UK police seize computers of skeptic blogger in England

And they thought I was crazy when I reported a visit this past summer by the Jack Boots … warning me to moderate my criticism of the administration in general and Barry specifically …

D. Patterson says:
December 16, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I am well aware of the US being able to detain an “Enemy Combatant” foreign or domestic.
The problem is that it never needed to be specifically put into a law and this new law widens the interpretation allowing the president to do the finger pointing.
It reminds me too much of “pollution.” The law against criminal trespass has been available for decades well before the EPA. All that was need to stop pollution was for citizens to use the EXISTING LAW. Instead we now have the EPA depriving us from the use of our private property based on dodgy and in some cases down right fraudulent science. Old Animal cruelty laws and the New Animal welfare act are another example of gilding the lily that causes a loss of rights.
After seeing what went on behind the “Food Safety Modernization Act” of 2010 I do not trust the criminals in DC one tiny little bit.
This is from a lawyer and is written about the new food law but his warning should ALWAYS be in our minds:

…As a lawyer, I am skeptical… Federal regulation often backfires or reduces competition. A classic example is the 2007 child-safety law, the CPSIA, which was based on junk science. It shut down countless thrift stores and entire industries, resulting in children’s books being thrown out and pulled from library shelves by the thousands….
Ignorance about the law’s broad reach (and how it will be construed by the courts) has thwarted opposition to the bill, which will likely pass Congress. For example, a newspaper claims the bill “doesn’t regulate home gardens.” … To an uninformed layperson or journalist, that “sounds as if it might not reach local and mom-and-pop operators at all.” (The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, has sought to forestall opposition to her bill by falsely claiming that that “the Constitution’s commerce clause prevents the federal government from regulating commerce that doesn’t cross state lines.”)
But lawyers familiar with our capricious legal system know better. The Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that even home gardens (in that case, a farmer’s growing wheat for his own consumption) are subject to federal laws that regulate interstate commerce….. Indeed, many court decisions allow Congress to define as “interstate commerce” even non-commercial conduct that doesn’t cross state lines — something directly at odds with Rep. DeLauro’s claims.
http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/trojan-horse-law-the-food-safety-modernization-act-of-2009

Another lawyer warned that even the placement of words in a sentence can have meaning that the lay person would never catch. So the fact that a law is being written to cover something that is ALREADY legal in the USA makes me highly suspicious that what we see on the surface is not the whole truth of the matter.
A second thing that most people do not realize is the LEGAL importance of the president “Declaring a War on Drugs” or a “War on Terrorism” or whatever. What will those “Declarations of war” have on the “Enemy Combatants” in those “Wars” I am not a lawyer therefore I do not know the legal ramifications of a such declarations of war. However I do know that the declarations have allowed police the license to kill without fear of legal repercussion. http://www.altdaily.com/features/news/opinion-news/similarities-in-the-war-on-drugs-and-war-on-terror.html
Shielding the giant – background to the food safety law and the criminal back scratching that went on. http://www.whistleblower.org/storage/documents/Shielding_the_Giant_Final_PDF.pdf

I second TrueCrypt, very easy to use, you can even make a hidden volume inside a TrueCrypt volume for added safety so even if they waterboard you to expose the key they will find nothing
Truecrypt is Free open-source software (They do accept donations)

Harry Won A Bagel says: @ur momisugly December 17, 2011 at 3:32 am
I must admit I am having difficulty understanding what is going on here….
…..I am Australian but if six Jacks turned up at mine they wouldn’t be crossing the threshold without resistance (and I would inform them so very bluntly) until my lawyer was present and all the documents, and relevant law, had been scrutinised with forensic detail. Even then I may still refuse permission just so they must use force and justify it later.
Unless you are seeking immediate help, never, ever, voluntarily speak to a policeman without legal representation present. Ever…..
__________________________
Unfortunately that is no longer an option here in the USA because you are likely to get shot.

Like the “War on Terror,” the “War on Drugs” has been fought with the idea that the enemy is so dangerous and the mission so important that some innocent civilians will be killed or otherwise have their lives ruined in the process as regrettable, but necessary, collateral damage….
…In order to fight the War on Drugs, communities across the country have militarized their police forces in the form of SWAT teams. Local police officers don armored vests and paramilitary gear, and break down the doors of unsuspecting residents. Journalist Radley Balko is probably the country’s leading expert on the use of SWAT teams to serve nonviolent warrants. In 2006, he released a paper for the CATO Institute called, “Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America,” in which he traces the increased use of SWAT teams to serve warrants for (usually nonviolent) drug offenders….
…a SWAT team in Lima, Ohio was executing a drug warrant. In the process, they shot and killed Tarika Wilson (a mother of six), and wounded her one-year-old son, whom she was holding when police opened fire. Police officer Joseph Chavalia heard gun shots during the raid and thought they came from a bedroom in which Wilson was holding her son. In fact, they were from another officer who was shooting and killing the suspect’s two dogs.
Sgt. Chavalia was charged with negligent homicide and negligent assault; he faced only eight months in prison if convicted of both. However, on August 4, 2008, a jury found him not guilty of both charges. Lima Police Chief Greg Garlock said, “They confirmed what our sense was and our belief was in this,” i.e. Tarika Wilson was just more collateral damage in America’s war to protect its citizens from drugs….
[However when it is the reverse…]
Frederick told the Virginia-Pilot, “As I’m walking through the hall, someone comes busting through my door.” He saw someone breaking through the panels of his door and an arm reaching through. “I was like, ‘Oh, God, if I don’t shoot, then he’s going to kill me’ … I think I shot twice. I can’t remember. It happened so fast.”
Unbeknownst to Frederick, it was Detective Shivers breaking through his door, and his gun shots connected, killing Detective Shivers. Prosecutors charged Frederick with capital murder and urged the jury to give him life in prison. However, when the trial concluded in February 2009, the jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced him to 10 years in prison…. http://www.altdaily.com/features/news/opinion-news/similarities-in-the-war-on-drugs-and-war-on-terror.html

Jason Joice M.D. says:
December 16, 2011 at 11:55 pm
D. Patterson on December 16, 2011 at 7:15 pm said:….
So you are claiming that the President has always had the power to detain, indefinitely, US citizens on US soil when there is no current armed conflict occurring on US soil?

See what the Constitutional Convention had to say:

Constitution of the United States. ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Section 9. Powers Denied to Congress. Clause 2. Habeas Corpus Suspension. In General Clause 2. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Note how the Constitution is written to say “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Also note the Constitution does not say “armed conflict occurring on US soil”, “armed conflict”, “armed Rebellion”, or “armed Invasion.” It does say “Rebellion” and “Invasion” without requiring them to be an “armed Rebellion” or an “armed Invasion.”

Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t believe that is true yet I believe that is exactly what this new law allows.
For example, maybe you are an outspoken critic of the president and have a widely read political blog. Under this new law, perhaps it would be politically expediant for the sitting President to declare you a belligerent or “terrorist” and detain you indefinitely. You can’t tell me that this has always been possible and legal.

Yes, the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and detentions without a trial in a civil court has already happened a number of times in the past. There is no particular historical or Constitutional reason why a pamphleteer of the 19th Century, a newsletter publisher of the 20th Century, or a blogger of the 21st Century cannot have a suspension of their privilege of the writ of habeus corpus in the event of certain activities by themselves and/or by the members of their community. Note, you don’t even need to be involved in a rebellion yourself to have the writ of habeus corpus suspended, if your community is found to be in Rebellion.
The Democrats of Maryland engaged in a conspiracy to murder and assassinate the President Elect Abraham Lincoln while he was aboard the railroad train carrying him from Springfield, Illinois to Washington, D.C. on the approaches to Baltimore, Maryland and another attempt in a planned civil riot while changing trains in Baltimore. On the eve of an attempt by the Maryland state administration to compel the secession of Maryland from the Union, President Lincoln issued Presidential orders for the arrest and internment of Maryland and Baltimore officials engaged in these conspiracies to rebel against the authority of the Federal Government and to guarantee the citizens of the State of Maryland a republican form of government as demanded by the articles of the Constitution. When attorneys for the arrested officials procured writs of habeus corpus, the military commanders denied the privilege of the writs citing President Lincoln’s suspension of the privilege of habeus corpus. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B. Taney attempted to countermand President Lincoln’s Presidential order to no effect. President Lincoln subsequently sought and received Congressional legislation approving the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus another three times during the American Civil War. Martial law was used to enforce Federal law in a number of states where it was deemed that civil disobedience endangered public Safety, such as interference with labor relations, solicitations to sabotage military recruitment and military desertion, and other unarmed acts of Rebellion. In 1862:

“Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:[….]
“Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.”
Southern Democrats provoked another Congressional suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and authorized detentions of U.S. citizens in 1871 in nine counties of South Carolina to restore public safety in the Rebellion of the Ku Klux Klan against Federal law.
Another two suspensions of the writ of habeus corpus occurred in the Philippines during the Philippine Insurrection and during the Second World War in Hawaii with the threat of foreign invasion.
There are also instances in which the jurisdictions of the Federal courts were manipulated to create a situation in which there was a suspension of the privilege of a writ of habeus corpus in effect, if not by Congressional act or Presidential order.
Even without the proposed new bill, the President has always had the previously exercised authority, power, and perhaps a duty in some instances to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeus corpus for a pamphleteer, blogger, or radio broadcaster acting in alliance or allegiance with what President Lincoln described as “Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States.” An Ezra Pound or a Tokyo Rose certainly would not have been immune from detention as a belligerent during the Second World War. Likewise, a pamphleteer or a blogger is potentially liable to be arrested and detained as a belligerent if they were to engage in discouraging volunteer enlistments, soliciting civil riots, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels and members of Al Queda, the Taliban, and their co-conspirators against the authority of United States. So, do not for one moment be fooled into believing the myth that you have to be caught in the act of armed conflict to be qualified as a belligerent or a rebel. It just ain’t so, and it has never been so.
Note, my observance of the existence of these above events and facts does not reflect any opinion of mine for or against the state of affairs described. I am only calling to everyone’s attention that there are many popular misconceptions about these matters, which need to be corrected before jumping into any conclusions about what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. I know there are going to be a lot of people who are shocked and in deep disbelief, but this is the reality which some of us acquainted with military history and military service have considered to be controversial realities for decades.

RB:
“… then please substitute “expert witness” for “journalist blogger… ” Detail is important – I think that you mean ‘replace “expert witness” with “journalist blogger”‘ or ‘substitute “journalist blogger” for “expert witness”‘ …! 🙂
It’s a fair argument, and it would (genuinely) be interesting to see if that flew in this case if Tallbloke decided to sue. But given that he isn’t the subject of a criminal prosecution, and that he agreed to the seizure, it will be a very generous pro bono lawyer that picks up the bill and the Court fees for commencing the civil action!
You might regard Tallbloke as a “blogger/journalist”, but that’s not “a Digital Content Manager for the University of Leeds”, so I think we will disagree about whether this would be “journalistic material” in these circumstances, but let’s not argue about it – we won’t agree, and no-one will thank us for rehearsing the argument here… 🙁
By the way, it wasn’t a magistrate that authorised the warrant, it was a District Judge, but I agree that it doesn’t change the legal thinking other than the fact that the DJ can be regarded as better informed about Bates – so it is perfectly possible (likely?) that the DJ was fully aware of the facts and granted the warrant anyway.
“… and finished with a cheeky grin – or at least it did in my brain…” “You have even read the pertinent extract from a relevant case and haven’t been able to identify the straightforward legal principle at play.” Hey – yellow card! I’m not REALLY a telepath, you know… and I’ve already declared that I don’t regard Tallbloke as a journalist, so it’s a bit unfair to regard the principle as straightforward if I have to guess what you are thinking, especially if the DJ knew all the facts (see above)!
Slightly OT… but I’m very interested in the pejorative way that you state: “I have professionally known for years – that coppers generally dont know the law beyond quoting statutory provisions parrot fashion. All coppers can regurgitate the statutory definition of theft, or their powers under PACE, but almost none of them know any caselaw” This SURPRISES you? It certainly supports my view that a Royal Commission on policing is decades overdue, if that’s what you expect of police officers… of course they don’t – if they did, there would be very few left – they’d all leave and train to be barristers (England and Wales) or advocates (Scotland). Your use of the word “professionally” is tantalising… this is a discussion worthy of inclusion in a Setting The World To Rights discussion over a pint – I’d love to know to which profession you are referring, because most criminal lawyers (with respect) understand how policing and police officers “tick” – I therefore don’t think that you are one, so I’m curious…?

I am shocked , shocked that Mike Mann might have retweeted
libelous statements and allegations which have probably damages the
professional and academic reputation of a man otherwise innocent of
violating British law.
I would be horrified, yes, horrified to find that Mike Mann,
among or along with other associates, had made the same claims (verbally or
in writing) to various justice and law enforcement officials here in the States or
there in Great Britain, upon which the search warrent and subsequent raid of
Tallbloke’s home was based.
I would be even more dismayed to find that Mike Mann and/or other members
or friends of “The Cause” had made such allegations and representations of
crininal activities upon which search warrents were issued for Tallbloke’s
counterparts here in the United States, Canada, or Australia.
/sarc ???
officials

reposting from SDA
I hate to say it, and I’ve spent too many sleepless nights worrying about it.
Godwins’ Law be damned [SNIP: Understood, but let’s keep this one under wraps, OK? -REP]
dwright.

Appreciate the comment Gail. We are a bit lucky in Australia. I recently (two years ago) let two detectives interview me in my home because I witnessed a violent crime. Having spent two full days sitting outside a court room with them waiting my turn to speak, I found their views on the issue of personal liberty very similar to my own. I saw how deeply they felt the obligation to protect me from these villains (one of the miscreants had spoken to my wife) even when I told them I was an enthusiastic consumer of mild elicit drugs. My faith in the intelligence of the younger generation was reinforced by this young lady detective who said to me “bugger that, these people (the fellow on trial) hurt people, you don’t count on that scale.” As the son of a law enforcement official I was comforted. I have enormous faith in our younger generation to protect us. We just have to allow them the tools.

Gail Combs says:
December 17, 2011 at 7:35 am
D. Patterson says:
December 16, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I am well aware of the US being able to detain an “Enemy Combatant” foreign or domestic.
The problem is that it never needed to be specifically put into a law and this new law widens the interpretation allowing the president to do the finger pointing.

Does it? Where in the legislation does it say the President may engage in “finger pointing” at a U.S. Citizen or legal resident? I’m getting the impression you made an uncritical acceptance of the distorted propaganda in the MSM news article without reading the actual legislation?

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident
Aliens.–
(1) United states citizens.–The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) Lawful resident aliens.–The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of
conduct taking place within the United States, except to the
extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

You also should note the privilege of habeus corpus was suspended for U.S. Citizens in a number of historical instances, and the affected U.S. citizens included non-combatant U.S. civilian Citizens taking no part in a Rebellion or Invasion other than being present in the community subject to the suspension of the writ.

Gail Coombs says:
I think what we are seeing is the final battle for the minds and freedom of the populous. The targeting of Tallbloke was part of the strategy to scare the blogosphere into either shutting up or at least smearing them with “Police Involvement”.
I’ve had some personal experience with illegal searches, one violating the 4th Amendment in order to make an “example” of me in order to intimidate others re: possible State Accident Ins. Fund fraud, and another which was essentially a fishing expedition which would have translated into the suggestion, without any evidence whatsoever, that I was filing false income tax statements, in a civil child support case for [unwarranted] increase in child support itself where I was already doing more than double support to begin with, which itself eventually made no difference to the “fixed”, totally bogus “single mother” meme support system anyway. I essentially had over 40% physical custody, needed virtually no “baby sitters” and was paying for at least two complete households, although my own was much better, since Mama was simply funding herself excessively.]
In the first case I simply called their bluff when the State threatened over and over to “arraign” me if I didn’t settle by pleading down to some “minor” offense, but which would have then set me up for an alleged Medicare fraud investigation, another thing I’ve never done. The State never did arraign me, because they had no case, even though and precisely because they had wire tapped me and wired fake patients I saw in the ER in order to “prove” I was telling people to file false claims, which I surely wasn’t, as the wires also proved conclusively. The original wire and wire tap granted by a Judge was based upon two “cases”, both filed on the last day of the year when the statute would have expired and one of which involved a real patient I’d never even seen! and another real patient who was filing the false claims herself, and we were the ones who caught her by feeding back her false claims within 48 hrs. to her employer! In the phone wire taps between myself and another “mark”, I kept laughing at them and telling them indirectly how freaking stupid they were, since I knew they were still tapping me because they hadn’t arraigned me. There were several other devastating facts about their “case” – for example one simple one, the monetary amount of about $600 [for about 8 fake patients] didn’t meet the Statute! But I even had the State Atty. General himself behind their whole scam. I could have proven that the “patients” themselves were lying. And probably that their whole operation was some kind of fraud.
In the second case the Plaintiff’s Atty. was allowed to ask for all my financial records beyond the required tax records via something called a “Request for Production” So I simply snowed them with everything I had. I had nothing to hide, but what the hell was the justification for asking for them if I didn’t and had already supplied the required tax forms? My dumb ass lawyer told me they could ask for everything “because it wasn’t a criminal case”! Huh? I was also the one who always had to figure out and correct any settlement I’ve ever had using my own lawyer.
Anyway, my advice to Tallbloke is to increase his retirement fund if anything “funny” is going on here. I didn’t, because I wasn’t getting too much encouragement from my own lawyer who apparently thought that since I’d totally beat the original “rap/the charges”, which was never even officially stated since I’d not been arraigned – I had to catch that fact, too, in the “settlement agreement” – I should be content with that. Unfortunately, his wife had just been diagnosed with a very bad cancer, so maybe he was a bit preoccupied by that time.
Ins.Fundfraud [workers compensation fraud], and another which was an allegedly “legal” fishing expedition essentially trying to uncoveralleged unreported alleged covr up of unreported

So will someone tell me again there aren’t powerful political people involved in “global warming”?

Richard S Courtney says:
December 17, 2011 at 6:40 am
…
_______________________________
That’s an admirably creative scenario which you’ve given, sir, but it strains plausibility when one considers that the typical bureaucrat who’s been at the forefront promulgating the AGW fiasco, probably isn’t that smart.
However, get into the the deeper and darker conspiracy theories hinting at the ‘elite puppet masters’ who wish to depopulate and seize control of the planet and you might be on to something.