activistpost--2019-07-19--Netizen Report In Nigeria and Russia Laws Against Online Insult Put Internet Activists on Thin I

Netizen Report: In Nigeria and Russia, Laws Against Online “Insult” Put Internet Activists on Thin Ice

The Advox Netizen Report offers an international snapshot of challenges, victories, and emerging trends in technology and human rights around the world. This report covers news and events from July 6 – July 19, 2019.  Rules against online “insult” have long been a feature of cybercrime and other internet-specific laws around the world. While they may be intended to reduce online harassment — which can have a stifling effect on free speech — such policies also can be abused by government authorities seeking to curb critical speech of a political nature.  One recent example of this trend has been at issue in Nigeria, where seven students and alumni of the privately-owned Madonna University in the Niger Delta, Nigeria could face up to seven years in jail over social media posts denouncing poor conditions and mistreatment of students and staff at their university. Nigerians on social media are advocating for their exoneration, calling them the “Madonna 7.”  One member of the group appears to have been targeted for running a WhatsApp group where people discussed concerns about the school administration, including allegations that administrators had locked up a staff member who had spoken critically about school policies.  All were granted bail on July 3 and released from a detention facility where they had been held since March 2019 after being charged under Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act. They are accused of sending “false messages” through social media which caused “annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, criminal intimidation” to Madonna University and its chief security officer, Titu Ugwu.  Meanwhile in Russia, activist Igor Gorlanov was accused by police in Novokuznetsk of violating a March 2019 law against making “insulting statements” towards state authorities online on July 15. The activist had shared a link to a MediaZona article about Yuri Kartyzhev, a carpenter who had the dubious honour of becoming the first person sentenced under the new law after he called Vladimir Putin an “unbelievable f***wit” on VKontakte.  On July 10 Pavel Chikov, a lawyer with the human rights organisation Agora, noted on his Telegram channel that, by his count, more than 20 court cases have been launched referencing the new law against insulting the authorities.  On July 5, #ArrestAntiPakJournalists trended on Twitter with over 28,000 tweets shared within a few hours. The hashtag went viral soon after a Twitter account named @IK_Warriors posted a tweet calling for the arrest of journalists belonging to what they described as “the pro-Indian, anti-Pak media group.” The tweet, which called on others to join the campaign, was accompanied by a photo of a list of journalists to be targeted.  The tweets mainly targeted journalists who criticize the government and the military. The @IK_Warriors Twitter account (IK refers to Prime Minister Imran Khan) bears a picture of Khan and the logo of the ruling party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf or PTI. “We are standing for the truth and right [sic]”, the bio of the @IK_Warriors account reads. A cricketer-turned-politician who has been in office for just under a year, Khan’s critics say he was hand-picked by the military.  Responding to the #ArrestAntiPakJournalists hashtag, Mubashir Bukhari, executive editor of the Truth Tracker, told Global Voices:  Mauritanian authorities restored access to the internet after disrupting it for 10 days following the disputed presidential elections of June 23 and resulting protests. The Ministry of the Interior reportedly ordered the shutdown for security reasons, although activists and human rights groups believe the real aim was to prevent the opposition from mobilizing protesters.  A coalition of digital rights and free expression groups are calling on telecommunication company MTN to push back against government demands to disrupt internet access following a five-week shutdown in Sudan. The South Africa-based MTN, which is a leading internet provider in the country, implemented the block as military forces in Sudan violently repressed peaceful protesters, cutting off a critical channel for people to report abuses and access emergency medical services. An open letter signed by Access Now, African Freedom of Expression Exchange, Committee to Protect Journalists, NetBlocks, Paradigm Initiative and others says that by pulling the plug, the company contributed to human rights violations.  The OpenPOWER Foundation, a non-profit consortium led by Google and IBM and established to improve interoperability of certain kinds of computing hardware, is working with the Chinese company Semptian, according to a report from The Intercept. Semptian has built multiple powerful technical surveillance tools that authorities in China, the Middle East and North Africa have used to vacuum up people’s private emails, texts and web browser histories. The partnership has enabled IBM and US chip manufacturer Xilinxon to collaborate with Semptian to build a microprocessor that enables computers to efficiently analyze immense amounts of data. A Semptian representative told a reporter posing as a customer that beyond China’s well-known digital dragnet, the firm has set up a mass surveillance system in an unnamed country within the MENA region.


activistpost--2019-07-22--Hawaii Decriminalizes Marijuana Possession Expunges Some Criminal Records

Hawaii Decriminalizes Marijuana Possession, Expunges Some Criminal Records

Earlier this month, a bill to decriminalize marijuana possession and expunge the records of certain marijuana offenders became law without the governor’s signature. The new law takes another step toward nullifying federal cannabis prohibition in effect in the state.  Twenty Democratic representatives sponsored House Bill 1383 (HB1383). The new law decriminalizes possession of three grams or less of marijuana making it similar to a traffic violation punishable by a fine of $130. The bill also creates a process allowing individuals convicted of possession of three grams of marijuana or less to have those convictions expunged from their criminal records. Finally, HB1383 establishes a marijuana evaluation task force to make recommendations on changing marijuana use penalties and outcomes in the state.  The House passed HB1383 by a 35-16 vote. The Senate approved the measure 22-3. Gov. David Ige didn’t sign or veto the bill within his allotted timeframe and it became law on July 10 without his signature. It will go into effect Jan. 1, 2020.  Enactment of HB1383 not only loosens marijuana laws and will help those with some prior marijuana convictions on their record get a new start; it will also further undermine federal marijuana prohibition. As marijuana becomes more accepted and more states simply ignore the feds, the federal government is less able to enforce its unconstitutional laws.  Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.  Decriminalization, along with Hawaii’s medical marijuana program, removed a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of cannabis in the state, but federal prohibition remains in place. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.  Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.  HB1383 further undermines prohibition make it that much more difficult for the federal government to enforce it in Hawaii.  Enactment of HB1383 ignores federal prohibition and continues the process of nullifying it in practice in Hawaii.  Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when voters legalized cannabis for general use in 2018. Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. Illinois followed suit this year.


activistpost--2019-07-24--New Arkansas Law Ends Civil Asset Forfeiture

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (July 24, 2019) – Today, a bill that reforms Arkansas’ asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking a person’s property without a criminal conviction in most situations went into effect. Arkansas has already taken a step to shut a loophole that would allow state and local police to circumvent the more stringent state asset forfeiture process by passing cases off to the feds.  Sen Bart Hester (R-Cave Springs) sponsored Senate Bill 308 (SB308). The new law specifically ends civil asset forfeiture in most Arkansas cases and replaces it with a criminal procedure. Under the law, prosecutors cannot proceed with forfeiture without a criminal conviction in all but a handful of cases.  The Institute for Justice gave Arkansas former forfeiture laws a D- grade, calling them “awful.”  The House passed SB308 by a 93-0 vote. The Senate approved the measure 35-0. With Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s signature in March, the new law went into effect July 24.  While some people believe the Supreme Court “ended asset forfeiture,” the recent opinion in Timbs v. Indiana ended nothing. Without further action, civil asset forfeiture remains. Additionally, as law professor Ilya Somin noted, the Court left an important issue unresolved. What exactly counts as an “excessive” in the civil forfeiture context?  Going forward, opponents of civil asset forfeiture could wait and see how lower federal courts will address this “over the next few years,” or they can do what a number of states have already taken steps to do, end the practice on a state level, and opt out of the federal equitable sharing program as well.  While the current asset forfeiture process in Arkansas desperately needed reforming, the state had already taken a step toward withdrawing from a federal program that allows state and local police to circumvent the state process. This is key now that SB308 has become law. And it’s particularly important in light of a policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for the Department of Justice (DOJ).  A federal program known as “Equitable Sharing” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.  Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.  Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, Policing for Profit, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The state closed the loophole in 2016.  Arkansas law prohibits the transfer of property to the feds without judicial approval.  (1) No state or local law enforcement agency may transfer any property seized by the state or local agency to any federal entity for forfeiture under federal law unless the circuit court having jurisdiction over the property enters an order, upon petition by the prosecuting attorney, authorizing the property to be transferred to the federal entity. (2) The transfer shall not be approved unless it reasonably appears that the activity giving rise to the investigation or seizure involves more than one (1) state or the nature of the investigation or seizure would be better pursued under federal law.  As the Tenth Amendment Center previously reported the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.  We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.


activistpost--2019-08-01--Now in Effect North Dakota Reforms Asset Forfeiture But Federal Loophole Remains

Now in Effect: North Dakota Reforms Asset Forfeiture, But Federal Loophole Remains

BISMARCK, N.D. (Aug 1, 2019) – Today, a North Dakota law that reforms the state’s asset forfeiture process and prohibits the state from taking a person’s property without a criminal conviction in most situations went into effect. But the new law leaves a loophole in place allowing police to circumvent stricter state laws by passing cases off to the feds.  A coalition of 12 Republicans, including Senate President Pro Tempore and Majority Caucus Leader David Hogue, introduced House Bill 1286 (HB1286) on Jan. 3. Under the new law, the state cannot proceed with asset forfeiture until the owner of the property has been convicted of or pled guilty to a criminal offense in most cases. HB1286 also raises the standard of proof necessary in forfeiture cases to “clear and convincing evidence.”  On April 26, the House approved the final version of HB1286 by a 55-37 vote. The Senate passed the bill 42-5. With Gov. Doug Brugum’s signature in May, the law went into effect Aug. 1.  HB1286 takes a step toward addressing the policing for profit motive inherent in the asset forfeiture process. In order for law enforcement agencies to access forfeiture proceeds, the city or county they operate in must create a forfeiture fund and establish an application process to accept and process applications from law enforcement agencies seeking an appropriation from the fund.  The new law also includes extensive reporting requirements.  According to the Institute for Justice, North Dakota has some of the worst asset forfeiture laws in the country. Law enforcement only needs to meet the lowest possible standard of proof—probable cause—to forfeit property. When property has been used for illegal activity without the owner’s knowledge, the burden falls upon owners to prove their innocence in order to recover their property. Police agencies can also keep up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds up to $200,000.  While HB1286 implements significant reforms, including the requirement of a criminal conviction, a House committee stripped important language from the bill that will render the state reforms largely ineffective if additional steps aren’t taken.  As originally introduced, HB1286 took a big step toward closing a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws in a vast majority of situations. This is particularly important in light of a policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for the Department of Justice (DOJ). Those provisions were removed.  A federal program known as “Equitable Sharing” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.  Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.  Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, Policing for Profit, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The state closed the loophole in 2016.  The Judiciary committee stripped out the following language to close the loophole and withdraw North Dakota from the federal program from HB1286.  Without this crucial provision, state and local police will be able to simply bypass the more restrictive state law and continue to cash in on asset forfeiture proceeds. In order for the reforms to have a significant practical effect, the North Dakota legislature needs to follow up and pass a law to close the loophole.


activistpost--2019-08-01--Now in Effect Washington Creates Streamlined Process to Expunge Some Marijuana Charges

Now in Effect: Washington Creates Streamlined Process to Expunge Some Marijuana Charges

OLYMPIA, Wash. (Aug 1, 2019) – This week, a Washington state law that will make it easier for people with marijuana charges on their records to have them expunged, along with a law that will allow students to consume medical marijuana at school, went into effect. These new laws take another step toward nullifying federal cannabis prohibition in effect.  A coalition of 12 Democrats introduced Senate Bill 5605 (SB5605) back in January. Under the new law, any person convicted of a misdemeanor marijuana offense, who was at least twenty-one years old at the time of the offense, can apply to the sentencing court for expungement of the applicant’s record of conviction. Under the new law, the court must vacate the applicant’s conviction record and may not consider any restrictions applicable to vacating other misdemeanor convictions under current state law.  The House passed SB5605 by a 67-29 vote. The Senate gave final approval by a 30-15 vote. With Gov. Inslee’s signature in May, the law went into effect July 28.  Washington voters legalized marijuana in 2012 and the legislature legalized cannabis for medical use in 1998. But up until now, the state did not make any provisions for individuals convicted of marijuana crimes prior to legalization. Enactment of SB5605 will allow those who were convicted of actions that were once illegal but now legal clear their records.  The new law will not only help some people with prior marijuana arrests and convictions on their record get a new start, but it will also further undermine federal marijuana prohibition. As marijuana becomes more accepted and more states simply ignore the feds, the federal government is less able to enforce its unconstitutional laws.  In the past, we’ve seen some opposition to marijuana legalization bills because the new laws generally leave those previously charged and convicted unprotected. The passage of SB5605 demonstrates an important strategic point. Passing bills that take a step forward sets the stage, even if they aren’t perfect. Opening the door clears the way for additional steps. You can’t take the second step before you take the first.  In other news, Washington state students will now be able to consume medical marijuana on school grounds.  A bipartisan coalition of two representatives and a senator sponsored House Bill 1095 (HB1095). Under the new law, school districts in the state must allow students with a medical marijuana card and parental permission to consume marijuana-infused products for medical purposes on school grounds, aboard a school bus, or while attending a school-sponsored event. Schools will be required to formulate policies accommodating such students.  The House passed the final version of HB1095 by a 79-16 vote. The Senate approved the measure 41-4. It also went into effect on July 28.  Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.  When Washington legalized marijuana, the state removed a huge layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, but federal prohibition remains in place. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.  Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.  These new laws further undermine prohibition make it that much more difficult for the federal government to enforce it in Washington state.  Enactment of these two laws ignores federal prohibition and continues the process of nullifying it in practice in Washington state.


activistpost--2019-08-09--Delaware Bill Expands Marijuana Decriminalization Despite Federal Prohibition

DOVER, Del. (Aug 8, 2019) – Last week, Delaware Governor John Carney signed a bill to decriminalize marijuana possession by minors in the state despite federal prohibition.  Sen. Trey Paradee (D-Dover), sponsored Senate Bill 45 (SB45) along with 16 fellow Democrats. Delaware decriminalized the possession or consumption of a “personal-use quantity” of marijuana for adults 21 or over in 2015, making it a civil violation subject to a fine. But under that law, possession of a personal-use quantity of cannabis remains a criminal offense for people under the age of 21. Enactment of SB45 expands decriminalize of personal use consumption or possession of marijuana to include individuals under 21.  The Senate passed SB45 by a 13-6 vote. The House approved the measure 34-7. With Gov. Carney’s signature on July 31, the new law went into immediate effect.  Enactment of SB45 will not only loosen marijuana laws and keep minors from ending up with criminal records for the possession of a small amount of marijuana; it will also further undermine federal marijuana prohibition. As marijuana becomes more accepted and more states simply ignore the feds, the federal government is less able to enforce its unconstitutional laws.  Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.  Decriminalization, along with Delaware’s medical marijuana program, removed a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of cannabis in the state, but federal prohibition remains in place. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.  Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.  SB45 further undermines prohibition and will make it that much more difficult for the federal government to enforce it in Delaware.  Enactment of SB45 would further ignore federal prohibition and continue the process of nullifying it in practice in Delaware.  Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when voters legalized cannabis for general use in 2018. Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. Illinois followed suit this year.  With 33 states including Delaware allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.


activistpost--2019-08-09--Ohio Lawmakers Accidentally Legalized Marijuana Top Cops Say

Ohio Lawmakers Accidentally Legalized Marijuana, Top Cops Say

Top law enforcement officials in the state of Ohio are upset at lawmakers, accusing the politicians of accidentally legalizing cannabis throughout the state.  As a result, prosecutors are now upset that they are no longer able to prosecute misdemeanor marijuana cases as they previously could, according to WBNS. And now, Ohio prosecutors are either holding off on pursuing charges against those in possession of the plant or throwing them out altogether.  The controversy comes after the state decriminalized hemp last week. And while hemp and marijuana are both cannabis plants, the two are distinct because of the amount of THC—the psychoactive compound that intoxicates users—that they contain.  By legal definition, hemp is cannabis that contains less than 0.3 percent of THC. If it contains any more of the compound, it becomes subject to criminal laws beyond the state’s stringent medical marijuana program.  Jason Pappas, vice president of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, complained:  Now we have to be able to distinguish the difference between hemp and marijuana. That is not possible for a human being to do, that has to be done through crime analysis.  The hue and cry being raised by prohibitionist officials in the state appears to be a huge exaggeration and doesn’t amount to a free license for Ohioans to stock up on the buds.  Yet, because of the new law, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has instructed prosecutors in a letter to hold off on marijuana criminal indictments until the cannabis can be tested. This has resulted in the state Bureau of Criminal Investigation labs buying and setting up new testing equipment while exploring the option of sending material to labs out of state until they get their hardware up and running in Ohio.  Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein has announced that it has no plans to continue prosecuting marijuana misdemeanor cases. But he also doesn’t plan to drop any pending cases, either. Klein explained:  We cannot prove those beyond a reasonable doubt because we cannot make the distinction whether it is hemp or whether it is marijuana … So, just from a practical standpoint, because we can no longer prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, we’re no longer going to be prosecuting these cases because we do not have the resources to do so.  Cannabis has been subject to prohibitionist laws since 1937, when the plant was largely demonized and associated with Mexican immigrants amid rising racist and nativist attitudes supported by federal and local authorities and media outlets. During the 1970s, marijuana was depicted by authorities as a drug serving no medicinal purpose that was simply abused by delinquents seeking to get high.  A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that 62 percent of U.S. residents, including 74 percent of millennials, favor an end to the prohibition of cannabis.


activistpost--2019-08-20--New Illinois Law Expands Medical Marijuana Program Despite Federal Prohibition

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has signed two bills into law that expand the state’s medical-marijuana program despite federal prohibition.  A coalition of six Democrats sponsored Senate Bill 455 (SB455). The legislation amends a 2018 law known as “Ashley’s Law” authorizing schools to allow guardians or other caregivers to administer cannabis-infused products students authorized to use medical marijuana. SB455 expands the law by requiring schools to allow school nurses or administrators to administer medical marijuana. Students will also be able to self-administer cannabis under the supervision of a school nurse. Additionally, the new law expands student access to medical marijuana to include before and after-school activities.  The new law will go into effect Jan. 1, 2020.  Senate Bill 2023 (SB2023) was originally a marijuana banking bill that would have prohibited state banks from denying certain services to marijuana businesses. During the legislative process, that language was scrapped and the bill was amended to expand and make permanent the state’s medical-marijuana pilot program. The program was slated to sunset next year.  SB2023 adds 11 new conditions eligible for treatment with medicinal cannabis. The new law also allows qualifying veterans to access medical marijuana as part of an Opioid Alternative Pilot Program. Under the new law, advance practice registered nurses and physician assistants will now be able to recommend medical marijuana. Under the pilot program, only physicians could certify patients.  The legislation overwhelmingly passed both houses of the Illinois assembly and went into immediate effect with Gov. Pritzker’s signature on Aug. 9.  Earlier this year, Pritzker signed a bill into law legalizing marijuana for adult personal use as well. The legalization of marijuana in Illinois and the expansion of the state’s medical-marijuana program have moved forward despite federal marijuana prohibition.  Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.  The expansion of Illinois’ medical cannabis program and the legalization of marijuana for recreational use remove a significant layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state, but federal prohibition remains in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.  Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.  Enactment of SB455 and SB2023 further ignore federal prohibition and continue the process of nullifying it in practice in Illinois.  Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when voters legalized cannabis for general use in 2018. Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018.


activistpost--2019-08-23--Cities Unveil Unethical Homeless Reporting While LA Pushes Anti-Homeless Law

Cities Unveil Unethical Homeless Reporting, While LA Pushes Anti-Homeless Law

The cities of San Francisco and Seattle are testing a new way to report homeless encampments or “tent cities” via dialing 311 or using an app. Meanwhile, LA lawmakers are pushing to ban homeless people from parks, schools, and other designated areas, LA Times reported.  Residents of Seattle can now report homeless encampments quickly and remotely, providing citizens the ability to send a report directly to a corresponding city department with the “Find It, Fix It” app, Smart Cities Dive reported.  The app enables citizens the ability to “alert the city to public problems with a message including a location and description. Users submit issues by category, such as illegal dumping, potholes, dead animals, and “other inquiries,” allowing residents to report encampments,” a city spokeswoman Cyndi Wilder told Smart Cities Dive in an email interview.  There’s one problem conflating homelessness into those issues as the author writes for Smart Cities Dive, “people aren’t potholes.”  Activist Post has previously reported that Nevada app developers, BitFocus Inc, were working with government to give homeless people a tap on the shoulder of Big Brother, tracking their every move in San Francisco using the ONE System, a scary and worrying prospect.  “The idea is simple: Collect and sort information associated with the homeless to more effectively assess risk factors, determine those most in need, and get those people into available shelters and transitional housing. But the reality is more complicated. Five months after its introduction, ONE System has helped get only 70 people off the streets as it contends with the same challenges that have plagued past efforts—as well as new ones, including persuading the city’s most at-risk population to sign on to a program with echoes of Big Brother,” writes Bloomberg.  According to Bloomberg, ONE System collects data from 15 city and state agencies. Then homeless persons are asked 17 questions that can help evaluate their individual situation, including their time spent on the street, health, and overall vulnerability.  This information combined with a record of the places in the city that a person frequents is used to create a database that acts as a digital profile for caseworkers. The caseworkers helping homeless people get back on their feet would then use this data to aid them in assisting the homeless community to obtain help with their health and housing needs.  Caseworkers then must persuade the homeless to join a monitoring system. Participants in ONE System must sign medical records privacy protection forms and other legal forms. Further, to get into a permanent housing program, app users need to pass a background check, which can take 45 days and requires an identification card, a hardship since most homeless people don’t have a phone or an ID card.  Meanwhile, if you try to feed the homeless as a citizen you face fines and even jail time, as Activist Post has reported consistently on the increasingly worrying trend. App developers trying to offer the homeless a way to find free food worldwide, Chef90, were sued for their efforts to help homeless people. Chef90 allowed anyone to coordinate food drops and locations and was designed to allow small amounts of food, clothing, or blankets to be distributed to those in need. Example: Post Item = I have 4 apples View Items = Users with Chef-90 pick up the 4 apples and Distributes them to children in need on their way to work. Chef-90 uses GPS to find items close to users to easy distribute food or other items. Everyone can do a small part to help someone in need. “This app gives users the tools to achieve that goal,” the app description read according to APKPure (who keeps a downloadable copy of all apps on the Google Play Store.) The app Chef90 was available on both Google Play and Apple Stores named after the famous chef, 90-year-old Arnold Abbott, who sought to go above and beyond to feed the homeless. For his good deeds, Abbott found himself facing up to two months in jail and hundreds of dollars in fines after laws that restrict public feeding of the homeless went into effect in Fort Lauderdale in 2014, Reuters reported. However, like Abbott, developers of Chef90 quickly found themselves in legal trouble with cease and desist orders, and sued.  The developers were then forced to take down the app from the Apple App Store and Google Play store, according to a developer who worked on the app and wishes to remain anonymous.  Another problem is the laws being pushed in cities like Los Angeles that punish homelessness by barring the homeless from sleeping on public spaces. Los Angeles City Council’s homelessness and poverty committee has noticed the trend of criminalizing homelessness, and as result are working to change the law in order to align L.A.’s municipal code with a 2018 federal court ruling that limits how cities can enforce anti-camping and anti-loitering laws. In that case, Martin V. Boise, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Boise law that outlawed sleeping in any public space.  But the proposed changes made by the Los Angeles City Council’s homelessness and poverty committee aren’t designed to help those who need it and include outrageous bans on sitting, sleeping or lying in a number of designated public places. Which critics like Peggy Lee Kennedy, an advocate for the homeless from Venice argue are “inhumane,” as LAist reported.  A federal court also ruled in the Boise case that “as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property.” The court also opined that “even where shelter is unavailable, an ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible.”  In her opinion on that case, the Judge Marsha S. Berzon wrote:  A list of proposed changes in LA are below:  The reader should know that the previous law prohibited homeless from sitting or sleeping on any sidewalks at all. This new law is supposed to be a means to bridge the gap, but appears to actually designate ordinances to make legalese more clear for the public that homelessness will be punished.


activistpost--2019-08-28--Now in Effect Oklahoma Law Prohibits Denial of Firearms Ownership Based on Medical Marijuana Use

Now in Effect: Oklahoma Law Prohibits Denial of Firearms Ownership Based on Medical Marijuana Use

Today, an Oklahoma law that prohibits the denial of firearms ownership to patients using medical marijuana went into effect despite federal prohibition.  Last summer, Oklahoma voters approved a measure legalizing medical marijuana in the state. A coalition of three Republicans introduced House Bill 2612 (HB2612) on Feb. 4 to create a regulatory structure and establish important patient protections for the state medicinal cannabis program.  The Oklahoma House passed HB2612 by a 93-5 vote. The Senate approved the measure 43-5. With Gov. Kevin Stitt’s signature in March, the new law went into effect Aug. 28.  The expanded patient protections written into HB2612 are significant. Under the law, “a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee shall not be denied the right to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories based solely on his or her status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee.”  It also prohibits the state from denying a medical marijuana patient access to public assistance programs, including Medicaid, SNAP and WIC.  As Suzanne Sherman noted, the federal government has long claimed the power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms of medical marijuana patients:  If you purchase a firearm from an FFL, you will be presented with the Firearms Transaction Record form 4473, which you must, under penalty of perjury, answer fully and truthfully. You may see it for yourself HERE. Question 11(c) asks prospective gun purchasers if they are unlawfully using any controlled substances. You think, “Hey, I can answer ‘no,’ as marijuana is now legal in my state. Immediately following the inquiry is the following admonition (in bold letters): “Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law, regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” Not surprisingly, in 2016, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of appeals ruled that this restriction does not violate the Second Amendment.  Most states have formally adopted this federal ban on owning firearms for medical marijuana users, or simply help in its enforcement. For instance, police in Hawaii sent letters to medical marijuana patients who owned guns telling them they had 30 days to surrender their weapons.  While passage of HB2612 does not overturn the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, it does remove the state and local enforcement arm of that unconstitutional act as it applies to medical marijuana users in Oklahoma.  While medical marijuana has become widely accepted across the U.S., the federal government still claims it is illegal. As we’ve seen with immigration sanctuary cities, when state and local enforcement ends, the federal government has an extremely difficult time enforcing their acts.  Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.  Oklahoma’s medical marijuana program removes a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, and the passage of HB2612 expands that, but federal prohibition remains in place.  FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By curtailing state prohibition, Oklahoma sweeps part of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.  Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution either. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.


activistpost--2019-09-05--US Government Blacklisting System is Unconstitutional Judge

US Government Blacklisting System is Unconstitutional: Judge

In an opinion issued late today in Alexandria, VA, US District Court Judge Anthony Trenga has upheld the complaint by 23 victims of US government blacklisting that the system pursuant to which the government has designated them as “suspected terrorists” on the basis of secret algorithms applied to secret datasets, without notice or an opportunity to contest any allegedly “derogatory”  information, does not provide those who are stigmatized, and whose stigmatized status is broadcast to tens of thousands of law enforcement and other government agencies and private entities around the world, with the procedural due process required by the US Constitution.  This decision is one of the most fundamental victories for the rule of law since 9/11.  According to today’s opinion, it is undisputed that the DHS and FBI define anyone who has been arrested or charged with an offense related to terrorism as a “known” terrorist, even if they have been acquitted of that charge.  In other words, the DHS and FBI think that what is “known” is what they believe, not what judges or juries have found the facts to be. That presumption that by definition their secret judgements are more reliable than judicial fact-finding pretty much sums up why this decision is correct, why it is so important, and why it should be upheld if, as seems a near certainty, the government appeals.  None of the plaintiffs have even been arrested, much less convicted, for any criminal offense, terrorist or otherwise. The plaintiffs include, among others, several infants whom the government has apparently blacklisted as “suspected terrorists”. But even though the government will neither confirm nor deny that anyone is or is not, or has or has not been, included in the “Terrorist Screening Database” (TSDB), the court found that the plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficient basis for their belief that they have been blacklisted.  The “No-Fly List” is only a subset of the TSDB, and not being allowed to fly is only a subset of the consequences of blacklisting detailed in the plaintiffs’ submissions to the court and the government’s admissions during discovery and depositions. The TSDB is used as the basis for a plethora of decisions, as the plaintiffs have experienced, from whether to have them arrested at gunpoint when they try to cross land borders  to whether to interrogate them for hours about their religious beliefs, seize their electronic devices for copying and forensic analysis of the data stored on them, or deny them public or private-sector jobs.  The government’s use of secret criteria, secret datasets, and guilt by association as the basis for secret decisions — communicated to tens of thousands of other decision-makers, but not to those who have been blacklisted —  resembles the worst of McCarthyism, just with “terrorist sympathizer” or (literal) “fellow traveler” substituted for “Communist  sympathizer” or (ideological) “fellow traveler”.  Judge Trenga found that inclusion on the TSDB deprives those who are blacklisted of their liberty interest in freedom of movement, both internationally and domestically; that the government stigmatizes them by distributing the blacklist to many other entities; that the secret, standardless, and non-adversarial (i.e. one-sided) decision-making process is inherently likely to result in errors; and that all of this is unconstitutional:  We congratulate the plaintiffs for risking retaliation to challenge the government’s supposedly anti-terrorist, and in practice anti-Muslim, witch-hunting program, and  attorneys Gadeir Abbas, Lena Masri, and the rest of CAIR’s legal team for their legal leadership.  Judge Trenga has ordered the parties to submit additional briefs over the next six weeks with respect to what he should order to be done to redress the violations of the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights that he has found to have occurred and to be ongoing.  We think the answer is clear: the way to provide procedural due process, when the government wants to restrict someone’s movements or other lawful activities, is for the government to apply to a judge for an injunction or restraining order. No new laws or procedures are needed. Courts have procedures for considering requests for orders restricting movement, and act on them every day in domestic violence and other cases.  But the government has never tried to use existing laws to request a no-fly injunction or other restraining orders against a “suspected terrorist”, preferring to substitute the infallible clairvoyance of the pre-cogs in the Terrorist Screening Center for the fallibility of judges and juries using established adversarial fact-finding procedures.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-09-24--Hawaii Becomes 26th US State To Decriminalize Marijuana

Mid-2019, Hawaii became the 26th state to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. After the bill became law, Hawaii Governor David Ige cautioned that decriminalizing the herb doesn’t mean the state is prepared to legalize recreational use of cannabis.  Under the new law, people caught with marijuana will no longer face a misdemeanor charge that had been punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Now, people caught carrying 3 grams or less of marijuana can still be slapped with a citation carrying a $130 fine, but no jail time.  Hawaii’s Democrat-controlled legislature approved the bill and sent it to Gov. Ige’s desk in May. The Governor neither signed it nor vetoed it. As a result, the bill became law and will go into effect on January 11, 2020.  Before the bill was passed, Ige reportedly went “back and forth on decriminalization.” The governor said one thing he disliked about the bill is that it does not include a provision to help young people who want to get into substance abuse programs. Ige added that the new law does not mean Hawaii, which was the first state to legalize medical marijuana in 2000, is on the verge of legalizing recreational cannabis.  Hawaii can benefit from not being at the head of the table, that we would be smart to engage and recognize what’s happening in other states, acknowledge the challenges and problems that it has raised and allow us to look at how we would implement it here in a much better controlled fashion.  For the decriminalization of marijuana, Ige took a hands-off approach. But, around the same time, he vetoed two other marijuana bills passed by legislature. He struck own legislation that would have made it legal for people to transport medical cannabis from island to island, as well as a bill that would have created industrial hemp licensing program.  What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!


activistpost--2019-09-26--Reality Check Californias New Vaccine Law Puts Kids In Danger

Reality Check: California’s New Vaccine Law Puts Kids In Danger

The new law in California which bans medical exemptions for vaccines puts thousands of children in harm’s way.  The law prevents doctors from exempting children who could and have had life-threatening reactions to vaccines.  This Reality Check is part of a full podcast episode which goes much more in depth on this issue. You can watch that episode here: youtu.be/wsjErIYVoIo  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-10-05--Chinese Citizens Will Be Required To Scan Their Faces To Use The Internet

The Chinese government continues its Orwellian practices with the announcement that citizens will have to use facial recognition technology to access the internet (which is already highly fire-walled.)  This is all a part of China’s social credit system that will take effect on Dec. 1st.  After the law is in effect, Chinese citizens who want to have the internet installed at their houses or on their smartphones will be required to undergo a facial recognition process by Chinese authority to prove their identities, according to the new regulation.  This is significant because now the Chinese government will use the internet to rate citizens based on their daily behavior online.  Since 2015, Chinese citizens have been required to show their ID cards while applying for a landline or the internet. This new law is put in place to verify that the ID belongs to the person applying for services.  The new law was published on the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) website and distributed to all Chinese telecom carriers on Sept. 27th, which includes three demands be met, Epoch Times reports.  First, all telecom carriers must use facial recognition to test whether an applicant who applies for internet connection is the owner of the ID that they use since Dec. 1. At the same time, the carriers must test that the ID is genuine and valid. Second, all telecom carriers must upgrade their service’s terms and conditions and notify all their customers that they are not allowed to transfer or resell their cell phone SIM card to another person by the end of November 2019. Third, telecom carriers should help their customers to check whether there are cell phone or landline numbers that don’t belong to them but registered under their names since Dec. 1. For unidentified numbers, the telecom carries must investigate and close the lines immediately.  This comes on the heels of another Chinese pilot program which allows citizens to pay for subway/train travel using just their facial biometrics as Activist Post reported. This new system also compensates elderly Chinese in the city of Shenzhen, China, with a free ride — if they pay with their face  — providing incentives for using facial recognition technology.  China is planning to merge its 170+ million security cameras with artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology to create a mega-surveillance state. This compounds with China’s “social credit system” that ranks citizens based on their behavior, and rewards or punishes depending on those scores.  According to the latest report of U.S.-based market research firm IDC, China had spent $10.6 billion on video surveillance equipment in 2018. The firm adds that China’s spending is believed to reach $20.1 billion in 2023. A massive 64.3 percent of China’s spending in 2018 was spent solely for surveillance cameras. A worrying figure for the future of China.  IDC reported on Jan. 30th that it predicted China would have 2.76 billion surveillance cameras installed in 2022.  Already, China’s cities, classrooms and even restrooms are inundated with facial recognition technology. Inside classrooms, facial recognition technology monitors students and reports their actions to the teachers and parents. While to access the basic need of using toilet paper in a public bathroom China requires citizens to scan their face just to wipe their butt.  If that wasn’t bad enough, Chinese scientists have recently developed an artificial intelligence (AI) enabled 500 megapixel cloud camera that’s capable of panoramic capture of an entire stadium with the ability to target a single individual in an instant, Global Times reported.  The upgrade to facial recognition technology is developed by Shanghai-based Fudan University and Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics of Chinese Academy of Sciences in Changchun, capital of Northeast China’s Jilin Province.  Fudan University and Changchun Institute of Optics aren’t the first researchers to advance facial recognition. There is also Shanghai-based YITU Technology which has evolved the facial recognition industry by being able to identify a person within a matter of seconds from a database of people, even if only their partial face is visible, CNBC reported.


activistpost--2019-10-09--Signed as Law: California Bans Facial Recognition on Police Body Cameras

Yesterday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law that bans police from using facial recognition and biometric scanners with body-worn cameras for the next three years. The law will not only help protect privacy in California, but it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.  Assm. Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) introduced Assembly Bill 1215 (AB1215) on Feb. 21. The new law prohibits a law enforcement agency or law enforcement official from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera.  Before the final Senate vote, that chamber amended the bill twice to make the provisions temporary. With the initial amendment, the law would have been automatically repealed on Jan. 1, 2027. A second amendment whittled that backed to 2023. So in effect, AB1215 institutes a 3-year ban on facial recognition combined with body-worn cameras.  On May 9, the Assembly approved the measure by a vote of 45-17. The Senate passed AB1215 by a 22-15 vote over heavy opposition from police around the state. On Sept. 12, the Assembly concurred with the Senate amendment by a 47-21 margin. Only three Republicans in both the Assembly and the Senate voted yes on AB1215. With Gov. Newsom’s signature, the new law goes into effect on Jan. 1.  “Without my bill, face recognition technology can subject law-abiding citizens to perpetual police line-ups, as their every movement is tracked without consent. Its use, if left unchecked, undermines public trust in government institutions and unduly intrudes on one’s constitutional right to privacy. AB 1215 is an important civil rights measure that will prevent exploitation of vulnerable communities,” Ting wrote in a statement on his website.  Passage of this bill takes an important step forward but much work remains. When the provisions of the law sunset in three years, things will return to the status quo – which will mean police using facial recognition on body-cam footage whenever they please with no restrictions or oversight. It’s imperative to continue pushing legislators to make these restrictions permanent.  Powerful police lobbies opposed passage of the bill. According to USA Today, no law enforcement agency in California currently uses facial recognition with their body-worn cameras, but police opposed the measure because “a valuable tool could be lost.” Detective Lou Turriaga, director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League played the public safety card in opposing the bill.  “Facial recognition could be a valuable tool for us, helping identify felons or even abducted children, “he said. “I understand trying to seek a balance between civil liberties and law enforcement, but a wholesale ban doesn’t help us protect anybody. Why remove that tool from law enforcement? It just doesn’t make sense.”  A recent report revealed that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing a massive, nationwide facial recognition system for years.  The FBI rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.  In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at perpetuallineup.org. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.  There are many technical and legal problems with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature as people in a database of arrest photos.  With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.  In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).


activistpost--2019-10-12--California Adds 15 New Gun-related Laws Including a Much More Broadly Defined “Red Flag” Law

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 15 gun-related bills into law Friday, tightening the state’s already-stringent Second Amendment restrictions.  One of the bills, which expands a so-called “red flag” law to allow co-workers, employers and educators to seek gun violence restraining orders against firearms owners they fear are a danger to themselves and others, was vetoed twice by Newsom’s predecessor, Jerry Brown.  Newsom also signed a companion bill allowing the gun violence restraining orders to last one and five years, although the gun owners could petition to end those restrictions earlier. The bill also allows judges to issue search warrants at the same time as they grant the orders. The warrants can be used immediately if the gun owners are served with the relinquishment orders but fail to turn over the firearms or ammunition.  “California has outperformed the rest of the nation, because of our gun safety laws, in reducing the gun murder rate substantially compared to the national reduction,” Newsom said as he signed the measures surrounded by state lawmakers. “No state does it as well or comprehensively as the state of California, and we still have a long way to go.”  Between 1993 and 2017, the latest available, there was a 62 percent decline in the gun murder rate in California, nearly double the 34 percent nationally, Newsom said.  Co-workers who want to request a gun violence restraining order will have to have “substantial and regular interactions” with gun owners, and co-workers and school employees will need to get approval from their employers or school administrators before seeking a restraining order.  Those seeking the orders will be required to file sworn statements detailing their reasons for doing so.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposed the bill, saying it “poses a significant threat to civil liberties” because a restraining order can be sought before a gun owner has an opportunity to dispute the request.  Additionally, those making a request under the new law may “lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment,” the ACLU said.  The bill’s author, Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco, cited a recent study finding that gun restraining order laws may have helped prevent 21 mass shootings, though the University of California, Davis, researchers cautioned that “it is impossible to know whether violence would have occurred.”  The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its state affiliate, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, opposed the new restrictions, according to the Los Angeles Times.  The laws will take effect Jan. 1, 2020.  The Democratic governor also signed a law that will limit Californians to purchasing one long rifle per month, according to The Sacramento Bee. This law expands the current legislation that applies to handguns, and it will prevent people under 21 from purchasing semi-automatic rifles and other similar firearms. The collective measures “tweak” the state’s current laws and “improve implementation,” according to Amanda Wilcox, spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Ting also has a companion bill that would allow gun owners starting next September who are the subjects of restraining order requests to file a form with the court saying they won’t contest the requests and are surrendering their firearms. Under current law, even those who agree to give up their guns must go through a court hearing, which Ting says wastes time and resources. Sean Walton is a researcher and journalist for The Daily Sheeple, where this article first appeared. Send tips to [email protected]


activistpost--2019-11-22--In Russia, Individuals Can Now Be Branded “Foreign Agents”

Today, Russia’s State Duma passed the third and final reading of a new bill expanding the scope of the country’s controversial “foreign agent” law.  The first iteration of the law appeared in 2012, and introduced the term “foreign agent” to refer to NGOs which receive foreign funding. It’s a loaded term in Russian, with strong associations with espionage. In November 2017, mass media organisations could be labelled “foreign agents” if they received funding from overseas; the move came soon after the state-funded news outlet RT was made to register as a “foreign agent” by the United States authorities. Since then, several organisations have been declared “foreign agents” by the Russian authorities, such as the Anti-Corruption Foundation of opposition politician Alexey Navalny in October 2019.  The latest amendments expand the definition of “foreign agent” to individuals, at the discretion of the Ministry of Justice, which already maintains online lists of “foreign agent” media outlets and NGOs. They also oblige any media organisation recognised as a “foreign agent” to first establish a Russian legal entity in order to operate in the country, and require individuals to publicly state this status and submit to intense financial reporting requirements. The punishments for non-compliance are harsh, including prison sentences of up to two years and fines of up to five million rubles (around 80,000 USD). On November 18, 10 international NGOs signed an open letter denouncing the new bill as a serious threat to freedom of expression in Russia.  How do the Russian authorities know a “foreign agent” when they see one?  The text of the new amendments, added to the federal laws on information and telecommunications, do not suggest any consistent criteria. Foreign agents, it reads, are “individuals disseminating printed, audiovisual, or other messages and material (including by use of the internet) intended for a potentially unlimited circle of people, receiving money and (or) other property from foreign states, their institutions, international and foreign organisations, foreign citizens, stateless individuals and their agents, and (or) Russian legal entities who receive money and (or) other property from indicated sources.”  State officials have stressed that the new law is nothing to worry about. On November 12, Andrei Klimov, chairman of the Federation Council’s commission for protecting state sovereignty and a staunch defender of the “foreign agent” laws, told the state news agency TASS that “the new law differs from the old one only in its detail,” and emphasised that somebody wouldn’t become a “foreign agent” simply for receiving an international payment. It would require “constant collaboration” with organisations already recognised as foreign agents, explained Klimov. “In my opinion, this will affect 20-30 people across Russia,” he said. In comments to the government’s official newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta in October, Klimov stressed that the law “would not affect people who write something to each other on social media,” and justified its implementation by reference to the case of Maria Butina, the Russian citizen deported from the US on charges of working as a “foreign agent” for Moscow.  But on November 13, Leonid Levin, the chairman of the State Duma’s committee on information policy and communications, told TASS that journalists working for media outlets considered “foreign agents” could find themselves branded “foreign agents” too if their work covers “the socio-political situation.” Klimov also confirmed in the same article that political activity would be the qualifying factor.  Many bloggers and journalists, particularly those in independent and opposition media, are wondering where the new law leaves them. Aleksandr Plyushchev, a popular blogger and talk show host at the radio station Ekho Moskvy, reflected on the chilling effect of the law on his Telegram channel:  Concerning the law which was basically adopted today on citizens as foreign agents. It’s a very unusual feeling when the authorities of your home country draft and pass an entire law aimed explicitly at yourself. Well, not only at yourself, but yourself as part of a particular, and by no means small, group of people. We are all subject to various laws, but the prospect of your name and surname ending up on a special list is something quite different. It is unlikely that those who fell under personal sanctions in connection, say, with the Magnitsky Act or due to the Donbas feel quite the same; in those cases, a foreign state is acting against you, and here, it’s one’s own country. So now, we know how it is with silver, now let’s see what it’s like with acid. [a reference to a song by popular Russian band Akvarium]  Mika Velikovskiy, a journalist working for independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, emphasised that the vagueness of the law posed a threat to ordinary Russians:  Dmitry Kolezev, the blogger and editor-in-chief of Yekaterinburg-based independent news website Znak, lamented what he called a “nationalisation of intellectuals,” arguing that the law would make Russians warier of travelling abroad or communicating with foreigners, thus isolating Russia’s commentariat and journalists. Its repercussions would reach far more than 20 or 30 people, he warned:  Will life for foreign agents become unbearable? Seemingly not. They will be obliged to label their publications as such (which is demeaning, of course) and file declarations about their income. In that sense, [Duma] deputies want bloggers and journalists to operate by the same rules as state officials and elected representatives. But in doing so, they forget that independent journalists and bloggers have not been granted any authority and do not receive a salary from the state, so it’s not fully understood on what basis the same transparency is demanded of them as from parliamentarians. However, we don’t know what other means of discrimination against “foreign agents” the authorities will come up with in future. Will they have to check in with the Ministry of Justice, will they be forbidden from holding state positions, or will they be forbidden from standing in elections? It could be anything.  These laws come at a highly charged time in Russian society, following mass protests in Moscow and the institution of a “sovereign internet.” Accordingly, there are indications that new laws concerning freedom of expression are starting to irritate many Russians. A poll taken by the Levada Center in October 2019 and released on November 20 showed that the percentage of Russians who believe that freedom of speech is one of the most important of all rights for citizens rose from 34 per cent to 58 per cent over the last two years.  Amid heated discussion about the law online, the meme “но иностранный агент все равно ты” (but still, you’re the one who’s the foreign agent) has resurfaced. It’s a popular retort in light of regular revelations about Russian officials’ luxury real estate in Europe. For example, Alexey Navalny’s latest investigative video, concerning the Montenegro property of Moscow’s general prosecutor Denis Popov, was entitled “the secret life of a foreign agent.”  For now, the RuNet is waiting to see who will be first to be branded a “foreign agent,” and what is in store for the person who receives that unfortunate distinction.  Top image: Andrei Klimov presents a copy of the new bill to reporters. Screengrab from Channel One’s November 8 YouTube video “В России до конца года могут принять закон о признании иностранными агентами физических лиц.”  This article was sourced from GlobalVoices.org  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-12-05--Project Guardian: Another Big Attack on the Constitution and Liberty

Frustrated with a lack of new laws coming from Congress, the administration is taking a new path to increase federal violations of the 2nd Amendment – Project Guardian. • Remarks by President Trump on the Mass Shootings in Texas and Ohio  Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, where this video first appeared. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on Twitter – @michaelboldin and Facebook.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-12-12--Victory: San Diego to Suspend Face Recognition Program, Limits ICE Access To Criminal Justice Data

We just stopped one of the largest, longest running, and most controversial face recognition programs operated by local law enforcement in the United States.  A face recognition system used by more than 30 agencies in San Diego County, California will be suspended on Jan. 1, 2020, according to a new agenda published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), which manages the program.  In October, EFF sent a letter to SANDAG demanding it suspend the program to comply with a new law that takes effect at the beginning of the year. Authored by Assemblymember Phil Ting, A.B.1215 creates a three-year moratorium on law enforcement use of face recognition connected with cameras carried by police officers. These cameras include body-worn cameras and handheld devices. EFF organizer Nathan Sheard testified in favor of the bill back in June, noting that “face surveillance will exacerbate historical biases born of and contributing to unfair police practices in Black and Latinx neighborhoods.” EFF participated in a sustained campaign to send it to the governor’s desk alongside the ACLU of California, Oakland Privacy, and a broad coalition of civil society and grassroots groups.  Launched in 2012, San Diego’s program—the Tactical Identification System (TACIDS)—provided 1,309 specialized face-recognition tablets and phones to dozens of local, state, and federal agencies. Between 2016 and 2018, officers had conducted more than 65,500 scans with the devices.  “To ensure compliance with AB 1215, operation of the TACIDS program will be suspended beginning January 1, 2020,” writes Pam Scanlon, head of SANDAG’s Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) in the agenda memo. “ARJIS will notify all law enforcement partners that TACIDS access will be suspended, which will include removal of the TACIDS Booking Photo interface and all user access to TACIDS systems.”  The agenda also indicates SANDAG will not renew the contract with the face recognition vendor, FaceFirst, when it expires in March 2020.  In the same agenda, SANDAG also reveals that in October it disabled all ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations accounts across the agency’s law enforcement databases and computer systems to comply with guidance from the California Department of Justice (CADOJ) on S.B. 54, the California Values Act. This law is designed to limit how local law enforcement may collaborate with immigration enforcement activities. EFF and immigrant rights groups successfully lobbied CADOJ to restrict ICE access to law enforcement databases, and EFF specifically called on SANDAG to address this issue after data revealed ICE was using the face recognition devices.  The end of San Diego’s program marks a major victory in the nationwide battle against face surveillance. But it doesn’t stop here. Join our campaign to end face surveillance on the local level across the country.  For more information on San Diego’s face recognition program, read our October 2019 report and letter.  As EFF’s senior investigative researcher, Dave Maass is a muckraker/noisemaker, covering issues related to police surveillance, free speech, transparency, and government accountability. In addition to leading deep-dive investigations, Dave coordinates large-scale public records campaigns, advocates on state legislation, and compiles The Foilies, EFF’s annual tongue-in-cheek awards for outrageous responses to FOIA requests. He sometimes represents EFF in digital rights-themed cosplay at Dragon Con, and he edited EFF’s first science fiction collection, Pwning Tomorrow. He also researches virtual reality as part of the team that developed Spot the Surveillance, EFF’s first VR experience. Contact him with questions or information on police technology (e.g. automated license plate readers, biometric identification), prisoner rights, or public records laws.  This article was sourced from EFF.org  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-12-16--San Diego Shuts Down Massive Facial Recognition System to Comply With New California Law

In a major victory for privacy advocates, San Diego will shut down one of the largest facial recognition programs in the country. It’s doing so to comply with a new state law limiting the technology that was signed into law earlier this year.  According to an agenda released by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the facial recognition system used by more than 30 agencies will be suspended Jan. 1, 2020. The announcement came after the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sent a letter demanding the shutdown of the massive program to comply with Assembly Bill 1215 (AB1215). Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October, the new law prohibits a law enforcement agency or law enforcement official from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera. This includes body-worn and handheld devices.  The San Diego facial recognition system was activated in 2012. According to EFF, the Tactical Identification System (TACIDS)—provided 1,309 specialized face-recognition tablets and phones to dozens of local, state, and federal agencies. Between 2016 and 2018, officers conducted more than 65,500 scans with the devices. EFF called it “one of the largest, longest-running, and most controversial face recognition programs operated by local law enforcement in the United States.”  In a memo, the head of SANDAG’s Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) wrote, “ARJIS will notify all law enforcement partners that TACIDS access will be suspended, which will include removal of the TACIDS Booking Photo interface and all user access to TACIDS systems.”  In addition, SANDAG will not renew a contract with its facial recognition vendor, FaceFirst, when it expires in March.  EFF called this a major victory in the battle against invasive facial recognition technology.  There is a growing movement to limit or ban the use of facial recognition technology and the local and state level. San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and Somerville, Mass. have all prohibited government use of facial recognition technology. Portland, Oregon, and Springfield, Massachusetts, are considering similar bans. The New York Assembly is considering a bill to ban facial recognition in schools and on police body cameras.  A recent report revealed that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing a massive, nationwide facial recognition system for years.  The FBI rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.  In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at perpetuallineup.org. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.  There are many technical and legal problems with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature as people in a database of arrest photos.  With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.  In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).  Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a bipartisan congressional report to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”  Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.  Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.  In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of local ordinances banning facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.  Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-12-19--The 10 Worst State Laws Proposed and Passed in 2019

In April, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, proposed banning the popular video game Fortnite, saying it was irresponsible to allow kids to play it.  “The game shouldn’t be allowed,” said the former bad boy prince. “It’s created to addict. An addiction to keep you in front of a computer for as long as possible. It’s so irresponsible.”  Nobody, as far as I know, has yet proposed legislation to ban the popular game, which is played by 125 million people and reportedly generates $2 million in revenue per day. But the anecdote serves as a reminder of how cavalier humans tend to be about prohibiting things they personally object to.  At different points throughout history, Americans have banned Christmas, alcohol, and bikinis. Other “threats,” like comic books, were not outright banned but ruined through regulation.  If you think silly and arbitrary bans are a thing of the past, think again. If anything, the impulse to ban and regulate has only increased in a world that has gotten much faster.  These laws are usually proposed to serve a greater good or to protect people. Unfortunately, they usually miss the mark and often have adverse consequences. Here are a few of the worst laws proposed and passed in 2019 in no particular order.  10. Massachusetts Lawmakers Try to Criminalize Saying “B*tch” (Proposed)  Massachusetts is looking to up the ante in the war on pottymouths. State Rep. Daniel Hunt (D–Boston) proposed legislation (H.3719) that would make it a crime to say “the b-word” (as my children would say) “to accost, annoy, degrade or demean” someone. Those found guilty would face a $200 fine and up to six months in jail(!).  A reported 57 million Americans work as freelancers, adding an estimated $1 trillion to the economy each year in flexible gig work. That number is about to shrink, however. California lawmakers, in an effort to save us, passed Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), which uses a complicated ABC test that redefines many gig workers as full-time employees. Unsurprisingly, many companies cannot take on swaths of new full-time employees, who would become eligible for numerous benefits. So thousands of workers lost jobs, including 200 workers let go by Vox Media a week before Christmas. Three months earlier, Vox had called the legislation “a victory for workers everywhere.” That’s what economists call a Cobra Effect.  Hazing is said to go all the way back to Ancient Greece, where Plato wrote of “practical jokes played by unruly young men” at his academy. It’s not uncommon today to see young people get carried away with this tradition, however. One such case can be found in Andrew Coffey, a Florida State University pledge who in November 2017 died after excessive drinking. In response, Florida lawmakers passed what has been described as the “most cutting edge” anti-hazing law in the US. Though no doubt well-intentioned, the law allows prosecutors to charge people who weren’t even present for a hazing but were simply involved in its discussion. It’s not difficult to see how an accidental tragedy could end up ruining even more lives.  Nobody likes slow left-lane driving. I’m on the record saying it’s my worst pet peeve. But Alabama’s “anti-road rage” law, which prohibits drivers from driving in the left lane for more than a mile and a half without passing, is hardly the solution. Drivers are more than capable of policing slow drivers through the usual means—excessive horn beeping, silent cursing, and arm-waving. The stiff fines—up to $200 a pop—will likely fall on unsuspecting out-of-state drivers and be little more than a cash cow for police.  Early in 2019, a bipartisan group of Pennsylvania lawmakers floated one of the silliest proposals of the year: a 10 percent tax on video games rated “Mature or Adults Only.” The bill was a transparent cash grab and went nowhere in the legislature. The legislation’s poor showing was probably less attributable to the dubious link between video games and violence and more to stiff opposition from the $43.5 billion gaming industry. Either way, the episode affirmed Gideon J. Tucker’s famous axiom: “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.”  Anyone who has traveled is familiar with the little bottles of shampoo, conditioner, and lotion hotels provide their guests. Well, you won’t find them in California much longer. In October, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill that will ban (starting in 2023) hotels from supplying the little bottles as part of an effort to use less plastic. Violators will be fined $500 for their first offense and up to $2,000 for additional violations. Meanwhile, as lawmakers wage war on tiny shampoo bottles, the Golden State continues to struggle with a human excrement problem that has resulted in a surge of typhus.  Smoking is bad for you. Don’t take it from me; it says it right there on the pack. SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. Despite the warning, an estimated 34 million US adults smoke. That’s their choice, right? Well, Virginia lawmakers took it upon themselves to prevent young adults (18-20) from legally purchasing cigarettes. The law amounts to little more than a condescending intrusion into the lives of young people since they’ll just have friends purchase their smokes for them. But it’s still annoying, especially since many of these people are legally obligated to sign-up for selective service.  Economists disagree on a lot of things, but they pretty much all agree on this: Rent control is really harmful. “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing,” observed Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck. Alas, new laws in Oregon and California, the first of their kind, show how little politicians understand about economics. The caps on rent are sure to further reduce housing supply and quality, and increase housing prices in the long run. California’s housing problems are well documented. Unfortunately, they’re about to get a lot worse. (As FEE has observed, the solution to high housing costs is more housing, not price controls.)  California Governor Gavin Newsom has the unfortunate distinction of making the list a fourth time. Newsom’s water tax, a proposal he ultimately withdrew, was perhaps the strangest. As Carey Wedler noted on FEE earlier this year, the “Environmental Protection” section of Newsom’s budget sought to  Ensuring citizens have clean water is a noble goal, to be sure. But the means are highly questionable. Utilizing markets is the best way to address water shortages, not passing new taxes. Newsom’s proposal, which sparked sharp pushback from his own party, is sort of like passing a food tax to make sure people don’t go hungry.  Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, and Fox News.


activistpost--2019-12-27--Congress Gives America a Special Christmas Present: Higher Taxes

You’ve got to hand it to these people– Congress really knows how to bring out the holiday cheer.  They have some sort of pathological need to pass the most absurd legislation at the VERY END OF THE YEAR giving people very little time to react.  Two years ago, for example, they passed comprehensive tax reform in late December 2017… and the new tax code went into effect only a few days later.  Taxpayers had no time to even understand the new law, let alone plan around it.  That’s the funny thing about taxes– people plan their entire lives around the tax code.  They set up special structures, invest in particular assets, and go through all sorts of legal and accounting work, to make sure they’re following the tax code while they take care of their families.  And then, poof, Congress changes the rules overnight.  Well they just did it again.  A few days ago they passed a 643-page spending bill. And, buried deep within that legislation are provisions that were originally part of the SECURE Act.  I told you about this a few months ago– the SECURE Act was intended to ‘help’ Americans save for retirement. And there are certain sections which are great.  For example, they removed the age limit for contributing to an IRA. It used to be that you could no longer contribute to your retirement after the age of 70 ½.  That limit has been lifted… which should prove useful for many people.  They also increased the age for Required Minimum Distributions to age 72, up from age 70 ½. So you have an additional 18-months before you’ll be required to start taking distributions from your retirement account.  On the other hand, they also passed new rules which are really bad for inherited IRAs.  Under the old laws, your IRA could be bequeathed to your heirs when you pass away. And while your heirs were required to take distributions from your IRA over time, they had the option of stretching out those distributions over the course of their entire lives.  This was a really great way to give your heirs a tax-efficient safety net.  If they suddenly needed a lump some of money, for example, to buy a new house, pay for university, or offset a major medical expense, they could tap into the IRA that they inherited from you.  But if they didn’t need the money, they only had to take a small distribution each year, and keep the tax consequences to a minimum.  Those rules have now been torn up.  Under the new rules, almost all inherited IRAs must be fully distributed within 10 years, whether your heirs need the money or not. And that’s going to trigger significant tax consequences for them.  Again, in fairness there are plenty of provisions in this law that many people will find helpful. And other provisions that people will find terrible.  But that’s not really the point. It’s not about whether the law is good or bad. The issue is that Congress doesn’t give people any time to react.  Responsible people plan around their taxes… especially when it comes to retirement and estate planning. People have to plan literally DECADES in advance and think through generational impacts.  So it’s a pretty nasty surprise when Congress tears up the rules at the very end of the year. They’re basically saying, “Unless you die by Tuesday at midnight, everything you’ve planned over the last several decades won’t work anymore. Merry Christmas.”  This highlights a very important reminder: these people can and will change the rules at any time, with no warning whatsoever. And they couldn’t care less how their changes impact you.  Now, all that said, I’m always an optimist– where there’s a will, there’s a way. And there are definitely ways to dull the negative consequences of this new law.  We can explore these in more detail another time. But to give you an example, transferring your IRA to a special type of trust called a charitable remainder unitrust could still ensure that your heirs receive lifelong favorable tax treatment on an inherited IRA.  This article was sourced from The Daily Bell.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.