Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials.
Minnesota Supreme Court
Currently, the Supreme Court reviews petitions in approximately 800 cases a year and accepts review in about 1 in 8 cases. These cases can come from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals, Tax Court, Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, and Board of Judicial Standards. Election contests and appeals for first-degree murder cases are automatically appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is responsible for the regulation of the practice of law and for judicial and lawyer discipline. Additionally, as the highest court in Minnesota, it promulgates rules of practice and procedure for the legal system in the state. http://www.mncourts.gov/About-The-Courts/SupremeCourt.aspx
Let’s see how much the Supreme Court cares about the constitutional rights of MN citizens. I’m going to take a wild guess and say that my case and companion case won’t be accepted for review. And if it is accepted, the decision of the lower courts will be affirmed.
(Double click to zoom)
A new type of court case is slowly but steadily emerging within the American legal system: alleged crimes being detected from data supplied by smart devices.
Several cases over the last few years have focused on data transmitted within the modern smart home, while a couple of others add an extra dimension of police completely reconstructing a crime scene based upon data collected from the home as well as the various Internet-connected devices that we wear.
The very nature of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution appears to be at stake.
In December of last year an Arkansas murder case made headlines not so much for the death itself, but how a suspect was brought into custody. James Bates hosted a party at his Bentonville home on the night of November 21st, 2015. At some point during the event a man drowned in a hot tub on the property. Bates claimed to have found the victim the next morning when he awoke, stating that it was a tragic accident, but Arkansas police obtained smart water meter readings that showed an anomaly between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. Based solely on this data – and obtained without a warrant – Bates was arrested and charged with 1st degree murder.
Somewhat ironically, James Bates subsequently requested recordings from his Amazon Echo to defend himself against these charges, which resulted in Amazon waiving their standard privacy conditions.
A second case followed wherein we saw a police narrative emerge that a crime had been prevented by a home’s smart system. A domestic dispute resulted in Eduardo Barros allegedly wielding a firearmagainst his girlfriend and threatening to kill her. However, during the argument he exclaimed, “Did you call the sherrifs?” This activated a voice-controlled sound system in his home and dialed 911. After an hours-long standoff, the suspect was taken into custody and charged. Law enforcement was quick to hail the smart technology as having “saved a life.” But it was the presiding judge who shook privacy advocates by accepting the evidence regardless of how it was obtained, saying that there was indeed probable cause for the arrest without a warrant.
JoAnne is absolutely correct in her posts.
The Americans with Disabilities Act, confirms the RULE OF LAW and the Constitution. In order for any involuntary incarceration under the 5th and 14th Amendments DUE PROCESS must be strictly observed. All that this requires is NOTICE AND HEARING. There is a District Court case in Wisconsin that suggests that in this regard Form TRUMPS Substance, and a totally biased finder of fact still meets the criteria. However, this was not the situation!
An ex-parte commitment order to be enforced by Police Act is so wrong that it is a massive stretch for any policeman participating to not be legally and criminally culpable for any action on his part that interferes with the civil rights of a victim – in this case Andy. (The fact that Andy may have given his key to someone is irrelevant – and the fact that he might have on social media made statements that were offensive to someone are not grounds for summary incarceration. THIS IS NOT ALLOWABLE under the Constitution and ANY LAW THAT IS or is interpreted to deny basic DUE PROCESS is void. A middle school student is required to know this fact – to require a well paid judge/lawyer/policeman to be aware of such a proposition is equally appropriate.
I agree with JoAnne — ANDY’s incarceration was WRONGFUL, and criminal. All the miscreants involved ought to be charged with KIDNAPPING, tried and sent to jail! The Gulag cannot be tolerated in America.
Hallelujah! Andy Ostrowski lawyer activist has been released and we have video conference he is okay
some comments from Ken Ditkowsky:
On Friday, September 29, 2017, 8:10:01 PM CDT, Brian Fedorka <email@example.com> wrote:You can go to his page for a live video interview (crappy audio) earlier today with John Adams. If you don’t trust the link below then to repeat, simply visit Andy’s facebook page, ‘Andy Ostrowski’.-Brian
Annelise Rice, a hockey player at UND and graduate of Minnetonka High School, filed a lawsuit on March 17, 2017, in Minnesota federal court seeking damages for deprivation of civil rights by tortuous intervention in a mother-child relationship and deprivation of rights under color of the law (Civil Action No. 17-cv-796 ADM/HB).
Court order banning speech about a person (and banning gun possession by speaker) reversed
I’ve blogged often about how criminal harassment bans, “cyberstalking” bans and restraining order laws have been morphing: They began by restricting unwanted speech to a person, but they’ve often been used to restrict speech about a person.
First, the facts (some paragraph breaks added throughout):
Mr. Blum is a process server and a member of the National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS). [Randy] Scott is a former process server and former member of NAPPS…. Mr. Blum testified that Mr. Scott sent emails about Mr. Blum and Mr. Blum’s family, partners, and former employees to 2200 NAPPS members.
The emails consisted of links to articles, blog posts, or videos. In some instances, the articles or blog posts were written by Mr. Scott. The tenor of the emails, articles, blog posts, and videos was derogatory, and the allegations within them were potentially damaging to Mr. Blum’s business and reputation. Copies of the emails supported Mr. Blum’s testimony.
Mr. Blum testified that none of the emails were sent directly to him but that he knows about them because they were forwarded by the recipients to him or he received phone calls about them. The emails, articles, blog posts, and videos did not contain threats against Mr. Blum. However, Mr. Blum claimed that the content of the emails, articles, blog posts, and videos caused him emotional distress; he had trouble sleeping and eating, the emails were constantly on his mind, and he constantly had to defend himself to people.
Mr. Scott testified that his emails discussed many people within NAPPS or connected to NAPPS and were not directed at Mr. Blum.