• Arrived at 500 Pearl St at approximately 9:55AM. Met NYCLU representatives in front of building.
• Approximately 10:00AM we entered the building and stood in line for a security scan.
• At 10:20AM we got to the appropriate floor / counter. I let them know I’m present and we wait.
• 10:40AM two officers arrive. Neither is the arresting officer, C. Barnes #245.
• 10:45AM I overhear the officers say to the clerk that C. Barnes #245 is not going to show up. He’s apparently in training in Washington DC for the next 2 weeks. Later we learn that the Assistant US Attorney only learned he was going to be absent that morning.
• 10:48AM Officers notify two women that their meeting with the AUSA has been rescheduled due to C. Barnes #245’s absence. They are both obviously upset. The taller, Hispanic officer attempts to get them to just pay the tickets. Asking several times if they would be paying it. As they go to leave a gentleman in his 60’s asks one of the women if she was contacted in any way. She responds in the negative. He, obviously upset by that, says something to the effect: “They could have at least let you know he wasn’t going to be here. It’s the courteous thing to do. It’s *your* government. They should issue a warrant for him. They would have done that to you had you not shown up.” At least 5 people, including myself, are affected by C. Barnes #245 not showing. Each person spoken to by the Hispanic officer he tries to get them to pay the ticket.
• 10:50AM The Hispanic officer says to the other: “I say we just reschedule all of them.”
• 10:52AM The Hispanic officer speaking of Julian Heicklen’s 5 tickets, which he did not appear to contest: “They should just issue a warrant for this guy. He’s got five tickets.”
• 10:53AM The Hispanic officer starts checking out his cell phone. Perhaps reading text messages. There are several signs posted in the room saying that absolutely no one is to use cellphones.
• 10:55AM The officers leave to meet with the AUSA with the paper work for all those present.
• 11:00AM they start calling people in.
• 11:15AM I’m called and told C. Barnes #245 will not be showing up and therefore the appearance is rescheduled to February 9th, 2010. We ask to talk with the AUSA anyway.
• 12:05PM we are told to stand out in front of the conference room where the AUSA is meeting with people. He is in with the 60ish y/o who commented that Barnes should have a bench warrant issued for him. I missed the lead up to the incident but the gentleman was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. Prior to the arrest apparently the officer stepped on his foot so hard that he broke at least one toe and caused the nail to come loose. He was wearing a cast. I was unable to gather any specifics otherwise.
• About 12:55PM the man leaves the room with the AUSA and we knock and walk in. The AUSA says that we need to reschedule due to C. Barnes #245’s absence. My NYCLU reps inform him we are not fighting the description of events but feel the regulation does not apply. We are told that he would likely drop it down to deferred with a 60 day period in which I would not be able to record otherwise I’d they’d bring the issue to trial. We indicate we want full dismissal and he tells us that he will talk with C. Barnes #245 when he gets back and if he’s OK with a dismissal so be it otherwise we will have to talk again in February.

An account of the November 9th, 2009 arrest of Julian Heicklen and myself as well as a video can be found here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/opinion/26sat2.html

The Ohio Supreme Court has struck an important blow for privacy rights, ruling that the police need a warrant to search a cellphone. The court rightly recognized that cellphones today are a lot more than just telephones, that they hold a wealth of personal information and that the privacy interest in them is considerable. This was the first such ruling from a state supreme court. It is a model for other courts to follow.

Searches generally require warrants, but courts have carved out limited categories in which they are not needed. One of these is that police officers are allowed, when they arrest people, to search them and the area immediately surrounding them, as well as some kinds of containers in their possession.

When the police arrested Antwaun Smith on drug charges they seized his cellphone and searched it, examining his call records. The police did not have a warrant or the consent of Mr. Smith.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this month, by a 4-to-3 vote, that the search violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Rather than seeing a cellphone as a simple closed container, the majority noted that modern cellphones — especially ones that permit Internet access — are “capable of storing a wealth of digitized information.”

This is information, the court said, for which people reasonably have a high expectation of privacy, and under established Fourth Amendment principles, police officers must get a search warrant before they can look through call logs or examine other data. The court wisely decided that it made no sense to try to distinguish among various kinds of cellphones based on what specific functions they have. All cellphones, the court said, fall under the search warrant requirement.

Few federal courts have considered the issue of cellphone searches, and they have disagreed about whether a warrant should be required. The Ohio ruling eloquently makes the case for why the very personal information that new forms of technology aggregate must be accorded a significant degree of privacy.

Good to hear. A little close however.

http://www.libertydollar.org/…

The last two days have been amazing! Just shortly after midnight on Tuesday, the phone started ringing and I let the answering machine take the call. But very soon there was another call… with an even more urgent message! Very quickly, a friend of Kevin Innes, explained to me that Kevin had been “detained” by the local sheriff and was being held for the FBI to arrest him! Holy Cow!! The #2 supporter for the Liberty Dollar and co-instructor at the Liberty Dollar University training sessions was in deep trouble with the Feds! I was sure to be next. But would they arrive in a few minutes or would it be a pre-dawn Nazi style assault?

Finally, I got up at 4:00 AM. I was very concerned for Kevin and wondered when the FBI would hit me. Fortunately the morning was quickly filled with a flurry of calls from Kevin’s friend, other interested parties, the usual business calls and making preparations for the inevitable knock on the door. But nobody came. Then just after noon, Niles, who’s wife, Rachelle, manages the Liberty Dollar Fulfillment Office, called to tell me that Rachelle had been picked up by the FBI at the LD Office and was due to be arraigned in just a few hours! The FBI strikes again!

Luckily, I was able to talk to Rachelle via her cell phone while the FBI was holding her. I was pleased that the FBI agents were the friendly professional types and afforded Rachelle and I quite a few minutes of private conversation. Under the circumstances, Rachelle’s demeanor and resolve was right on target. And very quickly, I learned that a warrant had been issued for my arrest. And just a quickly, Rachelle was off to court to be arraigned.
Read More…

msg0091.wav

Ivy Walker, Free State Project participant and Sam Dodson’s current legal representative, has been arrested after being stopped at a speed trap by the New Hampton Police Department. She has been brought to  Belknap County Jail and will be arraigned in Laconia District Court tomorrow Friday June 5th, 2009 at 9AM.  She was arrested due to a warrant from Rhode Island regarding “various charges, three felonies, including welfare fraud greater than $500, false documents to public officials.”

She’s being held without bail. Her and her husband’s truck was towed and the plates taken off.

New Hampton Police Department : (603) 744-5423
Belknap County Jail: (603) 527-5480
Laconia District Court: (603) 524-4128

More as it becomes available.

http://arstechnica.com/…

Federal district judge Vaughn Walker has rejected lawsuits that aimed to hold telecommunications companies accountable for their role in a controversial warrantless surveillance program that was orchestrated in secret by the federal government. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union are preparing to appeal the dismissal.

The warrantless surveillance program is one the more contentious controversies that still lingers from Bush’s tenure in office. The Bush administration attempted to leverage the State Secrets privilege to block litigation that aimed to hold participants in the surveillance program accountable for violating privacy laws. When it became clear that the courts were going to allow the lawsuits to move forward, Congress intervened and passed a FISA amendment to grant the telecom companies explicit immunity. President Obama voted in favor of immunity, despite consistently promising to oppose it.

EFF and ACLU’s lawsuits against the telecoms are among the most significant pending lawsuits targeting the warrantless surveillance program, and they are viewed by privacy advocates as a means of bringing accountability and more robust judicial oversight to the surveillance mess. Judge Walker has thrown out the suits, citing the FISA telecom immunity amendment as the basis for dismissal. He affirmed that the evidence provided under seal by the government demonstrated that the conduct of the telecoms meets the criteria for immunity grants.

“While plaintiffs have made a valiant effort to challenge the sufficiency of certifications they are barred by statute from reviewing, their contentions under section 802 are not sufficiently substantial to persuade the court that the intent of Congress in enacting the statute should be frustrated in this proceeding in which the court is required to apply the statute,” Walker wrote in his decision. “The court has examined the Attorney General’s submissions and has determined that he has met his burden under section 802(a). The court is prohibited by section 802(c)(2) from opining further.”

The EFF and the ACLU are planning to launch an appeal, asserting that the FISA amendments which granted telecom immunity are unconstitutional.

“We’re deeply disappointed in Judge Walker’s ruling today,” said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn in a statement. “The retroactive immunity law unconstitutionally takes away Americans’ claims arising out of the First and Fourth Amendments, violates the federal government’s separation of powers as established in the Constitution, and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law.”

I suppose the next step is the United States court of appeals. I don’t have much faith in them ruling in the pro-freedom direction. Nor the Supreme Court should it make it there.