its weight and purity.

HB103 would also prohibit the state or local governments from levying any property, sales of capital gains taxes on gold or silver specie.

Imagine if you asked a grocery clerk to break a $5 bill and he charged you a 35 cent tax. Silly, right? After all, you were only exchanging one form of money for another. But that’s essentially what taxes on gold and silver bullion do. By removing the taxes on the exchange of gold and silver, Wyoming would treat specie as money instead of a commodity. This represents a step toward reestablishing gold and silver as legal tender and breaking down the Fed’s monopoly on money.

Seoul, South Korea

“We ought not to tax money – and that’s a good idea. It makes no sense to tax money,” former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul said during testimony in support an Arizona bill that repealed capital gains taxes on gold and silver in that state. “Paper is not money, it’s fraud,” he continued.

Passage of HB103 into law would take an important first step towards currency competition. If sound money gains a foothold in the marketplace against Federal Reserve notes, the people would be able to choose the time-tested stability of gold and silver over the central bank’s rapidly-depreciating paper currency. The freedom of choice expanded by HB103 would help allow Wyoming residents to secure the purchasing power of their money.


The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” States have simply ignored this constitutional provision for years. It’s impossible for a state to return to a constitutional sound money system when it taxes gold and silver as a commodity.

This Wyoming reestablishes gold and silver as legal tender in the state and takes a step towards that constitutional requirement, ignored for decades in every state. This would set the stage to undermine the monopoly of the Federal Reserve by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene said when people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.

“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state by state level is what will get us there.


HB103 will be officially introduced when the Wyoming legislature convenes for its regular session on Feb. 12. At that time it will be referred to a committee where it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Tenth Amendment Center

Nixon announces the end of the U.S. silver gold standard. Click Here To Enlarge

Related News:

  1. Silver Expected To Outperform Gold In 2018
  2. States Begin Eliminating Tax On Gold & Silver Money
  3. Absconding The U.S. Gold Backed System For The NWO
  4. Silver’s Door Step: Five Reasons to Buy ‘Physical’ Silver Now
  5. Global Silver Institute: Physical Silver Supply Deficit Since 2004
  6. GDP Is Bogus: Deep State Phoenix Eats Only Silver And Shits Only Paper
  7. China “Gold Super Power” Urging Their Citizens To Diversify Into Physical Gold And Silver Since 2009
  8. Arizona Governor Signs Bill Nullifying Capital Gains Taxes On Legal Tender Of Gold And Silver: Legalizing The United States Constitution
  9. Silver Is a Strong Buy 2018: “The Last Straw” For The Large Paper Speculators, who have “thrown in the towel”

Source Article from

Roe Made Abortions Legal, But It Doesn't Keep Women And Providers Safe

Before 1973′s Roe v. Wade, the problems were dangerous abortions and unequal access to safe abortions. Forty-five years after the landmark Supreme Court case, we still have the problem of unequal access, now exacerbated by a national, coordinated effort to harass women seeking abortions and their providers, both on the street and through a multiplicity of laws.

By the time Roe v. Wade ― and its oft-overlooked companion case, Doe v. Bolton ― reached the Supreme Court, the magnitude of the public health problem was obvious. Obvious too was the fact that poor women and women of color were the most likely to land in emergency rooms (5,000 per year in Chicago’s public hospital, for example), and to die as a result of illegal and self-induced abortions, as I wrote about in 1996′s When Abortion Was a Crime.

In New York City, African-American and Puerto Rican women died due to unsafe abortion at five to 10 times the rate of white women in the 1950s and early 1960s. The racial difference in mortality due to abortion in Georgia was even more dramatic: In 1969, the rate was 14 times higher for black women compared to white women.

At the same time, legal hospital abortions ― therapeutic abortions performed for medical reasons by physicians with anesthesia and antibiotics ― were, in contrast, extremely safe. 

Yet in the 1950s and 1960s, only a handful of women could get those safe, legal therapeutic abortions; they were almost exclusively well-to-do white women with private health insurance in private hospitals. Women of color or low-income women who went to public hospitals almost never obtained medical clearance for a legal abortion. 

The goal of reform laws enacted in a dozen states in the 1960s, first in Colorado and California ― and including the 1968 Georgia law struck down by Doe v. Bolton ― was to reassure doctors who wanted to perform therapeutic abortions that they acted within the law. Doctors, lawyers, women’s rights organizations and other supporters of reform in the 1960s and 1970s lobbied for abortion reform laws with the hope that they would increase the availability of safe, legal abortions.

Instead, as California’s 1967 reform law showed, the opposite happened. Doctors were more afraid of police and prosecutors going after them; the year before they had seen state officials revoke medical licenses and threaten prosecution of some of the state’s most reputable doctors for performing therapeutic abortions. And instead of allowing an abortion in cases of rape, as permitted by the new law, some local prosecutors rejected these cases, believing the man who denied committing a crime.

Georgia’s 1968 reform law listed multiple steps before a doctor could legally perform an abortion. The abortion would need to take place in an accredited hospital, be approved by an abortion review committee and be endorsed by two additional doctors. This was an obstacle course designed to restrict legal abortions. Noting that state law required nothing similar for any other surgical procedure, the Supreme Court found the Georgia law unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton. The case was as important as Roe v. Wade because it made it clear that the system of legal abortion created by reform laws violated the rights of both the patient and the physician.

Aiding and abetting this sexual harassment are elected lawmakers who pass legislation designed to stigmatize and restrict the constitutional rights of women and reproductive health care providers.

Doe made the development of independent abortion clinics possible. Clinics were preferable to providing abortions in hospitals because they cut the cost of the procedure and moved it out of the obstetrics ward and away from hostile medical personnel. No one predicted then that anti-abortion forces would use the physical independence of the clinics to surround them with protesters and isolate them from their medical colleagues.

There is now jeering, name-calling, jostling, shaming, threatening and worse. The anti-abortion movement has led, trained and reveled in the street harassment of female patients and the workplace harassment of abortion providers for decades. Medical students who want to learn how to provide this necessary part of women’s health care are similarly harassed and silenced, as are their teachers.

Aiding and abetting this gender-based sexual harassment are elected lawmakers who pass legislation designed to stigmatize and restrict the constitutional rights of women and reproductive health care providers.

Sexual harassment is treating a woman like a sexual object to be played with, ridiculed and touched. It’s aim is to demean her and empower the harasser. Insisting that women carry pregnancies to term against their will is to also treat women like objects without regard for their bodies, health or moral decision-making; it is to use their bodies for power and politics.

Laws that require women to see ultrasounds of the developing fetus or listen to a heartbeat are harassment. Requiring vaginal ultrasounds by law prior to every abortion is sexual assault.

Requiring doctors to tell lies about the consequences of abortion is harassment.

Requiring young women to inform parents of abortions knowing ― hoping ― that this will be humiliating and might induce parental rage or violence is harassment.

Today laws are designed to close the doors of specific clinics. This includes forcing hospitals to comply with design requirements or requiring a clinic’s physician to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital (while allowing hospitals to discriminate against abortion providers.) These are new forms of what Doe found to be unconstitutional. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has struck down some of this legislation, known as targeted regulation of abortion providers, or TRAP laws.

There is other hopeful news, too: young African-American and Latina women are leading the struggle for reproductive justice and sharing their stories to support other women. Funds have been developed in Mississippi to help pay for the cost of travel and child care for women who must travel hundreds of miles to reach the state’s one provider and then stay overnight because of state-mandated waiting periods. Alabama just elected a pro-choice Democrat to the Senate. Five states expanded access to abortion and 11 others expanded access to contraception.

Since 2010, hundreds of laws restricting abortion have been enacted, particularly in the Midwest and South, in states dominated by the Republican Party. The anti-abortion movement ― with its leaders and co-workers in the Catholic and (white) evangelical churches, right-wing nationalist movement, the Republican Party and, too often, some members of the Democratic Party ―  have been participating in sexual harassment on a grand scale for decades. It is past time to stop it.

Leslie J. Reagan is a professor of history, law, and gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and the author of When Abortion Was a Crime and Dangerous Pregnancies.

This piece is part of HuffPost’s brand-new Opinion section. For more information on how to pitch us an idea, go here.

  • This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

Source Article from

Outrage as MPs abandon legal bid to block release of ‘black cab rapist’ John Worboys

Justice Secretary David Gauke told MPs in the Commons on Friday that it would “not be appropriate” to judicially review the decision around Worboys’ impending release, which was approved by the Parole Board.

The decision contrasts with what Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis said just last week. Lewis said the government was doing “everything we can” to keep Worboys behind bars.

Gauke admitted that the decision “will disappoint the victims in this case and members of this House given the crimes for which he has been convicted.” He added: “On a personal level, candidly I share those concerns.”

Former black cab driver Worboys, 60, was jailed in 2009 for assaulting 12 women in London. He would offer his victims champagne laced with drugs after falsely claiming he had made a large lottery win. He is believed to have sexually assaulted over 100 women in total, police say.

The former stripper and porn actor was ordered to serve at least eight years in jail, and was given an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP), which meant that he could be kept in prison indefinitely so long as he was deemed to be a danger to the public.

In November, however, the Parole Board approved Worboys’ release. Two of his victims have been crowdfunding for legal representation to challenge his release, and say they only found out he was leaving prison through the media.

The government’s announcement it would leave the Parole Board’s decision is already proving unpopular, with enraged members of the public taking to social media to air their disgust.

“Worboys serves 28 days per rape victim,” one Twitter user pointed out, tagging the incorrect profile for 10 Downing Street.

Another called for the Parole Board itself to be put away for their decision.

Others questioned how long it will take for him to attack again.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Source Article from

AG Jeff Sessions declared open season on states where pot is legal, but here’s why his policy change WON’T MATTER

Image: AG Jeff Sessions declared open season on states where pot is legal, but here’s why his policy change WON’T MATTER

(Natural News)
Last week Attorney General Jeff Sessions set off a firestorm when he announced he was reversing an Obama-era policy that instructed federal prosecutors not to target states and individuals where recreational marijuana had been approved by voters.

The decision led Natural News founder Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, to rightfully call on Sessions to resign, given that the Justice Department he runs is currently targeting President Donald J. Trump for a bogus “Russia collusion” allegation.

“By declaring war on legalized cannabis, Jeff Sessions demonstrates once and for all that he is hopelessly out of touch with America and incapable of focusing on the far greater priorities of investigating Uranium One and FBI corruption,” Adams said.

As it turns out, though the policy reversal stands, it very well might not mean much in practical terms, according to experts and former federal prosecutors.

Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia in the 1980s when Sessions was serving in the same capacity in Alabama, told Lifezette that Sessions’ memo to prosecutors makes it clear they will have discretion over which cases to bring.

“Not much is going to change except the policy,” he said. (Related: As California legalizes pot, few smokers realize cannabis is often contaminated with pesticides, mold, heavy metals and chemical toxins.)

James Cole, the deputy attorney general under AG Eric Holder, penned a memo in 2011 that directed the Justice Department to all but ignore businesses that were licensed to sell pot under state laws that legalized the drug.

That directive remained the priority so long as states worked to stop the spread of marijuana from their jurisdiction to other states where voters had yet to legalize it while preventing pot sales to children.

When he rescinded the policy, Sessions instructed U.S. attorneys to enforce drug laws as enacted by Congress and, well, marijuana for recreational use remains against federal law. Sessions said that the Obama-era policy undermined “the rule of law and the ability of our local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement partners to carry out this mission” of combating illegal drugs.

“Therefore, today’s memo on federal marijuana enforcement simply directs all U.S. attorneys to use previously established prosecutorial principles that provide them all the necessary tools to disrupt criminal organizations, tackle the growing drug crisis, and thwart violent crime across our country,” he wrote.

Needless to say, the policy change has sparked outrage from lawmakers in states that have legalized its recreational use.

As Lifezette reported, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., tweeted, “A list of things more important for federal prosecutors and federal law enforcement to pursue other than marijuana: 1. Basically anything.” (I wonder, Mr. Lieu, does that also include enforcement of all immigration laws?)

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, tweeted that the policy change is “outrageous” and “perhaps one of the stupidest decisions the attorney general has made.”

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., an ally of Sessions and Trump, nevertheless disapproved. “I think it’s a mistake for the Department of Justice to do this,” he told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham.

But he also said enforcement “will be virtually impossible. They would have to send an army [of] federal troops in there.”

That isn’t going to happen, said diGenova. Rather, he predicts that federal prosecutors will be focusing their limited resources on marijuana trafficking by criminal organizations and drug gangs.

“There is going to be a black market,” he predicted. “Because of taxation and the cost of packaging and quality control, there will be a very, very large black market.”

In some ways Sessions’ decision is understandable; it is against federal law to use marijuana recreationally. And if we’re going to be upset about other administrations selectively enforcing federal laws against, say, mishandling of classified information, then we can’t allow the current administration to selectively enforce laws, either.

But there is a solution and Paul hit on it during his Fox interview: Have Congress change the law to let states decide what they want to do.

That’s called “federalism,” and it is one of our founding principles of government.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for and, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Here’s Where Weed Is Legal In The US

On New Year’s Day California became the eighth US state to allow the sale of marijuana for recreational use. The total number of states which have legalized weed in some form is now 29, as well as the District of Columbia.

Demonised in the US since the days of ‘Reefer Madness,’ marijuana’s status has reached a turning point. Legislators see that the benefits of legalization outweigh those of prohibition. After all, money talks, and states which have legalized weed are not only rolling joints, but also rolling in the green.

Blue: Legal for recreational use

Red: Legal for medicinal purposes

White: Illegal


California has long been a bastion of weed legalization, becoming the first state to regulate the sale of cannabis for medicinal purposes over 20 years ago, in 1996. However, it wasn’t until January 1, 2018 that it began selling the plant for recreational purposes.

The pioneers in recreational legalization were Colorado and Washington, which voted in favor of full legalization back in 2012. Residents there can legally carry up to one ounce of their bud of choice.

Washington DC, Alaska, Oregon and Nevada all followed suit. Maine and Massachusetts voted last year to legalize – though presently the herb cannot be bought in either state.

Residents in Massachusetts won’t have to wait long, with sales due to begin on July 1, 2018, while Maine is also due to begin selling sometime this year.


In total 29 states, as well as Washington DC, have broadly legalized medical marijuana, including the eight mentioned above. The others are Arizona, Arkansas, whose favorite son Bill Clinton famously admitted to having smoked pot “but didn’t inhale,” and Connecticut.

Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and West Virginia make up the rest.


More than half of US states now boast some form of marijuana legalization, and many of the remainder have some form of legislation pertaining to special circumstances. For example Alabama and Mississippi both have laws in place permitting the use of medical marijuana for severe epileptic conditions such as Dravet syndrome.

With the tide seemingly turning, and plenty of money to be made on cannabis taxation, many states will likely consider following the path taken by California, Alaska and Colorado.

Source Article from

Jeff Sessions Rescinds Legal Doc to Allow Police to Jail People for Being Poor


In addition to his “War on Cannabis,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently revealed that he is also in favor of a “War on Poverty,” when he rescinded a legal guidance document that was meant to end illegal debtors’ prisons.

While debtors’ prisons are labeled as institutions to keep people from failing to pay fines and debts, they have been used to take advantage of impoverished, low-income individuals. A simple traffic ticket can turn into months in prison, which results in even greater fines. As defined by the American Civil Liberties Union:

“Nearly two centuries ago, the United States formally abolished the incarceration of people who failed to pay off debts. Yet, recent years have witnessed the rise of modern-day debtors’ prisons—the arrest and jailing of poor people for failure to pay legal debts they can never hope to afford, through criminal justice procedures that violate their most basic rights.”

The legal guidance rescinded by Sessions was one that was implemented by the Department of Justice in 2016. It states that courts are required to follow constitutional principles and to prohibit the imprisonment of poor individuals because they cannot pay court fines and fees.

Sessions rescinded the March 2016 “Dear Colleague Letter on Enforcement of Fines and Fees” last week, along with 25 other legal documents dating back to 1975. In a statement, he claimed that he was “ending 25 examples of improper or unnecessary guidance documents” that had been identified by a DOJ task force:

“Last month, I ended the longstanding abuse of issuing rules by simply publishing a letter or posting a web page. Congress has provided for a regulatory process in statute, and we are going to follow it. This is good government and prevents confusing the public with improper and wrong advice. Therefore, any guidance that is outdated, used to circumvent the regulatory process, or that improperly goes beyond what is provided for in statutes or regulation should not be given effect. That is why today, we are ending 25 examples of improper or unnecessary guidance documents identified by our Regulatory Reform Task Force led by our Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand.  We will continue to look for other examples to rescind, and we will uphold the rule of law.”

The guidance was originally put in place after a series of reports and lawsuits from the ACLU revealed that state and local courts were increasingly offsetting budget deficits by charging additional fees for public defenders, prosecutors, court administration, jail operation and probation supervision,” and that the courts were using “aggressive tactics to collect these unpaid fines and fees, including for traffic offenses and other low-level offenses.

As a result, the courts were then jailing people who fell behind on their payments, without holding a hearing to determine if the individual was able to pay the fines, or offering alternatives such as community service.

The ACLU argued that because the courts were imprisoning an individual based on the fact that he or she could not pay court-imposed fines or fees, the court was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection under the law.

In one case, a man undergoing chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer in Sherwood, Arkansas, spent 90 days in jail and ended up owing a court more than $3,000 after he wrote a series of bad checks for small amounts ranging from $5 to $41, and his medical condition prevented him from earning money to pay for the fines associated with the checks.

Another case involved a veteran battling homelessness in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who spent 22 days in jail because he showed up to court with $25 out of the $50 the judge wanted him to pay as the first installment for the $2,600 he owed in restitution, fines and court fees after he was found intoxicated, on the roof of a building.

Ultimately, the only ones who benefit from debtors’ prisons are the prisons themselves, and the people who suffer are the ones who find themselves facing jail time on top of the inflated fees and fines they already cannot afford to pay.

Source Article from

Trump legal team set to meet with Mueller

Sari Horwitz, Justice Department reporter for The Washington Post, talks with Maddow about an expected meeting between Donald Trump’s legal team and special counsel Robert Mueller and the likely clash over contrasting perspectives on the investigation.

Watch TV shows, movies and more on Yahoo View.

About The Rachel Maddow Show

Launched in 2008, “The Rachel Maddow Show” follows the machinations of policy making in America, from local political activism to international diplomacy. Rachel Maddow looks past the distractions of political theater and stunts and focuses on the legislative proposals and policies that shape American life – as well as the people making and influencing those policies and their ultimate outcome, intended or otherwise. See More

Check out more stuff on Yahoo View

Source Article from

Medical TYRANNY in paradise: Hawaii to go door to door, confiscating LEGAL firearms from all medical marijuana users

Image: Medical TYRANNY in paradise: Hawaii to go door to door, confiscating LEGAL firearms from all medical marijuana users

(Natural News)
Over the past several years, liberals have constantly assured the American people that even though they support the idea of stricter gun laws, they are not out to take away anyone’s legally owned firearms. But liberals lie every chance that they get, so it really shouldn’t come as a surprise that many of them are now starting to walk back on their promise.

Recently, the Honolulu Police Department in Hawaii has sent a series of letters to residents who use medical marijuana, informing them that they are disqualified from owning firearms, even if they were obtained legally and in compliance with state and federal law. If the medical marijuana users refuse to turn over their firearms, then presumably, they will face state-sanctioned violence until the guns are removed.

“This letter is to inform you that under the provisions of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Section 134-7(a) you are disqualified from firearms ownership, possession, or controlling firearms. Your medical marijuana use disqualifies you from ownership of firearms and ammunition,” the letter reads. It goes on to say that residents who use medical marijuana “have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms, permit and ammunition to the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) or otherwise transfer ownership.”

The letter then informs medical marijuana users that they must obtain a clearance letter from a medical doctor if they wish to purchase any firearms or ammunition in the future. (Related: Gun control is incredibly popular among people who live under tyranny and oppression – don’t they get it?)

The first question that we have to ask ourselves it his: Where are all the liberals speaking out against this? Right now, every single leftist within Washington D.C. and the mainstream media who has ever uttered the words “we are not out to take away anyone’s guns” should be out on the frontlines condemning Hawaii for this lawless and blatantly unconstitutional act. But they’re not because – surprise! – they were never serious about rejecting the idea of gun confiscation in the first place.

Last month, The Boston Globe published a piece titled “Hand Over Your Weapons,” which argued that in order to minimize the number of mass shootings that occur in the United States, lawmakers may have to start considering gun confiscation from law abiding citizens.

After arguing that the gun control proposals currently on the table may not go far enough, The Boston Globe piece stated: “In other words, the proposals aren’t just difficult to enact in the current political climate; their practical effects would also be quite limited. On occasion, though, Democrats will make oblique reference to a more sweeping policy change: seizing a huge number of weapons from law-abiding citizens.”

So in other words, liberals are committed to the idea that “we can’t just go around knocking on doors and deporting illegal aliens,” but at the same time, going door-to-door and confiscating firearms is completely appropriate and entirely possible. They don’t even make any sense, they are obviously unhinged, and yet they think that they have the authority to tell the American people what’s best for themselves and their families. That is an incredibly dangerous combination.

Whether it happens in Hawaii or elsewhere, if the liberal Democrats really are serious about confiscating firearms from those who have legally obtained them, then they will be met with an incredible amount of resistance; in fact, gun confiscation could even potentially lead to civil war. The American people are committed to defending their Second Amendment rights, and no matter what laws are passed or what ideas are proposed, they will not lay down their arms without a fight.

Sources include:



Source Article from