Truth News

Infowars Reporter Contest: Female 2nd Round Finalists (1)

TruthNews.US - News - Tue, 2024-11-26 12:50
Infowars.com June 19, 2012 Infowars Nightly News – FDA coverup of GMO petition signers “Raphaelle O’Neil: Chemtrails, GMOs & Transgenics” “2nd Amendment Shift from Against to For – Infowars Reporter Contest ” “Mommy for Bill of Rights” “The War on Terror™ Is Over! (Yay.)” InfoWars | Men Wear Pink, Women Wear The Pants | Metrosexual [...]

Infowars Reporter Contest: Female 2nd Round Winners Announced Post (1)

TruthNews.US - News - Tue, 2024-11-26 12:50
Infowars.com June 19, 2012 Infowars Nightly News – FDA coverup of GMO petition signers “Raphaelle O’Neil: Chemtrails, GMOs & Transgenics” “2nd Amendment Shift from Against to For – Infowars Reporter Contest ” “Mommy for Bill of Rights” “The War on Terror™ Is Over! (Yay.)” InfoWars | Men Wear Pink, Women Wear The Pants | Metrosexual [...]

WWII War Hero Has Land and Home Taken

TruthNews.US - News - Tue, 2024-11-26 12:50
Oath Keepers | The most disgusting, callous, brutal, and unjust treatment of a WWII veteran by the “justice” system we have ever heard of.

WWII War Hero Has Land and Home Stolen

TruthNews.US - News - Tue, 2024-11-26 12:50
Oath Keepers | The most disgusting, callous, brutal, and unjust treatment of a WWII veteran by the “justice” system we have ever heard of.

WV: Stop for no passenger side mirror without legal basis

FourthAmendment.com - News - Tue, 2024-11-26 12:50

West Virginia law does not require two side mirrors, so the fact defendant’s car was missing the passenger side mirror was not cause for a stop, and it didn’t render the vehicle unsafe. Similar is State v. Reid, 722 S.E.2d 364 (Ga. App. 2012), where the vehicle had no side mirrors but Georgia law didn’t require them. State v. Dunbar, 2012 W. Va. LEXIS 307 (June 13, 2012).*

The USMJ erred in concluding that a U.S. MLAT request of the Netherlands to locate the defendant for an arrest led to a joint venture. On his own, the Netherlands police officer requested a wiretap warrant to locate defendant’s telephone. The U.S. had nothing to do with the wiretap request, so the product of that was not a joint venture. The fact the U.S. requested copies of tapes and transcripts that weren’t forwarded until after he was wasn’t important. United States v. Omar, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83665 (D. Minn. June 18, 2012).

No Cross Too Small to Escape Atheists' Attack

Eagle Forum - Tue, 2024-11-26 12:50
Today I'm going to remind you that no cross is too small to escape being targeted for removal by the atheists. In Woonsocket, Rhode Island, a little town you probably never heard of, a cross has been standing in the parking lot of the local fire station for 97 years. Mayor Leo Fontaine said, "The monument's been sitting there for 97 years and no one had a problem with it. And now someone from Phyllis Schlaflyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11930380089191812969noreply@blogger.com0

E.D.Pa.: Search warrant's use of “including but not limited to” not per se a general search; it has to be read in context

FourthAmendment.com - News - Tue, 2024-11-26 12:50

Motion to suppress filed twelve days before trial and a month after the motions cutoff was clearly untimely and there is no good cause tendered for the delay. Nevertheless, the court will go to the merits [meaning: the court can rule against the defense anyway, so why leave this 2255 issue looming?]. “[I]ncluding but not limited to” in a search warrant with a specific list is not an authorization for a general search because it has to be read in context of what it connects to. Even so, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Staton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83933 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2012):

Thus, general phrases in a warrant must be read in the context of the entire warrant and not in isolation. Andresen, 427 U.S. at 473; see also United States v. Johnson, 690 F.2d 60, 64 (3d Cir. 1982) (noting that warrants must be read as a whole). Here, the phrase "including but not limited to," followed by the list of materials, certainly is not separate from the list of items to be searched and seized. Based upon a reasonable reading of the language, "including but not limited to" refers to and modifies the prior phrase "business records." If anything, the list of seven categories of materials, and specific examples, that follow define the term "business records" more narrowly and therefore limit, rather than expand, the scope of the searches. Accordingly, the three warrants at issue are not general warrants. See $92,422.57, 307 F.3d at 149 (holding that while the scope of the warrant at issue "was certainly extensive, the warrant was not general" since the warrant "'describ[ed] in ... inclusive generic terms what is to be seized'" and "did not vest the executing officers with 'unbridled discretion' to search for and seize whatever they wished"); ...

Syndicate content