The Patriots

by Rutherford Institute

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Warning of the danger to the public from the increasing use of “knock and talk” tactics by police, The Rutherford Institute has asked the United States Supreme Court to rein in aggressive “knock and talk” practices, which have become thinly veiled, warrantless attempts by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

In asking the Court to review the case of Young v. Borders, Rutherford Institute attorneys denounced a lower court ruling that failed to hold police accountable for banging on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failing to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shooting and killing the innocent homeowner who answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. Although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or lifted his firearm against police, he was gunned down by police who were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

n an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, Institute attorneys argue that the police violated the Fourth Amendment in conducting the “knock and talk” because the late-night raid at Scott’s home was an abuse of society’s norms and a trespass on Scott’s property. The Institute has also issued constitutional guidelines to educate the public about what they can do to preserve their constitutional rights against the coercive use of “knock and talks” by police as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless, unreasonable searches.

The Rutherford Institute’s amicus curiae brief in Young v. Borders is available at www.rutherford.org.

“Government officials insist that there is nothing unlawful, unreasonable or threatening about the prospect of armed police dressed in SWAT gear knocking on doors in the middle of night and ‘asking’ homeowners to engage in warrantless ‘knock-and-talk’ sessions,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “However, as Andrew Scott learned, there’s always a price to pay for saying no to such heavy-handed requests by police. If the courts continue to sanction such aggressive, excessive, coercive tactics, it will give police further incentive to terrorize and kill American citizens without fear of repercussion.”

On July 15, 2012, Deputy Richard Sylvester pursued a speeding motorcyclist, which he later had cause to believe might be armed and had been spotted at a nearby apartment complex. Around 1:30 a.m., Sylvester and three other deputies began knocking on doors in the apartment complex in the vicinity of the parked motorcycle, starting with Apt. 114, which was occupied by Andrew Scott and Amy Young, who were playing video games and had no connection to the motorcycle or any illegal activity. The deputies assumed tactical positions, guns drawn and ready to shoot. Sylvester, without announcing he was a police officer, then banged loudly and repeatedly on the door. Unnerved by the banging at such a late hour, Andrew Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the door. When Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside his door, he retreated into his apartment only to have Sylvester immediately open fire. Sylvester fired six shots, three of which hit and killed Scott. A trial court subsequently ruled in favor of the police, ruling that Scott was to blame for choosing to retrieve a handgun before opening the door. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Sylvester was protected by “qualified immunity,” reasoning that the use of excessive force did not violate “clearly established law.”

by Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com Staff

The Arizona woman accused of scalding her adoptive child causing third degree burns to 80% of her body resulting in the amputation of all 10 toes has been found guilty of 2 of the 3 charges brought against her.

Samantha Osteraas was found guilty by a jury in Tucson Arizona for child abuse. Image source.

Samantha Osteraas of Tucson, Arizona, faces between 10 and 24 years in prison for hurting Devani, the little girl that the Arizona Department of Child Services placed into her care after removing her from a foster home where she was being abused in a pedophilia pornography ring.

A Pima County jury of 9 women and 3 men deliberated for 8 hours before reaching their verdict on Friday afternoon, October 19, 2018. According to News 4 Tucson, Osteraas:

They were happy to see her walk into court on her own:

She looked so beautiful! She is so strong.

Two different advocates told us that it was clear from Devani’s demeanor that she refused to wear the label of “victim,” even though she has suffered more abuse than most people can imagine.

Devani has a different legal name after being adopted by Samantha and Justin Osteraas, but her advocates say that they will always call her by her real name, Devani Rose.

Devani, before the abuse that left her with a lifetime of physical scars and pain. Source – Justice for Devani Rose Facebook page.

See our coverage of Devani’s testimony here: Trial Begins for Little Arizona Girl Placed with Pedophiles in Foster Care and Burned by Adoptive Mom

Real Parents Not Allowed to See Devani in Court

Devani’s parents and grandmother, who are still fighting and praying that, somehow, their little girl will be returned to her family, were not allowed to see her testify.

They simply wanted to see her with their own eyes, something they have not been allowed to do since she was so brutally injured under state supervision. A simple request to be permitted to see her through a crack in the door or from behind a 1-way glass window was denied.

According to one witness, Guardian ad Litem Thea Gilbert brought in a psychologist to court to argue that seeing her birth parents would be “traumatizing” to the child. However, no mention was made of the potential trauma of seeing the woman who has scarred her for life.

Devani testified that Samantha Osteraas held her down in the bathtub with a pink towel. She named Osteraas and pointed her out to the jury.

Court watchers told us that they saw the trauma on the child’s face when she looked at Osteraas and their eyes met. They reported that their hearts broke as Devani “froze up” for about a half a minute.

Abuser – She Did This to Herself

Tucson.com reports that Osteraas denied holding her down. Her version of the story was that the 5-year-old child did this to herself:

Osteraas testified the child got into the hot water on her own and then stayed there until Osteraas found her in a dazed state.

There were “so many inconsistencies in Samantha’s story,” according to one of the court watchers we talked to.

The prosecuting attorney did not buy her story, either. Tucson.com reports:

Deputy Pima County Attorney Alan Goodwin had urged jurors to use common sense in deciding whether a child would sit in scalding water as the burns deepened, and whether a mother who claimed to care would wait hours to get help. The girl was “on death’s door” before Osteraas sought help, he said.

17 Calls Made Over 5-Hour Period Before 911 Called

He pointed out that the burns were so severe that she lost her toes. Yet, the accused waited for possibly 5 hours before making the phone call that should have been her first response. Phone records cited in court showed that Osteraas made 17 phone calls to various people before calling 911.

He argued that the delay in calling for help was not intentional. Rogers was reportedly disappointed that the jury did not agree, and he says they plan to file an appeal. This is standard in criminal cases.

Sentencing – Aggravating Circumstances or Leniency Due to Abuser’s Own History in Foster Care?

Tucson.com reports that Samantha Osteraas will be sentenced on December 3. There are several factors involved in determining the length of her prison sentence, which could range from a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years up to a maximum of 24 years.

The jury believes that there were factors present that increase the severity of the crimes committed against Devani:

After the verdicts were read, the jurors returned to the deliberation room to decide whether prosecutors had proven three so-called aggravating factors in the case:

• that the child had suffered emotionally,
• that she was 5 years old when the crime occurred, and
• that she was harmed by someone in a position of trust.

The jury found all of these factors were proven, which will allow the judge to consider them when determining Osteraas’ sentence.

Samantha Osteraas during her trial for abusing Devani. Photo source: Tucson 4 News.

Samantha Osteraas herself was adopted as a child. Her defense attorney pointed to her “very rough childhood,” which included abuse and foster care. Based on those factors, Jeff Rogers intends to request leniency in her sentencing.

The irony is that these same factors – being a victim of childhood abuse (or domestic violence as an adult), and growing up in foster care or being adopted – are frequently used by Child Protective Services agencies and social workers all across the United States to argue against leniency on birth parents.

Many loving parents who are falsely accused in the system hear in court that, because they have a history of being in foster care themselves, they cannot possibly know how to adequately parent.

These criteria do not actually determine the ability or suitability of anyone to parent, but social workers and attorneys pick and choose how to use facts such as these to twist to fit whatever agenda suits them in the moment.

The reality is that some children who grow up in the system, or who face any other challenge, are able to work through their pain and overcome the difficulties, while some grow up to repeat the patterns of abuse they experienced.

There was no leniency on Devani’s mother Michelle Tremor-Calderon when the state of Arizona terminated her parental rights and placed her child into horrific situations that she never would have faced in her mother’s care.

Now that the trial is over, Devani is still not with any of her family. Her legal name remains one assigned to her by her adopters, Samantha and Justin Osteraas. As far as we can determine, Devani is in yet another foster home.

Why Is GAL Thea Gilbert Still Allowed on the Case?

Shockingly, her Guardian ad Litem, Thea Gilbert, remains on her case. The attorney who is supposed to represent the child’s best interest has been with Devani’s case since the beginning.

Gilbert approved her placement with the now-imprisoned David Frodsham. Even after Devani’s mother Michelle Tremor-Calderon and transporter Beth Breen told Thea Gilbert that the child was terrified and showed clear signs of being sexually molested, Gilbert ignored them.

She and other Pima County social workers ignored the stories of other foster and adopted children in the home telling that they were being repeatedly raped and trafficked. One of the children has now aged out and is suing the state for millions of dollars for placing him and his brothers in such harm.

See: Arizona Foster Care System Revealed as Pedophile Ring: Former Foster Child Tortured for Years Sues for $15 Million

Despite being informed of the harm to Devani, Thea Gilbert recommended to the court that the Frodshams be allowed to adopt Devani.

According to KOLD News 13:

In November 2015, DCS investigated reports of sexual and physical abuse [by David Frodsham]. Those allegations were unsubstantiated.

Yet, they report:

DCS removed the child from the home of her biological parents in April 2013 when neglect allegations were substantiated.

[Note: these allegations against the parents were investigated by Health Impact News as well. We examined the DCS documents as well as the exonerating evidence, which clearly proved that the allegations were false from the very beginning. Source.]

After the pornography pedophile ring was busted by ICE, Gilbert approved Devani’s placement and subsequent adoption by Samantha and Justin Osteraas, despite clear warnings that the woman was prone to violence.

Two of the foster parent placements approved by Thea Gilbert and the Pima County DCS face at least a decade in prison each for heinous crimes committed against children.

Still, Thea Gilbert not only remains involved in the case, but she also refuses to so much as recuse herself.

When will those responsible for placing this child into harm’s way be held accountable? Are we truly to believe that they are above the law?

Why are the standards for non-biological fosters and adoptors consistently far more lenient than those to which biological parents are held?

There is a Facebook page established by supporters to continue to fight for “Justice for Devani Rose.”

by Lisa Payne-Naeger

Levi Strauss & Co. has expanded their original mission beyond the manufacture of blue jeans. This “values driven company” now feels a responsibility to “the communities where we live and work” and will now engage with other gun control groups to fight for “gun violence prevention.”

Chip Berg, CEO of Levi Strauss, wrote an open letter to his customers asking them not to bring firearms onto the premises of their stores, offices or other facilities. For him, it was a matter of safety. Of course, law enforcement was exempt from that request.

“It boils down to this: you shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans. Simply put, firearms don’t belong in either of those settings. In the end, I believe we have an obligation to our employees and customers to ensure a safe environment and keeping firearms out of our stores and offices will get us one step closer to achieving that reality.”

So, it’s clear Berg doesn’t subscribe to the theory that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Berg took it a step farther today with an op-ed in Fortune. He explained that as a leader in business “with power in the public and political arenas” he felt the responsibility to break the silence that threatens “the very fabric of the communities where we live and work.”

“So today, on top of our previous actions, Levi Strauss & Co. is lending its support for gun violence prevention in three new areas.”

The company has developed a site that outlines its gun violence prevention strategy complete with mission statements and donation match programs.

“So today, on top of our previous actions, Levi Strauss & Co. is lending its support for gun violence prevention in three new areas.”

The company has developed a site that outlines its gun violence prevention strategy complete with mission statements and donation match programs.

This coalition of like minded executives “has a critical role to play in and a moral obligation to do something about the gun violence epidemic in this country. I encourage every CEO and business leader reading this to consider the impact we could make if we stood together alongside the broad coalition of concerned parents, youth, elders, veterans, and community and faith leaders who are committed to shaping a safer path forward.”

He doesn’t explain any particular plan of action for the Every Town organization other than to infer there may be some think-tank like discussions on how to end gun violence.

And the third leg of the stool involves employee participation. Levi Strauss is doubling its employee donation match to any organizations aligned with its own Safer Tomorrow Fund.

In addition to encouraging employee donations to their own foundation, they are offering to compensate any employee who wishes to volunteer time up to five hours a month. Not only can employees volunteer in their own foundations but political activism is also compensated as well.

Levi Strauss considers this compensation an encouragement to employees “to use their time to make an impact.”

Berg notes that Levi Strauss has always been on the cutting edge of progressivism ideals in company policy and some not so progressive. But he thinks this one will prove to be the right stand in history.

“As a company, we have never been afraid to take an unpopular stand to support a greater good. We integrated our factories in the American South years before the Civil Rights Act was passed. We offered benefits to same-sex partners in the 1990s, long before most companies did. We pulled our financial support for the Boy Scouts of America when it banned gay troop leaders.

“While each one of these stands may have been controversial at the time, history proved the company right in the long run. And I’m convinced that while some will disagree with our stand to end gun violence, history will prove this position right too.”

Mr. Berg, no one disagrees with your stand to end gun violence. Gun violence is a terrible thing.

We just don’t want anyone to eliminate our constitutional right to bear arms at a time when law enforcement officers can’t get to your offices, stores or factories in time to stop mass shooters who would attack innocents in a gun free zone — hypothetically of course.

Has anyone ever asked these social justice warrior business leaders why they can’t coalesce around decreasing the national debt, lowering taxes, returning to state sovereignty, or any number of other things that also “threaten the very fabric of the communities where we live and work?”

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

For those of you that claim we don’t live in a police state, I give you this recent Michigan Appeals Court ruling.

In 2015, Deputy James Dawson went to Joshua Brennan’s home and knocked on his door trying to obtain a breath sample. When Brennan did not answer, Dawson spent an hour and a half knocking at his doors and windows.

Officer Dawson also put crime-scene tape over Brennan’s security cameras to conceal his actions and used his siren and cruiser lights in an attempt to rouse him.

When Brennan finally opened his door, officer Dawson forced him to take a breathalyzer and arrested him for a probation violation even though he blew a 0.000.

All of this was done without a warrant. (Warrantless breathalyzer tests was not a condition of Brennan’s probation.)

If you think, it is obvious to any reasonable person that his rights were violated. Then you don’t know how the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals interprets the Constitution.  The fact that this even went to an Appeals Court, speaks volumes about our justice system but I digress.

Let’s get back to the ruling;  judge John Nalabandian said that officer Dawson did violate Brennan’s Fourth Amendment rights by searching him without a warrant. All is good so far, right?

Not quite, Nalabandian went on to say “police actions that violate the Constitution do not lead to liability.”

The court also ruled that since officer “Dawson’s implied license was not clearly established” and because of that old police standby, “deficient training” he cannot be sued.

To say that the court’s reasoning is frustrating is an understatement. The court said that because “Wilson and Clare County were not on actual or constructive notice that the deputy training was deficient they could not be liable.”

Does anyone really think police are held to a higher standard when they constantly use the “deficient training” excuse?

If you are upset by the court’s ruling that police are not liable for violating the Constitution I warn you, it only gets worse.

Citizens must prove to judges that violating out rights is unlawful

According to the Sixth Circuit and this speaks volumes about our justice system “the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the right was so well settled that every reasonable official would understand that what he is doing is unlawful.”

In other words, citizens must prove to a “reasonable official” [judge] that a police officer violating the Constitution is unlawful.

The Sixth Circuit claimed that since the Hardesty v. Hamburg Twp. ruling did not set a limit on how long a police officer can harass people at their homes Brennan cannot sue the police.  Even though they admitted that “absent a warrant a police officer has no greater license to remain on the property than a Girl Scout or trick-or-treater.”

The ruling repeatedly admits that “Dawson arguably violated the Constitution.” but states for a second time that “even if a government official violated a constitutional right, that official is entitled to qualified immunity.”

The Sixth Circuit refused to view the “constitutionality of the officer’s conduct or the continuing viability of Hardest and Turk.”

Not only did the Appeals court rule that Brennan cannot sue the police for violating his rights but they dismissed his unlawful arrest claim as well.

Only one judge, Karen Moore dissented and agreed like any “reasonable official” should, saying Brennan’s rights were violated and the officer could be sued.

Why is the media silent when rulings as egregious as this are taking place across the country?

Proving to “reasonable officials” that violating our rights is unlawful? America is fast on its way to becoming a police state.

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).