SWAT Team Deputy Killed Serving “No Knock” Warrant





SWAT Team II

On December 19th, a sheriff’s deputy was shot and killed during an attempt to serve a “no knock” warrant near Sommerville, Texas. Just before 6:00 A.M. an 8 member SWAT team broke through the door of Henry Goedrich Magee to serve a warrant which would permit the team to search the mobile home in which Magee and his pregnant girlfriend were living. Reacting to the pre-dawn, forced entry Magee grabbed a rifle propped against a bedroom door frame and fired at the unidentified intruders, killing 31 year old sheriff’s deputy Adam Sowders. No one else was injured and Magee was taken into custody. He is being held on $1 million bail and has been charged with capital murder, punishable in Texas by life in prison without possibility of parole or death by lethal injection.

These are the broad facts of the case as first reported by a number of print, radio and TV sources. The following additional information has been made public during the past few days:

1.) The “no-knock” warrant was issued at the request of Deputy Sowders who was proceeding according to information provided by an investigator who told the officer that Magee “…was growing marijuana and possibly had stolen guns, as well as other drugs inside his home.” According to Magee’s attorney, Dick Deguerin, four weapons were recovered by police; 3 legally owned by Magee, one legally owned by Magee’s mother. Also according to Deguerin, the only drugs found in the home consisted of a small number of marijuana plants, constituting “…a misdemeanor amount.” The warrant itself was signed by District Judge Reva Towslee Corbett. As a copy has yet to be made available, it’s not known whether the warrant was for a drug search only or also for a search for firearms.

2.) According to the AP, “Magee has been arrested twice for driving while intoxicated and twice for possession of marijuana.” The Bryan-College Station Eagle writes that Magee “has a felony and misdemeanor drug conviction.”  According to Texas law, a resident with a felony arrest may own a weapon IF 5 years have elapsed since the felony conviction or end of parole. The weapon must be kept at the individuals home. None of the sources make it clear if this statute applies to Magee.

3.) Speaking for his client, Deguerin told the media that Magee and his girlfriend were awakened by the sound of “explosives” which seemed to be going off near the front windows and a loud banging on the front door. Magee claims he did not know that law enforcement officers were responsible for the noise or the break in.

4.) A spokesman for the Burleson County Sheriff’s Office said she “…did not know if or how deputies announced their entrance into the home.” None of the deputies were wearing body cameras and it is unknown if dashboard cameras on police vehicles were operating.

It’s a safe bet that a mountain of additional information will be forthcoming should Magee stand trial. But based upon the information that has been released, should Henry Magee have been charged with capital murder? In fact, should he face a murder charge of any kind? IF the SWAT team (as it was called by Texas Ranger Andres de la Garza) entered without identifying its members as law enforcement officers, did Magee have an absolute right to shoot, given that he feared for his life, that of his girlfried and of their child? Must officers accept any risk which goes along with the serving of a “no knock” warrant, the purpose of which is to confuse, intimidate and catch suspected criminals off guard?

It is perhaps a tragic irony that Deputy Sowders himself requested Judge Corbett issue the no knock warrant which might have contributed to his death. With prior arrests for drunk driving and possession of marijuana, it’s difficult to imagine that such a warrant would have been issued at all. Assuming Magee was not engaged in criminal activity as yet unreported, shouldn’t SWAT team tactics be reserved for individuals with far more extensive records, or suspected of more serious offenses?

Countless articles have recently been written about the “Militarization” of police departments across the U.S. If police are preparing for “war” against the American public, it seems likely that shoot-outs between citizens and officers could become all to common.

Photo Credit: Standard Compliant





Court Warns Obama That He Is Abusing Power





nobodymadder2webcr_11_5_13
Two months ago, the DC Federal Appeals Court ruled that ObamaCare’s mandate to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives could not be imposed on the business organizations Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics of Sidney, Ohio. The Court ruled that “…forcing those owners to provide the coverage would violate their individual First Amendment rights allowing for the protection of their religion.”

Then, on December 16th, Judge Brian Cogan made his U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York “…the first court to hold that participating in Obama’s scheme to provide free birth control is a substantial burden on the free practice of religion…” Not only did Cogan strike down Obamacare’s contraception mandate as applied to religious non-profit organizations, he also “…sent a strong signal that federal courts were losing patience with President Obama’s many stitches of executive power.”

Prior to the December 16th ruling, administration attorneys argued that because Congress refused to institute a contraception mandate which satisfied White House demands, Obama was somehow “…authorized to enforce his contraception mandate in the manner he did.” In short, Barack should be allowed to ignore both the law and constitutional limits on Executive power if Congress doesn’t satisfactorily submit to his wishes.

But Judge Cogan didn’t buy it. “It would set a dangerous precedent to hold that if the Executive Branch cannot act unilaterally, then there is no alternative solution,” said the judge.

In addition to its defeat in Judge Cogan’s court, ObamaCare suffered yet another blow just this weekend when a federal judge in Oklahoma City “…granted an injunction…that prevents the government from enforcing the ObamaCare mandate requiring religious groups across the country to provide insurance that includes access to the morning-after pill and other contraceptives.” The injunction prevents the government assessing massive financial penalties against the nearly 200 plaintiffs in the class action suit.

Three for-profit appeals cases are currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and the government appealed the Oklahoma City court’s decision to the Supreme Court immediately after the Friday decision. The American public will soon learn if the “separation of church and state” argument so freely and fraudulently applied to the Constitution will secure the right of religious conviction just as it has so often served to crush it.





Obamacare Shock: Strip Assets From Dead Seniors





elderly

The Affordable Care Act was designed to dramatically increase the number of Americans who qualify for Medicaid. In fact, the ACA will literally FORCE many low income seniors onto Medicaid rolls as subsidies for regular ObamaCare plans are NOT available to those over 55 years of age who earn less than 138% of the federal poverty level ($15,856 for individuals; $21,403 for married couples). And without such subsidies, ObamaCare plans are generally far too expensive for older, low-income individuals or couples.

Why should any of this matter to those getting “free” healthcare via Medicaid?

Because: “If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.”

The government has long been permitted to seek reimbursement for healthcare services by attaching the assets of deceased Medicaid enrollees. But before ObamaCare, an asset test was mandatory for Medicaid applicants and only those with few or no assets could qualify for government provided care. As a result, there was little of value which the state could attach after death.

ObamaCare, however, has done away with the asset test. Eligibility for Medicaid is now dependent only upon income. And at 138% of the federal poverty mark, that eligibility level is much higher than in previous years. Therefore, countless Americans who have accumulated valuable assets yet show little income will now qualify as Medicaid recipients.

So if parents have been placed on a state Medicaid roll, the house, car or other assets they had intended leaving to their children will be attached by that state upon their death. A lien will be filed and full payment for those “free” healthcare services provided from the date of enrollment until the time of death will be confiscated from any available estate holdings.

“There was no intent on the part of the ACA to do estate recovery on people going into Medicaid,” claims Bob Crittenden, senior health policy adviser to Washington State Governor Jay Inslee. “The idea was to expand coverage.” According to Crittenden, the expanded authority which ObamaCare provides states to confiscate the assets of the dead is merely an unfortunate, unintentional accident. It was not a deliberate measure by which governments might enrich themselves at the expense of the poor and middle class.

Well of COURSE not! Just because government has an insatiable appetite for money doesn’t mean lawmakers would deliberately fashion a quiet, “fine print” means of confiscating wealth from an unsuspecting public! And we ALL know that such an underhanded scheme would never occur to anyone in the Obama Administration.

In any event, yet another shoe has dropped on authors of the Affordable Care Act. Not only have they been found working to transform citizens into subjects, they have now been discovered deliberately turning the dead into cash cows.

Since this despicable plot was exposed by the Seattle Times, a number of states have vowed to change estate recovery rules as revised by ObamaCare. All very nice of course. But what government provides it can also take away. How long will it be until tough financial times cause politicians to once again quietly insert asset confiscation measures into the fine print?

Thanks again, Chief Justice Roberts.

Photo Credit:  Standard Compliant





Florida Bans Gun Bans!





Florida SC

Last week, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeals ruled that statutes originating in the Florida Legislature take precedence over regulations passed by local governments or state agencies. This authority to preempt local ordinances prevents counties, cities, and townships from creating a patchwork quilt of regulations most citizens would find impossible to obey. What the decision means is that the 12 state universities in Florida cannot overrule a 2011 law in which the Florida Legislature “…pre-empted the regulation of guns by local governments and state agencies.”

The lawsuit–Florida Carry Inc. and Alexandria Lainez vs. the University of North Florida–was brought by Lainez because the university did not permit her to store a pistol in her car while attending classes on campus. A twenty four-year-old mother, Lainez has been a CC license holder for 3 years and is working to get students interested in gun training courses offered in the state.

Liberal Appeals Court Judge Philip Padovano dissented from the court majority, writing “this remarkable conclusion is not supported in the law, and with due respect for my colleagues, I believe that it defies common sense.”

It’s remarkable how many clearly stated constitutional rights “defy common sense” when the left happen to disagree with them.

Good for Alexandria Lainez, Florida Carry, Inc., and the majority members of the Court of Appeals.

 





White House: Darrell Issa’s Committee “Untrustworthy”





Darrell Issa SC

Only the Obama Regime would have the cheek necessary to refuse action on a House subpoena by claiming it does not trust the motives of Government Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa! Concerned by widespread reports that personal information is not secure on the ObamaCare signup website HealthCare.gov, Issa’s Oversight Committee subpoenaed security testing documents from MITRE Corporation, the IT firm hired by Health and Human Services to perform Security Control Assessments of the site. Jim Esquea, HHS Assistant Secretary for Legislation, wrote to Committee Chair Issa, claiming that HHS (now obviously enjoying complete control over MITRE) would be delighted to share information with the Committee, but was unsure “…whether the Committee [would] work with [HHS] to ensure the sensitive information contained in [the] documents is adequately protected.”

The same Obama Administration that trusts Iran with nuclear weapons is expressing reservations about the intentions of Darrell Issa. That’s enough for Ripley.

Esquea makes much of the HHS offer to provide the Committee with unredacted MITRE reports in a “secure reading room.” But the following paragraph written by Esquea to Issa creates all the suspicion it could possibly take to make Republican committee members want to deal directly and solely with MITRE. It reads:

You have suggested that the Department’s [HHS] concerns in producing the requested documents are rooted in a reluctance to disclose the current status of specific security risks that MITRE identified. But as noted above, we have already shared and will continue to share the unredacted SCA’s [Security Control Assessments] with the Congress in a manner that does not create new or additional threats to our system.

The Regime will share unredacted SCA’s “…in a manner that does not create new or additional threats to our system.” What exactly does THAT mean? And who will decide which documents “create new or additional threats?” Will Esquea take it upon himself to withhold those documents, not even advising the Committee of their existence!

I can imagine Issa, Trey Gowdy (SC), and Jason Chaffetz (UT) falling on the floor in a fit of laughter upon reading this flagrant effort at deceit.

Barack had to claim Executive Privilege in order to prevent the House obtaining subpoenaed Fast and Furious documents. I wonder if he’ll resort to the same scam after thousands of Americans have reported their identities stolen upon having tried to obtain government mandated ObamaCare!