Bulgarian Demonstrators March Against NATO Alliance
Source: https://www.youtube.com/user/videosptv February 16, 2015 - Press TV reports on the latest news headlines from around the world. Live @ http://www.presstv.ir/live.html Twitter @ http://twi...
By: PigMine2
Read more:
ivirus stuff #40 - ...andam a movimentar a NATO
edio carnavalica deste compndio de enterranos calinosos, vociferados pelos membros do costume, todos queimados, e na cara tambm...
By: ivirusstuff
More here:
||PREVIO|| Talento Nato - Blue El Dinmico(SENTIMIENTO URBANO)
Aqu les dejo un previo del video. Espero y sea de su agrado. No olviden compartir y suscribirse al canal (y) Sentimiento Urbano Rifa mi genteeee!
By: Blue El Dinmico -Sentimiento Urbano
View original post here:
||PREVIO|| Talento Nato - Blue El Dinmico(SENTIMIENTO URBANO) - Video
In an earlier post, co-blogger David Post pointed to a state trial court ruling in Montana, for which he was an expert for the defense, which concluded that the government needs a warrant under the Fourth Amendment and/or the Montana Constitution for a police officer to go undercover on Facebook as a teenage girl, friend a target, and have conversations with that target. Heres a different perspective on the case. To the extent the judge was relying on the Montana Constitution, the decision is plausible. On the other hand, the decision is plainly wrong if it was relying on the federal Fourth Amendment.
For purposes of the federal Fourth Amendment, the law is really clear: You give up your Fourth Amendment rights in what you knowingly disclose to another person such as an undercover officer or informant. If you communicate with a person in a Fourth Amendment protected space such as your home, you cant claim a Fourth Amendment violation in what you shared with the person if they violated your confidences and happen to be (or are working with) law enforcement. See, e.g., United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966); Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206 (1966); Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323 (1966); Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963); On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747 (1952).
As I explained in a forthcoming article, this legal rule was originally the point of the subjective expectation of privacy test of Katz, the thought being that you did not manifest your privacy rights in what you disclosed to another even in Fourth Amendment protected space. The Supreme Court later moved the principle over to the objective expectation of privacy test instead, where it announced the idea as the so-called third-party doctrine: [T]he Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976).
Those principles are directly applicable in the Montana decision. The defendant, Windham, thought he was communicating with a 16-year old girl named Tammy Andrews. It turned out that Andrews was actually an adult police officer, proof that on the Internet nobody knows youre a cop. The government is trying to use what the officer saw as Tammy Andrews in communication with Windham, which is only what Windham knowingly reveled to Andrews. From a standpoint of the federal Fourth Amendment, its a trivial case. Theres no plausible argument for Fourth Amendment protection.
Importantly, though, that doesnt mean that the result is wrong. It may just be correct as to the Montana Constitution instead of the Fourth Amendment. State courts can interpret the state constitution more broadly than the federal Fourth Amendment And in State v. Goetz, 345 Mont. 421 (2008), the Montana Supreme Court held that the state constitution requires a warrant when an undercover agent wants to record a one-on-one conversation with a target, even though the Fourth Amendment doesnt require that. Under Goetz, theres at least a plausible argument that either the use of the undercover, or at least the recording of the communications, required a warrant under the state constitution.
Its not a slam dunk, though, for two reasons. First, the focus in Goetz seems to be the recording of the communication without the targets consent. Facebook communications are inherently recorded in the sense that this is how Facebook works. In analogous contexts, some state courts have held that a target consents to recording when they use messaging services that necessarily record their messages.
Second, it might matter that the defendant in this case was in Germany at the time these communications ensued. Assume theres a requirement of a warrant under the Montana Constitution for communications that occur inside Montana. If an undercover officer in Montana has communications with a target in Germany, does the Montana Constitution require the same warrant? Is the search occurring in Germany for purposes of the state constitution, and if so can a Montana court issue a warrant for a search there? Or does the search occur in Montana for state constitutional purposes because the recording occurred there? Im not sure.
However a court should resolve these questions, though, this is an argument only about the state constitution rather than the Fourth Amendment. Under the Supremacy Clause, the ruling would apply to state officers but not federal officers.
Finally, in the comment threads to Davids post, several commenters raised the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. If the government thinks its a crime to violate Terms of Service on Facebook, which was the DOJ position in the Lori Drew case, why doesnt that forbid the governments procedure here as a matter of federal law? I think there are three independent reasons. First, an exception to the CFAA expressly exempts law enforcement investigations, see 18 U.S.C. 1030(f), so this wouldnt violate the CFAA even if you believe that TOS violations generally violate the CFAA. Second, there is no federal suppression remedy for statutory violations absent a clear directive of Congress, of which there is none here. And third, even though DOJ argued that the TOS violations in Drew violated the CFAA, the DOJ was wrong, as the district court recognized in tossing the convictions.
Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law.
Read more here:
No fewer than 20 states in the country rejected autonomy for local governments in the fourth amendment to the 1999 Constitution (as amended), passed by the Senate on Wednesday.
Our correspondent, who obtained a copy of the report of the Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution submitted by Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu on the floor of the senate, noted that 20 states voted against local government autonomy while 16 states voted in support.
The 20 states who voted against are: Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Borno, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Enugu, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kwara, Lagos, Ondo, Osun, Rivers, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara.
States who gave the yes votes are: Adamawa, Anambra, Abia, Bauchi, Benue, Edo, Gombe, Imo, Kebbi, Kogi, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun, Oyo, Plateau and Sokoto states.
The proposed amendments which was rejected had stated that a local government council not democratically elected shall not be recognised by all authorities and persons and shall not be entitled to any revenue allocation from the Federation Account or the state government.
It shall not also exercise any function exercisable by a local government council under this Constitution or any law for the time being in force; and shall stand dissolved at the expiration of a period of four years, commencing from the date the members of the council were sworn in.
The report also indicated that the National Assembly has also empowered the Independent National Electoral Commission to deregister political parties.
It also made provision for independent candidates in elections.
The extant electoral law stipulates that candidates for elections must be sponsored by political parties. Section 177 has been altered, by inserting a new paragraph that a candidate must be sponsored by political party or he is an independent candidate.
It was further observed that the lawmakers inserted section 225A, which states that INEC can deregister political parties if there is a breach of any of the requirements for registration.
Read the rest here:
Konni Burton Defends Texan Second Amendment Rights
For more information go to http://konniburton.com/
By: KonniBurtontx
Excerpt from:
In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated that (emphasis added, citations omitted, as usual),
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
[Footnote: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]
The question, then, is whether this presumpti[on] of validity can ever be rebutted for instance, if a persons felony conviction is many decades in the past, is for a not very serious felony, or both. Todays Suarez v. Holder (M.D. Pa. Feb. 18, 2015) concludes that the presumption was indeed rebutted in this case, where the past felony conviction was in 1990, the claimants last misdemeanor conviction was in 1998, and the claimant has otherwise shown that he is now a law-abiding citizen (here by, among other things, having gotten a security clearance for his work with Department of Defense clients). And this is so even though the 1990 felony conviction was for illegal carrying of a gun (and the facts showed that he was drunk at the time), and the 1998 misdemeanor conviction was for drunk driving:
Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not shown that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen and poses no continuing threat to society. First, they emphasize that at the time of Plaintiffs arrest, he was carrying a .357 Magnum handgun and two loaded speed-loaders while intoxicated to the point that he was placed under arrest for driving under the influence. They argue that possessing a firearm while intoxicated poses such a danger that many jurisdictions impose criminal sanctions for doing so. We agree with Defendants that the circumstances of Plaintiffs arrest were dangerous. But the inquiry is whether the challenger, today, not at the time of arrest, is more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen or poses a continuing threat.
There are two ways in which a challenger may fail to show he is not dangerous. One, the challengers conviction is for acts so violent that even after twenty-five years of nonviolent behavior he would continue to be dangerous and to pose a threat to society. This is not that case. Or [two], the facts and circumstances since the conviction show that the challenger remains dangerous. As revealed in our discussion above, we find Plaintiffs background and circumstance establish that, today, he is not dangerous and does not pose a risk to society.
Second, Defendants argue that although Plaintiffs predicate conviction was not violent, empirical studies reveal that those like Plaintiff have a high rate of violent recidivism, and thus Plaintiff continues to be dangerous and pose a societal threat. While we agree that the generalized results of an empirical study are useful to refute a facial challenge and demonstrate that a statute survives some sort of means-end scrutiny, we do not find that generalized conclusions are particularly useful in as-applied challenges to demonstrate whether Plaintiff, himself, is dangerous or poses a continuing threat. Accordingly, we find the studies of little moment and decline to rely on them to find that Plaintiff is dangerous.
For other cases that reach similar results, see Binderup v. Holder (M.D. Pa. 2014) (Second Amendment), Britt v. State, 681 S.E.2d 320 (N.C. 2009) (state constitutional right to bear arms), and Baysden v. State, 718 S.E.2d 699 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (state constitutional right to bear arms). For federal opinions that say that people can regain their Second Amendment rights in such situations (though without holding that the particular claimant regained those rights), see United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313, 320 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168, 174 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685, 693 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Duckett, 406 Fed. Appx. 185, 187 (9th Cir. 2010) (Ikuta, J., concurring); United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1049-50 (10th Cir. 2009) (Tymkovich, J., concurring). Congratulations to Alan Gura, who won this case and Binderup (as well as, of course, Heller and McDonald in the Supreme Court, and other lower court Second Amendment cases as well).
(Note that Suarezs 1990 conviction was labeled a misdemeanor under Maryland law, but the district court held correctly, I think that the conviction was treated as a felony under federal law, because the maximum punishment was three years in prison, above the two-year cutoff that the federal statute uses as the misdemeanor/felony line in such cases.)
The government has appealed the Binderup case, and is thus likely to appeal this one. But I expect both Binderup and this case will stand up on appeal, given the Third Circuits Barton precedent; and I doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to hear the case.
See the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Second Amendment protects people with old, nonviolent felony convictions
Wednesday, 18 February 2015 00:15
PESHAWAR: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Tuesday passed The Local Government (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 amid walk-out by JUI-F legislators to pave way for establishing Village and Neighbourhood Councils in all districts of the province.
The legislation namely The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 was presented in the house by Senior Minister for Local Government, Inayatullah Khan. After delimitation of the councils by Election Commission of Pakistan, the provincial government by notification in the official Gazette will notify its establishment in all districts.
The Bill also included the proposed establishment of district and tehsil councils for district Kohistan and newly curved out district of Kohistan Lower.
Maulana Asmatullah, a JUI-F legislator from the district said that the proposed amendment is against the 1973 constitution, saying that the area is provincially administered tribal area and no legislation would be made for them without the approval of President of Pakistan. Furthermore, he termed it a subjudice matter.
The leader of opposition, Maulana Lutf-ur-Rehman also stood in support of his colleague and proposed constitution of a committee for carrying out detailed review of the legislation to come up with a unanimous solution of the matter.
The Senior Minister however declined to pay any heed to the proposals of the opposition legislators and said the provincial assembly has mandate of making legislation for districts of the province while districts are made on administrative basis.
He said as the Local Council is responsible for holding elections in all districts and tehsils, therefore, they are bringing the proposed amendment in the Local Government Act. He said that new district in Kohistan had already been made where Deputy Commissioner (DC) and District Police Officer (DPO) are also posted.
Regarding the contentions that the matter is subjudice, he said a petition in this regard has already been rejected by the Abbottabad Bench of Peshawar High Court. He dispelled the impression that the matter is repugnant to the constitution.
He said that after passage of the bill from the provincial assembly, a summary will be sent to the Governor and after his approval it would be sent to the President of Pakistan through the Department of Home and Tribal Affairs.
Read more:
Filming LAPD - Gardena Police - California Highway Patrol - First Amendment Compliance
Zebra and Katman monitor and document local government officials to test their compliance with First Amendment rights to free press. All police on this night...
By: Onus News Service
Read more:
Filming LAPD - Gardena Police - California Highway Patrol - First Amendment Compliance - Video
FOG Watch. Gray v. Lutheran Social Services (Rebuttal)
Fog Watch http://fogwatch.org/from-the-editor/fogwatch-discusses-the-jeff.html Link to the LSS Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS1ctPiU8Ok#t=139 Florida First Amendment Foundation ...
By: HONORYOUROATH
Read more:
FOG Watch. Gray v. Lutheran Social Services (Rebuttal) - Video
Edward Snowden on the First Amendment: Livestream in Hawaii
Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower on the run, spoke at ACLU Hawaii #39;s Davis Levin First Amendment Conference live, Feb. 14, 2015, via a video link from Moscow, Russia. His attorney, Ben...
By: Honolulu Civil Beat
Go here to read the rest:
Edward Snowden on the First Amendment: Livestream in Hawaii - Video
February 18, 2015, 10:55 AM Last updated: Wednesday, February 18, 2015, 10:56 AM
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) A federal judge says a strip club did not have its First Amendment rights violated when its brochures were removed from New Jersey highway rest areas.
P.R.B.A. Corporation, which runs the Bare Essentials club in Atlantic City sued in 2012 after an employee of HMS Host Toll Roads ordered that its brochures be removed from rest areas on the Atlantic City Expressway and Garden State Parkway.
The club operator argued that it was a First Amendment violation to bar one brochure because of what it was promoting.
But the constitutional free speech protections apply only to government entities, not private companies like Host, which has a contract to run toll road plazas.
In a Feb. 6 ruling, U.S. District Judge Renee Bumb found that Host could legally remove the brochures.
Read the original here:
Judge: No violation to remove rest-area strip club brochures
Exclusive Interview with Paul Vigna (Wall Street Journal) about Bitcoin, Banks, Wallstreet (Pt1)
We interviewed Paul, author of the recent book http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Cryptocurrency-Challenging-Economic/dp/1250065631 in New York a few months ago. ...
By: Torsten Hoffmann
See original here:
SF Bitcoin Devs Seminar: Using Serpent on Augur to Build Prediction Markets
http://www.augur.net/ Jack Peterson Joey Krug present the details of how they #39;re implementing a decentralized PM, why Bitcoin is the best fuel for a decent...
By: Taariq Lewis
See the rest here:
SF Bitcoin Devs Seminar: Using Serpent on Augur to Build Prediction Markets - Video
Lighthouse: A development retrospective - Mike Hearn
Bitcoin Meetup Zrich, 10. February 2015 at Rackspacke Office https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse Beer tip jar: 1H6QSmrq4KQJs3CdMGPQoYDriHwJfy7aVS http://ww...
By: Bitcoin Lectures
Here is the original post:
Lighthouse: A development retrospective - Mike Hearn - Video
Fyrstikken - Babysitting Bitcoin
a Song about Bitcoin Altcoin-Trading tip me some #Bitcoin towards the next song : 1MqC1uwt8BwwA692ZW39tNSZrSY3px2yrf.
By: fyrstikken
Here is the original post:
The Bitcoin Group #66 Google Play Suspends Mycelium Wallet Hong Kong Considers the Banhammer ...
The Bitcoin Group discusses Mycelium, Hong Kong Banhammering Bitcoin, NY taking bitcoin for fines, Thomas Hunt #39;s move to BTCJam, and Darkleaks. Story links: ...
By: World Crypto Network
More here:
Make free bitcoin (BTC-Flow)
Link to video with updated information: http://youtu.be/CtyVCEWEzNU (Update FEB 17, 2015) The affiliate program now has a commission of 25%, up from 20% in the video. (UPDATE FEB. 15, 2015)...
By: Richard Sirico
Read more:
Why Bitcoin Matters by Mauldin Economics
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/lg/bitcoin What is Bitcoin? - Exclusive World Premiere Documentary on Why Bitcoin Matters Bitcoin, as you #39;re about to see, co...
By: BitEuro De
More:
Samuel Kovac: Bitcoin Specialist/Lecturer And Citizen Of Former Communist Czechoslovakia
Please enjoy my recent interview with Samuel Kovac. Herein we discussed how he became an Anarchist, his experience in Communist Czechoslovakia, prohibited goods/actions under Communism, ...
By: PeacefulAnarchism
Read more from the original source:
Samuel Kovac: Bitcoin Specialist/Lecturer And Citizen Of Former Communist Czechoslovakia - Video