13 Feb 2019

Rutherford Institute Sues City Over 700-Police ‘Emergency’ Lockdown That Resulted in Arrest of Disabled Veteran for Canned Iced Tea & Bug Spray

By The Rutherford Institute

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (February 13, 2019) — Denouncing excessive, costly government security protocols lacking in common sense and intended to chill First-Amendment activity, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a Fourth-Amendment lawsuit against government officials who allowed a disabled war veteran to carry two firearms through a security checkpoint only to arrest him for lawfully purchasing canned iced tea, bug spray, lightbulbs, and razor blades, which were banned as par

21 Jan 2013

School Officials Reject Request for Accommodation, Kick Andrea Hernandez Out of Magnet School Over Religious Objections to RFID Tracking Program

By The Rutherford Institute

SAN ANTONIO, Texas ? In a phone call delivered near the end of the day before a long holiday weekend, school officials at John Jay High School informed Andrea Hernandez that they would not be granting her request to stay at the magnet school. Effective today, Hernandez has been withdrawn from the school and will be expected to report to another area school on Tuesday.

In keeping with a court order to provide school officials with a written decision as to whether or not she will agree to wear an RFID tracking badge to school, Andrea Hernandez had asked school officials at John Jay High School to allow her to continue her "education uninterrupted" by permitting her to use her old ID badge which "does not signify participation in a program which I believe conflicts with my religious beliefs." The new badges, part of John Jay High School's "Student Locator Project," include tiny chips that produce a radio signal, enabling school officials to track students' location on school property.

Hernandez, who was threatened with expulsion for refusing to wear a chipless RFID tracking badge based on her sincere religious beliefs that it represents the "mark of the Beast," had her request for a preliminary injunction denied by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Western District of Texas. In coming to Andrea's defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys alleged that the school's attempts to penalize, discriminate and retaliate against Andrea violate her rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

"It's obvious that John Jay High School has no interest in putting their students first, which is a sad reflection on our educational system," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "For our part, we hope that Andrea Hernandez will not be discouraged in her pursuit of justice. She's a courageous young woman with strong principles, and we commend her for standing up for what she believes in. The case will definitely move forward now, and hopefully, we will eventually find justice in the courts."

The Northside Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, has launched a program, the "Student Locator Project," aimed ostensibly at increasing public funding for the district by increasing student attendance rates. As part of the pilot program, roughly 4,200 students at Jay High School and Jones Middle School are being required to wear "SmartID" card badges embedded with an RFID tracking chip which will make it possible for school officials to track students' whereabouts on campus at all times. School officials hope that by expanding the program to the district's 112 schools, they can secure up to $1.7 million in funding from the state government.

Fifteen-year-old Andrea Hernandez has been penalized, discriminated against, and retaliated against by school officials for objecting to being forced to participate in the RFID program. For Hernandez, a Christian, the badges pose a significant religious freedom concern in addition to the obvious privacy issues. Andrea's religious objection derives from biblical teachings that equate accepting a personalized code?as a sign of submission to government authority and as a means of obtaining certain privileges from a secular ruling authority?with a form of idolatry or submission to a false god.

Hernandez was informed that "there will be consequences for refusal to wear an ID card." For example, students who refuse to take part in the ID program won't be able to access essential services like the cafeteria and library, nor will they be able to purchase tickets to extracurricular activities. According to Hernandez, teachers are even requiring students to wear the IDs to use the bathroom. School officials offered to quietly remove the tracking chip from Andrea's card if the sophomore would agree to wear the new badge without the embedded RFID chip so as to give the appearance of participation in the Student Locator Project. Andrea refused the offer, believing that to wear the "mark" of the program would still compromise her religious beliefs. Affiliate attorneys Anand Agneshwar and Anna Thompson of Arnold & Porter and private practitioner Jerri Lynn Ward are assisting The Rutherford Institute with Andrea's defense

This Press Release is also available at www.rutherford.org
18 Dec 2012

A Christmas Card from Outer Space

By The Rutherford Institute
On December 21, 1968, the Apollo 8 spaceship blasted its way through the earth's atmosphere to begin the first U.S. mission to orbit the moon?a mission that would set the stage for the first moon landing less than a year later. On board were astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and William Anders. By Christmas Eve, the Apollo 8 had begun to orbit the moon. 

Borman, who had planned to participate in the Christmas service at St. Christopher's Episcopal Church in League City, Texas, arranged with an engineer at mission control to read a short prayer that could be played for the church. During the third lunar revolution, Borman read:
Give us, O God, the vision which can see thy love in the world, in spite of human failure. Give us the faith to trust the goodness in spite of our ignorance and weakness. Give us the knowledge that we may continue to pray with understanding hearts, and show us what each one of us can do to set forth the coming of the day of universal peace. Amen.
"Amen," echoed the engineer back on earth.
During the ninth lunar revolution, the astronauts pointed their camera at the moon so that those on earth could get a glimpse of its cratered surface. Then they read the story of the creation from the Bible, as told in the first 10 verses of the Book of Genesis: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

As writer Mike Wright observed, "The Bible reading, with all three astronauts taking part, drew both intense joy and intense dissent." Acting NASA administrator Dr. Thomas D. Paine called it "the triumph of the squares?the guys with computers and slide-rulers who read the Bible on Christmas Eve."

One of the most vocal critics was the infamous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the woman credited with getting prayer taken out of public schools. In a 1963 decision in Abington School District v. Schempp, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that schools could not require students to read passages from the Bible or recite the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each school day. In response to the Christmas Eve scripture reading from space, O'Hair remarked, "I think the astronauts were not only ill advised but that it was a tragic situation...that they should read portions of the Genesis Bible which is accepted by a very minor number of persons in the total world."

Minor or not, the Bible reading cut through the political haze and sent a strong message to those glued to their radios and TV sets?a message of hope in a torn and ravaged world. And before signing off, the crew of the Apollo 8 sent a final message back to earth: "We pause with good night, good luck and God bless all of you-all of you on the good earth," which apparently included Madalyn Murray O'Hair, whether she liked it or not.

And so ended what had been a tumultuous year that saw the Tet offensive launched by the North Vietnamese; Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy assassinated; and disenchanted citizens from Paris to Chicago taking to the streets in revolt.

This year, with its heart-wrenching tragedies in the schools and elsewhere, has been no less tumultuous. We've had kids getting micro-chipped in the public schools. Congress, the courts and the White House working in cahoots to erode our privacy rights. The Transportation Security Administration fumbling its way through national security. Hurricane Sandy ravaging the Eastern shore. The police state merging with the surveillance state to keep us tagged, tracked and under control. The military industrial complex lobbying to keep the nation at war and defense contractors in the money. Individuals getting fined and arrested for violating any number of vague and overreaching laws. Homes getting raided and innocent Americans killed by rampaging SWAT teams armed to the hilt.

Through it all, The Rutherford Institute has remained strong, vibrant and incredibly relevant, despite a growing caseload and limited resources. However, as you will see from this month's Faith and Freedom newsletter, we could not do what we do without the prayers, friendship and support of individuals like you. We accomplished a great deal in 2012, and with your continued support, we will be able to continue our vital mission of restoring and preserving our civil liberties well into 2013.

So thank you, and God bless you, for giving what you can, when you are able, time and time again. Thank you for believing that freedom is worth fighting for. And thank you for your prayers for our guidance, protection and perseverance. As we remember all the battles you've helped us through this year and anticipate the ones waiting on the horizon, we pray that God will bless you and your loved ones, both now and in the year to come.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
17 Dec 2012

Federal Court to Hear Case of Texas High School Student Expelled for Refusing to Wear RFID Tracking Badge Due to Religious Objections, Privacy Concerns

By The Rutherford Institute
SAN ANTONIO, Texas ? At 10 a.m., CST, on Monday, December 17, 2012, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute will appear before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio to argue for a preliminary injunction preventing school officials from expelling Andrea Hernandez until the case is decided. Hernandez, a sophomore in a science and engineering magnet school housed in John Jay High School, has refused to wear a school-mandated RFID tracking badge based on her sincere religious objections. The badges, part of the school's "Student Locator Project," include tiny Radio Frequency Identification ("RFID") chips that produce a radio signal, enabling school officials to track students' location on school property. School officials' initial attempt to kick Andrea out of the magnet school was thwarted when the Bexar County District Court granted a 14-day temporary restraining order, enabling Andrea to remain in school. After the case was moved to federal court at the urging of school officials, the Western District of Texas, San Antonio division, extended the TRO by another 14 days. In coming to Andrea's defense, Rutherford attorneys have alleged that the school's attempts to penalize, discriminate and retaliate against Andrea violate her rights under Texas' Religious Freedom Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

"Oblivious to the impact on students' fundamental rights, school officials have embarked upon a crusade to achieve full student compliance with the profit-driven Student Locator Project by stigmatizing students who disapprove of the program and rewarding students who submit to it," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Students have actually been offered gifts and pizza parties in exchange for submitting to the program, while students who refuse to wear the SmartID badge are forced to stand in separate lunch lines, denied participation in student government and activities, and prohibited from making certain commercial exchanges at school."

The Northside Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, has launched a program, the "Student Locator Project," aimed ostensibly at increasing public funding for the district by increasing student attendance rates. As part of the pilot program, roughly 4,200 students at Jay High School and Jones Middle School are being required to wear "SmartID" card badges embedded with an RFID tracking chip which will make it possible for school officials to track students' whereabouts on campus at all times. School officials hope that by expanding the program to the district's 112 schools, they can secure up to $1.7 million in funding from the state government. Fifteen-year-old Andrea Hernandez has been penalized, discriminated against, and retaliated against by school officials for objecting to being forced to participate in the RFID program. For Hernandez, a Christian, the badges pose a significant religious freedom concern in addition to the obvious privacy issues. Andrea's religious objection derives from biblical teachings that equate accepting a personalized code?as a sign of submission to government authority and as a means of obtaining certain privileges from a secular ruling authority?with a form of idolatry or submission to a false god. Hernandez was informed that "there will be consequences for refusal to wear an ID card." For example, students who refuse to take part in the ID program won't be able to access essential services like the cafeteria and library, nor will they be able to purchase tickets to extracurricular activities. According to Hernandez, teachers are even requiring students to wear the IDs to use the bathroom. School officials offered to quietly remove the tracking chip from Andrea's card if the sophomore would agree to wear the new badge without the embedded RFID chip so as to give the appearance of participation in the Student Locator Project. Andrea refused the offer, believing that to wear the "mark" of the program would still compromise her religious beliefs. Affiliate attorney Jerri Lynn Ward is assisting The Rutherford Institute with Andrea's defense
03 Jul 2012

Rutherford Institute Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Declare Unconstitutional the Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs by Police to Carry Out Warrantless Searches

By The Rutherford Institute

WASHINGTON, DC – Insisting that the use of drug-sniffing dogs by police to carry out warrantless searches of private homes favors canine sensibilities over citizens' privacy rights, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to declare the practice unconstitutional in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. In filing an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Jardines, Institute attorneys cite mounting empirical evidence that narcotics detection dogs are unreliable and inaccurate. Institute attorneys also point out that the amount of time it takes for the dogs to carry out a detection sniff on the perimeter of a private residence constitutes a trespass under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

The Rutherford Institute's brief in Florida v. Jardines is available at www.rutherford.org.

"The specter of a police dog handler team with supporting armed backup at the front door of a private residence is a chilling scenario indicative of the entrenchment of a growing police state," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "If this Court permits warrantless dog sniffs of citizens' homes, it will unleash an Orwellian nightmare of intimidation, leaving no one safe from the prying sniffs of the American Police State."

The case arose out of an incident that took place in November 2006, when Miami police responded to an "anonymous" tip that marijuana was being grown at the residence of Joelis Jardines. After police surveillance of the Jardines home failed to reveal any incriminating evidence, the police brought in a drug-sniffing dog and handler to inspect the property at 7:30 a.m. The police handler walked the dog up to the front door on a leash and the dog allegedly "alerted" to the scent of contraband, which was reported to the investigating police who also approached the door and allegedly smelled marijuana. Using this information, the police obtained a warrant to search the Jardines residence, resulting in the seizure of marijuana plants. In court, Jardines' lawyer moved to suppress the evidence obtained under the warrant, insisting that the warrant itself was invalid because of its reliance on the alert by the drug-sniffing dog. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the use of detection dogs at private residences raises significant privacy concerns. The U.S. Supreme Court, having ruled in previous cases that dog sniffs do not constitute "searches" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, agreed to review the state court decision. In weighing in on the matter, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute argued against the reliance on drug-sniffing dogs as the basis for search warrants, pointing out that both anecdotal evidence and research show that dogs frequently signal false alerts and show sensitivity to handler bias. Institute attorneys also noted that the mere presence of the dogs on private property and the amount of time it takes for the dogs to alert to any alleged contraband constitute an illegal trespass. A better, more constitutional, alternative, as the Institute's brief makes clear, would be for police to obtain a search warrant prior to introducing dogs onto the scene for a perimeter sniff.

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ARTICLE ONLINE

02 May 2012

Rutherford Institute Urges Charlottesville City Council to Adopt Resolution De-Emphasizing Primary Arrests for Marijuana Offenses

By The Rutherford Institute

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. ?John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, is calling on members of the Charlottesville City Council to vote yes on a resolution which would declare marijuana offenses the lowest law enforcement priority in the city. In a letter to the City Council, Whitehead points out that while overwhelming evidence points to the fact that the government's so-called war on drugs ranks as the longest-running, most expensive and least effective effort by the American government?as well as being racially and economically discriminatory?federal, state and local governments continue to operate under misguided policies that pose a great danger to American citizens while exhausting police resources. A far wiser approach, advises Whitehead, would be to de-prioritize marijuana arrests and prosecutions and redirect limited government resources toward addressing more pressing problems such as urban homelessness, poverty, hard-core drug dealing and gang activity.

The Rutherford Institute's letter to the Charlottesville City Council is available at www.rutherford.org.

"In adopting the resolution to de-emphasize primary arrests for marijuana, the City Council has an opportunity to set an example for the Commonwealth of Virginia and the country about what it means to be a community that prioritizes people over policy," said Whitehead. "Doing so would also show that Charlottesville is progressive enough to act on Americans' changing attitudes towards marijuana possession, recognizing that the nation's drug war is a failure and that a new direction is sorely needed."

Charlottesville resident and activist Jordan McNeish proposed a resolution to the Charlottesville City Council that, if adopted, would de-emphasize marijuana as a cause for primary arrest in the city, freeing up valuable police resources which could then be directed to more pertinent problems, such as investigating and prosecuting violent crime and property crime. In calling on the City Council to adopt the resolution, constitutional attorney John Whitehead cited a number of studies and statistics indicating that the federal government's so-called "war on drugs" has caused the prison population to balloon to over 2 million people, wasted valuable state resources, and has created a burden for minority and lower-income communities, while doing little to resolve the issue of drug addiction. Moreover, for those who fear that de-emphasizing marijuana prosecutions might lead to an increase in drug use, Whitehead pointed to studies showing the contrary to be the case?that decriminalization actually results in reduced drug usage.

"The challenge is how to adequately address these problems in a compassionate and just manner without becoming overly legalistic and impersonal, thereby sacrificing the values and atmosphere which have endeared our community to so many," said Whitehead.

Putting the discussion in a more personal context, Whitehead recounted the case of 53-year-old Albemarle County resident Philip Cobbs who cares for his blind, deaf 90-year-old mother and who was charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession after a joint task force comprised of state and local law enforcement officials, aided by military helicopter surveillance and acting without a search warrant, raided his property as part of a routine sweep of the countryside and allegedly found two marijuana stalks growing among weeds on his 39-acre property. "If we continue along our present course, it will only be a matter of time before someone is fatally injured, whether it be a member of our community or a law enforcement official," warned Whitehead. "Clearly, something must be done."

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ARTICLE ONLINE

31 Aug 2011

Rutherford Institute Files Motion for Summary Judgment Against Calif. School That Prohibited Students from Wearing American Flag T-Shirts

By The Rutherford Institute

SAN JOSE, Calif. ? Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have asked a federal court to rule that a California public school district and its officials violated the First Amendment when they told students they could not wear t-shirts and other items emblazoned with American flags to school on the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo. In a motion for summary judgment filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Dariano et al. v. Morgan Hill Unif. Sch. Dist., Institute attorneys argue that school officials at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif., violated long-standing Supreme Court precedent forbidding viewpoint discrimination when they ordered students to cover up their stars and stripes apparel or leave the school. School officials allegedly issued the clothing ban after some Hispanic students complained about the patriotic articles of clothing being worn to school on May 5, 2010.

"This is a clear violation of the students' right to free expression guaranteed under the First Amendment," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "It is past due time that school officials respect the constitutional rights of students."

According to the motion, on May 5, 2010, three Live Oak High School students wore patriotic t-shirts, shorts and shoes to school which bore various images of the U.S. flag. During a mid-morning "brunch break," the students were approached by Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, who allegedly told the students they could not wear their pro-U.S.A. shirts and gave them the option of either removing their shirts or turning them inside out. When the students refused because the options would be disrespectful to the flag, Rodriguez ordered them to go to his office.

After two of the students' parents arrived at the school, Rodriguez is alleged to have lectured the group about Cinco de Mayo, indicating he received complaints from some Hispanics students about the stars and stripes apparel, and again ordered that the clothing be covered up to prevent offending the Hispanic students on "their" day. Principal Nick Boden also met with the parents and students and affirmed Rodriguez's order, allegedly because he did not want to offend students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo.

Alleging that the decision by school officials constitutes viewpoint discrimination against pro-U.S.A. expression, Rutherford Institute attorneys filed suit on behalf of the students and their parents seeking a declaration that the action violated the First Amendment and injunctive relief against a vague school district policy allowing prior restraints on speech to be imposed upon students. The lawsuit asserts that school officials violated the students' rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the protection of freedom of speech granted by the California Constitution. In asking the court to issue summary judgment in favor of the censored students, Rutherford Institute attorneys assert that the undisputed facts show that the officials had no grounds for fearing disruption from the flag apparel and that the school district's policies give officials too much discretion in censoring student speech.

Read online at: http://www.rutherford.org/

31 Aug 2011

District Court Agrees to Keep Aaron Tobey TSA Protest Case Alive, Rejects Government's Motion to Dismiss Airport Stripper Lawsuit

By The Rutherford Institute

RICHMOND, Va. ?U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson has rejected a motion by the Federal government to dismiss First Amendment claims against two Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents in a civil rights lawsuit involving college student Aaron Tobey who was arrested for disorderly conduct after removing his shirt at Richmond International Airport (RIC) and exposing a portion of the Fourth Amendment written on his chest. While allowing the viewpoint discrimination claims against the individual TSA agents to move forward, the court dismissed the lawsuit against TSA supervisory officials and the Capital Region Airport Commission as an entity. The suit charging several Capital Region Airport Commission police officers with constitutional violations and false arrest in connection with the incident remains active and is moving forward.

Tobey made his novel protest against the TSA's use of whole-body imaging scanners and enhanced pat downs on December 30, 2010. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute subsequently filed a free speech lawsuit in U.S. District Court in March 2011. The lawsuit alleges that agents of the TSA and RIC police deprived Tobey of his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Hudson has tentatively set the case for trial on Jan. 18, 2012.

"Aaron Tobey was arrested for exercising his right to free speech, which is clearly protected under the First Amendment," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Tobey was also unduly seized by government agents in violation of the Fourth Amendment, despite the fact that he did nothing to disrupt airport routine."

Aaron Tobey, who was then a student pursuing a degree in architecture, was waiting in line to pass through screening at Richmond International Airport on December 30, 2010, when he removed his shirt to show that he had written on his chest part of the text of the Fourth Amendment ("The right of the people to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"), which protects the privacy of individuals by forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents.

Despite successfully passing through the screening, Aaron was arrested and handcuffed. Government agents from agencies including the Joint Task Force on Terrorism questioned Tobey for approximately 90 minutes before citing him for disorderly conduct, a Class I misdemeanor under Virginia law, which carries penalties of up to $2,500 and 12 months in jail. The Henrico County Commonwealth's attorney eventually dropped the charges against Tobey.

In the March 2011 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Institute attorneys allege that Tobey was arrested and held for questioning without sufficient cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the First Amendment's protection against discrimination based on the content and manner of his protest. The Rutherford Institute's complaint in Tobey v. Napolitano is available at www.rutherford.org.

Read online at: http://www.rutherford.org/

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

Two Ways to Subscribe

1. Subscribe to free weekly e-mail content updates.

You'll get both the current official narrative challenge and What's Happenin' in the Quad Cities.
(Did you know we publish a new Amy Alkon Advice Goddess, Real Astrology, Red Meat cartoon and RCR Crossword every week?) 

* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

2. Get 12 monthly issues mailed first class for $48

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Subscribe now.