There is a troubling story outside of Washington where journalist Audrey Hudson’s home was searched by federal agents who took documents related to stories and reportedly asked her about stories that she had written that were critical of the Federal Air Marshal program. The agents had a warrant to search for unregistered firearms and a “potato gun.” That apparently required a pre-dawn raid by armed agents of the U.S. Coast Guard, Maryland State Police and the Department of Homeland Security. Presumably, the family was believed to have a whole bushel of potatoes that were considered an arsenal.
Hudson’s husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 to resisting arrest in Prince George’s County. The warrant stated that police were to search the residence and seize all weapons and ammunition because he is prohibited under the law from possessing firearms.
Hudson was called by her husband who was in the driveway in their Chesapeake home to say that they were surrounded by the officers in full body armor (which appears to also protect against potato weapons). Hudson insists that they were held by the officers as they searched for the weapons. They apparently could not find nary a potato chip.
What they did find were government documents and notes from the Hudson’s files. A Washington Times reporter, Hudson alleges that one of the agents asked if she was the same person who had written a series of stories critical of the Federal Air Marshal program in the mid-2000s. When she said that she was, she says that the officer said that “Those stories were embarrassing to the agency.” According to one report, Hudson said that investigator, Miguel Bosch, identified himself as a former air marshal official.
Even more troubling is her claim that she was not informed of the seizure of the documents. She was only told that “miscellaneous documents” were taken. When she was called by Homeland Security to pick up the documents weeks later, she realized that they had taken the government records. Such documents were not listed in the warrant and all dealt with the Federal Air Marshal stories. The newspaper is preparing a legal action.
The government insists that its agents considered the documents to be “law enforcement sensitive.” The Coast Guard also took her personal, handwritten notes and accessed her personal Facebook page.
Neither Hudson nor her husband were charged or arrested. Given the Administration’s prior surveillance of journalists and their families, it was another troubling case that warrants review. The government is citing fellow employees at the Coast Guard as implicating Flanagan from alleged statements he made referring to himself as a gun collector. Even so, it would be extremely inappropriate to use such a raid to question a reporter about negative stories and remark on the government’s displeasure with her coverage. That concern is magnified by the seizure of such documents from the home of the journalist without even asking for an explanation. The fact that the agent felt comfortable in allegedly raising the negative coverage would reflect a troubling sense of impunity by officers.
From article: “That apparently required a pre-dawn raid by armed agents of the U.S. Coast Guard, Maryland State Police and the Department of Homeland Security.”
_____
To serve a warrant for guns? BS. If a federal agency was warranted it should have been ATF. There are too many cross-jurisdictional/agency raids and inquiries going on. This kind of story tells me, from the first paragraph alone, that there are too many agencies and these agencies have too many LEO’s on their individual payrolls. The government is starting to look like some nest of 3rd world warlords each with their own army and agenda.
I agree that the raid was pretextural, they wanted the documents and notes. We’ve started using the Soviet Union’s or China’s playbook on how to treat reporters. I wonder if a specific name search was done on her by NSA? Did she call a source or write someone an e-mail that piqued their interest and that caused a warrant to be issued using the weapons pretext?
People are worried about the ‘kill list’ but I am sure that there is another list much like the no-fly list of people that the government -various agencies in the government -thinks are a problem or an irritant. The folks on that list probably have their communication sifted regularly for anything of value or interest. It’s journalist and activists and ? now. I’d be damned worried if I was an attorney specializing in the Constitution or public causes. Same for academics and lecturers. Anybody in a position to act and influence others.
Feinstein and Alexander, speakers for the government at the highest levels, have already said by declaration and omission, who the government thinks the enemy is. Common citizens and the people that provide us information about the government. I’m sure there are others on the ‘enemies list’ but there just hasn’t been an opportunity for the government to declare them by class yet.
Some of you folks on this blawg probably need to be careful what you communicate and the method by which you make those communications.
It’s only paranoia if they’re not out to get you.
The menacing swat team shown in the photo attached to this story is not the team that raided Hudson’s home.
“Democracy means that if the doorbell rings in the early hours, it is likely to be the milkman.”—Winston Churchill
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/who_will_protect_you_from_the_police_the_rise_of_government_sanctioned
Who Will Protect You from the Police? The Rise of Government-Sanctioned Home Invasions
by John W. Whitehead, October 21, 2013
Excerpt:
It wasn’t always this way, however. There was a time in America when a man’s home really was a sanctuary where he and his family could be safe and secure from the threat of invasion by government agents, who were held at bay by the dictates of the Fourth Amendment, which protects American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Fourth Amendment, in turn, was added to the U.S. Constitution by colonists still smarting from the abuses they had been forced to endure while under British rule, among these home invasions by the military under the guise of writs of assistance. These writs were nothing less than open-ended royal documents which British soldiers used as a justification for barging into the homes of colonists and rifling through their belongings. James Otis, a renowned colonial attorney, “condemned writs of assistance because they were perpetual, universal (addressed to every officer and subject in the realm), and allowed anyone to conduct a search in violation of the essential principle of English liberty that a peaceable man’s house is his castle.” As Otis noted:
“Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.”
To our detriment, we have now come full circle, returning to a time before the American Revolution when government agents—with the blessing of the courts—could force their way into a citizen’s home, with seemingly little concern for lives lost and property damaged in the process.
Actually, we may be worse off today than our colonial ancestors when one considers the extent to which courts have sanctioned the use of no-knock raids by police SWAT teams (occurring at a rate of 70,000 to 80,000 a year and growing); the arsenal of lethal weapons available to local police agencies; the ease with which courts now dispense search warrants based often on little more than a suspicion of wrongdoing; and the inability of police to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and the higher standard of probable cause, the latter of which is required by the Constitution before any government official can search an individual or his property.
Indeed, if Winston Churchill is correct that “democracy means that if the doorbell rings in the early hours, it is likely to be the milkman,” then it’s safe to say that we no longer live in a democracy. Certainly not in a day and age when the Fourth Amendment, which was intended to protect us against the police state, especially home invasions by government agents, has been reduced to little more than words on paper.
Well, she’s got a really big story now. Whoever prepared and signed the warrant will also find their names in print. Should be some good reading in the pipeline.
MZ
That reference is disgusting.
I agree with OS that the entire reason why Feds were there were because of the records and her stories. Very scary story of obvious intimidation tactics.
Dear ‘Resident’ Obummer…. Please, go dig your mother up, and then, crawl back into her butt…. where you originated from!
I wonder why it took them 13 years for petty vengeance. Ridiculous.
Americans…. gather your Arms… they’re coming to take our ‘Rights’ away!
My ghod! We’re living in Soviet Russia!!! This woman should have answered her door with an AK-47!!!
nick, Thanks. I have not seen a movie in 2 months. Have not even seen “Gravity”. Will be glad to be settled in the new place so I can start going to movies again.. Thankfully, there are a few theaters that show independent films in the new area. Our movie going buddy in Dallas will miss us as not everyone likes to go see the small off beat independent films as you probably know.
SWM, I just stumbled across a movie that I don’t think ever made it to the theatres, Mohammed Ali’s Greatest Fight. I saw it on one of the HBO channels yesterday while on the treadmill. It has a good cast and it details the Supreme Court decision w/ Christopher Plummer, Langella, Glover, Begley, Jr., etc. playing the Supremes. Fascinating to see how the court went 5-3 against to 8-0 for. You would like it. The footage of Ali is archival, and woven in seamlessly.
Police State Redux, they were going for the papers and used the weapons as a justification.
It is time for the government to review Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury.
They have perfected the methods of 1984.
….. When I was young and read these novels, I viewed them as warnings of what to avoid and protect against. Alas, it seems our current crop of wealth lords have viewed these novels as strategy for Government by the Plutocrats.
SWM, Politico, Daily Kos, have it so maybe?
Why don’t we now wait and see how this plays out in court. I am sure that it is only going to get more interesting.
nick, Maybe…. The woman and her husband clearly have an agenda and the feds are often out of line so we shall see. He technically works for DHS and she proclaims to be a whistle blower on the agency he works for. I guess that is life in the DC suburbs. lol
SWM, Don’t you think any real journalist should be interested in this story? We’ll find out. If we see it in the MSM, then you’re correct. If we don’t well..
Of course, in Tenn,, “taters” are used for moonshine, a very lethal weapon.
It’s called the Tenn.Two Step.
Gene,
Just imagine what the search warrant would have looked like if he had been getting ready for the Punkin’ Chunkin’ contest. Nothing like a Mach I pumpkin to get the neighbors talking.