The American Resistance has many faces and here are just seventeen of them (8)

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

In April 2017…. President Trump signed a law overturning strong, commonsense privacy rules that gave consumers control over what internet service providers (ISPs) could do with their data. The rules that were overturned would have prevented ISPs from sharing our browsing history with advertisers, forced ISPs to be clear about what information they’re collecting, and required ISPs to take reasonable steps to protect our data from hackers.

The response from many states was almost instantaneous. State legislators around the nation are now considering laws to restore the privacy protections that Congress and President Trump eviscerated……..

ALASKA

States where legislation has been introduced

Alaska’s HB 232, and the similar HB 230, prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from conditioning service on a customer giving them consent to collect personal information.

HAWAII

States where legislation has been introduced

A proposed version of Hawaii’s SB 1201 prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from conditioning service on a customer given them consent to collect personal information. However, the current version of the legislation does not include any privacy language.

KANSAS

States where legislation has been introduced

Kansas’s HB 2423 prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting or otherwise storing the personal information from a resident of Kansas without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from refusing to provide their service to a resident of Kansas who has not given approval for the collection, storage or sale of their personal information.

MAINE

States where legislation has been introduced

Maine’s LD 1610 prohibits an ISP from using, disclosing, selling, or permitting access to a customer’s personal information without express, affirmative consent (absent certain emergency and other exceptions). The bill defines personal information as including web browsing history, app usage, and precise geolocation information, among other sensitive types of data. It prohibits conditioning the sale of a service, or changing a penalty for that service, if a customer does not provide consent. The bill also requires ISPs to take reasonable measures to protect customer’s personal information against unauthorized use, disclosure or access.

MARYLAND

States where legislation has been introduced

A bill was introduced just six days before the end of the legislative session and failed to pass through Maryland’s state legislature, SB 1200, due to the lack of time to consider the issue. It would have prohibited ISPs from selling or transferring a customer’s personally identifying information—which includes browsing history and IP address—for marketing purposes without affirmative consent from the customer (absent certain legal exceptions). It would have prevented ISPs from showing ads to customers from the ISP based on the customer’s browsing history, without affirmative permission. The bill would have prevented ISPs from conditioning service on a customer giving them consent to collect personal information. And the bill would have required the state’s Joint Committee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Biotechnology to monitor enforcement of the act and provide recommendations on future changes needed to the law.

MASSACHUSETTS

States where legislation has been introduced

There are several internet privacy bills pending in Massachusetts. HB 3698 prohibits an ISP from collecting, using, disclosing, or permitting access to a customer’s sensitive propriety information without opt-in consent (absent certain emergency and other circumstances). Sensitive proprietary information includes financial and health information, information about children, precise geolocation, browsing history, and app usage, among others. The bill also requires that ISPs disclose, at the point of sale or during significant changes to their practices, the types of information the ISP wishes to collect, the purposes for which it would use the information, and the types of third-parties who would receive the information when asking the customer for opt-in consent.

S 2062 would prohibit ISPs from collecting, using, disclosing or permitting third-party access to a customer’s proprietary information, which includes web browsing history and app usage, without affirmative consent (absent certain emergency and other exceptions). It also requires the ISP to ask for opt-in approval when material changes are made to the company’s privacy policy, and it requires that customers be given a conspicuous notice of what information is collected, the purpose for which it would be disclosed, and the type of third-party it would be disclosed to. It also prohibits conditioning the sale of a service, or changing a penalty for that service, if a customer does not provide consent.

MINNESOTA

States where legislation has been introduced

A number of similar broadband privacy amendments were attempted in Minnesota. HF 2209 has a provision that prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. HF 2579, HF 2606, and HF 2309 have the same language but also prohibit conditioning the sale of a service on a customer given them consent to collect personal information.

NEBRASKA

States where legislation has been introduced

LR 136, designates the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee to conduct an interim study of the effects of the overturning of the FCC’s broadband privacy rule. If the study concludes that repeal of the rule does impact the privacy of Nebraskans, it may consider state legislative and administration options to restore privacy protections to consumers. The bill was introduced with bi-partisan support.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

States where legislation has been introduced

An amendment to HB 305, which was not adopted, prohibited ISPs from using, disclosing, selling or permitting access to a customer’s personal information without affirmative consent (absent certain emergency and other exceptions). The amendment defined personal information as the content of communications, demographic information, browsing history, financial and health information, information pertaining to children, app usage, and precise geolocation, among others. The amendment also required ISPs to take reasonable steps to protect customer personal information from unauthorized use, disclosure, or access.

NEW JERSEY

States where legislation has been introduced

SB 3156 requires ISPs to keep their customer’s personally identifiable information—which includes browsing history and precise geolocation—confidential unless the customers provide affirmative consent. It also provides that ISP give written notice of this requirement to each customer. The provisions of the bill do not apply to investigations undertaken pursuant to the “New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. Importantly, an ISP cannot refuse to offer internet service to customers simply because the customer does not consent to disclosure of personal information.

AB 3027 instructs the Board of Public Utilities, in consultation with the Division of Consumer Affairs and the Department of Law and Public Safety, to undertake a public awareness campaign to promote consumer understanding of ISP’s information disclosure practices. The campaign would include information about state and federal privacy laws, the circumstances under which ISPs can disclose customer information, and guidance for how consumers can access and understand the privacy policies of ISPs. The bill does not specifically address how the campaign will be clear and accessible to the public.

NEW YORK

States where legislation has been introduced

New York has the most currently pending bills of any state. A 7191 and S5603 prohibit any ISP that do business within the state from collecting or disclosing a customer’s personal information—which includes browsing history and the contents of data-storage devices—without affirmative consent . However, the bills have a number of exceptions for the consent requirement, including provisions that would allow law enforcement to access customer data without a warrant. The bills also require ISPs to take reasonable data security steps and provide a cause of action for ISP violations of its provisions.

A 7236 and S 5576 require ISPs to obtain affirmative consent from a customer prior to using, sharing or selling that customer’s sensitive information, which includes browsing history, financial and medical data, biographical data, the content of communications, and internet usage. Non-sensitive data, which includes aggregate data or subscription data, does not require consent for disclosure. The bills also require ISPs to provide customers with a copy of a privacy policy that includes: data collection and use practices; the ISP’s relationships with third-parties, the purposes for which the ISP collects data; and information for how consumers can exercise control over their privacy. Any ISP that violates the provisions would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fines.

A 7495 and S 5516 require ISPs to keep confidential, unless given affirmatives consent, customer information including biographical information, browsing history, financial and health information, and information about political affiliation, among others. The ISP is also required to provide written notice of the requirements of the bill to each customer.

S 3367 requires ISPs to keep all customer information confidential unless affirmative consent is provided. The bill also creates a find of $500 per offense for any ISP found to be in violation.

OREGON

States where legislation has been introduced

HB 2090, which has been passed by the Oregon legislature, makes it a violation of that state’s consumer protections law for a company to engage in practices that are inconsistent with its stated privacy policy.

HB 2813 prohibits an ISP from disclosing, selling, or permitting access to a customer’s personal information without affirmative consent (absent certain emergency or other exceptions). The bill defines personal information to include demographic information, browsing history, app usage, the content of communications, information about finances, health or children, and precise geolocation, among others. The bill also prohibits an ISP from conditioning service on or charging a higher rate to customers that do not provide consent for their information to be used. The bill requires ISPs to take reasonable measures to protect customer personal information from unauthorized use, disclosure, or access. And the bill gives a private right of action against an ISP that discloses or sell their information in violation of the bill’s provisions.

RHODE ISLAND

States where legislation has been introduced

HB 6086 prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from conditioning service on a customer given them consent to collect personal information.

SOUTH CAROLINA

States where legislation has been introduced

HB 4154 prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from conditioning service on a customer given them consent to collect personal information.

WASHINGTON

States where legislation has been introduced

HB 2200, which has already passed the House twice, prohibits an ISP from selling or transferring a customer’s proprietary information, which includes communications content, browsing history, precise geolocation, and financial and health information, among others, without opt-in consent. The bill also prohibits an ISP conditioning service on a customer’s consent to use their proprietary information, and further must disclose the terms and conditions of any financial incentive provided to a customer that consents to having their information used by the ISP.

SB 5919 prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from conditioning service on a customer given them consent to collect personal information.

VERMONT

States where legislation has been introduced

HB 535 directs the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of Public Services to adopt privacy and data security rules for ISPs. SB 147 uses similar language, but also requires that the rules adopted include disclosure requirements for ISP privacy policies, opt-in or opt-out procedures for obtaining customer approval to use and share sensitive or non-sensitive customer propriety information, and data security and breach notification requirements.

SB 72 directs the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner for Public Service and industry and consumer stakeholders, to submit a recommendation or draft legislation regarding whether and to what extent the state should adopt privacy and data security rules for ISPs.

WISCONSIN

States where legislation has been introduced

SB 233 prohibits an ISP from using, disclosing or permitting access to a customer’s proprietary information without affirmative consent (absent certain emergency and other exceptions). The bill defines proprietary information as the content of communications or information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, or amount of use of an ISP’s service. The bill also requires that ISP provide notice to consumers about how they collect and use their information and it requires reasonable data security practices and notification of data breaches.

The American Resistance has many faces and these are just two of them (7)

Taking resistance to President Trump's doorstep.......

CBS Los Angeles, 13 May 2017:

RANCHO PALOS VERDES (CBSLA.com) – A group of approximately 200 people spelled out the word “Resist!” Saturday morning on the grounds of the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes.

The group, which identified itself as Indivisible San Pedro, held the flash mob style protest between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies responded, but there were no reported arrests, according to organizers of the demonstration.

Peter Warren, a member of Indivisible San Pedro, told CBS2 that group held the protest as a call for a special prosecutor to investigate whether there was Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election.

via @voterdye from DC, 16 May 2017

Trump International Hotel, Washington DC, owned by the Trump Organizatuion since 2014. Subjected to an unexpected light show on 15 May 2017.

Photo found at Business Insider, 16 March 2017

Has the Republican Party finally pushed the American people too far?

Facebook News Feed:

 Weakley County Sheriff's Department

11 May at 08:23 · 

PRESS RELEASE 05/11/17

INVESTIGATORS FROM THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION OF THE WEAKLEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAVE ARRESTED 35 YEAR OLD WENDI L. WRIGHT OF 4004 HUBERT HARRIS ROAD IN OBION COUNTY TENNESSEE AND CHARGED HER WITH FELONY RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AFTER AN INCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE IN WEAKLEY COUNTY ON MONDAY MAY 8TH 2017. DURING THAT TIME IT IS ALLEGED THAT WRIGHT FOLLOWED A VEHICLE OCCUPIED BY UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN DAVID KUSTOFF AND HIS AIDE MARIANNE DUNAVANT WHILE THEY WERE GOING DOWN HIGHWAY 45 SOUTH OF MARTIN . THEY HAD BEEN AT A TOWN HALL MEETING ON THE CAMPUS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT MARTIN. WRIGHT PLACED THE OCCUPANTS IN FEAR OF BEING FORCED OFF OF THE ROADWAY. THEY TURNED ONTO OLD TROY ROAD AND INTO A DRIVEWAY OF A PERSON THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH. WRIGHT EXITED HER VEHICLE AND BEGAN SCREAMING AND STRIKING THE WINDOWS OF THEIR VEHICLE AND AT ONE POINT REACHED INSIDE THEIR VEHICLE. SHE THEN STOOD IN FRONT OF THEIR VEHICLE IN AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP THEM BLOCKED IN. A 911 CALL WAS PLACED DURING THIS TIME BUT WRIGHT LEFT THE AREA BEFORE DEPUTIES ARRIVED. WRIGHT WAS IDENTIFIED AFTER SHE POSTED DETAILS OF THE ENCOUNTER ON FACEBOOK. WRIGHT WAS LOCATED BY DEPUTIES FROM THE OBION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND TAKEN INTO CUSTODY ON THE WEAKLEY COUNTY ARREST WARRANT. SHE HAS BEEN RELEASED AFTER POSTING A ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR BOND. WRIGHT WILL BE ARRAIGNED ON MONDAY MAY 15TH 2017 IN WEAKLEY COUNTY GENERAL SESSIONS COURT.

INVESTIGATOR CAPTAIN RANDALL MCGOWAN

WEAKLEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

Screenshot from CNN Politics video

iOTW Report, 14 May 2017:

A man got physical with Republican North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer at a town hall meeting Thursday before being escorted out by police.

The man was yelling at Rep. Cramer, "Will the rich benefit from, if the health care is destroyed, do the rich get a tax break? Yes or no?" He then shoved cash into the congressman's collar, saying, "There you go, take it."

Cramer responded, "That's too far," and police escorted the man from the meeting.

FACTS OF THE MATTER: Trump, Russia and the 2016 U.S. presidential election

FACTS UNDER OATH

GRAHAM: OK. Do you stand by your testimony that there is an active investigation counterintelligence investigation regarding Trump campaign individuals in the Russian government as to whether not to collaborate? You said that in March...

COMEY: To see if there was any coordination between the Russian effort and peoples...

GRAHAM: Is that still going on?

COMEY: Yes.

GRAHAM: OK. So nothing's changed. You stand by those two statements?

COMEY: Correct. ……

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN.: Thanks. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Director Comey for being here and thank you to you and the men and women who work with you at the FBI for their extraordinary service to our country, much of it unappreciated as you've wrote so powerfully in your opening statement. You have confirmed, I believe, that the FBI is investigating potential ties between Trump Associates and the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, correct?

COMEY: Yes.

BLUMENTHAL: And you have not, to my knowledge, ruled out anyone in the Trump campaign as potentially a target of that criminal investigation, correct?

COMEY: Well, I haven't said anything publicly about who we've opened investigations on, I briefed the chair and ranking on who those people are. And so I can't -- I can't go beyond that in this setting. [FBI Director James B. Comey responds to a questions from Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican-South Carolina) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (Democrat-Connecticut) during the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation”, commencing 10am US EDT 3 May 2017, transcript published in The Washington Post]

With respect to the Russian investigation, we treated it like we did with the Clinton investigation. We didn't say a word about it until months into it and then the only thing we've confirmed so far about this is the same thing with the Clinton investigation. That we are investigating. And I would expect, we're not going to say another peep about it until we're done. And I don't know what will be said when we're done, but that's the way we handled the Clinton investigation as well…….

In that particular investigation, my judgment was that it — that the appearance of fairness and independence required that it be removed from the political chain of command within the Department of Justice, because as you recall, it seems like a lifetime ago. But that also involved the conduct of people who were senior-level people in the White House, and my judgment was that even I, as an independent-minded person, was a political appointee and so I ought to give it to a career person like Pat Fitzgerald.

The Russians used cyber operations against both political parties, including hacking into servers used by the Democratic National Committee and releasing stolen data to WikiLeaks and other media outlets. Russia also collected on certain Republican Party- affiliated targets, but did not release any Republican-related data. The Intelligence Community Assessment concluded first that President Putin directed and influenced campaign to erode the faith and confidence of the American people in our presidential election process. Second, that he did so to demean Secretary Clinton, and third, that he sought to advantage Mr. Trump. These conclusions were reached based on the richness of the information gathered and analyzed and were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me. [JAMES R. CLAPPER JR., former Director Of National Intelligence August 2010–January 2017, giving evidence before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into “Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election”, commencing 4.30am AEST 9 May 2017, transcript published in The Washington Post]

When the Intelligence Community obtains information suggesting that a U.S. person is acting on behalf of a foreign power, the standard procedure is to share that information with the FBI. The Bureau then decides whether to look into that information and handles any ensuing investigation, if there is one.

Given its sensitivity, even the existence of a counterintelligence investigation is closely held, including at the highest levels. During my tenure as DNI, it was my practice to defer to the FBI Director – both Director Mueller and Director Comey – on whether, when, and to what extent they would inform me about such investigations. This stems from the unique position of the FBI, which straddles both intelligence and law enforcement. As a consequence, I was not aware of the counterintelligence investigation Director Comey first referred to during his testimony before the House intelligence committee on March 20th, and that comports with my public statements. [JAMES R. CLAPPER, former Director of National Intelligence, giving evidence before the U.S. Committee On The Judiciary Subcommittee On Crime And Terrorism United States Senate investigation into “Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election”, 8 May 2017, transcript]

I had two in-person meetings and one phone call with the White House Counsel about Mr. Flynn. The first meeting occurred on January 26, called Don McGahn first thing that morning and told him that I had a very sensitive matter that I needed to discuss with him, that I couldn't talk about it on the phone and that I needed to come see him. And he agreed to meet with me later that afternoon.

I took a senior member of the national security division who was overseeing this matter with me to meet with Mr. McGahn. We met in his office at the White House which is a skiff (ph) so we could discuss classified information in his office. We began our meeting telling him that there had been press accounts of statements from the vice president and others that related conduct that Mr. Flynn had been involved in that we knew not to be the truth.

And as I - as I tell you what happened here, again I'm going to be very careful not to reveal classified information…..

So I told them again that there were a number of press accounts of statements that had been made by the vice president and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn's conduct that we knew to be untrue. And we told them how we knew that this - how we had this information, how we had acquired it, and how we knew that it was untrue.

And we walked the White House Counsel who also had an associate there with him through General Flynn's underlying conduct, the contents of which I obviously cannot go through with you today because it's classified. But we took him through in a fair amount of detail of the underlying conduct, what General Flynn had done, and then we walked through the various press accounts and how it had been falsely reported.

We also told the White House Counsel that General Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI on February 24. Mr. McGahn asked me how he did and I declined to give him an answer to that. And we then walked through with Mr. McGahn essentially why we were telling them about this and the first thing we did was to explain to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that General Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself.

Secondly, we told him we felt like the vice president and others were entitled to know that the information that they were conveying to the American people wasn't true. And we wanted to make it really clear right out of the gate that we were not accusing Vice President Pence of knowingly providing false information to the American people.

And, in fact, Mr. McGahn responded back to me to let me know that anything that General Flynn would've said would have been based -- excuse me -- anything that Vice President Pence would have said would have been based on what General Flynn had told him.

We told him the third reason was -- is because we were concerned that the American people had been misled about the underlying conduct and what General Flynn had done, and additionally, that we weren't the only ones that knew all of this, that the Russians also knew about what General Flynn had done.

And the Russians also knew that General Flynn had misled the vice president and others, because in the media accounts, it was clear from the vice president and others that they were repeating what General Flynn had told them, and that this was a problem because not only did we believe that the Russians knew this, but that they likely had proof of this information.

And that created a compromise situation, a situation where the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the Russians. Finally, we told them that we were giving them all of this information so that they could take action, the action that they deemed appropriate.

I remember that Mr. McGahn asked me whether or not General Flynn should be fired, and I told him that that really wasn't our call, that was up to them, but that we were giving them this information so that they could take action, and that was the first meeting.

[SALLY C. YATES, former Deputy U.S. Attorney-General & former Acting Attorney-General January 2015-January 2017, giving evidence before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into “Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election”, commencing 4.30am AEST 9 May 2017, transcript published in The Washington Post]

‘ALTERNATIVE FACTS’

[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861712617299210240 & https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861713233786404864]

via @SeanMcElwee 

HOLT: Monday, you met with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Did you ask for a recommendation?
TRUMP: What I did was, I was going to fire. My decision. I was not...
HOLT: You’d made the decision before they came into the room?
TRUMP: I was going to fire Comey. There’s no good time to do it by the way.
HOLT: In your letter, you said, ‘I accept their recommendation.’ 
TRUMP: Oh, I was going to fire, regardless of recommendation. He made a recommendation, he’s highly respected — very good guy, very smart guy. And the Democrats like him, Republicans like him. He made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. [Excerpt from NBC News Lester Holt interview with Donald Trump on 11 May 2017]

Their skin colour is not fair, they have a 'foreign' name - what could possibly go wrong for these travellers during the Trump Regime?

FACEBOOK:

Hassan Aden

19 March 2017 · 

Details of my CBP Detention at JFK Int. Airport:

After spending a lovely weekend in Paris celebrating my mom’s 80th birthday, I happily boarded my flight to return to the United States-something I have done countless times for 42 years after becoming a U.S. citizen. I had an enjoyable flight to New York’s JFK International Airport. On all of my prior trips, I was greeted by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers with a warm smile and the usual, “Welcome home sir”. Not this time. I approached CBP Officer Chow who didn’t say anything when I handed him my passport and looked at me with a gruff expression and simply stated, “are you traveling alone?”, I knew this was a sign of trouble, I answered “yes”, he then said, “Let’s take a walk”.

I was taken to a back office which looked to be a re-purposed storage facility with three desks and signs stating, “Remain seated at all times” and “Use of telephones strictly prohibited” - my first sign that this was not a voluntary situation and, in fact, a detention. By this point I had informed CBP Officer Chow, the one that initially detained me, that I was a retired police chief and a career police officer AND a US citizen-he stated that he had no control over the circumstance and that it didn’t matter what my occupation was. He handed my passport off to another CBP officer who was working at one of the desks. The second CBP officer was indeed kind and appreciated the fact that I was a career police officer and tried to be helpful. He explained that my name was used as an alias by someone on some watch list. He stated that he sent my information to another agency to de-conflict and clear me, so that I could gain passage into the United States….my own country!!!

As I sat in the CBP detention center, numerous, at least 25, foreign nationals were also brought in and quickly released, their detentions were reasonable and appropriate, maybe 5 or so minutes while their passports were checked. I pointed out the irony of this fact to the CBP officer that was attempting to “clear me for entry”. I told him, as he avoided eye contact, how wrong this scenario was that the only US citizen, career US police officer and chief of police, out of the group of detainees, was the one with the longest unreasonable detention- I was held for an hour and a half. I asked several times, “how long of a detention do you consider to be reasonable?”, the answer I was given by CBP Officer Chow was that I was not being detained-he said that with a straight face. I then replied, “But I’m not free to leave-how is that not a detention?” I was in a room with no access to my mobile phone to communicate with my wife and family about what was happening, my movements were restricted to a chair and they had my passport………and he had the audacity to tell me I was not being detained. His ignorance of the law and the Fourth Amendment should disqualify him from being able to wear a CBP badge - but maybe fear and detention is the new mission of the CBP and the Constitution is a mere suggestion. I certainly was not free to leave. As former law enforcement, believe me, I agree that if certain criteria is met, a reasonable investigative detention is not inappropriate-the key here being “reasonable”.

As I continued to sit in the CBP makeshift Detention Center, watching numerous foreign nationals enter my country while I couldn’t, I began thinking about my numerous trips abroad -including five in the past year (all prior to inauguration) - with no problems upon my return and complete with the warm greeting of “Welcome home”.

Fortunately, a CBP officer that had just started her shift took interest in my situation and began to inquire with the “other agency” that was reviewing my information-she aggressively asked them for status updates and eventually called me over to tell me that I was cleared to enter the United States of America. I promptly thanked her and filled her in on how impactful this situation was-she apologized and I was on my way after an hour and a half detention.

I spent nearly 30 years serving the public in law enforcement. Since I retired as the Chief of Police in Greenville, NC, I founded a successful consulting firm that is involved in virtually every aspect of police and criminal justice reform. I interface with high level U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Court officials almost daily. Prior to this administration, I frequently attended meetings at the White House and advised on national police policy reforms-all that to say that If this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone with attributes that can be “profiled”. No one is safe from this type of unlawful government intrusion.

As I left the CBP makeshift detention center, I had to go back through security to catch my next flight back to DC, ironically, due to my weekly air travel, I have TSA Pre-check and was whisked through security without a hitch and made my flight by minutes.

This experience has left me feeling vulnerable and unsure of the future of a country that was once great and that I proudly called my own. This experience makes me question if this is indeed home. My freedoms were restricted, and I cannot be sure it won’t happen again, and that it won’t happen to my family, my children, the next time we travel abroad. This country now feels cold, unwelcoming, and in the beginning stages of a country that is isolating itself from the rest of the world - and its own people - in an unprecedented fashion. High levels of hate and injustice have been felt in vulnerable communities for decades-it is now hitting the rest of America.

I have contacted my US senators, and my contacts at the NYT and other media sources to continue to tell the story of what is happening in the United States of America.

Jamaica Observer, 20 March 2017:

HOUSTON, Texas — A Jamaican woman was whisked back to the island and her visa revoked after she arrived at the William P Hobby Airport in Houston, Texas, on Wednesday night.

The woman’s family sought answers from United States media outlet KHOU 11 News, which aired their story.

Veronica Gaubault, who was sent back to Jamaica, told the Houston media that US Customs and Border Protection revoked her visa after agents inspected (CBP) her iPhone, iPad and other belongings.

Her cousin, paediatrician Kareen Smith, said she waited for approximately four hours before customs agents told her that Gaubault would not be allowed to enter the country.

“[They] just decided they were not going to let her in,” she told KHOU 11 News.

“It is important to note that issuance of a visa or a visa waiver does not guarantee entry,” a statement from the US Customs and Border Protection said, adding that “a CBP officer at the port of entry will conduct an inspection to determine if the individual is eligible for admission into the US”.

When asked why the woman’s belongings were searched, they said it was for “administrative causes”, KHOU 11 News reported.

Smith said text conversations between her and Gaubault were also scrutinised.

“She visits me, she visits other family we have in New York or Florida, and she goes home,” Smith said. “She never overstays her time. She always honours her visa and, for some reason, this is the first time she’s been denied.”

The Huffington Post, 7 March 2017:

A Muslim Canadian woman says she was turned away at the United States border after a lengthy interrogation on her religion and thoughts on President Donald Trump.

"I felt humiliated, treated as if I was less than nothing,” Fadwa Alaoui told CBC News on Wednesday.

Alaoui was travelling to Burlington, Vt. to do some shopping with her cousin and two children. The Canadian citizen was born in Morocco and has been in Quebec for 20 years, according to La Presse…..

Border agents took Alaoui and her cousin’s cellphones and asked for the passwords. She was asked questions almost exclusively about her Islamic practice, as well as whether she knew any victims killed in the deadly shooting spree at a Quebec City mosque…..

When border agents asked what she thought of Trump, Alaoui said she responded that he can do what he wants in his own country.

The group was fingerprinted and sent on their way after four hours.

The Star, 6 March 2017:

MONTREAL— A Montrealer who is a Canadian citizen by birth says she was barred from entering the United States and told to get a valid visa if she ever wants to cross the border.

Manpreet Kooner said she was turned away at a crossing along the Quebec-Vermont border on Sunday after a six-hour wait where she was fingerprinted, photographed and questioned before being refused.

She said she was told she was an immigrant without a valid U.S. visa.

Kooner, 30, is of Indian descent and was born in Montreal to parents who came to Canada from India in the 1960s and have lived in the same LaSalle district duplex for decades.

There have been several reports of Canadians encountering issues at the U.S. border, including a Canadian Muslim woman from Quebec who believes she was denied entry because of her religion.

Kooner said she’s perplexed given she was travelling on a Canadian passport and has no criminal record.

The only issue she had was a computer glitch that prevented her from crossing into New York state for 24 hours in December.

Kooner didn’t think much of that snafu until Sunday when she was stopped at Highgate Springs as she was travelling with two white girlfriends.

Her friends were not questioned but she was asked about the December incident.

“At the end of it, they told me I was not allowed going in and that I would need a visa if I ever went in the States again,” Kooner said.

Kooner claims the border agent told her, “I know you might feel like you’re being Trumped,” in reference to U.S. President Donald Trump — a statement she found odd.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman said Monday the department can’t comment on individual admissibility inspections, but noted that possession of a valid travel document does not guarantee entry to the United States.

Asked how she feels, Kooner said, “Just so bad, I feel like I’ve done something wrong, like I’m a criminal or something, but I’m not.”

Kooner went to the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, as suggested at the border, and was told the situation was “odd” and that a visa isn’t necessary for Canadians.

“Maybe there is no valid reason, maybe this is something that I can’t shake because I’m born like this,” Kooner said of her skin colour.

Her travel plans are up in the air: Kooner is supposed to go to a U.S. music festival at the end of March and her bachelorette in Miami in May.

“I’ve never had issues before, that’s the part that kills me,” Kooner said. “Now I’m just debating whether I should cancel.”

Artnet, 1 March 2017:

Juan Garcia Mosqueda, owner of the Chelsea design gallery Chamber NYC, was inexplicably denied entry to the US on Friday after a trip to his native Argentina, according to an open letter he titled “The Visible Wall” and shared with friends and colleagues yesterday.

Mosqueda, who was sent back to Argentina, explains the “dehumanizing and degrading” experience he was subjected to at the border, including being questioned under oath, denied legal counsel, held without food for 14 hours, prohibited from using any means of communication, and denied privacy when using the bathroom.

His belongings—which he could not access while kept in holding—were searched, and his legal documents were kept from him until he arrived back in Buenos Aires. He was escorted onto the plane by armed officers.

“This thirty-six hour nightmare is nothing but clear evidence of a deeply flawed immigration system in the United States, carried out by an administration that is more interested in expelling people than admitting them,“ he writes.

The curator and gallerist explains he has been a legal resident of the US for ten years, as a student, employee, and proprietor.

“Although I am not an American citizen, Chamber is an American product that I hope adds to the cultural landscape of the country,” he writes….

This is just one of many cases of non-US citizens, even with proper visas or green cards, being turned away at the US border under Trump’s travel restrictions, which came in the form of an executive order in January, and were subsequently blocked by a federal judge in Washington state.

Mosqueda’s case, however, is, on the surface, particularly baffling. Under the initial order, travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen—were banned from entering the US. A revised version, set to be introduced this week, bans travelers from all the aforementioned except Iraq, as well as the temporary suspension of all foreign refugees. Legal residents of the US should not be barred under the order.

Trump's 'Muslim Ban' Mk2 also falls at first judicial hurdle

Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Minnesota and Maryland joined with the State of Washington in seeking to restrain U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order of 6 March 2017 which revised his earlier order of  February 2017.

Along with Hawaii in separate litigation that makes seven states opposing what is colloquially known as Trump’s Muslim Ban.

AP News, 16 March 2017:

HONOLULU (AP) — Hours before it was to take effect, President Donald Trump's revised travel ban was put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge in Hawaii who questioned whether the administration was motivated by national security concerns.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson also said Hawaii would suffer financially if the executive order blocked the flow of students and tourists to the state, and he concluded that Hawaii was likely to succeed on a claim that the ban violates First Amendment protections against religious discrimination.

"The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable," Watson wrote. "The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed."…..

The judge issued his 43-page ruling less than two hours after hearing Hawaii's request for a temporary restraining order to stop the ban from being put into practice.

The ruling came as opponents renewed their legal challenges across the country, asking judges in three states to block the executive order that targets people from six predominantly Muslim countries. Federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments Wednesday about whether it should be allowed to take effect early Thursday as scheduled.

In all, more than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban.

Watson made it clear that his decision applied nationwide, ruling that the ban could not be enforced at any U.S. borders or ports of entry or in the issuance of visas…..

Court transcript of the temporary restraining order granted can be found here.

Seattle Times, 15 March 2017:

A Seattle federal judge who ruled against President Donald Trump’s first immigrant travel ban has taken another challenge to the president’s revised order under advisement, this one filed by the families of immigrants that have been separated because of the policy.

U.S. District Judge James Robart remained skeptical of the government’s continued claims that the president can bar people from immigrating because of their nationality. Attorneys for the families argued that statutes governing the issuance of immigrant visas specifically prohibit such discrimination.

Robart heard nearly 90 minutes of arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit challenging the travel order filed by several legal immigrants who are separated from their families and who fear the new order will prolong that separation. Their family members all are in various stages of attempting to obtain visas to enter the U.S.

The latest travel ban was set to go into effect at midnight Wednesday. However, a federal judge in Hawaii on Wednesday put the revised travel ban on hold.

Matt Adams, the legal director for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which is spearheading the immigrant-family lawsuit, said the Hawaii order is a godsend for his clients, who will benefit from any delay in the order’s implementation.

Still, he said they will pursue a restraining order of their own.

Robart did not say when he would rule on the suit filed by several immigrants.

Daily Mail 14 March 2017:

Immigrant advocacy groups and the ACLU are suing in Maryland. They will ask a judge there early Wednesday to issue an injunction, saying it's illegal to reduce the number of refugees in the middle of a fiscal year. The lawsuit is broader, but the ACLU expects a ruling on that part of the case even if other aspects of the ban are blocked elsewhere.

The Baltimore Sun, 16 March 2017:

The Washington Post reported that U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang issued a ruling early Thursday, using Trump's own comments against him in deciding the ban was likely unconstitutional.

The Maryland ruling marks another win for challengers of the president's executive order, which had been slated to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Trump expressed his displeasure in a typically dishonest prepared political speech he read from two transparent autocues.

https://youtu.be/08xYkGADatE

Full speech video at https://youtu.be/z9ghcGzkpZo.

The revised text of the travel ban:

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES 2017 by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/342025899/PROTECTING-THE-NATION-FROM-FOREIGN-TERRORIST-ENTRY-INTO-THE-UNITED-STATES-2017