The advent of a Cheech and Chong society has created a new problem for police departments: how to sort out legal marijuana enterprises from illegal ones. It isn't always that easy to tell weed that has been thoroughly taxed from the libertarian, free market variety; see California police hand deliver $800K worth of cannabis to distributor after illegal raid (nypost.com). //

24. OFFICER FRANCO compared the power usage of the TARGET PREMISES to nearby businesses and found it significantly higher.

25. OFFICER FRANCO, therefore, concluded that the TARGET PREMISES was cultivating cannabis, disregarding the fact that it is a diagnostic facility utilizing an MRI machine, X ray machine, and other heavy medical equipment—unlike the surrounding businesses selling flowers, chocolates, and childrens’ merchandise, none of which would require significant power usage. //

Raiding the NoHo offices near closing time, the SWAT team found pretty much what they would have expected to find if they had ever checked with city licensing agencies: a single employee and an X-ray and MRI machine. They detained the employee and proceeded to rummage through offices that obviously did not contain either marijuana plants or processing equipment.

39. Considering the search yielded no live cannabis plants or any other contraband, and the detained employee had already been released, it was evident—or should have been—that any further action taken by the LAPD Officers would exceed the scope of the search warrant.

    40. However, some LAPD Officers continued to roam freely throughout the TARGET PREMISES, casually engaging in conversation with one another. The whole operation was nothing short of a disorganized circus, with no apparent rules, procedures, or even a hint of coordination. //

43. Said LAPD officer, dangling a rifle in his right hand, with an unsecured strap, approached the MRI Office, glanced at the large warning sign on the door, reopened the door with his left hand and proceeded inside.

44. Expectedly, the magnetic force of the MRI machine attracted the LAPD Officer's loose rifle, securing it to the machine.

Wait, it gets better. With one SWAT team member's firearm welded to the MRI machine, our heroes search for a way out. They can't ask for help because the detained employee is a potential drug kingpin, and they don't want to look stupid, but mostly because they don't want to look stupid.

45. The MRI machine was equipped with a sealed emergency pull button labeled, "Caution, Emergency Use Only." This button was intended to be activated solely in the event of a genuine emergency, such as a health risk to a patient inside the machine, a fire, or an evacuation situation.

46. Rather than seeking assistance from the on-site employee, or waiting for the manager’s arrival, one of the LAPD Officers made the unilateral decision to break the seal and activate the emergency shutdown button, deactivating the MRI machine.

What could go wrong?

47. This action caused the MRI's magnet to rapidly lose superconductivity, leading to the evaporation of approximately 2000 liters of helium gas and resulting in extensive damage to the MRI machine.

We still haven't achieved Humiliationmax.

48. The LAPD Officer then grabbed his rifle, this time wearing the strap over his shoulder as he should have when he entered the MRI room, and proceeded to walk toward the entrance, leaving the magazine full of bullets on the floor of the MRI office. //

Anyway, the owner of NoHo Diagnostics is suing the LAPD for a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which would be misleading the magistrate about the nature of NoHo Diagnostics's business. It is suing the now-retired police chief Michael Moore for "willful, wanton, malicious, and done with a reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs," and it is suing the city and all twenty officers involved in this fiasco for negligence. //

flatlander 2 minutes ago

Whatever happened to just making a phone call or simply visiting the building? How about checking with city hall to find out how the business is registered? Why does everything have to be so dramatic?

stickdude90 37 minutes ago

So at no point during the planning of this raid did anyone think to actually visit the business first?

Calling them Keystone Kops would be an insult to true Keystone Kops.

The Shot Heard ‘Round The World.

On a cool Massachusetts morning, April 19, 1775, a group of farmers, tradesmen, and other “Minutemen” led by Captain John Parker, gathered on Lexington Commons to…express umbrage at the British Crown’s illegal attempt to confiscate Colonial Weapons.

“Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here,” declared Parker.

No one knows who fired the first shot, but at the end of the battle, eight Americans lay dead and as many wounded. This came to be known as the “shot heard ‘round the World” and the de facto beginning of the American Revolution.

Fast forward to today—current Vice President and Democrat nominee for President, Kamala Harris again voices a desire to violate an enumerated constitutional right.

The Second Amendment, arguably written with Lexington in mind, is still the only one we need “permission” to exercise and is still under constant attack by the left. That’s generating backlash among popularly elected local Sheriffs, reports The Wall Street Journal. From the article.

The “Second Amendment sanctuary” movement has taken hold in more than 100 counties in several states, including New Mexico and Illinois, where local law-enforcement and county leaders are saying they won’t enforce new legislation that infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms.

This isn’t a “one-of,” issue—we’re talking about over 100 counties across several states. This indicates widespread popular support, support that is galvanizing locally elected Law Enforcement Officials to take notice—and take action. //

Predictably, there has been the mandatory hue and cry from the left, declaring those Sheriffs to be lawless rogues. Strangely enough, this from locales that support sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. Of course, their screeching is without basis. First of all, the local Sheriffs are on pretty solid Constitutional ground.

In an added — and some might say ironic — twist, per CNN, Routh's case was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon, the same U.S. District Court judge overseeing the classified documents case filed by the DOJ against Trump. (Cannon's name is present on the indictment, which may be viewed below — the preliminary proceedings were handled by Magistrate Judge Ryon McCabe.) //

GBenton
3 hours ago
That's beautiful. The dirtbag got a Trump appointed judge in Florida. If Bongino is correct and there is much more to this story in regards to Iran and assassins and the Biden/Harris clownshow, Cannon is the judge for the job, IMO.

Her handling of the Documents case was masterful, to my non-lawyer eyes.

She's the judge for the Federal charges. If DeSantis's state level charges are brought, I'm assuming they'd be handled in a state level court and not Cannon but I'd be glad to be wrong about that.

NavyVet wildmlm
4 hours ago
I think every black man that has ever been harassed by police should take what the DoJ is doing to President Trump to heart and realize "running while Trump" is the same thing as "driving while black" when you have the likes of the unconstitutional Jack Smith and the extreme leftist Garland stinking up DoJ.

The “sanctuary” term has most often been applied to immigration. But there are several different types of sanctuary cities – one of which is related to protecting Second Amendment rights. Indeed, over 61 percent of counties in America have declared themselves sanctuaries for gun rights. This means sheriffs and other local law enforcement would refuse to enforce unconstitutional restrictions on firearms coming from state and local governments.

An example would be what happened in Illinois when its government passed an assault weapons ban. Over half of the state’s sheriffs announced they would refuse to enforce the measure. While these counties did not necessarily declare themselves to be sanctuaries, the nullification principle was in action. //

Trump’s vow to end sanctuary cities will have more ramifications than he likely intends. Sure, it would make it easier to track down illegal immigrants – perhaps dangerous ones. But what is to keep a Democratic president from using this as a precedent to crack down on Second Amendment sanctuaries? //

This is why all politics is local. The governments that are closest to us should have the most say over what rules we choose to live under – not politicians in Washington, D.C. The last thing we want is for the federal government to be empowered to go after cities whose elected leaders uphold the Second Amendment – or other natural rights guaranteed in the Constitution. //

Anna DM
8 hours ago
I respectfully disagree. Illegal aliens are, well, illegal and so cutting off the funding to localities that endorse and support illegal activities is perfectly sane and rational. Gun ownership in the US is protected by the 2A. If some localities decide to disobey the 2A (placing unconstitutional prohibitions on the right to keep and bear arms) and then subunits within that locality decide to disobey the disobeying entity, that's not a sanctuary situation. That's a (very constitutional) middle finger to the entity that is disobeying the constitution. In the end, the courts generally overrule such unlawful incursions against the 2A. The two examples are not the same thing, IMO.

I say defund the sanctuary cities as regards illegal aliens. //

Terrible System
8 hours ago
2nd Amendment sanctuary cities are set up to protect clear 2nd Amendment rights. Immigration sanctuary cities are set up t0 abet violations of federal immigration law, which is clearly within the purview of the federal government to enforce.

There is no legitimate comparison here.

ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể @TheThe1776
·
Megyn Kelly DESTROYS the lawfare against President Trump🔥🔥🔥‼️

11:16 AM · Sep 21, 2024
https://x.com/TheThe1776/status/1837511249321685004

Jason Calacanis asked about some of the cases, erroneously saying Trump had been found "guilty" in civil cases.

Kelly brought him up short, correcting him on the facts and the terminology.

His partners on the show also came back on him a bit, asking whether he knows Kelly is a lawyer,and said, "You said three convictions, now you're walking it back."

Then he asked if she thought all five cases had issues. "100 percent," she said.

That's when Kelly went to town. First, she noted the change of the law in the Carroll case. Next, she hit the problems in the fraud case brought in New York by Attorney General Letitia James, including that the banks didn't consider themselves victims and James ran on a promise of getting Trump.

She also snarked about how "Soros" Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg didn't like to bring any cases except against Donald Trump. There were questions there as well. Then she spoke about the Georgia case, where she referred to the relationship between Fulton County DA Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. Then she pointed out how the Florida classified documents case was likely to fall as well. //

David Limbaugh @DavidLimbaugh
·
I almost didn't watch this because usually when someone says another got schooled or whatever it's not that big a deal, but this is just delicious. Big props to @megynkelly for not only educating this clown, but humiliating him simply with the facts and unapologetic fierceness.

Democrats want to prevent Republicans from ‘engaging in any activities related to recounts, certifications, or similar post-election activities,’ and they’re counting on a judicial branch ally to make it happen. //

The case threatens to effectively put back in place restrictions that hindered the RNC for nearly four decades. A judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter instated the restrictions when he settled a case between the RNC and the Democrats with a consent decree that limited Republicans’ abilities to partake in regular election practices like poll watching.

From 1981 to 2018, the judge, who only served for 15 years but took senior status for 21, continued to renew the consent decree, and modify it in favor of Democrats, as The Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway pointed out in her book Rigged:

For decades, the Democratic Party built up expansive coordination efforts that the Republicans were prohibited from developing. Republican candidates and state parties could do things on their own, but not with help from the national party. …

The consent decree also meant the RNC was kept out of almost any litigation related to Election Day. In fact, a main part of the RNC’s legal efforts came to be training RNC staff to stay away from Election Day operations on Election Day, including recounts, and fending off litigation that arose from the consent decree. It utterly paralyzed the political operation of the RNC, as the slightest misstep would result in getting sued by Democrats. //

With the election coming up, the case has recently seen movement after being “randomly reassigned” to Chutkan in 2023. According to court documents, the case had two different judges before landing before Chutkan.

Although no major decisions have been made on the case yet, at a November hearing, Chutkan highlighted how important it was to keep the case moving in time for the 2024 election. //

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would restrict the Republican Party from being involved in elections more than the 1981 consent decree because the new lawsuit, in addition to asking that poll watcher restrictions be reinstated, seeks to limit GOP interactions with election officials.

Speaking with CNN, Rajiv Parikh, a Democrat attorney involved in keeping the 1981 consent decree alive, said Democrats believe a court intervention here will be particularly helpful for them in swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania, where lawsuits and challenges are almost certain to arise.

Retired Professor
10 hours ago
Fascinating. Defamation was one of the subjects I used to teach in Law School, and as you know, the general rule is that attorneys have immunity for extra-judicial remarks made in connection with cases they are involved in, but this can be overcome by a showing of malice (in the technical Defamation sense of "reckless disregard"). But, win or lose, it is fun to see the liberals get a taste of the "lawfare" that they so love to use themselves.

metalheaddoc Retired Professor
10 hours ago
Can you explain why attorneys have immunity for extra-judicial remarks? and immunity from what specifically?

Retired Professor metalheaddoc
9 hours ago
Very good question. The immunity is from civil liability for money damages for such things as defamation of character, invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. (I can assure you, if you've ever been cross-examined by a good lawyer, that'll be some of the worst "emotional distress" you'll ever suffer). What are the policy justifications for this?

First, it arises out of the free speech we all enjoy.

Second, out of the right to counsel, which of course is a Constitutional right in criminal cases, and in most states is part of your constitutional "right of access to the courts," even in civil cases (although of course the state doesn't pay for it).

Third, society has an interest in attorneys being able to zealously represent their clients, and not have attorneys being dragged into court personally because of their advocacy, which obviously would be a tactic open to a lot of abuse, as well as inviting invasion of the attorney-client privilege.

Fourth, attorneys are subject to professional discipline for false or misleading statements, so the system polices itself in that respect.

Fifth, an attorney who makes a statement that he/she knows to be false or is made with reckless disregard for truth or falsity IS subject to liability, just like any public figure would be, so it is by no means an absolute immunity.

There are other considerations, as well, but those are the most common.

Please remember that 98% of the attorneys give the other 2% of us a bad name....

stickdude90 Retired Professor
9 hours ago
Sixth, attorneys wrote the rules.

Retired Professor anon-ho3e
10 hours ago
Kinda interesting having sympathy for an IRS agent, isn't it?

The Citizen Outreach Foundation is questioning a memo from Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar telling local officials to reject certain voter roll challenges.

Greg Price @greg_price11
·
This is a MASSIVE win that will have major implications in the most important swing state in 2024.

The PA Supreme Court has a 5-2 liberal majority.

Yet they just ruled 4-3 that it's illegal to count misdated mail in ballots, overturning decisions made by liberal lower courts.

James Blair @JamesBlairUSA
🚨BREAKING: Pennsylvania Supreme Court just overturned a lower court and ruled that counting undated mail ballots is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Huge Election Integrity Win!
5:07 PM · Sep 13, 2024

Florida has long been the most prominent battleground in the ongoing struggle between the rights of parents and the elitists who wish to violate them.

The latest skirmish in this war centers on HB 1069 which, among other things, gives parents and taxpayers more of a say in which books and materials are made available in public school libraries. //

The law empowers parents to raise objections to certain types of material. These objections would be taken into account by the district, which will work with the community to decide whether the content will be removed, restricted, or allowed.

This has nothing to do with censorship, as folks on the left contend. It has everything to do with parents being able to decide what their children are learning in the schools they fund through taxes. It is a process through which local communities have a stronger voice in what their children are seeing and consuming in the state’s educational institutions.

For most people, this concept is a no-brainer. Parents are the ones responsible for raising their children. Moreover, schools are funded using money taken from parents in the form of taxes. Why shouldn’t they have more of a say in what schools are teaching their children? //

The suit complains that Florida’s law requires books to be removed without consulting “trained professionals, such as teachers or media specialists.”

The notion that only governmental and corporate “experts” should decide what books are appropriate for school libraries smacks of elitism. This perspective implies that only our betters are equipped to know what our children should and should not be learning in class. //

The plaintiffs cannot win this lawsuit. It is not just about books. It is about parental rights. Corporate and governmental interests should not supersede the rights of parents to determine how their children are raised and educated just because there are some folks who want small children to view sexually explicit content.

If appealed, I think it is likely that the SCOTUS will deny certiorari. California and Hawaii will continue to restrict citizens from carrying in public and it seems likely that state legislatures, hostile to the 2nd Amendment will deem more areas “sensitive” making concealed carry permits almost useless in some states.

What has been constantly and conveniently ignored by state legislators and courts in California and Hawaii is that citizens who take the time and effort to get a concealed carry permit aren’t abusing it – or shooting people in public without good cause.

And criminals don’t apply for concealed carry permits because - they are criminals. //

Black Magic
an hour ago
Thank God I live in PA which has extremely good concealed carry regulations, though I still question why the other Constitutional Rights are not so encumbered, i.e., I don't think there should be such encumbrances on our Constitutional Rights.

Having said that, I am still anticipating when it is finally adjudicated and approved by the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to halt my concealed carry rights at the state line and I am still wondering why it is that, I believe it is the 14 Amendment (which ensures equal protection), insures interstate cooperation in licensing driving for instance, but stops my ability to defend myself when I leave my state.

Trump has previously said he felt this should be addressed and corrected and I look forward to that.

The framers knew full well that many rights would face perpetual jeopardy, and by enshrining them in the Constitution and creating a system that divided power both between branches and between state and federal governments, they had crafted the surest check possible against future infringement.

While the separation of powers in the national government is often touted in civics and by politicians of all stripes, the federal system, with its two sovereigns — federal and state — is increasingly ignored or forgotten. States absolutely have the power to protect the people if the federal government is violating their rights. This is precisely what Missouri did in enacting SAPA.

Missouri’s law was a clear shot across the bow in the brewing debate over gun control at the federal level and how states could respond. These lawmakers, and leaders such as former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and current Attorney General Andrew Bailey, foresaw the danger of a Harris presidency before it was even conceived.

These leaders made clear to current and would-be federal tyrants that Missouri would protect the “promise of liberty” and fight to preserve the critical “tension between federal and state power.” It is a much-needed check against tyranny and abuse, as the U.S. Supreme Court has previously affirmed. Groups such as Gun Owners of America have aggressively supported SAPA and encourage Missouri to stick to their guns by seeking full review of this terrible decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This statement caught many by surprise because of the commonly held belief that a guilty plea forecloses any appeal. But, while a plea forecloses most issues that might be raised on appeal, it does not foreclose all of them. Lowell, an experienced and able lawyer, understands this and clearly plans to pursue an appeal to overturn Biden’s tax convictions.

In federal court, the vast majority of guilty pleas are entered pursuant to plea agreements between the government and the defendant, in which the government makes certain concessions such as dropping some charges or agreeing to limits on the sentence. In return, the government usually demands that the defendant waive the right to all appeals, and to habeas corpus filings post-conviction. //

Thus, in most cases, a guilty plea in federal court does mean that there will be no appeal.

Further, because a waiver of appeal rights is standard in most plea agreements, the federal rule of criminal procedure governing pleas requires the court to address this issue and ensure that the defendant understands that he or she is waiving the right to appeal – but only if there is a plea agreement that addresses waiving appellate rights. //

The law provides that unqualified guilty pleas do constitute a waiver of the right to appeal the vast majority of claims that there were defects or errors in the case prior to the plea. Thus, defendants cannot appeal on any ground that challenges factual guilt, evidentiary errors, procedural errors, and even most constitutional errors.

Defendants can still appeal certain kinds of claims even with a guilty plea, however. These exceptions to the usual rule that the plea waives the right to appeal basically fall into three categories.

First, a defendant can almost always appeal on the grounds that the court itself lacked jurisdiction over the case. //

Secondly, the defendant can appeal based on claims that the government lacked the power to prosecute the person in the first place. These are usually constitutional claims, such as immunity, double jeopardy, selective prosecution, or an argument that the charged statute is unconstitutional in some way. These appeals are permitted because they question the legality of the prosecution itself, not whether the person engaged in the charged conduct.

Thirdly, the law provides that the right to appeal certain defects in a criminal case simply cannot be waived by a defendant, whether there is a plea agreement or not. These issues lie at the heart of the functioning of the criminal justice system. So, for example, a defendant cannot waive the right to appeal an illegal sentence (such as one that exceeds the statutory maximum), or the ineffective assistance of the defense lawyer, or misconduct by the prosecutor in the case or the plea bargaining process.

Chutkan made clear that the case would not be tried prior to Election Day in November. //

From a practical standpoint, this schedule should not affect Trump's campaigning ahead of the election. What it will do, however, is inject into the the media coverage all manner of negative assertions (and innuendos) regarding Trump, the 2020 election, and January 6 — which, for the Dems, is likely the next best thing to actually having the trial take place ahead of the election. Buckle up.

A Pennsylvania court Friday sided with left-wing special interests, blocking the state from enforcing part of a law that required mail ballots to be properly dated in order to be counted. //

The majority opinion, however, while citing “prior litigation,” stated that “the date on the outer mail-in ballot envelopes is not used to determine the timeliness of a ballot, a voter’s qualifications/eligibility to vote, or fraud. Therefore, the dating provisions serve no compelling government interest.” //

The RNC plans to appeal the decision, according to a statement from Election Integrity Communications Director Claire Zunk reportedly obtained by Votebeat Pennsylvania reporter Carter Walker, which notes how both “[t]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court and US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit have both upheld Pennsulvania’s dated ballot requirement.”

The judge who oversaw Trump's initial attempt to remove the case to the Southern District of New York in 2023, Senior Judge Alvin Kenneth Hellerstein, issued a four-page order denying Trump's latest request. In the order, which may be viewed in its entirety below, Hellerstein states that he has no jurisdiction to determine the propriety of the Manhattan trial — that determination is for the New York appellate courts to make. //

My holding followed an evidentiary hearing where The People showed conclusively that Mr. Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for advancing the hush money payments, including two checks signed in the White House by Mr. Trump. I held that Mr. Trump had not satisfied the burden of proof required to show the basis of removal. My holding of a hush money reimbursement remains true regardless of who has the burden, whether The People or Mr. Trump. Nothing in the Supreme Court‘s opinion affects my previous conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority. //

anon-zxna Billy Wallace
11 minutes ago
All of this completely ignores the fact that "hush money paid to an adult film star" is not in any way a crime.....

Professor Jacobson, in our previous post, analyzed the case thusly:

One important part of the complaint is that it puts in issue Media Matters’ longstanding tactic and business model of targeting advertisers…

This could give X discovery not just of what Media Matters did here, but its other efforts to attack advertisers at other platforms because Media Matters disagreed with their politics.

Keep in mind this case is in Texas. Think about how a Texas jury will feel if X is able to prove its allegations.

Did Media Matters engage in this subterfuge and fraud? Obviously that verdict will work itself out in court, but it would not surprise me in the least, having covered Media Matters for over a decade. Founded originally by the toxic David Brock, with an infusion of cash from George Soros, Media Matters has poisoned our politics as much as anyone else. They are bullies who found a weak spot in the conservative media armor, that advertisers were afraid of controversy, so all Media Matters needed to do is put advertisers in the hot seat and they would flee. //

O’Connor rejected Media Matter’s arguments for dismissal, including that it can’t be liable for business disparagement by reporting truthful statements. O’Connor said X had sufficiently alleged that Media Matters had acted with “actual malice” based on statements criticizing the platform…

The Media Matters report at the center of X’s lawsuit was published online in November. The organization said it found advertisements by IBM, Apple, Oracle and Comcast’s Xfinity placed alongside posts touting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party.

X sued Media Matters in November in federal court in Fort Worth…The lawsuit alleged the Media Matters report was published “with the intention of harming X and its business.”

Shiva Ayyadurai is fighting to get on ballots, but the naturalized U.S. citizen from India fails to meet a key constitutional requirement. //

In the complaint, Ayyadurai argued that the First Amendment guarantees his right to run for president regardless of the Constitution’s pesky qualifications. And he asserted that such a qualification has been “abrogated and implicitly repealed” by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. //

allowing a foreign-born, naturalized citizen access to the presidential ballot changes the Constitution without the benefit of amendment.

Attorney General Merrick Garland boasted on Friday how his office has prosecuted nearly 1,500 Americans for protesting the 2020 election, warning others they may face similar lawfare should they raise any concerns about the administration of the upcoming November election.

Speaking at a press briefing, Garland essentially said the Jan. 6 prosecutions should serve to remind Americans what happens if they raise questions about an election.

“I think our prosecutions have made clear what we think about people who try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, which is [an] essential and fundamental element of our democracy. //

The Washington, D.C. bar recommended that Trump-era DOJ official Jeffrey Clark be suspended for at least two years because he drafted a letter to Georgia officials in which he said the DOJ “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the [2020] election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.”

Notably, the 2020 election in Georgia was certified, though the State Election Board passed a motion this past May finding Fulton County double-scanned 3,075 ballots. The board did not issue a rule on the 17,852 votes that were, according to a complaint filed by Kevin Moncla and Joseph Rossi, allegedly missing ballot images in the county.