Police State - Official Thread

[Soul Crusher]

[Skeletor]

"But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom".

Well he can give up all of his freedoms, but since he's a cop he'll probably keep his freedoms and take them away from others.
He goes on to say several other things such as:
"Ultimately, law enforcement, we are the experts. We're the subject matter experts at protecting America."
"Anything that we do, ultimately, we give up something to have that protection."
"We are going to have to give up some things. And I think there are some things that we can give up for a safer community."



Tulsa Top Cop: I’m a Second Amendment Guy…But Giving Up Some of That Freedom Is Fine

Ultimately, I’m a Second Amendment guy. I own guns of course. But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom, right? We had to give up some of that freedom after 9/11. I’m okay with waiting three days, five days, or whatever to get my firearm if I go out and purchase another firearm. So I’m okay with a pause to allow for weapons to be purchased and allow the government and the gun companies to look at the background and do a thorough check before that gun goes to someone.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/tulsa-top-cop-im-a-second-amendment-guybut-giving-up-some-of-that-freedom-is-fine/

https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/local-regional/2023-06-08/tulsa-police-chief-suggests-nation-transform-response-to-gun-violence

[Skeletor]

A travesty but unfortunately not surprising, as the Supreme Court has shamefully ruled that cops have no duty to protect. Hopefully everyone shuns the Coward of Broward anywhere they see him but even then I doubt he'll care with a $104,000 annual pension.


Florida jury finds former Parkland school resource officer not guilty on all counts

A Florida jury has found former Parkland school resource officer Scot Peterson not guilty on all counts.

Peterson faced seven counts of felony child neglect and was the first law enforcement officer in the U.S. to face criminal charges stemming from his alleged inaction during an active school shooting. He was also charged with three counts of misdemeanor culpable negligence in relation to the adults shot in the building. Additionally, he was charged with perjury for allegedly lying to detectives.

Peterson would have faced prison time and a loss of his $104,000 annual pension if convicted of the child neglect charges.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-jury-finds-former-parkland-school-resource-officer-not-guilty-all-counts

[Soul Crusher]

[Skeletor]

Police lieutenant confirmed he put his 3-year-old son in jail cell for struggling with potty training

A police lieutenant in Daytona Beach Shores, Florida, admitted to an investigator for the state’s Department of Children and Families that he and the child’s mother put their 3-year-old son in a jail cell on back-to-back days because the child was having trouble with potty training.

He said he told his son that he was a cop and that he takes bad boys to jail who don’t follow the law, according to a video shared with Law&Crime on Thursday.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/police-lieutenant-confirmed-he-put-his-3-year-old-son-in-jail-cell-for-struggling-with-potty-training/

[Agnostic007]

A travesty but unfortunately not surprising, as the Supreme Court has shamefully ruled that cops have no duty to protect. Hopefully everyone shuns the Coward of Broward anywhere they see him but even then I doubt he'll care with a $104,000 annual pension.


Florida jury finds former Parkland school resource officer not guilty on all counts

A Florida jury has found former Parkland school resource officer Scot Peterson not guilty on all counts.

Peterson faced seven counts of felony child neglect and was the first law enforcement officer in the U.S. to face criminal charges stemming from his alleged inaction during an active school shooting. He was also charged with three counts of misdemeanor culpable negligence in relation to the adults shot in the building. Additionally, he was charged with perjury for allegedly lying to detectives.

Peterson would have faced prison time and a loss of his $104,000 annual pension if convicted of the child neglect charges.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-jury-finds-former-parkland-school-resource-officer-not-guilty-all-counts

I side with you on this one. Sometimes the job demands cops put their life on the line.. That's what has been expected since police reform in the last 100 years. Yes, it is absolutely scary, yes, you may die, but the entire job is founded on the principle you are willing to sacrifice your life for your fellow citizens. We all hope it never comes to that, but that is the expectation and right so. I was personally disgusted with his inaction. I've personally put my life on the line and was fortunate to have survived as have many of my ex co workers. So this cowardice pisses me and those who would have gone in tremendously

[Coach is Back!]

I side with you on this one. Sometimes the job demands cops put their life on the line.. That's what has been expected since police reform in the last 100 years. Yes, it is absolutely scary, yes, you may die, but the entire job is founded on the principle you are willing to sacrifice your life for your fellow citizens. We all hope it never comes to that, but that is the expectation and right so. I was personally disgusted with his inaction. I've personally put my life on the line and was fortunate to have survived as have many of my ex co workers. So this cowardice pisses me and those who would have gone in tremendously

Unfortunately, it comes down to training. Unless you’re a full time tactical SWAT unit that trains almost everyday, you’re (or whoever) not ready to enter an active shooter situation. That being said, what little training a patrol cop or SRO has is almost useless UNLESS they keep up with ongoing training. Bottom line.

Like Uvalde, this SRO was a coward and he was a coward because he was too lazy to train for his job and the possibilities of what could happen, as rare as it is.

[Agnostic007]

Unfortunately, it comes down to training. Unless you’re a full time tactical SWAT unit that trains almost everyday, you’re (or whoever) not ready to enter an active shooter situation. That being said, what little training a patrol cop or SRO has is almost useless UNLESS they keep up with ongoing training. Bottom line.

Like Uvalde, this SRO was a coward and he was a coward because he was too lazy to train for his job and the possibilities of what could happen, as rare as it is.

Thank you for your well-respected input in the area of Law Enforcement protocol. Since at least 2000 Active shooter drills have been standard. Training is NOT or never has been an option for officers. You go.. and if you are a good officer you go with a positive attitude.

The standard protocol has evolved over the years from waiting for at least 5 officers to arrive on scene to "Immediately upon hearing gunfire, take steps to engage the shooter". So while I get that you are trying to defend the officer, I applaud that because too little of that exists these days, that officer in that year, would have received enough training to engage the suspects.

He would have and likely will be viewed by his fellow officers as a coward. And if I was a parent of a slain child I woud be outraged

[Skeletor]

'Kansas two-step' highway patrol technique ruled unconstitutional for marijuana vehicle searching

The Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) has been ordered to stop its infamous "two-step" technique by a federal judge, who said it violated people's Fourth Amendment rights. The technique centered around vehicle searching for marijuana in Kansas from out-of-state drivers, mostly from Colorado and Missouri — states where pot is legal. It is illegal to possess marijuana in Kansas.

In the order filed Friday, U.S. District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil wrote that patrol’s tactics in traffic stops violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from "unreasonable searches and seizures." 

The "two-step" is a technique, allegedly taught to officers by KHP Superintendent Herman Jones, where officers end a routine traffic stop, begin to return to their cruiser and then turn around to begin a separate effort to gain entry into a vehicle and search for marijuana.

Since marijuana is illegal in Kansas, but legal in Colorado and Missouri, officers were often successful finding the drug and charging the driver.

"The war is basically a question of numbers: stop enough cars, and you’re bound to discover drugs," the opinion, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas (ACLU) and Spencer Fane LLP, said. "And what’s the harm if a few constitutional rights are trampled along the way."

The opinion said that the KHP "has waged war on motorists — especially out-of-state residents traveling between Colorado and Missouri on federal highway I-70 in Kansas." "All drivers on I-70 have moving targets on their backs," the opinion said.

The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and Spencer Fane LLP, are Blaine Shaw, Joshua Bosire, Mark Erich, Samuel Shaw and Shawna Maloney. The individuals filed Shaw v. Jones in 2020 challenging KHP’s practice of routinely and illegally stopping and detaining motorists with out-of-state license plates and its use of the Two-Step maneuver.

On Monday, they shared in a testimony Monday how they felt exploited and intimidated by KHP troopers.

Maloney, who is from Colorado, recalled in her testimony of her fear after troopers used the tactic to search her family’s RV as they were on a cross-country vacation in March 2018. The predawn search on Interstate 70 turned up nothing illegal.

Maloney said that the trooper gave her family a warning, then took a few steps back toward his vehicle before returning with more questions, dash camera footage shown in court showed. Eventually, the trooper said the family was being detained. A K-9 dog sniffed the RV’s exterior, and three troopers searched the interior.  Nothing was found and after about 40 minutes, the family was allowed to leave. Maloney said troopers damaged the toilet, dumped out clothes and left the bathroom door hanging off its frame, among other damage.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/kansas-two-step-highway-patrol-technique-ruled-unconstitutional-for-marijuana-vehicle-searching

[Skeletor]

U.S. Spy Agencies Buy Vast Quantities of Americans’ Personal Data, U.S. Says

The vast amount of Americans’ personal data available for sale has provided a rich stream of intelligence for the U.S. government but created significant threats to privacy, according to a newly released report by the U.S.’s top spy agency.

Commercially available information, or CAI, has grown in such scale that it has begun to replicate the results of intrusive surveillance techniques once used on a more targeted and limited basis, the report found.

“In a way that far fewer Americans seem to understand, and even fewer of them can avoid, CAI includes information on nearly everyone that is of a type and level of sensitivity that historically could have been obtained” through targeted collection methods such as wiretaps, cyber espionage or physical surveillance, the report concluded.

The report was commissioned by Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines after Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) requested that the intelligence community detail and make public how it uses commercially available data. Ms. Haines agreed to the request during her 2021 confirmation hearing. The report was completed in January 2022; it was released to the public last week.

The report showed that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence appeared unaware which federal intelligence agencies were buying Americans’ personal data, Wyden said, reflecting the need for stronger oversight and transparency from within the executive branch. He said legislation also was needed to establish guardrails on U.S. government purchases, rein in data brokers that collect and sell the data and protect the data from being used by foreign adversaries. Like the U.S., other countries are widely thought to be acquiring commercial data sets for intelligence purposes, current and former U.S. officials have said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-agencies-buy-vast-quantities-of-americans-personal-data-report-says-f47ec3ad

US Spies Are Buying Americans’ Private Data. Congress Has a New Chance to Stop It

A "must-pass" defense bill wending its way through the United States House of Representatives may be amended to abolish the government practice of buying information on Americans that the country’s highest court has said police need a warrant to seize. Though it’s far too early to assess the odds of the legislation surviving the coming months of debate, it’s currently one of the relatively few amendments to garner support from both Republican and Democratic members.

Introduction of the amendment follows a report declassified by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—the nation’s top spy—which last month revealed that intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been buying up data on Americans that the government’s own experts described as “the same type” of information the US Supreme Court in 2018 sought to shield against warrantless searches and seizures.

A handful of House lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats alike, have declared support for the amendment submitted late last week by representatives Warren Davidson, a Republican from Ohio, and Sara Jacobs, a California Democrat. The bipartisan duo is seeking stronger warrant requirements for the surveillant data constantly accumulated by people’s cellphones. They argue that it shouldn’t matter whether a company is willing to accept payment from the government in lieu of a judge’s permission.

“Warrantless mass surveillance infringes the Constitutionally protected right to privacy,” says Davidson. The amendment, he says, is aimed chiefly at preventing the government from “circumventing the Fourth Amendment” by purchasing “your location data, browsing history, or what you look at online.”

A copy of the Davidson-Jacobs amendment reviewed by WIRED shows that the warrant requirements it aims to bolster focus specifically on people’s web browsing and internet search history, along with GPS coordinates and other location information derived primarily from cellphones. It further encapsulates “Fourth Amendment protected information” and would bar law enforcement agencies of all levels of jurisdiction from exchanging “anything of value” for information about people that would typically require a “warrant, court order, or subpoena under law.”

https://www.wired.com/story/ndaa-2023-davidson-jacobs-fourth-amendment/

[Skeletor]

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Asset Forfeiture Scheme Where Police Seize and Keep Cars, Cash & Homes of Innocent Owners

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal challenging a modern-day form of highway robbery which empowers police to seize and keep private property (cash, jewelry, cars, homes, and other valuables) they “suspect” may be connected to a crime.

In Culley v. Marshall, The Rutherford Institute, ACLU, and Cato Institute joined in an amicus brief to argue against the government’s use of delaying tactics in asset forfeiture proceedings which make it difficult for individuals innocent of any wrongdoing to timely recover their property—especially cars and cash—seized by police who stand to profit from the forfeiture.

Civil asset forfeiture is a practice where government agents (usually the police) seize private property they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity, then whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure. Relying on the topsy-turvy legal theory that one’s property can not only be guilty of a crime but is guilty until proven innocent, government agencies have eagerly cashed in on this revenue scheme, often under the pretext of the War on Drugs. By asserting that someone’s property, a building or a large of amount of cash for example, is tied to an illegal activity, the government—usually, the police—then confiscates the property for its own uses, and it’s up to the property owner to jump through a series of legal hoops to prove that the property was not connected to criminal activity or that the owner had no involvement or knowledge of the criminal activity. But challenging these “takings” in court can cost the owner more than the value of the confiscated property itself.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/supreme_court_agrees_to_hear_challenge_to_asset_forfeiture_scheme_where_police_seize_and_keep_cars_cash_homes_of_innocent_owners

[Soul Crusher]

About damn time.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Asset Forfeiture Scheme Where Police Seize and Keep Cars, Cash & Homes of Innocent Owners

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal challenging a modern-day form of highway robbery which empowers police to seize and keep private property (cash, jewelry, cars, homes, and other valuables) they “suspect” may be connected to a crime.

In Culley v. Marshall, The Rutherford Institute, ACLU, and Cato Institute joined in an amicus brief to argue against the government’s use of delaying tactics in asset forfeiture proceedings which make it difficult for individuals innocent of any wrongdoing to timely recover their property—especially cars and cash—seized by police who stand to profit from the forfeiture.

Civil asset forfeiture is a practice where government agents (usually the police) seize private property they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity, then whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure. Relying on the topsy-turvy legal theory that one’s property can not only be guilty of a crime but is guilty until proven innocent, government agencies have eagerly cashed in on this revenue scheme, often under the pretext of the War on Drugs. By asserting that someone’s property, a building or a large of amount of cash for example, is tied to an illegal activity, the government—usually, the police—then confiscates the property for its own uses, and it’s up to the property owner to jump through a series of legal hoops to prove that the property was not connected to criminal activity or that the owner had no involvement or knowledge of the criminal activity. But challenging these “takings” in court can cost the owner more than the value of the confiscated property itself.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/supreme_court_agrees_to_hear_challenge_to_asset_forfeiture_scheme_where_police_seize_and_keep_cars_cash_homes_of_innocent_owners

[Agnostic007]

Unfortunately, it comes down to training. Unless you’re a full time tactical SWAT unit that trains almost everyday, you’re (or whoever) not ready to enter an active shooter situation. That being said, what little training a patrol cop or SRO has is almost useless UNLESS they keep up with ongoing training. Bottom line.

Like Uvalde, this SRO was a coward and he was a coward because he was too lazy to train for his job and the possibilities of what could happen, as rare as it is.

Just hush... You have NO clue what it's like to be a cop.. You repeat "swat" swat "swat".. They come from the ranks.. go through training and yes, more training and specialized training than the average Joe. But regular officers have trained on active shooters since at least Columbine. I've seen it evolve over the years from wait for the 1st 5 officers to immediately engage the perpetrator if you hear shots. 10-1 that coward had training but put himself above the lives of those inside. It had nothing to do with laziness because I have seen with my own eyes officers that braved the possibilty of being shot, that did what they needed to do. 

[illuminati]

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Asset Forfeiture Scheme Where Police Seize and Keep Cars, Cash & Homes of Innocent Owners

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal challenging a modern-day form of highway robbery which empowers police to seize and keep private property (cash, jewelry, cars, homes, and other valuables) they “suspect” may be connected to a crime.

In Culley v. Marshall, The Rutherford Institute, ACLU, and Cato Institute joined in an amicus brief to argue against the government’s use of delaying tactics in asset forfeiture proceedings which make it difficult for individuals innocent of any wrongdoing to timely recover their property—especially cars and cash—seized by police who stand to profit from the forfeiture.

Civil asset forfeiture is a practice where government agents (usually the police) seize private property they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity, then whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure. Relying on the topsy-turvy legal theory that one’s property can not only be guilty of a crime but is guilty until proven innocent, government agencies have eagerly cashed in on this revenue scheme, often under the pretext of the War on Drugs. By asserting that someone’s property, a building or a large of amount of cash for example, is tied to an illegal activity, the government—usually, the police—then confiscates the property for its own uses, and it’s up to the property owner to jump through a series of legal hoops to prove that the property was not connected to criminal activity or that the owner had no involvement or knowledge of the criminal activity. But challenging these “takings” in court can cost the owner more than the value of the confiscated property itself.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/supreme_court_agrees_to_hear_challenge_to_asset_forfeiture_scheme_where_police_seize_and_keep_cars_cash_homes_of_innocent_owners

Seriously WTF - The cops are behaving as bad as criminals. Unfurling believable !!

[Skeletor]

Seriously WTF - The cops are behaving as bad as criminals. Unfurling believable !!

This has been going on for decades. The cops can often keep the money that they steal "seize" so they have a strong incentive to continue this criminal activity.

But I am not too optimistic about the Supreme Court, they have regularly made shameful rulings to suit the government. They ruled previously that civil asset forfeiture is not unconstitutional, that cops have no duty to protect you, the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional and of course they concocted the ridiculous concept of "qualified immunity" which to this days shields countless cops from being punished for their crimes. Maybe this iteration of the SCOTUS will see things differently.

[illuminati]

This has been going on for decades. The cops can often keep the money that they steal "seize" so they have a strong incentive to continue this criminal activity.

But I am not too optimistic about the Supreme Court, they have regularly made shameful rulings to suit the government. They ruled previously that civil asset forfeiture is not unconstitutional, that cops have no duty to protect you, the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional and of course they concocted the ridiculous concept of "qualified immunity" which to this days shields countless cops from being punished for their crimes. Maybe this iteration of the SCOTUS will see things differently.

Reading that its wrong on so many aspects, hard to believe that its all legal & above
Board in a supposedly 1st world nation.

Of course the biggest criminal gang is going to do everything to protect one
Of their members. Its sickening & what you'd expect in a 4th world tin pot country.

[Agnostic007]

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Asset Forfeiture Scheme Where Police Seize and Keep Cars, Cash & Homes of Innocent Owners

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal challenging a modern-day form of highway robbery which empowers police to seize and keep private property (cash, jewelry, cars, homes, and other valuables) they “suspect” may be connected to a crime.

In Culley v. Marshall, The Rutherford Institute, ACLU, and Cato Institute joined in an amicus brief to argue against the government’s use of delaying tactics in asset forfeiture proceedings which make it difficult for individuals innocent of any wrongdoing to timely recover their property—especially cars and cash—seized by police who stand to profit from the forfeiture.

Civil asset forfeiture is a practice where government agents (usually the police) seize private property they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity, then whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure. Relying on the topsy-turvy legal theory that one’s property can not only be guilty of a crime but is guilty until proven innocent, government agencies have eagerly cashed in on this revenue scheme, often under the pretext of the War on Drugs. By asserting that someone’s property, a building or a large of amount of cash for example, is tied to an illegal activity, the government—usually, the police—then confiscates the property for its own uses, and it’s up to the property owner to jump through a series of legal hoops to prove that the property was not connected to criminal activity or that the owner had no involvement or knowledge of the criminal activity. But challenging these “takings” in court can cost the owner more than the value of the confiscated property itself.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/supreme_court_agrees_to_hear_challenge_to_asset_forfeiture_scheme_where_police_seize_and_keep_cars_cash_homes_of_innocent_owners

Agree, this is an overreach and an embarrassment to most of the cops.

[Agnostic007]

This has been going on for decades. The cops can often keep the money that they steal "seize" so they have a strong incentive to continue this criminal activity.

But I am not too optimistic about the Supreme Court, they have regularly made shameful rulings to suit the government. They ruled previously that civil asset forfeiture is not unconstitutional, that cops have no duty to protect you, the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional and of course they concocted the ridiculous concept of "qualified immunity" which to this days shields countless cops from being punished for their crimes. Maybe this iteration of the SCOTUS will see things differently.

I think you are right. And I am glad the Supreme Court is looking into it.

[illuminati]

Agree, this is an overreach and an embarrassment to most of the cops.

Okay good to hear.

Only did most cops stand up & challenge it or  just keep quiet & go along with it. ?

[Agnostic007]

Okay good to hear.

Only did most cops stand up & challenge it or  just keep quiet & go along with it. ?

No clue. Just went off the post.

[illuminati]

No clue. Just went off the post.

If you have No Clue,

You said most cops found it an embarrassment??
How did you reach that conclusion then ?

[Agnostic007]

If you have No Clue,

You said most cops found it an embarrassment??
How did you reach that conclusion then ?

Wow! That is pretty impressive! Good call! What
I was commenting on, and didn’t bother to offer supporting information because frankly I didn’t think anyone cared but kudos to you

So from about 2008- 2016 I found myself dealing with seizure laws. Not because I wanted to but because sometimes you’re assigned to jobs.
During about four of those years I was privvy to the asset forfeiture numbers of a few high profile departments or organizations within our department. Highway Interdiction, Gang Unit and Narcotics..

I erroneously based my response on real world attitudes among the rank and file officers of my department during that time over asset forfeiture laws. Forgive me if I spoke out of turn Illuminate

[illuminati]

Wow! That is pretty impressive! Good call! What
I was commenting on, and didn’t bother to offer supporting information because frankly I didn’t think anyone cared but kudos to you

So from about 2008- 2016 I found myself dealing with seizure laws. Not because I wanted to but because sometimes you’re assigned to jobs.
During about four of those years I was privvy to the asset forfeiture numbers of a few high profile departments or organizations within our department. Highway Interdiction, Gang Unit and Narcotics..

I erroneously based my response on real world attitudes among the rank and file officers of my department during that time over asset forfeiture laws. Forgive me if I spoke out of turn Illuminate

I didn't say you spoke out of turn, I just asked questions to your answer.

They're attitude in private, Hmmm okay - only they didn't have the balls or back bone to stand up
& speak out ??

Great - 🤦🏻‍♂️



All it takes for evil to Prevail
Is for good men to stand by & watch & say or do Nothing.

[Soul Crusher]

Treasure hunter accused FBI of a 'major cover up' claiming agents made off with missing $500M in Civil War gold in middle of the night after he found long-lost burial site
daily mail ^
Posted on 8/6/2023, 10:59:35 PM by algore

A treasure hunter has accused the FBI of a 'major coverup' after it allegedly made off with $500million worth of buried Civil War gold.

Dennis Parada believes he located a burial site around halfway up a mountain in western Pennsylvania laden with Civil War treasure, before the FBI dug up the goods under the cover of darkness.

The detectorist claims he alerted authorities to the possible haul after ground-testing suggested the Dents Run site was filled with gold.

The FBI then commissioned its own tests that suggested vast amounts of the metal could be below the surface.

The agency claims that when it dug up the site in 2018, it came up empty.

Parada insists the feds made off with the gold during a nighttime dig, depriving him of a hefty finder's fee.

Warren Getler, co-author of 'Rebel Gold' and a former reporter who helped Parada identify the site, told The Wall Street Journal he had 'come to the unavoidable conclusion that the FBI did take the treasure under cover of darkness.'

Parada said it smacked of a 'major coverup.'

He and his son Kem, who together comprise the treasure hunters firm Finders Keepers, sued the FBI last year seeking enforcement of a Freedom of Information Act request.

They now allege the FBI has failed to turn over certain records and doctored photos to conceal a night dig.

Treasure hunters have long sought lost rebel treasure, but less attention has been paid to Union gold.

Parada's interest was piqued by an article in Treasure magazine in 1974 that said a Union caravan with gold bars was ambushed in Elk County, Pennsylvania.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

[Soul Crusher]

FBI Agent Who Spearheaded False ‘RussiaGate’ Trump Connection To Plead Guilty For Illegally Working For Russian Oligarch
One America News ^ | August 8, 2023 | Brooke Mallory
Posted on 8/9/2023, 2:32:09 PM by Navy Patriot

Charles McGonigal, a former FBI agent who helped lead the investigation into Trump-Russia connections, is expected to plead guilty to charges of unlawfully working for a Russian oligarch.

In an ironic turn of events, one of the individuals who worked tirelessly to take down former President Donald Trump by falsely accusing him of secretly collaborating with Russian officials and hackers was, in fact, the one engaging with influential Russians at the time.

McGonigal, 54, a former top FBI counterintelligence agent based in New York, was charged in January with money laundering and violating United States sanctions by working for a Russian oligarch and business magnate named Oleg Deripaska.

(Excerpt) Read more at oann.com ...