Kamala Harris records campaign message to be played in 300 predominantly black churches – is it illegal?

Share:

Editor note: In 2020, we saw a nationwide push to “defund the police”.  While we all stood here shaking our heads wondering if these people were serious… they cut billions of dollars in funding for police officers.  And as a result, crime has skyrocketed – all while the same politicians who said “you don’t need guns, the government will protect you” continued their attacks on both our police officers and our Second Amendment rights.

And that’s exactly why we’re launching this national crowdfunding campaign as part of our efforts to help “re-fund the police”.

For those looking for a quick link to get in the fight and support the cause, click here.

The following contains editorial content which is the opinion of the writer, a retired Chief of Police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

VIRGINIA- Pandering– catering to special interests without any principles, such as a politician who says to whatever group he/she is addressing just what they want to hear to win their support, contributions, or favors.

Pander, meet Kamala Harris.

Gateway Pundit reports that Kamala Harris has recorded a video, which will be played at some 300 black-only churches in the Commonwealth of Virginia to coerce black voters into voting for feckless Democrat Terry McAuliffe for governor.

The effort, which was originally reported by CNN should present some legal problems for the McAuliffe campaign, but in 2021 America, where we operate under two disparate systems of rules and justice, we won’t hold our breath.

First, an excerpt from the CNN report:

More than 300 black churches across Virginia will hear from Vice President Kamala Harris between Sunday and election day in a video message that will air during morning services as part of an outreach effort aimed to boost McAuliffe. [emphasis added]

In the video, first obtained by CNN, Harris said her time growing up in Oakland’s 23rd Avenue Church of God taught her it was a “sacred responsibility” to “lift up the voices of our community.”

“I believe that my friend Terry McAuliffe is the leader Virginia needs at this moment,” says Harris, before praising McAuliffe’s “long track-record of getting things done for the people of Virginia.”

Harris implores congregants to vote following church service. The McAuliffe campaign has embraced “Souls to the Polls,” block-party style events featuring top campaign surrogates after church near polling locations, to drive voter turnout.

This election is the first year Virginians will be able to vote on Sunday.

As a point of information, Harris was seven years old when her parents separated and she moved to Montreal. It is extremely doubtful that Harris, now 56 remembers what she was taught as a young child in a church in Oakland. That doesn’t matter because Harris, just like her boss Biden, isn’t immune to a bit of exaggeration. 

Further, Harris is being pushed as being an “African American.” From her biography:

“Kamala Devi Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in California. Her mother, a Tamil Indian named Shyamala Gopalan Harris worked as a breast cancer scientist. Her father, a Jamaican named Donald Harris, serves as a Stanford University economics professor.” [emphasis added]

Black, yes. African American? Hardly.

Yet, the McAuliffe campaign is sending her out, using her “race” to pander to black voters. How condescending and demented is that? Sadly, the pandering will probably prove effective.

That brings us to the legality of what is being done. Remember, churches are tax-exempt organizations. As such, churches are strictly prohibited from engaging in political campaign activity. It appears, by playing a campaign message from Harris during church services touting the campaign for a single candidate, the McAuliffe campaign and Harris are operating in violation of the law and IRS regulations.

In an IRS publication which addresses “Charities, Churches and Politics,” it addresses a 1954 law approved by Congress, with an amendment introduced by then Sen. Lyndon Johnson which prohibited “501 (c)(3) organizations—which includes charities and churches—from engaging in any political campaign activity.”

In fact, the IRS notes that Congress has revisited the ban since that time and has in fact strengthened the ban, with the latest update coming in 1987 whereby Congress clarified that the prohibition included statements opposing candidates.

In defining 501(c)(3) organizations, the IRS specifically defines such an organization as one:

“…which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

Seems pretty clear. By playing a video by Harris, touting the campaign specifically of McAuliffe, his campaign is clearly in violation of IRS rules. While IRS rules do permit churches or other nonprofit organizations to advocate or lobby for (or against) issues in the political arena, they cannot actively campaign for specific candidates or they risk losing their 501(c)(3) status.

Under the IRS regulations for 501(c)(3) organizations, the IRS writes:

The regulations further provide that activities that constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate. [emphasis added]

There is also case law affirming the IRS regulation regarding nonprofits, in this case churches and campaign activity.

Branch Ministries v Charles O. Rossotti CA 95-0724 (PLF) saw the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issuing summary judgment dismissing the church’s case and upholding the constitutionality of the ban on political activity. The plaintiffs had alleged they were being targeted due to conservative views and their First Amendment right to free speech was being infringed.

The court wrote: “The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(c)(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose.”

Fox Business reports that included within the behemoth $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill is nearly $78 billion in new funding for the IRS which will have tens of thousands of new IRS hit men otherwise known as agents to target low and middle-income taxpayers with more than $600 in the bank. Meanwhile, it’s simply fine and dandy for Democrats to skirt IRS regulations on conducting political campaigns within our churches.

As former NBA star Charles Barkley famously said a couple of years ago:

‘We need to start holding you Democrats accountable,” Barkley said on Michael Smerconish’s SiriusXM radio show. “Because they’ve been taking black people’s votes—and they only talk to black people every four years. All of these politicians only talk to black people every four years because they want their vote.”

Pandering—Democrats are experts at it.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity


For more on the Democrats’ scheme to target low and middle income Americans, in case you missed it here’s a report we did on that issue: 

DIG DEEPER

During an interview on CBS Evening News earlier in October, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen proclaimed that the proposed $600 IRS reporting requirement for banks is not a means to spy on the average, everyday American, calling it “mischaracterized”.

Instead, the Treasury Secretary alleged that this is a means to address “tax fraud” that is ongoing with “high-income individuals whose income is opaque.”

On the October 13th broadcast of CBS Evening News, Treasury Secretary Yellen was asked by news anchor Norah O’Donnell about the proverbial elephant in the room: the alarms that have been raised over a proposed $600 IRS reporting requirement for banks:

“You want banks to report transactions of $600 or more? That is what the IRS wants. Does this mean that the government is trying to peek into our pocketbooks? If you want to look at $600 transactions?”

This very question has been occupying the minds of many Americans in recent times. Yet, when Treasury Secretary Yellen addressed the matter, she proclaimed that much of the rhetoric surrounding the effort has been “mischaracterized”:

“Absolutely not. I think this proposal has been seriously mischaracterized. The proposal involves no reporting of individual transactions of any individual.

The big picture is, look, we have a tax gap that over the next decade is estimated at $7 trillion. Namely, a shortfall in the amount the IRS is collecting due to a failure of individuals to report the income that they have earned.”

O’Donnell pressed further, noting that such enormous shortfalls are likely stemming from those among the upper echelons of the one percent rather than those who’d be making transfers of $600:

“But that is among billionaires – is that among people who are transferring $600?”

Treasury Secretary Yellen responded that the activity the IRS aims to keep an eye on are those “high-income individuals whose income is opaque” – essentially, those who have incomes streams going in and out that aren’t quite clear:

“No, it tends to be among high-income individuals whose income is opaque, and the IRS doesn’t receive information about it. If you earn a paycheck, you get a W-2 the IRS knows about it. High-income individuals with opaque sources of income that are not reported to the IRS, there is a lot of tax fraud and cheating that is going on.

All that is involved in this proposal is a few arrogate numbers about bank accounts, the amount that was received in the course of a year, the amount that went out in the course of a year.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

FBI seizes tens of millions in cash, other assets from business owners claiming it’s evidence of crime-but is it?

(Originally published September 20th, 2021)

BEVERLY HILLS, CA- We suppose if you can’t balance the federal budget the right way, just illegally seize people’s assets and that will work. That seems to be the case with the FBI, where we are seeing a situation in which a man’s life savings were seized from a safe deposit box business in Beverly Hills, CA.

Joseph Ruiz, an unemployed chef went to court to retrieve some $57,000 seized by the FBI, whereby the judge ordered the agency to tell Ruiz why they were trying to confiscate the money.

According to court papers, an FBI agent claimed the money was from drug trafficking…or so they apparently assumed.

According to the FBI, Ruiz’s income was insufficient to justify him having that much money, and claimed that his side business, in which he sold bongs made from liquor bottles meant he was apparently an unlicensed dealer of marijuana. The agent also claimed a dog had smelled unspecified drugs on Ruiz’s cash.

The latter claim is interesting because according to a CNN report from 2009, research showed that 90 percent of paper money circulating in the United States had traces of cocaine on it.

The report noted that while some money could be contaminated during drug deals or if an abuser snorted cocaine by rolling a dollar bill, some can get contaminated inside currency counting machines at banks.

As it turned out, the FBI was wrong. Ruiz was able to produce records showing the amount of money he had in the bank was legitimate, whereby the FBI having been caught lying (seems to happen a lot) dropped the false narrative and returned the money.

As it turns out, Ruiz is not alone. The FBI seized money and valuables from some 800 people who rented safe deposit boxes at a business called U.S. Private Vaults, a store located in a strip mall in Beverly Hills.

According to documents, the FBI suspected criminals had been using that location to hide cash and jewelry. The FBI is now attempting to confiscate some $86 million in cash, as well as a boatload of jewelry, rare coins, and precious metals seized from around half the boxes.

Despite those allegations, neither the FBI nor the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles have been able to provide evidence of criminal liability by the majority of box holders where the government is attempting to seize their assets.

The Los Angeles Times  noted that about 300 of the box holders are contesting the attempted confiscation, with Ruiz and about 65 others filing court claims deeming the forfeiture operation unconstitutional.

“It was a complete violation of my privacy,” Ruiz said. “They tried to discredit my character.”

Thus far, prosecutors have only been able to identify past criminal convictions or pending charges against 11 safety deposit box users in order to justify forfeitures. However in several other cases, the government used pretty thin justification for claiming the money and/or property seized was tied to a crime, similar in nature to their claims against Ruiz.

Agents tried to claim that the use of rubber bands and other typical ways to store money were somehow indications of drug trafficking or money laundering, the Times said.

The claim that dogs had alerted to narcotics on much of the cash as being key to their claim of narcotics involvement, however all of the money was deposited into a bank, which makes it impossible to determine specifically which bills were those seized, which drugs the money may have come in contact with, and how long ago this happened.

“You actually don’t know anything until that currency is run through a lab,” said Mary Cablk, a Nevada scientist and expert witness on drug dogs.

She works for both prosecutors as well as defense attorneys. She noted that a dog alert to drug residue on cash “might be valid” or it “might be complete bunk.”

Last February, U.S. Private Vaults was indicted on charges of conspiring with unnamed customers to sell drugs, launder money and structure cash transactions in order to avoid government detection. No persons have yet been charged in the case.

The Times noted that the case has been in limbo since then, and that no attorney or other representative of U.S. Private Vaults had appeared in court to enter a plea. The outlet reached out to the U.S. attorneys office in Los Angeles declined to comment on why the case has stalled.

An attorney who represented the company on other matters, Michael Singer, wouldn’t comment on the charges against the business, however said he was unaware of any criminal activity by its owners. He complained that the government had “overstepped its bounds” in the search, seizure and attempted confiscation of money and property from its customers.

Prosecutors responded to 15 lawsuits and other claims filed by box holders in which they demand return of their belongings by claiming that the company “intentionally marketed itself” to criminals by advising boxes could be rented anonymously.

The government also alleged that a U.S. postal inspector claimed that an owner of the business named Michael Poliak had admitted to making money from healthcare fraud and illegal marijuana sales. The Times could not reach him for comment.

Meanwhile, a number of lawyers representing the box holders claim this is nothing but a giant “money grab” for the Justice Department to acquire tense of millions of dollars through asset forfeiture. The government denies those claims and says some of the money it recovers goes to crime victims.

In the case of civil forfeitures, the government doesn’t even need to secure a criminal conviction. All they have to do is prove it is more likely than not that the money or other property it seeks to seize was linked to criminal activity.

How thin is that standard? Last week, a forfeiture complaint was filed against two brothers from Woodland Hills, CA., in which they government wants to keep $960,100 in cash seized from one of their safe deposit boxes and $519,000 from the other. Prosecutors claim “theft, fraud and money laundering” justify the seizures.

However, the only evidence presented by the government was that one of the brothers—who was not named—had allegedly “been in contact with” suspected armed robbers of cell phone stores.

The attorney for the two brothers, Benjamin Gluck referred to the complaint as “an appalling and unconstitutional abuse of power.”

In another case, the DOJ is attempting to confiscate some $900,000 from a box holder whose identity they haven’t been able to confirm. He is referred to as being “either a top-level drug trafficker or money launderer.” Well, which is it?

Their justification? It was the way the person bundled the cash, with thick, thin and broken rubber bands, tape-wrapped paper, bank bands and plastic CVS and paper pharmacy bags.

The box holder, using a pseudonym is challenging the seizure of the money.

Gluck is also representing this box holder, who uses the name Charles Coe, and while he refused to discuss that specific case, he said U.S. Privacy Vault’s customers include “many immigrant business owners who escaped repressive regimes where banks are unsafe and have collected amounts of cash as their life savings over many, many years.”

“The notion that the old rubber bands mean they must be drug dealers is ludicrous,” he said.

Prosecutors’ only other “evidence” against Coe is a drug dog’s alert on the cash.

Due to the legalization of recreational pot across the country by a number of states, the value of such alerts has greatly diminished. The Times noted that many departments across the country are retiring drug dogs that alert for marijuana while training new ones to find drugs such as cocaine, meth and heroin.

In the case of Coe, the dog that sniffed his cash is cross trained in marijuana detection, according to his handler’s court statement. She said the dog, named Smithy has “led to the seizure of more marijuana than the other three drugs combined.”

Clearly, with the advent of legal recreational pot sales across the nation, more bills that cycle through those businesses are exposed to the odor of marijuana, which then ends up in the hands of people who neither smoke the drug nor sell it.

For example, in the case of U.S. Private Vaults, two of the boxes contained large sums of cash from licensed pot dealers which are unable to open bank accounts due to federal laws which ban the sale and possession of the drug. Since the safe deposit boxes are not airtight, the scent of marijuana spread from box to box.

Last Friday, prosecutors filed complaints in an attempt to confiscate money from more box holders, seeking $154,600 from one, $330,000 from the other. The basis for those seizures? Both owners had been unsuccessful in applying for state licenses to sell marijuana, which led to the assumption that “the funds are drug-related,” according to Assistant U.S. Attorneys Victor Rogers and Maxwell Coll.

Still, the government insists that the use of dog alerts is “strong evidence” of drug crimes, however they were “not the only factor contributing to probable cause,” according to Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office.

He noted that marijuana is still illegal under federal law, and noted it is still illegal to sell marijuana under California law “without having an appropriate license.”

Preliminary rulings went in favor of the plaintiffs, with U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner blocking the government’s cases against Ruiz and three others, saying the lock of any “specific factual and legal basis” had violated their rights to due process.

He also found “the facts and the law clearly favor Ruiz” in his claims that the FBI violated protections against unreasonable searches and seizures outlined in the 4th Amendment.

There is also the possibility that Klausner or another judge may rule the entire raid on U.S. Private Vaults was unconstitutional, which would jeopardize prosecutors’ ability to use evidence seized from the safe-deposit boxes in either forfeiture or criminal cases.

In approving the search and seizure of all “business equipment” at the company, there were strict limits put on the government by U.S. Magistrate Steven Kim, which barred federal agents from searching the contents of each box for evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

While the warrant application submitted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Brown contained a statement from FBI agent Lynne Zellhart that inspections of boxes would “extend no further than necessary to determine ownership,” that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Box holders suggest that those promises were false, and agents searched without probable cause with the intention to go through the safe deposit boxes in search of evidence to initiate a criminal investigation.

A University of Arizona law professor, Jane Bambauer said that based on the restrictions placed on the search by Kim, agents violated the 4th Amendment by using drug dogs to sniff cash inside the boxes.

“In terms of just real-world, commonsense assessments of how this should work, what happened was wrong,” Bambauer said. “I think it is also pretty clearly wrong on the 4th Amendment doctrine terms.”

Not surprisingly, the U.S. attorney’s office disagrees, with Mrozek saying that “nothing requires the government to ignore evidence of a crime that it sees” while taking inventory of seized goods.

“The search and seizure of items from the U.S. Private Vaults facility were authorized by a federal judge, and the entire operation has been conducted in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws.”

Robert E. Johnson is an attorney representing Ruiz and six other box holders in a class-action suit which seeks the destruction of all records generated by the search. He says this case identifies a sign that the government is trying to “criminalize financial privacy.”

“The government’s theory is that having cash makes you a presumptive criminal, and I think every American should be worried about that,” he said.

In the case of Ruiz, the FBI concluded that because he was making bongs as a sideline, which meant he “may be involved in the cannabis industry in other ways,” the FBI wrote.

Upon checking state records for Ruiz’s wage and tax history, it was discovered he had only earned some $18,510 in income since 2019, “less than a third of the cash in the box,” he said.

The FBI said they reviewed court records to verify Ruiz’s claim he had received money from legal settlements, however once he turned over records confirming the payments—one for a car accident injury and another for chronic housing code violations at his apartment building—the FBI, grudgingly under court order returned his money.

“They pulled a bank heist in broad daylight,” Ruiz said. “They didn’t even apologize.”

The American people better get used to having the government snoop on their financial transactions. In the Democrats $3.5 trillion budget resolution is a proposal that will give the Internal Revenue Service access to Americans’ private banking records, reported in August by The Western Journal.

Under the proposal, financial institutions will be required to report all transactions on accounts with a balance in excess of $600.

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) railed against the proposal:

“This time-draining burden disregards banking privacy in order to squeeze more resources out of responsible Americans and entrepreneurs. It subjects law-abiding Americans to more intense targeting from the IRS and additional data collection, a concern that was recently amplified by a leak of private taxpayer information out of the IRS.”

The budget resolution would also provide the IRS with $80 billion in additional funding over the next decade to “fight tax avoidance.” In other words, to unleash more IRS agents to harass conservative Americans. Politico reported much of that funding would be used to hire about 87,000 new workers for the IRS. Bigger government…just what we need.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
 
Facebook Follow First
Share:
Related Posts