Tag: Nazistic

Wisconsin Supreme Court FINALLY Stops Nazistic John Doe Investigation Against Conservatives

Wisconsin Supreme Court Stops John Doe Investigation Against Conservatives – Legal Insurrection

.

.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has effectively killed the “John Doe” case which led to home raids and intimidation of a wide range of Wisconsin conservative activists.

The decision is embedded at the bottom of this post.

Here is the key finding, which completely shreds both the legal theories and motives of the prosecutors, completely vindicates the targets, and praises those who fought back legally against prosecutorial misconduct (emphasis added):

¶133 Our lengthy discussion of these three cases can be distilled into a few simple, but important, points. It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.

Andrew Grossman, who filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case and who has served as counsel to Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth (two of the targets of the investigation) in various federal civil rights litigation against the prosecutors, provided me with the following statement:

Today’s decision puts an end to one of the worst abuses of power ever seen in Wisconsin law enforcement. The next step will be holding those responsible accountable for their actions. The Court’s recognition that the John Doe was a politically motivated “dragnet” of Gov. Walker’s allies provides strong support for Cindy Archer’s civil rights action against the Milwaukee prosecutors and lawsuits by potentially any of the other John Doe targets.

Background on John Doe abuses:

We have been covering the John Doe cases for a year and a half. You can read all out posts in the John Doe (WI) Tag.

Here are some key posts:

* Revealed: Wisconsin John Doe investigation was full-blown anti-conservative fishing expedition
* Exposed: How Prosecutors targeted Scott Walker and conservatives
* Was Prosecutor’s union-operative wife behind “John Doe” investigation of Scott Walker?
* Wisconsin “John Doe” War on Walker wins “Nastiest Political Tactic of the Year”
* Wisconsin Dems used battering rams against Scott Walker supporters – literally
* Former Scott Walker Aide Sues prosecutors for WI John Doe “Home Invasion”

.

.
Analysis:

The court found that Wisconsin statutes did not limit “issue advocacy,” and that any attempt to so limit speech was unconstitutional:

¶7 We can resolve the original action, Two Unnamed Petitioners, by first examining whether the statutory definitions of “committee,” “contributions,” “disbursements,” and “political purposes” in Wis. Stat. §§ 11.01(4), (6), (7), and (16) are limited to express advocacy[4] or whether they encompass the conduct of coordination between a candidate or a campaign committee and an independent organization that engages in issue advocacy. Second, if the definitions extend to issue advocacy coordination, what then constitutes prohibited “coordination?”

* * *

¶41 We turn first to Two Unnamed Petitioners, the original action filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This case requires us to interpret Wisconsin’s campaign finance law, Wis. Stat. Ch. 11. By its very nature, this task involves fundamental questions regarding the scope of the government’s ability to regulate political speech. To resolve this case, we must engage in statutory interpretation of the phrase “political purposes,” which includes all activities “done for the purpose of influencing [an] election.” Wis. Stat. § 11.01(16). We conclude, consistent with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution, that the plain language of “political purposes” in Wis. Stat. § 11.01(16) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague if it is not given a limiting construction and applied to only express advocacy and its functional equivalent. This conclusion invalidates the special prosecutor’s theory of the case and ends the John Doe investigation. Therefore, we agree with the Unnamed Movants and grant their requested relief.

The Court ripped into the investigating prosecutors (emphasis added):

¶68 Having reached our conclusion about the scope of conduct regulated by Chapter 11, we now turn to the special prosecutor’s theories of coordination and whether the alleged conduct is regulated under Wisconsin law.[23] The special prosecutor has disregarded the vital principle that in our nation and our state political speech is a fundamental right and is afforded the highest level of protection. The special prosecutor’s theories, rather than “assur[ing] [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,” Roth, 354 U.S. at 484, instead would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished. In short, the special prosecutor completely ignores the command that, when seeking to regulate issue advocacy groups, such regulation must be done with “narrow specificity.” Barland II, 751 F.3d at 811 (quotations omitted).

¶69 The limiting construction that we apply makes clear that the special prosecutor’s theories are unsupportable in law given that the theories rely on overbroad and vague statutes. By limiting the definition of “political purposes” to express advocacy and its functional equivalent, political speech continues to be protected as a fundamental First Amendment right.

The court made clear the investigation was stopped cold in its tracks:

¶76 To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.

The Court went on in addition to uphold a lower court’s quashing of a subpoenas and search warrants sought by the prosecutors, finding that the John Doe powers did not allow “a fishing expedition”:

¶91 Reasonableness and particularity are not just requirements of search warrants, however. Subpoenas issued by courts, and by extension John Doe judges, must also satisfy these requirements of the Fourth Amendment. In re John Doe Proceeding, 272 Wis. 2d 208, ¶38. A John Doe proceeding, with its broad investigatory powers, must never be allowed to become a fishing expedition.

¶92 It is difficult, if not impossible, to overstate the importance of the role of the John Doe judge. If he does not conduct the investigation fairly, as a neutral and detached magistrate, the risk of harm to innocent targets of the investigation-and we remain mindful that all such targets are presumed innocent-is too great. Through the use of a John Doe proceeding, “law enforcement officers are able to obtain the benefit of powers not otherwise available to them, i.e., the power to subpoena witnesses, to take testimony under oath, and to compel the testimony of a reluctant witness.” Washington, 83 Wis. 2d at 822-23. Such powers, if not wielded with care and skill may serve to transform a John Doe proceeding into an implement of harassment and persecution by a vengeful or unethical prosecutor. Thus, John Doe judges must be mindful of this danger and zealously guard the rights of all citizens against over-reach.

The Court then summarized its holdings, just so there was no doubt that it had completely rejected the prosecutors’ legal theory on coordination of issue advocacy (emphasis added):

¶133 Our lengthy discussion of these three cases can be distilled into a few simple, but important, points. It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.

¶134 In Two Unnamed Petitioners, we hold that the definition of “political purposes” in Wis. Stat. § 11.01(16) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution because its language “‘is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the state is not permitted to regulate.’” Janssen, 219 Wis. 2d at 374 (quoting Bachowski, 139 Wis. 2d at 411). However, a readily available limiting construction exists that we will apply and that will prevent the chilling of otherwise protected speech; namely, that “political purposes” is limited to express advocacy and its functional equivalent as those terms are defined in Buckley and WRTL II. With this limiting construction in place, Chapter 11 does not proscribe any of the alleged conduct of any of the Unnamed Movants. The special prosecutor has not alleged any express advocacy, and issue advocacy, whether coordinated or not, is “beyond the reach of [Ch. 11].” Barland II, 751 F.3d at 815. Accordingly, we invalidate the special prosecutor’s theory of the case, and we grant the relief requested by the Unnamed Movants.

¶135 To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.

Wisconsin Supreme Court – John Doe Decision

.

.

Nah, Nothing Nazistic About THIS At All…

It Begins… Brazilian School Forces Jewish Students To Identify All Jews Among Them – Gateway Pundit

.

.
Document demands the identification of all Jews.

Brazilian substitute headmaster José Fernando Schlosser has forced all Jewish students and teachers to sign a document to identify all Jews among them. The names will be given to the Solidarity with Palestine Committee.

Pamela Geller reported:

Israel Bloom from Portugal’s blog AMIGO DE ISRAEL (Friend of Israel) sent me this. It’s 1938 all over again.

Difficult times are here again for us.

In Brazil, Mr. José Fernando Schlosser, substitute headmaster of Federal University of Santa Maria, forced all Jewish students and teachers to sign a document to identify the Jews among them.

The document was inspired on President Dilma Roussef politics of condamnation of Israel crimes against Palestiniana People and the names will be delivered to a Comitee of Solidarity With Palestine.

.

.
Nazis demanded the mandatory ID badge for Jews in 1939.

.

.

Nothing Nazistic About This At All…

Government To Track ‘False, Misleading’ Ideas On Twitter – Ricochet

.

.
Nope, this isn’t unsettling:

The federal government is spending nearly $1 million to create an online database that will track “misinformation” and hate speech on Twitter.

The National Science Foundation is financing the creation of a web service that will monitor “suspicious memes” and what it considers “false and misleading ideas,” with a major focus on political activity online.

The “Truthy” database, created by researchers at Indiana University, is designed to “detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”

One G-man’s “social pollution” is another free man’s First Amendment right. The very term sounds like something out of a 1920s Italian fascist tract. And why is the federal government even deciding which ideas are “false and misleading,” let alone tracking them?

According to the project’s grant, the service “could mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate.”

In 2004, dissent was “the highest form of patriotism.” A decade later, it’s called “subversive propaganda” and categorized as the lowest form of treason. Truthy would add a button to Twitter so that people could report their neighbors and family members for Thoughtcrime against the State.

Filippo Menczer (who sounds like an author of that 1920s Italian fascist tract) is Truthy’s lead investigator and closely affiliated with “non-partisan” groups like President Obama’s Organizing for Action, Moveon.org and Greenpeace. The software’s very name comes from ardent conservative hater Stephen Colbert.

It’s hard to denounce the more paranoid allegations of Obama’s opponents when his administration routinely goes beyond their wildest imaginings.

.

.

Nazistic Police Illegally Detain Decorated War Hero, Then Arrest Him For ‘Rudely Displaying’ Rifle (Video)

Texas Police Dept. Provides Statement To TheBlaze On Vet Arrested After ‘Rudely Displaying’ Rifle (Plus, A Texas Firearms Attorney Weighs In) – The Blaze

There could be more to the story surrounding a decorated Army veteran who was arrested after being accused of “rudely displaying” his rifle during a hike with his son, but the police aren’t willing to provide their side of it. For now, anyway.

.

“The charge is pending prosecution with the county attorney’s office,” the Temple Police Department said in a very short statement provided to TheBlaze on Wednesday. Temple is located in Bell County, Texas.

Police Sgt. Gary Smith told TheBlaze that they would not be releasing any other statements or commenting on the matter any further. “That’s it,” he replied after being asked if he could provide any additional details.

In case you missed our initial story, Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham, who told his story to Glenn Beck on the radio Wednesday morning, was on a hike with his son in a rural area of Temple, Texas, when he was suddenly approached by a police officer. Grisham, a concealed carry permit holder, was carrying a .45-caliber pistol on his waist and open carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Texas does restrict open carry of firearms to an extent, however, the restriction does not apply to “long guns.”

Grisham told Beck that he regularly carries the rifle while on hikes in rural areas to combat rattle snakes, coyotes and hogs. It has never been a problem – until now, he said. The Army veteran was reportedly detained prior to being accused of a specific crime and later arrested and charged with resisting arrest.

He was not charged with any gun related crime.

According to local authorities, Grisham was “rudely displaying” his firearm, and “people are alarmed” when they see weapons like the AR-15. “They don’t care what the law is,” one of the officers told Grisham, referring to the individual(s) who were alarmed by the rifle. You can read TheBlaze’s full report on the incident here.

Watch the video below:

.
o get a better – and objective – understanding of the details in the case, TheBlaze reached out to Justin Flint, a Texas firearms attorney with Pursley McNamara & Flint, PLLC in Missouri City.

After insisting that there could be more to this case than what’s shown on the video, Flint said it doesn’t appear as if Grisham ever resisted or failed to comply with the demands of officers. The police were within their right to investigate the situation after receiving a 911 call, the attorney explained, but an officer still has to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed or could be committed at a later time before detaining a suspect in the first place.

“There are certain things that one might be advised to do when dealing with police officers and you are in possession of a firearm,” Flint told TheBlaze. “I always advise people to make an officer feel as safe and comfortable as possible. But just because that’s good advice doesn’t mean that has to be done.”

In Texas, concealed carry holders are required to disclose possession of their firearm and provide identifying information as well as a valid concealed carry permit to police officers, Flint explained. He also noted that police are within their authority to disarm Texans while questioning them in order to ensure the safety of officers involved. The firearm must be returned unless they determine a crime has been committed. It’s unclear whether Grisham’s firearms have been returned to him.

But if someone in Texas is “carrying a long arm, a rifle or a shotgun, that is legal in the state of Texas… So there is no real probable cause there for a stop or for the police to detain any person for any amount of time,” the attorney added, speaking in generalities in regards to the law.

Grisham was first charged with resisting arrest, however, the charge was downgraded to interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty. Flint said if he were defending Grisham, theoretically, he would likely push for a case dismissal, based on the facts that are known at this point. He again insisted, though, that more facts may surface that could change the case dramatically.

“Based on the facts themselves, if there’s not evidence that he was resisting in any way or trying to interfere with what they are doing, then this would be a case that would be suitable for getting dismissed,” he added. “Whether based on lack of probable cause or lack of evidence to detain or arrest him.”

TheBlaze’s Erica Ritz has reported on some additional details concerning Grisham’s background:

To be sure, Grisham has his detractors. For the past several years, he and fellow prominent military blogger Michael Yon have engaged in a war of words over the Internet. The two have repeatedly questioned the integrity, valor, and and service of the other. TheBlaze will be following up on this issue in the future.

But regardless of his past, the treatment of Grisham’s son deserves to be investigated, Beck said. Police took the boy home after Grisham’s arrest. And though Grisham warned him not to answer any questions until his mom was present, police allegedly wouldn’t let the boy out of the car until he spoke.

TheBlaze will continue monitoring this developing story and add any relevant information as it becomes available.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.