Post

Middlecamp reports a threat to public health from "prenatal care foregone." She reports "one preventable amputation" disclosed by doctor who was "courageous" enough to step forward. The reluctance to speak on the record is "profoundly high" in a climate of "retribution," she says.

Middlecamp describes how a whistleblower disclosed the background of the "warrantless entries" seen in the Twin Cities area. “That’s not a mistake. That’s by design.”

Menendez summarizes the first argument this way: An excessive use of federal law enforcement is causing the state and cities to expend so many resources that it violates the 10th Amendment by essentially commandeering.

When the judge asks for a citation for that principle, Carter responds that unprecedented nature of the government amassing "what is essentially an army" to "essentially stir the pot with conduct that is pervasive and includes illegal violent conduct."

67 reposts707 likes

So the judge is questioning the lawyer to help her frame the remedy squarely within a statute. It can’t be arbitrary or it won’t survive appeal. Law does sometimes feel like bringing a squirt gun to a house fire.

This was my concern. I’m not sure the courts have the ability to craft a remedy until the claim of illegal search or seizure is before them individually. Under the MN Constitution, I believe the use of checkpoints & warrantless searches is prohibited, but only for local jurisdiction as I recall