Glad to SEE AUSTRALIAN’S “GROWING a PAIR!” Go AUSSIE’S !
George Orwell’s 1984 – going-on in CANADA USA, NEEDS TO BE STOPPED !
Nineteen Eighty-Four, often published as 1984, is a dystopian novel by English writer George Orwell published in June 1949, whose themes center on the risks of government overreach, totalitarianism and repressive regimentation of all persons and behaviors within society. The novel is set in an imagined future, the year 1984, when much of the world has fallen
Police raids on media sends chill through Canberra | Nine News Australia
POLICE were in my town today, inside a weed supply store, it was hard to tell? And HUAWEI whatever changed it’s name inside the mall to ? Darn – I can’t remember, I will post it when I do. TRAITOR TRUDEAU !
Tbooth wireless sells Bell, chatr wireless, Fido, Rogers, SaskTel and Virgin Mobile Smartphones, Apple iPhones, BlackBerry, Mobile Phones, Bluetooth Accessories & more.
They currently operate 99 stores throughout Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan.
You can find the Tbooth wireless web site at www.tboothwireless.ca.
Canada: Toronto gov. uses cement blocks to keep illegal cannabis shops closed
Subscribe to our channel! rupt.ly/subscribe The city of Toronto has begun preventing access to illegal cannabis shops by blocking off their entrances with giant cement blocks as can be seen in footage from Saturday. The city has reportedly turned to this method due to a legal loophole that prevents the authorities from removing people from or blocking access to alleged illegal cannabis dispensaries if they were also occupied residentially. Previous police raids on illegal cannabis locations would often entail changing the locks or even installing steel doors on the properties but these methods were reportedly often ineffective, with people breaking back in and starting selling once again. Cannabis was legalised in Canada in 2018, making it the first G7 member to legalise the drug, but crackdowns and raids have continued throughout the country against black market sales of cannabis that aren’t following the licensing and taxation requirements of the country’s Cannabis Act. Video ID: 20190609-016
Swat Can Raid And Search Homes Without A Warrant – Federal Court Ruling
See Full Story At – https://studionewsnetwork.com/ USA v. Paul Huskisson Court Decision The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over the courts in the following districts: Central District of Illinois. Northern District of Illinois. Southern District of Illinois. Northern District of Indiana. Southern District of Indiana. Eastern District of Wisconsin. In a legal decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, three judges determined that even though police illegally entered Paul Huskisson’s home without a warrant, the evidence they obtained during that illegal entrance could be used against him in court. The story starts on February 5, 2016, when Anthony Hardy was arrested by Drug Enforcement Administration agents. He cut a deal by admitting to his drug offenses, giving up his drugs and guns, and providing the names of two local drug dealers to the authorities. One of those drug dealers was Huskisson, who at that time was unknown to Indianapolis DEA agents. Hardy told agents he had been purchasing methamphetamine from Huskisson for months and that Huskisson was expecting a large shipment the day after Hardy was arrested. DEA agents listened to phone calls between Hardy and Huskisson about the shipment and recorded those phone calls. On the day of the shipment, DEA agents were on standby as Hardy, Huskisson, and two other men handed off the drugs. When Hardy came outside and gave the signal, agents rushed into Huskisson’s home to secure the scene. The problem, however, was that they hadn’t received a search warrant to do so. “Later that night, DEA agents filed the warrant application for Huskisson’s house. The application detailed Hardy’s history of drug deals with Huskisson, as well as the many phone calls between Hardy and Huskisson in the last twenty-four hours,” the judges wrote. The application also included Hardy’s description of what happened inside the house and evidence obtained from inside the house before the warrant application. “The law enforcement officers observed an open cooler with ten saran wrapped packages that contained suspected methamphetamine. The suspected methamphetamine later field tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine,” the warrant application said, according to court documents. Huskisson was found guilty. His lawyers argued before and after the trial that the evidence obtained through the police’s illegal entry into his home should not have been included against him. The three-judge appellate court, which consists of two judges appointed by President Donald Trump and one by former President Bill Clinton, concluded that the government had enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant even without the illegal evidence: All agree: the DEA entry team entered Huskisson’s house unlawfully. We do not condone this illegal behavior by law enforcement; the better practice is to obtain a warrant before entering a home. Ordinarily, the evidence found here would be excluded. But because the government had so much other evidence of probable cause, and had already planned to apply for a warrant before the illegal entry, the evidence is admissible. Though the government should not profit from its bad behavior, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it would otherwise have occupied. Attorney Marcus L. Schantz, replying to a tweet from USA Today editor Brad Heath, explained the problems with this decision: SCOTUS needs to weigh in on this. The logical extension of that holding is that police can enter a home willy nilly and get the warrant later. No. No. No. No. A judge or magistrate decides if the police can enter, and there’s no guarantee the warrant will be approved. Brad Heath ✔ @bradheath · Jun 5, 2019 A team of DEA agents raided a house hours before they applied for a search warrant. 7th Cir.: “We do not condone this illegal behavior by law enforcement,” but the agents did get a warrant after the search, so no need to suppress the evidence they found inside the house. View image on Twitter Attorney Marcus L. Schantz @SchantzLaw2019 SCOTUS needs to weigh in on this. The logical extension of that holding is that police can enter a home willy nilly and get the warrant later. No. No. No. No. A judge or magistrate decides if the police can enter, and there’s no guarantee the warrant will be approved. One might respond that police likely had enough evidence to obtain a search warrant before entering the home, but that should just reinforce the position that they should have obtained that warrant first. In this case, the person was guilty, but what happens when police are granted the ability to act first and apply for a warrant later? The ends do not justify the means.