Detroit, MI – Nikita Smith filed a lawsuit against the Detroit Police Department after they killed her three dogs during a raid of her home in search of pot last year. On Wednesday, a judge absurdly ruled the dogs were considered “contraband,” noting that Smith had no legal basis to sue the police department for shooting and killing her dogs, due to the canines not having been properly licensed.

Subsequently, the federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Smith after a raid of her home by the Detroit police was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge George Caram Steeh.

According to a report by Reason:

The ruling is the first time a federal court has considered the question of whether an unlicensed pet—in violation of city or state code—is protected property under the Fourth Amendment. Federal courts have established that pets are protected from unreasonable seizures (read: killing) by police, but the city of Detroit argued in a motion in March that Smith’s dogs, because they were unlicensed, were “contraband” for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, meaning she had no legitimate property interest in them and therefore no basis to sue the officers or department.

Sadly, Judge Steeh agreed with the city’s ridiculous assertion that since the dogs were not licensed, they were not a legitimate property interest, thus giving Smith no legal basis to sue either the department or the individual officer/s that killed her dogs.

“The Court is aware that this conclusion may not sit well with dog owners and animal lovers in general,” the judge Steeh wrote in his opinion. “The reason for any unease stems from the fact that while pet owners consider their pets to be family members, the law considers pets to be property.”

“The requirements of the Michigan Dog Law and the Detroit City Code, including that all dogs be current with their rabies vaccines, exist to safeguard the public from dangerous animals,” he continued. “When a person owns a dog that is unlicensed, in the eyes of the law it is no different than owning any other type of illegal property or contraband. Without any legitimate possessory interest in the dogs, there can be no violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

Think about that for a moment, the judge is legally equating owning an unlicensed dog, with “illegal property or contraband.”

So, does someone owning an unlicensed car give you no Fourth Amendment protections over it, and does it constitute illegal property or contraband simply because it isn’t licensed with the city/state?

Does government somehow have some magical authority to say that if you don’t license your property as they have dictated, then your property is illicit and you have no constitutional protections over it?

Steeh’s opinion went on to reason that since there was no Fourth Amendment violation, then there is no legal basis for a civil rights claim against the city. Additionally, Steeh ruled that even if the dogs had been recognized as her property, the animals presented an imminent threat to police, thus the suit would have been dismissed anyway.

Much in line with the brutal reality that a massive number of dogs across America are being executed, Smith’s suit labeled the police officers’ actions in her home akin to a “dog death squad.” She noted that officers shot one of the dogs through a closed bathroom door. Gruesome photos from the raid revealed a blood-drenched bathroom with Smith’s dog lying in a pool of blood.

In only the past two years, numerous lawsuits have been filed against the Detroit Police Department for executing dogs. Once incident ended with the city paying out $100,000 to settle a suit after police dash cam footage revealed a dog being killed by an officer while still chained up and no threat to officers. The case was one of three lawsuits filed against the DPD for killing dogs during raids in search of cannabis. In another case, filed in June, officers are alleged to have killed a couple’s dogs while they were behind a backyard fence.

The absurdity of raiding people’s homes in an assaultive and violent manner in search of a medicinal plant reeks of government overreach and waste.

The report by Reason noted extremely brutal nature :

A Reason investigation last year found the DPD’s Major Violators Unit, which conducts drug raids in the city, has a track record of leaving dead dogs in its wake. One officer had shot 39 dogs over the course of his career before the raid on Smith’s house, according to public records.

That officer is now up to 73 kills, according to the most recent records obtained by Reason.

Two other officers involved in the Smith raid testified during the trial that they had shot “fewer than 20” and “at least 19” dogs over the course of their careers…

Reason’s review of “destruction of animal” reports filed by Detroit police officers did not find a single instance where a supervisor found that a dog shooting was unjustified.

Does anyone really believe that the officer with 73 dog killings is doing it to protect themselves and other officers from imminent danger? The wanton disregard for life is astonishing and speaks to the extreme levels of brutality we see taking place on American streets on a daily basis.

Once again highlighting the lack of proper training police receive, Judge Steeh’s opinion noted that the “police officers conducting the search had not received any specific training on how to handle animal encounters during raids.”

The court opinion also recognized that Detroit police supervisors found the shooting of Smith’s three dogs all to be justified, but curiously noting:

“However, as in many other cases, the ratifying officers did so without speaking to the officers about what had transpired,” the court wrote.

The search warrant for Smith’s residence came after police received a tip that marijuana was being sold out of the home. The raid, which killed her three dogs, netted a total of 25 grams of marijuana – not even an ounce. Since recent polling support for legalizing cannabis has reached upwards of 80%, perhaps giving police a license to kick down doors, with weapons drawn, in search of a plant, is a recipe for disaster.

Ironically, after the police killed her three dogs, the case against Smith was dismissed due to officers failing to show up for her court hearing. Three murdered dogs, smashed house, no charges, and endless pain and suffering — all for an illegal plant — and this is called justice.

This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.

One of the world’s 7 remaining absolute monarchies, Vatican City in the heart of Rome, Italy, is a peculiar city within a city, and one of the wealthiest establishments on earth. If you’ve ever been to the Vatican, which is actually a sovereign nation, you’ve seen the unbelievable wealth owned by the Catholic Church, but how much is the Vatican really worth?

The Rothschild family is believed to hold some five times more than the combined wealth of the world’s 8 top private billionaires, but when it comes to the Vatican, it’s much more difficult to assess its overall wealth. In fact, it’s actually practically impossible to pin down the Vatican’s wealth, as the sum total depends greatly on how you add up their assets and affiliations with churches around the world, and also on who you ask.

For example, a 1987 investigation into the Vatican’s finances by Forbes magazine, claims that the Vatican was nearly broke, spending almost twice as much annually as it brought in.

“For all its splendor, the Vatican is nearly broke. Last year the Holy See, the administrative center of the Church and the spiritual capital of its members, took in $57.3 million from sources as diverse as fees for ceremonies; income from publications, newspaper ads, and the sale of videocassettes; and surprisingly modest investment earnings of $18 million. With investments of some $500 million, the Vatican commands fewer financial resources than many U.S. universities.” [Source]

The Vatican is composed of two major entities: Vatican City-State and the Holy See. As estimated by Forbes, Vatican wealth is nominal, merely in the hundreds of millions when factoring in the entity’s investments and various funds.

“The Vatican comprises two separate administrations, the City-State and the Holy See. The Vatican City-State, a 108.7-acre enclave within the city of Rome — the last remnant of the once powerful Papal States — is thriving financially. Its government provides municipal services for the world’s smallest sovereign nation. The City-State also maintains the Vatican Museum and runs a 200-man security force featuring a platoon of spear-carrying Swiss guards.” [Source]

The Holy See is, “an independent sovereign entity, holding the Vatican City enclave in Rome as sovereign territory, it maintains diplomatic relations with other states.” Employing several thousand laborers tasked with maintaining and securing the premises, as well as members of the clergy, the Holy See serves as the central point for the Catholic Church around the world. While labor costs are high, the Vatican maintains that its top members still work for ‘peanuts.’

“The Vatican’s top brass, however, still work for peanuts. Some cardinals make as little as $20,000 a year, and 30 Jesuits in top posts at Radio Vatican voluntarily accept the same salaries as janitors, about $11,000. Cardinals do get lavish perks, including sumptuous apartments at bargain rents.” [Source]

Fast forward to 2015, and a CNN Money analysis of the Vatican Bank suggests that the bank holds some $8 billion plus in assets, a number which includes the personal savings of many Vatican employees.

“Vatican Bank accounts are only supposed to be held by residents of Vatican City and church personnel. But according to Gerald Posner, a Vatican bank scholar and the author of “God’s Bankers,” these accounts were often awarded to powerful Italian officials looking to stash money without paying taxes.” [Source]

Looking at Vatican wealth on paper is also quite misleading. Time Magazine ran this assessment of Vatican wealth in 1965, offering an estimate of total wealth, which at that time reached into the tens of billions of dollars.

“Bankers’ best guesses about the Vatican’s wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion. Of this wealth, Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate. Dividends help pay for Vatican expenses and charities such as assisting 1,500,000 children and providing some measure of food and clothing to 7,000,000 needy Italians. Unlike ordinary stockholders, the Vatican pays no taxes on this income, which led the leftist Rome weekly L’Espresso last week to call it “the biggest tax evader in Italy.” [Source]

In other words, estimates are all over the place, and contemporary reporting on this subject is rather slim. Another dimension to this is the sheer value of all of the priceless works of art housed in Vatican City. Estimating the value of all of this in terms of dollars is impossible, but looking at just one well-known prize, the Sistine Chapel, offers a look at how difficult it is to appraise all of this. Estimates range from $400 billion all the way up to $2 trillion for just this one masterpiece.

Regarding real estate values of properties held by the Vatican, a 2004 estimate claimed the number was just under a billion dollars.

“According to the AP’s Nicole Winfield, the Holy See’s real estate was worth about $900 million in 2004 — before the real estate bust. That doesn’t include St. Peter’s Basilica and the Sistine Chapel, but even if both brought holy sites brought in another billion, that wouldn’t come close to covering it.” [Source]

In short, no one really knows how much wealth the Catholic Church controls, and the organization’s secrecy and obfuscation of the facts surrounding its wealth continues to lead investigators on a wild goose chase. The Vatican’s cashflow is in the hundreds of millions a year, individual holdings in the Vatican Bank total perhaps $15 billion, property held by the Vatican may be worth over a billion dollars, and the Church owns the largest store of the world’s most priceless art.

About the Author

Isaac Davis is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and OffgridOutpost.com Survival Tips blog. He is an outspoken advocate of liberty and of a voluntary society. He is an avid reader of history and passionate about becoming self-sufficient to break free of the control matrix. Follow him on Facebook, here.

(Waking Times)

OMAR SANADIKI/REUTERS

Russia and Iran, against which the U.S. also recently rolled out more sanctions, have grown closer over their mutual support for Assad, who the U.S. accuses of carrying out human rights abuses. Both countries have contributed money and military power to bolster the beleaguered Syrian military, allowing it to retake much of the territory previously lost to the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) and other insurgents trying to topple the government since 2011. Tehrantook the unprecedented step last year of allowing Russian planes to use its territory to bomb positions in Syria, and the two countries managed to draw Turkey, which deeply opposes Assad, into peace talks following the Syrian government's recapture of Aleppo in December.

Assad's comeback coincided with a greater U.S. focus on fighting ISIS and a decline in U.S. support for rebel groups. The CIA ultimately cut links to the Syrian opposition, leaving only Pentagon support for the Syrian Democratic Forces, a mostly Kurdish alliance of Arabs and ethnic minorities deeply involved in fighting ISIS. While Kurdish forces, such as the People's Protection Units (YPG), have seen major successes in battling ISIS across northern Syria, their popularity is limited among the rest of the mostly Arab country. Special Operations Command head Raymond Thomas said last month that, once ISIS is defeated, the U.S.'s counterterrorism mandate in Syria will likely expire, but not Russia's.

The U.S.'s influence in Iraq may also be waning, in Russia's favor. Last week, Iraqi Vice President Nouri al-Maliki visited Moscow to make an appeal for close relations with Russia in order to "balance" the U.S. and its agenda. Just two days earlier, Iraqi Defense Minister Irfan al-Hiyali met with his Iranian counterpart to talk about greater cooperation between the two countries. After nearly 15 consecutive years of U.S. presence in Iraq, Baghdad appears to be looking elsewhere for future security ties.

Both the U.S. and Iran played a major role in beating ISIS in Iraq. The U.S.-led international coalition lent its support to the Iraqi military and Kurdish forces, while Iran backed the majority-Shiite Muslim Popular Mobilization Units, which Iraq ultimately recognized as part of the country's official armed forces. Last month, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadideclared ISIS defeated in its former stronghold of Mosul, but tensions remain between some local fighters and the U.S. The Iran-backed Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades called for the withdrawal of the U.S., which spokesperson Jafar al-Husseini accused of trying to sabotage a potential alliance between the "resistance axis" of Iran, Iraq and Syria.

US Puts Boots on the Ground in Yemen

August 5, 2017 at 6:32 am

Written by Jason Ditz

The Pentagon won’t rule out more troops being sent to Yemen in the coming weeks.

(ANTIWAR.COM) — A day after the US was reported to have participated in an anti al-Qaeda offensive in southern Shabwa Province of Yemen, the Pentagon is confirming that a “small number” of US ground troops have been deployed into Yemen for an ongoing operation against the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) force.

Details are still scant, but the operation is said to be taking place across central Yemen in a major al-Qaeda stronghold. The Pentagon said the main purposes of their presence is “intelligence sharing,” at least for now.

That’s because the Pentagon said they are not ruling out sending even more troops into Yemen in the coming weeks, as they appear to intend to continue escalating the fight against AQAP, in an offensive which apparently is being coordinated with the United Arab Emirates.

This operation is distinct from the Saudi-led war in Yemen, which is not focused on fighting against AQAP, but the presence of US ground troops in the country at all is likely to be controversial, given the human rights disaster the US-backed Saudi conflict has turned into.

By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / ANTIWAR.COM / Report a typo

By Brandon Turbeville

U.S. President Donald Trump has now signed into law what may be considered one of the most insane pieces of legislation ever to come out of the U.S. Congress. While the law itself will not result in major direct actions in terms of immediately attributable effect, it will have far reaching repercussions both at home and abroad. The law, passed almost unanimously in both the House and Senate had sat for days on Trump’s desk awaiting the President’s signature.

The bill is aimed at a number of Russian industries and also takes aim at foreign banks that do business with North Korea. The bill contains a number of provisions implementing sanctions against Iran as well. It also restricts the President’s ability to tamper with the sanctions regime once it is put in place.

While some held out hope that Trump would muster some courage and actually do the right thing, the President, assured by the parasites and puppets in Congress that they would override his veto, signed the bill into law. Trump did issue a signing statement declaring the bill “seriously flawed – particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.” Trump also said the bill contained “clearly unconstitutional provisions.” Nevertheless, Trump signed the bill saying his doing so was for “national unity.”

Trump’s statement was correct. Except the bill is not just “flawed,” it is horrific. It is the legislative announcement of the march forward in the war against Russia by elements within the U.S. Deep State, and Trump’s signature announces to the world that either the American President is willing to go along with the war or is powerless to stop it.

So this begs the question, if Trump knew the bill was unconstitutional, why did he sign it? Is “national unity” worth World War Three? And how many Americans are unified in their desire to fight it? Only the items in Congress purchased by AIPAC, Wall Street, and the Military Industrial Complex as well as the Deep State apparatus are unified in such an insanity-driven desire.

Trump apologists will no doubt suggest that Trump is continuing to march ahead with his master plan and that, by signing the bill, he is simply moving forward with what was going to happen anyway; i.e. the override of his veto and the implementation of the sanctions. They will suggest he signed the bill in order to move ahead with his agenda in other areas and return to the Russia issue later. Others suggest he will simply allow the measure to be challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court.

Ironically, Trump supporters love their President because he “gets things done” and doesn’t apologize for “being tough.” But he was anything but tough with this incredibly important bill. He didn’t fight at all. Trump claims he could make better deals with Russia than the Congress but, unfortunately, he didn’t. He has shown hints of sanity from time to time only to then launch missiles at Syrian airbases inhabited by Russian forces, by refusing to remove sanctions on Russia, and by signing this monstrous bill. Whenever Trump shows some signs of lucidity, he follows up with falling in line with the elements of his government that are intent on their “Moscow or bust!!” war strategy.

As Paul Craig Roberts points out in his article, there were a number of strategies that could have been taken by Trump. First, he should have vetoed the bill. At worst, if Congress overrode his veto, Congress would bear responsibility for the political fallout or the radioactive fallout if it comes to that.

Second, in the lead up to the veto, Trump could have brought his case to the American people. He could have laid it all out in the open, pointing out that Congress, both misinformed and eaten up with special interest money, was endangering America’s way of life and possibly even life itself the world over. He could have stated plainly that the interests who own Congress and who are working through Congress are now marching the United States to World War Three. He could have even told them to go watch The Day After with their families and ask themselves if they think the potential costs would be worth it. He could have done any number of things explaining why he was vetoing the bill and then he could have vetoed it. But he didn’t. Thus, we now have a situation that Paul Craig Roberts has labeled the “most alarming event of my lifetime.” He wrote,

While Roberts’ assertion that this bill will lead to nuclear first strikes may seem hyperbolic, there is a logical flow of events that could very well take the United States and Russia into just this type of situation if some major intervention does not prevent it.

It is also important to point out that, while Trump is clearly embattled by elements within the Deep State, that does not mean he is the political messiah the U.S. has been waiting on. Trump has already slapped sanctions on Venezuela, launched political attacks against Hezbollah, and repeatedly threatened and provoked Iran.

Regardless, this new bill is an escalation rarely seen in international politics if for no other reason than the fact that the Deep State apparatus has begun to tear off its mask and bare its teeth for the world to see. The U.S. Congress has essentially stood up in unison and demanded the destruction of Russia. If Americans can’t see something wrong with this picture, we are in deeper **** than many may have realized.

Image Credit: Anti Media

(activistpost.com)